Obama Good Link: Funding Distribution Fights over funding distribution. Dilger 11. [Robert Jay, Senior Specialist in American National in Surface Transportation Policy: Government, “Federalism Issues Past and Research Service -- January 5 -- http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40431.pdf] Present” Congressional bills Several have been introduced during previous Congresses that would fundamentally change existing federal, state, and local in surface transportation policy. government roles and responsibilities For example, Senator Jim DeMint and Representative Jeff Flake introduced legislation during the 109 th Congress and Senator DeMint introduced legislation in the 110 th Congress (S. 2823) that would phase-out most of the federal fuel and excise taxes that support the Highway Trust Fund over five years; preserve federal responsibility for interstate highways, transportation facilities on public lands, national transportation research and safety programs, and emergency transportation assistance; and devolve most other surface transportation programs to states. 3 In addition, during previous reauthorizations some congressional Members from states “donor” (states whose highway users advocated pay more in estimated federal highway tax revenue to the Highway Trust Fund than that state receives from the program) program devolution as a means to achieve program efficiencies and to address what they viewed as an inequitable recent reauthorizations have focused a distribution of federal surface transportation funds to states. 4 As will be discussed, great deal of attention on resolving disagreements among donor and donee states concerning the distribution of the funds. donor states are located in the South and the Mid-West program’s Because many and donee states are located in the Northeast, Pacific Rim, and Western states, many sparsely populated recent reauthorizations have taken on a regional perspective, pitting states from one region against another. Although most governors and state legislative leaders have been united in their advocacy of additional federal funding with minimal restrictions the donor-donee debates in recent reauthorizations have divided them. on the use of those funds,
Obama Good Link: Funding Distribution Fights over funding distribution. Dilger 11. [Robert Jay, Senior Specialist in American National Government, “Federalism Issues in Surface Transportation Policy: Past and Present” Congressional Research Service -- January 5 -- http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40431.pdf] Several bills have been introduced during previous Congresses that would fundamentally change existing federal, state, and local government roles and responsibilities in surface transportation policy. For example, Senator Jim DeMint and Representative Jeff Flake introduced legislation during the 109 th Congress and Senator DeMint introduced legislation in the 110 th Congress (S. 2823) that would phase-out most of the federal fuel and excise taxes that support the Highway Trust Fund over five years; preserve federal responsibility for interstate highways, transportation facilities on public lands, national transportation research and safety programs, and emergency transportation assistance; and devolve most other surface transportation programs to states. 3 In addition, during previous reauthorizations some congressional Members from “donor” states (states whose highway users pay more in estimated federal highway tax revenue to the Highway Trust Fund than that state receives from the program) advocated program devolution as a means to achieve program efficiencies and to address what they viewed as an inequitable distribution of federal surface transportation funds to states. 4 As will be discussed, recent reauthorizations have focused a great deal of attention on resolving disagreements among donor and donee states concerning the distribution of the program’s funds. Because many donor states are located in the South and the Mid-West and many donee states are located in the Northeast, Pacific Rim, and sparsely populated Western states, recent reauthorizations have taken on a regional perspective, pitting states from one region against another. Although most governors and state legislative leaders have been united in their advocacy of additional federal funding with minimal restrictions on the use of those funds, the donor-donee debates in recent reauthorizations have divided them.