Dahon.Steve

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House leaders predicted easy passage Thursday of a mammoth energy plan that would offer billions of dollars in tax subsidies to energy companies, help assure the future of nuclear power and on a less grand scale, propose a government program to promote bicycle commuting.

"This is a good bill for America," declared Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the House-Senate conference that crafted the final legislation.

The House planned to take up the bill Thursday, with action likely by the Senate on Friday as congressional leaders work to respond to a challenge from President Bush to get him a bill before Congress leaves for its five-week August recess.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman acknowledged Wednesday there were a few items in the 1,725-page legislation that he didn't like, such as a provision that broadens the security review of China's purchase of a U.S. energy company, a response to the recent bid by a Chinese company for California-based Unocal.

And he said it gives too much money -- more than $3 billion in tax breaks and royalty relief -- to oil and gas companies "that don't need incentives with oil and gas prices being what they are today."

Nevertheless, Bodman emphasized, "the president is extremely enthusiastic about this bill in its totality."

Supporters of the legislation acknowledged that it would not force down energy prices, particularly gasoline costs at the pump, nor eliminate the nation's reliance on foreign oil, much of it from volatile areas such as the Middle East.

"We're going to have imported oil in our economy for a long time," Barton, a former petroleum engineer, told reporters, responding to criticism by some Democrats that the bill, despite its expansive reach, does virtually nothing to curtail growing U.S. oil demand.

"We have yet, as a Congress, to take the politically difficult steps needed to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, improve vehicle fuel efficiency or deal with global warming," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Still, he added, on balance the bill "improves our energy policy and deserves to be enacted." He said he would vote for it although the House conferees rejected one of his priorities -- a requirement that utilities use more renewable fuels such as wind, solar and biomass to produce electricity.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, the chief Senate negotiator on the bill, said it provides $4.1 billion in incentives to encourage production of renewable energies, much of it to extend a tax credit for wind energy.

The legislation's tax breaks affect virtually every energy industry: $2.7 billion for oil and gas, $3.1 billion for electric utilities, $2.9 billion for the coal industry.

Barton noted the tax breaks are spread over 10 years and most are earmarked for helping industry extract oil and gas from hard-to-get places such as extremely deep areas of the Gulf of Mexico.

A huge beneficiary is the nuclear industry, which under the bill gets loan guarantees for new power reactors as well as "risk insurance" of up to $500 million for the first two reactors and $250 million for the next four in case problems arise in permitting or regulatory approval.

The bill also calls for a four-week extension of daylight-saving time to save energy and a tax credit for those who buy gas-electric hybrid cars.

And tucked away deep in the legislation is an authorization for $10 million to promote riding bicycles to work as a way to save energy. It would still be subject to Congress actually appropriating the money.

A cornerstone of the bill, with wide bipartisan support, is a provision that would double the use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline and also spur research into developing ethanol from sources other than corn.

"For the first time the cost of the conservation and efficiency tax incentives [$1.3 billion] exceed the incentives for domestic oil production," argued Domenici.

But the government subsidies for energy industries, including oil companies, have prompted criticism from some lawmakers and from outside groups.

"The bill is larded with subsidies, tax preferences and miscellaneous handouts to an energy industry that with prices this high are in no need of taxpayer assistance," said Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, a think tank that focuses on free-market policies


Well... I guess 10 million will probably mean about 25 miles of bike lanes but it's at least something. The oil and gas companies got billion dollar tax breaks but that was to be expected. Since there's no incentives to conserve gas, I guess the price of fuel will continue to increase over time. They're trying to expand the supply side but it's not going to work.

sbhikes

Do you think they'll spend the money on bike lanes? I would prefer they send everybody a check or give everybody a break at tax time who rides a bike instead of driving. But I suppose it's hard to measure that. Some companies give people money to take trains, so maybe the money could be used similarly to help companies give financial incentives to people who ride to work. I'd LOVE that!

eubi

I doubt we cycle commuters will see anything.

It would be nice if bike commuters could get a tax credit, but it would be too hard for Uncle Sam to verify who's riding and who isn't.

Maybe the tax man can just:

Check for helmet hair.
Measure our thighs...any increase is good for a deduction!

TrevorInSoCal

Dunno about that. I could stop riding and start pounding cheetos, and I'm sure the size of my thighs (and gut) would increase.

As for helmet hair, I long ago found the cure for that. It's called a razor.

-Trevor

Roody

Dream on! $10 million would be about one dollar apeice for commuters? Big deal. This bill is yet another welfare bonanza for big business, with a tiny crumb for the people and the environment. There's nothing about fuel efficiency, pollution reduction, or reducing dependence on foreign oil, and very little for alternative energy. Another boondoggle by the Republican spendthrifts and their corporate sponsors.

Feldman

I'd like to see the money go to state and local police agencies to fund extra controls of speeding, red light running, impaired motorists. The best enhancement for the cycling environment has to be more stringent control of motorist behavior.

gnosbike

I'm always cautious about the word "promote". In Canada our ruling party has been involved in a court inquiry into a sponsorship scandel dealing with just this sort of thing. It is important that the $10 million dollars goes to the advocacy of commuting rather than into the pockets of the relatives of polititians that happen to own advertising firms.

Helmet Head

"Even though bike lanes are great and all that, I'll take the cash thank you very much." - Diane

Dchiefransom

$10 million. One 30 second ad in the Super Bowl.

Bike nut

This is a quote from an article in my local paper that was wired from the Tribune.

"Ranging from a measure with a price tag of $6 million to promote bicycling to an unspecified amount of tax funds to study the oil needs of Hawaii, these two bills are among the largest pots of pork ever cooked up by Congress. It is a legislative giveaway beyond boiling down to size. The only solution is to dump it and begin anew."

For the complete article from my local paper click on this link

https://www.vvdailypress.com/2005/112134745242446.html

amahana1

The problem with a tax credit for commuting on a bicycle is that everyone and their dog would say..."I have a bike and ride it to work.....wink wink nod nod, I want a tax credit!" There is no way to prove that you do or dont ride a bike.

Lion Steve

I would think that the money would be spent on public service announcments, and local public education on the availability and access to things like bike lanes and bike paths. They may provide money to businesses to purchase bike racks, security for commuters equipment.

Bikepacker67

Well...

Last year I put more miles on my bicycle, then I did my car.
My auto insurance company checks the odometer every year, and gives me a discount for staying under 5k/per annum.

Who cares if they're riding to work? As long as they aren't firin' up that ol' inefficient heat engine.

Dahon.Steve

I would like to see the money spent on bicycle access to bridges that are motorcar only. Unfortunately, the entire 10 million would get spent on just one bridge!

jagged

Here is one section of the bill; looks relevant. Sorry, no money directly to commuters. But they are funding "a study on the feasibility of converting motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips." I wonder if I can score that grant.

SEC. 732. CONSERVE BY BICYCLING PROGRAM.

Jim-in-Kirkland

$10 Million is barely a drop in the bucket - as a percentage of the total bill dollars it is 0%. This thread is mislabeled. This bill does not promote cycling.

Yes it might pay for a small study confirming that today's American urban designs with auto centric roads provide hazardous bicycle commuting opportunities and lament this fact as well as the health of the youth and nation in general decline....

chocula

I imagine that such a tax credit would require employer verification. I also suspect that corporate participation would be voluntary. So, in order to convince an employer to participate and go through the hassle of verifying employee bicycle use, the company would also be eligible for some type of tax credit or other incentive to mitigate the extra administrative cost.

Lion Steve

What car insurance company do you have which gives this type of a discount? My brother only racked up a couple of hundred miles in his car last year, so I'm sure he would be interested.

noisebeam

Exactly - the purpose of this miniscule drop for a cycling study is to distract folks from the reality that this bill is a massive give away to traditional energy companies (oil, coal, etc.) who are already swimming in profits. Its a total shame.

Al

slagjumper

In 2000--
117.2 million people commuted to work.
1.7 million Walked, biked, or used some other mode.
30.2 million people live less then 5 miles from work.
22.3 Million commute 6 to 10 miles one way each day.

If each bike-commuter got a piece of the 10 million we'd get less than 5 bucks each. It would be great if the money would go to bike-commuter promotion. Something like pro-bike commuter / bike awarness pamphlets in with the DOT's tag registrations mailings.

eubi

slagjumper has some good ideas there...

As I think about it, it might be nice to have dollars for a few public service announcements (PSA) on the radio promoting cycle commuting and cyclists' rights to the roads.

I just contacted KFWB 980 News Radio here in LA and asked them for a quote to produce and air these PSA's. I'll let you know how much it is.

genec

And meanwhile:

Bush Signs $286.4 Billion Highway Bill

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Wed Aug 10,12:24 PM ET

MONTGOMERY, Ill. -
President Bush on Wednesday signed a whopping $286.4 billion transportation bill, touting it as bringing the nation's transportation network "into the 21st century."

With fanfare, Bush signed the more than 1,000-page highway bill into law even though it was more costly than he preferred. It includes cash to bankroll some 6,000 pet projects for lawmakers in their home districts.

The setting for Bush's bill-signing ceremony and speech was a plant operated by Caterpillar Inc., which makes road-building equipment. For the president, it was his second trip away from his Texas ranch this week to highlight recently passed legislation.

"If we want people working in America, we got to make sure our highways and roads are modern," Bush said.

"I mean, you can't expect your farmers to be able to get goods to market if you don't have a good road system," he said. "You can't expect to get these Caterpillar products all around the United States if we don't have a good road system."

The House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass the six-year highway and mass transit legislation just before heading home for a summer break. They left Washington carrying promises of new highway and bridge projects, rail and bus facilities, and bike paths and recreational trails they secured for their states and districts.

The president left Texas during a downpour and ended up speaking under a bright sun at the plant where a crane sported a sign saying "Improving Highway Safety for America." The Chicago suburb is represented by House Speaker
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who introduced Bush at the event.

"I'm here to sign the highway bill because I believe by signing this bill, when it's fully implemented, there's going to be more demand for the machines you make here," Bush said, adding that a piece of Caterpillar equipment is used at his ranch.

"Because there's more demand for the machines you make here," he said, "there are going to be more jobs created around places like this facility."

Bush had threatened to veto the bill if the final version was too fat for his liking, and it took nearly two years for Congress to reach a compromise the White House would accept.

"There were a number of members of Congress who wanted a $400 billion highway bill," Al Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council at the White House, said Tuesday in defending the president's decision to accept the bill even though it was $30 billion more than Bush recommended.

"Because of this president, it is a $286 billion highway bill," he told reporters at a briefing following Bush's meeting with his economic team.

Bush said he's charged Transportation Secretary
Norm Mineta to work to make sure that taxpayers get the most from the bill and that projects are delivered "on time and on budget."

Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy for Taxpayers for Common Sense, however, called the measure a "bloated, expensive bill" that the Bush should have vetoed.

"It is only fitting that the president is signing this legislation in Speaker Hastert's district, because the speaker's district has the third highest amount of highway pork in the nation," Ashdown said.

The bill contains more than 6,371 special projects valued at more than $24 billion, or about 9 percent of the bill's total cost, he said. The distribution of the money for these projects "is based far more on political clout than on transportation need," Ashdown said.

Alaska, the third-least populated state, for instance, got the fourth most money for special projects — $941 million — thanks largely to the work of its lone representative, House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young. That included $231 million for a bridge near Anchorage to be named "Don Young's Way" in honor of the Republican.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., nailed down $630 million, including $330 million for the Centennial Corridor Loop in Bakersfield, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Lawmakers backing the bill say projects were included on merit. They say money for infrastructure is well spent, especially considering that traffic congestion costs American drivers 3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of wasted fuel every year.

Substandard road conditions and roadside hazards are a factor in nearly one-third of the 42,000 traffic fatalities a year, officials say, and every $1 billion in highway construction creates 47,500 jobs.

But Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., one of four senators who opposed the bill, said the estimated $24 billion lawmakers directed to special projects was "egregious." He has cited dozens of what he calls "interesting" projects. His favorite: $2.3 million for landscaping along the
Ronald Reagan Freeway in California.

"I wonder what Ronald Reagan would say?" McCain asked about the fiscally conservative president.

Dahon.Steve

>>>>>(C) determine any energy savings that would result from the conversion of motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips;
(D) include a cost-benefit analysis of bicycle infrastructure investments; and
(E) include a description of any factors that would encourage more motor vehicle trips to be replaced with bicycle trips.<<<<<

The 10 million will be spent on a study to figure out the following. INCREDIBLE! What a waste of money.

C. Why do we need to know what energy savings? All you have to do is look at the price of oil and you know right away the savings are substantial. A waste.

D. Excuse me. Now that you spent 10 million for this study, where is the money going to come from to pay for this billion dollar infrastructure for bicycles?? Are we going to need another study on how to raise money for bicycle lanes? Insanity.

E. Forget about getting folks on bikes, because there is no infrastructure for the cyclist. Focus on getting more folks who live in the cities to cycle commute because the folks in the burbs are not giving up their cars.

Bikepacker67

Travellers.

Roody

This bill is a big boondoggle, and the cyclists got hornswoggled!

Actually the PEOPLE got hornswoggled, and the big energy corporations got boondoggled.