Streetsblog Capitol Hill

During the current push for multi-year transportation bill, the Senate has been known more for its spirit of bipartisanship than any visionary policy advances. Now that the bill has hit the Senate floor, however, it’s getting a little ugly.

Senators Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid are airing their frustration with delays in getting a transportation bill passed. Image: The Guzzler

Republican Senators have proposed a number of contentious amendments in order to stall the bill’s passage. Senator Barbara Boxer, whose Environment and Public Works Committee got the ball rolling on the bill last December, says these amendments are “ridiculously unrelated.” For example, Rand Paul has proposed an amendment that would cut off American aid to Egypt until the 19 American civilians there are allowed to leave. Other amendments try to thwart the president’s compromise on insurance coverage for contraception.

In response, majority leader Harry Reid has “filled the tree,” proposing enough amendments to fill all available slots before any other senator can do the same. The move triggers another cloture vote, this time on specific amendments themselves, rather than the entire bill. The vote, scheduled for tomorrow, will decide whether the Senate goes forward in combining the EPW, Commerce, Banking, and Finance titles into a single bill.

Boxer, who had been generally upbeat about the Senate bill’s prospects for passage, is getting frustrated with the delay tactics, according to The Hill:

“Right now, there is no path forward,” Boxer said even as she vowed to continue pushing for a clean vote on the transportation proposal.

“I don’t see it,” Boxer said. “It’s one of those things where people just say ‘I don’t care. We’re not going to (approve) this bill.’”

The delay also means that other noteworthy amendments will have to wait until the current quarrel dies down. Two Democratic Senators and two Republicans have just cosponsored an amendment that would restore dedicated funding to the Recreational Trails program, protecting biking and walking programs that the underlying bill undermines. The Cardin-Cochran amendment, which gives metropolitan areas more control over federal funds, is also picking up cosponsors from both parties.

The fate of these two amendments and more — T4America has a handy page to track their progress — hinge on Senate leadership setting aside parliamentary scheming, and soon.

Read more…

First, John Boehner split his transportation bill into three smaller bills that deal with transportation, oil and gas drilling, and government employee pensions separately. Now, it looks like the transportation component won’t be voted on until after the President’s Day recess, according to Politico:

Boehner’s office attributed the decision to two factors: One of the offsets in the payroll tax cut agreement is a reduction in pension benefits for federal workers that overlaps with a cost offset in the highway bill, plus a thick docket of amendments makes it more difficult to finish the bill by the end of this week.

Left unsaid in Boehner’s rationale is the difficulty that Republican leaders have had in assembling the necessary vote for a bill that funds surface transportation programs, opens up oil drilling and cuts back on the federal contribution to government workers’ pensions.

The news is a sign that Boehner’s attack on transit and street safety programs is treading on thin ice, but defeating the House GOP’s highways and drilling initiative is far from guaranteed.

Delaying the vote on the transportation portion frees up the House to first take up the energy-only portion, which expands offshore and arctic oil and gas drilling and contains the Keystone XL pipeline provision. That bill will be debated and possibly voted on by the entire House today.

For Boehner, the key is still the transportation portion, known as H.R. 7. Last night the House Rules Committee established that if H.R. 7 does not pass, then the energy and pension reform bills cannot be recombined and would head to the Senate individually. It is unlikely that an isolated drilling bill would find much support in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The White House issued a statement yesterday that spelled out President Obama’s opposition to the House transportation bill, also known as H.R. 7. The administration’s statement of policy, which coincided with the House Rules Committee hearing on H.R. 7, takes a stand in defense of transit, safety, and the environment:

H.R. 7 does not reflect the historically bipartisan nature of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The Administration has serious concerns with provisions in the bill that would make America’s roads, rails, and transit systems less safe, reduce the transportation options available to America’s traveling public, short circuit local decision-making, and turn back the clock on environmental and labor protections…

Because this bill jeopardizes safety, weakens environmental and labor protections, and fails to make the investments needed to strengthen the Nation’s roads, bridges, rail, and transit systems, the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto this legislation.

The announcement makes Obama the highest-profile critic of the House transportation bill, a group that already included Secretary LaHood, hundreds of advocacy groups, heavy-hitting lobbyists representing big business, and a growing number of Republican congressmen.

President Obama had already endorsed the Senate’s two-year transportation bill proposal, which so far has received bipartisan support. But that was before the President’s budget called for $476 billion in transportation investment over six years, a proposal that goes above and beyond anything that the House and Senate have been working on. LaHood is defending the administration’s transportation budget today before the Senate Budget Committee.

It will be interesting to see how Obama’s statement affects what happens in Congress. Yesterday, House Republicans split their transportation bill into three smaller bills, which will be debated and voted on separately, presumably to maximize the chances of each part passing. The component of the bill that robs transit of dedicated funding still may not have the votes to pass. With the current extension of the last transportation bill set to expire on March 31, the House will still have to take some sort of action if H.R. 7 goes nowhere.

One thing isn’t in doubt: By putting out a proposal that departs so radically from 30 years of transportation policy, begun under Ronald Reagan no less, Boehner was practically begging to start a high-profile political fight over this bill. As election season heats up and the administration responds to the House GOP’s attack on transit and street safety programs, it looks like national transportation policy will continue to be in the spotlight.

With more and more Republicans coming out against provisions of the House transportation bill, the GOP leadership has opted to split their massive bill into three parts to be debated and voted on separately, Politico reports. The thinking, as Larry Ehl writes, is that members will be allowed “to go on record voting ‘yes’ on sections they strongly support, and ‘no’ on sections they strongly oppose.” One bill would deal with transportation reauthorization (including the Ways & Means Committee’s transit “fix”), one with energy production, and one with federal pension reform (yes, all of that was included in the same bill until today).

Such a move would mark a strange turn for the House transportation bill, which started as an infrastructure spending bill with vague revenue sources and ended up as a bill that opened up vast areas for drilling and eliminated dedicated funding for transit and bike/ped programs.

David Goldston, government affairs director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told reporters today that “clearly, the Republicans thought they didn’t have the votes as a whole package,” hence the decision to split it up. Presumably they will try to combine the pieces again later on. “Whether even with this gambit they’ll have the votes to move it along is anybody’s guess,” Goldston said.

The House Rules Committee will meet tonight at 5:00 p.m. on the bill, and will decide how the bill will be divided. They will also need to deal with the over 300 amendments that had already been proposed to H.R. 7 in its current form.

Image: America Bikes

We mentioned it briefly last week, but the amendment to the Senate transportation bill from Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin and Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran is a critical one to track. The amendment would give local governments, rather than state DOTs, access to most federal bike-ped funding.

The way the Senate transportation bill, MAP-21, is currently written, all funding for complete streets programs is funneled to state DOTs, and for many cities and towns this could mean losing access to funds that make streets safer.

The Cardin-Cochran Amendment would instead direct the funding to what are known as “Tier 1 Metropolitan Planning Organizations” — agencies that help decide how to spend federal transportation dollars in regions larger than 1 million people. In states that have no MPOs serving areas larger than 1 million residents, state DOTs would distribute the money directly to local communities through a grant process.

Cochran told Streetsblog the measure would protect local communities from missing out on important funds: “Our amendment would ensure that communities continue to have access to federal resources to implement transportation improvements that are meaningful to public safety, economic development and quality of life at the local level,” he said.

Meanwhile, Melody Moody of Bike Walk Mississippi has been running a local letter writing campaign to thank Senator Cochran for his support. More than most states, Mississippi, which suffers from the nation’s most acute obesity problem, needs to provide opportunities for active transportation.

Read more…

Northeastern Republicans, like New York's Nan Hayworth and Pennsylvania's Mike Fitzpatrick, have signed on to an amendment, sponsored by Manhattan Democrat Jerry Nadler, that would restore dedicated federal funding for transit.

The House GOP bill, drafted with significant input from Speaker John Boehner’s office, would eliminate mass transit’s dedicated funding stream, first signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1982. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former House Republican, has called it “the worst transportation bill I’ve ever seen during 35 years of public service.”

Some congressional Republicans, especially those who represent transit riders, agree that de-funding transit would be unacceptable. The Nadler amendment has bipartisan support from six Democrats and six Republicans. The GOP side includes New York’s Chris Gibson, Bob Turner, Michael Grimm and Nan Hayworth, as well as Ohio’s Steve LaTourette and Pennsylvania’s Mike Fitzpatrick.

Turner, who represents an urban district where almost half of all commuters take transit to work, will not vote for the transportation bill in its current form, nor will LaTourette. Though not a sponsor of Nadler’s amendment, Long Island GOP rep Peter King has also spoken out against the bill’s anti-transit provisions and is currently expected to vote against the bill.

Read more…

Did John Boehner and and John Mica overreach with their proposal to strip dedicated funding for transit, cycling, and walking in the House transportation bill? That’s the question observers have been asking since House GOP leaders sprung this politicized legislation in committee last week.

It’s too soon to tell whether the bill will clear the House, but the list of Boehner’s members speaking out against it is growing longer.

Today, Crain’s Chicago reports that a trio of Chicagoland’s suburban Republicans have come out against the bill. Robert Dold, Judy Biggert, and Adam Kinzinger each had slightly different objections, but their dissatisfaction seems to stem from the provision that would transfer federal gas tax revenues from transit to roads. Crain’s is reporting that that provision of the bill could cost Chicago-area transit providers $450 million annually. The region also stands to lose $900 million annually in road funding if the bill passes.

A spokesman for Biggert told Crain’s: “She does not support the House bill in its current form due to concerns with its overall funding for Illinois, as well as its potential impact on long-term planning for Chicago and suburban rail systems.”

Meanwhile, Dold released a statement late yesterday, saying “he has concerns with the impact it will have on the environment, as well as the way it damages vital funding for the state of Illinois.”

The Illinois Chamber of Commerce has also come out against the bill, saying it “would put hundreds of millions of dollars for transit in real peril, while drastically reducing funding for Illinois highways.”

More House Republicans will have to reject the bill in order to kill its chances, but Crain’s reporter Greg Hinz believes that “Mr. Boehner will have to go to Plan B.”

Other Republicans opposing the bill in its current form include Ohio’s Steven LaTourette, Wisconsin’s Tom Petri and Illinois’ Tim Johnson. New York’s Peter King and Bob Turner have also expressed reservations about the proposal.

The Senate picked the right day to make themselves look good by comparison.

Photo: AP

Today saw a massive mobilization of opposition to House Speaker John Boehner’s five-year disaster of a transportation bill, even as he defended it at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. Meanwhile, the Senate voted 85-11 to move forward with Senator Barbara Boxer’s two-year reauthorization proposal.

“This is a good vote,” Boxer said after the votes were tallied. “Tell the House we have a bipartisan bill worthy of their consideration.”

It was the first real test for Boxer’s bill, sometimes called MAP-21, before the entire Senate. The bill is far from perfect, with bike/ped programs falling victim to program consolidation. It does give a small boost to transit operations and it does not rely on drilling for new revenue.

The pursuit of bipartisan support has been a hallmark of Boxer’s reauthorization efforts, even more than any specific policy goals. Before today’s vote was held, she expressed her hope for more than the 60 votes necessary to move forward, and in the end she received broad support from across the aisle.

The vote invokes cloture, which means the bill cannot be filibustered. No further amendments may be proposed to it, though Boxer acknowledged that a good number had been proposed already. One of those amendments, sponsored by Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin and Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran, would give local governments greater access to transportation funds — good news for the transit, bike and pedestrian projects that cities and towns like to build.

Subsequent votes will formally attach the titles passed by the Commerce, Banking, and Finance committees. A full vote in the Senate is expected some time next week.

The 11 Senators — including two Democrats — who voted “no” are after the jump.  Read more…

The transportation-plus-drilling bill that John Boehner and company are trying to ram through the House is an attack on transit riders, pedestrians, cyclists, city dwellers, and every American who can’t afford to drive everywhere. Under this bill, all the dedicated federal funding streams for transit, biking, and walking would disappear, leading to widespread service cuts and more injuries and deaths on American streets. But to hear the Republican-controlled Transportation and Infrastructure Committee tell it, they’re not harming anyone. In a statement, committee spokesperson Josh Harclerode told Transportation Nation earlier this week:

John Mica and John Boehner would have you believe their bill is a blessing for transit. It isn't.

Republicans are not anti-transit, but we do recognize that the Highway Trust Fund is paid for by highways users, and cities and local governments must look at developing a similar user fee system for transit users.

This bill gives more flexibility to states to fund their most critical transportation needs, and under this bill states can also use the funds authorized under the highway program for transit systems if they so choose.

Because of the struggling economy, changing driving patterns and more fuel efficient vehicles, the Highway Trust Fund is in repeated danger of running dry. The Republican bill stabilizes the Trust Fund for the next five years, ensures states have the ability to fund their most critical transportation needs, and also guarantees transit funding.

Transportation myths die hard, and here the House GOP is trotting out a bunch of them — plus a few new sadistic rhetorical flourishes — to justify what’s quickly becoming known as the worst transportation bill ever. A quick primer on how the Republican leadership is lying about their bill:

1. The House GOP is not guaranteeing transit funding. They’re eliminating guaranteed transit funding.

Ask anyone who works in public transit, and they’ll tell you this bill would wreak havoc as soon as it is passed. By ending the policy begun by Ronald Reagan of funding federal transit programs with gas tax revenue, House Republicans would cast a pall of uncertainty over just about every transit agency in America. The Republican “guarantee” is nothing but a guarantee of more haggling over limited dollars as transit programs go up against other spending priorities in the general fund. Without the certainty that gas tax revenues provide, transit agencies will immediately move to cut service and raise fares, exactly what Americans don’t need while gas prices are rising and jobs are still scarce.

2. Highways are not “paid for by highway users.”

Gas taxes and tolls don’t cover the cost of highways, not by a longshot. In 2007, for example, user fees only covered 51 percent of highway costs, according to Subsidyscope. In other words, roads are subsidized — on a much larger scale than transit.

Read more…

The House GOP’s transportation bill is legislation only Big Oil can love. By eviscerating dedicated transit funds, killing programs that support safe streets, and linking transportation funding to oil drilling in the Arctic, the bill has managed to alienate everyone from environmental advocates to the ultra-conservative Club for Growth.

Steven LaTourette, an Ohio Republican, said he opposes the House transportation bill as it is currently written. Photo: Cleveland.com

So there’s a chance that House leadership will fail to round up the 218 votes needed to pass this bill. Based on Streetsblog’s initial conversations with House GOP members, the bill could be too anti-transit and too hostile to street safety to pass, even in this extremely partisan political climate.

Streetsblog began reaching out to House GOP members this morning to see where they stand, and already we’re finding representatives who think the current bill is too extreme. One Republican with misgivings is Ohio Rep. Steven LaTourette, who represents rural and suburban areas in the northeast part of the state, east of Cleveland.

LaTourette has been a supporter of common-sense transportation reforms in the House, co-sponsoring national complete streets legislation as well as a bipartisan measure that would have increased flexibility with federal funds for struggling transit agencies.

Through his chief of staff, Dino DiSanto, LaTourette’s office had this to say about the bill:

In its current formation there are lots of things we don’t like about it. If it’s not changed drastically, we’re not going to support it.

What they’re doing to highway funding — removing [Transportation] Enhancements, not allowing more flexibility for transit agencies? There’s no reason [transit agencies] should be able to buy buses but not operate them.

Infrastructure used to be something that was widely popular among both parties, and for some reason over the last few Congresses, they’ve become highly polarized.

Meanwhile, Bob Turner (R-NY), whose district encompasses parts of Queens and Brooklyn, has reservations as well. In a statement, Rep. Turner indicated his disapproval, specifically for the portion of the bill that would eliminate dedicated funding for transit:

Read more…