Senate Committee OKs Highway Bill

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last week approved a transportation bill that would authorize $84 billion in highway spending over two years, the first such measure to move in Congress since the previous funding legislation expired in 2009.

Sponsored by two Republicans and two Democrats, the measure was sent to the full Senate on Nov. 9, although identified revenue sources to fund it fell $12 billion short.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the panel’s highest-ranking Republican, said the vote was “predicated” on finding additional revenue to fully fund the measure. “It’s not going to go anywhere outside of this committee until we find that funding,” he said.

Introduced Nov. 4, the bill contains several proposals that would affect trucking, including creation of a national program designed to speed freight along the nation’s highways.

The legislation would authorize $41.6 billion in highway construction and safety spending for federal fiscal year 2012, which started Oct. 1, and $42.2 billion in fiscal 2013.

The nation currently spends about $50 billion annually on transportation, including spending for public transit not addressed in the EPW bill. Total spending for a two-year reauthorization that includes inflation and transit spending is projected at $109 billion.

Since the most recent transportation spending law, SAFETEA-LU, expired, Congress has passed eight extensions, the latest of which runs out March 31.

The committee vote was a rare example of bipartisanship in a Congress that has been deeply divided.

“The bill before us is completely bipartisan and, therefore, no one is going to think it perfect,” said Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

Besides Boxer and Inhofe, the other sponsors are David Vitter (R-La.), ranking Republican on the Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee, and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), that subcommittee’s chairman.

Each senator “has given” on major points in order to produce the bill, Inhofe said.

Highway bills are funded largely with revenue to the Highway Trust Fund from fuel taxes and excise levies on heavy trucks. But at least $12 billion in additional revenue is needed to fully fund the proposal.

Baucus also is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax legislation and must approve any plan for raising the $12 billion.

“I . . . pledge to the committee that we will, one way or another, by hook or crook, find the resources on a bipartisan basis to pay for this bill,” Baucus said.

Vitter called the bill “the definition of bipartisan work” and stressed it contained no earmarks, pet projects inserted by legislators.

In a statement before the committee vote, American Trucking Associations President Bill Graves called the bill “a substantive and innovative plan” to address the critical need for infrastructure improvements.

“By consolidating the myriad of federal programs into just a handful of major initiatives, including one dedicated solely to the movement of freight, this draft ensures that federal dollars will be spent more wisely,” Graves said.

Dubbed MAP-21 for Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, the bill is the only reauthorization plan introduced in Congress so far.

A two-year reauthorization would be a departure from the tradition of six-year plans. The senators outlined a six-year plan in May but later said the fiscal situation is such that they can-not generate support for six years of spending.

On the House side, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) has said only a six-year bill would provide funding stability for transportation projects.

Under the terms of the Senate bill, freight would become a “core” federal highway program, meaning a dedicated share of Highway Trust Fund money could be spent on freight-related projects, such as truck-only lanes.

The measure also would direct the secretary of Transportation to designate a national freight highway network eligible for targeted funding.

Also, states could spend funds historically used only for highways on maritime and rail projects if a project would make “significant improvement to freight movements” on the national freight highway network.

The bill also would require a survey of available safe truck parking in each state and make it public. States would be allowed to spend highway funds on parking facilities, although the bill contains no new funding for that purpose.

If Congress adopts this bill, states no longer would be required to spend a portion of their federal highway funds on enhancement projects such as historic preservation and bike and walking paths. Such spending would be voluntary.

The bill does not address highly controversial topics such as higher truck weights and high-speed rail funding, but it would consolidate or abolish a plethora of highway programs created over the years such as those for ferryboats and scenic byways. More than 80 existing federal highway programs would be reduced to 21.

Other provisions seek to streamline the environmental review process, which critics have said causes costly construction delays on transportation projects.

“We like the direction of the environmental streamlining,” said Brian Turmail, spokesman for the General Contractors Association of America, “and appreciate that, especially the Democrats on the committee, are likely to get some criticism from environmental groups.”