A Tale Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing -- A Capitol Hill Update
By Cian Cashin
I’d like to thank our President and CEO Neil Schuster for providing the perfect Shakespeare quote to summarize some of the legislative activity of the week. What will likely take me paragraphs to summarize, can be condensed into the sage words of Macbeth rather nicely.
This week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee finally passed their version of a two-year surface transportation reauthorization (S 1813) by a unanimous vote of 18-0. This legislation, known as “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,” or MAP-21, would authorize approximately $85 billion over fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for federal highway programs. Before approval, the Committee also adopted nearly 20 amendments without objection, including one that would limit performance measures set by the Transportation Department. One of the stumbling blocks on gaining bipartisan approval before now had been the issue of dedicated funding for “transportation enhancements.” Funding for these enhancements would mandate use for items such as bicycle and pedestrian paths and landscaping. Republicans rightly argued that such funding would be better placed on repairing the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. Democrats, tipping their hats, made concessions on this point, and have assured Senator Coburn that if he dropped his objections to facilitate passage of the measure, the bill would be modified to allow States to spend the enhancement money on projects such as high-occupancy vehicle lanes or other congestion reduction activities that increase the efficiency of the existing road network. He was also assured that the bill would no longer allow spending of enhancement funds for transportation museums – a topic that received much negative attention during floor debates.
Again, the biggest impediment for the legislation remains its divergence from the six-year proposal being offered in the Senate. Not only do the bills differ in time frames, but they also differ dramatically in pricing and content. The Senate version has not yet solved the problem of filling the $12 billion gap between the funds generated for the Highway Trust Fund from current taxes and authorized spending levels. Without that funding, many of the Republicans who currently support the proposal will tuck tail and run. Across the Capitol, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair John Mica, has indicated that he has the better chance of moving his bill, and that in conference, his proposal is the more sound. Mica, whose six-year bill totals approximately $200 billion, has been slowly trying to identify enough offsets to pay for the bill. And while jobs are essential in an election year, the majority of the Congress, regardless of party affiliation is desperate not to move anything unless it has the appropriate price tag and necessary offsets. Without paying for it, nothing will move. As another possible funding mechanism for the Mica measure, House Speaker John Boehner suggested the idea of funding a transportation infrastructure bill by tying it to measures that would expand domestic oil and gas drilling. The new royalties would supplant the existing Highway Trust Fund.
That’s a lot of information, but returning to our quote, let’s take a step back and really evaluate what we’re looking at. We’re looking at measures that couldn’t be further apart from every angle. They don’t agree on timeframes, they don’t agree on content, and they certainly don’t agree on how they will be funded. Any proposals for funding are despised by the ruling party of the opposite chamber. Opening public lands for drilling is a non-starter for Senate Democrats, and the Senate has yet to even mention their proposal for paying for a two year measure. That’s a lot to digest before the end of the session. Heck, that’s a lot to digest for a full year. If I were a betting man (and it’s always dangerous to put these things in writing) I’d break out my calendar and count on another series of continuing resolutions.
What ever happened to the Super Committee? That Committee that was tasked with coming up with at least $1.2 trillion dollars in savings? We all thought they had been making progress, public reports were good…and then, in the blink of an eye, they returned to closed door meetings and gruff responses on progress. Things are not looking good for their recommendations. It’s rumored that debate over the Republican proposal to cut spending and generate tax revenue without increasing taxes was largely rebuffed by Democrats. Figuratively throwing their hands in the air, they’ve now looked to their counterparts and asked, “What’s your bright idea?” While Committee Democrats called the latest GOP plan insufficient, hope seems to remain. They have noted that the GOP suggestion for higher tax revenue has opened the door for a possible agreement to be used in future proposals. While concrete proposals are still being formulated, the necessity of their purview has actually made both parties relinquish long-held platform beliefs in the name of a common cause. Who would have thought such a possibility existed in Congress?
I’d like to thank our President and CEO Neil Schuster for providing the perfect Shakespeare quote to summarize some of the legislative activity of the week. What will likely take me paragraphs to summarize, can be condensed into the sage words of Macbeth rather nicely.
This week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee finally passed their version of a two-year surface transportation reauthorization (S 1813) by a unanimous vote of 18-0. This legislation, known as “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,” or MAP-21, would authorize approximately $85 billion over fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for federal highway programs. Before approval, the Committee also adopted nearly 20 amendments without objection, including one that would limit performance measures set by the Transportation Department. One of the stumbling blocks on gaining bipartisan approval before now had been the issue of dedicated funding for “transportation enhancements.” Funding for these enhancements would mandate use for items such as bicycle and pedestrian paths and landscaping. Republicans rightly argued that such funding would be better placed on repairing the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. Democrats, tipping their hats, made concessions on this point, and have assured Senator Coburn that if he dropped his objections to facilitate passage of the measure, the bill would be modified to allow States to spend the enhancement money on projects such as high-occupancy vehicle lanes or other congestion reduction activities that increase the efficiency of the existing road network. He was also assured that the bill would no longer allow spending of enhancement funds for transportation museums – a topic that received much negative attention during floor debates.
Again, the biggest impediment for the legislation remains its divergence from the six-year proposal being offered in the Senate. Not only do the bills differ in time frames, but they also differ dramatically in pricing and content. The Senate version has not yet solved the problem of filling the $12 billion gap between the funds generated for the Highway Trust Fund from current taxes and authorized spending levels. Without that funding, many of the Republicans who currently support the proposal will tuck tail and run. Across the Capitol, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair John Mica, has indicated that he has the better chance of moving his bill, and that in conference, his proposal is the more sound. Mica, whose six-year bill totals approximately $200 billion, has been slowly trying to identify enough offsets to pay for the bill. And while jobs are essential in an election year, the majority of the Congress, regardless of party affiliation is desperate not to move anything unless it has the appropriate price tag and necessary offsets. Without paying for it, nothing will move. As another possible funding mechanism for the Mica measure, House Speaker John Boehner suggested the idea of funding a transportation infrastructure bill by tying it to measures that would expand domestic oil and gas drilling. The new royalties would supplant the existing Highway Trust Fund.
That’s a lot of information, but returning to our quote, let’s take a step back and really evaluate what we’re looking at. We’re looking at measures that couldn’t be further apart from every angle. They don’t agree on timeframes, they don’t agree on content, and they certainly don’t agree on how they will be funded. Any proposals for funding are despised by the ruling party of the opposite chamber. Opening public lands for drilling is a non-starter for Senate Democrats, and the Senate has yet to even mention their proposal for paying for a two year measure. That’s a lot to digest before the end of the session. Heck, that’s a lot to digest for a full year. If I were a betting man (and it’s always dangerous to put these things in writing) I’d break out my calendar and count on another series of continuing resolutions.
What ever happened to the Super Committee? That Committee that was tasked with coming up with at least $1.2 trillion dollars in savings? We all thought they had been making progress, public reports were good…and then, in the blink of an eye, they returned to closed door meetings and gruff responses on progress. Things are not looking good for their recommendations. It’s rumored that debate over the Republican proposal to cut spending and generate tax revenue without increasing taxes was largely rebuffed by Democrats. Figuratively throwing their hands in the air, they’ve now looked to their counterparts and asked, “What’s your bright idea?” While Committee Democrats called the latest GOP plan insufficient, hope seems to remain. They have noted that the GOP suggestion for higher tax revenue has opened the door for a possible agreement to be used in future proposals. While concrete proposals are still being formulated, the necessity of their purview has actually made both parties relinquish long-held platform beliefs in the name of a common cause. Who would have thought such a possibility existed in Congress?
Comments