Dianne Feinstein decries effort to delay train safety measure

With photos of victims of the deadly Southern California train crash behind her, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday launched a counter-offensive to preserve a 2015 deadline for railroads to install collision avoidance systems on trains carrying passengers and toxic materials.

"Hundreds of thousands of commuters are at risk until this system is put into place," she said on the Senate floor.

But Feinstein could be facing a tough fight. A transportation bill headed for a House vote in a few weeks would extend by five years, until 2020, the deadline for installation of the high-tech braking system known as positive train control. An effort is expected to be made in the Senate to extend the deadline by three years.

The 2015 deadline was included in 2008 rail safety legislation at the urging of Feinstein and others after a Metrolink train collided head-on with a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth, Calif., killing 25 people and injuring more than 130. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that Metrolink’s engineer was text messaging and failed to stop for a red signal. 

A 2008 congressional report cited 52 rail accidents throughout the country in the previous decade in which the installation of a positive train control system "would likely have prevented the accident.''

Metrolink is moving to complete installation of its $201-million system by mid-2013.

But Feinstein said extending the deadline could make deployment of the collision system more difficult. The 2015 deadline, she said, "creates a substantial incentive for industry to develop new and cost-effective technology that lowers the deployment cost for everyone, including Metrolink.''

House Republicans included the new deadline in their $260-billion, five-year transportation bill after industry complaints that it is costly and difficult to install.

"What they are delaying is a device that saves lives," Feinstein said. "The case has not been made to do so." Congress, she said, should await a report from the Federal Railroad Commission on the issue "before scaling back or delaying a system that can prevent crashes."

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees railroads, said in a recent interview that financially strapped commuter rail operators in the Northeast have told him that the current deadline could force them to put off other critical safety measures. "There are significant technological issues associated with PTC that require additional time for consideration,’’ he said.

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) hopes to bring the House floor an amendment that would keep the 2015 deadline. But a similar effort was soundly defeated in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a bipartisan vote.

ALSO:

Tennessee 'Don't Say Gay' bill clears a hurdle in state House

Buy latte, pack gun: Starbucks hit with boycott -- and 'buycott'

Are smokeless cigarettes safer? E-cig explodes in smoker's mouth

-- Richard Simon in Washington, D.C.

Photo: The 2008 crash of a Metrolink passenger train and a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth, Calif., was the deadliest rail collision in modern California history. Credit: Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times

House Republicans push new oil drilling to fund road projects

A measure that would allow new oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration is headed for a vote in the Republican-controlled House -- but faces a gusher of opposition in the Senate.

The energy legislation, which includes a measure designed to clear the way for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, is being considered in connection with the GOP-written $260-billion, five-year House transportation bill. The House, which began considering the energy legislation Wednesday, could complete action on it Thursday.

Republicans say increased domestic energy production would generate jobs and revenue to help pay for traffic-easing projects at a time when gas tax funds have fallen. (Drivers are now motoring around in more fuel-efficient cars.)

But the drilling measures face opposition in the Democratic-controlled Senate, especially from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who hails from a state where offshore drilling has been a hot issue since a devastating a 1969 spill off Santa Barbara.

The White House also has objected to the measures, saying they would take away the Interior secretary’s discretion to determine "which areas are appropriate and safe'' for exploration. The administration also said that the provision to advance the Canada-to-Gulf Coast Keystone XL pipeline would "circumvent a long-standing process for determining whether cross-border pipelines are in the national interest."

Though the legislation faces uncertain prospects, House Republicans, at the very least, hope to use Democratic opposition to expand drilling to highlight differences between the parties -- especially as high gas prices promise to become an election-year issue.

"Prices will only climb higher if we don’t take action now to increase our energy independence and develop our own American energy resources," said Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

The bill would open up, within five years, areas off Southern California, the Eastern Seaboard and Alaska "considered to have the largest undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources."

It also would permit new energy exploration off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties from existing offshore platforms, expand energy production in the Gulf of Mexico and promote oil shale development in the West.

"Californians have spoken loud and clear. We do not want more drilling off our shores," Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) told her colleagues.

Citing the 1969 spill off Santa Barbara, she added: "We were outraged by the damage to the environment ... to our economy."

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek), noting the bill would exempt new drilling leases from state review, needled "my good friends on the Republican side" for "always talking about states’ rights" but writing a bill that "strips away the right of California to take care of its own coastline."

But a Capps effort to strike the provision to allow new drilling off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties was rejected.

Hastings, in opposing Capps’ effort, said it would "lock away significant resources that belong to the American people."

Critics of the controversial energy measures say they could jeopardize the transportation bill, which faces opposition from the right and the left -- and a White House veto threat -- over a variety of issues.

A coalition of groups, including Taxpayers for Common Sense and the pro-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, sent a letter to lawmakers contending that using drilling revenue to fund transportation projects runs counter to the "user pays" principle for transportation spending. Under that principle, drivers pay for highway construction and maintenance. Critics of the idea also say it relies on speculative revenue to fund transportation projects.

The Senate is considering a $109-billion, two-year measure. Once the chambers act, House-Senate negotiators will attempt to reconcile differences to produce a final bill.

ALSO:

Which is easier: Driving in L.A. or passing a highway bill?

Buy latte, pack gun: Starbucks hit with boycott -- and 'buycott'

Bury Josh Powell near sons? 'Unthinkable,' family attorney says

-- Richard Simon in Washington

Photo: A bicyclist looks at an oil-drilling platform off Southern California. Credit: Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times

Which is easier: Driving in L.A. or passing a highway bill?

Getting a highway bill through Congress is becoming more challenging than navigating Los Angeles traffic.

A $260-billion, Republican-drafted House bill is facing opposition from the left and the right, forcing GOP leaders Wednesday to put off a final roll call while they scramble to line up the votes to pass it.

The White House on Tuesday threatened a veto, saying the measure "jeopardizes safety, weakens environmental and labor protections and fails to make the investments needed to strengthen the nation's roads, bridges, rail and transit systems." If the bill gets to the president's desk, the White House budget office said, his senior advisors will recommend that he veto it. 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman, has called the legislation the worst transportation bill he has seen in 35 years of public service.

The bill would, among other things, open up a portion of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and some new coastal sections -- including an area off Southern California -- to energy exploration to generate money for road projects.

It also would end the decades-old use of a portion of gasoline-tax revenue for mass transit.

Further, the measure would extend by five years, until 2020, the deadline for operators of trains carrying passengers and hazardous materials to install collision avoidance systems. The mandate was included in 2008 rail safety legislation after a Metrolink train collided head-on with a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth, Calif., killing 25 people and injuring more than 130.

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) hopes to bring the House floor an amendment that would keep the 2015 deadline. But a similar effort was soundly defeated in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a bipartisan vote.

House Republican leaders say the bill would generate jobs, speed up traffic-easing projects and increase domestic production of oil at a time when gas prices are once again rising.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), acknowledging concerns about the bill among his rank and file, told congressional Republicans Wednesday, "I want you to have a chance to offer amendments, to have a full debate on the floor. This debate is a debate we want to have,'' according to an attendee of the closed-door meeting.

"It’s more important that we do it right than that we do it fast,'' the speaker said, according to the attendee.

Boehner also advised his fellow Republicans that when their constituents ask about high fuel prices, "tell them about this bill that we’re working on.”

The final vote on the five-year bill is expected after the Presidents Day recess.

The Senate is considering a $109-billion, two-year bill that has had bipartisan support. But it is encountering gridlock because of expected Republican efforts to attach controversial measures to it that supporters fear could jeopardize it, such as a rider mandating approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

ALSO:

House transportation bill: Traffic is heavy -- against it

Virginia House advances antiabortion 'personhood' measure

After Russell Pearce ouster, Arizona may alter recall process

-- Richard Simon in Washington

Photo: The Capitol is seen behind some stoplights in Washington. Credit: Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg

'The check is in the mail' could soon be a legal excuse

With Postal Service cuts threatening to slow mail delivery, a group of lawmakers is pushing legislation to require banks, credit card companies and other businesses to credit a customer’s account on the date a payment is postmarked rather than the date it is received.

The Postmark Payment Act is similar to a 1995 bill that had bipartisan support but never made it through Congress in the face of opposition from banks and other industries that warned it could lead to higher costs. Similar opposition is expected with the new effort.

"We do not think a company’s success or profitability should be tied to the U.S. Postal Service," a spokeswoman for the American Financial Services Assn. said Tuesday.

But Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), the bill’s chief sponsor, sees a greater need for the bill now as the Postal Service considers cuts to mail service.

"Each month, thousands of Americans are charged late fees and penalties for bills they believed in good faith they had paid on time, through no fault of their own,” he said in a statement.

Proponents of the bill note that the Internal Revenue Service uses the postmark as proof that a taxpayer mailed his or her tax return on or before the deadline.

Postal officials have delayed until mid-May plans to change delivery standards for first-class mail and close facilities, to give lawmakers time to explore a financial reform plan.

The bill would exempt any payment where another method, such as electronic payment, is required by regulation, contract or law. It has been referred the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for consideration.

ALSO:

In Atlanta, a legal sideshow over training of circus elephants

Valentine's Day gets Google Doodle but began with beheading

Gay marriage poll: Most in New Jersey support it, but want vote

--Richard Simon in Washington

Photo: Bundles of mail wait to be sorted in the City of Industry. Credit: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times

House transportation bill: Traffic is heavy -- against it

A highway and mass transit bill headed to the House this week has drawn opposition from an eclectic array of organizations.

The Episcopal Church has come out against a provision that would open a portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration to generate money for road projects.

The American Society of Landscape Architects and other groups oppose a provision that would end a mandate for a portion of transportation funds to go toward bike paths, scenic beautification and other "transportation enhancements."

And a civil rights group and the Teamsters are among the groups opposing a provision that would end the decades-old use of gas tax funds for mass transit.  

The strange bedfellows in opposition to provisions of the $260-billion five-year bill underscore the challenge facing Republican leaders in rounding up votes to pass the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act.

The Senate is considering a $109-billion, two-year bill, but it's less controversial than the House measure.

Those pushing to end the requirement that a portion of transportation funds -- about $925 million last year -- go to "transportation enhancements" have said Congress should give states greater flexibility in deciding how to spend funds at a time when gas tax funds have fallen off because of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Critics of the spending also have questioned some of the projects that have received funding, such as $198,000 awarded to the National Corvette Museum in Kentucky for a simulator theater. A museum official previously defended the spending as helping motorists, especially teens, perfect their driving skills and reduce the risk of accidents.

"Over the years, Congress has diluted the intent of the federal transportation program by adding mandates, set-asides and government edicts telling states how to spend gas tax revenues," said Justin Harclerode, a spokesman for Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "Many of these requirements are simply not in the federal interest and are best left to state and local decision makers.''

But supporters of the funding contend that it has paid for important safety projects for bicyclists and pedestrians and improved the quality of life in communities. "From a trails, walking and bicycling perspective, the current House bill is probably the worst piece of legislation. Ever," says the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.

"It really will take us back decades to a time when -- instead of funding the balanced transportation system that people want -- the federal role will be restricted to building highways," Kevin Mills, the group’s vice president of policy, added in an interview. The Senate bill would preserve the program but subject projects to greater competition for funds.

A spokeswoman for the American Society of Landscape Architects noted that bicycling and walking make up about 12% of trips in the U.S., yet receive less than 2% of federal transportation funding.

The Episcopal Church, while not taking a position on the overall bill, is encouraging Episcopalians to contact members of Congress to "oppose the use of the transportation reauthorization process as a 'back-door' effort to get around consistent congressional opposition to drilling."

Taxpayers for Common Sense, meanwhile, complained in a letter to lawmakers Monday about the "budget gimmicks'' included in the bill, such as relying on "highly speculative oil and gas revenues'' from drilling in the Arctic refuge and in coastal areas to fund transportation projects.

Heritage Action for America, a conservative group, has expressed concern about the bill's level of spending. It also said the bill "seeks to find additional sources of revenue, most of which have no relationship to road usage, thus breaking the user pays principle." Club for Growth, another conservative group, urged a "no" vote on the House bill. Both groups also oppose the Senate bill.

A wide range of other groups -- including local bus and rail operators -- oppose the provision to end the use of gas tax funds for public transit -- in place since the Reagan administration, warning that it would subject the public transit to annual budget battles for funds at a time when Congress is seeking to reduce deficit spending.

According to the American Public Transportation Assn., the bill, after a one-time appropriation, provides "no guarantee for any public transportation funding beyond FY 2016. This makes it virtually impossible for public transit agencies to develop reliable long-term capital plans, and it could leave the future of the public transit program in peril."

A spokesman for Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee said the change was needed because of the threatened insolvency of the highway trust fund. "The upfront transfer of $40 billion keeps the mass transit account solvent through fiscal year 2016 and provides Congress and stakeholders the opportunity to engage in a serious conversation about how to equitably fund mass transit moving forward,” the spokesman said in a statement.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is planning to seek to amend the bill on the House floor to restore gas tax funding for mass transit.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights also has come out against the measure, saying it would hurt low-income people who rely disproportionately on public transit.

A coalition of federal and postal employees and retirees also is opposing a provision that would increase employee pension contributions and change the way pensions are calculated for new employees in order to fund transportation.

"With payroll costs to the taxpayer approaching $450 billion per year, and pension costs exploding, asking federal workers and Members of Congress to contribute more to their retirement is not a burden too heavy," Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.), sponsor of the pension changes, said in a statement.

ALSO:

House transportation bill would harm California, Democrats say

Psst! Wisconsin agency reveals secret location of recall petitions

Abraham Lincoln's birthday: President gets Hollywood reboot -- as a vampire hunter

-- Richard Simon in Washington

Photo: No one likes traffic (this is a scene from the Santa Ana Freeway), and it seems no one much likes a new House transit bill either. Credit: Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times

House transportation bill would harm California, Democrats say

As Congress gears up for an unusual fight over a new transportation bill, virtually all of California’s Democratic delegation has come out against the Republican-drafted measure, saying it would cut funding to the state.

The state’s Democrats also say they object to provisions that would bar funding for California’s high-speed rail project, open the Southern California coast to energy exploration and "cripple our transit agencies" by ending the decades-old use of gas tax funds for mass transit. They contend the bill would cut highway funding to the state by nearly $725 million over five years.

"If this bill is enacted into law, it will hurt California’s fragile economy by cutting vital funding, prohibiting new funds from being dispersed to one of California’s largest infrastructure projects and delaying safety measures," the lawmakers said in a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

The five-year, $260-billion House bill, dubbed the "American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act" by its drafters, includes one measure eagerly sought by Los Angeles officials to speed up expansion of the region’s public transit system: $1 billion a year nationwide for a federal program that provides loans, loan guarantees and lines of credit to  help fund projects.

But while transportation bills traditionally have enjoyed bipartisan support, the House bill has drawn Democratic opposition because, among other things, it relies on revenues from new oil drilling to fund road projects and would end the use of gas tax funds for public transit.

Passage of a transportation bill has been complicated by consumers buying more fuel-efficient cars, which reduces gas tax revenues, and Congress ending the practice of lawmakers earmarking funds for projects in their districts.

The earmarking helped win votes for bills in the past but sparked a public outcry after the last big transportation bill, in 2005, was filled with thousands of earmarks, including Alaska's "bridge to nowhere.’’

"It's a lot harder to win votes when you don't have goodies to pass out," Boehner told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. Boehner also said at a news conference the measure would be the first highway bill he's ever supported.  "In the past, highway bills represented everything that was wrong with Washington: earmarks, endless layers of bureaucracy, wasted tax dollars and misplaced priorities,'' he said.

Transit agencies have expressed concern that the House bill would subject public transit to annual budget fights at a time when lawmakers are eager to reduce deficit spending.

California Democrats also complained about the prohibition on funding high-speed rail in the state.

"Prohibiting funds for high-sped rail in California, when other states are free to move forward with high-speed rail, will prevent California from being able to decide how to best address its capacity constraints and transportation needs," they wrote.

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Atwater), who sought to prohibit funding for the project, said in a statement: “Highway bill money should be used on highways.

"This administration and the California legislature want high-speed rail at any cost, they will spend lavishly without a disciplined plan and say anything to get it done, but this amendment will prohibit highway bill money from being used on a project that is going nowhere fast.”

The House could vote on its bill as early as next week. The Senate is considering a two-year, $109-billion transportation bill.

RELATED:

Motorcycle-only checkpoints rev up controversy in Congress

ALSO:

Powerball jackpot hits $325 million: What you should know

Victim of O.J. Simpson Vegas robbery accused of shoplifting

--Richard Simon in Washington

Motorcycle-only checkpoints rev up controversy in Congress

Motorcycle-only safety checkpoints have revved up controversy among some lawmakers who say the inspections are another example of intrusive federal policies.

A measure inserted into the House transportation bill would bar the U.S. Department of Transportation from providing grants to local or state governments for such inspections.

The action grows out of a furor over checkpoints set up in Georgia last year and planned again this year under a $70,000 federal traffic safety grant.

The roadside checkpoints operate similar to the popular drunk-driving checkpoints. Law enforcement officials signal motorcyclists to pull over and then conduct on-the-spot safety inspections, checking on the condition of the bikes and whether drivers are properly licensed and complying with the state helmet law.

Similar checkpoints have been set up in New York.

But Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), among a bipartisan group of lawmakers who pushed for the provision in the bill, assailed motorcycle-only checkpoints as "an intrusive governmental overreach."

"Motorcycle riders are right to be outraged at being singled out for safety inspections," Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) added in a statement.

Jackie Gillan, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, criticized the provision. The group describes itself on its website as a coalition of "consumer, health and safety groups and insurance companies and agents working together to make America's roads safer."

"What you see are the fingerprints of the anti-helmet people,'' Gillan said in an interview. "We're fighting efforts in state legislatures to repeal rider helmet laws. Now, what they're doing is attacking, in those states that require helmets, the ability of law enforcement to enforce the law.''

A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokesman said that the agency's administrator David Strickland is concerned about the increasing proportion of fatalities among motorcyclists.

"If the argument is, well, you can't single us out by vehicle, we do,'' said Lt. Jim Halvorsen of the New York State Police. "When we do seat-belt checkpoints, we waive the motorcyclists through because they don't have seat belts. Both helmets and seatbelts are required safety devices."

Of approximately 27,000 motorcyclists that passed through their checkpoints last year, about 2,500 were stopped for closer inspection, Halvorsen said. Of those, 380 were ticketed for an illegal helmet. Six motorcyclists were arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. Forty-nine motorcyclists were ticketed for operating a motorcycle without the proper license class. A total of 1,665 tickets were issued.

In 2009, 4,462 motorcyclists were killed, a decrease of 16% from the previous year, according to the most recent figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Twenty-two percent of motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes in 2009 were riding without a valid motorcycle license at the time of the collision, compared with 12% of drivers of passenger vehicles involved in fatal crashes who lacked a valid license, according to the agency.

The American Motorcyclist Assn. believes that "strategies to promote motorcycle safety must be rooted in motorcycle crash prevention, and don't include arbitrarily pulling over riders and randomly subjecting them to roadside inspections," according to its vice president of government relations, former Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard.

Strickland, in a 2010 letter to the American Motorcyclist Assn., noted that of 225 motorcyclists inspected at one New York checkpoint, 11% were found to have unsafe tires, and 36%were not wearing helmets meeting state law.

A letter sent to the House Transportation Committee by the bipartisan group of lawmakers in support of the provision said that funds would be better spent on educational programs aimed at reducing motorcycle crashes

Both chambers of Congress are expected to consider their own versions of the transportation bill next week.

ALSO:

First lady fights obesity in Iowa, but overweight kids are few

No Child Left Behind: Obama administration grants 10 waivers

Keystone XL: State Department cleared of conflict, not ineptness

--Richard Simon in Washington

PHOTO: A Laguna Beach police officer checks a motorcycle. Credit: Karen Tapia-Andersen / Los Angeles Times



Anger bubbles up in Congress over anti-obesity ads targeting soda

Taxpayer-funded anti-obesity ads targeting soda aren’t going down well with a Tennessee congressman, who has introduced legislation to prohibit federal spending on any campaigns targeting legal American-made products.

Republican Rep. Scott DesJarlais’s "Protecting Foods and Beverages from Government Attack Act" would prohibit the use of federal dollars for "scare campaigns" against products lawfully marketed under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

He introduced the measure in response to ads, funded with federal economic stimulus funds, that target soda. A New York ad, for example, shows blobs of fat being poured out of a soda can and admonishing, "Don’t drink yourself fat."

"When I see stimulus money being used to attack American companies and American workers, I think it would be very unsettling to be working on the assembly line of Coca Cola, look up and see an ad that’s trying to hurt the very job that you make your wages and pay taxes from," DesJarlais said in an interview outside the House chamber.

"These advertisements strike at the heart of personal responsibility," DesJarlais added in a letter to congressional colleagues seeking their support for the measure. Food and beverage companies, he added, "should not have to be concerned that their very own tax dollars are being used against them."

The congressman, who’s a physician, added: "Dietary choices should be a personal decision, or they should be made by individuals in consultation with a doctor or dietitian."

But Dr. Jonathan Fielding, Los Angeles County's director of public health, said in an interview, "We need to educate people about what’s in the food that they eat." A Los Angeles County website features a bottle of soda pouring packs of sugar into a glass and says, "You wouldn’t eat 22 packs of sugar. Why are you drinking them?"

"Tobacco is a legal product, but if we hadn’t had government help in sponsoring ads that help people understand the harm from tobacco, where would we be today?" Fielding added. "Obesity is our biggest epidemic, so trying to attack it with both hands tied behind our back would make it very difficult."

A DesJarlais spokesman said that while it is appropriate for government to require companies to post the nutritional value of their products, it's not Washington's job to try to persuade people in what they should or should not eat.

A Seattle anti-obesity campaign shows a mother pouring sugar out of soda bottle into a glass and handing it to her child. "You’d never serve your kid a glass of sugar," it says. "Those extra calories can bring on obesity, diabetes and heart disease."

The American Beverage Assn. supports the legislation, which has been sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee for consideration.

The panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles, said: “Childhood obesity is a serious health issue, especially when considering that one-third of our nation’s children are overweight or obese….We should be promoting proven and promising interventions to address the childhood obesity epidemic and not putting arbitrary or ill-conceived limitations on campaigns and other initiatives that will help improve the health of our youth.”

ALSO:

Alaska snow woes hit weary, starving moose

Charles Dickens, a man with his own ghosts, gets Google Doodle

Only 1 handgun a month? Virginia lawmakers see no point in limit

--Richard Simon in Washington

Photo: An anti-obesity campaign appearing in Seattle. Credit: Public Health -- Seattle & King County

Interested in the presidency? Apply here. No speaking required

Want to run for president without having to deliver stump speeches -- or having to speak at all?

The Washington Nationals have put out the casting call for its "racing presidents," the costumed characters who race around the ballpark during the fourth inning of home games.

To qualify to be one of the oversize mascots, applicants must be between 5-foot-7 and 6-foot-6, age 18 or older and strong enough to wear a 45-pound costume for several hours. In addition, applicants must be fast, capable of running from center field to home plate in 40 seconds.  

Racing presidents must also commit to work at least 35 games.

But hey, you don't have to participate in any debates.

The club receives about 200 to 300 applicants a year, according to Tom Davis, the club's entertainment manager. About 50 applicants will be selected for tryouts, based on responses to a questionnaire. The tryouts will be held, naturally, on Presidents Day weekend.

Winners of the job have included college students and government workers.  

The part-time work comes with a salary, but club officials declined to reveal the amount.

While only George, Tom, Abe and Teddy -- the presidents depicted on Mount Rushmore -- race during games, the club selects about 15 to 20 people.

ALSO:

Occupy Pittsburgh goes quietly as D.C., Oakland resist

Does M.I.A. owe Kelly Clarkson and Madonna an apology?

Jared Loughner making 'progess' toward standing trial, judge says

-- Richard Simon in Washington

Photo: Courtesy of the Washington Nationals

Occupy D.C.: Police cut size of camp, stop short of clearing it

Federal authorities Saturday moved into the Occupy D.C. site at McPherson Square, clearing out a number of tents but stopping short of putting an end to the 4-month-old protest. At least six people were reportedly arrested, four for refusing a police order to move and two others for crossing a police line.

Police showed up before dawn on horseback and in riot gear to enforce a ban on camping in the park. "This is not an eviction,'' Sgt. David Schlosser of the U.S. Park Police told reporters at McPherson Square.

The raid appeared to launch a containment strategy by the police. By midafternoon, the tents had been squeezed into the north half of the park, and workers were removing debris from the cleared area, which was sealed off by dozens of police, some on horseback.

The new, smaller area for the tents was encircled by steel barricades, though gaps were left for access.

Protesters complied with a police request to remove a blue tarp -- dubbed the "tent of dreams'' by demonstrators. But for the most part they appeared unimpressed by the police move, or even quietly pleased, as if the authoritarian petting-zoo feel it gave to the place reflected poorly on their oppressors.

To be sure, the streets of downtown Washington around McPherson did take on the look of a police state. District police shut down several blocks surrounding the area, snarling traffic and leaving an empty business district awash in flashing blue lights, save people headed in on foot to see what was happening.

Dozens of officers were stationed along the new "border" within the square, and although they were technically in riot gear, it was more the business casual version -- a smart, dark blue uniform under a shiny light blue helmet, with face shield up, but ready if needed. So far, it hadn’t been needed. Some were chatting with onlookers.

A bit farther back was the cavalry, a dozen officers on horses whose duty, at the moment, was to keep open a path for a garbage truck backing in to pick up debris.

A few occupiers were handling the daily duty of yelling loudly to passersby, with the theme of the moment being a demand that each park police officer identify himself and who he was working for. But the vast majority were just hanging out, many of them occupied in interviews with the media. No one seemed itching for a showdown.

One occupier, on his cellphone, could be overheard saying, “It’s not the apocalypse, man.”

The protesters can maintain a 24-hour vigil in McPherson Square and another Occupy DC site at nearby Freedom Plaza, but cannot sleep there, according to the National Park Service, which has come under pressure from congressional Republicans to enforce the sleeping ban. Tents can remain as symbols of the protest.

Washington officials have complained about a rat infestation at the McPherson Square encampment as well as a more than $1.6-million cost to the city from the Occupy D.C. protest.

In response to Saturday's enforcement action, one Occupy D.C. protester tweeted: "If the govt enforced banking regs like NPS does camping rules, we wouldn't be in this mess. Bankers arrested for fraud: still 0."

ALSO:

Super Bowl 2012: Tour the stadium this way -- it's cheaper

Vermont police find, belatedly, that inmates put pig on car decal

Komen backlash: Public turns fury on vice president Karen Handel

-- Richard Simon and David Meeks in Washington, D.C.

Photo: U.S. Park Police clear the Occupy D.C. encampment at McPherson Square on Saturday in Washington. Credit: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images