amounts on the vouchers. When the appropriations committees met to consider the estimated total of funds that would be required during the coming year to pay the claims submitted by the States, they had simply to evaluate the accuracy of the estimate and provide the money in the legislation that the Federal Government had already made a legal commitment to pay.
Subsequent to 1923, the Federal-aid highway legislation generally contained some or all of the following: (1) Permission to start new or to revise existing programs; (2) permission for specific project demonstrations or requests for reports; and (3) funding for the highway operations programs.
The dollar amounts in these acts have always been provided for specific fiscal years. These amounts were usually apportioned or divided among the States by a formula established by law. The apportionments had to be made at least 6 months before the fiscal year for which they were authorized and were available for obligation for a period of 2 years after the end of the fiscal year for which authorized, at which time they lapsed. Therefore, sums apportioned were usually available for obligation for a minimum of 3½ years. What had been authorized, apportioned, and made available was the authority to incur obligations on behalf of the U.S. Government. No cash had yet exchanged hands.
Not all funds were apportioned, however. Some funds are not governed by a legislatively mandated apportionment formula. In these cases, the sums are divided among the States at the discretion of the Secretary of the department or, as in the case of emergency relief moneys, sums of money are triggered by events. These discretionary or administrative divisions are called allocations, as compared to the statutory formula divisions or apportionments.
Although funds were authorized for specific Federal-aid systems and programs, it was recognized that the apportionment formulas, equitable as they may be, would not always provide funds in the relative proportions that States required them. Therefore, Congress provided flexibility in the use of apportionments by permitting transfers between funding categories.
From 1923 to 1956 there were no significant changes in the basic system of legal and financial administration of the program. Some new categories of funds were created and special apportionment formulas were prescribed for specific funds, but the basic system remained intact.
When the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act was passed, it became title I of a two-part piece of legislation, the second part, title II, being the Highway Revenue Act of 1956. Title II created the Highway Trust Fund from which Federal-aid highway appropriations were to be drawn as well as the BPR administrative and research funding. The Highway Revenue Act also provided for the revenue sources to support the Fund.
Prior to the 1956 Act, all appropriations for the Federal-aid highway program came from the General Fund of the Treasury. Although Federal taxes on motor fuels and automotive products were in existence, there was no relationship between the level of revenues obtained from these excises and the level of funding for the highway program. The Highway Revenue Act increased some of the previously existing highway user taxes, established a number of new ones, and provided that most of the revenues would, be credited to the Highway Trust Fund and dedicated solely to the financing of the Federal-aid highway program.
The change in the method of financing the Federal-aid highway program was dictated primarily by the legislative decision contained in title I to provide authorizations for the completion of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways by June 30, 1972. Title I provided Interstate authorizations for fiscal years 1956 through 1969 totaling almost $25 billion. In addition, the Act greatly increased the level of authorizations for the regular primary, secondary and urban programs. The creation of the Highway Trust Fund made it possible for the public to accept the increased and new highway user taxes by placing the program on a wholly user-supported, pay-as-you-go basis.
Other significant changes made by the 1956 Act in the system of financial administration applicable only to the Interstate System were:
- The Federal share of the cost was 90 percent plus a computed increase for the public lands States to a total not to exceed 95 percent.
- The apportionments of authorizations to the States, beginning with fiscal year 1960, were to be made “. . . on a date as far in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year for which authorized as practicable but in no case more than eighteen months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which authorized.”
- Beginning with the authorization for fiscal year 1960, the apportionment to the States was prescribed to be “. . . in the ratio which the estimated cost of completing the Interstate System in each State . . . bears to the sum of the estimated cost of completing the Interstate System in all of the States.” The cost estimates were to be prepared at frequent intervals to assure that no State was given more than was required to complete the System within that State and ideally to assure the completion of the System in all States at an approximately uniform rate.
- The States were authorized to proceed with the construction and completion of Interstate projects beyond the total of their currently available Federal apportionments, but they could not expect reimbursement for the Federal share of costs of these projects until the State was apportioned additional Interstate funds.
- If the Interstate apportionments were unobligated at the end of the second fiscal year after the fiscal year for which they were authorized, the apportionments would be reapportioned to all the other States and become a part of the new obligational authority for that particular year with the same availability.
In addition to the creation of the Highway Trust Fund and its sources of revenue, the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 also prescribed how the Fund should be
228
