After the election shake-up, Rep. John Mica (R., Fla), will be the new House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair next year || Photo: Washington Post

On Capitol Hill, the new year will bring a new Congress and a change in leadership in the House after Republicans won big last month in the midterm elections. However, the new House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair, Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.), is something of an enigma when compared to his Republican counterparts as they prepare to take control. What no one can even guess about is the tone that Rep. Mica will set on transportation policy.

Here’s why: When current Transportation Chair Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.) steps down (it is worth noting that the 36-year member of Congress also lost his reelection bid), he gives way to not just any Republican but one of his closest political allies in Mica. Last year, the Florida Republican even went before Congress defending the Minnesota Democrat’s stalled transportation bill, which would have doubled government spending to over $500 billion and lessened the importance of highways in favor of mass-transit. To say the least, Mica showed another side of Republican thinking on transportation.

Below is an interview Blueprint America had with Mica back in 2009 when he was the minority leader of the Transportation Committee. What’s interesting is the fact that ideologically — at least on transportation issues — the incoming Chair aligned more often with liberals than conservatives. “If you’re on the Transportation Committee long enough,” said Rep. Mica, “even if you’re a fiscal conservative… you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment.”

That was then, however, when Mica was in the minority. See if you can read between the lines — will the new Chair continue to champion Oberstar’s stalled bill or will the Republican align with his party and cut spending now that he is calling the shots?

FROM JUNE 2009:

Last week, the Obama administration offered a temporary finance plan that, if implemented, could put off legislation to overhaul federal highway and transportation programs. It would also delay a possible vote to raise the national gas tax past the 2010 congressional midterm elections. The proposal came just a day before Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, released an outline of the legislation – THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 – aimed at reforming transportation nationally.

Rep. Oberstar had been counting on a September 30 deadline — when the current law authorizing federal highway and transit programs expires — to bring lawmakers together to not only renew federal transportation funding but to also rethink how it is funded.

The proposed transportation bill calls for $450 billion in federal funding, which is a 57 percent increase over the $286.5 billion bill approved in 2005.

The following is an interview with Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.), ranking minority member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, about the recent developments of the transportation bill:

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: The current highway authorization expires at the end of September. So what exactly is expiring?

REP. JOHN MICA: Every six years Congress adopts a federal authorization for highways, which outlines transportation policy, projects, and funding distributions for the whole country.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Right now, however, the Obama Administration wants to delay authorization.

REP. MICA: We’re on the verge of a transportation meltdown. The Administration has proposed an 18-month extension of both the highway authorization bill and the highway trust fund. That will require, depending on how long it is extended, between $8 and $15 billion.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, typically, the transportation bill is not authorized every six years – it’s generally extended.

REP. MICA: Right. I think the last time we tried to authorize it we had 13 extensions.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Are you opposed to this 18-month extension by the Obama Administration?

REP. MICA: Well, I think that it would be better to go ahead with the transportation bill Rep. (Jim) Oberstar has introduced. We have been working on the bill for some time.

Still, I think we take that bill as the starter. The problem you’ve got with an 18-month extension is that it puts many of the major infrastructure projects on hold. The 18-month extension is a job killer. It gives you a temporary relief with the highway trust fund, but because you don’t have projects approved and policy and funding mechanisms in place for the future, it ends up killing jobs and delaying decisions on projects across the country. For example, there are 6, 800 project requests in the House bill alone – all of these would go on hold.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: How will the extension be funded – this $8 to $15 billion?

REP. MICA: They would take it out of general revenue, which would basically be deficit spending – and fund it. They have talked about some offsets, but I haven’t seen any specifics. Last year, however, we did allocate $8 billion to keep the highway trust fund solvent. That said, it was with no offsets.

When we’ve spent $3 trillion so far this year with no offsets – $8 to $15 billion seems like a very small amount.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: In the meantime, what is to be done about the highway trust fund?

REP. MICA: The highway trust fund will continue to lose money – for several reasons – as federal funding is based on an 18.4 cents a gallon national gas tax that hasn’t been increased in years. One, because of the economy, there’s not as much motor vehicle traffic. And two, every day the fleet is becoming more efficient, so people are driving further and paying less.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Why, then, is the Obama Administration wanting to delay authorization?

REP. MICA: A political reason – because they don’t want to promote another tax increase, which sure puts them in a bind as most of the Democrats in Congress favor a tax increase. Also, I think that they’ve got themselves overextended with taking on many controversial measures.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What do you favor in terms of funding transportation?

REP. MICA: There are two things we need to do. We need to leverage the funds we have coming in through a host of creative financing mechanisms. One, would be a dramatic increase in public-private partnerships. Two, would be leveraging some of the funds that we have coming in using bonds, full faith, and credit of the United States. And, guarantee programs toward financing infrastructure projects. Three, the national infrastructure bank and other financing or assistance programs.

That’s the first part.

The second part is speeding up the process. Most projects that the federal government is involved with take an inordinate amount of time for approvals, and they cost much more because there are so many delays and hoops that people have to go through.

I offer what I call the Mica 437-day process plan, which is the number of days it took to replace the bridge that collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. Rather than the seven or eight years it takes complete any other bridge, which would be the normal time frame.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: And why did it just take 437-days to complete?

MICA: It was done on an expedited approval basis, which I think you could do with most projects that don’t change the basic footprint of the infrastructure that you’re rebuilding.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Is an expedited approval process included in the transportation bill? That said, are you supportive of the highway authorization?

REP. MICA: I’m supportive with reservations. First, I’m trying to move the process forward, but there are things, if I were writing it, that I would write quite differently. If the process continues to be open and participatory, then I can be supportive. It does need some clean-up, and it needs some revision. I’d like to see much more of the ideas that I have advocated on, such as speeding up the approval process and increasing the revenues that are available without raising taxes. Those are my two big ones.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What is the likelihood of the transportation bill passing?

REP. MICA: It’s 50-50. It’s hard to say if we can get support. I think that with rolling the bill out this week, we will have an option of our bill versus the 18-month extension. Then you just have to work it, and see if you can bring a coalition of people who are interested in building and solving the problem of infrastructure now, rather than putting it off until later.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: And, what would you say of the support right now for the transportation bill?

REP. MICA: Well, I think it could pass in the House.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What about the Senate?

REP. MICA: A little bit more dicey.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: You were quoted as saying, referring to the Obama Administration wanting to delay authorization, “That’s a real slap in the face to a lot of hard work … I would have been mortified if this had been done to me under Bush.”

REP. MICA: I’m not Rep. Oberstar, but for his administration, after working as hard as he has to move the bill forward, to have the rug pulled out from under him, with this just out of the blue proposal, is a hard pill to swallow.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: In terms of your role as a Representative from Florida, and getting funding for your state and your district, what needs to happen to that process?

REP. MICA: Well, I’m more interested in the country at large in terms of infrastructure. If we can provide adequate funds for improvements across the country, then it benefits every district – not just my own. Simply, I’m not taking a parochial viewpoint for my own district or for my own state.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: You are a Republican – and you support transportation and infrastructure spending?

REP. MICA: Well, I tell you though, if you’re on the Transportation Committee long enough, even if you’re a fiscal conservative, which I consider myself to be, you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment. Simply, I became a mass transit fan because it’s so much more cost effective than building a highway. Also, it’s good for energy, it’s good for the environment – and that’s why I like it.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: If anything, you’d say that your time in Congress and on the Transportation Committee has brought you around to these ideas?

REP. MICA: Yes. And, seeing the cost of one person in one car. The cost for construction. The cost for the environment. The cost for energy. You can pretty quickly be convinced that there’s got to be a more cost effective way. It’s going to take a little time, but we have to have good projects, they have to make sense – whether it’s high-speed rail or commuter rail or light rail. We got to have some alternatives helping people – even in the rural areas – to get around.

Much has been made of the similarities between today’s economic downturn and The Great Depression. Pundits have, for example, labeled the current era “The Great Recession.” And the facts seem to bear that out. Fifty-five percent of Americans in the workforce have lost their jobs, suffered a pay cut or seen their hours reduced since 2007. By comparison, unemployment alone reached 25 percent in the 1930s. There is, no doubt, a relationship between the two. TIME magazine illustrated that relationship when, just after the 2008 election, the publication put Barack Obama on its cover in a classic Franklin Delano Roosevelt pose, right down to the cigarette holder. The title crystallized the message: “The New New Deal: What Barack Obama can learn from FDR, and what Democrats need to do.”

There are other similarities, too. The hard-luck stories from then and now are more or less the same. And the pictures tell the story.

Then: The Great Depression

Roy Swinford, a worker for the Works Progress Administration in Chicago, laid down 45,000 bricks a day. He kept a crew of 20 men busy at top speed to supply him with bricks. (Source: New Deal Network)

Now: The Great Recession

Kevin Light, a project superintendent with the Washington State Department of Transportation, supervised the City of Washougal’s SR-14 Pedestrian Tunnel stimulus project. In an interview with his employer, Light said, “this project enabled us to continue working and bring employees back to work.” Light’s grandchildren, as he put it, will one day be able to look at the tunnel and say that he built it. (Source: Washington State Department of Transportation)

Then: The Great Depression

Bridge builders working on a Public Works Administration project in Chicago. (Source: New Deal Network)

Now: The Great Recession

Bridge builders working on a stimulus project in Seattle. (Source: Washington State Department of Transportation)

Now: The New New Deal

Of course, Congress and the Obama administration implemented a type of modern New Deal in the form of the 2009 Recovery Act, a $787 billion government stimulus program. While much of the money was in tax breaks, some $150 billion went to infrastructure programs like those in Washington State (see the state department of transportation’s Flickr page for more “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men”-like documentation of their state’s stimulus dollars at work). Those projects were, as the president has said, intended to put Americans back to work.

As the midterm elections approach, many will ask: Did the stimulus work? Considering that the jury is still out even on the New Deal, it’s hard to tell.

Then again, an announcement just weeks ago from President Obama may be telling. Obama said that another $50 billion in stimulus-like government spending on infrastructure projects will likely be needed as this “Great Recession” continues. Just don’t call it “Stimulus Part Two” — the president has been careful to avoid using that rhetoric again.

The transportation bill — the massive legislation authorizing and funding the country’s roads and mass-transit infrastructure (from highways to bus lanes to railways to bike lanes) — expires every six years. That, however, does not mean a new bill is passed every six-years. It’s Washington, D.C., after all.

The current transportation bill first expired last September. And not unlike ‘The Bill‘ from the 1970s children’s program Schoolhouse Rock, it has been spending a lot of time sitting around Capitol Hill, waiting to be rewritten. That is why it’s the current transportation bill that expired last September.

“You sure got to climb a lot of steps to get to this Capitol Building here in Washington — But, I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is…” || Schoolhouse Rock

But, to call it the current transportation bill is no longer technically correct. It expired, again, over the weekend and was not extended by Congress (one Senator from Kentucky was able to filibuster the vote) — technically there is no legislation governing the country’s transportation system on the books (at least for now).

Rewriting the bill, after all, is no Schoolhouse Rock song and dance — it’s politics. While there is no law today, more than 2,000 lobbyists have been spending millions in attempts to influence the lawmakers putting together what could be a $500 billion new transportation bill. But perhaps more than the money, the legislation has the potential to lay down the blueprint for a new American infrastructure. Then again, so have all the transportation bills that have come before.

Still, will Congress perpetuate a transportation system that funds roads and highways to the near exclusion of  mass-transit? Or, will environmental, housing and other community health decisions play a bigger role in the federal decision-making process? Change is in the air, as they say, and reform is on the table. But the special interest, ‘Bridge to Nowhere’-type earmarks still exist. And while reform is on the table, that is where it sits today.

Poor transportation bill — it’s going to be a long long road.

In the meantime, the bill that expired will be extended (shortly, presumably) and continue to be the law of the land. The talks are underway right now. As it has done in the past, Congress will keep extending it, until a new bill (earmarks and all) is negotiated. Nobody knows when that will happen. The last time the transportation bill reauthorization process got under way was September 2003. Then-President George W. Bush signed extensions of the expired law 12 times to keep the country’s transportation programs on track. The new law was finally approved in July 2005.

2005 transportation law signing. In attendance: Then-Republican Congressman and Current U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (far left); Then-ranking minority member and current Chairman of the House Transportation Committee Jim Oberstar (third from the left); Then-President George W. Bush (center); and then-Senator and current President Barack Obama (second row, second from the right and obscured) || House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

So far, President Barack Obama has signed off on a one-month extension through last October, a seven-week extension through mid-December and then another through the end of February, as part of a Defense Department spending bill. How does transportation fall under defense? It’s Congress, don’t ask questions.

If the bill is not simply extended for the month of March, which was the plan until Congress stalled last week, here’s how the fourth or potentially fifth extension will work: Before adjourning for the holiday recess in December, House lawmakers passed a $154 billion jobs bill that would allocate nearly $36 billion for highways and transit similar to the recovery package approved earlier that year. The jobs bill, which has also been called a second stimulus plan, includes an extension of the current transportation law through the end of 2010. But as Schoolhouse Rock taught, the measure also had to be approved in the Senate. And that version passed (70-28) just last week with similar transportation provisions in place.

Still, the jobs bill vote signals just how hard it will be to pass comprehensive transportation reform. It was stalled for two-months as a result of the efforts of an emboldened Republican party — no longer facing a Democratic super-majority — calling any further infrastructure stimulus-type investment wasteful as it would only continue to raise the ever-growing national deficit. Amplifying this sentiment, with the one-year anniversary of the signing of the recovery package, has been the Republican line that President Obama can hardly claim credit for improvements in the economy over the past year with three million jobs lost, unemployment at nearly 10 percent and a deficit at $1.6 trillion. At the same time, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently reported that the recovery package had saved or created between 900,000 and 2.3 million jobs. In other words, it’s bad, but it could have been worse.

All along, the Obama Administration has been encouraging Congress to forget all the fancy machinations and create one LONG extension. The President would like to put off any formal debate on transportation reform until sometime in 2011 — after the mid-term elections have come and gone. Why postpone until then? It starts with ‘T’ and sounds like ‘dax increase.’

I.
HOW TO MAKE A BILL; or, welcome to the sausage factory

Blueprint America correspondent Miles O’Brien in a web report on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where at some point a new transportation bill will be debated and voted on.

The term ‘sexy‘ in the past decade in Washington has increasingly been thrown around when couching seemingly unpopular but necessary issues. Popularized in the media and often times echoed by lawmakers, ‘infrastructure’ is a classic example of an unsexy cause on Capitol Hill. That said, maybe no one has ever taken the time to take ‘infrastructure’ out, get a couple drinks into ‘infrastructure,’ turn on some Bob Seger — remember the first time you heard “Night Moves“? — and see where the night ends up. One group that has found the inner beauty of ‘infrastructure,’ however, is the online transportation news source Streetsblog.

Blueprint America correspondent Miles O’Brien with Streetsblog Capitol Hill reporter Elana Schor on why transportation legislation matters — especially as Congress will eventually put forward a new bill.

II.
THE MAN WITH THE PLAN

Maybe nobody in Washington is more frustrated with the standstill on transportation than Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., MN). In June of last year, three full months before the transportation law was set to expire, Rep. Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced The Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 — it was designed to not just authorize a new transportation law but also overhaul all federal transportation programs from funding to practices. To a Washington outsider, and even most insiders, however, what does that mean?

This is where things get so sexy, it’s almost X-rated. (But, in actuality, R-rated. And, in the sense that the Full Monty was R-rated — old man nudity, which, in this case, is very similar to at least the demographic breakdown of the House Transportation Committee.) Now that you have pictured the Committee naked, it is time to come back.

The gas tax. It’s the third rail of transportation politics. Politicians fear raising it. Most would rather lower it. Remember the summer of 2008 when then-presidential candidate in the Democratic primary Hillary Clinton fell in line with Republican calls to suspend the federal gas tax temporarily when prices at the pump were around $4 per gallon? With the federal gas tax at 18.4 cents per gallon, the “holiday” would have saved each driver about $30, while costing the federal government billions in revenues to fund transportation. Turns out, the last time the gas tax was increased nationally was in 1993, by then-President Bill Clinton — a 4.3 cent increase on the gallon. Revenue gained from the gas tax has lost about one-third of its purchasing power since then due to inflation. Worsening returns further is the fact that Americans are driving less — with more mass-transit options and consumers counting pennies at the pump — and using more fuel-efficient cars.

Long story short: it’s the federal gas tax that funds the federal Highway Trust Fund (similar to a checking account that continually is in the red — in other words, most checking accounts) that funds transportation projects. At the same time the transportation law was expiring last summer, the Highway Trust Fund was also verging on bankruptcy (as the two go hand-in-hand). As a result, with each extension of the transportation law, funding for the Highway Trust Fund, which not only funds highways but also transit, has also been solidified. For example, when the jobs bill is finally signed, $20 billion in tax dollars will be transferred to keep the nation’s Highway Trust Fund solvent until the end of 2010 — effectively extending the current transportation law until the end of the year.

Still, the CBO has reported that if current transportation spending levels are continued — which the Obama administration hopes to do for at least the next year or more — the Highway Trust Fund would receive slightly less than $400 billion over the next 10 years, with $50 billion of that dedicated to transit. Yet, the fund would be obligated to pay $610 billion to state Department of Transportations across the country over the same period to keep transportation projects going. Transit spending would total about $90 billion, leaving a 10-year estimated deficit of $170 billion for roads and bridges, and a $40 billion shortfall for transit.

In short, the current federal gas tax is not cutting it — new funding sources need to be identified and put into law or the federal government will be forced to raise the national deficit to fund transportation. Otherwise, it will operate at a loss — needing further federal infusions similar to the jobs bill transfer of tax dollars.

Blueprint America correspondent Miles O’Brien with the man with the plan himself, Chairman Jim Oberstar of Minnesota on why his transportation bill is what America needs — especially during the Great Recession.

Still confused? What is an “Under-Secretary of Intermodalism” and should you be afraid of him, her, or… It?

Perhaps, this will help — how does the other side of the aisle feel about the Democratic Chairman’s plan? Given the deep partisan divide in Washington currently, the transportation bill is actually one of the few major pieces of legislation that doesn’t fall in line with politics as usual (calling the President a liar, leveraging one’s party at the expense of having a super-majority, incapacitating ‘hip-hop’ artists on airplanes with ‘condor’ grips, etc., etc.). Following the introduction of the bill last summer, the ranking minority member on the Transportation Committee, Rep. John Mica (R., FL), said this of the nature of the Committee:

“Well, I tell you though, if you’re on the Transportation Committee long enough, even if you’re a fiscal conservative, which I consider myself to be, you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment. Simply, I became a mass transit fan because it’s so much more cost effective than building a highway. Also, it’s good for energy, it’s good for the environment — and that’s why I like it.”

Of the 74 Committee members, 30 are Republican. And the majority of those representatives support the Chairman’s bill. Outside of the Committee, however, Republican support lessens considerably as the cost of the bill is projected at upwards of $500 billion (nearly half as much as the current law) with no identified funding sources outside of the gas tax, which does not currently earn enough revenue to cover the proposed legislation. Outside of deficit spending — and even as the reforms in Rep. Oberstar’s bill promise to trim the bureaucratic waste of the federal Department of Transportation — raising the gas tax is the only immediate way to fund such a large bill. Other options such as taxing drivers based on miles traveled and creating a national infrastructure bank to leverage transportation tax dollars to increase revenues are years away.

Blueprint America correspondent Miles O’Brien with the other man with the plan, Rep. John Mica of Florida on the transportation bill roadblock.

While it has almost always been the Republican line to not raise taxes — as the Chairman noted, President Ronald Reagan did raise the gas tax back in the 80s — the divide on the transportation bill this time around has not been Republican-Democrat but rather between a Democratic White House and a Democratic House Transportation Committee. Though that divide has become less contentious, it still comes down to a no new taxes understanding, which Rep. Oberstar has certainly come around to since saying the following to the Obama administration last summer:

“Delay is unacceptable — extension of time, extension of the current law is unacceptable. This is the moment to move.”

The new consensus — not in this economy.

Blueprint America correspondent Miles O’Brien with Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D., OR) on the other issues facing the transportation bill once Congress and the Administration come to terms on how to move forward.

III.
THE CONGRESS AND ITS CONSTITUENTS

It all started with the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, creating the Highway Trust Fund — dedicating a 3-cent per gallon federal gasoline tax — to support the building of the Interstate Highway System.

The problem with this law, which remains to this day, is that a cents per gallon gas tax does not automatically adjust for inflation. As a result, Congress raised the tax in 1959 from 3 cents to 4 cents per gallon, but did not raise it again until 1983. Like today, the gas-crisis and recession of the 1970s made members of Congress unwilling to raise the tax.

The projected completion date for the interstate system, initially, was 1969. But due to inflation and higher than expected costs of construction, it was not finished until 1991, mainly as a result of the low level of the gas tax.

And, as the system neared completion in the 1980s, the Highway Trust Fund no longer needed to devote the majority of its revenue to interstates alone.

With federal money up for grabs, the practice of earmarking began. Congress first included earmarks in a transportation bill in 1982. Since then, earmarking has grown exponentially: from 10 in 1982; to 152 in 1987 (President Reagan vetoed the bill the first time around as a result of all the earmarking, but eventually was overruled by Congress — yet another Schoolhouse Rock lesson learned); 538 in 1991; 1,850 in 1998; and 6,373 in 2005 (President Bush threatened a veto, but had just youtube’d some Schoolhouse Rock himself and thought otherwise). The 2005 earmarks totaled almost 10 percent of the entire six-year authorization. In the scheme of things, 10 percent may seem insignificant, but, at the same time, why then did almost 1,800 special interest groups spend at least $45 million over the first six months of 2009 lobbying Congress on the transportation bill?

According to the Center for Public Integrity, the roster of special interests paying lobbyists in 2009 to influence either the transportation bill itself or the annual appropriations decisions that are made based on the bill’s framework includes:

* More than 475 U.S. cities and 160 counties in 44 states, the vast majority of which are seeking funds for specific projects that will be chosen by Congress;
* More than 55 local development authorities nationwide;
* At least 65 private real estate development companies;
* At least 95 transit agencies, 25 metro and regional planning organizations, a dozen individual states, and the national lobbying associations for all three groups;
* More than 75 road and auto organizations, from highway builders and car manufacturers to interstate coalitions and trucking interests;
* At least 65 construction and engineering groups, from cement and steel makers to domestic and foreign-owned builders;
* More than 45 rail organizations, 50 shipping companies and ports, and 45 additional transportation-centric outfits, from bicycle coalitions to research groups;
* More than 140 universities seeking funds for local projects or campus research centers.

Blueprint America correspondent Miles O’Brien closes with another interview with the Capitol Hill Streetblogger Elana Schor — in a look at the varying meanings of change when Congress takes up the transportation bill.

IV.
THE END OF THE RIDE

In the end, Rep. Oberstar’s bill might be the only transportation legislation introduced, but any number of transportation bills can be drafted by any member of the House and Senate. To complicate things further, while in the House the transportation bill is simply left up to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (policy) and the Ways and Means Committee (funding), in the Senate the bill travels through the Environment and Public Works Committee, Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. The President, too, can introduce a bill.

This sounds a whole lot better with our friend ‘The Bill’ putting it to song.

And, of all things to get in exchange for a vote, “Sen. George Voinovich (R., OH),” Elana Schor reported last week, “a longtime supporter of quick action on a new federal transportation bill, helped give Democrats a major victory… when he voted for the Senate’s jobs measure after securing a promise for transportation votes in the upper chamber this year.” Apparently, the Republican Senator from Ohio doesn’t want to see this transportation law have upwards of 12 extensions like the last one.

Following the announcement, forty states and the District of Columbia requested over $100 billion for high-speed train projects.

At the end of January this year, however, the White House selected 13 passenger rail corridors in 31 states to receive stimulus funding. High-speed rail projects in California, Florida and Illinois were the big winners.

— California: $2.3 billion to begin work on an 800-mile-long, high-speed rail line tying Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles and San Diego.

— Florida: $1.25 billion to build a rail line connecting Tampa on the West Coast with Orlando in the middle of the state, eventually going south to Miami.

— Illinois-Missouri: $1.1 billion to improve a rail line between Chicago and St. Louis so that trains travel up to 110 mph.

— Wisconsin: $810 million to upgrade and refurbish train stations and install safety equipment on the Madison-to-Milwaukee leg of a line that stretches from Minneapolis to Chicago.

— Washington-Oregon: $590 million to upgrade a rail line from Seattle to Portland, Ore.

— North Carolina: $520 million for projects that will increase top speeds to 90 mph on trains between Raleigh and Charlotte and double the number of round trips.

Though any state could ask for federal funding for projects, the administration identified 10 potential high-speed rail corridors: California, the Pacific Northwest, Texas, the Gulf Coast,

The Obama High-Speed Rail Plan || Image: White House

Florida, a Southeast corridor, the Northeast Corridor, the “Keystone Corridor” through Pennsylvania, the “Empire Corridor” through New York, and a Midwest hub centered in Chicago. Anyone outside these regions will be hard-pressed for high-speed rail dollars.

That $8 billion is going to have to go a long way as, for example, building a system in California — the state furthest along in high-speed rail planning with construction set to start as soon as next year — will cost $42.6 billion alone (up from $33.6 billion just a year ago).

In addition to the stimulus investment, Congress has approved $2.5 billion more in high-speed rail funding for the annual federal budget this year. Still, that is budget to budget, year to year support for projects that take 10 to 20 years to build. And, if a system is implemented nationally, it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars — not counting inflation over the decades it will take to build.

By spreading the $8 billion among so many states (31), President Obama ignored calls from transportation experts and high-speed rail advocates who maintained that the only way to build support for the program would be to concentrate funding on only two or three projects — to not only accelerate construction, but also get those high-speed lines up and running to be seen as an example of success throughout the country. In the end, only the line in Florida (Tampa to Orlando), which received $1.25 billion on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars in local private and public funds already raised, is expected to be finished in the next five years.

HIGH–ER SPEED RAIL

Rep. John Mica of Florida, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, complained that the Midwest lines awarded stimulus funds will achieve top speeds of only 110 mph and were “selected more for political reasons than for high-speed service.”

Still, “high-speed” has been a loosely used phrase in America.

Between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston, the Acela Express — Amtrak’s version of high-speed — can reach 150 mph, but only for short stretches and averages just 80 mph. The definition of “high-speed” in Europe, however, is trains that travel at least 155 mph with speeds that oftentimes exceed 200 mph.

[For more on financing a high-speed rail system, watch The Bank not Built]

Currently, applicants nationwide for the $8 billion in federal high-speed rail funding are planning medium-speeds of 90 to 110 mph and high-speeds of 130 to 150 mph. That said, as early as the 1930s in America, trains routinely reached speeds of 120 mph and higher.

California is the only state so far to propose a high-speed rail network with trains traveling up to 220 mph. A trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco, for example, will take about 2.5 hours.

BY PLANE OR BY TRAIN

Still, that 2.5 hour train ride is just over an hour by air. Then again, the train will take you to San Francisco’s city center from Los Angeles’ city center — connecting directly with mass-transit. Also, you will not have to owe your brother-in-law any more favors for picking you up from the airport.

The most likely determinate if people will get off planes and onto trains: cost.

Already, a one-way, rush-hour train ticket (purchased a week in advance) on the Acela Express from New York-Penn Station to Washington, D.C.-Union Station costs upwards of $155 for the 2.75 hour ride. That same route by air ranges in cost from $103 to $200 — roundtrip — for the 1.5 hour flight. Although, the Acela Express line was one of only three Amtrak lines to turn a profit in 2008.

But, if California is the bellwether for the future costs of riding high-speed rail, then it will be only slightly cheaper than the Acela Express. The projected average ticket on the high-speed train from San Francisco to Los Angeles is $105, or 83 percent of comparable airfare. Last year, the state said prices would be set at 50 percent of comparable airfare and predicted a ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles would cost $55.

Still, much of America’s high-speed rail plan is just lines on a map. It is 2010, and ground has yet to be broken anywhere.

Sources: Amtrak, California High-Speed Rail Authority, The White House

Movements to advance American infrastructure, since the beginning, have been brought on by times of national crisis. In an extended interview from Blueprint America: Beyond the Motor City, Eric Rauchway, professor of history at the University of California, Davis, makes the case that it was the Civil War that set the stage for the Transcontinental Railroad; that it was the Great Depression that made possible the public works projects of the New Deal. But, will the current American crisis — the Great Recession — advance infrastructure again?

THE CIVIL WAR MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BUILD THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILROAD

The Monkey System or Every One For Himself || “Walk in and see the new improved grand original American System!” says Henry Clay (far right). The cages are labeled: “Home, Consumption, Internal, Improv”. This 1831 cartoon satirizing Clay’s American System depicts monkeys, labeled as being different parts of a nation’s economy, stealing each other’s resources.

The country’s first national plan to see fruition was put forward in 1829 by Henry Clay, the U.S. Secretary of State, when he called for an “American System.” Using the nationalist sentiment of a United States that followed the War of 1812, Clay proposed a government program to standardize and bring together the nation’s agriculture, commerce, industry and infrastructure. The System: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other internal improvements, eventually including the railroad, to further develop the country.

“Golden Spike” – the ceremonial final spike driven by Leland Stanford to join the rails of the First Transcontinental Railroad across the United States connecting the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads, was hammered on May 10, 1869 in Promontory Summit, Utah.

It was this American school of thought that President Abraham Lincoln ultimately took up, implementing in 1862 the Homestead Act, granting 160 free acres to each family that could farm them, and the Pacific Railway Act (the Transcontinental Railroad), connecting rail from coast to coast. As a result, Americans moved west — settling along rail lines where they could work the land. And with settlers came commerce and, soon, industry — new communities were built. But, it was not until the crisis of the War Between the States that such Acts could pass. In 1856, a similar bill to the Pacific Railway Act never made it out of committee as the Senate lacked a consensus. What was different just six years later was a united Congress — with seven States seceding from the Union — led by a president making the argument for uniting the country again — and the Transcontinental Railroad, eventually, would do just that. In less than ten years, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of America were connected by rail.

THE GREAT DEPRESSION SET THE STAGE FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS OF THE NEW DEAL

In reviewing the programs of the New Deal in 1939, a government report said:

Here was a country with a great and growing need for more schools, more highways, more bridges, more waterworks, more services of all kinds. Here was an army of men willing and able to build them. Here was industry hungry for orders for the needed materials. The idea was to bring all of them together. The job would have to be done some time, why not now?

After the Stock Market crashed in 1929, American unemployment soon rose to 25 percent. That number peaked in 1933, the year in which President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office. There are just as many historians and economists that credit FDR’s New Deal policies with ending the Great Depression as there are that say they only made it last longer (A 1939 survey asked Americans to name the best and worst things President Roosevelt had done. The top answer to both questions was the WPA.)

By an unknown artist, 1936 || National Archives

While the country did not return to 1929 GNP levels for over a decade and still had an unemployment rate of about 15 percent in 1940, the New Deal — through the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Works Progress Administration (WPA)and the Public Works Administration (PWA) — put out of work Americans back to work and, at the same time, modernized a national infrastructure largely still of the last century — bringing running water and electricity to rural areas and putting in place the framework for what would later become the Interstate Highway System.

The WPA, for example, built or improved 651,000 miles of roads, 19,700 miles of water mains and 500 water treatment plants. Workers built 24,000 miles of sidewalks; 12,800 playgrounds; 24,000 miles of storm and sewer lines; 1200 airport buildings; 226 hospitals; more than 5,900 schools, and more than two million privies.

AND, THE GREAT RECESSION WILL…

When Congress passed President Barack Obama’s plan to stimulate the national economy in Feb. 2009, infrastructure projects, above all others, were supposed to be the fastest-acting pieces of the $787-billion package. While much of the law went to cover tax cuts, some $110 billion went to general infrastructure and energy improvements — of which $27 billion went to highway projects and $8.4 billion went to mass transit projects.

But, the effect has been up for debate.

As of July 10 of last year, for example, more than 3,600 of the 5,600 road projects approved by Washington — including six of the 10 largest approved projects — had not been been started. Lawrence H. Summers, the president’s top economic advisor, said the program shouldn’t be judged by short-term results — “the peak impact of the stimulus on jobs is expected not to be achieved until the end of 2010.”

President Obama, with Vice-President Biden, signing the stimulus bill into law last February in Denver. || Photo: The New York Times

Still, the White House calculates that every $1 billion spent on highway work will create 11,000 jobs, directly or indirectly. Private estimates are as high as 35,000 jobs per $1 billion.

At the same time, the Government Accountability Office recently found that 9,200 stimulus recipients reported no job creation, despite receiving a total of $965 million. Almost 4,000 other stimulus recipients, who are still waiting to receive funding, reported creating or saving more than 58,000 jobs. The end result: the ineffectiveness of tracking the stimulus — especially in job creation tied to infrastructure spending — will bring into greater question any future attempts of similar investments.

A second stimulus plan — a $154 billion jobs creation package — is in the waiting on the Senate floor. Though passed by the House in December, it was only by a vote of 217-212. The bill, entitled “Jobs for Main Street,” will spend $27 billion on highway projects and $8.4 billion on mass transit projects. Sound familiar?

All of this comes as the economy lost another 85,000 jobs at the end of last year — and the national unemployment rate remains at 10 percent.

Sources: American Public Transportation Association, The Associated Press, Government Accountability Office, The Los Angeles Times, National Archives, ourdocuments.gov, United States House Appropriations and Ways and Means committees, United States Senate, United States Senate Appropriations and Finance committees, The Wall Street Journal

President Barack Obama with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood || photo: White House / streetsblog.org

UPDATE

Late Wednesday, the Senate, in conjunction with a House vote last week, passed a one-month extension of the 2005 transportation law, which would have expired at midnight.

*  *  *

At midnight Wednesday, the federal transportation law funding national highway and transit programs will expire. Amid a lack of consensus in Congress on what to do—as the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has been at odds with both the Senate and the Obama Administration—the current law will almost certainly be extended for one-month. However, it is a short-term fix — an even shorter-term fix than the three-month extension passed in the House last week or the proposed 18-month extension in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The federal transportation law is supposed to be re-authorized every six years, although extensions have become commonplace in this process.

House and Senate appropriations committees agreed to the one-month reprieve as a legislative failsafe in order to keep federal transportation funding mechanisms going at 2009 levels, including the Highway Trust Fund, until lawmakers can complete the new budget. The House approved the resolution on Sept. 25. The Senate is expected to pass it sometime before the Wednesday deadline.

That said, there is nothing to suggest that the Congressional impasse that led to the one-month extension will be solved in just a month’s time. The current transportation law, which was finally passed in 2005, had a dozen similar extensions. Simply, Oct. 31 could look a lot like Sept. 30.

Still, more important than Congress and the Administration agreeing on a three-month or 18-month extension is a consensus on a new transportation law. Already, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D., Minn.) has introduced a $450 billion dollar bill that not only increases current federal transportation funding but also restructures some funding practices and reorganizes the Department of Transportation. But, as Congress remains in similar gridlock over healthcare, the Administration has opposed any action on Rep. Oberstar’s legislation. As a result, the majority of the Senate, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has sided with the President. Moreover, neither the Senate nor the Administration has put forth their own bills to reauthorize federal transportation funding. Though Rep. Oberstar’s bill was introduced in June, nothing guarantees it will be the legislation that passes one-month, three-months or 18-months from now.

More to lose down the road

Even if the one-month extension is approved in the Senate Wednesday, a measure to dissolve $8.7 billion in un-obligated federal highway assistance will be triggered Thursday unless lawmakers act to correct the matter. But, as the one-month resolution is a conference report, both houses must pass it without amendments.

The 18-month extension proposed by Sen. Boxer would repeal the measure, but action on her bill is unlikely to happen before the deadline. There is no companion language in the House extension.

The loss of the $8.7 billion could lead to project cancellations nationwide. Some states can draw on their own reserves to continue work. Overall, states could lose some $3 billion.

Rep. James Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Every six years the law authorizing national transportation policy and funding needs renewal. The current law expires Sept. 30 — in nine days.

Without some kind of action, legislation to extend the current transportation law by 18 months — already in place in the Senate and endorsed by the Obama administration — would almost certainly have to pass in order ensure transportation funding past the end of the month.

Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is staunchly against an 18-month delay. As a result, it is likely he will propose a three-month extension later this week.

This comes after months of pushing for his own plan, to not only reauthorize the transportation bill, but also increase federal funding (from $286 billion in 2005 to a proposed $450 billion) and restructure the practices of the Department of Transportation.

Still, with time running out to pass this new legislation, supporters of Rep. Oberstar’s bill are beginning to accept the idea of an extension of the existing law.

After months of opposing a delay, for example, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, recently said a three-month extension would be “reasonable”.

That said, three months may not be enough time to move a spending bill of this size through a Congress already in gridlock over the health care debate. The House Ways and Means Committee, which must determine the legislation’s funding, has yet to set a date to hear the bill. Moreover, the bill has not been marked up in Rep. Oberstar’s own committee.

With Congress back after a summer recess, President Barack Obama, in an address before both the House and Senate on Wednesday, again made clear that the government’s business at this moment is health care reform.

As a result, major climate legislation has been delayed twice in the Senate by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. At the same time, similar legislation in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — a $450 billion bill to overhaul transportation funding and policy nationally — has not been put off, at least by Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.).

But the Senate, led by Sen. Boxer, has legislation in place — and much farther along than the House transportation bill — to authorize just under $30 billion to extend the current transportation law by another 18 months. This would effectively delay Rep. Oberstar’s legislation with or without his support.

One way or another, action on federal transportation policy needs to come by the end of the month as the current law, which funds transportation projects and programs from mass transit upgrades to road and bridge repair to high speed rail development, expires Sept. 30.

Last month, while on the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul, Rep. Oberstar said:

It is disappointing that after eight years of a Bush administration that said no to robust investment in transportation now the Democratic administration says ‘well not now … 18 months’. The nation doesn’t have 18 months… People need jobs now.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman continued:

We’ve reported our six-year bill out of subcommittee and the week when we come back after Labor Day we’ll report it from full committee… I expect to have it on the floor by the third week of September; $450 billion over the next six years and the administration’s either going to come along or we’re going to roll them over.

Still, a report Thursday by The Wall Street Journal suggests that Rep. Oberstar sees passage of his bill unlikely this fall and that an extension of the current transportation law is likely.

With Congress back after a summer recess, President Barack Obama, in an address before both the House and Senate on Wednesday, again made clear that the government’s business at this moment is health care reform.

As a result, major climate legislation has been delayed twice in the Senate by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. At the same time, similar legislation in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — a $450 billion bill to overhaul transportation funding and policy nationally — has not been put off, at least by Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.). /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2008/10/ba_stimulus_thumb.jpg ]]> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/featured/the-dig-transportation-bill-running-on-fumes/808/feed/ 0 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/america-in-gridlock/interview-rep-jim-oberstar-on-the-transportation-bill/769/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/america-in-gridlock/interview-rep-jim-oberstar-on-the-transportation-bill/769/#comments Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:20:58 +0000 tom mcnamara http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/?p=769 Tom McNamara, Blueprint America

Rep. Jim Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

In mid-June, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, on behalf of the Obama administration, offered a temporary finance plan that, if implemented, could put off legislation to overhaul federal highway and transportation programs. It would also delay a possible vote to raise the national gas tax past the 2010 congressional midterm elections. The proposal came just a day before Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, released an outline of the legislation – THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 – aimed at reforming transportation nationally.

The current transportation authorization law is set to expire at the end of September. While only an extension is supported by the Administration and the majority of the Senate, Rep. Oberstar’s bill is gaining moment from members of the House — Republicans and Democrats — and special interest groups, including the Chamber of Commerce.

But, the new transportation legislation must be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee first — and Healthcare reform, not transportation, is their mandate for the moment. Still, the Minnesotan politician is not backing down.

In April, before the House transportation bill was introduced, Rep. Oberstar talked with Blueprint America about the legislation:

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What needs to happen with the national transportation system?

Handwritten transportation bill outline by Rep. Jim Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee || Photo: MinnPost.com

REP. JIM OBERSTAR: The end of the interstate era and the beginning of a new period of transit — to give people in America something more than where the road goes, but where the people (want) to go.

We need to transform the entire Department of Transportation to make it work.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: How did America get to this point?

REP. OBERSTAR: Let me tell you how it all started. In 1894, a group of bicyclists upset with the ruts being caused in their bicycle trails by the newfangled horseless carriages got 150,000 names on a continuous petition, wrapped it on one of those telephone cable devices, put it on a flatcar, hauled it to Washington, rolled the cable device to the U.S. capitol from Union Station, presented it to the Appropriations Committee and asked for $10,000 for a study of paved roadways for the horseless carriages.

The Congress complied. The funds were appropriated. The study completed. It resulted in the establishment of the Bureau of Road Inquiry in the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1896. A few years later, that became the Bureau of Public Roads.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: That was how it all started, why do we now have to transform the entire Department of Transportation to make the national transportation system work?

REP. OBERSTAR: We have to have a larger goal. What we have after the interstate era, is if there is a roadway here, we build and expand on that road. Because you have an 80–20 funding formula for highways — 80 percent federal funds, 20 percent state funds — and, on the other side, a transit funding program that is project-oriented — some projects might get 50 percent federal funds, some might get 60 percent, some might get only 40 percent — if you are a state department of transportation managing funds, you look at the formula and you say, “Well, we get 80 percent of the money if we build the road. We only get 50 percent or less if we invest in the transit system.”

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Why was the system built this way — to favor highways over transit?

REP. OBERSTAR: Funding is skewed away from transit and into highways because transit grew up in a different environment. It was a spin-off of railroads. It was during the 1960s, just before the creation of Amtrak. The railroads wanted to get rid of their passenger service. And they wanted to pass it off as a transit program. And secondly, transit was considered something to help the elderly and the disabled and the poor — it was a social program instead of a transportation program.

For example, Los Angeles had one of the most extensive streetcar systems in the country. But, they tore up the tracks, put in highways, roadways, streets and paved to accommodate the car. We have suburbs because we have the car. We have exurbs because of the car. Now, we have to transform our thinking in America.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, who made this choice — the government or the people?

REP. OBERSTAR: Those were conscious decisions by the American public who wanted the freedom, the mobility of the automobile to go where they wanted, to travel where they wanted and so roads were built to accommodate public interest. People made choices to move away from the public transportation system to a private, personalized transportation. And that resulted in sprawl.

We have to now transform our thinking — to link land use and development to transportation. And not require transportation to go where the land use went.

In an urban setting, a mile of freeway may cost in the range of $46 to $50 million. The same mile of urban light rail will cost $26 million and move twice as many people — or three times as many people. And that is what we need to impress.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What then will your transportation bill change?

REP. OBERSTAR: (This) has to be a transformational chapter in transportation — we need to restructure the way we deliver transportation. We have to take all these years of cumulative programs and adding to the responsibilities of states, and restructure it to transform the way transportation is delivered in America — to deliver projects faster and to assure that livability is high on the agenda.

So, take the 108 categories through which Federal Highway Trust Fund dollars are funneled out to the states and condense those into four great program areas. And give the states responsibility to set objectives over a six-year period and interim six-year goals to achieve their long term objectives that are national as well as state objectives. And report annually on their progress and show how they are achieving those goals. And we’ll measure them on that performance.

Also, we need to insist on intermodalism — to have an Assistant Secretary for Intermodalism who will bring together, at least once a month, all of the modal administrators: Aviation Administration, Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Transit Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Bring them all together and talk about safety, mobility, livability and how they can all work together for the benefit of this country.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, this will require an investment from the American people — an increase in taxes even while the country is in recession. How do you get public support?

REP. OBERSTAR: In 1956 Congress enacted the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways with a three cent gas tax, or user fee as it was called. Three cents on a gasoline price of 30 cents. That was 10 percent of the cost of fuel. Passed the House readily. The following year it was clear that more funding was needed for the system. And the Bureau of Public Rolls proposed an additional penny. It passed the House on a voice vote.

There was a sense of greater vision, of a greater need in America for safety, for mobility, to move people and goods and our economy more efficiently, more effectively. And the public understood that that penny was going for those roadway improvements. We need to rekindle that same spirit and understanding in America and show that an additional user fee will make life better.

If we show the American public we are going to move goods more efficiently in the urban and interurban environment, we’re going to move people more efficiently — less congestion and a better road surface — they will understand. They will accept it. We have an intelligent public. We have to show them that this is going to be a better way to move goods and people in our society.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: The Obama Administration is not willing to raise the gas tax to fund your transportation bill — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said as much. What do you do without the Administration’s support?

REP. OBERSTAR: In the end, the Congress decides, not the Administration.

In April, before the House transportation bill was introduced, Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, talked with Blueprint America about the legislation. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2008/11/oberstar_picnik.jpg ]]>

As the House version of a new transportation bill to reauthorize and reform the current federal transportation law, which expires at the end of September, remains in the House, the Senate has made two significant moves in the past week to postpone the debate for a new law.

When Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced the new legislation last June, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood proposed, as an alternative, an 18-month extension of the current law, which funds highways, roads and mass-transit nationally. Simply, the Obama Administration, as it works to manage the recent economic stimulus, which has struggled to have the effect that was intended, and overhaul the country’s healthcare system, sees a transportation reform bill — that would increase federal funding some 60 percent from the current law and potentially raise taxes during a recession in order to do so — as one cause too many.

Last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed the Administration’s endorsed 18-month extension of the existing transportation law. On Monday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) introduced legislation to replenish the nation’s Highway Trust Fund — $26.8 Billion of, essentially, deficit spending. It would allot $22 billion for highways and $4.8 billion for mass-transit.

While the Highway Trust Fund, which is the revenue source for transportation and infrastructure projects, will become insolvent sometime in late August or early September, it is only an aspect of transportation law. But, teamed with the 18-month extension approved last week, it would solidify that legislation’s funding.

Still, the Senate Highway Trust Fund plan, also endorsed by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D., W.V.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), would reform how the fund functions by restoring its ability to keep the interest it earns.

In the late 1960s, backed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Highway Trust Fund was made available to the government’s unified budget, making the money not exclusive to transportation projects — it has even been used in the years since to balance the federal budget.

In 1998, then Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R., Penn.) pushed through legislation that closed off the Highway Trust Fund. Still, in order to do so, the interest accrued by money in the Fund had to be forgone for transportation projects — that money could still be used in the federal government’s general fund.

At the same time, Rep. Oberstar recently suggested that the U.S. Treasury owes the Highway Trust Fund $21 billion, including interest, as a result of that agreement in the late 1990s.

While the current Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman would be likely to endorse the provision to protect the Fund’s interest, the overall legislation is at odds with his transportation bill.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), pictured in the front, second from right, at the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Project in Los Angeles last February. Sen. Boxer is also the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee || photo: The Los Angeles Times

On Wednesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed an 18-month extension of the existing federal transportation law as the new transportation bill remains waiting in the House. Though the new bill has already had some debate and mark-up in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.) introduced the legislation last month, the bill also needs to be heard before the House Ways and Means Committee so the funding portion of it can be determined.

That said, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures will hear the argument for the new transportation legislation on Thursday, July 23, next week. While testifying witnesses have not been named, seemingly the case will be made for the Ways and Means Committee to take a break from the revenue portion of the Healthcare bill, which, according to Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D., NY), is the Committee’s only focus.

Overall, Congress’ concentration on Healthcare has come from the top — President Barack Obama, who also wants the extension of the current transportation law. Still, only the transportation legislation has been able to make significant progress against the Obama Administration’s agenda.

Rep. Oberstar has had no problem being at odds with the President, though both are of the same party. The Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman has gained the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif) and some ranking Republican members in both the House and Senate. Most recently, Sen. George Voinovich (R., Ohio) was the lone dissenting vote as 18-month extension passed in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Sen. Voinovich said, “Everyone realizes the current law is inadequate to get the job done.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has been outspoken in her support for the delay of the new transportation bill as she has even set-back her own climate reform bill until at least September.

Even now, as Rep. Oberstar tries to push his new transportation bill through Congress, he is up against an 18-month extension of the current law that has already passed a Senate Committee.