Skip to content

As Yet Another House Proposal Dies In Utero, Boehner Looks to Senate Bill

The original six-year House transportation bill had funding levels that were too low, so House leaders axed that and came up with a fairy tale bill in which oil drilling would pay for higher transportation spending levels. Then they decided to kick transit funding out of that bill, which didn't fly. So they thought about replacing the whole kit and kaboodle with an 18-month bill, but no one liked that either.

The original six-year House transportation bill had funding levels that were too low, so House leaders axed that and came up with a fairy tale bill in which oil drilling would pay for higher transportation spending levels. Then they decided to kick transit funding out of that bill, which didn’t fly. So they thought about replacing the whole kit and kaboodle with an 18-month bill, but no one liked that either.

As of this morning, Speaker John Boehner was supposedly trying to round up votes for another five-year bill. It looks like he couldn’t find them, according to Fox News reporter Chad Pergram, so now the House may take up something more like the Senate’s 18-month bill:

The five-year bill that Boehner tried and failed to get his GOP colleagues to pass yesterday preserved dedicated funding for transit, but it didn’t really solve any of the other contentious issues with the previous bills (except, thankfully, for the double-decker horse trailer issue.) It kept oil drilling, which Democrats oppose, and didn’t lower the $260 billion price tag, which conservatives bristle at.

Perhaps the bill’s downfall, however, was leadership’s commitment to keeping it earmark-free. Though many analysts would call that a noble route, it leaves members without specific projects in their districts that they can use to sell the bill to their constituents. Ironically, without some local pork thrown in, a federal transportation bill looks like a big hunk of Washington pork to many members of Boehner’s caucus.

No one in House leadership wants to vote for the Senate bill, but that appears to be their only option, as yet another internal proposal dies. The House could try to pass an 18-month or two-year extension, but Politico reports that such a measure would have a “rocky road to passage.” It would basically implement the Senate bill’s funding levels (or close to it) but without a way of paying for it, leaving the Highway Trust Fund vulnerable to insolvency before the extension even expired.

One way or another, it looks like an 18-month bill — basically a glorified extension — has a path to passage now.

Photo of Tanya Snyder
Tanya became Streetsblog's Capitol Hill editor in September 2010 after covering Congress for Pacifica Radio’s Washington bureau and for public radio stations around the country. She lives car-free in a transit-oriented and bike-friendly neighborhood of Washington, DC.

Streetsblog has migrated to a new comment system. New commenters can register directly in the comments section of any article. Returning commenters: your previous comments and display name have been preserved, but you'll need to reclaim your account by clicking "Forgot your password?" on the sign-in form, entering your email, and following the verification link to set a new password — this is required because passwords could not be carried over during the migration. For questions, contact tips@streetsblog.org.

More from Streetsblog USA

Where the Hottest Blocks in Your City Are — And How To Cool Them Down

April 15, 2026

Wednesday’s Headlines Hop on Board Carefully

April 15, 2026

Ask An Insurance Industry Insider: Safe Streets Are The Best Way To Bring Down Insurance Costs

April 15, 2026

What If All Cars Were Autonomous, Electric, and Free?

April 14, 2026

“Why Do We Do This Bill?”: Preparing Congressional Staff for Surface Transportation Reauthorization

April 14, 2026
See all posts