```

[Senate Report 111-59]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 126
111th Congress }                                              {  Report
  1st Session  }              SENATE                          {  111-59

======================================================================
 
              SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2009 

                                _______
                                

                 July 22, 2009.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mrs. Boxer, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1498]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, which 
considered an original bill (S. 1498) to provide an extension 
of highway programs authorized under the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
Users, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
and recommends that the bill do pass.

                      PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION

    The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2009 provides 
an extension of highway programs authorized under the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users through March of 2011.

                    GENERAL STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

    The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2009 will 
provide an extension of highway programs authorized under the 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). This legislation will 
extend, for an additional 18 months at 2009 funding levels, 
those programs that fall under titles I, V, and VI of SAFETEA-
LU.
    This bill is drafted in the form of a continuing 
resolution, so that all programs, activities and eligibilities 
are continued unless otherwise specified in the bill. The bill 
does not make policy changes. Based on this extension, the 
Federal Highway Administration will be able to release funding 
for Federal fiscal year 2010 and half of fiscal year 2011.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

            Summary
    Section 1 designates the short title as the ``Surface 
Transportation Extension Act of 2009''.

Section 2. Federal-Aid highways

Section 2(a) In general

            Summary
    Section 2(a) extends until March 31, 2011 the requirements, 
authorities, conditions, eligibilities, limitations, and other 
provisions authorized under titles I, V, and VI of SAFETEA-LU, 
the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008, and title 23 
of U.S. Code, which would otherwise expire on or cease to apply 
after September 30, 2009.
            Discussion
    This provision is intended to extend all the provisions of 
SAFETEA-LU or any amendment made by that act, unless otherwise 
provided for in this bill, through March 31, 2011. This 
language is intended to make clear that the process that is 
used to deliver programs, including all of the existing 
requirements associated with them, will continue. For example, 
all of the existing planning and contracting provisions, and 
the requirements under 1101(b) of SAFETEA-LU would apply during 
the extension period.

Section 2(b) Authorization of appropriations

            Summary
    Section 2(b)(1) and (b)(2) authorizes appropriations out of 
the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
for fiscal year 2010 at a sum equal to the total amount 
authorized for programs, projects, and activities for fiscal 
year 2009 under titles I, V, and VI of SAFETEA-LU and title 23 
of U.S. Code, and for the period beginning on October 1, 2010 
and ending on March 31, 2011 a sum equal to \1/2\ of the total 
amount authorized for programs, projects and activities for 
fiscal year 2009 under titles I, V, and VI of SAFETEA-LU and 
title 23 of U.S. Code.
            Discussion
    These subsections are intended to continue 2009 funding 
levels, as authorized in SAFETEA-LU, for fiscal year 2010 and 
the first six months of fiscal year 2011. This provision sets 
the total funding levels for programs in these titles, 
including administrative expenses in section 3.

Section 2(c)(1) and (c)(2) Use of funds

            Summary
    Section 2 subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) clarify that funds 
authorized in section 2(b) for fiscal year 2010 and the period 
beginning on October 1, 2010 and ending on March 31, 2011 shall 
be distributed, administered, limited and made available in the 
same manner and at the same level as funds authorized to be 
appropriated for fiscal year 2009 to carry out programs, 
projects, activities, eligibilities, and requirements under 
SAFETEA-LU, the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2009, 
and title 23 of U.S. Code.
            Discussion
    These subsections clarify the use of funds made available 
under section 2(b) to ensure those funds are distributed, 
administered, limited and made available for obligation in the 
same manner and at the same levels as funds made available in 
fiscal year 2009 to carry out SAFETEA-LU. For the period 
beginning on October 1, 2010 and ending on March 31, 2011, 
funds are to be distributed, administered, limited and made 
available for obligation in the same manner and at the same 
level as \1/2\ of the total amount authorized to be 
appropriated in fiscal year 2009. These subsections 
specifically address the flow of funding made available in 
2(b), addressing the distribution across the States.
    Unless noted elsewhere in this act, all programs, projects, 
activities, eligibilities and requirements of SAFETEA-LU are to 
be continued through March 31, 2011.

Section 2(c)(3) Calculation

            Summary
    Section 2 subsection (c)(3) clarifies that amounts 
authorized to be appropriated under 2(b) shall be calculated 
without regard to any rescission or cancellation of funds or 
contract authority for fiscal year 2009.
            Discussion
    This provision clarifies that funding levels in this bill 
are to be calculated using fiscal year 2009 funding levels 
prior to any rescissions. In calculating the distribution of 
funding by program, the agency should continue the 
relationships among the core formula programs in calculating 
and distributing funding into the individual program accounts 
within each State's share of the total funds.

Section 2(c)(4) Contract authority

            Summary
    Section 2 subsection (c)(4) provides contract authority for 
funds authorized to be appropriated under section 2.
            Discussion
    This subsection provides contract authority for the funds 
authorized to be appropriated under section 2. This subsection 
also exempts from any obligation limitations $639,000,000 in 
annualized contract authority provided in section 105 of title 
23, U.S. Code, and $100,000,000 in permanent and indefinite 
contract authority for the Emergency Relief program under 
section 125 of title 23, U.S. Code.

Section 2(c)(5) Limitation on obligations

            Summary
    Section 2 subsection (c)(5) clarifies that funds authorized 
to be appropriated under subsection (b) and (c) are subject to 
the limitation on obligations for fiscal year 2009 under 
section 1102 of SAFETEA-LU. For fiscal year 2011, the 
obligation limitation would be equal to half of the limitation 
on obligations for fiscal year 2009 under section 1102 of 
SAFETEA-LU.
            Discussion
    This subsection makes clear that the funds provided in this 
act (except those otherwise exempted) are subject to the 
obligation limitations set out in section 1102 of SAFETEA-LU.

Section 2(d) Extension and flexibility for certain allocated programs

Section 2(d)(1) Fiscal year 2010

            Summary
    Section 2 subsection (d)(1) ensures that for fiscal year 
2010 a State receives the same portion of the share of funds 
under section (b) as determined by the amount the State 
received in fiscal year 2009 to carry out sections 1301, 1302, 
1307, 1702, and 1934 of SAFETEA-LU and section 144(f) of title 
23, U.S. Code. And that those funds are made available to the 
State for programs apportioned under sections 104(b) and 144 of 
title 23 of U.S. Code in the same proportion for each such 
program that the amount apportioned to the state for that 
program for fiscal year 2009 bears to the amount apportioned to 
the state for fiscal year 2009 for all programs apportioned 
under such sections of Code, and administered in the same 
manner and with the same period of availability as such funding 
is administered under such sections.
            Discussion
    This subsection ensures each state receives the same 
portion of funds in fiscal year 2010 as they did in fiscal year 
2009 to carry out sections 1301, 1302, 1307, 1702, and 1934 of 
SAFETEA-LU and section 144(f) of title 23, U.S. Code. Further, 
this subsection requires states to use those funds on and 
administer them in the same manner as any program apportioned 
under 104(b) and 144 of title 23, U.S. Code.

Section 2(d)(2) Fiscal year 2011

            Summary
    Section 2 subsection (d)(2) ensures that for the period 
beginning on October 1, 2010 and ending on March 31, 2011, a 
State shall receive the portion of the share of the funds under 
section (b) as determined by \1/2\ of the amount the State 
received in fiscal year 2009 to carry out sections 1301, 1302, 
1307, 1702, and 1934 of SAFETEA-LU and 144(f) of title 23, U.S. 
Code. And that those funds are made available to the State for 
programs apportioned under sections 104(b) and 144 of title 23 
of U.S. Code, and in the same proportion for each such program 
that the amount apportioned to the State for that program for 
fiscal year 2009 bears to the amount apportioned to the State 
for fiscal year 2009 for all programs apportioned under such 
sections of Code, and administered in the same manner and with 
the same period of availability as such funding is administered 
under such sections.
            Discussion
    This subsection ensures that for the period between October 
1, 2010 and March 31, 2011, each State receives \1/2\ of the 
same portion of funds in fiscal year 2010 as they did in fiscal 
year 2009 to carry out sections 1301, 1302, 1307, 1702, and 
1934 of SAFETEA-LU and section 144(f) of title 23, U.S. Code. 
Further, this subsection requires states to use those funds on 
and administer them in the same manner as any program 
apportioned under sections 104(b) and 144 of title 23, U.S. 
Code.

Section 2(d)(3) Additional funds

            Summary
    Section 2 subsection (d)(3) ensures that no additional 
funds shall be provided for any project or activity under 
subsection (c) that the Secretary of Transportation determines 
was sufficiently funded before or during fiscal year 2009 to 
achieve the authorized purpose. Subsection (d) further 
clarifies that any funds made available as a result of the 
Secretary of Transportation's determination shall be reserved 
by the Secretary and redistributed to each State in accordance 
with paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (c), or paragraph (1) 
or (2) of subsection (d) as appropriate to carry out other 
highway projects and activities extended by subsection (c). 
Those funds will be redistributed in the portion that the total 
amount of funds made available in 2009 for projects and 
activities described in subparagraph (A) in the State bears to 
the total amount of funds made available for fiscal year 2009 
for those projects and activities in all States.
            Discussion
    This section makes clear that projects or activities that 
are completed or have achieved their authorized purposes do not 
need to be continued under this section. Additional funding 
provided in this bill for projects or activities that are 
determined by the Secretary to have already been sufficiently 
funded would then be made available to the State for programs 
apportioned under sections 104(b) and 144 of title 23, U.S. 
Code. The Secretary should distinguish between those projects 
and activities that were in place prior to SAFETEA-LU and thus 
are of a continuing nature as opposed to those that were 
authorized for the SAFETEA-LU period alone.

Section 2(e) Extension of authorizations under Title V of SAFETEA-LU

            Summary
    Comparable to the treatment of grant programs in Section 
2(c) above, Section 2(e) extends the SAFETEA-LU research 
programs in paragraphs (1) through (5) at the fiscal year 2009 
levels for fiscal year 2010 and half of fiscal year 2011 in the 
style of a continuing resolution. The Title V programs include 
Surface Transportation Research, Development and Deployment 
Program (STRDD), Training and Education, Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics, University Transportation Research, 
and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Research.
    Treatment of SAFETEA-LU designations. A number of the 
designated projects, particularly under STRDD, were established 
only as one-time activities; the bill clarifies that such 
activities should not be duplicated during the extension. The 
Secretary is charged with identifying those projects or 
activities that have satisfied the SAFETEA-LU authorized 
purpose and assuring that an amount equal to that funding is 
allocated during the extension period to STRDD. Further, it is 
the intention of this legislation that the full funding 
available to STRDD be devoted to the major program areas in the 
same relative amounts as were actually used during the SAFETEA-
LU period.
            Discussion
    Extension Research Priorities. The FHWA Administrator is 
encouraged, as part of the agency's overall program delivery 
functions, to elevate the importance placed on data collection, 
data analysis, and tool development as they are critical to 
informing the actions taken by grantees under FHWA core 
programs. Each of the major research program areas continued 
under this bill can have an important part to play in 
supporting these efforts, including monitoring system condition 
and performance, analysis of such system performance data, 
modeling of the relevant relationships with outcomes of 
transportation investments including operations, and other 
tools that are necessary to adopt a performance-based asset 
management approach. These should be emphasized during the 18-
month extension period as a means to prepare for the next 
generation of investment and operations. Implementation of 
research studies, conducted in-house and supplemented with 
these resources, should reflect the following priorities within 
each of the major program areas:
    (1) Safety: conduct studies that will improve safety 
through better information on crash locations and causes in 
support of Strategic Highway Safety Plans
    (2) Infrastructure: conduct studies that expedite the 
improvement, development, and deployment of asset management 
tools that will help identify and evaluate investment and 
operational options that in turn improve system preservation 
and new capacity decisions
    (3) Operations: conduct studies that will develop and 
improve analytic tools to advance the deployment of investment 
and operational strategies for more efficient freight networks 
and reduced congestion
    (4) Planning: conduct studies and analyses to support 
regional, metropolitan and freight planning; identify links 
between data requirements necessary to establish performance 
baselines in (1), (2) and (3) above and planning requirements 
as appropriate; incorporate modeling of mode choice and non-
motorized travel into existing tools; develop outcome-based 
analytic tools to monitor impacts of investments and 
operational decisions on system performance to provide feedback 
into the planning process
    (5) Policy: building upon prior studies and tests including 
by the Transportation Research Board, Section 1909 and Section 
11142 Commissions, NCHRP 20-24 (69) Implementable Strategies 
for Shifting to Direct Usage-Based Charges for Transportation 
Funding, and field tests conducted in Oregon, Puget Sound, and 
by the University of Iowa, conduct studies that evaluate the 
feasibility, approaches and methods of assessing fees on 
highway users that result in sustainable funding mechanisms; 
design the initial phase of pilot studies for subsequent 
consideration
    (6) Corporate: conduct the overall research program such 
that the above program areas are effective and mutually 
supportive including consideration of integrating the various 
data systems for efficiency of data collection, reporting, and 
analysis
    FHWA is encouraged to work closely with data providers 
across the agency, elsewhere in the Department, with State 
DOTs, and with MPOs. The Secretary is encouraged to continue to 
communicate routinely with the appropriate Congressional 
committees as to its findings and provide a report to Congress 
12 months after enactment of the Act.

Section 3. Administrative expenses

            Summary
    Section 3 authorizes funds to be appropriated from the 
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for 
the administrative expenses of the Federal-aid highway program. 
For fiscal year 2010 a total of $422,425,000 is authorized, and 
for the period beginning on October 1, 2010 and ending on March 
31, 2011 a total of $217,023,500 is authorized. This section 
also provides contract authority for the funds authorized under 
this section.
            Discussion
    The funds authorized in Section 3 are not in addition to 
the total amounts authorized but are to be provided out of the 
funds made available in Section 2 of the legislation.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    On July 15, 2009 the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works considered an original bill to provide an 
extension of highway programs authorized under the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users. Senators Boxer and Inhofe offered a technical 
amendment to ensure that the research program under SAFETEA-LU 
would be continued and that the projects and activities that 
were completed under SAFETEA-LU were not replicated in the 
extension but funding for those projects would be redirected to 
the Title V research program. This amendment was adopted by 
voice vote. Senators Boxer and Inhofe offered a second 
technical amendment that corrected the funding levels for 
Department of Transportation administrative expenses, which was 
adopted by voice vote.
    Senator Voinovich offered an amendment to reduce the period 
of the extension of the Federal-aid highway programs to one 
year, ending on September 20, 2010. He offered a second degree 
amendment to his amendment which corrected the date by changing 
it from September 20, 2010 to September 30, 2010. The second 
degree amendment was adopted by voice vote. The Voinovich 
amendment as amended failed by roll call vote with 11 nays and 
8 yeas.
    Senator Bond offered an amendment to repeal Section 10212 
of SAFETEA-LU therefore canceling the rescission of unobligated 
funds scheduled to occur on September 30, 2009, which failed by 
roll call vote with 14 nays and 5 yeas. The Surface 
Transportation Extension Act of 2009 as amended was reported 
favorably to the Senate with 18 yeas and 1 nay.

                                HEARINGS

    On June 25, 2009 the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works held a hearing entitled the ``Impacts of Expected 
Highway Trust Fund Insolvency'' at which members discussed the 
need for an infusion of revenue into the highway trust fund and 
an 18 month extension of SAFETEA-LU.

                            ROLL CALL VOTES

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to 
consider the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2009 on 
July 15, 2009. Senator Voinovich offered an amendment to reduce 
the period of the extension of the Federal-aid highway programs 
to one year, ending on September 20, 2010. The Voinovich 
amendment as amended failed by roll call vote with 11 nays and 
8 yeas.
    Senator Bond offered an amendment to repeal Section 10212 
of SAFETEA-LU therefore canceling the rescission of unobligated 
funds scheduled to occur on September 30, 2009, which failed by 
roll call vote with 14 nays and 5 yeas. Following amendments, a 
quorum of the Committee being present, the Surface 
Transportation Extension Act of 2009 as amended was reported 
favorably to the Senate with 18 yeas and 1 nay.

                      REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

    In compliance with section 11(b)(2) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee estimates that no 
regulatory impact is expected by the passage of the bill. The 
bill will not affect the personal privacy of individuals. As 
noted below, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that 
the bill will not establish any private-sector mandates.

                          MANDATES ASSESSMENT

    In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4), the Committee finds, consistent with the 
determination of the Congressional Budget Office, that the 
Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2009 would impose no 
Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State, local or 
tribal governments. The Committee further agrees with the 
Congressional Budget Office that the bill does not impose 
private sector mandates.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office.

                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

S. 1498--The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2009

    Summary: The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2009 
would extend through March 30, 2011, Federal-Aid Highway 
programs authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU; Public Law 
109-59). The bill would set the amount of contract authority 
(the authority to incur obligations in advance of 
appropriations and a mandatory form of budget authority) at 
$43.2 billion for 2010 and at $21.6 billion for the period from 
October 1, 2010, to March 30, 2011.
    Consistent with the rules in the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act for constructing the baseline, 
CBO assumes that funding provided by the bill for the first six 
months of fiscal year 2011 would continue at the same rate 
through the rest of that year and in each of the following 
years. Hence, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would result 
in baseline contract authority totaling $432 billion over the 
2010-2019 period. That funding level represents an increase of 
$119 billion ($11.9 billion per year) above the amounts of 
contract authority for highway programs currently projected in 
CBO's baseline for the 2010-2019 period.
    CBO expects that most spending from the highway program 
will continue to be controlled by limits on annual obligations 
set in appropriations acts. Consequently, the changes in 
contract authority would not increase mandatory outlays. CBO 
estimates that, subject to the enactment of annual obligation 
limitations for the 18-month period of program extension, 
implementing the bill would increase discretionary spending by 
$60.6 billion over the 2010-2019 period. CBO estimates that 
enacting the bill would not affect revenues.
    This bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of the legislation is summarized in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 400 (transportation).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  By fiscal year, in billions of dollars--
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2010    2011    2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019   2010-2014  2010-2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDINGEstimated Budget Authority........................    11.9    11.9    11.9    11.9    11.9    11.9    11.9    11.9    11.9    11.9      59.5      119.0
Estimated Outlays.................................       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0         0          0                                                      CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONObligation Limitation.............................    41.2    20.6       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0         0          0
Estimated Outlays\1\..............................    11.0    22.3    15.0     5.5     2.8     1.7     1.2     0.8     0.2       0      56.6      60.61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Estimated discretionary outlays reflect use of funds under the 2010 and part-year 2011 obligation limitations that the bill specifies. (Outlays
  stemming from additional contract authority shown in the table would be authorized in future legislation that covers the period after the 18-month
  program extension.)

    Basis of estimate:

Changes in direct spending

    The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2009 would 
extend through March 30, 2011, Federal-Aid Highway programs 
authorized by SAFETEA-LU, the current authorization for 
transportation programs. For highway programs, the bill would 
set the amount of contract authority (the authority to incur 
obligation in advance of appropriations and a mandatory form of 
budget authority) at $43.2 billion for 2010 and at $21.6 
billion for the period from October 1, 2010, to March 30, 2011.
    The bill would provide contract authority for highway 
programs at the same level authorized in SAFETEA-LU for 2009, 
notwithstanding any rescissions or cancellations of contract 
authority in either SAFETEA-LU or any other act. SAFETEA-LU 
provided $43.0 billion in contract authority for 2009. However, 
SAFETEA-LU and the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 
111-8) contained rescissions of the 2009 program's contract 
authority that totaled $11.9 billion. The Omnibus 
Appropriations Act also provided $143 million in additional 
contract authority for highway programs. The Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act specifies that the baseline 
projection for the cost of an expiring mandatory program with 
current-year outlays in excess of $50 million be assumed to 
continue at the program level in place when it is scheduled to 
expire. As a result, CBO incorporated those rescissions and 
additions to contract authority in its baseline for highway 
programs over the 2010-2019 period.
    Further, each year, SAFETEA-LU allows states to elect to 
have the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administer up to 
$1 billion of highway contract authority that is available to 
be spent on transit projects. Because the amounts transferred 
to FTA would be available for transit programs with or without 
the formal transfer of funds between the highway and transit 
programs, CBO did not consider those transfers for the purposes 
of calculating the increase in contract authority for the 
highway program resulting from this legislation. Combined with 
the rescissions and additions contained in SAFETEA-LU and the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-8), the contract 
authority available for highway programs is $31.3 billion in 
2009, and CBO projects that same amount in subsequent years. As 
a result, CBO estimates that the bill would add $11.9 billion 
(the difference between $43.2 billion and $31.3 billion) of 
contract authority annually to the baseline over the 2010-2019 
period.
    CBO expects that most spending from the highway program 
will be controlled by limits on annual obligations set in 
appropriations acts. Consequently, the changes in contract 
authority would not increase mandatory outlays. SAFETEA-LU 
exempts certain portions of the Federal-Aid Highway program 
from the obligation limitations set in appropriations acts, 
resulting in mandatory outlays. Under the bill and under 
current law, a total of $739 million each year from the Equity 
Bonus and the Emergency Relief programs is exempt from any 
limitation on obligations in 2010 and in each of the following 
years. That sum is equal to the baseline level of exempt 
contract authority for those programs. As a result, the bill 
would not increase outlays from direct spending relative to the 
baseline.

Changes in spending subject to appropriation

    CBO expects that the contract authority provided in the 
bill would be controlled by limitations on obligations 
contained in annual appropriation acts. CBO's estimate of 
discretionary spending under this legislation reflects the 
proposed obligation limitation that would be provided under the 
bill and does not include projections of that authority. The 
bill would extend the obligation limitations contained in 
SAFETEA-LU--$41.2 billion for 2010 and $20.6 billion for the 
first six months of 2011. Traditionally, along with the 
contract authority discussed above, states have elected to use 
$1 billion of those amounts annually for transit programs 
administered by FTA. This transfer of authority to enter into 
contracts and to obligate funds affects how quickly spending 
occurs because spending for transit programs traditionally 
occurs more slowly than spending for highway programs.
    Consistent with historical spending patterns of highway and 
transit programs and subject to the enactment of the 2010 and 
part-year 2011 obligation limitations, CBO estimates that 
implementing the bill would cost $11.0 billion in 2010 and 
$60.6 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector mandates: This bill 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Sarah Puro; Impact on 
state, local, and tribal governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on 
the private sector: Jacob Kuipers.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made 
by the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no 
changes to existing law.

                                  

```