As Congress gears up to approve the expiring Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) for another six years, proposals to renew as well as reshape the $157 billion program are growing on Capitol Hill.
Several proposals, including President Clinton's, offer minimal changes to the program, which is set to expire Sept. 30, but some in Congress are advocating major revision, such as redistributing revenue from the federal gas tax and even turning the entire program back to the states to let them decide how to spend the money.
President Clinton's bill, introduced March 12 and known as NEXTEA, recommends a few changes and new programs, but basically maintains the same structure with an 11 percent increase in funding, from $157 billion over six years to a $175 billion six-year level.
S. 586, introduced by Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) and John Chafee (R-R.I.) also continues the current framework, though at a substantially increased funding level.
The bill is supported by the ISTEA Works Coalition of several governors, who seek to maintain the existing program structure, particularly the way money is allocated to the states from the federal gas tax through the Highway Trust Fund.
Treatment of the formula for distributing those monies is turning out to be one of the most divisive items in the whole process. Known as the "donee/donor" issue, states that receive more from the trust fund than they contribute are considered "donees"; "donor" states contribute more than they receive.
One of the alternative approaches can be found in H.R. 674, sponsored by Reps. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Gary Condit (D-Calif.). The legislation would adjust the formula to guarantee each state a return of at least 95 percent and would dramatically change the program structure of ISTEA. Many southern members of Congress, whose states are considered "donors," are supporting this measure, referred to as STEP 21, the Streamlined Transportation Efficiency Program for the 21st Century. S. 335, sponsored by Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Bob Graham (D-Fla.), is the companion Senate bill.
Still another bill (S. 532), sponsored by Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho), favors more gas tax revenue being returned to large states with little population and proposes a major restructuring of ISTEA.
The most extreme alternatives have been put forth by Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio) and Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) H.R. 1470 and S. 667 would reduce the federal gasoline tax by 12 cents by Oct. 1, 2001 and give states the option of replacing all or part of the revenue to pay for transportation programs.
NACo has taken no position on the donor/donee issue, but does oppose efforts to drastically change the framework of ISTEA in order to resolve it. "The existing structure works well," said Bob Fogel, who represents NACo's position on transportation issues. Under a new ISTEA, he added, "we don't want to see those programs change."
Elimination of the Bridge Program is another concern for NACo, which wants to keep it intact. S. 335, S.532 and H.R. 674 all propose to end it.
Another contentious matter is the treatment of funds used to help local governments comply with the Clean Air Act.
Members of Congress are at odds over ISTEA's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), presently authorized at $1 billion per year. Counties and cities have used the money to help bring them into compliance in various ways, such as spending more on transit or establishing carpool lanes. Also controversial is the Enhancements Program, at $400 million per year, which provides funding to promote different modes of transportation, such as refurbishing hiking and bicycle trails.
Critics contend that air quality has not been improved and that the original intent to get people to use other modes of transportation hasn't happened. The money should be put back into maintaining deteriorating roads, they argue.
The president's bill and the Moynihan/Chafee proposal both increase funding for CMAQ and the Enhancements Program.
The Warner/Graham bill eliminates CMAQ, giving states the option to spend money on pollution mitigation, but keep the Enhancements Program at the same level.
Under S. 532, "enhancements" would increase to about $480 million, however, CMAQ funding is lowered to $380 annually and available only to those states with air pollution problems.
The STEP 21 proposal would eliminate both programs, but give states flexibility to spend money on either.
NACo favors the continuation of the CMAQ, but wants funding for the Enhancements Program cut in half. "NACo members just want to ensure that the Enhancements Program funds, which come from the Highway Trust Fund, are for projects which are truly transportation-related," Fogel said.
Now that the House and Senate have passed the budget resolution, which sets broad parameters on taxing and spending, the House and Senate transportation committees will start deliberations very soon.
However, passage of the budget resolution was not done without a strong challenge from supporters of higher spending for highways and transit. The budget resolution called for about $22 billion a year for highways and $4 billion for transit. While a small increase, it was not enough in the eyes of some of the key players involved in ISTEA reauthorization. But efforts to increase funding by $12 billion were narrowly defeated in both the House and Senate.
Although chances for more funding may be slim, it is widely believed
that the availability of more money is key to resolving the donor/donee
and environmental issues.
NACo's policy on ISTEA reauthorization can be summed up in the following points: