In 2009 this was not the case. The law authorizing federal surface transportation programs expired at the end of FY2009, but Congress has failed to enact a new authorization. Surface transportation programs continue to operate on the basis of authority provided in continuing resolutions and extension legislation. Reauthorization has become a difficult undertaking in the last two decades. The most recent multi-year law, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA) ( P.L. 109-59 ) was enacted 22 months after previous legislation had originally expired. This report focuses on the major issues underlying the SAFETEA reauthorization debate. The Federal-Aid Highway Program

The modern federal-aid highway program dates to the 1956 enactment of legislation that provided for the construction of the interstate highway system and created the highway trust fund to finance its construction. The largest allocated program is for congressionally mandated High Priority Projects Program. ), the fuel taxes provide about 90% of the income to the funds. The immediate choice for policymakers, therefore, is to find new sources of revenue for the trust fund, or alternately, to settle for a smaller surface transportation program that might look very different than the one currently in place. In addition, overriding concerns regarding reducing the federal budget deficit could trump efforts to increase or even maintain current spending on surface transportation infrastructure. In the last three surface transportation authorization bills, the donor/donee issue was resolved only by the availability of more money and the creation of a process to distribute it. In the intervening decades, it has become difficult to discern how federal surface transportation spending relates to national needs, as the vast majority of the funding is granted to states and localities based not on maximizing the national return on transportation investment, but as an entitlement to be spent largely as state and, to a lesser extent, local authorities think best. Reducing program size. This funding could also be subject to a rate-of-return guarantee. This flexibility also has allowed transfers between highway and mass transit programs. This includes federal transit program funds. Congestion frustrates a freight carrier's ability to provide reliable scheduling. Congress also faces competing claims for how transportation research funding should be used. During the reauthorization process, there will likely be debate regarding the level of CMAQ funding and possibly the types of projects eligible for funding.
The law authorizing federal surface transportation programs expired at the end of FY2009, but Congress has failed to enact a new authorization. Surface transportation programs continue to operate on the basis of authority provided in extension legislation.
This situation should not be a surprise to those familiar with the history of the reauthorization process. Especially during the last two decades, reauthorization has become a difficult undertaking. This is primarily due to controversy over how and to whom federal-aid highway funds should be distributed. The most recent law, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA) (P.L. 109-59), was enacted 22 months after previous legislation had originally expired. Previous reauthorization bills also were enacted well behind schedule.
The most difficult issue to be considered during reauthorization is how to finance federal surface transportation programs. The highway trust fund and the revenue sources that feed it have been a reliable mechanism for financing highway and transit programs for five decades, but this is no longer the case. Fuel taxes, which provide most of the money for surface transportation, are unlikely to provide a solid long-term foundation for the programs, although a rate increase could help in the near-term. The choice for policymakers, therefore, is to find new sources of income for the current-size program or an expanded program, or alternately, to settle for a smaller program that might look very different from the one currently in place. The growing consensus on the need to reduce the federal budget deficit will likely influence this debate.
One perennial subject of debate concerning the highway program is whether grants to individual states are in line with the taxes those states' motorists pay into the highway trust fund—the so-called donor-donee issue. Program consolidation, restructuring, and elimination are expected to receive extensive congressional attention due to public concerns about the condition of the nation's transportation infrastructure and the efficiency of existing programs. The speed of project delivery and environmental review streamlining are of growing interest in Congress. Congress also can be expected to look closely at transit program spending levels and priorities. Freight and passenger rail issues have also been of growing importance in recent years and figure to get significantly more attention than in past reauthorization debates.
This report will not track legislative action on surface transportation reauthorization.