Browse all documents

House and Senate Move Forward with Competing Transportation Infrastructure Bills

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This February 2012 briefing by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) compares two competing transportation infrastructure bills in the U.S. Congress: the House's H.R. 7 and the Senate's S. 1813. The document details the funding mechanisms, durations, and policy differences between the two versions as they move toward floor votes.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The Senate's reauthorization bill, S. 1813 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act or MAP-21), is a two-year bipartisan compromise with total funding of $109 billion. It includes a first-time provision allowing federal dollars to be used for transit operating expenses and authorizes $1 billion for a competitive grant program for projects of national and regional significance.
  • The House's five-year bill, H.R. 7 (American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012), proposes $260 billion in total funding but has faced severe opposition. Key points of contention include the elimination of dedicated federal funding for public transportation—replacing it with a one-time $40 billion General Fund allotment—and a plan to generate revenue by removing bans on off-shore drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
  • The House bill's proposed revenue sources from ANWR and off-shore drilling are projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to be insufficient to cover the gas tax revenue gap, estimating only $2.4 billion in new revenue over five years and $1.9 billion in the following five years. To address the remaining shortfall, the bill proposes increasing federal employees' pension fund contributions by 1.5 percent over three years to generate $40 billion over ten years.
  • Both the House and Senate bills include provisions for climate adaptation research focused on improving the flexibility and resiliency of infrastructure systems to withstand climate variability.

Cite the original document

APA
Cross, J.-M. (2012). House and Senate Move Forward with Competing Transportation Infrastructure Bills. Environmental and Energy Study Institute. https://www.eesi.org/files/transportation_bills_020912.pdf
Chicago
Cross, John-Michael. House and Senate Move Forward with Competing Transportation Infrastructure Bills. Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 2012. https://www.eesi.org/files/transportation_bills_020912.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Cross |first1=John-Michael |title=House and Senate Move Forward with Competing Transportation Infrastructure Bills |publisher=Environmental and Energy Study Institute |date=February 2012 |url=https://www.eesi.org/files/transportation_bills_020912.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{cross2012house, author = {Cross, John-Michael}, title = {{House and Senate Move Forward with Competing Transportation Infrastructure Bills}}, institution = {Environmental and Energy Study Institute}, year = {2012}, month = feb, url = {https://www.eesi.org/files/transportation_bills_020912.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated