|
By Cecile Entleitner, Associate, Blakey & Agnew
On July 1, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act. The largest component of this $1.5 trillion package is the House Democrats' surface transportation reauthorization proposal, containing $494 billion to authorize funding for highways, transit, safety programs, and rail infrastructure. The remaining portions of the legislation include a host of broader Democratic infrastructure priorities such as investment in housing, broadband, schools, clean water infrastructure, and provisions aimed at reducing the impacts of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
Before voting on its final passage, Members of Congress considered hundreds of amendments to the bill. This process took longer than usual as the House navigated its new COVID-19 voting procedures, making accommodations for virtual roll call votes during committee markup and social distancing protocols and proxy voting during roll call votes on the House Floor. Ultimately, over 200 amendments were adopted prior to the final vote, the majority of which were filed by Democrats.
The Moving Forward Act passed by a vote of 233 to 188, almost entirely along party lines. Since the package was introduced in early June, House Republicans voiced their opposition, quickly dubbing it the "My Way or the Highway" bill. Throughout the markup and House Floor debate they criticized the legislation's lack of bipartisan input, large price tag, and heavy emphasis on environmental provisions.
Considering the significant disagreements over the bill's infrastructure provisions—generally viewed as one of the few issue areas for bipartisan consensus— and election-year dynamics, it comes as no surprise that settling on funding mechanisms has proven even more challenging than usual. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have further complicated matters, resulting in reduced fuel tax receipts and concerns over large amounts of government deficit spending. As of now, H.R. 2 does not have a funding package attached to it. Since Highway Trust Fund revenue alone is not sufficient to pay for the transportation components of the bill, it would require a transfer of approximately $145 billion from the Treasury's General Fund.
Although the Senate made an early start on its
|
reauthorization discussions, approving their own proposal in the Environment and Public Works Committee last July, little action has been taken since then. The $294 billion bipartisan package, titled America's Transportation Infrastructure Act, also lacks funding as well as other components by the various Senate committees with jurisdiction over surface transportation.
While President Trump has repeatedly expressed his interest in passing an infrastructure package with funding as high as $2 trillion, the Moving Forward Act was not exactly what his Administration envisioned. The White House Office of Management and Budget issued a veto threat for H.R. 2 arguing, "It is heavily biased against rural America. It also appears to be entirely debt-financed. And it fails to tackle the issue of unnecessary permitting delays, which are one of the most significant impediments to improving our infrastructure. Further, instead of taking a balanced approach that would benefit more Americans, H.R. 2 is full of wasteful 'Green New Deal' initiatives that would impede economic growth and impose unnecessary mandates, hindering innovation and driving up costs for the American people."
Many hurdles remain before congressional leaders can finalize surface transportation reauthorization legislation. While both the House and Senate proposals are currently incomplete and vary in content and size, some of their underlying provisions may well serve as the groundwork for a final reauthorization package. In the coming months, lawmakers will certainly have their work cut out for them to produce a bill before the current FAST Act authorization expires on September 30.
Blakey & Agnew, LLC is a public affairs and
communications consulting firm based in
Washington, DC.
|
