House Defies Bush in Passing a $275-Billion Highway Bill

The House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a six-year, $275-billion transportation bill that President Bush had threatened to block with the first veto of his administration, setting up an unusual election-year showdown between the Republican president and members of his own party who control Congress.

Bush’s threat reflects, at least in part, pressure from conservative supporters to take a firmer stand against federal spending in the face of a record budget deficit. But lawmakers in both parties supported the highway spending plan -- the largest public works measure expected to come before Congress this year -- as an economic stimulus measure.

“This is the biggest jobs bill that we will vote on in this Congress,” said Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.).

The House action, following Senate approval of a $318-billion bill in February, virtually ensures that the final measure that emerges from negotiations between the chambers will be higher than the $256 billion the White House had set as its limit.

“Even if the president decides that this will be the first bill his administration vetoes, they’ve spread the goodies around enough that they would be able to override a veto,” said Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a government watchdog group.

The measure was approved by a 357-65 vote, a much wider margin than the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

Overall, the nearly 900-page measure would provide $217 billion for highways, $51.5 billion for mass transit such as buying buses and building rail lines, and $6 billion for safety and research programs.

Loaded into the bill are more than 2,800 projects eagerly sought by lawmakers. That compares with just under 1,800 projects packed into the last big transportation bill, approved in 1998, when the government was posting a budget surplus.

Although many of the projects involve road construction and improvements, the bill includes such specialty items as $1.5 million for the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich., and $1.5 million for horse trails in Virginia.

Among the measures to ease gridlock, the bill would authorize states to allow solo drivers in carpool lanes if they paid a toll, and to fund construction of trucks-only lanes. Funds also were included to pay for development of futuristic magnetic levitation trains that could run in excess of 240 mph.

Supporters argued that, in addition to boosting the economy, the bill was a necessary response to crumbling roads and growing traffic congestion in many parts of the nation.

Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio), addressing dissent within the GOP ranks about the bill’s price tag, told colleagues: “Republican values in this country are based upon a strong defense and a strong infrastructure.”

Referring to the veto threat issued by the White House budget office, he added: “Why some bean counters have determined that we can do this bill on the cheap when the infrastructure needs of this country are crying out for repair is beyond me.”

California would receive more dollars for highway projects than any other state -- a total of more than $17 billion, up by about $1.8 billion from the previous six-year bill. The state also would receive $5.5 billion for mass transit, a $1.9-billion increase.

Although most of the money is distributed to states to spend as they see fit, California lawmakers snagged about $1 billion for specific projects in their districts.

Among them: $3 million for a feasibility study on tunneling under South Pasadena to complete the long-disputed extension of the Long Beach Freeway; $1 million for widening Harbor Boulevard around Disneyland; $1.5 million for “streetscape” improvements in Long Beach; $3 million for the purchase of three ferryboats and dock work in Long Beach; and $70 million for seismic retrofits for the Golden Gate Bridge.

The bill also includes $2 million for a four-lane connector between Interstate 40 and Arizona Route 95 in Needles, a road that Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) said is heavily used by travelers heading to Nevada casinos and recreation areas along the Colorado River.

California lawmakers said they expected the state to do even better if an additional $6 billion was divvied up nationally, as expected, during congressional negotiations for projects of “national and regional significance.”

They are seeking money for adding a northbound carpool lane on the San Diego Freeway on the Sepulveda Pass, and additional funds to lower the railroad tracks in Placentia to reduce the noise from trains and to speed the movement of freight trains without slowing street traffic.

California also is expected to benefit from a new program that would fund projects designed to reduce congestion at the border and speed the flow of freight out of high-traffic regions such as the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

All of the California lawmakers voted for the bill except for Democrats Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles, George Miller of Martinez and Pete Stark of Hayward, and Republican Duncan Hunter of El Cajon. They were absent.

In their face-off with the administration, House leaders are expected to continue to press for a higher amount than favored by the White House. Some were angry that the administration issued a veto threat even though the bill’s authors had shaved $100 billion from their original proposal.

But the White House budget office complained the bill still was too costly, noting that the president’s proposal represented a 21% increase over the $218-billion transportation bill approved in 1998.

Additionally, the administration objected to a provision put into the bill by House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) that would allow Congress to boost spending levels in 2005. The White House objected that the provision could lead to a gasoline tax increase or exacerbate the budget deficit.

“It is critical to exercise responsible restraint over federal spending,” the budget office said in a statement.

To shore up support for the bill among cost-conscious Republicans, Young boosted funding for lawmakers’ pet projects by about $1 billion in the final hours before it came to a vote.

And in a demonstration that rank does have its privileges, Young’s home state was among the biggest beneficiaries under the bill, receiving close to $500 million for his projects.

Although California would receive more federal dollars than any other state, it remained one of several states that would continue to receive less money back from Washington than residents paid in gasoline taxes. That has drawn complaints from some governors, including California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jeb Bush of Florida and Rick Perry of Texas.

California would continue to receive 90.5 cents back for every $1 it sends to Washington. Some less populous states -- such as Idaho, Montana and Wyoming -- get back more than they contribute because it costs more to maintain their interstates than their motorists contribute through gasoline taxes. The larger Senate bill would guarantee states a minimum of 95 cents back on the dollar by 2009.

Shortly before the vote, Schwarzenegger sent the California delegation a letter urging it to support an amendment backed by critics of the funding formula, contending it would give California more money. But only two members of the state’s 53-member House delegation backed Schwarzenegger, and the amendment was defeated.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) said there was a “difference in interpretation” between the governor’s office and members of the California delegation over whether the amendment would benefit the state.

Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-Diamond Bar), a House Transportation Committee member, said that focusing solely on the funding formula without including projects that lawmakers put into the bill painted an “incomplete picture.”

“Once funding for these projects is allocated and added to the state’s formula funding, California is actually one of the top benefactors of the bill,” he said.

Besides the price tag, other contentious issues must be hashed out in House-Senate negotiations.

For one thing, the administration is unhappy that the House bill does not include a provision that would make available $600 million to reward states if they pass laws allowing police to stop and ticket motorists solely for not buckling up, or if they raise their seat belt use rate to 90%. The provision is in the Senate bill.

The House measure would reward states for passing laws prohibiting the use of racial profiling in enforcing traffic laws.

And consumer groups are pushing for House acceptance of provisions of the Senate bill designed to make vehicles safer, such as requiring stronger roofs to better protect passengers, making sport utility vehicles less prone to rollovers and reducing the danger to children from power windows and cars backing up.

The measures are opposed by the auto industry, which says that the economic impact of such rules should be considered.

The bill also includes a measure sought by Hollywood that would exempt short-haul motion picture and television production truck drivers from new hours-of-service rules designed to prevent driver fatigue.

Supporters of the exemption said it was needed to keep film and television production costs down and prevent film production from leaving the United States. They added that the drivers who would be exempt spent much of their time not on the road, but waiting for film shoots to finish.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Where the money’s to flow

The $275-billion House transportation bill was approved Friday. Of the $9.5 billion earmarked for high-priority projects, the largest share would go to California. The 10 states that would receive the highest percentages of high-priority money:

*--* States’ funding States’ population* as a percentage of as a percentage of bill’s total funding total U.S. population California 11.24 12.20 Texas 7.25 7.61 New York 6.21 6.60 Illinois 5.95 4.35 Florida 4.72 5.85 Alaska 4.68 0.22 Pennsylvania 4.34 4.25 Ohio 3.71 3.93 Michigan 2.59 3.47 New Jersey 2.57 2.97

*--*

*Based on 2003 population

Source: California Institute for Federal Policy Research