House and Senate Agree on 6-Month Transpo Extension

Just days after a Senate committee asked the full chamber to consider a four-month extension of SAFETEA-LU, new negotiations have replaced that idea with a six-month extension at current spending levels. The bill also extends the gas tax.

Over the weekend, the House and Senate decided to combine the long-overdue FAA reauthorization with the pending surface transportation bill, considering them together as one uniform transportation extension [PDF]. The FAA bill will be extended for four months, while SAFETEA-LU will be extended for six, with an expiration date of March 31.

As an added bonus, combining the bill with the FAA means that Congress can’t keep us in suspense until the last possible moment, as they’ve been prone to do lately. (Remember the debt ceiling? Remember the narrowly-averted government shutdown last spring?) The FAA extension expires September 16, so if Congress is to extend them together, they’ll have to act by the end of this week, instead of waiting till the end of next week, when they leave for another recess. The House is tentatively planning to vote on the bill tomorrow.

The extension is a clean one, with no changes in policy. That means bike/ped funding, which has been under threat over the last week, will remain for the next six months, at least. And the extension will be funded by the same 18.4 cent federal gas tax the U.S. has had since 1993, which was also due to expire September 30 and which is also renewed by this action.

The extension will stick to current funding levels, authorizing $24.78 billion in spending from the Highway Trust Fund for the first half of FY2012 (which begins October 1). That’s almost $19.8 billion for highways and $4.2 billion for transit.

That’s far more than the FY2012 budget just passed by the Transportation and HUD Appropriations subcommittee in the House, which agreed to $27.7 billion for highways and $5.2 billion for transit for the entire year. Although this extension can authorize more spending than that, actual spending levels are up to the appropriators, according to Jeff Davis at Transportation Weekly. Experts say that at this level, most of the money would go to pay states back for projects already built, and new highway project funding could be cut by as much as 75 percent. 

But higher spending levels also have their down side. “Maintaining current highway and transit spending levels for any period of time deepens the Highway Trust Fund’s revenue hole,” writes Jeff Davis, noting that according to the CBO, “the Highway Account of the Trust Fund will run out of cash at these spending levels in the first few months of calendar year 2013, with the Mass Transit Account running dry a year or so behind that).”

Davis also notes that “bringing the extension bill to a vote in the House will require the House to vote to waive the budget totals in the Ryan budget plan, which will likely bring some opposition from conservative Republicans.”

The extension bill the EPW Committee passed last week included a $3.13 billion rescission, meaning that even though it provided $43 billion, more than $3 billion of that would need to be returned by the states. This new extension bill takes that “rescission” out of the total up front, lowering the $43 billion to just under $40 billion for the year.

Senator Boxer has raised an objection to the $3 billion cut, even though the front-end budget cut isn’t much different from her own back-end rescission. Davis speculates that this is because the EPW two-year bill seeks to hold current spending levels, but if current spending levels are lowered in this way, the EPW bill would actually represent an increase.

In Boxer’s statement, she also expressed her pleasure that the House is moving forward with an extension with current spending levels, which is what she has supported for both the extension and the full reauthorizations. “The original House proposal would have cut spending by more than 30 percent, which would threaten hundreds of thousands of construction workers’ jobs and thousands of businesses,” she said.

She also said she welcomes the longer extension “because it gives more certainty to the private sector and to states and local governments in their plans for road and transportation projects.”

However, pushing the expiration so far into next year makes it even more likely it will be followed by nothing but another extension, not an actual reauthorization. Both parties will be loath to pass a big spending bill so close to a presidential election.

  • Clutch J

    The GOP is starting to act reasonable. It must be a trick ;-).

  • Marcotico

    “However, pushing the expiration so far into next year makes it even more
    likely it will be followed by nothing but another extension, not an
    actual reauthorization. Both parties will be loath to pass a big
    spending bill so close to a presidential election.”  Why not be realistic and extend it to March 2013! 

  • In fact, we need to increase the gas tax, and by a lot. The gas tax does not capture the externalities — the cost to society — of burning gasoline. That not includes highway maintenance, highway patrols, responding to crashes, and other elements of highway operation, it includes the serious damage to human health from ultrafine particle pollution and other tailpipe emissions, and the changing climate due to C02 emissions. That’s why the gasoline tax is much higher outside of the United States. Sure, nobody likes to pay taxes but we have to pay one way or the other. A higher gasoline tax is the most economically efficient way to encourage conservation and the replacement of unsustainable fossil fuel with other forms of energy. It can fund other forms of tax relief for low income people to avoid hurting people who have to drive, but can’t afford a higher tax.
    In our current political climate, nobody can say this out loud, but it’s true.

  • Can I +1 Bart’s comment?

  • Boris

    I think the federal gas tax should be eliminated, and federal transportation spending cut sharply. Leave only an infrastructure bank for nationally-significant projects chosen based on sustainability criteria and funded from the general budget. If states want to continue to build highways to nowhere, they are free to do so via the state gas tax or any number of other funding methods.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

With Deadlines Looming, Mica Supports Transportation Extension

|
Congress returns from a monthlong recess — oh sorry, “district work period” — next Wednesday. Before September 30, they’ll have to figure out next steps for keeping the transportation program going, assuming there’s no way that the two chambers will come to an agreement about a long-term bill before the current extension expires. Both houses […]

The Consequences of Political Foot-Dragging

|
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is meeting tomorrow to discuss a four-month extension to the current transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU. The map above is from a short but powerful document the Federal Transit Administration put out this week explaining “The Impacts of Failing to Extend Surface Transportation Funding” [PDF]. How much transit work would grind […]