{
  "id": "R44811",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44811",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 460417,
      "date": "2017-04-12",
      "retrieved": "2018-05-10T13:42:28.294122",
      "title": "Surface Transportation Devolution",
      "summary": "Surface transportation \u201cdevolution\u201d refers to shifting most current federal responsibility for building and maintaining highways and public transportation systems from the federal government to the states. Devolution legislation has been introduced in each Congress since the mid-1990s, supported by Members who regard the federal government as being overinvolved in highways and public transportation. Under such proposals, the federal taxes that now support surface transportation programs, mostly fuels taxes, would be reduced in line with the shift of responsibility to the states. The states could then raise their own taxes to pay for highway and transit projects as they see fit. A small program, funded by much-reduced motor fuel taxes, would remain in place at the federal level to maintain roads on federal lands, fund highway safety efforts, and support other programs Congress decides not to devolve.\nBeyond the basic small government argument, advocates of devolution generally assert that it will lower costs and accelerate construction of highway and transit projects by freeing them from a wide variety of federal regulations. They also contend that devolution will be fairer than the present systems for distributing highway and public transportation funding, which give some states more money, relative to their residents\u2019 motor fuel tax payments, than other states. \nOpponents of devolution question whether it will save money and worry that it could interfere with national goals established by Congress, such as maintaining important interstate freight corridors and adhering to uniform national construction standards. They point out that the last two surface transportation reauthorization acts have greatly reduced the number of programs and given states greater control over highway expenditures while excluding earmarks, addressing some of the complaints that originally led to calls for devolution.\nThere are several significant issues Congress would face if it were to consider devolution. Among them are the following:\nDevolution would involve substantial upfront costs, possibly as much as $84 billion over a period of several years, to pay for outstanding highway and transit obligations. Even if the federal government hands responsibility for funding new highway and public transportation projects to the states, it would need to retain federal motor fuels taxes or some other revenue source until it has repaid the states for projects in progress as of the date devolution takes effect. \nReplacing the reduced federal taxes on a cent-for-cent basis would not provide enough revenue to fund the current level of spending on surface transportation. Nearly all states would have to increase their taxes by an amount larger than the reduction in federal taxes, unless they choose to reduce spending.\nDevolution would likely increase the use of tax-exempt bonds by the states, reducing federal revenue beyond the amount of forgone highway taxes.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44811",
          "sha1": "a1af0071ac6d77e29234babf78c3c5822bc67550",
          "filename": "files/20170412_R44811_a1af0071ac6d77e29234babf78c3c5822bc67550.html",
          "images": {
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44811_files&id=/0.png": "files/20170412_R44811_images_3b37e7547650ae1958cba6c6dd7e4f2902f3fd66.png"
          }
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44811",
          "sha1": "aa9fbdf06ebb223fdea1ba70d96b30f02473864f",
          "filename": "files/20170412_R44811_aa9fbdf06ebb223fdea1ba70d96b30f02473864f.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4826,
          "name": "Highways & Highway Vehicles"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4862,
          "name": "Federalism"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4867,
          "name": "Transportation Funding"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4892,
          "name": "Fiscal Policy & the Budget"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Environmental Policy",
    "Transportation Policy"
  ]
}