Trump's pursuit of infrastructure deal hits GOP roadblock

President TrumpDonald John TrumpConway defends herself against Hatch Act allegations amid threat of subpoena How to defuse Gulf tensions and avoid war with Iran Trump says 'stubborn child' Fed 'blew it' by not cutting rates MORE faces stiff opposition from Republicans in his desire for a massive infrastructure package.

GOP lawmakers say the president’s grand proposal for a $2 trillion deal is too ambitious and warn that they will oppose any measure that adds to the deficit.

Many Republicans also say they are against raising taxes to pay for an infrastructure initiative, a stance that would make it extremely difficult to find money to finance a package even half the size of Trump’s desired amount.

ADVERTISEMENT

Congressional Republicans say they are worried about passing a reprise of former President Obama’s 2009 fiscal stimulus, which was devoted to “shovel ready” infrastructure projects and “green” energy production.

That legislation added more than $800 billion to the debt and later became a focal point of GOP charges that Obama had blown up the deficit.

“If we’re going to do infrastructure, I think we ought to pay for it. I don’t think we ought to put it on the debt,” said Senate Republican Whip John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneGOP senators divided over approach to election security McSally on Moore running for Senate again: 'This place has enough creepy old men' Hillicon Valley: GOP senator wants one agency to run tech probes | Huawei expects to lose B in sales from US ban | Self-driving car bill faces tough road ahead | Elon Musk tweets that he 'deleted' his Twitter account MORE (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate GOP leader.

But he also noted “there’s never been much appetite on either side up here, Democrat or Republican, for” raising the gas tax, a key revenue raiser for highway projects.

“I think $2 trillion is really ambitious. If you do a 35-cent increase in the gas tax, for example, indexed for inflation, it gets you only half a trillion [dollars],” Thune said.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthyGOP rep: Trump needs to retaliate against Iran to deter other hostile nations Ocasio-Cortez: McCarthy should apologize to migrant children separated from their parents Lawmakers warn of 'grave situation' after drone shot down MORE (R-Calif.) also sounded skeptical.

“How do you pay for it? That's the biggest question — that's the hardest part,” he told The Hill.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rep. Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsDarrell Issa eyes return to Congress Oversight Republicans: 'Hundreds' of migrants in caravans have criminal histories FBI, warned early and often that Manafort file might be fake, used it anyway MORE (R-N.C.), the leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus who serves on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said Congress has a much better chance of passing legislation to lower prescription drug prices than advancing an infrastructure package.

“You would have to have a gas tax to do it, and we’re not for a gas tax,” Meadows, who speaks regularly to Trump, told The Hill on Thursday. “I mean, $1 trillion you could maybe do; $2 trillion, there is no way to get the money other than raising taxes and there is not an appetite for an increase in taxes by Republicans in the House or the Senate.”

Sen. John CornynJohn CornynDemocrats give Trump trade chief high marks GOP senators divided over approach to election security GOP lawmakers want Mulvaney sidelined in budget talks MORE (R-Texas), a member of the Senate GOP leadership team, said, “I don’t think raising the gas on working men and women is a good idea — it’s pretty regressive.”

Other Republicans, such as Sen. Steve DainesSteven (Steve) David DainesFilm producer drowns while making political ad in Montana Trump throws support behind 'no brainer' measure to ban burning of American flag House panel advances bill to create cybersecurity standards for government IT devices MORE (Mont.), are ruling out any tax increases to pay for an infrastructure package.

“No, I wouldn’t raise taxes,” he said, acknowledging that finding a way to pay for infrastructure is the biggest challenge to any prospective deal.

“That’s going to be the heaviest lift of all of this, is figuring out a way here from a fiscal viewpoint making this affordable on our current balance sheet,” he said.

Sen. Deb FischerDebra (Deb) Strobel FischerThe Hill's Morning Report - Trump and House Democrats resume battle Steve King denied seat on Air Force One for Trump trip to Iowa: report Iowa Democrat calls foul on White House over Trump ethanol tour invite MORE (R-Neb.) said she opposes increasing the gas tax and called it “a regressive tax.”  

When asked how to pay for infrastructure in lieu of tax increases, GOP lawmakers say they need more time to study the issue.

Fischer said she hasn’t traditionally favored passing a comprehensive infrastructure package and says it’s “more realistic” to pass separate bills funding roads, rail, ports, airports, broadband internet, and power transmission. 

Some GOP lawmakers have since raised concerns that funding a wide array of projects ranging from roads to railroads to airports, broadband and power grids, could deplete money available for the upcoming Highway Trust Fund reauthorization, which they want to pass this year.

“The other problem that’s going to come up is we’re bumping up against highway reauthorization,” said Sen. John BoozmanJohn Nichols BoozmanVA chief pressed on efforts to prevent veteran suicides McConnell ups pressure on White House to get a budget deal There is a severe physician shortage and it will only worsen MORE (R-Ark.). “That’s going to take a lot of dollars. The Highway Trust Fund is depleted … it’s going to be very difficult to fund that.”

Many Republicans were caught off guard by Tuesday’s announcement that Democratic leaders reached a deal with Trump to pursue a $2 trillion infrastructure package. GOP lawmakers were not invited to the White House meeting. 

Republicans pushed back immediately on some of the core elements that emerged from that meeting, particularly the price tag and that the federal government would kick in the lion’s share of funding.

Rep. Bradley ByrneBradley Roberts ByrneThe Hill's Morning Report — US strikes approved against Iran pulled back McConnell-backed Super PAC says nominating Roy Moore would be 'gift wrapping' seat to Dems Trump Jr.: Roy Moore 'doing a disservice to all conservatives' by running for Senate MORE (R-Ala.), a candidate for the Senate in 2020, told The Hill that “$2 trillion is a lot of money.”

“I want to keep an open mind, because there could be a pay-for I can vote for, but I don’t know what it would be at $2 trillion. That’s a lot of money. It’s a big number,” he said. “And when you try to do things around here that are too big, they just don’t happen.”

The Trump administration previously floated a plan whereby the federal government would fund only 20 percent of the investment and give the private sector incentives to come up with the rest.

Senate Democratic Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerMcConnell-backed Super PAC says nominating Roy Moore would be 'gift wrapping' seat to Dems McConnell vows to 'vigorously' oppose Moore's Senate bid Pelosi: Trump delay on Harriet Tubman is 'an insult to the hopes of millions' MORE (N.Y.) on Tuesday said Trump came closer to the Democratic position of having the government pay for as much as 80 percent.

“We agreed to $2 trillion and the president was happy to push up the number a little bit,” Schumer told reporters after the meeting.

Schumer also noted that Trump didn’t rule out raising taxes to pay for the package.

Democratic leaders said they discussed with the president expanded broadband for rural areas and inner cities, along with more efficient power grids.

Schumer said Trump “agreed the old 20-80 [federal-private split in funding] was much too low” and that “he doesn’t like these private-public partnerships.”

House Republican Whip Steve ScaliseStephen (Steve) Joseph ScaliseLawmakers warn of 'grave situation' after drone shot down House Democrats close to finalizing border aid bill Hillicon Valley: GOP senator wants one agency to run tech probes | Huawei expects to lose B in sales from US ban | Self-driving car bill faces tough road ahead | Elon Musk tweets that he 'deleted' his Twitter account MORE (La.), however, defended private-public partnerships.

“There are public-private partnerships that have been successful. You know, we ought to look at every option to see if those kind of partnerships help us build more roads and help meet the needs of communities,” he said. “Ultimately this should be driven by local communities and they need to have skin in the game, too.”

Sen. Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonGOP senators divided over approach to election security Democrats make U-turn on calling border a 'manufactured crisis' GOP frets about Trump's poll numbers MORE (R-Wis.) said he also favors limiting the federal contribution to 20 percent.

“My guess is it’s probably not going to go very far,” Johnson said of the sketched-out $2 trillion proposal.

He said the president “has got to start getting support from Republicans as well.”

Trump and Democratic leaders plan to meet in another three weeks to discuss how to pay for their infrastructure plan.

Republican lawmakers have floated various ideas to fund infrastructure without raising taxes.

McCarthy, the House Republican leader, suggested selling government lands. 

"Well, you know there's a bill out there that has Democrats and Republicans on it, the GAIIN Act, sell the government excess property so that's a way and then it goes to the hundred poorest districts, so that's a good place to start," he said.

Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulThis week: Congress set for clash on Trump's border request Washington braces for Trump's next move on Iran Overnight Defense: Latest on Iran after Trump halts planed strike | Dems call Trump's approach 'erratic' | Key Republican urges Trump to retaliate | Esper reportedly getting Defense secretary nomination MORE (R-Ky.) said the administration could pay for infrastructure by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and other combat zones.

“We spend about $50 billion a year in Afghanistan. I think we could bring some of that home and use it,” he said. “Where they find $2 trillion is beyond me unless they end some of the wars we’re involved with.”