House committee ignores broad opposition, decimates transit funding anyway
February 3, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
Hours after receiving over 5,000 letters and phone calls from individuals across the country and a letter signed by more than 600 groups from an unbelievably broad spectrum, the House Ways and Means Committee ignored that broad, bipartisan opposition and went full speed ahead with their unprecedented plan to kill dedicated transit funding.
The Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for writing the funding portion of the bill, approved their financing plan along almost party lines this morning, 20-17. (Two GOP reps voted against the bill.)
This plan attacks three decades of successful investments in mass transit by ending the historic guarantee for dedicated funding for public transportation — originally started under President Ronald Reagan almost 30 years ago — placing every public transportation system in immediate peril and leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold.
The proposal would take away the 2.86 cents out of the total 18.4 cent motor fuel tax currently directed into the transit account of the Highway Trust Fund and redirect that 2.86 cents into highway spending. Transit would no longer have a guaranteed and protected funding source, instead becoming subject to yearly appropriations fights and the need to find offsets for funding — all while highway spending continues to be guaranteed with protected funds for half a decade at a time.
In just 12 hours after hearing the initial news, we gathered signatures from more than 600 groups, notable individuals and elected officials.
More than 75 national organizations signed the letter — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AARP, the American Public Transportation Association, the National Rural Assembly, American Society of Civil Engineers, LOCUS (real estate developers), National Association of Counties— and a huge list of other individuals and state & local groups, including the governors of Oregon and Washington, several state DOTs, state and local Chambers of Commerce, and hundreds of state and local organizations nationwide.
Unfortunately, the committee chose to ignore this broad opposition — including opposition from other groups like the conservative Club for Growth and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) — and went ahead with their short-sighted plan.
The markup wasn’t quite as contentious as yesterday’s in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, though it was about 16 hours shorter. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, with several years of experience on the transportation committee under his belt, took it as his job to educate his fellow members on this finance-focused committee about transportation — many of whom may not have ever taken up the transportation financing portion before due to how rarely it comes up.
Rep. Blumenauer noted that for 30 years, having a Trust Fund in place — a mechanism with some degree of certainty — has been crucial for transit agencies’ “ability to make multiple year commitments that allow them to operate with some degree of certainty.” (For more specific comments, check this Streetsblog Capitol Hill summary of the markup.)
This Ways and Means bill now moves to the House floor, along with the more substantial portion marked up yesterday by the transportation committee. That floor process could begin as early as late next week, but more likely the week of the 13th.
Massive letter opposing House leadership attack on transit sent to Capitol Hill
February 3, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
As we mentioned yesterday, House Leadership and the Ways and Means Committee this week proposed an unprecedented attack on public transportation funding.
This morning we sent this letter (below) to the Ways and Means Committee and the entire House of Representatives in strong opposition to this House leadership plan to end a 30-year precedent of providing dedicated funding for public transportation from the federal fuel tax.
In less than 12 hours, we gathered signatures from more than 600 groups, notable individuals and elected officials. More than 75 national organizations — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AARP, the American Public Transportation Association, the National Rural Assembly, American Society of Civil Engineers, LOCUS (real estate developers), National Association of Counties— and a huge list of other individuals and state & local groups, including the governors of Oregon and Washington, several state DOTs, state and local Chambers of Commerce, and hundreds of state and local organizations nationwide.
Read the full letter here, where you can see the full list of all groups that signed.
Although Ways and Means markup is about to begin this morning, there’s still time to contact your House rep and let them know that you stand against this raid on transit funding.
—
Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin:
For the past thirty years, Congress has provided dedicated funding for highway and transit programs through an excise tax on gasoline dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund. This funding structure has successfully provided highway and transit programs with secure, dedicated revenues and budgetary firewalls dating back to the Reagan administration. The success of this approach is without question: The Trust Fund has been critical to our nation’s ability to build an efficient and multimodal transportation system. With record transit ridership, now is not the time to eliminate guaranteed funding for our nation’s public transportation systems, which saved Americans close to $19 billion in congestion costs in 2009. For the first time in thirty years, the pending legislation H.R. 3864, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Financing Act, removes the certainty of a continued revenue source for our transit systems as well as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program.
Specifically, we are deeply concerned about the provision in H.R. 3864 that would terminate funding from the excise tax on gasoline and replace it with the Alternative Transportation Account. In place of gasoline tax revenues, the legislation would provide a one-time $40 billion transfer of General Fund revenues to the Alternative Transportation Account. Not only is this level of funding insufficient to fully fund the proposed authorized levels for the Alternative Transportation Account, but it would subject transit and CMAQ funding to the annual appropriations process. This change will make it impossible for public transit systems across the country to plan for the future. It will also make it impossible for the FTA to honor grant agreements.
In addition, this legislation does not make clear how the $40 billion in General Fund revenues will be offset in the U.S. budget. As a result of this funding gap, we are concerned that the $40 billion general revenue transfer may not occur leaving transit programs out in the cold.
We strongly encourage the Committee to reject H.R. 3864 and work to continue to fund highway and transit programs through dedicated funding.
House leadership making unprecedented assault on public transit
February 2, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
|
Stop the House’s unprecedented assault on public transportation. There are just a few hours left before their vote Friday morning. Send an urgent message to your representative today.
Will we be stuck waiting for the bus, or just tossed underneath it? |
A key House Committee is threatening to kill three decades of successful investments in mass transit — originally started under President Ronald Reagan — by ending the guarantee for dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold.
In a stunning development late last night, House leadership and the Ways and Means committee made a shocking attack on transit that would have huge impacts for the millions of people who depend on public transportation each day.
They proposed putting every public transportation system in immediate peril by eliminating guaranteed funding for the Mass Transit Account and forcing transit to go begging before Congress for general funds each year — all while highway spending continues to be guaranteed with protected funds for half a decade at a time.
This incredible move would roll back 30+ years of bipartisan federal transportation policy and reverse a decision made by President Reagan in the 1980’s to fund our nation’s transit system out of a small share of gas tax revenues. This change would mean no more guarantee of funding each year and no long-term stability for public transportation. States, cities, communities and their transit systems could lose billions.
We released a statement earlier today decrying this unprecedented attack on transit.
“We are deeply concerned that if this measure passes, Americans who use public transportation, or who would like that option in the future, will be thrown under the bus,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. “This couldn’t come at a worse time for people who need an affordable, reliable way to get to work, or for employers who need workers.” Corless noted the demand for transit has been rising as the economy slowly recovers and people are using public transportation to get to jobs and to avoid volatile gas prices. Over the course of the five-year transportation program, America’s population will continue to age rapidly, and a growing number of seniors will be looking to transit services maintain their independence.
It’s not just us, though. Even the association of state DOT heads submitted a letter to the committee urging them to reconsider their ill-advised plan.
The Mass Transit Account has been in existence since 1982 and AASHTO has continuously supported this account as a critical component of the Highway Trust Fund. AASHTO has long supported the principle that 20 percent of the gas tax revenues that have been put in place since 1982 be allocated to a dedicated mass transit account. We believe that the two complementary accounts need to be maintained in order to support a well-funded, multimodal transportation system.
We respectfully request that the current Highway Trust Fund structure with its two accounts and respective revenue allocations be retained.
Transit is unquestionably a critical component of our nation’s transportation system, and one that millions of people (or voters, if you’re reading, committee members) depend on each day to get around. More people on transit means less congestion, less pollution, and fewer cars on the road.
Tell your representative that this unprecedented attack on transit won’t stand.
House Ways and Means proposal to end guaranteed funding for public transportation undoes bipartisan agreement since Reagan
February 2, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
After service cuts and fare hikes, House leadership plan gives transit riders more to worry about
Reversing policy begun under President Ronald Reagan, House Ways and Means Committee – at the direction of House leadership — could move Friday to end guaranteed funding for public transportation, and leave even today’s inadequate funding levels in doubt.
The proposal to bar public transit from receiving funds from the federal motor fuels tax is part of a bill coming before the House Ways and Means Committee Friday morning. That bill sets the revenue levels for the five-year surface transportation bill making its way through the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee today.
“We are deeply concerned that if this measure passes, Americans who use public transportation, or who would like that option in the future, will be thrown under the bus,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. “This couldn’t come at a worse time for people who need an affordable, reliable way to get to work, or for employers who need workers.” Corless noted the demand for transit has been rising as the economy slowly recovers and people are using public transportation to get to jobs and to avoid volatile gas prices. Over the course of the five-year transportation program, America’s population will continue to age rapidly, and a growing number of seniors will be looking to transit services maintain their independence.
Since Ronald Reagan was president, Congress has supported dedicated funding for both highways and transit. For the last 30 years, transit riders and the services they use have been able to depend on guaranteed funding from a mass transit trust fund replenished by a share of federal gasoline taxes. As congestion rose in urban areas, and rural areas saw their share of car-less, low-income families rise, bipartisan support grew for providing transit as a dependable relief valve. Removing the guaranteed funding would mean that transit would have to compete each year for general fund revenues that are in line for deep cuts in coming years.
“American workers and their employers already are dealing with deep uncertainties in these times of fiscal crisis,” said John Robert Smith, co-chair of Transportation for America and President of Reconnecting America. “As local tax revenues have dropped, transit service is being cut, fares raised, and maintenance is being deferred. Seniors in rural areas are waiting hours for a ride to the doctor, veterans have very few transportation options to get them to VA centers, and workers in cities don’t know when the next bus is coming. Putting these services in jeopardy would be a cruel blow to these Americans.”
###
House Committee marking up their transportation bill today
February 2, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
We’ll be live blogging some of the highlights of the markup going on today by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Refresh the page throughout the day to stay up to speed. And you can also follow us on Twitter. If you want to watch the live stream of the markup, you can watch that here.
—
3:31 That may be it for most of the live-blogging for today, unless the amendment on bridge repair comes up soon. We’ll likely be back at the end of the day or tomorrow to wrap things up and summarize. You can follow our tweets from the markup @t4americaand you can see others tweeting and discussing with the hashtag #TranspoMarkup
Also, don’t miss what happened in Ways and Means last night, which is proposing a serious attack on dedicated public transportation funding.
10:44 - Amendment to restore the funding for Safe Routes to School, Transportation Enhancements.
Rep. Petri introduces the amendment restoring transportaiton enhancements. He says, “there might be an impression that these programs are 10% of a state’s highway funding. It’s really not the case. These activities would account for about 2% of highway funds. It gives a lot of bang for the buck. There have been 17,000 enhancement projects completed since 1992. The National Association of Realtors support the amendment because these amenities add value to our neighborhoods. …Ensuring the safety of our children is in the national interest. More than half of all enhancement funds have gone toward bike and pedestrian projects, which provides a balance to our national transportation program. The National Heart Association is here campaigning for this amendment…because it helps us lead healthier lives.”
After Petri’s comments, there was a lot of debate on the amendment. Rep. Mica said, “let me just say that we have grown to a huge number of programs. We have significant mandates. This entire bill has tried to head in a different direction and devolved to the states to be able to do these programs that we’ve spoken of. …While I favor may of the items that have been mentioned, I do not view this in any way detrimental to those states that want to do this. But we believe that it’s time to get away from the mandates and the set aisdes that we do and this is one of them. I will oppose this amendment.
Rep. Rahall signals his strong support for this amendment as a “quality of life amendment” and offers a strong rebuke to the last few years of TE-bashing, adding that “I’m sick and tired of this program being used by idealogues as a whipping boy…”
Rep. Shuster explains what could be summed up as the basic majority opinion on the amendment. “This is fundamental for what we’re trying to do in reform this program. We’re faced with declining balances in the trust fund. We have close to 5,000 bridges that need to be rebuilt [in Pennsylvania.] …Spending money on bike paths is nice, but it’s a community based function. It’s not for the federal government up here in Washington to tell states that they must spend these monies. Also, these dollars going into these are people that use the highways and are paying for them. I rise in strong opposition.”
“This is just mean spirited,” says Rep. DeFazio.”To just say ‘no more regards for bikes, let’s just turn back the clock to pre-1980s.” He asks the committee members to look the kids, the cops and the parents in these communities in the eye and tell them, “I’m sorry, we can’t afford to buy your child a safe way to ride their bicycle to shool and live a healthy lifestyle.”
Rep. Lipinski reminds the committee that walking and cycling are valid forms of transportation. “The more people we have doing that, the less wear and tear, the less congestion on our roads. This is not just throwing something out for recretaion. This is truly transportation. We have to recognize that we’re never going to build enough roads to accomondate everyone. We need to encourage people to be taking other forms of transportation. We need to understand and recognize that this is transportation.
The amendment fails by a close vote, but with bipartisan support, at 29-27.
9:25 Rep. Nick Rahall, the ranking Democrat on the committee, opens with kind remarks for the Chairman, but quickly pivots into a fairly scathing critique of the bill and the process, including the Speaker of the House, whom he says has voted against every transportation bill while in Congress.
Rep. Rahall is clearly bothered by the fact that a 845-page bill was introduced only a few short days before the markup, making it difficult for members to fully read and digest the bill. He asks to see a show of hands of people who have read the full bill. Chairman Mica is overheard saying, “I’ve read most of it,” and Rep. DeFazio is asked how many hands he sees and he says “I can’t count that low.” Rep. Rahall suggests he and the minority are prepared to move to postpone the markup to Wednesday, February 8th to provide more time to analyze the bill.
“Flatlines funding when we need to provide greater investment in our infrastructure…Slashes and burns the federal role in safety oversight. Democrats are prepared to offer many amendments of the shortcomings in this bill.”
Chairman Mica notes that there will be no rolling votes during the day, which means that members will have to be present for votes throughout the day. This likely means that the markup could go on all day and well into the evening, with a few recesses throughout the day for votes on the House floor.
9:07: Chairman Mica opens by thanking and acknowledges the “bipartisan effort that went into this day.” Obviously, it’ll be interesting to see how the committee vote shakes out, because it could be a very partisan vote. He draws a contrast with Rep. Oberstar’s bill, that was well formed in his colleague’s mind before he ever took leadership of the committee, and pointed out how much time the committee spent in hearings on the road to hear what “the American People” want in a transportation bill before drafting this one.
He notes the importance of having a long-term bill, which the House has drafted, and says that “we also pay for that, which is different than in the past…We have to live within our means…It’s important to keep the [Highway] Trust Fund solvent for the forseeable future.” Along these lines, Rep. Mica takes a little shot at the Senate bill, which he says falls short by relying on “short term funding, short-term planning, short-term stability…”
He then ran through what he feels are the highlights of the bill. It consolidates 70 federal programs. “States end up with more net money…We eliminiate mandatory set-asides and allow states to set their own priorities.” We heard over and over again that they need to speed up the process.
“I think the American people after 8 extensions deserve the best from Congress and our Committee.”
Call your Representative TODAY to support bridge repair and safe streets for everyone
February 1, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
The House transportation committee will vote on their draft transportation bill in less than 24 hours on Thursday morning. Can you take a moment and make a phone call today? Time is running out to improve the House’s bill!
Locate your Representative on the transportation committee below in the list below. Also note the key statistics on the number and percentage of deficient bridges in your district from the table!
Then call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to your Representative. When a staffer picks up, you can share this message below with him or her, or first ask to speak to a legislative associate that handles transportation and share this message with them. (Don’t know what district you’re in? Use this tool.)
And then say something along these lines:
My name is [NAME] and I live in [PLACE]. I’m calling to ask Representative [NAME] to please vote for two amendments in Thursday’s transportation committee markup. Please vote for the amendment from Reps. Petri and Johnson to restore the dedicated funding that helps make streets safer for people on foot or bike, and secondly, please vote for a possible amendment requiring states to first repair their deficient bridges, unless their bridges are in good condition.
We need to require states to put a priority on fixing the country’s 69,000 bridges before spending money on new highways. There are [NUMBER] deficient bridges in the Representative’s Congressional district, according to a Taxpayers for Common Sense report. The House transportation bill must address this backlog.
Last year pedestrian deaths increased while vehicle deaths dropped. It makes no sense to cut the tiny slice of dedicated funding that helps make streets safer for everyone on foot or bike.
Thank you so much for your time.
Want to report your call? Leave us a note in the comments or just send us a short email.
| Member | State | District | # Deficient Bridges | Percent Deficient |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donald E. Young | AK | 00 | 131 | 13.46% |
| Rick Crawford | AR | 01 | 325 | 8.24% |
| Jeffrey J. Denham | CA | 19 | 127 | 18.76% |
| Laura Richardson | CA | 37 | 61 | 26.41% |
| Grace F. Napolitano | CA | 38 | 19 | 7.63% |
| Gary G. Miller | CA | 42 | 13 | 5.65% |
| Bob Filner | CA | 51 | 29 | 4.36% |
| Duncan D. Hunter | CA | 52 | 22 | 5.33% |
| Eleanor Holmes Norton | DC | 98 | 17 | 10.06% |
| Steve Southerland | FL | 02 | 34 | 3.22% |
| Corrine Brown | FL | 03 | 15 | 3.01% |
| John L. Mica | FL | 07 | 10 | 2.64% |
| Mazie K. Hirono | HI | 02 | 98 | 15.61% |
| Leonard L. Boswell | IA | 03 | 804 | 25.99% |
| Daniel Lipinski | IL | 03 | 17 | 9.04% |
| Jerry F. Costello | IL | 12 | 130 | 6.35% |
| Randall M. (Randy) Hultgren | IL | 14 | 79 | 6.50% |
| Timothy V. Johnson | IL | 15 | 374 | 7.06% |
| Larry Bucshon | IN | 08 | 557 | 15.66% |
| Jeffrey Landry | LA | 03 | 124 | 10.48% |
| Michael E. Capuano | MA | 08 | 50 | 14.49% |
| Andrew P. Harris* | MD | 01 | ||
| Donna F. Edwards* | MD | 04 | ||
| Elijah E. Cummings* | MD | 07 | ||
| Michael H. Michaud | ME | 02 | 240 | 15.47% |
| Candice S. Miller | MI | 10 | 125 | 11.35% |
| Timothy J. Walz | MN | 01 | 811 | 13.47% |
| Chip Cravaack | MN | 08 | 204 | 9.52% |
| Russ Carnahan | MO | 03 | 62 | 8.77% |
| Sam Graves | MO | 06 | 1313 | 22.19% |
| Billy Long | MO | 07 | 271 | 13.46% |
| Howard Coble | NC | 06 | 180 | 12.67% |
| Heath Shuler | NC | 11 | 368 | 13.21% |
| Frank Guinta | NH | 01 | 110 | 14.25% |
| Frank A. Lobiondo | NJ | 02 | 67 | 11.15% |
| Albio Sires | NJ | 13 | 38 | 10.80% |
| Shelley Berkley | NV | 01 | 1 | 0.39% |
| Jerrold Nadler | NY | 08 | 13 | 9.56% |
| Richard Hanna | NY | 24 | 259 | 14.11% |
| Jean Schmidt* | OH | 02 | ||
| Bob Gibbs* | OH | 18 | ||
| James Lankford | OK | 05 | 327 | 17.60% |
| Peter A. DeFazio | OR | 04 | 139 | 6.30% |
| Jason Altmire | PA | 04 | 349 | 32.08% |
| Patrick Meehan | PA | 07 | 89 | 18.02% |
| Bill Shuster | PA | 09 | 676 | 25.80% |
| Lou Barletta | PA | 11 | 330 | 27.71% |
| Tim Holden | PA | 17 | 358 | 26.48% |
| John J. Duncan Jr. | TN | 02 | 46 | 3.62% |
| Chuck Fleischmann | TN | 03 | 108 | 6.77% |
| Steve Cohen | TN | 09 | 39 | 5.68% |
| Blake Farenthold | TX | 27 | 26 | 2.71% |
| Eddie Bernice Johnson | TX | 30 | 16 | 1.53% |
| Rick Larsen | WA | 02 | 46 | 5.12% |
| Jaime Herrera Beutler | WA | 03 | 37 | 3.59% |
| Thomas E. Petri | WI | 06 | ||
| Reid Ribble | WI | 08 | ||
| Shelley Moore Capito | WV | 02 | 280 | 14.28% |
| Nick J. Rahall | WV | 03 | 354 | 17.61% |
Sec. Ray LaHood answers a few of your questions
January 31, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
We asked you to submit questions for Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, and here is the resulting segment of “On the Go”, his regular web video series where he answers a handful of transportation questions. This time, he asked us at T4 America to gather supporters from our thousands of supporters across the country.
In the video, he talked about high-speed rail, trucking, and biking and walking, reminding all of us that in his travels across the country, he keeps hearing that people “want the opportunity for walking and biking paths.” “…These kinds of programs really enhance communities and help provide options.”
Sec. LaHood also reiterates his optimism about the prospects of Congress passing a transportation bill in the coming months — after a momentary bout of pessimism last week. In contrast to a House bill coming out today that could have difficulty getting bipartisan support due to some controversial revenue sources, he praised the efforts of Senators Boxer and Inhofe in the Senate for their bipartisan bill that passed out of committee with its full support.
Without much ado, here is the video, including a few shout-outs for Transportation for America.
Congratulations to “saxman66″, “Conservative Values”, and Peggy Da Silva for getting their questions addressed in the video.
Drilling for highway revenues could face controversy from both sides
January 30, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
House leaders have made it known that their transportation bill will expand oil drilling and exploration to fill part of the yawning gap between what the Highway Trust Fund gathers each year in gas taxes and what is spent. That provision is controversial, no doubt, but the opposition is coming from more than just one side.
Some conservative think tanks and transportation policy experts are opposing the idea — though not because they think we shouldn’t be drilling for more oil everywhere possible, but because they believe the principle of a “user fee” for the highway system is one worth protecting.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative/libertarian think tank, held a session today on Capitol Hill with a title that leaves little mystery about their position: “Don’t Drill And Drive: Weakening The “User-Pays” Highway Funding Principle Would Endanger Our Nation’s Transportation Infrastructure.”
…the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Reason Foundation, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Natural Resources Defense Council will hold a briefing to discuss the importance of preserving the “user-pays/user-benefits principle”— and why proposals that would tie infrastructure funding to expanded energy production threaten the future health of our nation’s transportation system. The panel will feature a diverse range of transportation policy analysts from free-market, fiscal watchdog, and environmental organizations to discuss various aspects of the deeply flawed “drilling for roads” proposal, as well as solutions to long-term funding problems.
Obviously, CEI opposes the measure for very different reasons than an environmental group like NRDC. But could there be some opposition to this funding plan on both sides of the ideological spectrum in the House when this bill is introduced Tuesday?
In the Senate, Republican Sen. Inhofe has already said that expecting new oil drilling revenues to pay for an immediate multi-year transportation bill isn’t a realistic funding solution.
“While Speaker Boehner’s idea may be a long-term revenue source for transportation infrastructure,” said Sen. Inhofe back in November, “we need to focus on the immediate problem of how we will fund a multi-year highway bill. …If this is how the House is able to move the bill forward then I applaud them. But we need money now for transportation; we can’t afford to wait.”
If the drilling proposal wasn’t already controversial enough in the House, Speaker Boehner offered this tidbit on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. Via E&E Publishing and former Streetsblog reporter Elana Schor:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced yesterday that he will seek to override the president’s veto of the Keystone XL pipeline as part of a long-term transportation bill — if the oil link is not already advanced during bicameral payroll tax-cut talks. The move adds a second volatile issue to a typically noncontroversial infrastructure package that his chamber wants to pay for in part by expanding offshore and Alaskan drilling, which is opposed by most Democrats and the White House.
“If [Keystone XL is] not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it will be part of it,” Boehner said of the pipeline in an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” referring to the GOP’s title for its drilling-and-transportation package.
The House bill is expected to be released Tuesday in advance of Thursday’s committee markup.
What will the next few weeks hold? Real transportation reform or more blank checks?
January 25, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
846 days and counting since our transportation program formally expired; both the House and Senate are finally on the verge of moving a transportation bill. We already wrote that the House could release their draft transportation bill as early as Friday. What about the Senate? They’ve made some progress already, moving 2 of 4 portions of their bill through committee and will be moving fast in the coming weeks.
That need for speed, urged on by a leadership that wants to get a bill to the floor soon, means that Senators will be under tremendous pressure to keep the bill moving along quickly. Already, vested interests are attacking the critical provisions that would set new, 21st-century objectives for our investments, rather than perpetuate a status quo that benefits fewer and fewer Americans.
Those critical provisions were passed in December by the Senate Commerce Committee. The committee approved legislation that would establish national policy objectives and goals for the transportation system. It would hold all levels of government accountable for congestion levels, road conditions, environmental impacts, the reliability of freight movement, increasing access to transit, and reducing fatalities across all modes, among other measurements of progress. However, some in Congress are fighting against these critical reforms.
With the ball starting to roll downhill fast, your senators need to hear from you that these are just the types of reforms we need included in a transportation bill. Tell your Senators you’re counting on them to support and defend a more transparent and accountable system for spending our transportation dollars.
In these times of shrinking state budgets and financial downturns, it’s more important than ever to know exactly what our scarce transportation dollars are buying. After spending of billions of dollars each year, taxpayers want to know:
“Are we better off now than last year? Are we safer on our roads? Are our bridges in better condition than ten years ago? Can more people get from A to B quickly, reliably and affordably? Is our transportation system creating more pollution or less? Using more or less oil?”
Americans we’ve talked to all across the country are 100 percent fed up with spending billions each year without a way to demonstrate that we’re making progress. It’s crucial that your Senators hear today what’s important to you in the transportation bill, before the hearings and floor debates heat up next week.
Stay tuned — it’s going to be a busy February here in Washington.
House on the verge of releasing a transportation bill tied to increased oil drilling
January 24, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
According to sources cited by numerous outlets this morning (Politico’s Morning Transportation, Transportation Issues Daily and others), the House is planning to mark up a five-year transportation bill in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee next Thursday, February 2nd. It could be released as early as this Friday, though that date may slide somewhat into next week.
So what’s in the bill? Politico has a copy of the leaked 14-page summary, but it covers the policy only in very broad strokes, so it’s not possible to reach any sort of real conclusions about the bill just yet.
One of the most notable aspects of the bill is the proposal to raise the billions needed to cover the yawning gap in anticipated gas tax revenues with money from increased oil drilling — an intent also illustrated by the title: “The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act.” The fact that the bill was written entirely by committee Republicans and tied to such a controversial new revenue source could result in a bill that gets little Democratic support in committee or on the floor.
Leaving speculation behind, no specifics are offered as to where the drilling would take place or how much revenue it’s expected to raise. On the subject, the summary says, “By removing barriers to new energy production, this fiscally responsible proposal will create a new, sustainable, revenue stream for infrastructure improvements, lower energy costs, and create infrastructure and energy sector jobs across the country.” We’ll have to wait for details on which “barriers to energy production” will be removed and how much revenue might be created.
We’ll have much more on this in the week to come as the full text is released and we can take a closer look.
-
- House committee ignores broad opposition, decimates transit funding anyway
February 3, 2012 - Massive letter opposing House leadership attack on transit sent to Capitol Hill
February 3, 2012 - House leadership making unprecedented assault on public transit
February 2, 2012 - House Ways and Means proposal to end guaranteed funding for public transportation undoes bipartisan agreement since Reagan
February 2, 2012 - Pedestrian deaths, blaming the victim: headphones edition
January 19, 2012
- House committee ignores broad opposition, decimates transit funding anyway
Connect with T4 America
Interactive Features and Reports
T4 America on Twitter
