June 2012 Archives

Anyone who has been reading this blog in recent months knows that we have been obsessively following the intrigue surrounding the highway bill. This week marks another pivotal moment. As usual, it coincides with a looming expiration date, June 30, for the federal highway program. These are the two most likely outcomes: 1) a short-term stopgap (30 days or less) with a final deal in the works for a 15-month highway bill, or 2) a six-month extension. Neither option is fantastic.

The transportation chiefs on Capitol Hill have not given up on the notion that they could complete a bill by the end of the week, although the odds are good that they will need at least a small breather extending beyond July 1 to take care of the details. House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., are working with staff to put in writing a deal struck last week on the highway provisions in the bill, which includes language to reduce the number of federal transportation offices and rework the funding for "transportation enhancements" that takes care of things like bike paths. After that, the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees are tasked with putting together the financing for the legislation.

It's still a tall order. House Speaker John Boehner is holding firm on his demand for a six-month extension if the deal isn't closed by week's end. That deal would have to include agreements on the non-transportation issues Keystone XL oil pipeline, coal ash, and the revenue raisers that would pay for the package, according to a leadership aide. By all accounts, the serious discussions on those extraneous issues have yet to begin, and there have been few signs from Republicans or Democrats that they are willing to bend on a controversial provision like Keystone.

This is an awful lot of hoopla for a milk-toast two-year highway bill as the best possible outcome. Is it worth it? What's the difference between six months and 15 months? Won't state transportation departments be reeling under the severe pressures of budget uncertainty no matter what happens? Why should the transportation community kill themselves to lobby for a bill that will be obsolete almost as soon as the ink is dry?

3 responses: Emil H. Frankel, Robert L. Darbelnet, Gabriel Roth

The writing is pretty much on the wall. Lawmakers may say they're holding out for a conference transportation bill, but, let's face it, June 30th is fast approaching with no sign of a coming compromise. Senate Democrats are calling on House Republicans to pass a bill; House Republicans accuse Senate Democrats of being unwilling to negotiate. No one's suggesting a bill is imminent.

One of the key hurdles to compromise, House Republicans say, is finding common ground on their environmental streamlining measures.

"On five of our priorities, we have offered a counterproposal.... On three of them it's been a flat 'no,' and on a couple of the others, it's been a very, very minor movement," Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., a conferee, said last week.

Some of those priorities, such as adjusting the trigger for environmental reviews of projects or creating hard deadlines for the reviews, are just matters of ideology. But others seem to show promise for compromise. Republicans want to let states work on projects before a review is complete, with the promise to abandon or adjust the project should it fail to meet federal standards. They also want to create categorical exemptions for certain types of projects--replacing a broken bridge with a copy, for example--which Oregon Democrat and conferee Rep. Peter DeFazio in April suggested there may be some common ground on. A project aimed at putting streetcar tracks into paved roads, for example, should be streamlined, he said: "We're going to have fewer cars on that road. Why would we have to spend a lot of time and money studying it?"

Critics will argue that environmental reviews are not the only--or biggest--reason for delayed projects, but, if they're a sticking point for House Republicans and there is some common ground, why not pursue a compromise for the sake of a larger bill? Are there other common-sense streamlining proposals? What measures could Senate Democrats offer as an olive branch, as a move toward a deal that doesn't abandon their principles? Should they bother? Or are there serious downsides to all of the streamlining proposals?

2 responses: Deron Lovaas, Gabriel Roth

It was a pretty poor showing last Friday for an idea touted by House Republican leaders just a year and a half ago. On Friday, only about one-third of the House Republicans cast their votes in favor of a nonbinding, message to legislators that they should keep infrastructure spending within the limits of the highway trust fund, which would have the practical effect of cutting highway funding by about one-third.

Sponsored by hard-core tea partier Rep. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., the nonbinding instruction to lawmakers only got 82 votes, all from Republicans. The idea was a simple one, to live within our means. But it has such broad-reaching implications for the federal highway program that even serious conservatives like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Ways and Means Committee Chairman David Camp, R-Mich., voted against it. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who is leading the conference committee on the highway bill, cheered the result. "I am very encouraged today that the House of Representatives soundly defeated an irresponsible proposal to cut transportation spending by many billions of dollars," she said. "This bipartisan vote sends a strong signal to the transportation conference committee that we should reach agreement swiftly."

There are signs that a resolution may be near. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week proposed a twofer funding option, using federal pension accounting, to pay for a highway bill and a one-year freeze of a 3.4 percent student loan interest rate. Republicans appear at least willing to consider the idea, but there is so much distrust on both sides of the aisle that both political parties need to calm down and keep away from the TV cameras to make it happen.

Is it now passé to call for keeping infrastructure funding within the highway trust fund? What has changed since the beginning of this Congress that has allowed so many Republicans to comfortably say that current highway funding levels should be maintained? How does a conversation about the highway trust fund and its limitations impact the infrastructure debate? Was Broun's maneuver useful to the conversation or was it a distraction?

2 responses: Gabriel Roth, Patrick D. Jones

For nearly 100 years, federal and state governments have worked together on implementing infrastructure projects, with states creating and maintaining them and the federal government setting standards and providing funding. And, as with so much else infrastructure-related, that partnership has become bloated, inefficient and unsustainable.

OK, that may be a bit of an overstatement, but the Government Accountability Office did find in a surprisingly lucid late-April review, requested by conferee Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., that the current federal-state partnership on infrastructure projects comes with a handful of risks, including "cases where [Federal Highway Authority] was lax in its oversight by trusting but not verifying state activities and cases where FHWA demonstrated reluctance to take corrective action to bring states back into compliance, which can result in ineffective, wasteful, and potentially improper use of federal funds."

The GAO's recommendations are somewhat ideologically split. On one hand, the GAO advocates for the implementation of a performance-based highway program--as is outlined in the Senate transportation bill--an expansion of government some conservatives might take issue with. But such a program will only add to an already resource-strapped FHWA, so the GAO also recommends devolving some responsibilities for managing and funding projects to states, a move some conservatives might back.

How should the federal-state partnership on infrastructure projects be structured? Is a performance-based system all that's needed? Or do states need much more oversight? Can they get by with less? Is it time for some grand reform of the federal-state relationship or will tweaks suffice?

2 responses: Emil H. Frankel, John Horsley