House Republicans slammed President Obama's $476 billion transportation and infrastructure proposal yesterday, labeling as a "gimmick" his plan to tap savings from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Appropriators said that while the goal of infrastructure investment made sense, Obama's six-year plan -- included in his fiscal 2013 budget proposal -- didn't.

"Like the saying goes: Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, sure enough it does," Chairman Tom Latham (R-Iowa) said at a hearing of his transportation appropriations subcommittee. "So far, we aren't seeing any proposals ... in terms of length, cost, financing or policy that will pass both the House and Senate."

The administration's proposal for tapping Overseas Contingency Operations funds, making transportation programs mandatory and requiring that "livability" be used as a criterion for awarding project funds, he said, is unlikely to get enough votes.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood defended the administration's proposal, comparing it to previous years when the White House put forward a plan without a pay-for to supplement the dwindling gasoline tax. "We pay for it this year," LaHood said amid criticism that the plan lacked a sufficient revenue stream.

Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) called the pay-for -- and a measure in the budget that would make transportation spending mandatory -- a "gimmick." The administration, he said, failed to provide "a realistic option."

"We've got to have something more constructive, and we'd like to do it with your cooperation," Rogers said, adding that there had been so many people lined up for the war savings money that he didn't believe it would remain available for the infrastructure plan.

LaHood, however, said the war money would be available through an agreement with the Office of Management and Budget.

Democrats applauded the specific policies in the budget.

Rep. Norm Dicks (R-Wash.) said he was pleased to see more funding for the popular livability TIGER grant program, while others said they appreciated the focus on transit and other alternative modes of transportation.

The robust administration proposal dwarfs the per-year spending of the proposed House and Senate transportation bills. It also includes $47 billion for high-speed rail, $108 billion for mass transit and a $50 billion upfront infrastructure boost, as well as money for bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

The hearing came amid a months-long debate in the House and Senate over how to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation program. The Senate is moving on a two-year, $109 billion bill, but the House has been left scrambling to craft a bill that can get enough votes to pass (see related story).

Although he did not comment on either chamber's proposal, LaHood said he'd like Congress to "pass a transportation bill that reflects the values of the American people." The secretary -- who previously served in the House as an Illinois Republican on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee -- also chided House Republicans for not taking a bipartisan approach to the bill, saying it was a marked difference from when he had served.

Republicans also targeted language in the Obama budget that would make transportation programs mandatory, effectively freeing them from the appropriations process. Appropriators, they say, need to keep hold of spending.

In his opening statement, Latham said that because of an expedited schedule this year, there would not be individual hearings with the heads of separate transportation agencies. However, he said the committee would hear from a panel of administrators on March 22, allowing them to address specifics in the highway, rail and transit agencies.