|
By Cecile Entleitner, Associate, Blakey & Agnew
In recent years, major transportation funding and policy proposals have proven challenging to advance through Congress. While it is generally regarded as a bipartisan issue, disagreements have often centered around funding sources and program priorities. However, never before has the mere definition of "infrastructure" been scrutinized as heavily as in recent weeks.
On March 31, President Biden announced the framework for the Administration's highly anticipated infrastructure plan. The American Jobs Plan proposes over $2 trillion above existing funding levels and programs across a variety of Democratic priorities to aid economic recovery. The plan includes funding for transportation infrastructure, broadband, environmental improvements, housing, home care, and workforce development. Alongside the American Jobs Plan, President Biden announced the Made in America Tax Plan, which proposes raising corporate tax rates and repealing several components of President Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to pay for the investment package over the next 15 years.
Roughly $930 billion of the proposed investments within the American Jobs Plan would go toward what is generally considered traditional infrastructure, including funding for roads and bridges, rail, seaports, airports, wastewater and drinking water as well as the expansion of broadband and electric grid improvements. However, President Biden noted that the concept of infrastructure has evolved, as demonstrated by the proposal's call for investments in "human infrastructure." The inclusion of significant funding – totaling approximately $1.3 trillion – for housing, schools, manufacturing research and development, caregiving services, and workforce initiatives prompted much debate and Republican opposition regarding the scope of the proposal and the Administration's broad definition of infrastructure. In a recent interview, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Buttigieg said he believed "infrastructure is the foundation that makes it possible for Americans to thrive and live lives of their choosing."
After years of Infrastructure Week jokes, both public and private sector transportation policy advocates were eager to get to work on a serious infrastructure package. But despite their best efforts, Twitter users quickly took to the platform to offer their own definitions of "infrastructure," ranging from childcare, paid leave, and climate resiliency to unicorns, mayonnaise, and reality television star Kendall Jenner – with Politico concluding that "maybe the real meaning of infrastructure is what's in our hearts."
All jokes aside, the scope and size of the package are sure to remain sticking points for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle as Congress begins drafting the legislative text. The Congressional Progressive Caucus felt the Administration's proposal did not go far enough, instead recommending a $10 trillion
|
investment in physical and human infrastructure with an emphasis on environmental improvements to combat climate change. Meanwhile, Republicans have repeatedly expressed that funding should be limited to traditional, core infrastructure needs and criticized the plan's overarching focus on climate provisions, its proposed tax increases, and overall price tag.
The level of bipartisan agreement will have significant implications for the procedural strategies congressional leaders adopt to move the upcoming bill forward. Although Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress, the margin is narrow. The support of at least 10 Senate Republicans would be needed to circumvent a filibuster and pass legislation through the regular order process. Given the widespread Republican opposition to corporate tax increases and the American Jobs Plan's investment priorities, this prospect appears unlikely. Instead, Democrats may seek to pass infrastructure legislation through budget reconciliation, a procedure they also used earlier this year to enact COVID relief funding by a simple 51-vote majority. However, reconciliation bills are subject to specific requirements, particularly within the Senate, limiting the provisions lawmakers can include in such a measure. The use of budget reconciliation would complicate Congress' ability to consolidate the Administration's infrastructure-focused economic recovery proposal and a surface transportation reauthorization (set to expire on September 30) into one package. For example, transfers from the Treasury's General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) – which has been used in recent reauthorizations to address the HTF's insolvency – would likely violate Senate reconciliation rules, as would individual project funding allocations, such as earmarks.
On April 5, the Senate Parliamentarian confirmed Congress can use the reconciliation process multiple times within one fiscal year. Even if Democrats decide to take this path, many uncertainties remain regarding which provisions will be considered in compliance with reconciliation rules and whether the final package can appeal to progressive and moderate Democrats alike – as unified support from all 50 Senate Democrats would be necessary to advance the bill without Republican support.
Blakey & Agnew, LLC is a public affairs and
communications consulting firm based in
Washington, DC.
|
