The battle over Congress’ role in repairing Baltimore’s landmark bridge is already raging at the Capitol just days after its collapse.
President Biden vowed Tuesday that the federal government would cover the huge cost of rebuilding the Francis Scott Key Bridge, a major artery that supplies water to the Port of Baltimore, one of the nation’s busiest shipping lanes. . The bridge was struck by a nearly 1,000-foot-long cargo ship, which lost power and drifted onto its supports while leaving the Port of Baltimore early Tuesday morning.
Mr. Biden’s proposal has already drawn praise from many Democrats, particularly Maryland lawmakers, who argue that the port’s value goes beyond the state and that repairing it is a matter of national importance.
They argue that only the federal government has the resources to accomplish this task.
But the idea sparked an immediate backlash from conservative fiscal hawks. They are already furious about the massive 2024 spending package recently approved by Congress, and argue that the US government cannot afford to accumulate any more debt.
They argue that Key Bridge is a local issue that local governments should address.
“The whole idea of having the federal government pay for the construction of the Baltimore Bridge is completely ridiculous!!” Rep. Ralph Norman (RS.C.) told The Hill in a text message. “This embodies the old slogan, ‘Take Peter to pay Paul!!’
Republicans are not the only critics. Some liberals also question Biden’s proposal, saying the cargo ship’s owners are at least partially responsible for the tragedy and should pay for some of the repair costs.
“Let’s be clear about the tragedy in Baltimore. That bridge didn’t just collapse. There was no earthquake. The bridge collapsed (apparently) due to an out-of-control civilian ship. They were responsible for fixing it. Shouldn’t you be at least partly responsible for it?” Said Jamal Simmons is a Democratic strategist and former communications director for Vice President Harris.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen also said on MSNBC Wednesday that some of the cost of rebuilding the bridge will be covered by insurance proceeds.
Discussions will likely intensify after Congress returns to Washington in mid-April after a long break. By then, party leaders will already be grappling with a number of radioactive issues, including extending the government’s domestic spying powers and military aid. For Ukraine and Israel.
It remains unclear how much it will cost to repair the bridge, with some estimates putting it at a whopping $2 billion. But Biden expressed confidence on Tuesday, just hours after the incident, that he could win support from Congress.
“It is my intention that the federal government pays for the entire cost of rebuilding the bridge, and I hope that Congress will support my efforts,” he told reporters at the White House. .
The pledge has been welcomed by Maryland lawmakers, who have vowed to make funding a top priority in the next legislative session.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told reporters Thursday at the Capitol, “I can’t predict exactly when Congress will act, but I intend to start acting as soon as I get home.” Ta.
Van Hollen, who has served in the Maryland General Assembly since 2003 (first in the House and now in the Senate), said officials are still assessing how much money is needed to rebuild the massive bridge. That’s in the works, he said, but he said he was assuming a “rough outlook.” Quote will be available “soon”.
But in the meantime, Van Hollen said the state will receive funding from federal emergency funds that will cover about 90% of the cost of replacing the bridge. Van Hollen said the remaining 10% would come from state funds, and he and his Old Line colleague, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), are working on a bill to cover that portion. He said he is working on it.
“First of all, we need to get a full price quote for the bridge. We intend to move very quickly in terms of bill submissions,” Van Hollen said Thursday.
Such funding has historically been less controversial. When the Interstate 35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis in 2007, both chambers of Congress passed emergency funding that former President George W. Bush signed into law within his week.
But the debate over how to respond to the latest disaster is rapidly heating up on cable news, with conservatives already fiercely opposing the idea of pouring more federal money into the problem. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pennsylvania) criticized Biden’s plan, calling it “outrageous.”
“He didn’t say anything about it being American taxpayer money. You know, the first reaction, really the only reaction, is to tend to spend the money,” Muser said. said in an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo on Thursday. “We can’t always take the easy way out and just try to waste taxpayers’ money.”
Some Democrats have already expressed concern that approving the federal amendment would be a major burden in Congress, given some resistance from the right. Particularly because Maryland is a relatively healthy state with a Democratic majority, which could discourage Republicans from pursuing a state of emergency. funds.
With this in mind, some lawmakers have already floated the idea of attaching bridge funding to foreign aid packages that include new military aid to Ukraine, with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) has vowed to address this when he returns to Washington. Mid-April, after the long holidays.
“Certainly it could add up, but if you’re going to move a national security supplement bill, why not?” Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) said by phone Wednesday. “I don’t think it has any political impact. There aren’t that many Republican senators from Maryland, so I certainly don’t object.
“Unfortunately, it’s hard to get anything done. So if we need to rebuild a bridge, we’re doing it, but why put it in as part of a larger grant?” Shouldn’t it be?”
As the debate progressed, some surprising voices emerged in favor of federal amendments.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), a fiscal hawk who has grilled Republican leaders over 2024 funding, said the federal He pointed out that the government should intervene.
Burchett also argued that Washington has a vested interest in rebuilding the bridge, given the port’s importance to domestic commerce and international trade. Legal disputes with shipping companies could arise after the fact, he added.
“My first thought would be for the federal government to pay for it and then collect the premiums,” he said. “Until we get our act together, commerce will suffer.”
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
