Four Times the Government Held Highway Funding Hostage

If Congress were to lose the Highway Trust Fund, it would also lose a powerful tool to keep states in line.

A section of historic Route 66 parallels Interstate 40 near Prewitt, New Mexico.
National Journal
Emma Roller and Brian Resnick
Add to Briefcase
Emma Roller and Brian Resnick
July 16, 2014, 1 a.m.

The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment can’t force states to com­ply with all of its whims. But it cer­tainly has the means to put the pres­sure on.

Con­gress is de­bat­ing how to ex­tend fund­ing for the High­way Trust Fund, the money that has in the past ac­ted as the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment’s muscle in en­for­cing laws at the state level. The House voted to patch the fund on Tues­day, two weeks be­fore the trust ran out of money to main­tain the na­tion’s roads.

In the past, the gov­ern­ment has used fed­er­al high­way fund­ing as a way to lever­age states to com­ply with driv­ing-re­lated laws — es­tab­lish­ing a speed lim­it in Montana, for ex­ample — as well as more tan­gen­tially re­lated laws. Un­der the 10th Amend­ment, powers not ex­pli­citly giv­en to the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment are re­served for the states. But un­der its au­thor­ity to reg­u­late in­ter­state com­merce, Con­gress can threaten to with­hold es­sen­tial fed­er­al fund­ing for high­way in­fra­struc­ture if states do not com­ply.

The pre­ced­ent for the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment hold­ing its high­way fund­ing host­age goes back to a 1987 Su­preme Court case. The case, South Dakota v. Dole, dealt with the na­tion­al drink­ing age, and found one of the Con­sti­tu­tion’s art­icles but­ting up against one of its amend­ments. The Court found that, un­der the spend­ing clause of the Con­sti­tu­tion, the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment could with­hold high­way funds, thereby ex­ert­ing its con­trol over the states.

The High­way Trust Fund was es­tab­lished in 1956 along­side Pres­id­ent Eis­en­hower’s mo­nu­ment­al in­ter­state pro­ject, and has since been fun­ded largely by gas taxes. But due to a com­bin­a­tion of changed driv­ing habits and in­creased fuel ef­fi­ciency, that trust fund has been yield­ing smal­ler and smal­ler rev­en­ues in re­cent years. “If Con­gress fails to fund it, it runs out of money,” Pres­id­ent Obama said Tues­day. “That could put nearly 700,000 jobs at risk.”

Without the trust fund, Con­gress loses a power­ful means to keep states in com­pli­ance with na­tion­al stand­ards. Here’s a look at some of the is­sues that have hinged on the fate of the fund.

Drink­ing Age

Most fam­ously, the High­way Trust Fund was used in 1984 to get states to com­ply with the new na­tion­al drink­ing age of 21. States that did not com­ply with the Re­agan ad­min­is­tra­tion’s drink­ing-age law would see 10 per­cent of their fed­er­al high­way funds — in some states, sev­er­al mil­lion dol­lars — cut. All of the states even­tu­ally com­plied, and the U.S. con­tin­ues to have the highest drink­ing age in the world.

Speed Lim­its

In 1974, in the midst of the Ar­ab oil em­bargo, Pres­id­ent Nix­on and Con­gress set the na­tion­al speed lim­it at a saun­ter­ing 55 miles per hour, in or­der to ease the de­mand for gas­ol­ine, and tied states’ com­pli­ance to high­way fund­ing. Con­sequently, ac­cord­ing to a pa­per in the Amer­ic­an Journ­al of Pub­lic Health, “road fatal­it­ies de­clined 16.4%, from 54,052 in 1973 to 45,196 in 1974.”

In 1995, high­way fund­ing was used as lever­age again — only this time to states’ ad­vant­age. The Re­pub­lic­an Con­gress, cham­pi­on­ing states’ rights, au­thor­ized fund­ing for the na­tion’s high­ways, but only if speed lim­its could be de­cided by the states. Pres­id­ent Clin­ton signed the meas­ure re­peal­ing the na­tion­al speed lim­it, but cau­tioned: “I am deeply dis­turbed by the re­peal of both the na­tion­al max­im­um speed lim­it law and the law en­cour­aging states to en­act mo­tor­cycle hel­met use laws.”

Not wast­ing any time, Montana de­cided to drop num­bers from their speed-lim­it signs al­to­geth­er. On rur­al roads, the state gave the tan­tal­iz­ingly vague in­struc­tion that cars should travel at a “reas­on­able and prudent” speed dur­ing day­light hours, thus earn­ing the nick­name the “Montana­bahn.”

One blog post com­par­ing the Montana­bahn to the Ger­man Auto­bahn ex­plained the dif­fer­ence between the two su­per­high­ways like this: “While you have few­er people to worry about per mile in Montana, you have more an­im­als to worry about per mile, es­pe­cially at night.”

Con­sequently, traffic deaths in Montana spiked — 1997 was the most deadly year for Montana roads in a dec­ade. In Decem­ber 1998, the Montana Su­preme Court ruled the “reas­on­able and prudent” speed lim­it un­con­sti­tu­tion­al after a man suc­cess­fully chal­lenged a speed­ing tick­et up to the state’s top court, an­chor­ing his case on the vague­ness of the law.

After the speed lim­it was en­forced, well, more people were caught speed­ing. Ac­cord­ing to a 1999 As­so­ci­ated Press re­port the num­ber of speed­ing tick­ets over Fourth of Ju­ly week­end in 1999 more than doubled com­pared with pre­vi­ous years, “from 340 a year ago to 862.”

Mo­tor­cycle Hel­mets

In 1975, the gov­ern­ment lever­aged the High­way Trust Fund to man­date that mo­tor­cyc­lists wear hel­mets. Mo­tor­cyc­lists were not pleased.

“It should be clearly noted that the is­sue is not wheth­er hel­mets are good or bad, nor has it ever been,” Eu­gene Wir­wahn, a lob­by­ist for the Amer­ic­an Mo­tor­cyc­list As­so­ci­ation, said at the time. “The key point is wheth­er a gov­ern­ment­al bur­eau­cracy has the right to use fisc­al black­mail to force the man­dat­ory use of hel­mets.”

Con­gress flip-flopped on the hel­met law — strik­ing down the 1975 law, then re­in­stat­ing it in 1991. Fi­nally, Clin­ton signed a law in 1995 that both elim­in­ated the 55 mph speed lim­it and the hel­met rule. Today, three states — Illinois, Iowa, and New Hamp­shire — still have no re­quire­ments that mo­tor­cyc­lists wear hel­mets.

Tex­ting While Driv­ing

In 2009, Sen. Chuck Schu­mer sought to force states to out­law tex­ting while driv­ing by mak­ing the meas­ures a pre­requis­ite for high­way fund­ing. The meas­ure failed, but it would have re­duced states’ high­way budget by 25 per­cent if they did not com­ply.

With­hold­ing high­way fund­ing may not be the sex­i­est form of polit­ic­al ma­nip­u­la­tion. You prob­ably won’t see Frank Un­der­wood scream­ing about pave­ment sub­sidies in a House of Cards epis­ode any­time soon. But as a way for Con­gress to leg­ally cir­cum­nav­ig­ate the Con­sti­tu­tion to get its way, it’s as crafty as they come.

What We're Following See More »
TROUBLE LOOMING?
Durbin Says Government Shutdown Possible
7 minutes ago
THE LATEST
AT LEAST 19 TODAY
Jewish Community Keeps Receiving Threats
14 minutes ago
THE DETAILS
DECLINES TO HEAR APPEAL
SCOTUS Leaves Political Ad Disclosure Law In Place
3 hours ago
BREAKING

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal to the "federal disclosure rules for political advertising," leaving in place the ruling by a lower court upholding a law requiring the disclosure of donors to political ads. The appeal came from "a Denver-based libertarian think tank that wanted to run an ad without being forced to divulge its major donors," which argued that the requirement was a violation of first amendment rights under the Court's Citizens United decision.

Source:
ENLISTS THEIR HELP IN REPEAL/REPLACE
Trump Meets with Health Execs
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
WOULD CUT NON-DEFENSE BY SAME AMOUNT
Trump Budget Would Bump Defense Spending by $54 Billion
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The Trump administration is proposing a budget it says will increase defense spending by $54 billion and cut non-defense spending by the same amount. The White House is sending a topline budget proposal reflecting those figures to federal agencies on Monday afternoon, according to an Office of Management and Budget official." An unnamed OMB official said most federal agencies would face cutbacks.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login