Highway bill clears Senate, but GOP dissenters foreshadow House fight

Some senators challenged not just how to pay for a $109 billion highway bill, but also whether Washington should even continue its role financing the nation's roads, bridges, and ports.

With big achievements in short supply, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of California noted that Wednesday’s vote to pass a transportation bill with wide bipartisan support was one “that brought us together.”

“I am very humbled by that because Lord knows it's hard to find those moments when we come together,” she told reporters after the vote.

But not all senators are feeling the bipartisan bliss in approving the two-year, $109 billion highway bill. While outnumbered more than 3 to 1 by “yea” votes, 22 Republican senators opposed the bill because they don’t agree on how to pay for it. Some are also questioning whether the federal government should get out of the transportation business almost entirely -- a challenge to more than half a century of federal policy.  

Both issues are likely to define the coming House debate -- and to determine just how (or if) the Senate transportation bill becomes law.

Thirty senators voted for an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina that would devolve almost all transportation funding to the states, slashing the federal gasoline tax (the chief method for funding transportation at the national level) and allowing states to set their own transportation priorities.

“Congress needs to wake up and realize we’re $15 trillion in debt, and we can’t keep doing these status-quo, big-spending compromises,” said Senator DeMint, a godfather of the tea party movement.

“We need commonsense reforms of the highway program that would empower states with flexibility to make their own transportation decisions," he added in a statement after the vote. “If we devolved the highway program to the states we could build and repair roads faster and less expensively.”

The subtext of DeMint’s amendment and, later, dissenting vote is clear: Not only has Congress moved past the old order of approving transportation bills larded up with member projects, or earmarks, but perhaps past putting the federal government in charge of most infrastructure planning altogether.

But spending complaints are not limited to those most closely affiliated with the insurgent tea party. Sen. Rob Portman (R) of Ohio, a former director of the Office of Management and Budget under the second Bush administration, cast a “nay” vote Wednesday because of what he sees as budget “gimmicks.” He is also wary of Congress’s reneging on last summer’s deal capping federal spending in return for authorizing an increase in the federal debt limit.

“I cannot support this version of the bill because it violates the Budget Control Act Congress passed last August,” said Congressman Portman in statement. “At a time of trillion-dollar deficits and a record $15 trillion debt, Congress must at the very least live by the spending restraint rules just put in place.”
  
In other words, the bill poses a sharp reminder to conservatives about last summer’s debt-ceiling fight. Many of the GOP’s most conservative members argued at the time that spending caps can be undone as quickly as they are put in place. In the transportation bill, they have just that potential.

Other opponents say that it does little to solve long-term, structural problems with transportation funding. The bill “failed to address the fact that the Highway Trust Fund is going bankrupt,” said Sen. Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana, in a statement. “The bill finances construction for two years, but it does nothing to reconcile the long-term shortfalls in highway funding.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.