Streetsblog Capitol Hill

House infrastructure committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), facing steep political odds in his push to pass a new six-year federal transportation bill this year, has begun to pitch an outside-the-box solution to the financing shortfall that is still stalling congressional action: Treasury bonds.

Oberstar's proposal would plug the hole in anticipated highway trust fund revenue for the next transport bill with top-rated Treasury debt securities. Those bonds, the Minnesotan explained on Friday, would "be repaid with revenues from the highway trust fund out into the future. And we would delay the repayment for the first perhaps four years, giving the economy time to recover."

In order to repay the Treasury for its up-front bond issue, Congress would ultimately need to raise the gas tax -- a step lawmakers have been unwilling to take since 1993, and one that the White House has ruled out for the time being.

"The idea of waiting three or four years for the economy to recover would be an appealing part of" the idea, Iowa state DOT chief Nancy Richardson told Oberstar when he sought her reaction to the plan at a Friday House hearing. "[That] would allow it to appeal to some of the dissenters in terms of increasing funding."

Delaying for three or four years, however, also would assume that future Congresses would be more open to voting on a gas-tax hike that few lawmakers are eager to debate, even in rosy economic times. The evidence of success for such kick-the-can-down-the-road moves is few and far between: both parties, for example, have habitually voted to postpone previously scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors rather than fix the long-term formula.

In addition, the growing production boom in semi- and fully electric cars casts doubt on the gas tax's ability to raise sustainable revenue for transportation going forward. Depending on how popular highly fuel-efficient cars become by the time Congress considers a future gas tax change, the cents-per-gallon increase needed to repay the Treasury may be much higher than any current predictions.

The gas-tax bonding plan has a third potential hiccup. Read more...

At an event in Minneapolis today, House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) announced his support for giving urban transit agencies more flexibility to spend federal transportation formula money on operating -- a change in the current law that has already won the backing of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood but has split the transit industry. Oberstar appeared at an event marking Minneapolis' move to join the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), founded 14 years ago by then-New York City Transportation Commissioner Elliot Sander to counterbalance the influence of state DOTs' voice in D.C., the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Oberstar's specific remarks on transit operating aid were unavailable as of press time. But transport committee spokesman Jim Berard said the Minnesotan supported "in principle" the concept of allowing transit agencies from areas with populations greater than 200,000 to use their federal transportation formula grants on operating expenses. Under current law, urban transit agencies are restricted to spending federal formula money on capital expenses, such as purchasing new rail cars or laying track for an expanded line. Congress agreed last year to give transit officials the freedom to redirect 10 percent of their federal stimulus aid to operating budgets, underscoring that the change was a temporary response to the recession. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the transit industry's chief lobbying group for more than a century, has opposed the use of formula grants for transit operating, preferring that already-scarce highway trust fund dollars be reserved for capital spending on rail and buses. APTA did not return a request for comment by press time on the growing support for changing the existing rules governing transit operating funds. Read more...

House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) today renewed his call for action on a new federal infrastructure bill before year's end, using a hearing on the Obama administration's stimulus law to urge passage of long-term legislation as well as a second round of short-term investment in roads, bridges, and rail.

Oberstar invited Joyce Fisk, a construction worker from his home state who gained employment thanks to a stimulus contract, for a second appearance before his panel. After hailing Fisk's "appeal" for a new federal transport law to boost the recession-ravaged construction industry, Oberstar warmly cited the move by Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to use his bill as a starting point in crafting her transportation measure.

The Minnesotan, who clashed openly with the White House this year over its preference to delay new transport legislation until 2011, said he was "encouraged that we will be able to complete the bill in this session of Congress."

One unspoken source of urgency for Oberstar and fellow House members: waiting until next year to take up a new transport bill would mean starting from scratch after the midterm elections, which could significantly shrink the size of the Democrats' majority. A more conservative transport committee would complicate the path to passage for the new transit spending envisioned in Oberstar's current bill.

Oberstar was the dominant force at today's stimulus hearing, scheduled for a Friday afternoon when many members were in the process of returning home for Congress' Easter recess. The chairman took the opportunity to press witnesses on unresolved policy controversies, including the debate over allowing transit agencies to spend federal aid on operating -- a representative for the transit industry's lobbying group called for extending the 10-percent flexibility approved last year -- and the need for Senate movement on the "second stimulus" that cleared the House in December.

"We have to sustain those existing jobs and investments so the private sector can catch up -- one more summer of stimulus will set the stage and move the country forward," Oberstar said, deeming the Senate's progress on infrastructure job creation "not sufficient."

During a discussion on the massive financing gap that is bogging down the next transport bill, Oberstar also pooh-poohed the prospects of tolling interstate highways built during the road program's postwar heyday. Pennsylvania is currently pushing for federal approval to add tolls to an existing interstate.

"We're not going to allow tolling of the interstate highway system," Oberstar said. "It's already been built and paid for."

Fixing a disputed provision in the jobs bill that President Obama signed into law yesterday -- as Senate Democratic leaders promised House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) following complaints by several members of his panel -- would involve the redistribution of $932 million in funding for two major federal road and rail programs.

The end result of the transfers would leave California with $192 million less than it had in the Senate-passed version of the jobs measure, while Texas would gain the most with an influx of more than $76 million, according to data released by Oberstar's committee earlier this week.

The $932 million in grants became an issue last month after the jobs bill, which extends the 2005 transportation law until 2011, cleared the Senate with language that also extended 2009-level earmarks for the two programs, known as Projects of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) and the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement (NCIIP).

That extension of previous earmarks would result in 58 percent of the $932 million going to four states: Illinois, Louisiana, California, and Washington. After lawmakers from other states raised alarms about the distribution, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) vowed to Oberstar [PDF] that if the House would approve the jobs bill without changing the provision, the Senate would move as quickly as possible on a fix.

"Although my preference would be to amend this [jobs bill] to reflect these compromises today, any further delays in enacting a surface transportation extension are unacceptable," Oberstar said two weeks ago, urging colleagues to take the upper chamber at its word.

The House passed legislation earlier this week that would redirect the $932 million to all 50 states based on existing road-funding formulas. It is that shift that would take PRNS and NCIIP money from California, Illinois ($119 million), Louisiana ($43 million), and Washington ($39 million), as well as Oregon ($29 million) and Virginia ($12 million).

States that would gain under the fix include Texas, Ohio ($25 million), Florida ($47 million), Georgia ($31 million), and New York ($16 million). It remains unclear when the Senate will act on the change.

After a year marked by discord between the House and Senate over the timing of the next federal transportation bill, another split emerged yesterday over the timetable for taking up the Obama administration's plan for federal involvement in transit safety oversight.

Speaking to the American Public Transportation Association's (APTA) annual conference, aides to both House infrastructure committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Rep. John Mica (FL), the panel's top Republican, said they aim to make the White House's proposed transit safety legislation part of the broader debate over restructuring federal transport programs -- an issue that may not come before Congress until next year.

But an adviser to the Senate Banking Committee's senior Republican, Richard Shelby (AL), said he wants the transit safety bill to be "a free-standing piece of legislation and not wait until" lawmakers can agree on a long-term federal transport bill.

In remarks that touched on the continuing impasse over that six-year transport bill, Oberstar aide Amy Scarton asked APTA members to provide input on the White House transit safety proposal, which has gotten mixed reviews from transit officials. The safety legislation is set to move through the House "as part of the long-term surface transportation bill," she said.

Meanwhile, Mica remains opposed to the Obama team's strategy of asking state transit overseers (known as SSOs) to submit to federal supervision if their programs are deemed out of compliance with minimal safety standards, according to aide Joyce Rose. The Floridian would prefer to bolster individual SSOs with grant money to avoid "creating a new federal bureaucracy," she said.

But Rose agreed with Scarton that transit safety should move as part of the broader transport bill, a perspective that runs counter to the administration's hopes for quick passage of its proposed legislation.

After the House aides spoke, Shannon Hines -- who served as Shelby's chief of staff before moving to the Banking panel in 2007 -- expressed her boss' differing view on the transit safety debate.

It remains to be seen whether other senators share his view on the timing for safety legislation. An adviser to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) did not mention the retiring Banking chairman's preferred approach yesterday, and a spokeswoman for Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), a leading voice on transit safety, told Streetsblog Capitol Hill that the Maryland senator is "looking at all the options" in order to approve the administration's safety plan "as quickly as possible."

This week's National Bike Summit culminated in an ambitious new campaign to recruit a million bike advocates and the unveiling of a new Google Maps bike feature. But in a Wednesday session dedicated to the outlook for federal bike investments, cycling advocates hesitated to declare that they could secure new commitments from Washington.

"If Congress is going to act" on a new long-term transportation bill, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy president Keith Laughlin said, "it's definitely going to be our year. If we are ready."

Laughlin's phrasing was aimed at stoking cyclists' appetite for lobbying Congress in favor of pro-bike legislation, such as Rep. Earl Blumenauer's Active Community Transportation Act. But his caution also reflected the ongoing uncertainty surrounding how lawmakers plan to pay for a new long-term infrastructure bill expected to cost at least $450 billion.

Even if bipartisan support can bring the White House on board for a new bill this year, it remains to be seen whether bike advocates can secure the $2 billion in competitive federal grants that Blumenauer has proposed.

Tyler Frisbee, an aide to the Portland lawmaker who spoke to the Summit on her personal time, was careful to praise House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) as a friend of bicyclists. But Oberstar's transport legislation, Frisbee said, is "not the bill we want for another eight years ... cycling will be light years behind Europe [if it passes]."

Frisbee warned fellow bike advocates that Oberstar views the Blumenauer bill as an expansion of the Non-Motorized Pilot Program that directed $25 million to four trail projects in the 2005 transportation law. Describing her boss' legislation as separate from that spending, Frisbee said a Senate version would be introduced soon by Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley.

Despite the hazy outlook for congressional action on transportation reform, Rails-to-Trails is continuing to push ahead with its long-term agenda. Laughlin said the group's 10-year goal is to help pay for bike trails within three miles of 90 percent of American residences, while doubling existing federal bike spending to $9 billion over six years.

"If the bill comes up for a vote, we have a fighting chance, but to win" requires sustained and increased focus on grassroots lobbying of lawmakers, he said.

The House voted today to compensate nearly 2,000 U.S. DOT workers who were forcibly furloughed last week when Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) mounted a five-day blockade of legislation extending federal transportation spending for the month of March.

The repayment bill, passed without a recorded vote, would prevent the furloughed workers from getting a 20 percent salary cut in their next paychecks. The Senate must act on the bill before March 16 to prevent the cuts from occurring.

"When you are taking home $900 over a two-week period, a $300 cut can be devastating," House transport committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), the bill's sponsor, said in a speech before its approval. "These cuts would be difficult enough in good economic times. Amidst the current economic downturn, they would be particularly painful."

Bunning argued that the extension of existing transportation law, which came coupled with five weeks of stopgap funding for unemployment benefits, should be fully paid for -- despite his past support for similar unpaid extension measures. He ultimately relented after a tumult of media coverage began to give Democrats political momentum in their campaign against frequent Republican use of the filibuster.

The U.S. DOT compensation bill is fully paid for, Oberstar's office said in a statement, thanks to a shift in already-approved spending authority for the agency.

A familiar script for Washington infrastructure watchers began to unfold last night on the Senate floor, as House-side resistance to a 10-month extension of existing federal transportation law prompted Democratic leaders to seek a quick deal on a one-month stopgap -- the fourth such short-term move in six months.

But one GOP senator, the notoriously irascible Jim Bunning (KY), objected to the 30-day extension, which also would ensure continued payment of federal unemployment benefits. When Democrats pleaded with Bunning to drop his one-man filibuster effort, Politico heard the retiring Kentuckian offer a terse response: "Tough s--t."

If an extension cannot be passed before the 2005 transportation law officially expires at midnight on Sunday, the result would be a quasi-shutdown of operations at U.S. DOT. A source at the agency told Streetsblog Capitol Hill that all employees of the Federal Highway Administration, save for its chief, would be sent home and states would stop getting reimbursed for their spending on all road projects.

The Federal Transit Administration would see a freeze of its own, the U.S. DOT source said, with contract authority to fund local projects sitting in limbo until Congress acts. Perhaps the most untimely delay would occur at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), where regulators are ramping up their oversight efforts after the Toyota recall debacle.

"[I]t is simply unfair for one senator to attempt to hold the Senate hostage,” Dick Durbin (D-IL), the upper chamber's No. 2 leader, said last night in a statement.

Where does that leave Democrats? Read more...

In the years before partisan warfare became the norm in Washington, transportation tended to unite both ends of the ideological spectrum. Can rationality return to infrastructure policy debates that have become subsumed by culture clashes between cyclists and drivers, urbanists and suburbanites -- and, of course, Democrats and Republicans?

That question brought House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) to a small meeting room on Capitol Hill today as conservative transit advocate Bill Lind engaged assistant transportation secretary Polly Trottenberg, Reconnecting America president John Robert Smith, and urban developer Chris Leinberger in a spirited debate.

Lind focused on the themes of Moving Minds, a book he co-wrote with the late conservative icon Paul Weyrich to debunk many of the anti-transit, pro-roads myths trotted out by Randal O'Toole, Wendell Cox, and other pundits on the right.

"The way we got to America's national motto being 'drive or die' ... is not because of any sort of free market," Lind said today. "We got here because of massive government subsidization of one competitor and the taxing of another."

But the dialogue got interesting when Oberstar arrived, a cast on his arm after taking a spill on a sheet of ice. He shared an anecdote about former French President Charles de Gaulle's support for rail before hitting a familiar note, one best described as respectfully critical of the Obama administration.

"Political will -- that's what we're lacking today and have been lacking for a long time," Oberstar said, urging fellow policymakers "to reinvest in a system that moves great numbers of people at the lowest cost."

In a direct communication to Trottenberg, the White House's representative in the room, he added that he stands ready to take up a new federal transportation bill "whenever this administration can find its political will to support a financing mechanism."

Trottenberg took the floor next, acknowledging "frustration" on the part of U.S. DOT staff as they seek to build political support for the difficult choices needed to raise revenue for large-scale reform. Read more...

With the U.S. unemployment rate hitting 10.2 percent today, its highest level in 26 years, a palpable shift is occurring on Capitol Hill.

For weeks, we've heard senior Democrats and the transit industry make the case for more transportation spending as a potent job creator, but the lack of funding for a full six-year bill has kept the conversation stalled.

But two things have happened in the week since Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) floated the idea of a "front-loaded" infrastructure plan that would concentrate investment in the first two years:

• The defeat of two Democratic candidates in Tuesday's off-year elections reinforced that job creation and economic worries are the No. 1 concerns for voters.
• Gross domestic product may be rebounding, but unemployment decidedly is not.

This adds up to renewed interest in fast-tracking a new transportation bill, perhaps with a two-year window. As House transport committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) told David Rogers of Politico, "The concrete is cracking."

But even if the White House is prepared to abandon its insistence on an 18-month extension of current law, how to pay for new transportation legislation remains a very open question. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), for his part, told Rogers that he likes the sound of Rep. Pete DeFazio's (D-OR) proposed tax on Wall Street oil speculators:

There are some painless ways to fund the highway bill. Transaction taxes, that’s a painless way ... Where are the shared contributions to all this? If you’re sitting there on Wall Street, if you’re Goldman Sachs, if you’re making all this money, if you got all this federal money [in a] bailout, and you are paying all these big bonuses to your folks, where is your contribution to this recovery? That’s why it’s painless.

Clyburn's reference to the "highway" bill brings up another lingering mystery about the type of transportation spending being envisioned by senior Democrats. If the White House does agree to support a new infrastructure bill after health care is finished, will it include policy changes or just new money?

Read more...