Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*
|
Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment* |
|
|
|
ISTEA Reauthorization: Highway Related Legislative Proposals in the 105th Congress John W. Fischer 97-516 E Updated October 23, 1997
CONTENTS: Major Highway Provisions of ISTEA National Highway
System (NHS) H.R.
674, S. 335, ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act S.
468, H.R. 1268, The National Economic CrossroadsTransportation
Efficiency Act (NEXTEA) S.
532, Surface Transportation Authorization and Regulatory
Streamlining Act (STARS 2000) S. 586,
ISTEA Reauthorization Act of 1997 H.R. 2400, Building Efficiency Through Surface
Transportation and Equity Act of 1997 (BESTEA) S. 1173, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act II (ISTEA II) H.R. 2516: To Extend the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 through March 31, 1998
Authorizing legislation for federal surface transportation programs highway, highway safety, and transit expired at the end of FY1997. The federal framework for these programs was created by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-240), better known as ISTEA. ISTEA was the first major highway act of the post interstate highway construction era. As such, it is regarded as landmark legislation. This report compares the major programmatic elements of significant legislative proposals to reauthorize the federal- aid highway program created by ISTEA. The discussion of each piece of legislation is presented in the order in which it was introduced in the 105th Congress. The report looks at the policy objectives and outcomes sought by each initiative. It is not intended as a detailed section-by-section comparison of each legislative proposal. This report does not examine safety and transit proposals. In addition, it now appears that the ISTEA reauthorization debate will become a forum for a number of government wide policy issues that are not necessarily transportation related and are not the focus of this report. These include issues such as set-asides for disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) and continuation of Davis-Bacon wage rules. The reauthorization bills discussed in this report can be classified as falling into a couple of general policy frameworks. One of these takes the position that ISTEA, as enacted in 1991, is a good starting point for a discussion about how to run the federal-aid highway program in the future. In this view, ISTEA needs refinement, enhancement, and improvement, but major changes are unwarranted. Programs that emphasize important national goals, such as clean air, are viewed as requiring special legislative treatment. The alternate view is that ISTEA is too bureaucratic and constraining. What the federal-aid program needs, in this view, is restructuring with more control and decision making pushed down to the state and local level. National needs, in this view, are important, but states should be given as much leeway as possible in meeting those needs that are appropriate to conditions in their state. Within this second view, there are differing opinions about how to structure legislation to meet identified national needs. Every reauthorization of the federal-aid highway program since 1956 has expanded the program in either scope or size, or both. Prior to the beginning of the 105th Congress, there was an expectation that the drive to balance the federal budget might end this trend. Based on legislation introduced in the 105th Congress to date, however, it would appear that program proponents expect growth in the program to continue, and, in some instances, at a dramatically higher level of funding. Note: The expiration of ISTEA does not stop all federal-aid highway projects. States can continue to expend funds obligated by ISTEA for ongoing and, in some cases, new projects.
ISTEA Reauthorization: Highway Related Legislative Proposals in the 105th Congress The modern federal-aid highway program that created the interstate highway system in 1956, has been reauthorized on a periodic basis. In each of these reauthorization cycles, including the cycle that led to ISTEA in 1991, most of the legislative attention was focused on just three pieces of legislation; an Administration bill, and the bills produced by the respective House and Senate authorizing committees. These bills normally coalesced during the year into a new federal- aid highway act. Bills introduced by Members and/or groups of Members during these cycles were not typically comprehensive pieces of legislation. Instead, these bills tended to focus on specific policy or programmatic issues that might later become part of the federal-aid program as a result of congressional debate. (See Endnote 1.) The ongoing reauthorization cycle now looks to be quite different from its historical predecessors. At least four comprehensive reauthorization bills were introduced in the first session of the 105th Congress prior to September. Additional legislation prepared by the respective House and Senate authorizing committees that contains some elements of the four earlier proposals, is now beginning to receive consideration. The impetus for this unusual flurry of legislative activity can be found in competing ideas about how federal-aid highway funds should be distributed. Some of the proposals have ideological roots, e.g., federal funding should be distributed on the basis of need and/or the operation, if not the funding, of the federal program should be devolved to the states. Other proposals can be viewed in the context of an ongoing struggle between states and/or regions for influence and funds. Although the current debate is at a level of funding and technological sophistication well beyond the imagination of this nations founders, the regional elements of the debate would not be unfamiliar to Members of this nations early Congresses. This report compares the major programmatic elements of significant legislative proposals to reauthorize the existing federal-aid highway program created by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240). The discussion of each piece of legislation is presented in the order in which it was introduced in the 105th Congress. The report looks at the policy objectives and outcomes sought by each initiative. A summary table showing proposed funding for major programs is included in the Appendix at the end of this report. This report is not intended as a detailed section-by-section comparison of each legislative proposal. In addition, this report does not examine safety and transit proposals. (See Endnote 2.) Finally, it now appears that the ISTEA reauthorization debate will become a forum for a number of government wide policy issues that are not necessarily transportation related and are not the focus of this report. These include issues such as set-asides for disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) and continuation of davis-bacon wage rules. (See Endnote 3.) ISTEA created a post-interstate highway framework for federal surface transportation programs. (See Endnote 4.) ISTEA provided a 6-year program authorization of approximately $155.0 billion in federal assistance. Of this total, $120.8 billion was attributable to the highway title of the act. The Act was unique in the annals of federal surface transportation authorizing legislation in several ways. It was the first time that completion of the interstate highway system was not a focus of the legislation. In addition, ISTEA attempted to create an intermodal framework for transportation policy. ISTEA also emphasized an increased state and local role in transportation planning and decision making, which represented a major devolution in decisionmaking from the existing federal/state dominated process. Further, ISTEA provided a significant increase in transferability of funds among programs. Finally, the legislation placed a heightened emphasis on new technology solutions to transportation problems. Major Highway Provisions of ISTEA National Highway System (NHS). The NHS comprises the nations principal roads, including the interstate system. The NHS designation, made permanent by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-59) (NHS Act), establishes a system of approximately 161,000 miles of federal-aid highways eligible for dedicated funding (the Act left some room for later expansion of NHS mileage). The NHS formula used historical data for the period FY1987-1991, viewed by many as obsolete, as a basis for the distribution of program funds. The NHS is the second largest highway funding category in ISTEA and had a 6-year authorization of $21.0 billion. Surface Transportation Program (STP). The STP is somewhat like a state block grant program that can be used for projects on any portion of the states federal-aid highway system. Distribution to the states is on a formula basis and there are a number of set-aside programs within the STP (i.e., 10% each for safety construction and transportation enhancement initiatives). STP funds can be transferred to other approved transportation projects, such as transit, if certain guidelines are met. The STP distribution formula uses FY1987- 1991 historical data as its baseline. The STP is the largest ISTEA highway program and had a 6-year authorization of $23.9 billion. (See Endnote 5.) The 10% set aside for transportation enhancements is reserved for environmentally related activities. The eligible uses of these funds include activities such as: mitigation of water pollution associated with highways, bicycle facilities, historical preservation, and acquisition of scenic/historic sites. The enhancement program is a controversial element of ISTEA. Program opponents criticize it for funding items that do not provide real transportation infrastructure. Program proponents support enhancement spending as essential to mitigating environmental impacts of highways, and as a way to provide alternatives to the automobile for local travel. Interstate Maintenance Program. This program reserves funds for rehabilitation, restoration, and resurfacing on the interstate system. Except in specific circumstances, these funds cannot be used for new construction. The 6-year authorization for this program was $17.0 billion. Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation. This provision continues a federal program designed to provide aid for any bridge on any public road (the act reserves a minimum of 15% and a maximum of 35% of program funding for bridges outside the federal-aid highway system). The ISTEA changed allowable uses of these funds to include bridge painting and seismic retrofitting of bridges. It also creates a timber bridge category with $400.0 million in funding over 6 years. Total program funding for 6 years is set at $16.1 billion. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) The CMAQ program provides funding for projects that will assist states and localities in meeting goals set forth in the Clean Air Act. Funding is provided on a formula basis with each state guaranteed a minimum allocation, regardless of whether the state experiences congestion or air pollution problems. CMAQ had a 6-year authorization of $6.0 billion. (See Endnote 6.) Equity Adjustment. Provisions for equity adjustment among the states are among the most difficult and controversial provisions to understand in the federal highway program. There are several categories of funds that fall into this grouping. Funding for these programs is determined by the formulas found throughout the ISTEA framework. The largest is the 90% minimum allocation program which guarantees that each state will receive funding equivalent to 90% of the States contribution to the highway account of the federal highway trust fund. Funding is determined on the basis of a states total apportionments and prior year allocations for base ISTEA programs. Another significant category of funding is the donor state bonus which provides additional funding to states that send more revenue to the highway trust fund than they get back in the form of highway assistance funding. A reimbursement program is provided to compensate states for their share of the cost of routes incorporated into the interstate system in 1956. This program is especially important to many northeastern states whose toll road systems predate the interstate. A hold harmless provision establishes a percentage of total funding that each state must receive annually. The concept behind the hold harmless provision was that no state receive less under ISTEA than it had under predecessor legislation. A final adjustment is provided by the 90% of payments guarantee which is computed after all other adjustments and ensures that each state is receiving an amount equivalent to 90% of its contribution to the highway trust fund. All of these provisions are interdependent, i.e., a change in one category results in changes in other categories. Federal Lands Program. ISTEA continued the federal lands program which reserves funds for three categories of roads on federal and trust lands; indian reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands highways. Funds for this program are distributed on the basis of need. This is not a state run program. Project determination is made in coordination with the operating agencies of the Department of the Interior, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. ISTEA provided an annual authorization of just over $447.0 million for this program, for a 6-year total of $2.6 billion. Demonstration Projects. ISTEA contained 539 designated highway projects. These demonstration projects were viewed as essential expressions of congressional priorities by supporters and as pork barrel items by opponents. Hence, they were, and remain, a controversial feature of the legislation. The 6-year authorization for this activity was set at $6.2 billion. Planning. ISTEA created a new transportation planning framework that included a much stronger local presence in the creation of transportation improvement plans (TIPs). The legislation provided significant funding for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and gave them a specific role in the selection of certain transportation projects. The new planning framework is essentially the same for highways and transit. Formulas. There are formulas associated with almost every item in the highway program. Simply put, the variables that make up the formulas determine who gets the money and how much they get. In 1991, Congress was unable to agree on how to reformulate many programs during the ISTEA debate, most notably the NHS and STP programs. As a result, ISTEA contains formulas that rely on contentious and outdated variables, e.g., 1980 census data, post-road mileage, etc. (See Endnote 7.) The ISTEA program formulas are interdependent. A change in spending for one category, affects all others. An issue that is very much part of the reauthorization formula debate is the question of potential funding adjustments for donor/donee states. Many states provide the trust fund with more federal fuel tax revenues each year than they receive back in federal highway assistance. These are the so-called donor states. The number of states in this category varies by year, or by the grouping of years selected for examination. The status of a state can also be changed by including or deleting transit and other non-highway benefits from the calculation. There are also significant questions about the accuracy of data collected by FHWA that assigns revenues to particular states. As a result, there is considerable controversy about how donor/donee status should be measured. Flexibility. One of the principal features of ISTEA was an enhanced ability to transfer funds among programs. Transit and other non-traditional transportation alternatives were viewed as the primary beneficiaries of these provisions because they had access to significant highway funds for, essentially, the first time. The transferability of funds is supposed to give states and localities considerable flexibility in dealing with the specific transportation needs of their locality. Some states and localities have taken particular advantage of these flexibility options. (See Endnote 8.) Other Features. ISTEA had a number of additional highway related provisions. Among these are: an increase in federal funding for toll roads in certain circumstances, a new recreational trails program to allow states to create trails, and continuation of the scenic byways program.
H.R. 674, S. 335, ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act. Introduced in the House, February 11, 1997. Sponsors Representatives DeLay and Condit. 77 House cosponsors at time of introduction. Introduced in the Senate, February 13, 1997 Sponsor Senator Warner, 22 Senate cosponsors at time of introduction (See Endnote 9.) Policy Focus. The ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act was the first ISTEA reauthorization bill introduced in the 105th Congress. This is the STEP 21 proposal (Streamlined Transportation Efficiency Program for the 21st Century), which was first introduced in the second session of the 104th Congress. STEP 21 is an idea that has been percolating in several State Departments of Transportation for a number of years. The basic premise of STEP 21 proponents is that ISTEA is too complex in its application, has outdated and inequitable distribution formulas, and is too stringent and costly in its administration. STEP 21, therefore, is aimed at program simplification and efficiency. In the view of its supporters, STEP 21 is an equity bill. It guarantees that states receive a share of total highway funds equal to at least 95% of the states revenue contribution to the highway trust fund. In this regard, the two similar, but slightly different STEP 21 bills, H.R. 674 and S. 335 overcome what many states believe was a failed promise in ISTEA that guaranteed each state would receive at least 90% of revenue contributions. In addition, the bills attempts to protect the interests of smaller states in terms of land area and/or population, by ensuring adequate funding is provided to meet their special needs. S. 335 increases total federal-aid highway spending to $26.0 billion a year, or $130.0 billion over the 5-year life of the legislation. H.R. 674 increases total highway funding to just under $23.0 billion on an annual basis. In both instances, this represents a significant increase over ISTEA levels. This increase is viewed as necessary and appropriate by supporters in the context of unmet national highway needs and available revenues to the highway trust fund. Program Framework The framework set out by STEP 21 is simple. In S. 335, the NHS program gets 39.1% of all funds, the SSTP (Streamlined Surface Transportation Program) gets 58.7%, and the Federal Lands Highways Program gets the remaining 2.2%. In H.R. 674, the NHS program gets 39.0%, the STTP gets 58.9%, and the Federal Lands Highways Program gets the remaining 2.1%. Most other programs in ISTEA are eliminated as mandatory spending categories. Instead, they remain eligible uses for federal funding from either, or in some instances both, the NHS and STP. Flexibility in the use of funds is a major emphasis in both bills. Formulas associated with the NHS and SSTP are modernized and consistent with the proposals policy focus of returning most federal-aid highway funds to the state in which fuel tax revenues were collected. The formulas themselves, however, remain somewhat complex. STEP 21 is very different from ISTEA. In many instances, however, the bill is notable for what it does not do. The bill, for example, makes no changes to ISTEA planning provisions and retains ISTEA provisions giving local officials control over some spending in certain metropolitan areas. National Highway System (NHS). The definition of the NHS is unchanged from ISTEA. The funding emphasis on the NHS is greatly enhanced in the STEP 21 framework. The activities supported by the interstate maintenance program are folded into the NHS program, as are NHS related elements of the bridge replacement and rehabilitation program. Flexibility provisions associated with NHS activities remain available. Annual authorizations for the program are set at almost $10.2 billion in S. 335, a level nearly 64% greater than authorizations for a combined NHS and interstate maintenance program in the last year of ISTEA. Similarly, the funding level set in H.R. 674, almost $9.0 billion, is also well above the ISTEA level. The state distribution formula in STEP 21 is modernized, using five weighted highway data variables to compute state shares. One-third of the formula is based on total diesel fuel use on highways in a state. The formula uses two rural variables, total rural lane miles in a state and total rural vehicle miles in a state. Each of these variables is weighed as one-ninth of the formula process. Finally the formula uses two urban variables, total urban lane miles in a state and total urban vehicle miles in a state. Each of these variables is weighted at two-ninths in the formula process. States with low population densities and/or small populations are subject to an additional step in the determination of their state share. The share for these states is first computed on the basis of the formula described above. A determination is then made as to what percentage of total NHS funds the state would receive by this method. This percentage is then compared with state percentages detailed in section 157 of the bill, which is the apportionment adjustment program (this program will be described in more detail later in this section). The state receives a share of total NHS funds equal to whichever percentage is greater. Streamlined Surface Transportation Program (SSTP). The SSTP is the guts of the STEP 21 proposal. The philosophy inherent in this proposal is that states and local governments are best able to make decisions about their transportation needs. They should not, as a result, be constrained in their decision making by legislative set-asides. Almost all of the eligible programmatic activities in ISTEA are eligible uses of SSTP funds. For example, all bridges eligible for assistance from the bridge replacement and rehabilitation program can use SSTP funding, as can any project formerly eligible under the CMAQ program. All ISTEA flexibility provisions for transferring funds from SSTP to transit and other activities are retained. The state distribution formula for the SSTP is straightforward. Program percentage shares are determined on the basis of estimated annual contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund. States with low population densities and/or small populations are subject to the same additional step in the determination of their state share as they are under the NHS program. Transportation Enhancements. The House and Senate bills differ in their treatment of transportation enhancements. In H.R. 674, transportation enhancements are eligible uses of SSTP funds. In S. 335, a set-aside is retained within the SSTP with its own formula. The formula essentially insures that transportation enhancement funding is retained at a level that is comparable with spending for this program under ISTEA. Apportionment Adjustment Program. STEP 21 does away with the ISTEA equity adjustment framework and substitutes its own mechanism. The interstate reimbursement program viewed by ISTEA as an equity adjustment, but as a program by other legislation discussed in this report, is terminated. The new program requires three computational steps. First, is a requirement that additional amounts be apportioned to ensure that the percentage of total funds received by a state as part of the national total is not less than the adjustment percentage shown in the table in Section 157 (d) of the legislation. The second step requires that states receive additional apportionments to insure that each state percentage of total funds is not less than 95% of the states estimated contribution to the highway account of the highway trust fund. A final adjustment is performed to insure that states with low population densities and/or small populations receive a percentage of total highway funding at least equivalent to the adjustment percentage shown in Section 157 (d). Any increased state apportionments resulting from this process can be used for NHS, SSTP, or any other eligible purpose. Other Features. STEP 21 continues the Federal Lands Highway Program with no programmatic changes and increased funding. The bills also limit program administration set- asides in the legislation to 2% in S. 335 and 2.35% in H.R. 674. In both instances, this is a reduction from existing levels. The bills view these reductions as a technical correction needed to hold funding for this activity to ISTEA levels.
S. 468, H.R. 1268, The National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act (NEXTEA) Introduced in the House April 10, 1997. Introduced in the Senate March 18, 1997. Introduced by request. No cosponsors at time of introduction. Policy Focus This is the Clinton Administration bill. It reflects the experience of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in administering ISTEA, as well as the policy of the Clinton Administration. DOT is of the opinion that ISTEA provided a good framework for the federal-aid highway program. As a result, the bill focus is on marginal changes, which are viewed as improvements to the existing program. Funding for the federal-aid highway program is expanded over ISTEA levels, but much of the funding increase takes place during the last 3-years of the authorized period. This legislation provides the lowest level of authorizing authority of any of the bills examined in this report. This is in keeping with the Administration view that the federal-aid highway program has a role in the effort to balance the overall federal budget by FY2002 and should be subject to the same constraints as other federal spending activities. The NEXTEA bill has already been criticized for being essentially insincere on this issue vis-a-vis its increases in funding as the year FY2002 approaches. Program Framework NEXTEA is a slightly expanded version of ISTEA. There are a few new initiatives, but for the most part changes are made in existing programs. New ones are not created. One overriding theme in the bill is a broadening of program eligibility to transportation activities previously outside the ISTEA, e.g. intercity passenger rail and intermodal freight transfer facilities. The legislation also attempts to come up with a new formula framework for all programs. Formula components are modernized and, in the Administration view, more logical. National Highway System (NHS). The NHS in this bill is an augmented version of the ISTEA program. All flexibility provisions found in ISTEA are continued in NEXTEA. The program is expanded to allow several new eligible activities. Among these are: connections to major intermodal terminals; intercity passenger rail capital projects, rail and bus terminals, intelligent transportation system (ITS) capital programs, including specific ITS operational improvements; and natural habitat mitigation. A significant change to the program is in the distribution formula. Funds are distributed to states on the basis of revenues collected by each state for the highway account of the highway trust fund (75%), revenues collected for the trust fund from commercial vehicles (15%), and total public road mileage in a state as a percentage of total national public road mileage (10%). Each state is guaranteed a minimum apportionment of 0.50% of this program. The 6-year authorization for this program is $26.45 billion. Surface Transportation Program (STP). The same types of changes found in the NHS, occur in the STP. Project eligibility, for example, is expanded to the new activities listed in the NHS. An ISTEA 10% set-aside for safety is eliminated. The safety activities are retained in NEXTEA, however, with status as a separate program. Regulations concerning what constitutes a transportation enhancement are tightened to insure that only direct transportation projects can be selected. Otherwise the enhancement set-aside is unchanged. STP program administration would also be changed to facilitate more efficient program operation. The proposed STP formula is based on two factors, revenue contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund (70%) and state population as a percentage of total population (30%). The 6-year authorization for the program is set at $34.99 billion. Interstate Maintenance Program. The interstate maintenance program is basically unchanged from ISTEA. Funding is increased to $17.66 billion over 6 years. Project eligibility is enlarged to include reconstruction and certain ITS related activities. Otherwise all changes in the program are aimed at administrative streamling. Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation. Annual funding for this program is at a level just slightly below the authorization for FY1997. As a result, this program would be subject to something close to level funding in current dollars, but is likely to experience a real decrease if viewed in inflation adjusted dollars. The 6-year authorization for this program is $15.98 billion. Most program elements are unchanged. There are two modest changes, however. The timber bridge program set-aside and the indian reservation roads set-aside are both eliminated. Activities funded by these set-asides remain eligible uses for NEXTEA funding purposes. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). The CMAQ program gets an overall funding increase in NEXTEA. Annual funding is raised to $1.3 billion from the $1.0 billion authorized in ISTEA. The total 6-year authorization is $7.8 billion. The basic funding formula in ISTEA is retained with some minor changes, such as adding apportionment factors for maintenance areas (in this usage the bill is referring to areas that have been redesignated attainment areas under EPA air quality standards) and particulate matter nonattainment areas. The NEXTEA increases program eligibility in certain instances. The most significant of these is the prospective expansion of the program to areas that could be designated as nonattainment areas as part of proposed, and controversial, EPA air quality standards. Equity Adjustment. NEXTEA proposes to consolidate ISTEAs equity adjustment mechanisms into a 3 adjustment environment. First, NEXTEA replaces the ISTEA minimum allocation and donor state bonus adjustments with a single minimum allocation. This allocation uses the same formula as the ISTEA predecessor adjustment, i.e. a state receives an apportionment of at least 90% of its revenue contribution to the highway account of the highway trust fund. A second and third NEXTEA adjustment is performed by making two hold harmless type computations. The initial adjustment is 90% of apportionments. This mechanism assures that each state receives at least 90% of its prior fiscal year dollar apportionment (special rules apply to Alaska). The next adjustment provides a state percentage guarantee. This provision requires that each state receive an apportionment throughout the life of NEXTEA that is equal to at least 95% of its average annual apportionment under ISTEA (a special rule is imposed to account for high levels of spending in Massachusetts associated with the ongoing harbor tunnel interstate project). NEXTEA continues the interstate reimbursement program, but does not treat it as an equity adjustment. In NEXTEA interstate reimbursement is continued as a separate program with annual funding set at a level that is half of the FY1997 authorization. Although the program will provide a 6-year authorization of $6.0 billion, this is likely to be well below what supporters of the reimbursement program think it should receive. Planning. NEXTEA retains the planning environment of ISTEA with some additions. An important modification is a change in the criteria for designating a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Under the proposed criteria designation as an MPO can be accomplished with the concurrence of 51% of local governments and a central city. This should make designation easier to achieve in some instances than the 75% criteria enunciated in ISTEA. Another potentially significant change is the formal role proposed for representatives of freight shippers in the planning and comment process. This group has complained that its concerns were often overlooked under ISTEA. Finally, NEXTEA would enhance the coordinating role of MPOs in the clean air quality planning process. Other Features. NEXTEA contains a number of policy initiatives that go beyond the core ISTEA program framework. In some instances, the intent is to provide states with greater flexibility in the use of federal funds or with new sources of finance for roads. In other instances, the intent is to provide a reliable funding source for an activity. For the most part, these initiatives are small in dollar terms relative to other NEXTEA programs. The programs discussed below provide a sample of the NEXTEA initiatives. State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs). SIBs were created by the NHS Act. SIBs are considered a form of innovative financing by the Administration. The intent of the SIB program is to allow states to leverage their federal assistance monies in a way that attracts other public and private investment in highway and transit infrastructure. Hence, overall investment is increased. Initial funding for SIBs was provided from U.S. Treasury general funds in FY1996 and FY1997 appropriations legislation. NEXTEA proposes to continue the SIB program at an annual level of $150.0 million, or $900.0 million over 6 years. NEXTEA also proposes to broaden the program to include all states, the original program was limited to 10 states. Tolls. The Administration is proposing that the law governing the federal-aid highway program be amended to allow for the imposition of tolls on new and reconstructed interstate segments providing certain conditions are met. This change is viewed as a follow-on to previous changes in toll policy on non-interstate federal-aid highway segments. This represents a major philosophical change from past practice which viewed a toll free interstate system as nearly sacrosanct. As a result, this is an extremely controversial proposal, likely to be opposed by several highway user organizations. There are no direct funds associated with the proposal. Instead, interstate tolls become eligible uses for federal-aid highways funds from other program categories. Trade Corridor and Border Gateway Pilot Program. This new program attempts to address some of the transportation problems that may have developed as a result of implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As proposed, this is a three-part program. It has two planning elements, corridor planning and border planning, and a pilot project element. The planning elements are designed to facilitate local and regional planning, with corridor planning funds reserved for multi-state planning effort. Most of the funds in the program are associated with the pilot project element that authorizes up to eight projects, including at least two each on the Canadian and Mexican borders. These projects are discretionary and subject to a number of review criteria. In dollar terms the Administrations initiative is small, $44.0 million per year. Appalachian Development Highway Program. NEXTEA provides funding for the already existing Appalachian Development Highway System, also known as the Appalachian Roads Program, from the highway trust fund. This program is currently funded by U.S. Treasury general funds. The administration of the program will continue to reside with the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). The program is authorized at $2.19 billion for the 6-year period. The ARC has been a major highway building agency for over two decades. By virtue of its funding source it has been something of an anomaly in the federal budget. Bringing the program into the trust fund system potentially solves some of the ARCs long term budget issues vis-a-vis budget pressures on discretionary accounts such as the ARC. This initiative is unlikely to end criticism of the ARC by budget cutters who view some ARC road building projects as unneeded and wasteful. Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is the only federally owned bridge on the interstate highway system. The existing bridge is inadequate to handle current and expected growth in traffic. Replacement of the bridge has been the subject of discussion for well over a decade. It now appears that local agreement on a replacement design will be reached. Questions still remain about how this approximately $1.5 billion project will be funded. NEXTEA provides $400.0 million for the project. This level of aid is predicated on the transfer of ownership of the bridge to a Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority. The federal assistance offered in NEXTEA falls well below the total potential cost of the project. It can be inferred that the Administration is proposing that the replacement bridge be a toll bridge. The Administration has not, however, made this a requirement, deferring instead to local decisionmaking on this issue.
S. 532, Surface Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act (STARS 2000) Introduced April 9, 1997 Sponsor Senator Baucus, 14 cosponsors at time of introduction. Policy Focus. STARS 2000 has an outward structure that appears similar to the STEP 21 initiative, but in fact the bill is significantly different. STARS 2000 can be construed as an attempt to take a position somewhere between STEP 21 and the existing ISTEA format. The bill retains most ISTEA flexibility options and makes no changes in the existing planning environment. Elements of the legislation, however, are focused on providing enhanced state and local decision making, and at reducing the amount of federal regulation involved in the planning and construction process. This bill provides the highest sustained annual authorization level for the federal-aid highway program of any legislation discussed in this report, $27.0 billion. It also has a provision that allows the annual funding level to be raised in response to any upward adjustment in available funding from the highway trust fund. The bill accepts the position that states should receive an allocation equivalent to at least 95% of the states contribution to the highway account of the highway trust fund. This legislation is viewed by supporters of other legislation as having a rural and western tilt, i.e., those states showing the greatest funding increases in this bill are mostly in the west. Proponents of the legislation, however, counter this argument by pointing to the fact that the majority of states get significantly greater funding as a result of this legislation and that programs important to proponents of other legislation are included in this bill. Program Framework. As mentioned above, STARS 2000 creates a simplified program framework outwardly similar to that found in STEP 21. There is a pronounced difference in program emphasis, however, with shares for NHS and STP almost reversed. In STARS 2000, NHS gets 52.3% of annual funds, STP gets 35.0%, and an expanded Federal Lands category gets 2.2%. The legislation reserves 10.2% of annual funding for equity adjustments that are available for use in either the NHS or STP categories (additional funding is provided to territories, recreational trails, etc. to account for the remaining 0.3% of total spending). A unique feature of this bill is the creation of a number of reserved funding elements within the STP. The provisions for transportation enhancements, safety, and CMAQ are set- asides, as they are in ISTEA, with some modification. In the case of the bridges, the legislation requires that sufficient funding be reserved at what could be construed as minimum level of effort. The transportation enhancements and safety set-asides are at lower percentage levels, but not necessarily lower dollar levels, than those found in ISTEA. The bill requires a 5% set aside for transportation enhancements, which requires slightly more annual spending than was required in FY1997 under ISTEA. In the case of safety, spending is set at a minimum level derived from spending under ISTEA. The dollar level of annual safety set-aside derived from this process is about the same as that required in ISTEA for FY1997. The CMAQ set-aside is significantly lower in dollar terms than in ISTEA. The CMAQ program in this legislation, however, only has applicability in states with non-attainment problems. For all of these reserved elements, states have additional options on how to utilize available funds and/or meet the reserve requirement. National Highway System (NHS). The NHS program is the key element of this bill. This corresponds with the philosophical view of the bills authors that the NHS is the most important part of the federal-aid highway system. The NHS provisions of this legislation incorporate the interstate maintenance activities of ISTEA. States are still required to certify that they are maintaining their respective sections of the interstate system as they were under ISTEA. Interstate bridges and other NHS bridges are also eligible uses. Annual funding for NHS activities is set at almost $14.2 billion. This is significantly higher than the ISTEA level of $3.6 billion and well above the level proposed in any of the other bills discussed in this report. The state distribution formula proposed by the bill includes 5 variables with differing weights: interstate lane miles (20%), total NHS lane miles (30%), interstate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (25%), total NHS VMT (10%), and special fuels (10%). In each instance the variable is a measure of state activity/infrastructure as a percentage of national totals. The special fuels variable, which includes diesel fuel, is viewed by bill authors as a proxy for commercial use of the federal-aid system. The use of special fuels in this instance parallels the use of this variable in the STEP 21 NHS provision, but does so at a reduced level of emphasis. Surface Transportation Program (STP). The STP program encompasses all ISTEA program elements not contained in the NHS. It also contains the reserved funding elements. Flexibility provisions in ISTEA remain intact, and in some instances additional flexibility is provided from the allocations dedicated to the reserved provisions. The program authorizes annual funding at a level of slightly more than $9.4 billion. The distribution formula for STP contains 7 weighted variables: federal-aid system VMT (53%), federal-aid system lane miles (25%), total bridge deck area (10%), air quality (4%), population in relation to lane miles (2%), federal lands (5%), and freeze-thaw (1%). Bridge deck area, measured in square footage, is a new measure in the context of federal-aid highway legislation. It is promoted by supporters of this legislation as an improvement over the needs assessment factors that drove the ISTEA bridge maintenance program, because it does away with the alleged perverse incentive of the existing program to keep needs high in order to receive maximum funding. The last four variables listed in the formula discussion are unique to this legislation, and are referred to by some bill proponents as policy adjustments. Each of these factors serves to identify particular problems and apportions funds to correct them. The population/lane mile variable can be viewed as a low density adjustment factor, which is found in other legislation discussed in this report. The federal lands adjustment has a similar purpose, but is focused at compensating states for territory inside their borders, but outside their control. The air quality variable corresponds to the historical CMAQ distribution formula in ISTEA, which is shown as a table in the bill. Funds are distributed only to states with non-attainment problems in accordance with factors in the table. The freeze-thaw variable corresponds to the special needs of states with severe freeze-thaw cycles. The distribution factors, identified by a table in the bill, are drawn from research done as part of the strategic highway research program (SHRP). Proponents of this legislation view these policy adjustments as an important initiative to meet identified federal-aid highway system needs not being met at present. These adjustments are likely to be controversial, however, and will be criticized by states unlikely to benefit from these adjustments. In addition, these variables may be criticized by some as being at odds with a stated purpose of the bill, i.e. to provide states and localities with as much flexibility in identifying and solving transportation problems as possible. Equity Adjustment. STARS 2000 reserves a substantial portion of annual funding for distribution in accordance with a multi-step process. The annual authorization for this activity is just over $2.5 billion. ISTEA equity adjustments, including the interstate reimbursement adjustment, are eliminated. The bill instead substitutes a 5-step calculation process that starts with an allocation of $95.0 million for Puerto Rico. The second step is a low-density/small-state calculation. This is followed by a calculation to guarantee that no state receives less than 95% of its contribution to the highway account of the highway trust fund. A fourth adjustment is designed to compensate for funding inequities arising from a combination of the third adjustment combined with NHS and STP allocations. The final adjustment is also a low-density/small-state guarantee and requires that apportionments to these states not fall below a level mandated in a table in the legislation. Other Features. The bill continues the Federal Lands Program and adds a new Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program. This new program would receive an annual appropriation of $155.0 million. Funding is distributed on the basis of a formula using total federal lands, including trust lands, in a state as a base. Projects funded by this program are on state owned or maintained facilities adjacent to, leading to, through to, federal land holdings, but project determination is made by DOT in consultation with the state. No state may receive more than 7.5% of total program funding. There are several provisions in the legislation aimed at regulatory reform and simplification. Some of the actions required by these provisions include DOT review of existing regulations, codification of existing state transportation improvement planning (TIP) procedures, and clarification of federal rules concerning state use of the metric system as part of its highway program.
S. 586, ISTEA Reauthorization Act of 1997 Introduced April 15, 1997 Sponsor Senator Moynihan, 31 cosponsors when introduced. Policy Focus. This legislation starts with the premise that ISTEA Works, which is also the name of the coalition that supports this legislation. In most respects, the bill follows the ISTEA framework closely and retains a 6-year authorization period. The legislation attempts to modernize funding formulas, further improve funding flexibility, broaden the intermodal focus of the bill to include funding for new activities, such as Amtrak, and maintains a strong connection to federal environmental programs. The bill also brings a major federal road building activity, the Appalachian highway program, into the highway trust fund for funding purposes. The guiding concept of the supporters of this approach is that federal highway monies should be directed to identified national transportation system needs. To meet these needs the bill provides for a significant increase in highway funding. Program Framework This bill is a continuation of the ISTEA framework. In general, the principal highway programs of ISTEA are continued with a minimum number of changes. The exception to this statement is the equity program. This bill creates a new equity adjustment category and deletes two existing programs. Funding eligibility is expanded to additional federal transportation activities. The primary beneficiary of enhanced eligibility is intercity rail (Amtrak). National Highway System (NHS). The major change to the NHS is in the formula. ISTEA used historical data for the period FY1987-1991, viewed by many as obsolete, as a basis for the distribution of program funds. The new formula for this program is based one-third on public-highway lane miles, one- third on public highway vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and one- third on an equal distribution between all states. The NHS includes a separate $100 million per year 4R program (resurfacing, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction) discretionary program. The 6-year NHS authorization is $33.6 billion, or $5.6 billion per year. The bill rejects the notion that funding should be linked directly to NHS system mileage and/or usage within a state. This provision is contrary to the policy thrust of other legislation discussed in this report. Surface Transportation Program (STP). The STP also gets a new formula as part of this legislation. States are guaranteed a minimum allocation of 0.5% of total apportionments from this program. Remaining funds are determined on the basis of total lane miles of public highways in each state multiplied by the relative intensity of use (RIU) of public highways in each state. The RIU would be a new measure of highway activity. The bill explains how the RIU factor is to be computed. The bill retains the safety and transportation enhancement set-asides found in ISTEA. Flexibility provisions in the STP are retained. A major addition to program eligibility is intercity rail transportation (Amtrak) capital improvements. Intercity rail operating assistance would also be an eligible use of funds in some instances. Limits are placed on the amount of operational assistance that could be provided by a state using federal funds. The 6-year authorization for STP is $31.5 billion. The proposal to allow STP funds to be used for intercity rail is likely to be the most controversial element of this proposal. Many highway interest groups view this as a significant potential diversion of funds that they believe should be used for new road construction. The operating assistance eligibility issue could set a new precedent in the context of the federal program because it would allow the use of federal highway trust fund monies for this purpose. Existing federal transportation operating assistance programs are funded using U.S. Treasury general funds. Interstate Maintenance Program. Retains the existing program without significant structural change. The major policy change in the bill is to increase funding for the program to a level equal to that of the STP program and quite near that of the NHS 6-year authorization of $31.5 billion. Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation. The bill increases the state minimum allocation from this program to 0.5%. All remaining formula funds would be distributed using the existing ISTEA formula. The existing discretionary spending component of the program is retained with increased funding. A 10% cap on the share that any single state could receive is retained. The 6-year funding authorization for the program is set at $22.5 billion. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). Funding for CMAQ is doubled over ISTEA levels; 6-year funding is set at $12 billion. The heightened emphasis on CMAQ corresponds to the bill proponents belief that highway legislation should support the goals of federal environmental legislation. The bill also provides that program funding can be used for intercity rail transportation initiatives in the same manner detailed as part of the STP program. The bill retains the existing apportionment formula for most of the program on an interim basis and adds a 10% set- aside for small particulate non-attainment areas that would be determined on a population formula basis. EPA has recently begun a process that is expected to result in new air quality standards. In light of this situation, the bill requires that DOT, in consultation with EPA, prepare a report suggesting what changes might be made to the CMAQ formulas to conform with the new air quality standards. This report is to be completed by the end of FY2000. To try and ensure adoption of a new formula, if required, by FY2001 the bill provides for a 10% reduction in program spending for all fiscal years after FY2001 if Congress does not act on the recommendations contained in the DOT report. Equity Adjustment. The legislation makes some significant changes in ISTEA equity provisions by combining elements of the ISTEA categories into three categories and by creating a new category. In each instance, these activities are treated by the legislation as separate programs with their own authorizations. Interstate Reimbursement. The bill continues the reimbursement program and increases its funding. The 6-year authorization for the program is $12.3 billion. The bill provides that funding be provided based on the same basis as set forth in ISTEA, which includes a 0.5% minimum allocation for each state. The bill also provides that 5% of reimbursement funds be set-aside for transportation enhancements. This additional set-aside elevates the total funding for transportation enhancements within the legislation to a combined level of $633.0 million per year. Minimum Allocation. The program combines elements of several ISTEA equity programs to ensure that each state receives an amount equal to at least 90 percent of what it would have received as part of the previous 6 programs if they had been distributed on the basis of population. The 6-year authorization for this program is $4.98 billion. Basing the minimum allocation program on population factors is a dramatic departure from the highway trust fund revenue factors used by some ISTEA equity adjustments. The population factor is supported by bill proponents as a way to ensure that funds are distributed on a basis that does not reward increased energy use. This provision could be viewed as a counter to proponents of other proposed legislative vehicles discussed in this report who believe that funding should be determined by highway use as measured by fuel tax contributions to the highway trust fund. High-And-Low-Density State Adjustment. The legislation provides $2.58 billion over 6 years for states with high and low population densities. The bill defines low density as less than 20 persons per square mile and high density as more than 450 persons per square mile. The policy perspective for this proposal is that states in each of these categories has a set of special needs that requires special financial assistance. In low- density states, the need is viewed as lots of roads with a small tax base, whereas in high-density states the requirement is dealing with congestion and heavy use. Each eligible state in the program is provided with a minimum annual allocation of $5.0 million. This provision can also be viewed as an attempt by the bill authors as a move away from energy use as a mechanism for determining highway funding. As such, the provision is in line with the bills overall policy focus of addressing actual system needs. The bill differs from other legislation discussed in this report because it provides an adjustment for high density states. It is difficult to predict, whether, this additional focus could become controversial. Minimum Apportionment Adjustment (90% Minimum Guarantee). This provision provides a final equity adjustment to guarantee that each state receives an amount equivalent to 90% of what it received from the federal-aid highway program in FY1997, or 0.5% of total apportionments from the program. The bill provides $240 million over 6 years to provide for this adjustment. Planning. The bill retains the ISTEA planning framework. Other Features. The bill provides funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System, also known as the Appalachian Roads Program, from the highway trust fund. This program is currently funded by U.S. Treasury general funds. The administration of the program will continue to reside with the Appalachian Regional Commission. The program is authorized at $2.55 billion for the 6-year period. The bill creates a transportation land use initiative with an authorization of approximately $300 million over 6 years. The stated purpose of this initiative is to provide for research on how land use, transportation, and the environment interact. Funding will be provided from this section for planning and implementation of integrated transportation and land use projects. The legislation continues and funds most other federal-aid highway programs found in ISTEA. The Federal Lands Highway Program, for example, receives a 6-year authorization of $3.15 billion or $525.0 million per year. H.R. 2400, Building Efficiency Through Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1997 (BESTEA) Introduced September 4, 1997 Sponsor Representative Shuster, 3 Cosponsors at time of introduction (See Endnote 10.) Subcommittee mark-up completed September 10, 1997 Committee mark-up completed September 24, 1997, Bill held in Committee (See Endnote 11.) Policy Focus. BESTEA is the proposal of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. BESTEA at its core, is an ISTEA derivative that incorporates features and policy ideas from NEXTEA and Step 21. The legislation is based on the premise that ISTEA provides a good structure for federal transportation programs and that what is needed to make the federal program even better is more money, modernized formulas, and a few new programs to improve ISTEA coverage. The new programs in the legislation, such as: a high cost interstate construction and improvement program; and a high risk road safety improvement program, are designed to meet specific national needs that were difficult to address within the broad funding programs found in ISTEA. What makes BESTEA different from all the other reauthorization legislation introduced in the 105th Congress is the amount of money it provides, $103.2 billion. over 3- years. Of the total, $84.7 billion is reserved for highway programs excluding safety. Peak year spending in FY2000 is 31.7 billion and average annual spending for highways under this bill stands at $28.2 billion. This is well above the level of spending proposed by other legislation discussed in this report. As a result, BESTEA represents a profound boost in funding for surface transportation programs. The legislation does this by condensing 5 years of budget authority assumed for this legislation in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) and placing it in a 3-year spending framework. In fact, the bill provides 70% as much funding for highways in 3-years as ISTEA did in 6 years. The funding levels in this bill, for FY1999 and FY2000 are in conflict with the program guidance in the Balanced Budget Act. In addition, the bill includes the provisions of H.R. 4, the Truth in Budgeting Act, which is opposed by the leadership of the House Committees on the Budget and on Appropriations. (See Endnote 12.) As a result, the bill is already regarded as being controversial. It is possible that the House Committees on the Budget and on Ways and Means will seek referral of this legislation. Such a referral, if granted by House Leadership, could delay consideration of this legislation. Program Framework BESTEA is ISTEA with some modifications designed to address the concerns of the Clinton Administration expressed in NEXTEA and of supporters of the STEP 21 proposal. As introduced, the legislation modernizes the distribution formulas associated with the various highway programs and creates a new minimum allocation framework. This is accomplished by incorporating formula proposals found in NEXTEA and STEP 21. The legislation relies on these formula changes and on high proposed funding levels to guarantee that donor states receive significant increases in annual funding. The intent is to provide donor states with a 95% minimum allocation of funds from the program. This is not the same, however, as the minimum 95% return on contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund contained in STEP 21. At the same time, the legislation seeks to protect the interests of donee states by retaining the overall ISTEA programmatic framework. Three states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Hawaii, would, however, receive less on an annual basis than they had in the last year of ISTEA. The decreased funding for these states is accounted for by the end of interstate construction and interstate substitution provisions of ISTEA that had provided these states with unusually high levels of funding. BESTEA continues and expands the transferability of funds begun by ISTEA. The bill allows 50% of funds in almost all programs to be redesignated for use in other programs. There are two exceptions to this transferability provision. In the case of CMAQ and transportation enhancements, transferability is limited to 50% of the increase in funds provided by BESTEA over FY1997 levels. National Highway System (NHS). The NHS receives $16.7 billion during the 3-year authorization period. BESTEA adopts the state distribution formula found in H.R. 674 (STEP 21). This formula eliminates historic share and other ISTEA variables in favor of modernized, components including five weighted highway data variables. One-third of the formula is based on total diesel fuel use on highways in a state. The formula uses two rural variables, total rural lane miles in a state and total rural vehicle miles in a state. Each of these variables is weighed as one-ninth of the formula process. Finally the formula uses two urban variables, total urban lane miles in a state and total urban vehicle miles in a state. Each of these variables is weighted at two-ninths in the formula process. States with low population densities and/or small populations are subject to an additional step in the determination of their state share. The share for these states is first computed on the basis of the formula described above. A determination is then made as to what percentage of total NHS funds the state would receive by this method. This percentage is then compared with state percentages detailed in section 104 (h)(1). The state receives a share of total NHS funds equal to whichever percentage is greater. Most other changes to the NHS program are of a technical nature. The bill calls for a study of intermodal freight connectors to be conducted by DOT and creates a contest for children under the age of 14 to design a logo for the NHS. Surface Transportation Program (STP). The biggest change in the STP is in the distribution formula. After setting aside 2% of funding for Alaska the bill divides the remaining funds on the following basis: state population as a percentage of total population (1/3), state contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund as a percentage of total contributions (1/3), and state contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund by commercial vehicles as a percentage of total contributions by commercial vehicles (1/3). To the extent that the bill uses population and gas tax variables, BESTEA adopts the NEXTEA formula concept. STP remains the highest funded program in the bill with a 3-year authorization of $18.8 billion, or an average of nearly $6.3 billion per year. Programmatic changes to the STP are minimal. There is some expansion of project eligibility to include certain environmental restoration and pollution abatement activities. In addition, the use of certain de-icing compositions on bridges would be an eligible activity. Finally, the bill would change STP administrative requirements by putting the state program approval process on an annual basis. Interstate Maintenance Program. The bill makes interstate reconstruction an eligible activity under this program. This represents a potentially major change for this program which has here-to-fore been focused on rehabilitation, restoration, and resurfacing. The authors of ISTEA had purposely left reconstruction out of this section because they feared that some states would use the funds in this section for projects that would constitute new construction and that the maintenance needs of the interstates would suffer as a result. BESTEAs authors, however, believe the change is necessary to meet unmet needs for major capital maintenance on the interstate system that can only be met in the context of reconstruction. It is their view that there are adequate safeguards in the program to insure that maintenance needs are met. The other major change proposed by BESTEA is in the distribution formula. The new formula is based on the following variables; state contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund by commercial vehicles as a percentage of total contributions by commercial vehicles (1/3), total vehicle miles traveled on interstate routes in a state as a percentage of total vehicle miles traveled on the interstate system (1/3), and the total lane miles of interstate highway in a state as a percentage of total interstate lane miles. Funding for the program is set at $13.5 billion for 3-years. Highway Bridge Program. The ISTEA bridge formula is retained. A state's apportionment can be reduced over time, however, if the state transfers bridge monies into other programs. BESTEA continues the existing off-system bridge set aside. It also adds the use of certain de-icing compounds as an eligible use for program funds. Total funding for the program is almost $12.7 billion. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) The bill increases funding for CMAQ over ISTEA levels. Average annual funding for this program is at a level of almost $1.6 billion. This compares with peak year funding of just over $1.0 billion under ISTEA. The distribution formula for CMAQ is drawn from the formula proposed in NEXTEA. The formula uses weighted nonattainment and maintenance area populations of each state as a percentage of national totals, plus some additional factors. Each state is guaranteed a minimum apportionment of of 1% of total funding regardless of whether the state has air quality problems. Programmatic changes to the bill are limited in number. A controversial provision allowing program funds to be used for projects benefitting single occupancy vehicles in certain circumstances was removed during subcommittee markup. Finally, the bill requires that the National Academy of Sciences conduct a study to determine the effectiveness of the CMAQ program. High Cost Interstate System Reconstruction and Improvement Program. This is a new program designed to fund projects on the interstate system that are beyond the funding capability of a state, or group of states, using regular annual federal obligations. According to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the types of activities that are envisioned as using funds from this section include projects such as the reconstruction of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and the Stevenson Expressway in Chicago. The bill does not, however, name specific projects and instead creates a process whereby DOT would select projects. To be eligible for consideration a project must cost over $200 million or cost more than 50% of a states total allocation from the federal- aid highway program. Almost $1.9 billion is provided for this program over the 3-year period. High Risk Road Safety Improvement Program. This is a new 3-year, $2.75 billion program. The program defines high risk roads as those subject now, or in the foreseeable future, to significant numbers of severe motor vehicle crashes that incur fatalities or incapacitating injuries. The state distribution formula for funds from this program is based on three variables: total population of a state as a percentage of total population (1/3), a states public road mileage as a percentage of total mileage (1/3), and total vehicle miles traveled on public roads in a state as a percentage of total vehicle miles traveled (1/3). States are required to use these funds in a way that targets those projects that can produce the greatest return in terms of accident reduction. Equity Provisions. BESTEA reduces the existing multiple equity program framework to a single minimum allocation program. This program is funded at a level of almost $3.6 billion. As proposed in the bill the program requires that a states total apportionment of funds from designated highway programs shall not be less than 95% of the percentage of estimated tax payments attributable to highway users in the state paid into the highway trust fund, other than the mass transit account, in the latest fiscal year for which data are available. ISTEA provided a guarantee of 90%, but because of annual limitations on obligations and the complexity of the equity provision framework this guarantee was often unmet in practice. It should be pointed out that the 95% minimum allocation framework of BESTEA is not the same as the 95% return on payments to the highway account of the highway trust fund proposed in STEP 21. Other Features Coordinated Border Infrastructure and Safety Program. This provision expands on the trade corridor and border gateway pilot program proposed in NEXTEA. The program provides funds for projects designed to improve the flow of people and goods along the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico. Eligible uses for program funds include; construction, operations, planning, and coordination. The program also requires that some funds be reserved for state motor vehicle inspection facilities at borders. Funding for this program is set at $270.0 million over 3-years. Appalachian Development Highway System. BESTEA, like NEXTEA, provides funding for the already existing Appalachian Development Highway System, also known as the Appalachian Roads Program, from the highway trust fund. This program is currently funded by U.S. Treasury general funds. The administration of the program will continue to reside with the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). Program changes, however, will require that the ARC notify the Secretary of Transportation in advance. The program is authorized at just over $1.0 billion for the 3-year period of the bill. This is approximately the same level of annual funding suggested by NEXTEA. In addition, this provision increases the federal matching share for ARP to 80% from the existing 70% level, and guarantees each state eligible for ARP funding at least $1.0 million in FY1998. Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. The bill requires that ownership of the Woodrow Wilson bridge be transferred to the states of Maryland and Virginia, and to the District of Columbia. The bill provides no funds for the reconstruction and/or replacement of this bridge. Material supplied by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, however, suggests that this is the type of program that could receive funding from the high cost interstate system reconstruction and improvement program. Federal Lands Highways Program. The legislation reestablishes the forest highway program that had been eliminated by ISTEA as a separate funding category. This change is also found in NEXTEA. The forest highway program and public lands highway programs would receive separate allocations under this legislation with different distribution methods. The legislation clarifies the use of federal lands funds for matching purposes with other highway programs. Average annual funding for the entire federal lands program is just over $476.0 million. This is slightly above the allocation for this program in the last year of ISTEA. This section also contains some specific activities on the part of DOT. These are: an access study for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts; support for transportation research, collections, and exhibits at the Smithsonian Institution, and assistance for the construction of a visitors center on the New River Parkway in West Virginia. Corridor Planning and Development. This new program provides funds for the coordination, planning, design, and environmental review aspects of designated corridors of national significance. The corridors to be considered as part of the program include high priority corridors identified in ISTEA and new corridors that facilitate international trade, interregional trade and mobility, and service to areas underserved by the existing highway system. The program provides $500 million over the 3-year period. Program participants are required to produce very detailed plans for corridor projects, including financing plans. There are no actual corridor construction funds provided in this section, however. High Priority Projects (Demonstration Projects). As introduced the bill allocates an average of $1.4 billion for congressionally designated high priority projects. Actual projects are not listed in the bill, but are expected to be added at a later date. The congressionally directed projects, known as demonstration (demo) projects in ISTEA are typically viewed as being among the most controversial elements of the highway program. Programmatic Reforms and Streamlining. This separate title of BESTEA makes significant changes in the administration of the federal-aid highway program and potentially requires changes in FHWA organization. The provisions of this title are designed to simplify and enhance the project design, construction, and approval process. A major feature of this section is a requirement that project design, plans, specifications, estimates, awarding of contracts and inspection of projects for non-NHS projects is assumed by the state. For NHS projects, including interstates, the state and the DOT are required to reach agreement about the level of federal oversight. Another provision in this title seeks to establish a more coordinated environmental review process for project approval. In some instances, DOT is given the ability to exercise judgement when some other federal agency has failed to provide guidance on a projects within a specified period. The provision also allows DOT to create a pilot program in which some states would assume oversight of the environmental review process. The pilot program would be subject to DOT review and last 3-years. This title provides the codification for fund transferability between programs mentioned earlier in the discussion of BESTEA. Another reform in the title is the requirement that a separate financial plan be created for all highway and transit projects costing over $1.0 billion. Finally, the title eliminates oversight of federal-aid highway funds by FHWA regional offices. Funding oversight is transferred to FHWA division offices, which are located in each state, or to FHWA headquarters. There are a number of provisions mentioned above that are likely to be controversial. It is likely, for example, that the ability and inclination of a state to provide oversight of all aspects of project planning and inspection will be questioned. This is especially true in the environmental area, where environmental groups have usually supported a strong federal role in the oversight of federal spending. S. 1173, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act II (ISTEA II) Introduced September 12, 1997. Sponsor Senator Warner. 14 Cosponsors at time of introduction. Reported by Committee on Environment and Public Works, September 17, 1997. Policy Focus. ISTEA II is a blended bill that tries to incorporate the essential structural elements of STEP 21 and STARS 2000. At the same time it tries to retain some portions of ISTEA. As a result, the bill reflects the interests of the 3 previous bills referred to the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works by committee members that have been discussed in this report. It is also a very different bill from BESTEA and NEXTEA in its structure, but contains several of the policy goals found in these bills. The principal goal of this legislation appears to be an attempt to enhance state and local control over highway program spending through a heightened emphasis on the NHS and STP programs. What are viewed as essential ISTEA programs, such as CMAQ and transportation enhancements are retained and enhanced. Safety is also viewed as an essential program element. (See Endnote 13.) This is a 6-year bill providing a total authorization of $145.0 billion. ISTEA II complies with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The funding levels in this bill are lower than those found in any other bill discussed in this report, with the exception of NEXTEA. Funding levels in the bill, however, represent a significant increase over the levels found in ISTEA. The authors of this legislation have publicly stated their wish to spend more on transportation programs, but believe it is essential to stay within the budget guidelines unless new offsets are identified to allow for additional program spending. A stated goal of ISTEA II is a guarantee that each state will receive a level of funding equal to 90% of its contribution to the highway account of the highway trust fund. This is the same level envisioned, but never reached in ISTEA. To meet this guarantee the bill creates an entirely new funding formula structure using simpler and more modernized variables. The formulas themselves, however, are complex and somewhat difficult to understand for those not familiar with various measures of highway and traffic activity. This is particularly true of the bills two equity provisions. The 90% guarantee provisions and the formulas contained in the bill are viewed as favoring southern and western states. Because the bill contains only modest growth in overall spending the relative increase for these states is seen as coming at the expense of northeastern states. Most of the stated Senate criticism of this bill to date has originated in the northeast and in other states that benefitted from the ISTEA funding structure.. Program Framework The legislation adopts the simplified program design envisioned in STEP 21 and STARS 2000 - an NHS program and an STP program - combined with retention of CMAQ as a separate program. The bill uses set-asides in the two largest programs to retain a level of federal effort for activities such as interstate maintenance, and bridge maintenance and construction. The bill retains and expands on the program flexibility found in ISTEA. Rail passenger service, provided by AMTRAK or the states, becomes an eligible use for highway funding. In addition, the bill creates a number of specific funding programs for initiatives deemed to be important as part of the federal governments role in the provision of transportation infrastructure. There are some elements of ISTEA II that are unique when compared with the bills discussed earlier in this report. Among these is an emphasis on innovative financing techniques using mechanisms such as; state infrastructure banks (SIBs), a new transportation finance and innovation program, and a value pricing initiative. Another initiative in the bill not found in other legislation is a program for wetlands restoration. Interstate and National Highway System Program (INHS). This program is similar in scope to the NHS program in STEP 21 and STARS 2000 proposals. The level of program support, however, is more in keeping with STARS 2000. This is the largest program in ISTEA II. Inclusion of the interstate system in the program name can be construed as support for continuation of a commitment to the interstate system as a separate element of the federal-aid highway system. Average annual funding for this program is slightly below $12.1 billion. Total funding for the 6-year period is over $72.5 billion. The INHS program contains two separate set-asides, interstate maintenance and interstate bridge. A separate funding authorization for each component is provided within the INHS. Average annual funding for interstate maintenance is just over $4.7 billion. For interstate bridge the average annual level of support is over $1.4 billion. On a combined basis these two components are approximately 50% of total INHS funding. There is an opportunity for significant transfers between these two components and the larger INHS program. These transfers, however, are predicated on a states ability to demonstrate a continued commitment to interstate and bridge maintenance and improvement. The legislation significantly broadens the range of eligible activities that can be funded by the INHS program. Among the additions are: funding for Amtrak and other publically owned intercity rail capital projects, funding for publicly owned components of magnetic levitation (MAGLEV) transportation systems, funding for natural habitat and wetland mitigation (subject to some restrictions), intelligent transportation systems (ITS) capital projects, intracity or intercity rail and bus terminals, and publicly owned freight transfer terminals (except those at airports and seaports). The bill also expands and/or clarifies use of INHS funds for related safety, planning, and research activities. A final, and unusual, provision allows INHS funds to be spent on airports and seaports in U.S. Territories. The INHS state distribution formula structure requires multiple computations for the two components and for the remainder of the program. The formula for the interstate maintenance component is a straight-forward distribution based 50% on the percentage of interstate lane miles in a state as a percentage of total interstate lane mileage, and 50% on total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on a states portion of the interstate system as a percentage of total interstate VMT. The interstate bridge component has an equally straight forward distribution formula based entirely on the total square footage of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete interstate bridges in a state as a percentage of the same measure for all interstate bridges. Remaining INHS funds are distributed using a somewhat more complicated set of variables. There are 5 weighted variables in this calculation; state arterial lane miles (excluding interstates)(20%), state arterial highway VMT (excluding interstates) (29%), the square footage of state structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges (excluding interstates)(18%), diesel fuel used on highways in a state (24%), and a computation based on dividing the total lane miles of principal arterials in a state by state population as a percentage of the same computation for all arterials in all states. Finally, the INHS program is subject to a minimum apportionment that guarantees each state at least 0.5% of total program funding. Surface Transportation Program (STP). The STP is the second largest program in ISTEA II. Average annual authorizations from the program are at a level of $7.15 billion. The STP continues the set-asides found in ISTEA for transportation enhancements, urbanized areas, and safety. The set-aside for transportation enhancements is reduced to 8%. Because STP is a larger program in ISTEA II funding for transportation enhancements is actually at a higher level than it was under ISTEA. In addition, the bill provides for innovative financing of transportation enhancement projects. This provision essentially allows new funding sources for the non-federal share of project costs. There is also some expansion of project eligibility for the overall STP that is largely comparable to the expansion detailed above in the INHS program. The state distribution formula for the STP uses 4 variables: total lane miles on the federal-aid system in a state (20%), total state federal-aid system VMT (30%), total square footage of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges on federal-aid highways within a state (25%), and state payments into the highway account of the highway trust fund (25%)(for the purposes of this computation the funds associated with the recent transfer of 4.3 cents in fuel taxes as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 do not apply.). All states are guaranteed a minimum apportionment of at least 0.5% of total program funding. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). The CMAQ program in ISTEA II is a continuation of the ISTEA program with some minor changes. Principal among these is a change in the state distribution formula to adjust for a state's carbon monoxide nonattainment areas and carbon monoxide maintenance areas. States are also given more flexibility in the use of CMAQ funds if they can show that they are providing a level of effort consistent with their respective clean air requirements. Average annual funding for this program is set at just under $1.18 billion. The program continues to provide a minimum apportionment of at least 0.5% for all states. States without clean air problem areas can spend available funds on any activity eligible under the STP. Equity Adjustment. The legislation creates a 2 step equity adjusted structure consisting of an ISTEA Transition program and a Minimum Guarantee program. The determination of how much a state may receive as a result of each of these programs uses a complex set of variables. Computations are sequential and interdependent. The bill does not provide specific funding for these programs. Instead these programs are assigned the difference between total obligations in the legislation and those obligations assigned to specific programs. A recent analysis of ISTEA II by the FHWA indicates that ISTEA transition program funding is slightly more than $830.0 million on an annual basis and the minimum guarantee program provides just over $1.3 billion in annual funding. (See Endnote 14.) Innovative Finance. This bill emphasizes financial innovation as a means of leveraging federal funds in private sector financial markets in a way that seeks to expand total transportation infrastructure funding. The bill devotes an entire subtitle to this initiative. First, it continues and codifies the existing state infrastructure bank (SIB) program. It does not provide specific funding for this initiative, but allows states to deposit other program funds in this activity. Second, it provides a new infrastructure finance and innovation program with average annual funding of just over $83.3 million. DOT is directed to operate this program in a way that could leverage up to $1.2 billion annually beginning in FY1998 and rising over time to an annual total of $2.0 billion by FY2003. Finally, the bill creates a value pricing pilot program as a successor to the congestion pricing provisions in ISTEA. This $8.0 million per year program will allow for up to 15 projects to demonstrate the potential for using value pricing as a way to fund new infrastructure. The number of toll projects in the pilot program is limited to 3. The range of eligible activities that can receive federal assistance is significantly expanded. Magnetic Levitation (MAGLEV) Transportation Technology Deployment Program. A significant MAGLEV program was a part of ISTEA. For a variety of reasons the funds authorized for the ISTEA MAGLEV program were never appropriated. The ISTEA II program described in this section appears to be an attempt to overcome some of the difficulties encountered in the ISTEA program and move MAGLEV from a research subject to a working technology. The program provides $980.0 million for MAGLEV capital projects over the 6-year life of the bill. These funds would be provided at a 2/3 federal, 1/3 state/local/other matching ratio. The program is back loaded and provides only limited funding ($30.0 million) during its first two years. This two year period is designed to allow project sponsors to do planning and line up funding. As written, this provision allows federal spending for a wide range of capital activities related to the creation of a working MAGLEV project. The bill also provides that non-U.S. sponsors may participate in a project funded by the bill and that non-U.S. technology can be used in these projects under certain circumstances. Federal Lands Highway Program. This provision continues the federal lands highway program at a level of annual financial support comparable to that found in ISTEA. The program also retains the 3 subprogram structure found in ISTEA. Most of the language in the bill reauthorizing this proposal can be characterized as being clarifying in intent. For example, the bill clarifies the treatment of the federal lands programs as part of the statewide planning process. Further, the legislation clarifies the role and participation of federal land management agencies in the funding and implementation of federal lands projects. Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program. The legislation adopts this program using the same basic framework that was proposed in STARS 2000. Annual funding for the program, $74.0 million, is well below the level envisioned in the earlier legislation. There is a special provision in this section that requires a state with a national park of more than 3,000 square miles in land area, and more than 2.5 million annual visitors, to use at least half of its program funds for transportation projects affecting the park. Other Provisions. Appalachian Development Highway System. The bill moves the existing Appalachian Roads Program into the federal-aid highway program framework in the same manner as NEXTEA and BESTEA. The major difference between this provision and those found in the other two bills is the level of funding. ISTEA II provides the program with annual average funding of $50.0 million which is only 14.3% of the BESTEA funding level. Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. The legislation requires that DOT enter into an agreement with any capital region jurisdiction or authority that is willing to accept ownership of the bridge for the purpose of enabling its replacement. The provision provides $900.0 million over 6- years to facilitate this project. Funds are provided for all aspects of the bridge project, but the stated priority use of the funds is actual construction. The level of funding for this project is well above that found in any other bill discussed in this report. Wetland Restoration Pilot Program. This program is designed to offset the loss of wetlands caused by projects carried out as part of the federal-aid highway program. The program creates a process whereby states can apply for federal assistance based on several selection criteria detailed in the legislation. Average annual funding for this activity is set at $16.7 million. Wetland mitigation is a requirement in new federal-aid highway projects. This program represents a new direction for environmental remediation as a part of the federal-aid program because it focuses on problems created by the program in the past. Studies and Reports. The bill requires a number of reports on the effectiveness of the federal-aid highway program and on transportation system needs. Most of these studies are to be preformed by the General Accounting Office (GAO). Studies required by this section include: an evaluation of the highway economic requirement system used by DOT in assessing transportation system needs, a study of state investment plans, and a report on the international roughness index which is used as a measure of pavement quality. Trade Corridor and Border Crossing Planning. Like NEXTEA and BESTEA this legislation focuses assistance on growing infrastructure problems at U.S. borders. The bill focuses on creating a coordinated planning framework for efforts to improve transportation in border regions. Program funds can also be used for border capital projects. Up to $10 million of program funds can be used for the construction of transportation infrastructure necessary for law enforcement in border states. Average annual funding for the program is authorized at a level of $129.4 million. Planning. The bill as introduced provides for a more detailed planning environment than that created by ISTEA. In Committee mark-up it appears that many of the planning requirements in this section have been recast as recommendations. Program Streamlining. The bill contains a number of elements that can be construed as program streamlining. These provisions do not appear to make as many changes as is proposed in BESTEA, but are none-the-less potentially very significant. Among the proposed changes is the possible transfer of almost all NHS project oversight duties to a state that reaches an agreement on project management with DOT. A similar framework can also be requested for state oversight of non-NHS projects. Other provisions of the bill change reporting periods for required state reports, allow design- build contracting in certain instances, and encourage project design flexibility. Introduced September 23, 1997. Sponsor Rep. Shuster. 3 Cosponsors at time of introduction. Reported by House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, September 24, 1997. Passed by the House on unanimous vote, October 1, 1997 Policy Focus The bill provides a 6-month extension of ISTEA programs. The bill is designed to keep federal programs operating while Congress continues to debate the issue of long term funding for surface transportation programs. As introduced, the bill provides approximately $11.9 billion in new spending authority for the states. This is about half of the limitation on obligations that is expected to be imposed on the federal programs as part of the FY1998 transportation appropriations bill. In addition, states will, upon enactment of this legislation, have access to an estimated $10.0 billion in unobligated highway funds available from previous fiscal years. The authors of this legislation believe that the new funding in this bill, combined with unused funding from previous years, is sufficient to keep the federal highway program working well into FY1998. This bill is a result of an agreement between the leadership of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the House leadership to defer the debate about long term extension of surface transportation programs until the second session of the 105th Congress. House leadership refused to allow BESTEA to be brought to the floor because of concerns that its spending levels violated the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Instead, the House leadership has allowed the Committee the opportunity to seek additional funding for transportation as part of the FY1999 budget debate. During the mark-up session for H.R. 2516, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also marked-up a version of H.R. 2400 (BESTEA) with 6-year funding levels. This bill was not reported, however, and will be held in Committee pending future developments. At the time of this writing the Senate is still considering legislation that would reauthorize ISTEA for 6-years. As a result, the outlook for reauthorization of ISTEA programs during the first session of the 105th Congress is unknown. Program Framework The bill adopts the existing ISTEA framework with what could be described as minor technical corrections. The bill does not include funding levels for individual ISTEA programs. Rather, the bill directs that funds for all programs be distributed to the states at the same ratio as mandated by ISTEA. Funding levels in this bill are not comparable to those found in other bills discussed in this report. Hence, it is not included in the table at the end of this report.
The reauthorization bills discussed in this report can be classified as falling into a couple of general policy frameworks. One of these takes the position that ISTEA, as enacted in 1991, is a good starting point for a discussion about how to run the federal-aid highway program in the future. In this view, ISTEA needs refinement, enhancement, and improvement, but major changes are unwarranted. Programs that emphasize important national goals, such as clean air, are viewed as requiring special legislative treatment. The alternate view is that ISTEA is too bureaucratic and constraining. What the federal-aid program needs, in this view, is restructuring with more control and decision making pushed down to the state and local level. National needs, in this view, are important, but states should be given as much leeway as possible in meeting those needs that are appropriate to conditions in their state. Within this second view, there are differing opinions about how to structure legislation to meet identified national needs. Someone unfamiliar with transportation issues might construe this split as having partisan overtones. In truth, however, the alternative views of how this program should operate are grounded historically in regional development and land-use patterns. Rapidly developing states and rural states have traditionally favored greater state control over program decisions. States with aging infrastructure and significant urban populations have tended to favor the more structured, yet flexible approach embodied in ISTEA. The donor/donee argument also plays a role in the choice of program structure, with donor states typically favoring a less structured program and donee states favoring the more formal structure. Formulas have always been one of the most controversial elements of the federal-aid highway program. Based on the formula proposals embodied in the bills discussed in this report, a continuation of this controversy is likely. Each of the bills has chosen its own formulas and formula variables. These choices reflect the philosophical position of the bill. But what is notable is that they are all different and it will be difficult to reconcile the wide range of ideas and variables embodied in these bills. A related issue in the formula debate is the data behind the variables. There are well known questions, for example, about the absolute accuracy of how federal fuel tax contributions are assigned to states, because of where and how the data are collected. These kinds of issues might also be raised about other variables suggested in bills introduced to date. In a $26.0 billion federal-aid highway program, a tenth of a percent change in a distribution scheme equates to a $26.0 million dollar swing in funding. Small changes in the data embodied in formulas, therefore, have the potential to make dramatic changes in funding outcomes. Every reauthorization of the federal-aid highway program since 1956 has expanded the program in either scope or size, or both. Prior to the beginning of the 105th Congress, there was an expectation that the drive to balance the federal budget might end this trend. Based on legislation introduced in the 105th Congress to date, however, it would appear that program proponents expect growth in the program to continue, and, in some instances, at a dramatically higher level of funding. It has been suggested during the reauthorization debate that money solves all formula problems. What this means, is that a large increase in program authorizations, giving all states significant new funding authority, makes a lot of the debate about program structure secondary. As a result, it becomes possible for proponents of different structural positions to compromise on programs and formulas. Whether this scenario is true or not remains to be seen. The availability of federal funds to accommodate a significant increase in program funding is problematic. The federal-aid highway program, and all other transportation programs reauthorized by this act, are part of the discretionary portion of the federal budget. Under current budget rules, additional spending for most items can only be accommodated by cuts in other discretionary categories and/or identified increases in federal revenues. Proponents of higher spending, which includes the proponents of every bill discussed in this report, are faced with the problem of convincing the respective House and Senate Budget Committees that additional funding for highways can be approved in accordance with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This is, in part, the genesis of the debate over taking the transportation trust funds off-budget or other possible trust fund budget treatments, taking place in Congress at this time. Appendix A: Federal-aid Highway Program Legislation: Annual Program Authorizations ($ millions)a | TABLE OR GRAPHIC NOT SHOWN HERE | ENDNOTES (1) This report discusses legislative proposals to reauthorize ISTEA federal-aid highway programs. It will be updated as significant new legislation is introduced. For the most current information about pending legislation please consult the Legislative Information System (LIS) at http://www.congress.gov. (2) For a discussion of highway safety issues see: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Federal Traffic Safety Programs and Grants: Issues and Options for Reauthorization. CRS Report 97-271 SPR. By Paul F. Rothberg and Brad A. Trullinger. (3) For a discussion of DBEs see: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Affirmative Action: Recent Congressional and Presidential Activity. CRS Report 97-527 GOV. By Andorra Bruno; Minority and Women-Owned Business Programs of the Federal Government. CRS Report 95-757 GOV. By Mark Eddy; and Minority and SBE Contracting: Legal and Constitutional Developments. CRS Report 96-665 A. For a discussion of the issues associated with Davis-Bacon requirements see: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Davis-Bacon Act: Institutional Evolution and Public Policy. CRS Report 94-408 E. By William G. Whittaker. (4) The discussion in this section is drawn from U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Highway and Transit Program Reauthorization: ISTEA Revisited? CRS Report 97-194 E. by John W. Fischer and William A. Lipford. (5) For a more complete explanation of the STP see: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Surface Transportation Program: Background and Flexible Funding Provisions. CRS Report 95-1120 E, by William A. Lipford. (6) For a more detailed discussion of the CMAQ program and the transportation enhancement program see: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Air Quality and Transportation Enhancement Provisions in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. CRS Report 97-902 ENR. by David M. Bearden. (7) For a detailed discussion of the formula system associated with ISTEA see: U.S. General Accounting Office. Highway Funding: Alternatives for Distributing Federal Funds. Report GAO/RCED-96-6. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington. November 1995. 70 p. (8) For a discussion of the highway flexibility option see: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Transit Funding Under the Highway Flexibility Option: A Summary. CRS Report 95-536 E. by William A. Lipford. (9) STEP 21 is the only 5-year bill discussed in this report. There are two minor differences between the House and Senate bills. The first concerns total spending levels. The second deals with treatment of transportation enhancements. These will be discussed in the text. (10) BESTEA is the only 3-year bill discussed in this report. (11) During mark-up the Committee adopted a 6-year version of BESTEA, but did not report the bill. A number of changes of a technical nature were made in mark-up by a Manager's Amendment. Funding for the 6-year period is accomplished by adopting FY2000 authorization levels for each of the next 3 fiscal years. (12) H.R. 4 moves the transportation trust funds off-budget. For a discussion of this issue see: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Transportation Trust Funds: the Off-Budget Debate Continues. CRS Report 96-989. By John W. Fischer. (13) Only a portion of highway safety is under the jurisdiction of the Committee that authored this legislation. Additional safety titles will originate in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (14) The table presenting this FHWA analysis can be found at www.senate.gov/-epw/ita-dan.htm |
CRS Reports Home
|
||
 |
National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org |
 |