Consensus in Washington, but No Action - The $652 million Savannah port project has become the latest emblem of Washington’s struggle to accomplish much of anything, even when all sides agree.

From The New York Times:

The Savannah Harbor Expansion Project has friends in all the right places.

Republicans and Democrats from Georgia’s often divided congressional delegation agree that it is essential and overdue. The Senate and House have separately approved it. President Obama supports it, and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. traveled to the state last year to vow that “come hell or high water,” the work would get done.

 

It has not even started. Instead, the $652 million project has become the latest emblem of Washington’s struggle to accomplish much of anything, even when all sides agree, and a vivid

illustration of how the toxic political climate has made inertia the most powerful force in town.

 

As Congress prepares to return from a two-week spring break on Monday, the capital is frozen in the shadow of the midterm elections, with large tasks such as revising the tax code dismissed with hardly a hearing. Major changes in immigration policy — approved by the Senate, embraced by the White House and endorsed in concept by House leaders — are going nowhere. Pressing subjects like climate change and a crumbling infrastructure are not being addressed.

 

“It really speaks about the dysfunction of the process and the politicization of the process,” said former Representative Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican who left Congress in 2008, partly out of frustration with a broken system. “It’s a shame.”

 

For a project all sides say they fervently want done, the port work in Savannah has prompted a lot of finger-pointing.

 

Furious Georgia Republicans say the White House is slow-walking its authority to start the dredging work, and speculate not so subtly that the administration may be trying to deny Republicans a home-state accomplishment in the run-up to Georgia’s crucial Senate election.

 

Not so fast, White House officials say, arguing that Republicans would normally want the administration to practice fiscal restraint by declining to commit money before Congress has acted definitively. If Congress would just do what it is supposed to do and pass a water projects bill, they say, the problem would be solved.

 

Georgia lawmakers say they went to great lengths to include special language in the omnibus spending bill passed in January that would allow workers to begin deepening the harbor, to 50 feet from 42, while Congress finished a major water projects bill that remains tied up in House-Senate negotiations. The dredging is needed to accommodate larger ships that will soon begin traversing new locks along the Panama Canal. State officials say if the work does not begin soon, shippers may turn to other, more accessible ports along the Eastern Seaboard.

 

Advocates of the port work had expected no problem, given the administration’s strong backing and the project’s obvious benefits: jobs, trade and overall economic stimulus. They said they were blindsided when the work was not included in the president’s budget.

 

“We gave him the authority in the omnibus bill, specific language that was to be used to allow the Corps of Engineers to sign agreements,” said Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia.

 

In a recent letter, the head of the Army Corps of Engineers told a Georgia lawmaker that while the provision in the omnibus bill was sufficient “as a legal matter” to allow the project to begin, administration policy prevented it because the project had grown in cost and scope since it was first considered in 1999.

 

The administration says it is following well-established precedents in waiting for final congressional action on a project that has grown substantially in price. It says moving ahead prematurely could open the door to a flood of requests for special treatment.

 

“This isn’t about politics,” said Steve Posner, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget. “It is about being fiscally responsible and ensuring that taxpayer resources only go to projects that have been fully reviewed and authorized by Congress. The administration fully supports the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project and urges Congress to pass a Water Resources Development Act that includes authorization for the project.”

 

It is not lost on Democrats that Republicans, who often decry what they see as abuse of executive authority and have complained loudly when the administration has acted unilaterally in other cases, are now demanding that the president use his power to advance the project.

 

Still, the White House’s decision to hold back prompted Representative Tom Graves, Republican of Georgia, to tell a Pentagon official at a recent hearing that “some would say the administration’s playing politics with this project.”

 

One theory among Republicans is that the administration is retaliating for the decision by Georgia’s Republican governor, Nathan Deal, who skipped Mr. Biden’s appearance at the port, to block Georgia from participating in the health care law’s expansion of Medicaid and its state insurance exchanges.

 

More, though, have suggested that the administration and congressional Democrats want to deny a victory to Georgia Republicans in the campaign for the state’s open Senate seat, which Democrats see as a rare pickup opportunity this year.

 

“It is just remarkable,” Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia and a longtime advocate of the port expansion, said of the impasse. “You have the vice president 10 feet from the water saying, ‘Let’s do it,’ the president saying, ‘Let’s do it.’ And we have made it pretty dang clear this thing is a priority and needs to be done.”

 

Mr. Kingston, who represents Savannah and helped push through the special omnibus bill language as a member of the Appropriations Committee, is among the candidates in the crowded Republican Senate primary. Beginning the dredging would be a victory for him and for other Republicans in Congress who have supported the project.

 

“It’s possible,” Mr. Kingston said when asked if he saw a political calculation behind the administration’s stance.

 

The future of the project now seems to rest on the fate of the Water Resources Development Act, which has moved slowly through Congress despite overwhelming support in both chambers.

 

The Senate approved its version almost a year ago by a vote of 83-14, and the House voted 417-13 in October. In the past, public works bills with that kind of backing would have been quickly meshed, returned for a final approval and sent to the president’s desk for a signature, followed by a round of self-congratulatory news releases.

 

But with the current focus on spending and the unwillingness of some Republicans in the House majority to support expensive bills, particularly in an election year, negotiators have moved deliberately, working to identify and eliminate any potential bombshells before returning a final bill for a vote.

 

It is quite a change from a time, not so long ago, when both sides understood that bringing home federal largess was a ticket to re-election rather than an invitation to a primary challenge — a notion that now seems quaint.

 

House and Senate negotiators hope to reach a final deal after lawmakers return next week and start advancing the agreement toward passage. Given the current state of legislative affairs, it could become one of the most significant measures passed this year by a Congress characterized by low productivity and lower expectations.

 

Even Speaker John A. Boehner could not refrain on Thursday from chastising his colleagues for lacking the grit to take on difficult issues such as immigration.

 

“We get elected to make choices,” Mr. Boehner told a Rotary club back home in Ohio. “We get elected to solve problems, and it’s remarkable to me how many of my colleagues just don’t want to.”