Apr 12
17
Concert Shells
Growing up in the Chicago area as a kid, I distinctly remember going down to the local record store or Dominic’s grocery store to buy concert tickets. I have a very clear memory of my father dropping me off so that I could wait in line to purchase Smashing Pumpkins tickets as my eighth grade graduation present. Arriving early to the store, I had to wait outside as the first person to arrive. Imagine my displeasure when after an hour or so passed and more people had arrived the store announced that they would issue tickets and then raffle off the order of who would purchase tickets. Having done everything right, I found myself at the mercy of a store manager who didn’t care about doing the right thing but wanted to do what–in his mind–avoided him the best way to avoid any responsibility for someone not getting tickets.
I imagine that’s how many stakeholders feel about the latest news to come out of the House of Representatives regarding a surface transportation bill.
It was announced on Friday that the House would drop a 90-day extension to send to conference, a “shell bill” that would allow them to skip any votes on H.R. 7 or any other proposals and go right to conference with the Senate. While very little information is known, it now sounds like some policy proposals from H.R. 7 will make it into H.R. 4348 (shell bill) to give the House some leverage on negotiations with the Senate. Stakeholders who played nice with the House now find themselves sitting on the sidelines wondering if the changes they fought so hard for–or against–will be included.
While I was able to get two tickets to the Smashing Pumpkins concert, it seems the chances of stakeholders getting their tickets to the surface authorization bill are getting slim.
Apr 12
10
Of Staff and Roman Generals
Quick post that’s off the usual set of topics. There are a lot of Members of Congress who have announced they are retiring at the end of this session. One of the more unique things about Capitol Hill and Congressional offices in particular is that contrary to belief they all operate independently of each other. Members might share a committee or all vote on the floor but at the end of the day each office is a small business trying to work with, and sometimes against, hundreds of other personal offices, leadership offices, or committee offices. When a Member retires or leaves for any number of reasons the staff are not retained by the next Member in, even if their party is the same. Staff work for the Member who hires them, no more no less.
With very few exceptions what tends to happen is that the staff for a Member is intensely loyal to the name outside their office. A common misconception is that staff don’t get along and are even more dysfunctional than the Members they work for. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth. The exception is when it comes to discussions of who someone works for. It’s ok for someone to tell a funny anecdote about their boss but beware if you try to do the same, or laugh too hard. It may be a double standard but any staffer worth their weight in CRS reports defends their boss and office with a vigor not seen since the U.S. beat Russia in the gold medal hockey game back in 1980.
Congressional staff are some of the most loyal employees of any profession. Each one of them does what they do because they believe in the system and believe in what their boss stands for. The loss of Members who have years or decades of experience is a loss, not only for their own knowledge but for the inevitable loss of staff who know the smallest details in their areas. While the political winds may change, every new Member of Congress and new staff member is one more person that (usually) has to learn everything from the beginning. Enter the lobbyists, which is a post for another day.
This evening the House Rules Committee voted a 90-day extension (expiring June 30, 2012) out to the House Floor for consideration tomorrow. This is the latest action following several attempts to bring a surface authorization extension up via suspension. Attempts to pass an extension failed due to a lack of support from Democratic Leadership and Democratic members resulting in the current process.
I expect this extension to pass by a majority vote primarily along partisan lines where it will then go to Senate. While it is unlikely for Congress to let authorization lapse resulting in a loss of collection of the federal gas tax as well as jeopardize projects at the start of the construction season, it does remain a very slim possibility as we saw with the FAA extension last August.
While unfortunate that a game of chicken is being played by Congressional leaders, it is difficult to place the blame squarely on Speaker Boehner or even Majority Leader Reid, at least this time. Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and the White House in the 111th Congress and were unable to go to conference on a surface reauthorization much less have legislation signed into law. However, that was then and this is now.
For either the House or Senate to say that they gave appropriate attention to a new surface transportation bill is far from the truth. Senators Boxer and Rockefeller have had an idea of what they wanted to see for some time. The same goes for Chairman Mica in the House. Unless evidence rises to the contrary, H.R. 7 does not look or feel like a bill the Chairman or his staff would have written. SAFETEA-LU expired several years ago and the problems of financing and restructuring programs are not new.
In what is becoming a trend, here’s hoping cooler heads prevail.
Mar 12
6
Chicago’s Problem
Late last week, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that the City of Chicago announced plans to develop a city infrastructure bank. Infrastructure banks are not a new idea with over thirty U.S. states already having some sort of infrastructure bank. The concept behind them is simple enough: leverage loan money for transportation projects while receiving a reasonable rate of return through private investment, user fees, or some kind of dedicated revenue stream. If this all sounds familiar it’s because there has been debate within the U.S. Congress for much of the last year about establishing a federal infrastructure bank (or in the case of the House’s original bill H.R. 7) providing states that do not have an infrastructure bank an incentive to create one.
Greg Hinz at ChicagoBusiness.com has a good write up that covers many of the big concerns, mainly being that this is Chicago and nothing is done at face value. Greg mentions two of the bigger examples of the City of Chicago failing in transportation before, the 99-year lease for the Skyway Bridge, a 99-year lease for parking meters, and tried to privatize Midway Airport for, you guessed it, 99-years. Why the fascination with 99-years? Legally, that is the longest a lease can be for the majority of jurisdictions. In application I have yet to find a single defendant of why 99-years is so good. It prevents taxpayers from shopping around and regardless of who or what is involved, chances are the value of whatever is being leased only goes up.
Now, most of the above issues go back to the previous mayor, Mayor Daley, who in my opinion did a lot of good things for the redevelopment of Chicago. A quick search online doesn’t turn up any other cities that have an infrastructure bank, although with the dilapidated condition of our infrastructure and a continuously in limbo federal surface transportation authorization, it certainly is a different way to build roads. Hopefully the citizens of Chicago hold their eyes open and ensure that as this idea moves forward it has their interests in mind.
Mar 12
1
Where to Go From Here
At this point in time the prospects of a surface transportation re-authorization making it out of the Republican-controlled House are looking slimmer and slimmer. The uncertainty has moved beyond transit funding (and funding in general). With an 18-month bill now put on the bench and a 5-year bill still being pushed by Chairman Mica of the House T&I Committee, stakeholders are left wondering what is going on.
A multi-year bill is necessary to provide all levels of government some certainty in planning out projects. A multi-year bill is also necessary in order for construction, engineering, and other companies that rely on transportation construction to plan equipment purchases and hiring levels. The Senate has their own issues but most of those are related to the process of moving something (anything) in the Senate. Funding issues remain a concern even there, and there are enough dire predictions about the highway trust fund going insolvent to raise more than a few eyebrows.
One interesting thing to note is that from every appearance the House T&I Committee did everything that GOP Leadership asked them to do. The thanks? Being blasted in the news media that the bill wasn’t vetted enough, that it’s not the bill they want, chicken little the sky is falling. If anyone thinks the Chairman is being a bit defensive, well, can you blame him?
Rumors are swirling that sometime next week GOP leadership will meet with their members to determine what direction they go, as well as sell a few of their members about a surface re-authorization in general. I’ll spare readers a bad transportation pun but with the GOP meeting next week to determine their strategy and the House only in one more week before a week recess, the chances of a transportation bill moving before St. Patrick’s day are slim.
Feb 12
3
H.R. 7 – The Markup
Yesterday the House T&I Committee marked up H.R. 7, an event that took long enough for someone driving from from Washington, DC to Kansas City, MO to potentially reach their destination before it finished. That’s almost half way across the country for those of you who are curious.
There are number of write ups of the markup that cover any amount of information someone could want but I’ll stick to a few of the bigger points.
Truck Weights
It’s usually not fair to call an issue a red herring when it fits in with everything else being discussed. In this case, the definition almost fits. The issue of heavier truck weights has and always will be a fight between the trucking industry and the rail industry, two of the largest transportation stakeholders in the country and two that know how to use their size to their advantage. This doesn’t make them good or bad, but between the two they carry the bulk of the freight in the United States and are who they are. A number of smaller groups, ranging from safety advocates to law enforcement came out against the bill which, while understanding the many positions on this particular topic, probably didn’t require as much time from them. There were other issues that I think should have garnered more attention but instead were lost in the shuffle over this issue.
Consolidation, Elimination, and Enhancements
This is an something that had to happen one way or another. While I haven’t had a chance to go through the Senate bill as much as I would like, there is some consolidation of programs there as well. While maybe not as bloated as other agencies, federal DOT needed some house keeping to keep things organized. To the extent that H.R. 7 consolidates and eliminates, well, that depends on your own philosophy of states maintaining their own infrastructure. The Chairman Mica made it very clear from early on in the 112th Congress that this was a priority and held to his word. Whether or not more moderate Republicans agree with him remains to be seen.
Streamlining
This is something else that had to happen sooner or later. While the timeline’s set out (particularly for NEPA) might be too short for some people’s liking (read: more environmentally conscious), with the condition the infrastructure in the United States is in there have to be actions to get things up to speed in a more timely manner. This is something else that could make more moderate Republicans take pause, however, there have been several Democrat offices that have proposed streamlining for transit projects which could be a starting point for common ground.
Conclusion
These are just a few gut reactions. It will be very curious to see how things move forward from here.