GOP Discord Sidelines Highway Bill (Bush threatens veto)

Associated Press ^ | April 1, 2004 | JIM ABRAMS

[RWR8189]

WASHINGTON (AP) - A major highway and transit spending bill stalled Wednesday in the House as Republican leaders tried to deal with a presidential veto threat and disunity within their ranks.

A two-hour closed-door meeting among House Republicans failed to clear up differences over the six-year, $275 billion bill, casting doubt over whether it would come for a vote before the House leaves for a two-week spring recess at the end of this week.

The legislation, which would spread infrastructure projects around the country and create hundreds of thousands of jobs, is a top legislative priority this year. But it has faced a rocky legislative path, with lawmakers seeking more money to make roads safer and less congested and the administration demanding a smaller budget in the interest of fiscal discipline.

The White House released a statement Tuesday, saying the House bill was too costly and that if it were sent to the president, his advisers would recommend a veto. The White House likewise threatened to veto a $318 billion bill that the Senate passed in February.

The administration has proposed spending $256 billion, up from $218 billion in the last six-year period.

The status of the bill is ``very very tentative right now,'' said Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, who chairs the House Republican Conference, after the GOP meeting.

She said some lawmakers thought the $275 billion figure was too high, others that it was too low, while some raised state and regional issues.

A sticking point in the bill is the discontent of some states such as Florida that pay more into the federal highway trust fund than they get back from the federal government in grants. The trust fund, paid for by the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, is supposed to provide for all federal highway grants.

The White House also has raised a veto threat over language in the House bill that would reopen it for further negotiations in two years if Congress fails to enact a law ensuring that every state will get back at least 95 cents for every dollar contributed by 2009, the last year of the program.

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the Transportation Committee, said he doubted that they would rewrite anything in the bill in the face of the presidential veto.

``I don't listen to the president,'' Young said. ``I just don't know what the president is going to do. He has to speak for himself.''

Young and other members of his committee sought a much larger bill, of $375 billion, but the White House rejected his proposal to pay for it by raising by gas tax by about five cents. His committee said a bill of that magnitude would sustain 1.7 million new jobs over the six-year period.

On the other side, fiscal conservatives condemned the special interest projects in the bill that they said would cost billions. Taxpayers for Common Sense said the bill was ``paved with pork,'' with 3,200 designated projects, for horse trails, auto museums, pedestrian walkways and parking, worth $9.7 billion.

``I'm sure that taxpayers everywhere would be disgusted to know that every time they go to the pump and fill up their tank, they're funding projects like this,'' said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

House Democrats, while not involved in the negotiations, were generally supportive of the $275 billion bill, said Jim Berard, spokesman for Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota, top Democrat on the Transportation Committee.

``We see this as a jobs bill. We could put tens of thousands of people to work by Labor Day if the Republicans could just get their act together,'' Berard said.

^---

The bill is H.R. 3550

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

[mabelkitty]

Congress has low approval ratings - heck Voinivich may even lose his undeserved seat. This is a blatant pork grab for votes.

[Alberta's Child]

The White House also has raised a veto threat over language in the House bill that would reopen it for further negotiations in two years if Congress fails to enact a law ensuring that every state will get back at least 95 cents for every dollar contributed by 2009, the last year of the program.

This is a lot of crap. If the White House had any principles, it would have vetoed every spending bill for the last few years that didn't include the same guarantee for income taxes, too.

[MNJohnnie]

Good for Bush. I am sick of all the pretend Republicans screaming about "Bush's out of control spending" Now we can listen to them scream about "Bush is not taking unemployment seriously".

[CedarDave]

Young and other members of his committee sought a much larger bill, of $375 billion, but the White House rejected his proposal to pay for it by raising by gas tax by about five cents. His committee said a bill of that magnitude would sustain 1.7 million new jobs over the six-year period.

Smart move by the President. Imagine the Rat ads if he did that (shudder...).

[dpwiener]

Good for Bush. I am sick of all the pretend Republicans screaming about "Bush's out of control spending"

Bush's credibility on spending is zilch. Until he actually starts vetoing some bills, this is all just posturing. I fully expect him to "compromise" on a number that is still an enormous increase over previous years.

The Republicans in Congress are just as bad. This bill is larded with lard, in quantities that should gag any honest conservative. Unfortunately, now that Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, they've shown themselves to be at least as irresponsible as Democrats when it comes to escalating the federal budget and deficit.

[optik_b]

Meanwhile the Iraqi highways are being rebuilt, with billions for reconstruction already spent on Iraqi bridges. Some of which could be used to string up coalition soldiers.

[Dog Gone]

If the White House had any principles, it would have vetoed every spending bill for the last few years that didn't include the same guarantee for income taxes, too.

So, if we needed to ramp up the Navy, we'd have to ramp up something in Montana to offset the spending in shipyards?

[Alberta's Child]

That's basically what the White House is saying in threatening to veto this bill.

The motives here are so transparent. The Federal gasoline tax is the only tax that falls disproportionately (relative to Federal expenditures) on rural states. In every other area of Federal taxes and expenditures, rural states are overwhelmingly classified as "recipient" states instead of "donor" states.

I'd say lets call their bluff on this one. Every state will be guaranteed to get back at least 95% of what they pay in Federal fuel taxes, and every state will get back at least 95% of what they pay in income taxes. Heck -- let's throw FICA and Medicare taxes in the mix for good measure.

[Dog Gone]

Roads need to be built where they're needed. Generally, that's going to be areas of high growth and population density, which aren't going to be the rural states.

What you're suggesting locks the federal spending in each state to a narrow range of what they contribute. That seems an artificial constraint when the need arises to concentrate on a project that logically needs to exist in one, and only place. How many NASA space centers do you need? Shall we spend an equal amount on our military bases for our armed forces in each state regardless of the military need for them? Why should we build one in Vermont?

I think the best way for us to accomplish what you're suggesting is to dissolve the US into 50 countries, and let them work out whatever treaties they want, if any.

[Alberta's Child]

What you're suggesting locks the federal spending in each state to a narrow range of what they contribute.

I think there's some confusion here. It's Congress that is suggesting this, not me -- I'm simply asking them to be consistent here, that's all.

[Dog Gone]

I'm not confused. I don't agree with Congress's suggestion, and I think your suggestion to expand that suggestion is even worse.

So, I'd recommend that they be consistent and reject any notion of mandated directed spending for any tax source.

[Alberta's Child]

There you go -- I agree with you. But GOP members in Congress certainly don't.

[Dog Gone]

Bush needs to kick their butt, and he's at least signalling for now that he will do so. If Karl Rove didn't script this, he should have. The Republican base will support a veto. In fact, they would cheer it.

[Coleus]

I doubt it if Bush would veto (I wish he would) this bill, he owes a lot of republicans for going along with the $500 billion boondoggle prescription drug entitlement with no litmus test's bill.