Shuster says highway bill won’t be funded through gas tax, motorist user fees |

Shuster says highway bill won’t be funded through gas tax, motorist user fees

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Transportation Committee says passing a bill to pay for America’s aging roads and bridges will be a top priority next year, but he is ruling out a gasoline tax increase or motorist user fees as the way to do it.

Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Hollidaysburg, has said a vehicle-miles-traveled tax should be considered as an alternative to increasing the 18.4-cent-per-gallon gas tax, given the rise in fuel-efficient vehicles that makes taxing by the gallon rather than the mile less effective. Looking ahead to a GOP-controlled Congress, Shuster said this month that both proposals are unworkable.

“The president has ruled out a gas tax, I don’t think there’s a will in Congress, and the American people don’t want it,” Shuster said. He added that a VMT tax was “never really on the table,” pointing in part to lawmaker hesitancy over technical challenges of the government tracking motorists’ mileage.

Former Gov. Ed Rendell and former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in recent weeks have renewed calls for a gas tax increase.

Shuster, whose committee is working with the House Ways and Means Committee to figure out a funding solution, said a long-term highway bill may be paid by repatriating offshore corporate taxes or from oil exploration and production offshore and on federal lands — proposals that supporters of a gas tax hike contend aren’t long-term answers.

Congress has been in a deadlock since 2009 over the best way to pay for highways, opting to pass a series of short-term fixes. Funding expires in May.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who will be the new ranking member on the committee, said he was optimistic Congress can pass a bipartisan bill, citing a good working relationship with Shuster. DeFazio supports taxing oil at the wholesale level but says he’s open to options. “We may not always be 100 percent in agreement, but I have no doubt we will get big things done,” DeFazio said.

The son of the late U.S. Rep. Bud Shuster, who was known for his ability to bring Pennsylvania federal dollars by earmarking them for local projects, the younger Shuster cast the highway bill and an upcoming passenger rail bill as benefiting the state and the nation as a whole. Earmarks are now banned in Congress.

He pointed to a need for improvements to Interstate 95, which runs along the Eastern Seaboard through Philadelphia, and expansion of I-81 in Pennsylvania from four to six lanes.

Shuster said he expects the committee to take up a rail bill early next year that will seek to reinvest Amtrak profits from the Northeast Corridor into that rail line, rather than subsidize money-losing routes. Shuster says he wants the money spent on improving rail infrastructure to shorten travel times along the busy route running from Washington through Philadelphia and New York to Boston.

Other items on the agenda: passing a Federal Aviation Administration spending bill; approving the Keystone Pipeline; and blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing a rule that asserts regulatory authority over the nation’s streams and wetlands.

“This is not my father’s Congress,” Shuster said, referring to a greater fiscal restraint. “When my father wrote a bill, the economy was strong and we didn’t have the kind of deficits today. So we try and move the ball forward. And if it’s good policy, it’s going to be good for the nation, good for Pennsylvania and good for the district.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.