S-1733-119
Committee on Environment and Public Works Senate Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Hearings held.
Sponsored by Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
What it does
This bill would increase the share of annual federal highway program funds that a state may move between seven designated programs — from the current 50% cap to 75%. The seven programs covered are the National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, National Highway Freight Program, Carbon Reduction Program, and the PROTECT Formula Program. States would retain full discretion over how to redistribute funds within this expanded limit.
Who benefits
State transportation departments, which would gain greater flexibility to direct federal dollars toward their most pressing infrastructure needs. Rural states with limited congestion may benefit by redirecting funds away from congestion or air quality programs toward road maintenance. Urban areas with specific freight or resilience needs could similarly redirect funds. Contractors and construction firms in sectors that receive redirected funds would benefit. Indirectly, motorists and freight shippers in states that optimize their allocations could see improved road conditions or safety outcomes.
Who is hurt
States or localities that currently rely on dedicated funding streams for specific programs — such as air quality or highway safety — could see those funds redirected away if state-level priorities differ from local needs. Environmental and public health advocates may see reduced spending on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program or the Carbon Reduction Program. Communities near high-pollution corridors that depend on targeted air quality funding could be indirectly affected. Federal program administrators may face increased complexity in tracking fund flows across programs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current 50% transferability cap is an arbitrary constraint that prevents states from responding efficiently to their unique infrastructure conditions — a rural state facing bridge deterioration, for example, should not be forced to spend half its allocation on urban congestion programs. They contend that increasing flexibility to 75% respects the principle of federalism by trusting elected state officials to prioritize local needs, and that the seven covered programs all serve legitimate transportation purposes, so transfers do not undermine the overall intent of federal highway funding.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that dedicated funding streams exist precisely because Congress determined that specific transportation goals — air quality improvement, highway safety, and climate resilience — require protected funding to ensure they are not crowded out by general road-building priorities. They contend that raising the transferability cap to 75% could effectively hollow out programs like the Carbon Reduction Program or the Highway Safety Improvement Program in states that choose to redirect the vast majority of those funds, undermining congressionally established policy goals and potentially affecting communities that depend on those targeted programs.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to attach conditions to federal highway funds under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), as affirmed in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). This bill modifies the conditions under which states may reallocate those funds, which is a routine exercise of that authority. No active constitutional tension is implicated.
Checks and balances
Congress sets the transferability limits; the Federal Highway Administration (within the executive branch) oversees state compliance; states exercise discretion within the expanded cap, subject to federal reporting and audit requirements.
Historical precedent
The current 50% transferability cap was established under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 and carried forward in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021; this bill would be a direct incremental modification of that existing framework.