The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21), which primarily reauthorize funding for surface transportation, was
signed into law by President Obama on June 6, 2012 (P.L. 112-141). This paper seeks
to review how the legislative process contributed to the eventual passing of
the $105-billion bill by both houses of Congress on June 29, with comfortable
margins—373 to 52 in the House and 74 to 19 in the Senate.
Motivations for MAP-21
After expiring on September 30,
2009, the surface transportation program had to be temporarily extended 9 times
while Congress debated its reauthorization. This caused uncertainty for states
and others that rely on federal transportation funding, and affected
transportation planning and implementation with an already deteriorating public
infrastructure.
A major issue with the reauthorization bill was the cost, with some people questioning the increase in transportation funding at a time of widening federal deficits. Indeed, CBO estimated that enacting the legislation would reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2022 period by $16.3 billion, but the implementation would lead to discretionary spending of $95.9 billion over the 2013-2017 period. Of that amount, the spending on transportation programs would total $94.3 billion, which reflects estimated obligation levels for 2013 and 2014 that are approximately equal to the obligation levels for 2012, adjusted for inflation. The Senate and the House both sought to consolidate the number of programs in the federal-aid highway program to focus priorities and resources on key national goals, whilst maintaining the same funding level.
A major issue with the reauthorization bill was the cost, with some people questioning the increase in transportation funding at a time of widening federal deficits. Indeed, CBO estimated that enacting the legislation would reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2022 period by $16.3 billion, but the implementation would lead to discretionary spending of $95.9 billion over the 2013-2017 period. Of that amount, the spending on transportation programs would total $94.3 billion, which reflects estimated obligation levels for 2013 and 2014 that are approximately equal to the obligation levels for 2012, adjusted for inflation. The Senate and the House both sought to consolidate the number of programs in the federal-aid highway program to focus priorities and resources on key national goals, whilst maintaining the same funding level.
The Legislation Process for MAP-21
The federal legislation process took place separately in both
houses.
Senator Barbara Boxer [D-CA] introduced bill S.1813 to the
Senate on November 7, 2011. The bill seemed to follow a rather Orthodox
law-making process. It was referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee. The bill was mark-up on November 9, 2011, and after about 3 months, on
February 6, 2012, the Committee submitted the report for consideration in the
Senate. What followed was a long process where 317 amendments were proposed and
debated. The Senate bill was finally passed with amendments on March 14, 2012
with a vote 74 to 22. Of those who voted in favor for the bill, there were 51
Democrats, 21 Republicans and 2 Independents who were caucusing with the
Democrats. All those voted against the bill were Republicans.
Representative John Mica [R-Fl] introduced bill H.R.4348 to
the House on April 16, 2012. In contrast with the Senate bill, H.R.4348 took a
rather Unorthodox law-making process. Speaker John Boehner referred the bill to
5 committees concurrently: (i) Transportation and Infrastructure, (ii) Ways and
Means, (iii) Natural Resources, (iv) Science, Space and Technology, and (v)
Energy and Commerce. The bill went to the floor with only 3 amendments, and was
passed in 3 days, on April 18. As explained by Sinclair, when a number of
committees work on a bill, many perspectives and interests are represented in
the bill-drafting process. If the committees come to an agreement among
themselves, the supportive coalition for the bill becomes formidable. This is
reflected in the vote count of 293 in favor to 127 against.
H.R.4348 was submitted to the Senate on April 19. On April
24, the Democrat-majority Senate struck all clauses of the bill after the
Enacting Clause and substituted with the language of S.1813. It also insisted on its amendment, requested for a conference to reconcile the differences, and appointed conferees which included the sponsor for
S.1813, Senator Boxer. The House agreed to the conference on April 25 and appointed
bill sponsor Representative Mica as conferees, along with several members from the
5 committees which the bill was referred to.
The conference between the 2 houses was held on May 8. Between
May 17 and June 21, the House debated through several motions to instruct
conferees, and passed instructions that related primarily to funding amount and
funding limits. On June 28, the conference report H. Rept. 112-557 was filed. The amended bill became an omnibus bill. In addition to reauthorization
of the surface transportation program, the bill included several non-transport
related programs including:
1. Set interest
rate that pension plans use to measure their liabilities, increase pension
premium rates for both variable and flat rate premiums paid to the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and establish a cap on the variable rate premium
2. Secure Rural Schools and Payments In Lieu of Taxes programs
3. Reduce the additional Medicaid payments to Louisiana that it will receive based on prior declarations of federal disasters
4. Reduce mandatory payments to states that have completed certain reclamation projects on land formerly used for mining
5. National Flood Insurance Program
6. Retain an interest rate of 3.4 percent on all new subsidized student loans until June 30, 2013
7. Raise additional revenue by increasing the ability of businesses with excess assets in their pension funds to use them for retiree health and life insurance benefits, and by defining businesses that make roll-your-own machines available for consumer use as tobacco manufacturers
A careful review of the conference report also showed that
for the surface transportation reauthorization, the text essentially was a
combination of both the House and Senate bills, focusing on the shared priority
of accelerating project delivery. There were also new provisions that will
maintain substantive environment and public health protections while
streamlining the creation and use of documents and environmental reviews, to
enhance the efficiency and accountability in the project delivery process.
On June 29, both houses voted and agreed on the report, with very high
margin. The House vote consisted of 373 supported and 52 objected. The Senate
vote consisted of 74 supported and 19 objected. Only Republicans objected,
largely with concerns on the legislation’s financial aspects, including the use
of general revenues transferred to the Highway Trust Fund to make up for
anticipated shortfalls.
Cooperation
for Bipartisanship Agreement
Sinclair
suggested that by employing special procedures and practices, a bill is
considerably more likely to pass. In the case of the MAP21 act, these
included multiple referral, an omnibus bill and post-committee adjustments
where both houses reconciled their disagreements. The Democrat-majority Senate
and the Republican-majority House had to work together to ensure that most
interests are met in order to push the bill forward. The bill presented the
philosophy from both parties: efforts to reduce budget deficit while
maintaining current spending levels; streamline processes to cut red tape; demand
greater federal oversight and accountability with established performance
measures.
When
the bills are individually passed in each house, the vote came largely from the
majority-party. It is only when the conference report brought all
considerations together, that the bill received a near unanimous agreement, from
both Republicans and Democrats.
Notwithstanding
this, the bill could have been passed due to reasons that could go beyond the
legislation process. With a divided Congress and an ongoing Presidential
election year, there was pressure for both parties to signal to the public that
each party was able to get the job done, even if they had to come to a
compromise. This was especially so at the onset of the debt limit crisis in the
prior year. The legislation process merely set the stage for both parties to
put together all of their interests, and the condition increased their
willingness to compromise, to agree. Nevertheless, this is still an
extraordinary accomplishment.
(1241
words)
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment