CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Feb. 2, 2012 – 11:07 p.m.
Highway Bill Sparks Unusual Partisan Divide
By Nathan Hurst and Kathryn A. Wolfe, CQ Staff
Debate on the House GOP’s highway bill quickly turned rancorous on Thursday, diminishing prospects that a long-term, comprehensive measure can be completed this year.
In a departure from the bipartisan discussion that usually accompanies surface transportation legislation, the leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee took turns at the bill’s markup sniping at each other over Democrats’ access to the 800-page measure (
“I know I happened to be standing in the well of the House when you introduced this massive bill,” ranking Democrat
At the very least, the partisan tone in committee suggested Republicans would not be able to count on any Democratic support of the five-year, $260 billion bill.
The feuding in the House was in contrast with the situation in the Senate, where the Environment and Public Works Committee voted unanimously in November to approve its two-year, $109 billion highway bill (
House GOP leaders also face divisions within their own party, as conservative policy groups such as the Club for Growth are refusing to back the measure, calling it “bloated and inefficient.”
Speaker
At the time, Boehner also reminded fellow Republicans that he was among a handful of House members who voted against the last full-scale highway bill (PL 109-59) in 2005 and, in fact, that he had never voted for a surface transportation authorization.
“Perhaps in the next Congress we’ll have a Speaker that will have supported transportation funding at some point in his or her career,” Rahall said.
At some points, Mica and Rahall sounded like a squabbling couple. When a Democrat sought a roll call vote on her amendment, contrary to what Mica thought was a deal with Rahall on voice-voting amendments, Mica told the lawmaker not to expect the amendment to be included in his manager’s package.
“I did not respond when you mentioned that to me,” Rahall said, cutting Mica off. “Your opinion, that’s fine, you’re chairman and you can do whatever you want.”
“Thank you,” Mica said.
“You’re welcome,” Rahall replied.
Highway Bill Sparks Unusual Partisan Divide
Other committee Democrats were equally combative.
“What really intrigues me is that you think the Senate will have to take up your bad bill,” Brown said to Mica. She said that while she has been frustrated with the other chamber’s lethargy in the past, “Now I thank God for the Senate.”
“I think my friend from Florida is having a lapse in judgment,” said Pennsylvania Republican
Shuster said he was disappointed by the contentious tone of the session, saying that under former Democratic Chairman James L. Oberstar, he and other Republicans “held our noses and voted for the bill.”
Oregon Democrat
DeFazio called it a “one-state earmark” which violates House rules.
“Any day of the week and Sunday, I will defend this,” Beutler shot back.
Earlier in the day, Boehner told reporters that the bill will be “more difficult to pass” than previous highway bills because earmarks are forbidden. Trading earmarks to authorize funding for popular local projects was a tool used to build support for highway bills in the past, and Boehner told his caucus earlier in the week that the 2005 law contained more than 6,000 earmarks.
Other Battlegrounds
The Transportation and Infrastructure markup was just one of the battlefields on which the fight over the bill is playing out.
Earlier this week the Natural Resources Committee approved three energy bills (
Democrats have called those proposals poison pills that cannot pass in the Senate.
And a financing package for the House bill, slated to be marked up Friday by the Ways and Means Committee (
Highway Bill Sparks Unusual Partisan Divide
Even some lobbyists for traditional asphalt and concrete interests were dismissing the drastic change in the funding treatment for transit programs as a messaging stunt with little hope of gaining any support in the Senate.
“The only jobs this is going to create is for congressional staff writing more extensions,” said one infrastructure lobbyist.
Richard E. Cohen, Alan K. Ota and Anne L. Kim contributed to this story.