Senate clears transportation extension
Friday, March 30, 2012
Senate clears transportation extension
By: Kathryn A. Wolfe, Politico, March 30, 2012
Congress dug itself out of a hole of its own creation by
clearing a transportation extension Thursday, but not before
generating a lot of hot air - and heartburn for people with a stake
in transportation programs.
The Senate cleared the bill by voice vote, following on the
heels of House passage, 266-158. Lawmakers have now given
themselves a three-month window to come to some kind of agreement
on a longer-term transportation bill.
But finding a more permanent solution may be even harder,
judging by the amount of partisan rhetoric generated by an
extension that's typically considered routine. This is the ninth
such extension enacted since the last transportation law expired in
2009.
Democrats spent much of the week throwing up roadblocks to an
extension, insisting that the House should take up the
Senate-passed, two-year transportation bill - something Republicans
have been loath to do.
"Here we are debating a politically charged and partisan bill
that just kicks the can down the road a few months," said Rep. Jim
McGovern (D-Mass.), who called the fight a "manufactured crisis."
On Wednesday evening, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said asking
lawmakers to pass a three-month extension was "almost
insulting."
Rep. Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) countered that the Senate's
two-year bill - in a world where transportation bills typically are
at least five years - is little more than an extension itself.
"A two-year fix in this industry is like nothing at all," Nugent
said. He said it's just enough for state transportation departments
to "keep their doors open."
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John
Mica (R-Fla.) also countered that Democrats were happy to support
multiple extensions in previous years, including when Democrats
controlled the House.
Indeed, House Democrats overwhelmingly supported the previous
eight transportation extensions, five of which have run only for a
month or two.
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) dismissed suggestions of hypocrisy,
saying, "We're too far down the road, and we didn't have an
alternative then."
Though most of the Beltway denizens who care about
transportation spending never expected Congress to do anything but
push an extension through, lobbyists have been watching Democrats'
crusade with a wary eye just the same.
One highway lobbyist said Democrats could have had a slightly
shorter extension - 45 to 60 days - and more of a commitment from
House Speaker John Boehner on going to conference on a longer bill,
"but they screwed up by trying to strong-arm the speaker."
"Boehner may come around to negotiating policy and offset
differences within the context of the Senate-passed bill, but he
sure as hell isn't going to do that on an artificial,
Senate-imposed timeline. This program has survived for nearly three
years on temporary extensions - it can manage to tolerate a couple
more months," the lobbyist said.
Earlier this week, Mica suggested Boehner and Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid had worked out a deal involving a two-month
extension.
Reid's office would not confirm such a thing, but aides and
lobbyists familiar with back-channel negotiations said discussions
between the House and Senate leadership were real and involved the
Senate supporting a two-month extension. They said Boehner was
angling for quick movement to conference on a "shell bill" heavy
with energy provisions - the only part of the House's earlier
transportation package Republicans have been able to get
passed.
The ultimate endgame for the long-term bill is as unclear as
ever, particularly since Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) announced that
she will object to moving any more transportation extensions this
year.
And the need for another extension seems likely, given the
difficulties the House has had moving anything at all and the
complexities inherent in negotiating a transportation bill. To meet
that time frame, the House would have to regroup, pass a bill and
work through a conference agreement with the Senate.
A close examination of the congressional calendar pushes the
goal line even farther away. Within that three-month time span, the
House will be in session for just 31 legislative days, the Senate
for just 45.