Senate Bypasses Bush Threats, Passes $318 Billion Transport Bill

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, February 16, 2004 (ENS) - The U.S. Senate easily passed a six year, $318 billion transportation spending bill on Thursday despite the threat of a presidential veto and strong opposition by fiscal conservatives who believe the measure is far too costly.

Proponents said the level of spending is needed to address much needed highway and mass transit projects across the nation and argue it will create more than 1.6 million new jobs during the next six years.

"This is a jobs bill," said Senator Jim Jeffords, a Vermont Democrat and coauthor of the legislation. "In fact, there is no other jobs bill that will do so much for different workers of this nation. Everyone benefits."

The bill passed by a vote of 76 to 21.

Arizona Senator John McCain joined 16 fellow Republicans and four Democrats in opposing the bill, which he described as part of a Congressional pattern of "reckless fiscal insanity."

Growing traffic is an increasing problem in many cities around the United States, as seen on this freeway near Denver, Colorado. (Photo by Warren Gretz courtesy NREL)

The House is still working on its transportation bill, which currently has a price tag of some $375 billion.

In the wake of the Senate vote, the White House warned Congress that the final bill must be more in line with the president's $256 million proposal or else it will be rejected.

"We must fund our priorities of winning the war on terror, defending the homeland, and creating jobs - and we must hold the line on spending in other areas," said White House Press Secretary Scot McClellan

"With passage of an excessive $318 billion highway funding bill, the Senate missed an important opportunity to rein in spending," McClellan said.

The bill is supposed to be funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, which receives money from the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gasoline tax.

But the price tag demanded by the Senate requires dipping into other tax revenue, a move that New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg said leaves the bill with future generations.

"There are ways to fund a highway bill that are appropriate, and it is called going to the highway fund and using the money in the highway fund," said Gregg, who called the Senate "a fantasy land for the purposes of spending.

"[This bill] is paid for by borrowing from the general fund, which means running up the debt, and that is inappropriate," Gregg said, pointing to a projected record budget deficit of $521 billion.

The long range strategy to reduce air pollution involves offering options to get people out of cars and off the roads - the Senate bill contains $56.5 billion for mass transit. (Photo courtesy EPA)

The Senate bill eases state compliance with the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity program, which requires that state transportation plans conform to federal air quality standards set by the law and contribute to the achievement of those goals.

The changes in the bill shorten the planning period for conformity plans from 20 years to 10 years, a move that critics believe will allow the transportation sector to ignore its long term impacts on air pollution.

Language in the bill also allows state and local funded transportation projects to move forward even if they are at odds with the state's federal air quality plan.

"If it becomes law, this bill will make air quality worse and reduce the ability of communities to make clean transportation choices," said Michael Replogle, transportation director for the nonprofit advocacy organization Environmental Defense.

In addition, the bill expedites review of projects mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, which calls on federal agencies to analyze the potential environmental impact of transportation projects and give the public the opportunity to comment on alternatives.

"This bill would take us back to the time when building highways took precedence over public health, and when people had little or no say in transportation decisions that affect their communities," said Deron Lovaas, deputy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Smart Growth Program.

Lovaas says there are few things in the bill worth celebrating, but there is an amendment added to the bill that earmarks $958 million to reduce water pollution from transportation project runoff. It contains a provision to increase coordination between conservation and transportation and the $56 million for mass transit is comparable with current law.

"These are modest steps, but we are grateful for measures that would improve planning, reduce stormwater pollution, and retain a commitment to public transit," said Lovaas.

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma (Photo courtesy Office of Congressman Richard Pombo)

McCain warned his colleagues that the Senate may appear to have the votes to override a veto, but the House is another matter. Two thirds of members of each body are required to block a presidential veto.

"I am confident the President has the number of votes to sustain his veto in the other body," McCain said.

But Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, questioned the resolve of the White House to reject a bill that is certain to create jobs.

"I doubt seriously that the President of the United States is going to veto this jobs bill," Baucus told colleagues. "It just is not going to happen ... the President has not vetoed any bill in his presidency - none. I doubt that his first veto would be the highway bill, a jobs bill."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, called the bill one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress will consider this session and pledged to try and help resolve the spending dispute that "clearly has frustrated both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue."

The six year transportation spending bill expired last fall and the temporary extension expires at the end of February.

The House passed another four month extension this week and Frist said the Senate would vote on another extension if needed.