Coming Soon: Super-Partisan “Oil-For-Infrastructure” Transpo Bill

“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: ## 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.

Some observers, including Taxpayers for Common Sense, have noted that a change to paying for infrastructure with oil revenues would represent a fundamental shift away from a “user-pays” system. Of course, our current system isn’t a precise “user-pays” protocol either , but it’s a lot closer than drilling for oil in Alaska and using that money (that won’t come in for years or decades anyway) to build a road in South Carolina.

Jeff Davis of Transportation Weekly also notes that “no public analysis of any previous proposals for additional oil and gas exploration has brought in anywhere near” enough money to pay for a six-year transportation bill at current levels without bankrupting the Highway Trust Fund.

I haven’t done a thorough investigation of oil drilling plans, but ExxonMobil has said that “opening up American resources for development that have been kept off-limits could create 130,000 jobs by 2030, in addition to generating more than $1.7 trillion in government revenue over the duration of the projects.” That’s a lot more than the $75 billion hole in the trust fund, but we’d have to take ExxonMobil’s calculations with about a thousand grains of salt. How long is “the duration of the projects?” How much would it cost in overhead to generate that much revenue? What areas would have to be exploited for oil to bring in all that money?

There are countless questions surrounding Boehner’s announcement, and so far, he hasn’t given any details. But if he’s good for his word, we’ll see a concrete plan within a few weeks.

Meanwhile, the Senate EPW Committee is moving forward next week with its two-year bill, which is notably short on oil-drilling. Committee staff have reportedly said the bill text would be available today and reporters have been buzzing around looking for a copy, but none have appeared yet.

  • Mark

    Wow.  This proposal is just awesomely evil.  I hate to nitpick, but the bill would be better with a provision that requires that all drilling be done with nuclear explosions.  

  • Sooooo, it’s official then:  The Repubs are flat-out evil.

  • Evil or Good, it wouldn’t work anyway. They are proposing a shell game for oil taxes, holding the consumption tax at its constantly diminishing rate and filling the shortfall with taxes on oil depletion. But those tax revenues are already budgeted for blowing up Iran with flying robots. How can we afford to kill everyone over there if we are redirecting more and more general taxes to billion dollar freeway boondoggles over here? The imagined solution to that dilemma is that we could be depleting our remaining oil resources so much faster, if only the pesky government would allow Exxon to drill wherever and however they wanted. Then domestic oil tax revenues would be higher, high enough to pay for foreign oil wars *and* American highways. That’s high, all right.

    Somehow this idea manages to shoot itself in the foot, while the foot is holding another pistol shooting itself in the head. Even if the accelerated depletion gambit worked for a few years, the subsidy it allocated to highways would incentivize more driving and more gas burning, creating more upward pressure on prices. And of course the greatest pressure on prices is the depletion itself, as what remains is ever more costly to extract. For those who think burning gas is a good thing, it must seem tragically ironic that everything government does can only increase the long term price of petrol or other costs of driving.

    We just don’t have enough oil in the ground to become the socialist petrostate that these deranged “conservatives” fantasize of becoming. We can’t do it now because we already did it last century, and it sure was handy for beating the Axis powers. But it’s time to move on, according to every available physical measure. It’s what the rest of us are already doing, whether Boehner and his ilk like it or not.

  • I think Exxon is right about the jobs angle. Drilling for oil creates jobs for doctors and EMTs, environmental cleanup and mitigation firms, lobbyists, and road builders. What’s not to like?

  • Nice info. This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing this & letting us know about it.

  • Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!


Even Some Republicans Don’t Like the House GOP’s Oil Drilling Plan

Remember how NRDC’s Deron Lovaas said the new transportation bill proposed by House Republicans is “a march of horribles“? Well, he wasn’t exaggerating. This bill, which attempts to make up for the country’s stagnant gas tax by squeezing revenue from domestic oil drilling, takes the concept of sustainability (environmental, fiscal and otherwise) and strives to […]

No Details Yet on House Transportation and Oil Drilling Bill

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