Democrat Timothy Bishop has represented the eastern end of New York’s Long Island since 2002. He serves on the budget committee and the transportation and infrastructure committee, putting him in right in the thick of the debate over the next transportation-funding bill. I asked him about the bill before Congress’ August recess.

What is your position on delaying the long-term transportation bill?
I think it would be a mistake. I am a pretty forceful proponent of reauthorizing the surface transportation bill for six years and doing so as quickly as we possibly can. I would like to see us pass it out of the House of Representatives by the later part of September. I am loathe to predict what will happen in the Senate, but I’m pretty sure we can get it done in the House. I know that is Mr. Oberstar’s intention.

You can do that if there’s an 18-month extension?
No. I’m guessing here, but I think we’re going to take up a six-year reauthorization, not an 18-month extension. I know that Mr. Oberstar is determined to get a six-year reauthorization. I know that there is a huge bipartisan consensus in the committee on a six-year as opposed to an 18-month.

If there is a delay, does that undermine the intent of the stimulus money as a jobs-creation move?
I won’t say it undermines it, but we can make the stimulus effort that we begun, and we’ve begun it quite well, we have pushed an awful lot of money out the door for transportation, it would allow us to build on the momentum of the stimulus and we would lose that if we don’t have a six-year reauthorization.

How will this Congress deal with earmarks?
I believe the bill will have projects in it. I believe it is an opportunity for members to very directly represent the needs and the issues of the districts that we’re responsible for. I believe that is a very appropriate way for us to proceed. I am certain that I know more of what the infrastructure and transportation needs are of the first Congressional District than does anybody at the New York state Department of Transportation or certainly anybody at the Federal Highway Administration. We have, not just the right, but the obligation to weigh in on behalf of our district.

Will there be a fuel tax increase?
I don’t know. Certainly the administration has made it clear that they do not support an increase in the motor fuels tax. There’s a new idea floating now to impose a two-tenths of 1% tax on speculative oil trades. That would raise about $40 billion per year. That is something that we should be very carefully assessing. If we were to move in that direction, we wouldn’t need to discuss raising the motor fuels tax.

Is the administration serious enough to veto the bill?
I take them at their word that they do not support a motor fuels tax. I don’t know whether a motor fuels tax coming out of the Congress would invite a veto; anything I say on that would be purely speculative.

What are the sticking points to passing a transportation bill and where is the opposition coming from?
The principal sticking point is what we call the pay for. There are basically two issues. One is what will be the final size of the bill—the last one was $128 some billion over six years, and Chairman Oberstar is talking about $500 billion over six years. What is that number? That’s the big decision that needs to be made and whatever that number is, how do we fund it?

Is the transportation bill in danger of being lost in the shuffle of higher-profile items, such as health care reform?
Here in the House, the issue is the pay for. It needs to go through Ways and Means and Ways and Means is pretty heavily absorbed right now in health care. If we can clear the decks on health care, which is a huge if, then Ways and Means can take up the transportation bill with respect to funding. I know we are still going to be dealing with health care deep into September.

Is there a chance that the transportation bill will become a bargaining chip to get votes on another bill—such as health care?
I don’t think so.

How is this transportation bill debate different or similar to the last one?
We’re going after more money and I believe there is a bipartisan consensus. We didn’t have the funding issue last time. The Highway Trust Fund was sufficient to cover what we were hoping to do with the bill. That’s not the case this time. We will still have the same issues of donor states versus donee states. We will still have the same issues of the appropriate split between highways and mass transit. We will still probably have the same discussion about member projects. So, in some ways it will be very similar and in other ways it will be vastly different.

Does the change in administration play any role?
The last administration was opposed to an increase in the motor fuels tax; this administration has taken the same position. I just don’t know. As this plays out, I suspect that this administration will be more supportive of mass transit given the impact mass transit has on our dependence on foreign oil and on our carbon footprint. We’ll just have to see.