For many years, certain committees in Congress looked at
transportation as bipartisan. Projects and funding were approved because they
create jobs, and it’s been a written and unwritten rule that the highway system
is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy.
We’re not quite sure when things started to go sour or when
transportation projects and infrastructure jobs became political pawns in a war
on spending.
But all is not lost. At least one committee is still feeling
the love.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a
two-year, $85 billion transportation authorization bill on Nov. 9. It’s the
first multiyear transportation bill to emerge since SAFETEA-LU became the law
of the land in 2005.
Members of the committee basked openly after completing
bipartisan negotiations on the bill. Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-CA,
and ranking member James Inhofe, R-OK, had many kind words to say, as did
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee leaders Max Baucus, D-MT, and
David Vitter, R-LA. Their joint press release had quotes from each of the four
under their respective letterheads.
Other Senate committees are entrusted with adding things to
the bill in the near future including a financial title and motor carrier
safety provisions. We’re all waiting to see how those pan out.
While transportation itself has not been dragged through
partisan rhetoric in the Senate, things like spending levels and government
regulation still have the ability to split the partisan divide wider than the
Grand Canyon.
That type of rift is already widening in the House of
Representatives, where lawmakers are split down party lines on many issues that
will make up their version of the transportation bill.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee used
to be a transportation love fest. Well, mostly anyway. But it’s just not that
way in today’s climate.
The line in the sand got even more pronounced during House
lawmaker press conferences held Thursday, Nov. 17.
Speaker John Boehner, R-OH, and T&I Committee Chairman
John Mica, R-FL, laid out a plan to roll domestic energy production – namely gas
and oil drilling – into their version of a multiyear transportation bill. They
say it’s about time for the U.S. to get off its behind, end the drilling
moratorium, and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Proceeds from oil and gas
drilling, they said, will help pay for transportation infrastructure.
They made another declaration, too – that the bill will pass
by the end of the year.
In a counter announcement of their own, House Democrats
blasted the concept, saying the plan falls short on details but long on
expectations. Press releases that accompanied the events demonstrated that
political partisanship is alive and well in the House.
It may not be transportation itself that is drawing the
partisan bickering. It’s more likely other things such as paying for the bill
and a little thing called a presidential election that’s on next year’s
calendar.
Because the House works differently than the Senate in terms
of jurisdiction over transportation, it could be that the Senate EPW Committee
escaped from having to have certain discussions while the House is forced to
have them.
It’s too early to take sides. We simply haven’t seen the
full text of the House bill. We’ve only seen the outlines.
OOIDA leadership says the oil and gas drilling idea is
interesting, and is not something Association members would view as a deal
breaker. Many members would support an idea like that if it could work. What OOIDA
does question, however, is whether a proposal like that could work and garner
enough votes.
Senate Democrats say the oil and gas proposal is a
non-starter for them. So that’s another partisan argument to be sorted out as
this thing moves along.
If you’re into the political process, and can see past a lot
of the partisan rhetoric, the transportation debate is an interesting one to
follow, and something we’re looking forward to covering.
