News From ASET - July 26, 2004

Update On Reauthorization Bill

House conferees on the surface transportation bill (HR 3550) on Thursday presented - but did not seek a vote on - a $298.9 billion, six-year proposal that a top House negotiator said would get President Bush's signature. But although it might have been acceptable to the administration, it got an icy reception from many of the conferees.

"I can assure you that if we have a Senate vote, it will fail," Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, told the conference. The House offer was not put to a vote. Instead, staff members for the two sides will spend the recess assessing the impact of a $298.9 billion funding level on such issues as the share of funding each state would receive.

"All of us agree this is not adequate," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., said at the meeting, but "most important, the president will support it and the president will sign it."

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, called the proposal "a good faith offer." Though it falls far short of the $375 billion over six years that Young originally proposed last year, he said, "In reality, this is what we must accept at this time."

The House and Senate were expected to act Friday on a two-month extension of the surface transportation law - the current extension expires July 31 while Congress is in recess.

Before working out the details of the highway and transit authorization, conferees have been trying to settle on a total amount that the House, Senate and White House can agree on. The Senate passed a $318.9 billion measure in February and proposed that figure in conference. The House version of the bill would authorize $283.2 billion, and its latest offer comes close to splitting the difference with the Senate.

The Bush administration proposed a $256 billion bill and has been adamant about that until the past few days when administration officials have indicated the White House might agree to spend more as long as the measure would not raise taxes, increase the size of the deficit or rely on federal borrowing.

Senate negotiators have made clear that they think more spending is necessary for highways. For instance, Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said Senate and House conferees should continue working on the bill, but "I'm not ready to accept the number," proposed on Thursday.

Several of the conferees expressed concern that proposed figures were inadequate to address their concerns, such as making sure donor states that send more dollars to the Highway Trust Fund than they receive for highway projects could get back at least 95 cents on the dollar. Also, the Senate and the House will have to decide which of their pet programs they are willing to jettison.

"I don't see how we can accommodate the Senate's objectives and the House objectives" under this funding level, said Rep. William O. Lipinski, D-Ill.

The $299 billion House offer includes $284 billion in authority to obligate federal funds for highway and transit projects and a $15 billion rescission of prior contract authority - funds that are left unobligated from current transportation programs.

Inhofe on July 20 had suggested that the conferees consider working with $301 billion, including $289 billion in obligational authority. But there was stiff resistance to that figure, particularly from Senate members who protested that the figure was too low.

Source: CQ Today