After months of debate and delay, the next major transportation bill is slowly coming into focus on Capitol Hill. Squabbling between Congress and the White House over the size of the package makes the legislation’s final dimensions still far from clear. But the picture that’s emerging isn’t as big and bright as industry had hoped just months ago.

Despite progress in the Senate, it was all but certain that Congress again will have to extend the current statute, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. TEA-21 expired Sept. 30 and the five-month congressional extension lapses Feb. 29. The House was poised to vote on a four-month extension as early as Feb. 11. In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) agreed with the concept but would not specify how long an extension should last.

An extension in the four-month range would be "a positive sign," says Ann Warner, Bechtel Infrastructure Corp. vice president and manager of government programs. Holding the extension to a few months will exert "enough good pressure to keep everybody moving forward," she says.

The bad news for construction is that the bill’s funding seems certain to be much smaller than many desired. House Republican leaders, taking their cue from the White House, have pressed Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) to back away from his $375-billion, six-year "TEA-LU" bill. Reaching that level hinges on raising motor fuels taxes by at least 8¢ a gallon by 2009. House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) says Congress can produce a bill that balances the desires to limit spending and create jobs. "But $375 [billion] is too big. We know that."

Young and his transportation panel allies remain committed to his plan, but gas-tax increases are not being considered by the Ways and Means Commit-tee, says Steve Hansen, a spokesman for Young’s panel. "As such it’s going to be virtually impossible for them to get to the $375-[billion] level," he says. "Nothing’s set yet, but we’re anticipating it will be somewhere around the Senate level."

"The House is moving below the Senate number," claims Stephen Sandherr, Associated General Contractors’ president and CEO. "[It’s] supposed to be looking at a $300-billion package…."

If Sandherr is right, the most industry can hope for now is the $318-billion bill now on the Senate floor. It’s a steep drop from Young’s plan, but more than 40% above TEA-21’s $220 billion. At a time when a $521-billion deficit weighs down the budget, a 40% transportation boost without a fuels-tax hike "would be a significant victory," Sandherr says.

Robert Alger, president and CEO of Lane Construction Corp., Meriden, Conn., prefers Young’s proposal. "I think that would be great for all contractors," he says. But he won’t complain if lawmakers settle on the Senate’s $318 billion. "I think we would be fine with that proposal. That’s a pretty stout increase" over TEA-21, he says.

But that plan has been stuck on the Senate floor. A vote to end debate and get the bill moving could come by the Presidents’ Day break. President Bush, pushing to trim the legislation’s price tag, met Feb. 9 with Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Frist says Bush used the meeting to make clear that the Senate bill has "a higher figure than what this administration wants. It’s substantially higher." Frist prefers to hold the bill to $290 billion, but he says the administration feels even that number is too high.

The White House did raise its own "SAFETEA" proposal by $9 billion, to $256 billion. But Peter Ruane, CEO of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, says that plan freezes highways at $33.6 billion a year for six years. "When adjusted for inflation, that is a 10% cut," he says. "Five hundred thousand jobs would be cut."

Top administration officials want to restrict congressional revenue-raising options. On Feb. 2, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Treasury Secretary John Snow told Hill leaders the new bill must adhere to three principles: no fuels-tax hike, no use of general fund revenue for highways and no government obligation bonds. Mineta and Snow said if Congress breaks any of those rules, they would recommend a presidential veto of the transport bill.

Authors of the Senate legislation, also titled "SAFETEA," feel their plan meets the Bush benchmarks. If it were to pass and then be vetoed, top environment committee Democrat Max Baucus of Montana feels the Senate would override the President’s action.

The delay in passing a multiyear bill is pressing the industry. Jay Hansen, National Asphalt Pavement Association vice president for government affairs, says highway maintenance jobs are proceeding. "But certainly the bigger, long-term projects are getting hung up," he says. "That will probably worsen as the year goes on if we don’t get this reauthorization bill straightened out."

In states where Lane works, "Where they used to let one or two big jobs a month, now they’re letting one or two big jobs in six months," says Alger. "It’s just very difficult and I’m sure it’s because they’re holding jobs on the shelf." Lane recently won highway jobs in New York and North Carolina, but Alger says, "We have scaled down on our equipment purchases. We have really not hired any entry-level engineers in the last six months or so."

The transportation measure "really is a job creation bill," says Glen E. Tellock, president of Manitowoc Crane Group, Manitowoc, Wis. "It gives a boost to the entire construction equipment market." Christian Klein, the Associated Equipment Distributors’ Washington counsel, estimates that 7¢ of every federal infrastructure dollar goes to equipment dealers and manufacturers.

In transit, "Uncertainty always causes problems," says Daniel Duff, American Public Transportation Association vice president for government affairs. "Our transit systems can’t make long-range plans the way they can when there’s a full reauthorization bill in place."

Transit "new starts" that don’t yet have a full-funding agreement with the Federal Transit Administration are affected. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority is nearly ready to apply for a full-funding pact on the $6.3-billion East Side Access project, to link the Long Island Rail Road with Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan. "If the authorization expires, we will have to wait until next year, which will have an impact on the project," says Mysore Nagaraja, president of MTA’s Capital Construction Co.

Compounding the situation, many states remain cash-strapped and cannot step in with their own funds. California may be the biggest example of the problem and it probably won’t improve as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) tightens spending even further. "We aren’t seeing much activity" throughout the West Coast, says Nancy Butler, vice president with DMJM + Harris.

If the haggling in Washington persists, things will get worse around the country. "This first quarter of the year…is when most of the big projects come out," says John Njord, executive director of Utah’s Dept. of Transportation. "You’re trying to get things out prior to spring so that construction can take place during this...calendar year. And if you’re not putting projects out right now, you’re in deep trouble. You’re going to lose a whole season."