Even as House lawmakers are celebrating their remarkably swift move to infuse the popular cash for clunkers program with additional funds, some lawmakers and environmentalists are warning that extending the program is premature without knowing what it even does.

Of the $1 billion committed under the initiative — which offers drivers up to $4,500 to trade their gas-guzzlers for more fuel efficient vehicles — the Obama administration has released data on the trades surrounding less than $69 million. Without further information about what models are being scrapped, what models are being sold, and the environmental benefits of the swaps, critics worry that the program might be failing in its stated goals of reducing emissions and a reliance on foreign oil.

“A billion dollars has been spent on a program that could conceivably be a disaster for the environment, and without even waiting to see where that money went, they’re throwing more money into the pot,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, which advocates for better fuel efficiency. “This whole thing is a blind experiment. Congress is making fact-free decisions.”

Launched just this week, the cash for clunkers program has already blown through its initial $1 billion in funding — money that was projected to last though October. House lawmakers rallied with rare speed Friday to pump an additional $2 billion into the program, just hours before they departed for a five-week recess.

Supporters of the program, lining up behind Michigan’s powerful delegation, argue that it offers a slew of economic and environmental benefits befitting both the recession and the threat of climate change. On the House floor before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the extension “a very positive, bipartisan initiative to help our auto industry, to help consumers, to grow our economy, to do it in an environmentally sound way.”

The House vote was 316 to 109, with 77 Republicans favoring the bill and 14 Democrats opposing it.

Among those 14 Democrats was Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), who said afterward that he felt “uncomfortable” voting to extend a young program around which so little is known. “We don’t know actually what we’ve been getting,” Blumenauer said in a phone interview. “We want to see the data.”

He’s not alone with that request. On Friday, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood urging the administration to release more data to inform Congress’ next move on cash for clunkers. While the program has proven itself to be an effective catalyst for vehicle sales, the lawmakers wrote, “Congress needs this data in order to determine if the fleet modernization program delivered significant fuel economy gains and oil savings.”

The skeptics have some reason to be wary. The latest official DOT figures indicate that, through Tuesday, less than $69 million of the initial $1 billion had been spent to facilitate roughly 16,350 vehicle sales. About 62 percent of those purchases were for new cars — a good sign in the eyes of environmentalists interested in minimizing the number of trucks and SUVs on the road. But until further analysis reveals what trades were encouraged by the subsequent $931 million, some lawmakers and public interest groups oppose the additional funding.

Lena Pons, policy analyst at Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division, said the popularity of the program comes as little surprise. Who, after all, wouldn’t want a $4,500 gift from Washington? But popularity is no indication that the program is meeting its stated goals. “Before appropriating any additional funds,” Pons said in a statement, “Congress should study whether the program is working.”

The Senate is expected to take up the cash for clunkers extension next week, and already a small, bipartisan contingency is threatening to block the proposal. On Thursday, Feinstein and Collins issued a statement arguing that any renewal of the program “must go further in advancing the goals of better fuel efficiency and greater emissions reductions.”

“We will not support any bill that does not meet these goals,” the senators said.

On Friday, they got some more backing when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced his intention to filibuster the bill.

There are also concerns, both on and off Capitol Hill, about the source of the funding. The $2 billion was siphoned from stimulus funds earmarked for a federal loan program encouraging the use of environmentally friendly technologies.

After the House vote, President Obama gave a short speech vowing to work with Congress to replace that funding sometime “down the road.”

Under the current program, drivers can get between $3,500 and $4,500 when they trade in their gas-guzzling cars, trucks and SUVs for new vehicles with better fuel efficiences. Yet the efficiency thresholds were set so low that consumers can trade in their old clunker for a brand new clunker — a boon for the automakers and dealers, but hardly a way to reduce the greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming.

“They weren’t set very high,” Blumenauer said of the mileage guidelines, “so it wasn’t getting the worst of the worst off the roads.”

Feinstein and Collins, along with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), have sponsored a competing bill that sets stricter fuel efficiency thresholds for the newly purchased vehicles. The lawmakers say their proposal would result in oil savings that trump the existing program by more than 30 percent.

When the initial $1 billion program passed the Senate in June, Feinstein told reporters that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had given her “absolute assurance” that any extension would be altered so that the fuel efficiency requirements were more stringent. With the House leaving town, however, Reid’s office indicated Friday there’s little chance that Senate leaders will alter the House-passed bill, particularly with Obama urging quick passage of the existing extension.

That’s bad news in the eyes of environmentalists, who worry that the program is following the path of a similar initiative in Germany, which went from a 1.5-billion-euro program to a 5-billion-euro program in just six months.

“This is turning into a methadone program for addicted automakers,” Becker said. “They have no incentive to turn it off.”

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, pictured with President Barack Obama (dot.gov)

Federal strategies for tackling climate change are doomed to fail without concerted efforts to keep Americans out of their cars — efforts that will necessarily include a greater emphasis on public transit, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told Senate lawmakers Tuesday.

The statement arrives just a few weeks after House lawmakers passed sweeping reforms aimed at reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, but included in the proposal only meager funding for public transportation projects.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

While the Obama administration this year adopted tough new emissions standards that will force automakers to make cleaner cars and trucks, LaHood warned that those efforts alone won’t address the climate change problem if Americans continue to drive as much as they do today. Indeed, even if vehicle fuel efficiencies doubled over the next two decades to 55 miles per gallon, he told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the resulting decrease in greenhouse emissions would be merely “modest” without a simultaneous reduction in vehicle-miles traveled, or VMT.

“Addressing VMT growth plays a key role in decreasing transportation related greenhouse-gas emissions and should be included in overall efforts to prevent climate change,” LaHood said. “Failing to recognize the connection between transportation and climate change will likely jeopardize our ability to achieve our [emission] reduction goals.”

LaHood’s comments came as Senate Democrats are still in the process of drafting controversial climate change legislation designed to cut the nation’s emissions more than 80 percent by 2050. Like the House bill, the Senate proposal is expected to feature a cap-and-trade structure that would effectively commodify pollutants, holding the nation’s largest emitters financially accountable for the greenhouse gases they spew. The revenue generated, the theory goes, could then be used to fund renewable-energy technologies and other green initiatives, including public transit projects. Some lawmakers have been pushing for 10 percent of cap-and-trade revenue to go toward public transportation, bike lanes and other “smart-street” initiatives.

After a great deal of political sparring and industry lobbying, however, a very different model emerged from the House. Indeed, under the House proposal, 15 percent of the value of the polluting permits distributed under the cap-and-trade system would go initially to benefit big polluters like the paper, steel and cement industries; 5 percent would target coal-burning power plants; 2 percent would help oil refineries; and another 2 percent would go to electric utilities. But just one percent — or roughly $537 million — would go to fund public transit projects, a real-dollar figure that would rise to roughly $1 billion by 2020.

And Senate passage of a climate bill this year is hardly a certainty. Even with all of the concessions to the polluting industries and their congressional defenders, the House proposal passed the lower chamber last month by the slim count of 219 to 212, with 44 Democrats voting against it. Already, Democratic infighting over the Senate bill has forced party leaders to push the release of the proposal from July to September, when Congress returns from its month-long summer recess.

Environmentalists, state officials and many congressional lawmakers are hoping the delay will allow Senate leaders the time to carve out more room for public transit than House Democrats did. And they cite some strong reasons for their push.

The United States emits about 21 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, of which nearly 30 percent come from transportation. And, if current trends hold, those numbers are expected to rise precipitously. Indeed, between 1977 and 2007, the number of vehicle-miles traveled by Americans jumped 110 percent even as the population rose just 37 percent, according to Steven Winkelman, director of transportation programs at the Center for Clean Air Policy. Looking ahead, per capita VMT is projected to rise 15 percent by 2030, the Energy Information Administration estimates.

“Although this is a slower growth rate than the recent past, it will effectively offset the emissions savings expected from the improved fuel efficiency and low carbon fuels requirements [of Congress and the Obama administration],” Winkelman told lawmakers Tuesday. Ignoring transportation in climate change legislation, he added, “will neglect opportunities to meet overall emission reduction goals while increasing the burden on other sectors of the economy.”

But it must be done carefully, proponents warned. David Bragdon, president of the Portland Metro Council, cautioned that building new transit infrastructure would be futile without land-use management plans to accompany it. Efforts to prevent sprawl, for example, and to concentrate populations around both public transportation and commercial facilities go a long way to keep people out of cars, he said.

“We can’t simply reform the supply of transportation, we have to reduce demand,” Bragdon testified, “and the way our communities are laid out is a major determinant of demand.”

Conservatives, meanwhile, used Tuesday’s hearing to blast the Democrats for their plans to take up a cap-and-trade bill at all. That strategy, they argue, would force businesses to hike costs on consumers at a time when the country continues to suffer from the financial downturn.

Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), senior Republican on the Senate Environment panel, pointed to recent layoffs in the trucking industry as just one reason why Democrats should abandon their plans to put a price tag on greenhouse emissions. “If we enact cap-and-trade legislation, fuel prices will rise, and more jobs in the trucking sector will be destroyed,” Inhofe said.

For his part, Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) was more concerned with the cost associated with new high-speed rail and other public transit projects, arguing that the deficit spending is already through the roof in the wake of the long series of financial bailouts.

“How are we gonna pay for it?” Voinovich asked LaHood. “Borrow more money?”

At least one funding option, it appears, is off the table. The 18.4 cent-per-gallon gas tax — though it hasn’t been raised since 1993, nor is it indexed for inflation — is not being eyed for a hike, LaHood assured lawmakers. “We are not for raising the gas tax,” he said.

That’s sure to be music to the ears of many conservatives, who argue that such a tax would cripple businesses and consumers reliant on energy-intensive goods and services. Yet, the idea of a gas-tax hike found an unlikely cheerleader this week, when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out in support of a “modest” increase as “the simplest, most straightforward way” to keep up with the nation’s crumbling infrastructure.

“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has never been accused of being a strong proponent of any kind of tax increases,” Janet Kavinoky, the Chamber’s director of transportation infrastructure wrote for Roll Call Monday. “But taxes paid on gasoline and diesel are different — they are user fees.”

That’s different than saying the money should go to fund public transit. But when the nation’s largest business federation advocates a tax hike, it sure dulls the Republican claim that any such increase would strike a death knell for the country’s small businesses.

iStockphoto

Though stymied on the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to form unions, organized labor is about to claim a big consolation prize: the massive application of a law guaranteeing “prevailing wages” for hundreds of thousands of construction workers hired under President Obama’s economic stimulus program.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is now preparing guidelines that will expand the scope of the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, according to a department spokesperson.

“In some cases, the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions will apply to federal construction contracts in the same manner as they currently apply,” said spokesperson Dolline Hatchett in an email. “In other instances, the prevailing wage provisions will apply to certain projects that may not have been subject to the Davis-Bacon provisions in the past.”

LaHood’s action will put a floor under wages paid for the more than 678,000 construction jobs (pdf) that the White House estimates will be created by the end of 2010. It also marks a sharp reversal of U.S. policy on public works projects under President Bush, who in September 2005 suspended Davis-Bacon in the Gulf States after Hurricane Katrina.

“This is good news for American workers,” said Tom Owens, director of communications for the Building Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO . “Everything in the stimulus program is covered. Congress was very clear about prevailing wages.”

Marc Freedman, director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, calls the Davis-Bacon standards “complicated and counterproductive” but conceded opponents have limited means to fight the measure because the stimulus legislation is so explicit.

The legislation, approved by Congress and signed by President Obama last month, mandates that all “laborers and mechanics” on projects “funded directly by or assisted in whole or in part” by the stimulus program have to be paid at least as much workers on similar projects in the same area, as determined by the Department of Labor. (pdf)

With $49.3 billion for transportation construction, $5 billion for home weatherization projects, and billions for other building projects, the application of Davis-Bacon standards will have rare historical impact.

“This is huge,” said Ross Eisenbray, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, a pro-labor think tank in Washington. “The only uses of Davis-Bacon comparable to the stimulus bill are the Defense Highway Act of 1956 which created the interstate highway system and the New Deal programs of the 1930s.”

The stimulus “is the perfect example of why you need Davis-Bacon,” Eisenbray said. “If you didn’t have it, the contractors bidding for all this federal money could undercut prevailing wages in any given area by 20-30 percent, and they could get the contract and bring down wages in that area.”

The 1931 law, written by Sen. James Davis (R-Pa.), who had served as secretary of labor in the 1920s, and Rep. Robert Bacon (R-N.Y.), guaranteed “prevailing wages” as a way of protecting workers in a time of rapidly growing unemployment and government involvement in the economy. It was signed into law by President Herbert Hoover and has rankled free-market conservatives ever since.

Davis-Bacon relies on government-issued tables (available here) that tells employers in each of the 50 states, plus Washington, exactly what they must pay workers in four categories of federally funded construction–“building,” “heavy,” “highway” and “residential”—that are also carefully defined. The Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Department, determines who gets what.

The standards also include benefits in its definition of “prevailing wages,” giving local unions indirect influence over non-union pay. In Washington, for example, residential electricians on federal projects must be paid at least $16.10 per hour plus $3.10 an hour in benefits, according to the law. In Los Angeles, a residential electrician need only be paid $7.73 an hour under Davis-Bacon, and no benefits.

Contrary to popular belief, and a recent Fox News report, Davis-Bacon does not require the payment of union wages.

Conservative critics say the law will hinder the goals of the stimulus program.

“By inflating the cost of labor, Davis-Bacon means that less work will get done and less energy gets saveed” says James Sherk, a labor analyst at the conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation.

Despite efforts to repeal the law over the years through legislation introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) or lawsuits brought by conservative-leaning groups, the law has remained politically popular. In November 2005 pro-labor Republicans, including LaHood, pressured President Bush into reinstating Davis-Bacon wages for Katrina reconstruction projects.

The Davis-Bacon standards are not controversial in the transportation construction business, according to Jack Basso, director of program finance management for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “It has been pretty much factored into the cost of doing business,” he said. Basso said the law’s provisions will cover virtually all workers paid by the $49.3 billion stimulus money allocated to highway, aviation and public transportation projects.

More novel is the expected application of Davis-Bacon to the the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program, which pays non-profits and local government to implement energy efficiency measures in low-income households. The $5 billion for weatherization stimulus spending is expected to create 87,000 jobs nationwide, according to the energy department.

In 2004, the Bush administration rejected the idea of paying Davis-Bacon wages for work done under the weatherization program. In a Powerpoint presentation found on the agency’s Web site, two Bush officials declared the weatherization program was “exempt from all provisions ” of Davis-Bacon. Earlier this month, director of the weatherization program, Gil Sperling, reversed that decision with a provisional memo that is subject to LaHood’s guidance.

“The last thing we want to see is weatherization jobs turning into a dead-end occupation where somebody caulks windows for nine bucks an hour and then is out of work,” said the AFL-CIO’s Owens. “We want green jobs to be good jobs, and prevailing wages help.”

Freedman of the Chamber of Commerce predicts administrative waste, saying the administration is “expecting organizations that have never administered Davis-Bacon to enforce it.”

One issue that LaHood will have to clarify, said EPI’s Eisenbray, is how the law applies to educational spending in the stimulus bill.

“There is stimulus money going to local education agencies that doesn’t really have any strings attached to it,” he said. “If those agencies use that money for school repairs or school construction, Davis-Bacon will be an issue. I would expect the secretary to say if the money comes from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, you have to pay prevailing wages.”

In an interview with Roll Call last month, LaHood spoke positively of the law, saying “These are very skilled people that are going to be building roads and bridges, and Davis-Bacon provides an opportunity for them to be compensated in a way that reflects the kind of professionalism they bring to the job.”

Critics of Davis-Bacon have low expectations of LaHood. “[LaHood's] not a conservative on labor issues,” Sherk said.

Freedman said, “If the department issues a proposed regulation, not just a guidance, then we will be involved in commenting. But the law is pretty clear about ‘This is what thou shalt do.’ It remains to be seen if there’s any flexibility.”

The only consolation for labor’s opponents is that LaHood has delayed his decision. Last week, a spokesperson said he would issue the guidance within the week. On Thursday his office withdrew that schedule in favor of a statement that said he is still preparing the guidance.

Solis is considered a strong ally of organized labor, and she supports the Employee Free Choice Act, which would facilitate the formation of unions. Her selection has earned praise from the Service Employees Internation Union. She is the third Hispanic member of Obama’s cabinet, and like Bill Richardson, she gave a substantial portion of her acceptance speech in Spanish.

LaHood, on the other hand, has been criticized by Democrats for his weak environmental record. Some consider him a token Republican, appointed to fulfill Obama’s promise of a bipartisan cabinet — and indeed, Obama said today that “Ray’s appointment reflects that bipartisan spirit.” His primary credential as a transportation progressive appears to be his tempered support for Amtrak. Obama also highlighted his advocacy for aviation and bicycling, and said, “Few understand our infrastructure challenge better than … Ray LaHood.”

As relatively obscure members of Congress, Solis and LaHood stand in contrast to Obama’s previous cabinet appointments, which include two senators (Hillary Clinton for State and Ken Salazar for Interior), a former senator (Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services) and two governors (Richardson for Commerce and Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security). The New Republic argues that their low profile is an indication that labor and transportation may not be top priorities for Obama.

Kirk served as the mayor of Dallas from 1995 to 2002, and he sought to transform the city into the “capital of NAFTA.” Obama called him a “principled proponent of trade.” The New York Times today highlighted Kirk’s policy differences with Solis over free trade.

Mills is the president of MMP Group in Brunswick, Maine. House Small Business Committee Chairwoman Nydia M. Velázquez (D-N.Y.) praised her selection, saying, “This appointment shows that his economic team recognizes the key role that small firms play in job creation and the need to take quick steps to revitalize the agency’s role in spurring growth.”

Obama opened the press conference by applauding President Bush’s $17-billion bailout of the auto industry, arguing that it would contribute to “jobs and wages,” which he called his primary measure of the economy’s success. In the question-and-answer period, he noted that there has been much progress, albeit in “baby steps,” in the negotiations with the auto executives. “We started off with the automakers coming before Congress asking for a blank check,” he said. “And I, like many others, said that’s not gonna fly.”

“My top priority in this administration is going to be to create 2.5 million new jobs,” he continued, “and I want some of those jobs to be in the auto industry.” He added that the concessions made by the auto industry should not be at the expense of the workers and unions.

MSNBC’s Savannah Guthrie asked Obama if there would be a cap to his stimulus spending next year.

“The economic forecasts have deteriorated,” he responded, referencing his conversations with leading economists. “The conclusion has been … that unless you have a bold approach, you could continue to see the economy decline. … That is not acceptable to me, and I don’t think it’s acceptable to the American people.”

Tomorrow, Obama leaves for a family vacation in Hawaii. Conveniently, he will be away when his team releases its report on its interaction with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich next week.