Senate jobs bill meets reluctance over distribution of highway funds

The Senate jobs bill, passed this week in a rare bipartisan vote, is running into resistance in the House because it is too generous to California and a few other states, critics said.

A bipartisan group of House members is complaining that the measure would steer more than half of a nearly $1-billion pot of highway money to California, Illinois, Louisiana and Washington state, while 22 states would receive nothing.

California, the home state of Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairwoman of the Senate committee that oversees public works, would receive $278 million, more than any other state.

The provision is “unfair to the taxpayers of 46 states, unresponsive to the whole nation’s infrastructure and job creation needs, and unacceptable,” according to one letter signed by a group of House members.

Peter Rafle, a spokesman for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said some critics were singling out a small part of the transportation spending -- a portion that benefits California. But he said every state would share in more than $40 billion that the bill authorizes for transportation projects for the remainder of the year.

The dispute threatens to delay action on an election-year jobs bill that Democrats are eager to pass. It also underscores how much lawmakers will fight for any amount of funding for politically popular transportation projects.

“Unless you’re getting the bacon, no one likes special deals, and this one is going to be controversial because it’s supposed to be about creating jobs,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.

The Senate bill would distribute $932 million based on how much states received in the last big transportation bill for “projects of national and regional significance” and for those that promote economic growth and trade. California, Illinois, Louisiana and Washington state would receive 58% of the money.

“Just to give that as a gift to a handful of states for their general transportation use is not in keeping with the intent of the original law” of spending it on special kinds of projects, said Jim Berard, a spokesman for House Transportation Committee Chairman James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.). “It’s really the principle of the thing.”

Complaints that a Senate bill is too generous to California is unusual.

California holds greater sway in the House because its delegation is bigger than that of any other state and a number of its members hold leadership positions. The state has often been stymied in its efforts to secure more money by the Senate, where lawmakers from less-populated areas wield more influence.

Lawmakers from states such as Massachusetts, Missouri and North Carolina -- among the states that would receive no funds from the nearly $1-billion pot -- have called for awarding the money on a competitive basis to ensure the selection of the most worthy projects.

Rafle said the Senate language was written “so funding could be distributed quickly through existing formulas and programs because it will create jobs without delay.”

richard.simon@ latimes.com