Notes from Washington

by Craig Piercy, ACPA Legislative Advocate

Something extraordinary has happened in Washington. In the thick of a bruising election year, Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Senate have come together in a bipartisan fashion to pass multiyear legislation to fund construction and maintenance on the nation’s highways and bridges. The bill, entitled the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (or MAP-21), was sponsored jointly by Senator Barbara Boxer, the avowed California liberal and chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and her conservative Oklahoma counterpart, Republican Senator James Inhofe.

The bill would “reauthorize the Federal-aid highway program at the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline level— equal to current funding levels plus inflation—for two fiscal years, and consolidate the number of Federal programs by two-thirds, from about 90 programs down to less than 30, to focus resources on key national goals and reduce duplicative programs.” It would also “eliminate earmarks, expedite project delivery while protecting the environment, create a new title called ̔America Fast Forward,̓ which strengthens the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program (TIFIA) to leverage federal dollars further than they have been stretched before. Lastly, it would consolidate certain programs into a focused freight program to improve the movement of goods.” With a $109 billion budget and a two-year duration, MAP-21 will provide Federal-aid highway funds to the states through five core programs.

1. National Highway Performance Program: “Eliminate the barriers between existing programs that limit states’ flexibility to address the most vital needs for highways and bridges and holds states accountable for improving outcomes and using tax dollars efficiently.”

2. Transportation Mobility Program: “Replaces the current Surface Transportation Program, but retains the same structure, goals and flexibility to allow states and metropolitan areas to invest in the projects that fit their unique needs and priorities. It also gives a broad eligibility of surface transportation projects that can be constructed.”

3. National Freight Network Program: “Provides funding to the states by formula for projects to improve regional and national freight movements on highways, including freight intermodal connectors.”

4. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: “Provides funds to states for transportation projects designed to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality.”

5. Highway Safety Improvement Program: “States must develop and implement a safety plan that identifies highway safety programs and a strategy to address them.”*

As you might expect, the Senate bill faces an uncertain fate in the hyper-partisan House of Representatives. House speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) made passage of a transportation bill one of his highest priorities in 2012. Earlier this year, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Congressman John Mica (R-Florida), introduced a five-year, $269 billion bill and attempted to move forward with House floor consideration. However, House Democrats reacted sharply to the bill’s overall funding levels (too low) and a provision that would de-couple federal mass transit programs from the highway trust fund, effectively de-funding them. The administration also piled on, with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stating that the House GOP’s plan was the “worst transportation bill” he’d seen during 35 years of public service. Meanwhile, many conservative House members are generally predisposed to voting against any kind of federal spending, and see the overall spending levels contained in the Mica bill as too high given the nation’s current fiscal situation.

Nonetheless, Mica pressed on with his bill, holding a brutal 18-hour committee markup session, which resulted in a party line vote to send the bill to the House floor. However, the GOP leadership simply couldn’t muster enough support for passage (I’ve been told their whip counts never got close to the 218 needed for passage) so they pulled the plug in early March.

The Senate’s bipartisan bill puts the GOP house leadership in an awkward position, to say the least. The leadership could try to make changes to Mica’s bill in order to gain Democratic votes. However, that would mean deep-sixing provisions like an expansion of domestic oil drilling that are very popular with the GOP rank-and-file (and also offset the bill’s higher spending levels). Alternatively, the House could take up the Senate bill as-is and let the legislative process work its will. However, that would require the leadership to essentially cede control of the outcome to the whims of the majority, not a comforting prospect.

Should the House fail to act on the Senate’s bill, Boehner and the GOP leadership run the risk of being viewed by the public as placing partisanship ahead of progress. Also, keep in mind there is a simmering conflict between House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who represent the pragmatic and ideological wings of the Republican Party respectively. So even beneath the partisan divide, there is another level of political intrigue playing out.

Overall, failure in the House could play right into the hands of President Obama, who is anxious for any evidence to show that his agenda is being thwarted by a GOP Congress, which is too ideologically rigid to get the job done for the American people.

Not a great time to be in the House GOP leadership, but for those of us who want highway policy that goes beyond short-term extensions of existing law, we may just be in luck. Behold the power of bipartisanship.