Greater Greater Washington

Government


Nadler transit amendment passes on voice vote

The House just approved Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)'s amendment to add $3 billion in transit capital funding to the stimulus. They approved it on a voice vote instead of a roll call.

According to Nadler's floor speech, 1.5 billion will go to the transit capital formula program, which goes to all states, and 1.5 billion to the new starts program. The AFL-CIO and environmental organizations will "score" this amendment, he said, meaning they'll factor members' votes on this issue into their scorecard ratings for each Representative. Since it was a voice vote, though, we don't know who opposed the amendment, making that impossible.

John Mica (R-FL), ranking member of the Tranportation Committee and the House's leading pro-transit Republican, called this "an amendment we have to support." The Appropriations committee, he said, "took one of the most important parts out: that's the rail and transit." Transit infrastructure creates jobs, he said. "Support the Nadler amendment!"

Transportation Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) added, "we heard very clearly from the major transit agencies in this country. They have options for buses. They have options for railcars that could be exercised within days." Manufacturers can ramp up production and create jobs all across the nation.

Rep. David Dreier Jerry Lewis (R-CA), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, "reluctantly" opposed since the amendment didn't cut spending somewhere else. Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the Appropriations Chair, gave the shortest speech: "I urge support to the amendment."

Oregon's Peter DeFazio: "Americans are loving their transit systems to death. There's $160 billion of deferred maintenance on these systems... there are 10,000 options for new buses, buses made in America. They can't be executed because our transit systems don't have the money." Rep. Gene Green (D-TX), mentioned light rail in Houston. "This bill must be a jobs bill. The [Chicago Transit Authority] head ... said she could spend $500 million tomorrow" putting people to work, added Dan Lipinski of Illinois. "Nothing will create more jobs than funding transportation infrastructure," said Staten Island's new Congressman, Democrat Michael McMahon.

Keith Ellison of Minnesota talked about the record transit ridership last year. Dan Maffei (D-NY) relayed recent news that the transit system of his hometown of Syracuse is facing deep cuts.

Nobody other than Dreier Lewis spoke against the amendment.

Update: The House also rejected an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to remove all funding for Amtrak. "In 40 years, Amtrak has not turned a profit, and the federal government has continued to subsidize it." Flake, of course, didn't talk about all the federal subsidy to roads and airports, which he isn't trying to eliminate. Corinne Brown (D-FL), however, made that very point. "There is no form of transportation that pays for itself. None whatsoever. Whether we're talking about rail, airlines, cars, none of that. We subsidize all of that."

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

Great news!

by PJ on Jan 28, 2009 2:50 pm • linkreport

Sweet! Proud of my Minnesota congressmen (Oberstar and Ellison).

by Michael on Jan 28, 2009 2:57 pm • linkreport

how cool is this? This means more people going on public transportation to my beloved Nationals games this summer. I love me so Barrack Obama!

by Donald Kosin on Jan 28, 2009 3:23 pm • linkreport

Wow! A congressperson gets that no transportation is self-sustaining! That's a huge start to a little more sanity. Take away one of Ed Gleaser and his ilk's main wrong talking points. A better grasp of the facts often leads to better policy.

by Cavan on Jan 28, 2009 3:24 pm • linkreport

That's great news. Do I hear the purple line pulling up now? Man, that "Amtrak has not turned a profit, and the federal government has continued to subsidize it" nonsence is so played out. I wish someone would tell these people that the subsidizing of the Auto-industry blows away anything Amtrak gets when you figure all the non-quantifiables costs such as environment, time wasted, maintenance, on and on and on. Great news.

by Thayer-D on Jan 28, 2009 3:32 pm • linkreport

Don't forget the $$ on thee Pentagon bloat to protect Middle East petro when we can grow our our bio mass algae fuel.

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 28, 2009 3:54 pm • linkreport

DEvery dollar spent on light rail or busses is another dollar that cannot be wasted on highways..!

by jedediah Redman on Jan 28, 2009 4:51 pm • linkreport

This is great news.. Maybe all the emails and phone calls actually worked.

by Dave Reid on Jan 28, 2009 4:55 pm • linkreport

It can always come out of the Pentagon, which is just what the parochialist 'progressive' lock-step left fondly overlooks!

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 28, 2009 4:59 pm • linkreport

Is "parochialist" really a word? Wow!

by Crank on Jan 28, 2009 5:04 pm • linkreport

That is wonderful. Cuts on transit were my primary concern about the stimulus package and this goes a long way to fixing that concern. I live in Canada (dual citizen) where I can now push this point and try to use this example of grassroots efforts to get more funding for transit here -- something already being pushed hard by mayors and others.

by Robert Paehlke on Jan 28, 2009 5:11 pm • linkreport

$3 billion in the Obama stimulus package for the criminal cigarette mercantilism (drug war market protect), as but one example of a limited interest that gets away with passing itself off as some more broad positive interest such as protecting the general welfare.

The whole transit OR highways dogma serves as a useful distraction from the reality that we spend way too much upon wars.

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 28, 2009 5:15 pm • linkreport

"Road Rage" is a cliche, the incidents are so common. Transit is not only good for the environment, if the users are there, but it's also a boost for civility. Passage of the Nadler amendment is a crucial step in the effort to educate the American psyche and make transit be what it is, a desirable choice rather than a necessary evil.

by Robert Bennett on Jan 28, 2009 6:31 pm • linkreport

since this was a voice vote, how can we find out who voted for it? It's not listed on the Roll Call votes on house.gov. I want to check if the congress person I harrassed last week voted for it :)

by Beth! on Jan 28, 2009 7:12 pm • linkreport

Beth, voice vote means it wasn't recorded -- nobody had to go on the record.

I was happy to turn on C-SPAN to watch this. :)

Both Mica and Corrine Brown have been my Rep. -- nice to see them doing something good.

by Gavin Baker on Jan 28, 2009 7:30 pm • linkreport

that's what I figured. since I don't have a TV to watch C-SPAN, I guess I'll just call his office to find out from the staff how he voted :)

by Beth! on Jan 28, 2009 8:01 pm • linkreport

Beth - a voice vote means that everyone just voted aye or nay, and individuals didn't necessarily go on record one way or the other, though I don't know if what that means in terms of an individual member answering how s/he would have voted (I live in Washington, DC, that's why I don't know).

====

This is great news.. Maybe all the emails and phone calls actually worked.

by Dave Reid on Jan 28, 2009 4:55 pm

It would be interesting to find out what did it. Where the push and pressure came from. TPM says there were zero GOP votes. Yikes.

by Jazzy on Jan 28, 2009 8:21 pm • linkreport

Hate to piss on this lovefest but any spending on rail is absurd in the age of terror. Hundreds of miles of rails with no security! Brilliant!

by Ryan on Jan 28, 2009 8:36 pm • linkreport

Why when rail would be a form of an evacuation route?

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 28, 2009 8:38 pm • linkreport

Why when rail would be a form of an evacuation route?
9/11/2001 is when. My coworkers at the Library vividly described how when the train went over the bridge to Anacostia a whole (jam-packed) train would look west at the same time, wondering if the Capitol was still there.

by Steve on Jan 29, 2009 12:00 am • linkreport

Ryan, calling this "the age of terror" because an act of terrorism happened here once is like calling this "the age of war" because the Civil War happened. I'm not sure what your statement is actually supposed to mean.

Lots of other countries who understand terror on a far more intimate level than the United States - Israel, Britain, the Philippines - didn't stop investing in their rail networks. In fact, they expanded them - with a minimum of the kind of security theater we've been inured to experience, I might add.

Furthermore, it's a bit galling listening to someone from Phoenix lecture Washingtonians (or New Yorkers, for that matter) about terrorism, security, and transportation needs.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jan 29, 2009 2:05 am • linkreport

Steve-

Absolutely.

I mistyped when I left out the comma after the word "why".

by Douglas Willinger on Jan 29, 2009 2:43 am • linkreport

Rails are inspected all the time. A fully used system has trains rumbling by all the time. There is technology that exists to see if a rail has broken. You really don't think that a terrorist could just as easily take out a heavily traveled vehicular bridge at rush hour if they wanted to? That would be much more useful to their aims than taking out a rail line anyways.

by NikolasM on Jan 29, 2009 10:49 am • linkreport

Dan Maffei went to my high school; I'm very pleased with his vote. Not so sure his Republican predecessor would've stepped up to the plate for us on that one.

by CP on Jan 29, 2009 1:13 pm • linkreport

"there is no form of transportation that pays for itself". I would point out that any spending on moving bicycles smoothly & safely would return the investment by way of a more productive, healthier and happier workforce. A tangable and substantial reduction in atmospheric carbon is another return from the relatively small capitol investment safe biking requires. It's time give bikes another look folks . . . Think "bang for the buck" and turn around time on investment. Thanks, R Mott

by R Mott, SF on Jan 29, 2009 7:40 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or