![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.302083333333333in" height="1.125in"}

# 

# Legislative Bulletin.................................................April 30, 2008

**Contents:**

**H.R. 1195---**To amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical
corrections, and for other purposes

H.R. 1195---To amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical
corrections, and for other purposes --- *(Oberstar, D-MN)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H.R. 1195 is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, April 30, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1195 makes numerous changes to federal
surface transportation programs authorized by SAFETEA-LU, the 2005
highway bill (P.L. 109-59). Below are the *highlights*:

-   Amends approximately 500 earmarks included in SAFETEA-LU by either
    changing the definition of the project or increasing the amount of
    the earmark. The following is just a few of these changes:

    -   Increases from \$800,000 to \$2.4 million, an earmark for a York
        County, PA intersection;

    -   Increases from \$800,000 to \$1.6 million, an earmark to widen
        state road 80 in Hendry County, Florida;

    -   Amends an earmark that provides \$20 million for a new American
        border plaza at the Blue Water Bridge near Port Huron, MI, by
        providing that \$7.4 million is for planning, design, and
        construction of the project, and \$12.6 million is for
        integrated highway realignment and grade separations to
        eliminate road blockages from NAFTA rail traffic;

    -   Amends an earmark that provides \$10 million for I-80
        improvements, to direct this money to "improvements to state
        road 312, Hammond;"

    -   Increases from \$2.4 million to \$4.8 million, an earmark for
        the widening of Highway 92 in Kearney, Missouri; and

    -   Amends an earmark for \$256,000 to "improve Bailie Street in
        Kentland, Indiana," to be used for "biking and pedestrian trail
        construction in Kentland, Indiana."

-   Expands an earmark for the magnetic levitation technology program
    (MAGLEV), a mass transit program. Specifically, H.R. 1195 would
    provide \$45 million in FY 2008 and FY 2009---a total of \$90
    million---of new **contract authority** (a mandatory form of
    budgetary authority for MAGLEV). By contrast, SAFETEA-LU provided
    \$90 million over four years in budget authority subject to
    appropriation. 50% of this funding is earmarked for a Nevada project
    and the rest for a project "east of the Mississippi." For the
    portion of the funding that is earmarked to the Nevada project, H.R.
    1195 extends the MAGLEV train route from Las Vegas, NV to Anaheim,
    CA. SAFETEA-LU originally provided for a shorter route from Las
    Vegas, NV to Primm, NV.

-   Annually reduces core highway formula programs by 0.205% for FY
    2008-2009 and transfers the contract authority to the future
    strategic highway research program (F-SHARP).

-   Offsets the costs of the bill's provisions by increasing the
    scheduled rescission of contract authority on September 30, 2009,
    under SAFETEA-LU, from \$8.593 billion to \$8.708 billion (an
    increase of \$115 million).

-   Provides \$21 million in new contract authority for university
    transportation center research funding.

-   Conveys the GSA Fleet Management Center to the Alaska Railroad
    Corporation and the retained interest in the St. Joseph Memorial
    Hall to the city of St. Joseph, Michigan.

-   Amends the requirement that second-offense drunk drivers have their
    licenses revoked for one year (without states being subject to
    financial penalty) and instead, allows for either a one year
    suspension *or* a 45 day suspension followed by a reinstatement
    period, so long as an ignition interlock device (breathalyzer) is
    installed on the individual's vehicle.

-   States that the Federal Highway Administration's current application
    of the Buy America test---with regard to the policy only being
    applied to components or parts of a bridge project and not the
    entire bridge project---is inconsistent with congressional intent.

-   Directs the Department of Justice to review allegations of
    impropriety regarding the Coconut Road earmark to determine if
    violations of federal criminal law took place.

[]{.mark}

**[Background]{.underline}**: On August 10, 2005, the President signed
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, P.L. 109-59) into law to provide \$286
billion over five years for all federal surface transportation programs.
The bill also included over 6,300 member earmarks, representing 8% of
the bill's overall funding and a substantial increase over the preceding
transportation authorization bill's (TEA-21, 1998-2003) then-record
level of 1,850 earmarks. Prior to that, there were 538 earmarks in the
1991 highway bill, 152 earmarks in the 1987 highway bill, and 10
earmarks in the 1982 highway bill. The highway trust fund is projected
to have a negative balance of approximately \$3.2 billion in 2009.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
be concerned that H.R. 1195, though it does not result in a net increase
to federal spending, is a missed opportunity to reduce the portion of
federal highway funding that is earmarked. H.R. 1195 uses savings from
rescissions to increase funding for some earmarks included in the 2005
highway bill, instead of using this savings to improve the balance of
the Federal Highway Trust Fund. As Senator DeMint noted during Senate
consideration of H.R. 1195:

> "I know the case has been made that this technical corrections bill
> does not increase the overall amount, but as we went back through this
> and found numerous earmarks that were no longer needed or even wanted,
> instead of moving that money to savings, we moved it to earmarks, and
> new earmarks, and to add additional earmarks at a time when we need to
> be trying to save money to overcome the projected deficit. Congress
> needs to take a timeout and examine the country's infrastructure
> priorities instead of relying solely on Members of Congress
> transportation earmarks."

Some conservatives may also be concerned that some provisions in this
bill are not "technical corrections" at all, but instead increase
funding levels for, or substantially revise the nature of, existing
earmarks. For example, some conservatives have expressed opposition to
H.R. 1195's expansion of the MAGLEV project. Opponents of the project
argue that it will compete with a private company that is raising
billions of dollars (without taxpayer support) to complete a high-speed
rail route from Nevada to California. In addition, the price of a
round-trip flight from Las Vegas to Los Angeles can cost as little as
\$118 and takes only an hour and ten minutes, which may limit demand for
the proposed MAGLEV route.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}**: The
[SAP](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-2/saphr1195-s.pdf)
expresses opposition to several provisions included in H.R. 1195 and
states in part:

> "As amended the bill would not be a technical corrections bill, but
> would instead make substantial and harmful changes to current law."

The SAP goes on to state:

> "The Administration notes with strong concern that the majority of the
> bill is devoted to earmarks. The bill modifies hundreds of earmarks
> from a bill that passed in 2005, effectively creating new earmarks,
> including a stand-alone section that would provide mandatory funding
> for magnetically levitating rail. The presence of excessive earmarks
> in the 2005 bill created significant inefficiencies in the allocation
> of resources to fund transportation infrastructure. The effort through
> H.R. 1195 to modify these earmarks from an authorization that passed
> only three years ago is a further reflection of those inefficiencies.
> Therefore, the Administration urges that these provisions be removed
> from the bill."

The SAP also argues that two other provisions should be removed from the
bill since they are not of a technical nature, the changes to waiver
provisions for the Buy America requirements and the repeal of idling
reductions facilities at public rest areas in Interstate rights-of-way.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The bill was introduced on February
27, 2007, and referred to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, which held a mark-up and reported the bill by voice
vote, as amended, on March 21, 2007. The bill went on to pass the House,
under suspension of the rules, on March 26, 2007 by voice vote. The
Senate passed the bill, with amendments, on April 17, 2008 by a vote of
88 to 2.

**[Cost to Taxpayer:]{.underline}** According to CBO, the bill reduces
contract authority by \$1 million over five years

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** H.R. 1195 is being
considered under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. As a
result, the bill technically does not have to include a list of all the
earmarks (and the requesting member) or a statement that no earmarks are
included. However, the House Committee Report states that "it is not
clear if the definition of 'congressional earmark' under clause 9(d) of
rule XXI applies to technical corrections to SAFETEA-LU projects because
these technical corrections do not provide new budget authority for such
projects. However, in the interests of full disclosure and transparency,
the Committee has required Members of Congress to comply with all
requirements of clause 9(d), 9(c), or 9(f) of rule XXI." The Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee also has a table listing all of
these provisions (including the requesting Member), which can be found
[here](http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=a27170a1-32cc-4179-82a9-1f2df277f1e3).

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The committee report cites
constitutional authority in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,
but fails to cite a specific clause. However, House Rule XIII, Section
3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain "a statement citing
the *specific* powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact
the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution" *\[emphasis added\]*.

[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}: Brad Watson,
[**brad.watson@mail.house.gov**](mailto:joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov),
202.226.9719.