
The House Transportation subcommittee on highways and transit presented the case July 16 that more economic benefits would flow from quick passage of a new six-year transportation bill than from the Senate's bill that would extend the current highway program for another 18 months.
The day before the subcommittee hearing, Senate Enivironment and Public Works Committee passed legislation that included the extension and replenishment of the nearly-insolvent Highway Trust Fund. Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., called it a “clean” bill, without some $300 million in administrative changes that the Department of Transportation requested.
Roy Kienitz, Department of Transportation undersecretary for policy, was asked which bill the Obama administration would prefer.
“If you’re confronted with what Sen. Boxer has proposed, where are you going to come down? Are you going to deal with us, or are you going to deal with them?” asked Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., House Transportation subcommittee chairman.
“It doesn’t look like you’re on track for getting what you want out of the Senate," DeFazio continued. "Is that acceptable to the administration – 18 months with no change in policy?”
“I don’t think it’s my place to make policy on that,” Kienitz replied. When DeFazio asked who was responsible for policy, Kienitz said, “I’m coming to learn that’s a bit complicated.”
Kienitz said that the administration supported many of the reforms that the committee’s bill proposes. The “horns of the dilemma” were in finding the money to pay the $500 billion in revenue that the House bill authorizes.
At the beginning of the hearing, DeFazio displayed a chart showing that some 12.5 million jobs would be created under the House bill, compared with 6.6 million jobs under a continuation of the existing highway program.
Other witnesses showed a clear preference for the House bill.
“This delay – and this is business as usual – is really unfortunate. I’m very disappointed in the administration, and just as disappointed in what the Senate did yesterday,” said Raymond Poupore, executive vice president of the National Construction Alliance II, which is supported by operating engineers and carpenters unions. He explained there is a built-in time lag between the approval of a project and when work begins.
Carlos Braceras, deputy director of the Utah Department of Transportation, said that it was critical for states to have predictable, long-term funding.
A 6 year re-authorization bill should be passed that is funded with a 18 month period of time to change from the present tax-per-gallon to a road use tax based on miles-driven determined by a bar code on vehicles that has the EPA mpg rating for the vehicle, that the pump handle 'reads' and the pump calculates the tax. If Congress passes a 1 cent per mile tax for cars to be implemented in FY 2012, and 10 gallons are pumped into a car that goes 20 miles per gallon, the 200 miles will be taxed at $2 that is added to the gas bill. For electric cars, the tax is paid up front: 10,000 miles @ 1 cent per mile equals $100 tax with a cut-off switch on the dash to tell a motorist the mileage is about to run out. [There are more details that this space does not allow to print.] When this road use tax is implemented, the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax is repealed, and the states' per-gallon taxes repealed also.