ShareThisWASHINGTON - Transportation spending has long been considered one area where Democrats and Republicans could agree, and for months leaders in both parties have expressed optimism about the prospects of forging a deal on legislation to guide the nation's transportation policy into the coming years.
But with the current transportation authorization set to expire at the end of the month, Congress was forced last week to extend the current authorization bill to keep money flowing to projects.
That gives Congress six months to reconcile major differences in plans offered by California Sen. Barbara Boxer, the Democratic head of the Senate committee that oversees transportation, and Florida Rep. John Mica, the Republican chairman of the House Transportation Committee.
For months, the two lawmakers have indicated that they would work together on a long-term transportation bill. In a show of bipartisanship, they sat next to one another at this year's State of the Union Address in January. In February, Mica appeared with Boxer at a transportation hearing in Los Angeles where they vowed to work together on a bill.
"That was pure rhetoric," said Ken Orski, a former transportation official under the Nixon and Ford administrations who publishes a newsletter on the subject.
"Yes, in the past transportation was a matter of bipartisan agreement, but things have changed drastically," Orski said. "There is a fundamental difference of perspective."
The plans offered by Boxer and Mica are vastly different, both in size and scope.
Boxer is pushing for a two-year, $109-billion bill that would mostly keep funding close to current levels. One key difference in her plan from current law is her proposal to increase -- almost tenfold -- funding under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act.
Known as TIFIA, the program gives loans, loan guarantees and lines of credit to large and nationally or regionally significant transportation projects.
Mica also favors increasing the TIFIA program. But his six-year, $230 billion plan would slash overall transportation spending by more than 30 percent. Upon passage of last week's short-term extension, Mica said he is committed to seeing his bill pass by March, when the extension runs out.
"This action represents a last chance to roll up our sleeves and get transportation projects in America moving again," he said.
Boxer has acknowledged the difficult path ahead.
"On the longer term bill, there'll be a huge argument," she said. "And the people will weigh in if they think this is the time to come to us with a transportation bill that cuts one-third (of current funding) at a time when the construction industry is suffering the worst unemployment ever. We'll have that argument."
Her remarks underscore the key sticking point in the debate: Boxer and Democrats view increased transportation spending as a way to create jobs, while Mica and Republicans are bent on cutting spending and reducing the national debt.
"At this point, it isn't very clear to anybody how these differences will be reconciled," Orski said.
The same holds true for President Barack Obama's newly unveiled American Jobs Act. The $477 billion plan contains $50 billion for highways, transit, rail and aviation.
But congressional Republicans have criticized Obama's jobs bill as the latest example of federal spending run amok, and its passage is far from certain.
Obama's plan includes the creation of a government-owned "National Infrastructure Bank," which, like the TIFIA program, would dole out loan money for projects of regional or national significance.
(Contact reporter Ben Goad at bgoad(at)pe.com. Staff writer Dug Begley also contributed to this report.)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
Must credit The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, Calif.
