c o l u m n

Earl Eisenhart • Regulations Analyst
On Regulations

Congress Punts The Highway Bill Ball

A short-term transportation funding extension is passed.

The first session of the 105th Congress is finally over, and all the congresspeople are safely tucked in for the holidays, dreaming of sugar plums or maybe campaign contributions.
The final weeks were tumultuous. Congress tied itself in knots over transportation funding legislation (ISTEA), campaign finance reform and a “fast track” trade bill.
Of immediate interest to transportation providers was what happened to ISTEA. Congress had been quibbling for months over the details of this multibillion-dollar measure that “authorizes” the expenditure of federal dollars for everything from highway construction to preservation of historic train stations.
Like Nero amid the flames, Congress fiddled while transportation projects went unfunded. Authorization for transportation projects under the old ISTEA expired Sept. 30. The flow of new money to the states was briefly delayed while Congress attempted to pass a new bill. After considerable tugging and pulling, and utterly unable to reach agreement on just about anything, Congress decided to punt. It passed a short-term (six-month) “extension.” This means it will have to fight this battle all over again next year.
Nobody much likes this result, because the uncertainty over long-term funding makes it difficult to manage programs efficiently.
There was a day when long-term transportation bills zipped through Congress with much greater certainty and far less rancor. Why is it different this time?
It’s the money, of course —
The problem that underlies all the other problems is this: There’s not enough money to make everybody happy. One of the reasons highway bills generally sailed through Congress in the past is that they contained plenty of dough to spread around. In these days of balanced-budget agreements, money is tight. While $150 billion over six years might seem like a lot to you or me, it just doesn’t satisfy all the wants and needs.
Who gets what?
Federal transportation money is distributed to states according to complicated formulas. Without getting into the messy details, drivers in some states pay more in federal fuel taxes than these states “get back” in federal dollars. These so-called “donor” states are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore. Meanwhile, states in the Northeast, which typically “get back more than they pay in,” claim that they have the oldest and most congested transportation systems in the nation, and need more help.
Timing is everything — A strong argument for a long-term authorization is that it gives state and local transportation planners and builders the opportunity to better manage projects and to control spending. Therefore, it may seem surprising that the principal architect of the six-month measure was Bud Shuster, chairman of the House.

Earl Eisenhart is a government relations specialist in transportation policy, based in Washington, DC.