The Highway Bill Needs a Lift

To get its most important measure done, the Transportation Committee will require outside help—and cash.

LOS ANGELES, CA - DECEMBER 8: Northbound lanes of the 110 freeway remain closed as firefighters battle a fire that destroyed a seven-story apartment building under construction on December 8, 2014 in Los Angeles, California. The fire also damaged nearby high-rise buildings and shut down freeways, causing massive traffic problems for morning computers. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)
National Journal
April 22, 2015, 5:30 p.m.

It’s all built up to this.

Hav­ing du­ti­fully slogged through a few small-ball bills since Chair­man Bill Shuster took over the House Trans­port­a­tion and In­fra­struc­ture Com­mit­tee in the last Con­gress, the pan­el fi­nally is ready to tackle its most luc­rat­ive and com­plic­ated puzzle—the high­way bill. And for the first time, the most cru­cial policy de­cision ac­tu­ally is out of the com­mit­tee’s hands: How much can the gov­ern­ment af­ford to spend?

“We could have done this bill three months ago if we had the dol­lars. I think every­body wants it,” Shuster said. “It’s driv­en by the dol­lars.”

The law au­thor­iz­ing money for roads and trans­it ex­pires May 31. If Con­gress does noth­ing to re­vive it, con­struc­tion pro­jects across the coun­try will be hal­ted. Jobs will be lost. Potholes will get worse. Gov­ernors will rant that Con­gress has walked back from a prom­ise to sup­port something as fun­da­ment­al as high­ways.

It will cost about $10 bil­lion just to ex­tend the law un­til the end of the cal­en­dar year. It will cost some $89 bil­lion to au­thor­ize the same level of fund­ing for five or six years. There is no read­ily avail­able money in the Treas­ury to pay for it. There is nowhere to hide.

This is the mo­ment that’s been ap­proach­ing since the be­gin­ning of 2011. That’s when House Re­pub­lic­ans de­term­ined that they would no longer tol­er­ate ear­marks, a ma­jor com­pon­ent of pre­vi­ous trans­port­a­tion bills. They also said the re­new­al of the five-year le­gis­la­tion—tra­di­tion­ally a gi­ant bill of sev­er­al hun­dred bil­lion—needed to be paid for like everything else. There would be no off-budget spe­cial ex­emp­tions. Oh, and don’t for­get the oth­er GOP de­cree: no new taxes.

Four years later, the trans­port­a­tion chiefs in Con­gress have used every pos­sible way to squeeze money out of do­mest­ic pro­grams and keep the high­way and trans­it net­works afloat. Now they must reck­on with a few un­com­fort­able truths. One, the coun­try’s in­fra­struc­ture still needs money for up­keep. (Ideally, the sys­tem should be un­der­go­ing cost­li­er up­grad­ing.) Two, no one in Con­gress or the trans­port­a­tion com­munity is will­ing to en­dure an­oth­er year or two of short-term ex­ten­sions. Mem­bers say they can cope with an ex­ten­sion through the sum­mer, and maybe even the fall. But come the end of the year, it’s time to go big.

“I want to get this thing done, even be­fore the end of the fisc­al year [of Sept. 30],” said Sen­ate En­vir­on­ment and Pub­lic Works Com­mit­tee Chair­man James In­hofe last week. He and rank­ing mem­ber Bar­bara Box­er are team­ing up to write a long-term trans­port­a­tion bill without a fund­ing mech­an­ism. To­geth­er, they re­cently brought busi­ness and labor lob­by­ists to Cap­it­ol Hill to ask for a fully-fun­ded long-term bill in one uni­fied voice.


Enter the tax writers. In the House, the Trans­port­a­tion Com­mit­tee is wait­ing for House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee Chair­man Paul Ry­an to fig­ure out a tax pack­age that will raise enough money to cov­er the costs of a long-term bill. Aides from both Re­pub­lic­an and Demo­crat­ic trans­port­a­tion of­fices say they are ready to go with their part of the bill as soon as they get the fund­ing green light.

Ry­an is en­ga­ging in his own bal­an­cing act. To ap­pease con­ser­vat­ives who don’t like the idea of rev­en­ue raisers, Ry­an’s tax pack­age will need to put forth at least a few long over­due changes to the cor­por­ate tax code. To ap­pease Demo­crats, whose votes will be needed, the tax pack­age needs to be­ne­fit more than just big cor­por­a­tions.

This is a sea change in the trans­port­a­tion policy world. In the past, the Trans­port­a­tion Com­mit­tee was re­spons­ible for for­mu­las that dis­trib­uted bil­lions to states for in­ter­state high­ways and rail­roads. The source of the money wasn’t an is­sue. Most of it came from the high­way trust fund, which draws in money from a fed­er­al gas tax. More le­ni­ent budget­ing rules al­lowed law­makers to draw from gen­er­al cof­fers to cov­er short­falls. Back then, the trick of passing a bill was writ­ing the for­mu­las such that every­body was happy, or at least not ri­dicu­lously un­happy. For the sulk­ers who threatened to op­pose it, an ear­mark or two might bring them around to a “yes.”

Now all those le­gis­lat­ive tools are gone. The only fund­ing num­ber the Trans­port­a­tion Com­mit­tee cares about is the bot­tom line. Paul Ry­an has as­sured them he is up to the chal­lenge. “He said, ‘I’ll find the money.’ He said, ‘But you guys gotta find the long-term solu­tion,’” said rank­ing mem­ber Peter De­Fazio.

In the in­ter­im, they wait. While they’re wait­ing, they make sure they have the votes to pass it. Shuster spends a lot of time court­ing old-timers in the trans­port­a­tion com­munity, keep­ing them abreast of the latest de­vel­op­ments. He tells them that their job is to keep up the pres­sure on their rep­res­ent­at­ives, par­tic­u­larly Re­pub­lic­ans. A tricky pub­lic re­la­tions chal­lenge of the past four years has been keep­ing high­way and trans­it is­sues afloat in a polit­ic­al con­ver­sa­tion that has been drowned out by se­quest­ra­tion, gov­ern­ment shut­downs, and fisc­al cliffs.

Shuster also has kept trans­port­a­tion in the spot­light (more or less) by find­ing new stake­hold­ers. He has spent a fair amount of time learn­ing from Sil­ic­on Val­ley in­vestors and en­cour­aging them to get in­volved in the polit­ic­al pro­cess. He is a big fan of tech­no­logy that even­tu­ally will yield a driver­less car. He has even taken a few spins in a pro­to­type.

“Make it sexy,” Shuster said. “That’s why I got in a driver­less vehicle, be­cause I fig­ure every­body would pay at­ten­tion. To be in a car that drives it­self, that’s the fu­ture.”


There is an­oth­er chal­lenge for Shuster and the com­mit­tee on the Right. Spurred on by small-gov­ern­ment groups like the Her­it­age Found­a­tion, a hefty chunk of House Re­pub­lic­ans will ques­tion any fed­er­al funds for trans­port­a­tion. They are def­in­itely not on board with $89 bil­lion in tax­pay­er money for high­ways. This is a far cry from the Re­pub­lic­an Party of 10 years ago, when then-chair­man Don Young bragged about the amount of money go­ing in­to each mem­ber’s dis­trict in a $286 bil­lion bill.

Her­it­age Ac­tion, the Her­it­age Found­a­tion’s lob­by­ing wing, is ad­voc­at­ing le­gis­la­tion to cut the fed­er­al gas tax by about 80 per­cent. That ex­tra money should stay in the states, Her­it­age says. A bill re­flect­ing this view was in­tro­duced in the last Con­gress. It nev­er had a chance of passing, but its sen­ti­ment com­plic­ates the polit­ics of passing a high­way bill. The tea-party wing in Con­gress doesn’t be­lieve trans­port­a­tion is a fed­er­al is­sue. They want the states to find their own trans­port­a­tion solu­tions. “If they want to build a big pipeline sys­tem, or if they want to build a D.C. street car, more power to them,” ex­plained Her­it­age Ac­tion spokes­man Dan Holler.

That means Shuster has to ne­go­ti­ate with Demo­crats to get any­thing ac­com­plished. There are enough Her­it­age-fueled “no” votes in the GOP caucus to make a Re­pub­lic­an-only trans­port­a­tion bill dif­fi­cult, if not im­possible, to pass.

The num­ber of or­gan­iz­a­tions that lobby the com­mit­tee only makes these hard­core con­ser­vat­ives more wary of its le­gis­la­tion. Shuster was the top re­cip­i­ent of trans­port­a­tion-re­lated cam­paign dona­tions last year, ac­cord­ing to the Cen­ter for Re­spons­ive Polit­ics. That makes sense. He is the chair­man, after all. But it can look damning to people sus­pi­cious of old-style Wash­ing­ton le­gis­lat­ing.


But that’s the kind of le­gis­lat­ing that Shuster prac­tices. On the com­mit­tee, Shuster has eased his new­er Re­pub­lic­an mem­bers in­to the world of trans­port­a­tion with less­er-known bills. In the last Con­gress, he painstak­ingly walked them through a long-over­due wa­ter-re­sources pro­pos­al that he co­sponsored with Demo­crats. It passed com­mit­tee and the House over­whelm­ingly. This year, he worked in the same man­ner to pass an Amtrak reau­thor­iz­a­tion bill, again with Demo­crats. Amtrak is a more con­tro­ver­sial top­ic for the GOP than dams and canals, and 101 Re­pub­lic­ans op­posed the rail bill on the House floor.

Now Shuster has laid the ground­work in the GOP for a ma­jor high­way and trans­it bill, un­der­stand­ing that he won’t please every­one in his own party. But Re­pub­lic­an com­mit­tee mem­bers now know how he works and that he will listen to them. The new­er, more skep­tic­al ones also have a bet­ter sense of the im­port­ance of fix­ing crum­bling bridges. Shuster’s be­hind-the-scenes ef­forts have got­ten him to the point where he can make this state­ment without fear of re­tri­bu­tion: “I be­lieve it is a core func­tion of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to part­ner with the states and the loc­als to build a na­tion­al trans­port­a­tion sys­tem—to build it, to re­build it, and ex­pand it.”

Those would have been fight­ing words for a lot of newly elec­ted Re­pub­lic­ans in 2010. Shuster’s pre­de­cessor, Rep. John Mica, even tried to cut fed­er­al trans­port­a­tion fund­ing by one-third. He quickly had to walk back from that pro­pos­al and wound up see­ing his own re­writ­ten high­way meas­ure gut­ted by the Sen­ate.

When Shuster took the gavel in 2013, he made sure to ad­dress the small-gov­ern­ment con­cerns head on and go from there. “Bill made a point of talk­ing to his people a lot, that they have evolved in­to more prag­mat­ic in­fra­struc­ture pro­ponents and less and less ideo­lo­gic­al,” said De­Fazio. “Be­cause ul­ti­mately, that’s where in­fra­struc­ture leads you. It isn’t ideo­lo­gic­al. It shouldn’t be ideo­lo­gic­al.”

Ideo­lo­gic­al or not, com­mit­tee mem­bers now need to do something that’s nev­er been done be­fore. They need to ush­er a long-term, fully-fun­ded trans­port­a­tion bill through a dif­fi­cult tax-writ­ing maze and to the House floor. Then they need to find the votes to pass it. If they suc­ceed, they will all have brag­ging rights. If they fail, the prob­lem will only get worse and the solu­tions more elu­sive. This is their mo­ment, and they all know it.

What We're Following See More »
House Democrats Subpoena Don McGahn
7 hours ago

"House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler issued a subpoena to former White House counsel Don McGahn as part of a House-led obstruction investigation into President Donald Trump. The subpoena comes just days after special counsel Robert Mueller’s report revealed that McGahn witnessed and testified about potential obstruction of justice by Trump."

Trump Won't Nominate Herman Cain for the Fed
11 hours ago

"President Donald Trump said Monday that he would not nominate Herman Cain to the Federal Reserve after the former GOP presidential candidate asked him not to. Senate Republicans had warned the White House against naming the businessman and 2012 presidential hopeful to serve on the body's board of governors."

Nadler Subpoenas Unredacted Report
3 days ago
Mueller Made 14 Criminal Referrals
4 days ago
The Report Is Here
4 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.