Capitol Hill was revved up last week over the House transportation reauthorization bill that could put the United States on track to toward achieving a long-overdue transportation policy, but Democrats and environmental groups called it some of the worst legislation they've ever seen.

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed the five-year "American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012" last week in a 29-24 vote, after nearly 100 amendments were hashed out in a 17-hour markup.

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) -- who passed a bipartisan transportation bill last November -- are optimistic that disagreements over the House bill can be worked out in conference and have stressed the need to pass legislation before current law expires on March 31.

But a federal transportation bill will have to endure a bumpy road, given widespread opposition to provisions approved by the House. Among the concerns are that the bill eliminates funding for walking and biking programs, reduces environmental oversight and is to be paid for by the expansion of oil and gas drilling.

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) asserted the bill is also a bad deal for the climate.

"A lot of it is allowing trucking companies and other cars to pollute the environment," she said. Napolitano added that the bill's tight funding restricts basic infrastructure repairs, many of which are needed due to a series of extreme weather events last year.

"Bridges are crumbling, we have roads in disrepair, and Mother Nature is throwing all kinds of things at us that have required additional money to repair roads and bridges, et cetera -- we're not dealing with that," she said.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), a strong supporter of three failed attempts to reinstate transportation enhancement funding for biking and pedestrian projects, agreed the bill was headed in the wrong direction.

A move to cut congestion or 'the federal bureaucracy'?

"They talked at the beginning of the markup about how we need to deal with congestion and transportation problems, and this bill, in fact, is guaranteed to make all of those things worse," he said.

However, House Republicans maintain that the legislation gives states and communities the freedom to install alternative transportation infrastructure if desired. They also stress the benefits of streamlining the environmental review process to cut down approval time for projects, which representatives said can take up to 15 years. Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) said this trimmed-down approach is key to getting projects moving and people back to work.

"The American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act will be the most significant reform of transportation programs in decades," said Mica in a statement. "This bill will cut red tape, reduce the federal bureaucracy, move major infrastructure projects forward, attract more private sector participation, and give states the flexibility they need to address their most critical transportation needs."

Another major action in the House bill is a big boost in funding for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), which was designed to offer federal credit assistance for national and regional surface transportation projects.

The TIFIA section is generally seen as one of few bright spots in the transportation debate. Both chambers support this provision, and the language is almost identical in both the House and Senate bills. But Dan Smith, tax and budget associate with U.S. PIRG, said that by awarding grants on a first-come, first-served basis, this section removes existing criteria to support sustainable projects with TIFIA funding. The result, he says, will be more private toll roads and other auto-related projects.

"Overall, the bill maintains what is a bias towards highway funding at a time when we need to be moving towards public transit that reduces our dependence on oil and addresses traffic congestion and provides Americans with better transportation choices," he said.

Finance by oil revenues

Environmentalists have railed against the proposal to fund much of the $260 billion bill with oil and gas drilling revenues, saying it will lock the United States into a reliance on oil.

"Generally, oil revenues in the past have been used either to reduce the deficit or to do things that would reduce the need for future oil or limit the environmental impacts of oil drilling. Instead, this arguably increases the need for future oil," David Goldston, government affairs director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said during a recent press conference.

The House Natural Resources Committee approved three energy-related bills last week to have the transportation bill funded with revenues from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, offshore drilling on both coasts, and oil shale. Opponents, including Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), say this funding approach simply "doesn't work" because drilling revenues, particularly from oil shale, are years and perhaps decades away from materializing, while roads need fixing now.

"This is just not a very savvy response and won't fix our problem in the short run. I just don't see those revenues there, and it throws a whole lot more risk into the equation, because we don't know what drilling revenues are going to look like when they get up and going years from now," said Marc Scribner, transportation policy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute -- a group that supports onshore and offshore drilling.

Climate change makes a brief appearance deep into the nearly 850-page bill in a section committed to improving highway infrastructure to "withstand climate variability" and "other adaptation measures." House leaders say their transportation bill will hit the floor on Feb. 13.