The U.S. DOT may have notified car dealers last night that its watered-down "cash for clunkers" plan was already out of cash, but that doesn't mean the rebates are on their last legs. With the White House vowing to protect the program, Congress soon could have to decide whether to keep the good times rolling for auto companies.

(Photo: AP)

That rush to capitalize on the "clunkers" deal has led Democrats as well as many in the media to frame the program as, essentially, a victim of its own success.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), co-author of this Congress' landmark climate change bill, said in a statement that he hopes to spur a million car trade-ins: "Cash for Clunkers may have run out of cash, but America’s consumers haven’t run out of clunkers."

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) echoed Markey's call to keep the program alive, calling it "maybe even too successful." He suggested giving the rebates "a tuneup so that we get the most stimulus, conservation, and efficiency for the buck."

Indeed, the question this morning may not be whether the program gets more money but if environmentally-minded lawmakers heed the warnings of conservation groups and insist on greater fuel-efficiency improvements in order to qualify car buyers for the deal.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who joined Schumer on a rival "clunkers" bill that would have set stricter fuel standards, announced last night that they would only support a stronger version of the program:

We believe that any extension of the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program must go further in advancing the goals of better fuel efficiency and greater emissions reductions. We will not support any bill that does not meet these goals.

We will insist than any extension of the program requires that the minimum fuel economy improvement for newly purchased vehicles be at least two miles per gallon higher than it is under the enacted Clunkers program. It is also important to include lower-income consumers who are disadvantaged under the current program. So, we would also include a voucher for the purchase of fuel efficient used vehicles.

Collins and Feinstein are likely to face resistance from lawmakers from auto-producing states such as Michigan and Ohio, who won looser rules to help resuscitate their local industry and moved environmental concerns to the back seat.

One thing is certain: With the House set to depart this weekend for a month-long recess, prospects of reaching an agreement on more cash for the program appear slim. But Congress and the White House have proven themselves willing to go the extra mile to help automakers -- so lawmakers may still pad car buyers' pockets before leaving town.

Earlier: Debate on the stimulus package is moving rapidly in the Senate today, with amendments debated as I type. There are two amendments on the table right now with big implications for transportation spending. Senator Chuck Schumer's amendment is the one to throw your support behind. It boosts transit funding to $14.9 billion overall and leaves highway funding untouched.

Another amendment sponsored by Senators Patty Murray and Diane Feinstein would ramp up highway portion of the stimulus from $27 billion to $40 billion, while bringing transit funding up to only $13 billion. Crucially, this amendment would also strike a provision in the current legislation that would allow smaller cities to spend stimulus funds on transit operations.

We're getting word from Transportation for America that Schumer may pull his amendment to clear the way for the Murray/Feinstein amendment. Schumer's amendment is superior and would yield more investment in clean transportation and help to keep more buses running. To support green infrastructure and green jobs, call your Senator now and urge them to support Schumer's amendment, not the Murray/Feinstein amendment. If you're a New Yorker, it's especially important to call Schumer's office -- (202) 224 6542 -- and encourage the Senator to bring his amendment to the floor.

Schumer in Chautauqua. When was the last time you saw Chuck with a majestic cityscape behind him?

The provision would raise the monthly cap on mass transit commuting costs not taxed by the federal government to $230 from $120.

A commuter in the 30% tax bracket with mass transit costs of $230 a month could see annual savings double to about $1,000 from about $500, according to Larry Filler, president of the nonprofit TransitCenter.

This is great if you ride to work on the LIRR or Metro-North. But what if your transit commute already costs less than $120 per month? New Yorkers who ride the subway or the local bus to work -- millions of Schumer's constituents -- get nothing out of this deal. Express bus riders, who pay $41 for an all-inclusive weekly pass, get next to nothing.

As for maintaining service and transit jobs in the face of sweeping cuts to New York City's system, Schumer's proposal is utterly useless.

Schumer has the opportunity here to speak out for straphangers in New York and around the country by calling for transit operating assistance to be included in the stimulus package. His erstwhile junior colleague, Hillary Clinton, introduced a bill in the Senate to fund transit operations back in the summer. Over in the House, Oregon's Peter DeFazio made an all-out effort to get operating assistance into the stimulus bill -- going so far as to criticize the president's top economic adviser on national television -- before ultimately falling short.

Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer brags about helping Westchester, Nassau, and Fairfield, while leaving commuters in the five boroughs to fend for themselves.

As Politico reports, rather than talking about climate change and auto dependence, Schumer is pushing a Democratic plan to go after "Wall Street speculators, OPEC, price gougers and Big Oil":

[R]egardless of the legislative realities — not to mention the futility of promising short-term decreases in gas prices — Democrats have embraced a political opportunity. By proposing aggressive legislation that takes on the boogeymen of the oil tycoons and profiteering speculators, Democrats are trying to corner Republicans into choosing between a president who is chummy with the oil industry and a decidedly populist energy bill.

“We need to stop the speculation” that’s driving up oil prices, said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who has been involved in discussions with Democratic leaders who debated energy policy at a closed-door lunch Tuesday. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) promised “short-term relief and long-term relief” and insisted that “Big Oil should pay” for any suspension of gas taxes.

As Politico points out, the main elements of the plan, which include substituting gas tax revenues with new taxes on oil companies, investigating price gouging, and diverting oil from national reserves to increase supply, are mostly long shots and short-term fixes. Why can't Schumer and Clinton take a cue from the New York City Model of transit oriented development and show some true leadership?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senator Chuck Schumer argue that New York City risks losing its place of global pre-eminence in a Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday. The editorial is a response to growing conventional wisdom that says London is overtaking New York as the world's leading financial capitol. In the editorial, available online only to subscribers, Bloomberg and Schumer say that there is much the city can learn from its British counterpart.

One lesson not mentioned in the editorial, which reads mainly as a push to reform the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, is the role that long-term urban planning, quality of life improvements and agressive traffic reduction measures have played in London's ascent.

For London's Mayor Ken Livingstone, projects like congestion charging, banning cars from Trafalgar Square and the creation of the London Climate Change Agency, aren't just about altruistic environmentalism. "Ken's a very savvy marketer. He knows that these initiatives make London a more attractive place for big companies to set up shop and attract employees," an official at Transport for London told me.

Today's Guardian reports that macro environmental issues now inform everything that London's Mayor does:

Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, is these days possessed of one great idea. Climate change, and how to avert it, consumes him. It now informs all his decisions on transport. It is top of his agenda for social housing and new building developments. He reads about it in his spare time. He talks about it to anyone who will bend an ear and he will travel to the ends of the earth if necessary to cut deals with other politicians, to steal the best ideas from other cities and to communicate with anyone the urgency and scale of the problem.

Though Livable Streets issues weren't mentioned in the Bloomberg-Schumer editorial, New York City's business community is increasingly aware of their importance. As Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City has said, "The gridlock on New York City's streets has become a brake on the city's economy. She warns, "It is going to be increasingly difficult for New York to market itself as a place where you can get the most done in the least period of time with the best workforce if we're not able to solve the congestion problem."

Meanwhile, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, a possible 2009 Democratic mayoral candidate, is off to visit the World Travel Market expo in England to sell UK travel groups on package tours that include a trip to Brooklyn. Marty told the Daily News, "Tourism is one of Brooklyn's biggest and most vital growth sectors, and I'll do whatever it takes to show the world the beauty of our borough."

There are a couple of things, of course, that Marty won't do to enhance the beauty of his borough. He won't support London-style traffic reduction measures. He won't stop parking his SUV and about a dozen other vehicles on the pedestrian plaza, technically park land, outside of historic Borough Hall. And he won't push the city, state and developer Forest City Enterprises to do smart, thoughtful, long-term planning around the massive "Atlantic Yards" project.

Welcome to Brooklyn, Brits. Perhaps the traffic congestion will remind you of what it used to be like in London. Don't forget to look to your left when you step out into the street.