[Senate Report 107-163]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 422
107th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 107-163
======================================================================
HIGHWAY FUNDING RESTORATION ACT
_______
June 17, 2002.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Jeffords, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1917]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred a bill (S. 1917) to provide for highway infrastructure
investment at the guaranteed funding level contained in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
Background
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
created a budgetary mechanism to tie funding for the Federal-
aid highway program to highway user fee revenues deposited into
the Highway Trust Fund. Known as Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority (RABA), this mechanism adjusts the guaranteed amount
available for highway funding to reflect the most recent
estimates of trust fund revenues. The intent of the RABA
adjustment is to more closely align the trust fund's receipts
to its outlays. The RABA mechanism accomplishes this by
``looking back'' at the prior fiscal years receipts into the
trust fund and ``looking ahead'' to the trust fund's projected
receipts for the coming fiscal year. The highway obligation
limit and the highway category discretionary cap then are
adjusted by the amount of the resulting RABA calculation.
After three years of positive annual RABA adjustments in
fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002, the fiscal year 2003 RABA
adjustment was a negative $4.4 billion due in part to a
downturn in Highway Trust Fund revenues. Included in the
President's budget proposal, this negative adjustment equated
to an $8.6 billion swing from the 2002 enacted highway funding
level, a 27 percent cut.
The committee strongly supports the principle behind the
RABA calculation. But the committee also has received testimony
that there is a need for some adjustment of the RABA mechanism
to mitigate year-to-year fluctuations.
The committee introduced S. 1917 to provide predictability
and sustainability to the Federal-aid highway program. As
amended, S. 1917 deems the fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustment to
be zero, restores the TEA-21 guaranteed funding level for
fiscal year 2003, and increases that amount by an additional
$1.2 billion, setting the obligation limit for the coming
fiscal year at $28.9 billion.
Section-By-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title
The Highway Funding Restoration Act
Section 2. Federal-aid Highway Program Obligation Ceiling
Summary
Section 2 amends section 1102 of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to set the fiscal year 2003
obligation limit for the Federal-aid highway and highway safety
construction program at $28.9 billion and directs distribution
of the funds in accordance with section 1102 of TEA-21.
Discussion
This section sets the obligation limitation for fiscal year
2003 at $28.9 billion. This figure represents a level of
highway funding sustainable by current cash balances in the
Highway Trust Fund.
This section also directs the distribution of the restored
funding levels according to section 1102 of TEA-21.
Section 3. Increase In Discretionary Spending Limit and Obligation
Limitations for Highway Category
Summary
Section 3 amends section 251(c)(7)(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and section
8103(a)(5) of TEA-21.
Discussion
This section amends current budget law by setting the
fiscal year 2003 discretionary spending limit for the highway
category at $29.282 billion. This change increases the highway
category discretionary spending limit to accommodate the
obligation limit authorized by this Act.
Section 4. Restoration of Highway Category Spending Guarantee
Summary
Section 4 deems all fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustments made
to the highway budget category and the obligation limit to be
zero. Section 4 then applies this result retroactively to all
reports issued pursuant to section 254 of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, including the
discretionary sequestration preview report.
Discussion
Section 4 deems the adjustments to the obligation limit and
the outlay levels for the highway category to be zero and
applies this change to the RABA adjustment to the President's
February 2002 budget submission.
Section 5. Sense of the Congress Regarding Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority
It is the sense of the Congress that future legislation
should amend the TEA-21 RABA mechanism to more accurately align
highway spending with highway revenues.
Section 6. Sense of the Senate Concerning Distribution of Funds
It is the sense of the Senate that all funds authorized and
appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for Federal-aid highway and
highway construction programs be distributed in accordance with
TEA-21.
Legislative History
Senator Jeffords introduced S. 1917, the ``Highway Funding
Restoration Act'', on February 7, 2002 with all 19 members of
the Committee on Environment and Public Works as original
cosponsors. When the committee reported S. 1917, it had 75
cosponsors. The committee reported the bill, as amended, on
June 4, 2002.
Hearings
On February 11, 2002, the committee discussed S. 1917
during a hearing on the Highway Trust, the RABA mechanism, and
the President's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal.
Rollcall Votes
The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to
consider S. 1917 on June 4, 2002. By voice vote, the committee
adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
Senators Jeffords and Smith. The committee also accepted an
amendment to the Jeffords-Smith substitute offered by Senators
Baucus and Warner. The committee agreed to S. 1917, as amended,
by voice vote.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee makes evaluation of
the regulatory impact of the reported bill.
The bill does not create any additional regulatory burdens,
nor will it cause any adverse impact on the personal privacy of
individuals.
Mandates Assessment
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the committee finds that S. 1917 would
impose no unfunded mandates on local, State, or tribal
governments.
Cost of Legislation
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be
included in the report. That statement follows:
Cost of Legislation
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be
included in the report. That statement follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 11, 2002.
Hon. James M. Jeffords, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1917, the Highway
Funding Restoration Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel
Milberg, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen.
----------
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
S. 1917, Highway Funding Restoration Act As ordered reported by the
Serrate Committee on Environment and Public Works on June 4,
2002.
Summary
S. 1917 would amend the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21) by authorizing an increase in the
obligation limitation for the Federal-Aid Highway program of
about $5.5 billion in 2003. TEA-21 provides budget authority
for the Federal-Aid Highway program in the form of contract
authority, the authority to incur obligations in advance of
appropriations. Spending from the program, however, is largely
controlled by limits on annual obligations set in
appropriations acts. Although TEA-21 includes specific
obligation limitations for the Federal-Aid Highway program,
each year appropriation acts include a limitation that may or
may not be the same as the amounts in TEA-21.
Assuming the 2003 appropriations act includes an obligation
limitation equal to the limitation in the bill, CBO estimates
that implementing S. 1917 would cost about $5.3 billion over
the 2003-2007 period, and an additional $0.2 billion after
2007. S.1917 would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
S. 1917 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sectormandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
CUIARA) and would benefit States.
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1917 is shown in the
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within
budget function 400 (transportation).
By Fiscal Year in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization Level\1\.......... 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............... 1,491 2,320 939 331 221
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Budget authority for the Federal-Aid Highway program is provided as
mandatory contract authority in authorization legislation such as TEA-
21. Changing the obligation limitation, as S. 1917 would do, does not
affect such budget authority.
Basis of Estimate
For thus estimate, CBO assumes that S. 1917 will be enacted
in fiscal year 2002, that the appropriation action for 2003
will adopt the new obligation limitation, and that spending
from the Federal-Aid Highway program will follow historical
patterns. Assuming the 2003 appropriations act sets a
limitation equal. to the level that would be authorized by S.
1917, implementing the bill would cost $5.5 billion over the
next seven years.
S. 1917 would increase both the obligation limitation and
the outlay cap association with the highway category for 2003.
Amending the outlay cap for the highway category would affect
the enforcement of limitations for discretionary spending, but
any effect on the budget would be subject to future
appropriation action. That is, the increase in the cap would
not-by itself-cause an increase in spending. The highway
category includes the Federal-Aid Highway program, programs for
motor carrier safety, and programs for highway traffic safety.
Pay-As-You-Go Considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact
S. 1917 contains no intergoverrmuental or private-sector
mandates as defined in UMRA. Enacting this bill would benefit
States by substantially increasing the level of Federal-Aid
Highway grants available in 2003. Because States voluntarily
participate in this program, any costs they would incur as a
result of the bill's enactment would be voluntary as well.
Previous CBO Estimate
On May 6, 2002, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act, as ordered reported
by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on
May 1, 2002. The House bill would amend TEA-21 by authorizing
an increase in the obligation limitation for the Federal-Aid
Highway program of almost $4.4 billion. S. 1917 would authorize
an increase of about $5.5 billion, and the estimated costs of
the two pieces of legislation reflect this difference.
Estimate Prepared By: Federal Costs: Rachel Milberg (226-2860);
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governrnents: Marjorie
Miller (225-3220); Impact on the Private Sector: Jean Talarico
(226-2940).
Estimate Approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill
as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in [black brackets], new matter is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman:
----------
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
Subtitle A--Authorizations and Programs
SEC. 1101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--The following sums are authorized to be
appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account):
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1102. OBLIGATION CEILING.
(a) General Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law but subject to subsections (g) and (h), the
obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety
construction programs shall not exceed--
* * * * * * *
(k) Restoration of Obligation Limitation for Fiscal Year
2003._Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety
construction programs for fiscal year 2003--
(1) shall be $28,900,000,000; and
(2) shall be distributed in accordance with this
section.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--TRANSPORTATION DISCRETIONARY SPENDING GUARANTEE AND BUDGET
OFFSETS
Subtitle A--Transportation Discretionary Spending Guarantee
SEC. 8101. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CATEGORIES.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 8103. LEVEL OF OBLIGATION LIMITATIONS.
(a) Highway Category.--* * *
* * * * * * *
(5) for fiscal year 2003, [$28,233,000,000]
$29,387,000,000.
* * * * * * *
----------
BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF 1985
Public Law 99-177, December 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1037
* * * * * * *
SEC. 251. ENFORCING DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
LIMITS.
(a) Enforcement.--
* * * * * * *
(c) Discretionary Spending Limit.--As used in this part,
the term ``discretionary spending limit'' means--
(1) with respect to fiscal year 1997, for the
discretionary category, the current adjusted limits of
new budget authority and outlays;
(2) with respect to fiscal year 1998--
(A) for the defense category:
$269,000,000,000 in new budget authority and
$266,823,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the nondefense category:
$252,357,000,000 in new budget authority and
$282,853,000,000 in outlays; and
(C) for the violent crime reduction
category: $5,500,000,000 in new budget
authority and $3,592,000,000 in outlays;
(3) with respect to fiscal year 1999--
(A) for the defense category:
$271,500,000,000 in new budget authority and
$266,518,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the nondefense category:
$255,699,000,000 in new budget authority and
$287,850,000,000 in outlays;
(C) for the violent crime reduction
category: $5,800,000,000 in new budget
authority and $4,953,000,000 in outlays;
(D) for the highway category:
$21,885,000,000 in outlays; and
(E) for the mass transit category:
$4,401,000,000 in outlays;
(4) with respect to fiscal year 2000--
(A) for the discretionary category:
$532,693,000,000 in new budget authority and
$558,711,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the violent crime reduction
category: $4,500,000,000 in new budget
authority and $5,554,000,000 in outlays;
(C) for the highway category:
$24,436,000,000 in outlays; and
(D) for the mass transit category:
$4,761,000,000 in outlays;.
(5) with respect to fiscal year 2001--
(A) \1\ for the discretionary category:
$637,000,000,000 in new budget authority and
$612,695,000,000 in outlays;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Margin so in law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) for the highway category:
$26,204,000,000 in outlays; and
(C) for the mass transit category:
$5,190,000,000 in outlays;
(6) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
(A) for the discretionary category:
$681,441,000,000 in new budget authority and
$670,206,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the highway category:
$26,977,000,000 in outlays;
(C) for the mass transit category:
$5,709,000,000 in outlays; and
(D) for the conservation spending category:
$1,760,000,000, in new budget authority and
$1,473,000,000 in outlays;
(7) with respect to fiscal year 2003--
(A) for the highway category:
[$27,728,000,000] $29,234,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the mass transit category:
$6,256,000,000 in outlays; and
(C) for the conservation spending category:
$1,920,000,000, in new budget authority and
$1,872,000,000 in outlays;
* * * * * * *