99–010

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, 

2

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 

3

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. 

4

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-yougo procedures would not apply. 

5

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 Level1 ................................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................................... 1,491 2,320 939 331 221

1Budget 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 FederalAid 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. 

6

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 øblack 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. 

* * * * * * *

7

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, ø$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; 

8

1Margin so in law. 

(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; (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: ø$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; 

* * * * * * *

Æ