Streetsblog Capitol Hill

The House has finished marking up its transportation bill in what shaped up to be a very Groundhog Day-esque ordeal of unending, repetitive partisan theater (if you missed it, follow coverage on twitter).

Spoiler alert. Photo: TruckinWeb

The centerpiece was yesterday’s/last night’s/this morning’s Transportation & Infrastructure committee markup, where members debated more than 80 amendments for over 18 hours before finally approving Chairman Mica’s bill, 29-24, at about 3:00 a.m. Not one Democrat voted for it, and only one Republican — Tom Petri of Wisconsin — voted against it. Energy and Financing titles were also approved by their respective committees.

Streetsblog has already pointed out that there’s plenty to dislike in the bill, especially for pedestrians, cyclists, city-dwellers, transit riders, and the environmentally-conscious. But believe it or not, there are a few groups out there who still like this bill a whole lot. In fact, at today’s markup in the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Dave Camp submitted for the record a letter of support from over 50 organizations.

It’s worth noting that the list of supporters is getting smaller. The T&I bill may have enjoyed the support of AASHTO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but both have now opposed the Ways & Means committee’s financing title. In fact, over 600 organizations have voiced their opposition to that particular bill. However, there are still some hold-outs.

For starters, there’s trucking. Bill Graves, the American Trucking Associations’ CEO, called the bill “a major step forward, not just for trucking, but for all users of our transportation system.” Graves was disappointed when new rules allowing longer, heavier trucks were put off pending further study, saying, “We hope that Congress will see that wasting taxpayer money on further study is not necessary and as this legislation moves forward, enacts these long overdue reforms.”

Read more…

Yes, the U.S. is now exporting more refined petroleum than it's importing. But that's nothing compared to our crude oil habit, still fed by foreign sources. This graph shows the change over time in net U.S daily exports of 1000s of barrels of oil. Image: EconBrowser

The AP is reporting that for the first time since Harry Truman was president, the U.S. is a net exporter of refined petroleum products. In fact, fuel was the country’s top export in 2011, totaling $73.4 billion.

However, “the small positive net export balance on petroleum products is still completely dwarfed by the huge negative balance on crude petroleum,” wrote James Hamilton, an oil economics expert at UC-San Diego, on his EconBrowser blog. Last year, between January and October, the U.S. spent about $280 billion on 2.7 billion barrels of oil.

The news of the surge of U.S. fuel exports just solidifies oil’s place as a major economic driver in this country — it in no way indicates that we’re becoming self-sufficient producers. The U.S. adds value through the refining process and sells it abroad (buying from abroad almost the same amount) but for the raw materials, we’re still hopelessly hooked on foreign sources.

The U.S. is producing somewhat more crude oil, mostly in North Dakota, but is still importing enormous quantities of the stuff. We’re nowhere near closing the import/export gap on crude oil.

Read more…

On our walk down the memory lane of 2011 so far, we’ve talked about some downers, some inspirations, some triumphs, and some struggles. Check out our first two installments of year-end Streetsie award nostalgia. Here’s some more.

Best Obama Plan That Died a Slow and Horrible Death This Year: How to choose, when there were so many? The president laid out a big, bold, ambitious transportation plan for the next six years but then stayed mum on the all-important question of how to fund it, and so, predictably, it died. His American Jobs Act included $50 billion for infrastructure projects, including at least $13 billion for rail and transit. It, too, went nowhere fast.

Obama's high-speed rail plans took a fast train to nowhere. Photo: America 2050

That wasn’t Obama’s fault, but if you’re looking for a reason to be angry at him, look no further than the ozone pollution rules the EPA was going to strengthen. The president froze at the last minute and decided to hold off another couple years, to give the economy a chance to recover (or business interests a chance to vote for him). The new ozone standard would have saved an estimated 12,000 lives and made transportation reforms essential.

But who could blame the 47 percent of you who awarded the Streetsie for saddest death of an Obama program to high-speed rail? Congress takes every opportunity to yank money away from the program, three Republican governors have very publicly thumbed their noses at federal funds, and the only true high-speed rail line with the potential to be truly transformative is in deep doo-doo in California. So much for 80 percent access in 25 years.

Non-Presidential Vices: Yes, we had our share of letdowns from President Obama this year. But not all our disappointments were related to him. We were also bummed to see plans scrapped for the Woodward Light Rail line in Detroit, and the failure of the Seattle car tab fee, which would have gone to transit, bike/ped and road maintenance. And certainly we were disappointed that the Senate transportation bill, in the end, didn’t keep dedicated funding for bike/ped. But the Streetsie for the biggest letdown has to go to the bait-and-switch the House Republicans pulled about funding their transportation plan.

It was simple enough when they were threatening to cut spending by a third so as not to overspend Highway Trust Fund receipts. Just about everyone hated the idea. But then the GOP said they’d match current levels and it seemed the best of both worlds – reasonable spending levels and a longer-term bill than the Senate was offering.

Hallelujah! So what’s the catch?

Read more…

Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee have been working to find $12 billion to fund the transportation bill for the next two years. All their proposals have met with rejection from the committee’s Republicans. Here’s why: The Republicans have been holding out for a funding mix that would include their favorite Christmas presents — oil drilling and attacks on conservation.

Orrin Hatch, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has some ideas about how to fund the transportation bill. Photo: Mediaite

Seven of the 11 GOP members of the Finance Committee sent a letter to Chair Max Baucus late last week with their suggestions. Here they are:

• $3.5 billion rescission from the Advanced Vehicle Technology Manufacturing Loan Program
• $3 billion transfer from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
• reclaiming $2.5 billion in transfers over the next 10 years from the Highway Trust Fund to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
• expanded oil and gas production in Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf ($5.2 billion over 10 years)
• rescission of other unspent federal funds

The GOP members say the first three rescissions wouldn’t be felt much, especially for the programs that routinely bring in more than they spend out.

And then, of course, there’s the oil drilling. They’ve been trying to sneak Alaska oil drilling into just about everything these days, it seems — and here it is, showing up in this proposal to find $12 billion. Despite the fact that it could take years to earn a dime from oil drilling, the GOP acts like it’s the money spigot for everything the government wants to spend — if only the Democrats would stop being so sanctimonious about caribou babies.

So there you have it: spending cuts and oil drilling, the cure for all that ails the country (and, in this case, the solution for the transportation funding shortfall).

Read more…

From an environmental perspective, the House GOP proposal to fund infrastructure with fees on fossil fuel extraction is clearly a disaster. But does it even pass the smell test from a dollars-and-cents perspective?

How quickly they forget: House Republicans salivate over oil drilling, ignoring the ecological risks and neglecting even to write an "infrastructure jobs" part of the bill. Photo: Mining News

On Friday, House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources discussed legislation to open up the Central Gulf of Mexico, the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Virginia, and other sites currently off-limits for new oil drilling. Interspersed among the GOP cheerleading for drilling and deregulation were a few sober warnings about relying on the fossil fuel industry to fund transportation.

The subcommittee considered four bills, including one, introduced by Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH), which would use the revenues from energy exploration to fund transportation infrastructure. On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner claimed that the “American-Made Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act” [PDF] would create jobs by increasing oil drilling while deregulating energy production.

Subcommittee Chair Doug Lamborn heaped effusive praise on Stivers’ bill (and the three others), saying their passage would be “one of the largest single actions Congress could take to provide for domestic energy” and could create “hundreds of thousands of American jobs.”

The problem with the GOP rhetoric, according to the only Democrat to attend the hearing, Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), is that it’s based on magical thinking. There is no precedent tethering Lamborn’s estimates to past experience.

And no matter how rosy the GOP projections, the Stivers proposal won’t address the looming transportation funding deficit, Markey said. The highest estimates for revenue at the federal level would cover barely one-fifteenth of what is needed to fund a six-year transportation bill, leaving a $70 billion shortfall. Even arch-conservative Republican James Inhofe of the Senate EPW Committee says oil-drilling is a “long-term” strategy at best.

Additionally, the Stivers bill include no mandate for funneling revenues into infrastructure. Infrastructure is mentioned in the bill title and summary and nowhere else. The bill provides for revenues to trickle back to the states off whose coasts the drilling is done, and that’s all.

But concerns about the prospects for funding next year’s infrastructure bill with energy revenues appeared to fall on deaf ears.

Read more…

Domestic oil drilling would increase exponentially under a proposal that the House GOP is developing as part of its legislative package for long-term transportation policy. John Boehner outlined the basics of the package today.

Boehner said the bill, dubbed the “American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act,’’ will be filed soon and that he anticipates the lower chamber will act on it before the end of the year. He pitched it as a jobs bill that will “expand American energy production and use those revenues to repair and improve America’s roads and bridges.’’ Asked for details, Boehner said, “As we finalize this bill and get ready to introduce it, more of those details will be available. But they’re not all available today.’’

Left unsettled is the amount of revenue the massive oil drilling outlined by Boehner would produce, when those funds would become available and how the money will be disbursed. A one-page summary issued by the Speaker’s office announced that the legislation seeks to reverse President Obama’s drilling ban on new offshore areas. It also will establish rules for the development of oil shale resources and open up about three percent of the 19 million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the North Slope region of Alaska, better known as ANWR, for oil and natural gas development.

Oil interests have been looking longingly at ANWR since at least 1977 but have thus far been unable to open the region for drilling. Obama, and a host of environmental groups, oppose development, citing the potential impact on wildlife.

Whatever funds are realized from HR 7 will go “to infrastructure repair and improvement,’’ concentrating on roads and bridges, not transit.

The Speaker was short on details today but long on rhetoric. “We don’t need more short term stimulus gimmicks,’’ he said. “We don’t need more red tape and we truly don’t need higher taxes. What we need to do is get Washington out of the way and free job creators from the shackles of a government that is always meddling and micromanaging our economy.’’

Rep. Nick Rahall, D-WV, the ranking member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he finds it difficult to take the GOP plan seriously since it contains few details.

“Nothing in today’s announcement identifies real, sustainable revenues needed to address our long-term surface transportation infrastructure investment needs,’’ Rahall said. “Having both served on and chaired the Natural Resource Committee for many years, I have witnessed countless efforts to expand domestic energy production.  I have been through the “Drill, Baby, Drill” cycles.  Unfortunately, many of the proposals offered today have been around for decades, and – more importantly – will generate nowhere near the amount of revenue in the near term promised by the Republicans.’’

House leaders did not unveil a bill at their press conference this morning.

Speaker Boehner says he's hoping for a vote on a yet-unintroduced energy and infrastructure jobs bill this year. Photo credit: Associated Press

House Transportation Committee Chair John Mica said the bill, when it is released, will:

• consolidate duplicative parts of the federal transportation system
• shift responsibility to states and local governments to move transportation projects forward
• increase the ability to leverage financial resources
• significantly streamline the process for projects, cutting red tape and federal paperwork

UPDATE 12:00: Leaders did not introduce a bill, but outlined their plan in rather vague terms. More to come.

At 11:15 this morning, House Speaker John Boehner, House Transportation Chair John Mica, Natural Resources Chair Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH) will take the podium to unveil their transportation and energy bill. It’s likely to take the basic outline of the bill Mica announced in the summer, add enough money (about $15 billion a year) to maintain current spending levels (though not necessarily accounting for inflation, as Sen. Barbara Boxer’s bill does) and give some sense, at least, of how they’ll pay for that extra $15 billion.

According to Transportation Nation‘s Todd Zwillich, the leaders will introduce a five-year bill — not a six-year bill, which Mica had militantly supported, but still much longer than the two-year life span of the Senate bill. Industry officials from trucking, construction, and other sectors have generally supported the longer time horizon in the House bill and the more robust funding levels in the Senate bill. If the House matches those funding levels, that could swing industry support squarely over to the House bill. The major roadblock, of course, is the controversial and unproven way the GOP plans to pay for it.

Democrats will surely balk at the plan to raise transportation money by expanding energy production, but the fossil fuel industry is sure to throw its full weight behind it.

Stivers’ presence at the press conference settles speculation as to which oil-drilling-for-infrastructure-money bill the Republicans would choose. It seems Stivers’ bill has won out. A Natural Resources subcommittee will hold a hearing on his bill tomorrow.

The plan the GOP leaders announce this morning will set their agenda for the rest of the year. Boehner has already said he wants the bill passed by the end of the year.

“I want to congratulate you on your Committee’s approval of the ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,” begins House Transportation Committee Chair John Mica’s letter yesterday to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Rep. John Mica says Boxer's bill will bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

From there, the letter changes tone:

However, I am concerned that the Senate two-year proposal does not address the fundamental problem of the long-term insolvency of our Highway Trust Fund. Your proposal will essentially bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund and make it impossible to provide any funding for fiscal year 2014.

The letter continues the debate between Mica and Boxer over how to supplement revenue from the national gas tax to fund transportation spending. It’s Mica’s response to a letter he received from Boxer three weeks ago, in which she questioned whether or not his plan truly maintained current funding levels.

Mica agrees with Boxer that current funding levels should be maintained (though her bill calls for current spending plus inflation, which Mica hasn’t bought into yet). But he has a problem with the fact that the Senate hasn’t identified the new sources of revenue necessary to do that. (He says he’s working on that himself.)

Mica attached a CBO report showing Highway Trust Fund deficits beginning in 2014 under Boxer’s scenario. Boxer has said that with the additional $12 billion from some other, yet-unidentified source, her bill will keep the HTF afloat. Current levels of spending, funded only with Trust Fund receipts, would start creating deficits even sooner – the Highway Account would run into red ink this fiscal year and the Transit Account in the next fiscal year.

Read more…

“In the coming weeks, House Republicans will formally introduce an energy & infrastructure jobs bill, and hope to move the legislation through the House before the end of the year,” House Speaker John Boehner announced yesterday.

House Republicans say a bill to pay for infrastructure with oil exploitation is on its way. Photo: Heat USA

Back in September, the Speaker let slip that the GOP would like to “link the next highway bill to an expansion of American-made energy production.” Turns out, two House Republicans have already put forth proposals to do just that. Both plans pay for infrastructure investment not with user fees like a gas tax, but with revenues from oil drilling.

Yoking transportation funding to fossil fuel extraction presents a horrific feedback loop. Drill for oil to pay for infrastructure to drive more cars to burn more oil — it’s a recipe to entrench oil dependence in transportation policy in a whole new way.

Very few details have emerged so far about Boehner’s plan. For example, it’s unclear whether House leadership plans to use one of those bills as a guide. Most likely, it will combine the House Transportation Committee’s multiyear transportation reauthorization proposal with some hybrid plan to expand domestic energy production.

This new development is disheartening for anyone who genuinely wants to see a reauthorization pass anytime soon. Congress has been unable to pass one because of polarizing disagreements over funding and complete paralysis when it comes to taking the necessary step of increasing the gas tax. A plan to expand oil drilling, with the Deepwater Horizon disaster still fresh in Americans’ minds, is bound to be even more controversial.

With no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the president, a bill like this will only serve to distract attention from more realistic proposals to reauthorize the surface transportation program. Besides, the logistics will likely be so complex and the revenues will be far enough in the future that even putting politics aside, the proposal is untenable.

AASHTO reacted positively to the news, however, with executive director John Horsley saying, “”It’s encouraging to hear Speaker Boehner express his support for transportation infrastructure investment and we appreciate his commitment to move a bill through the House in the near future.”

With Boehner’s announcement, expanded oil drilling – long a GOP goal – has become a condition for Republican support for adequate funding for the transportation bill. The House-proposed bill had included a one-third cut in funding across the board, which was resoundingly rejected by industry groups, transportation advocates, and Democrats. Several months later, House leadership agreed to raise the funding levels but wouldn’t say where the money would come from. Now we know.

Read more…