For the next surface transportation bill to happen, the gas needs to be pumped for partisanship

Amid the interminable infighting, debates, and skirmishes that occur within Congress on a daily basis, which has been the case for more than a few years, it was believed, or at least thought, that one area in which there could be some semblance of bipartisan accord is transportation infrastructure.

But we are again reminded that is not the case based on actions in the House this week, regarding a new long-term surface transportation authorization from House Democrats, entitled the Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation (INVEST) in America Act, and one introduced yesterday by House Republicans, entitled The Surface Transportation Advanced through Reform, Technology, & Efficient Review (STARTER) Act.  

As a refresher, the $494 billion INVEST in America Act, which was released earlier this month, is a key component of the five-year, $760 billion outline, entitled “Moving Forward Framework,” which was released in January, with House Democrats saying at the time that its objective is to get the country’s “existing infrastructure working again and fund new transformative projects that will create more than 10 million jobs, while reducing carbon pollution, dramatically improving safety, and spurring economic activity.

The Democratic arm of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure said that the INVEST in America Act enables the completion of critical projects through long-term, sustainable funding and authorizes nearly $500 billion over five years, while also accounting for the economic downturn, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The bill contains various freight transportation and supply chain components, including: makes the freight formula program fully multimodal and expands environmental considerations in freight planning; requiring National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds to focus on state of good repair and operational; and revising the National Multimodal Freight Policy, the National Strategic Freight Plan, and the requirements for State Freight Plans to include further consideration of environmental and equity impacts, among others.

While this bill ostensibly checks a lot of boxes that industry stakeholders expect to see, it fell far short of what is actually needed, according to the Republican Arm of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, in the form of its STARTER Act bill.

This five-year surface transportation reauthorization bill, which was introduced by Ranking Member Sam Graves (R-MO), was proposed as an amendment during this week’s markup of the Democrats’ INVEST Act, which the committee said reflects Republicans’ surface transportation principles.

“The STARTER Act is a reasonable, commonsense approach to improving our infrastructure that focuses on state flexibility, reasonable regulation reform, traditional core transportation needs, preparing our system for future transportation technologies, and a greater emphasis on rural America’s often neglected infrastructure needs,” Graves said in a statement.  “The Senate has worked in a bipartisan manner so far, and House Republicans remain ready to work constructively if this process moves forward in a meaningful way.  The Majority’s bill that was approved in committee today isn’t going to get signed into law, and the only path to improving our infrastructure and putting America’s back to work is through partnership, not partisanship.”

The key principles of the STARTER Act, include:

• Ensuring state flexibility;
• Streamlining the project delivery process to maximize available funding;
• Prioritizing core programs and functions of our existing federal surface transportation programs;
• Incorporating innovative developments in technology to improve our infrastructure;
• Providing for the infrastructure needs of America’s rural communities; and
• Addressing the long-term sustainability of the Highway Trust Fund

As to be expected, feedback for both of these bills was mixed.

The INVEST in America Act was soundly endorsed by Elaine Nessle, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors.

“The September 30 expiration of the FAST Act is swiftly approaching and there are many factors challenging a timely reauthorization,” said Nessle. “I commend Chairman DeFazio and his subcommittee Chairs for developing a five-year reauthorization proposal for consideration. The INVEST in America Act includes several programs that stand to benefit the movement of goods, including both competitive grant and formula funds available for multimodal supply chain infrastructure. As the reauthorization process moves forward, we look forward to working with House and Senate leaders to support a bipartisan proposal that includes a robustly funded freight program.”

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) said that manufacturers are requesting that Congress provide more transparency for a proposal of this size and scope.

“Additionally, several provisions of the proposal add new regulatory hurdles and costs that would have tremendous impact to the freight systems and services that support manufacturing,” said NAM. “We urge the committee to… support the codification of a ‘One Federal Decision’ approach to managing environmental reviews and permitting.”

And the Association of American Railroads (AAR) expressed its support for the STARTER Act, explaining how Rep. Graves and his colleagues have steered clear of unnecessarily divisive policy fights and brought forth commonsense solutions to railroads’ transportation and infrastructure challenges.

“Railroads encourage Congress to focus squarely on what is most important now—improving our infrastructure,” said AAR.   

In a recent interview I had with Fred R. Wagner, Chief Counsel of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during the Obama administration and now a Washington, D.C.-based environmental attorney and partner at Venable LLP, said that the next steps for a future reauthorization are yet to be clearly defined.

“There is a high likelihood that House Democrats are going to push for some sort of action on this and other sorts of COVID stimulus before the July 4 recess,” he said. “The question is how of this gets folded into that. Is it done separately or in one big huge package and then back to the Senate? That we don’t know. It is pretty clear that there is a strong appetite by the House Majority to consider some sort of economic stimulus, and the question will be whether infrastructure will be viewed as a fiscal component of that. That will also cover non-transportation parts like water works and broadband…it will be a much broader definition of infrastructure in a larger bill. That is the big question between now and the July 4 holiday, not just for an infrastructure bill, or whether it is going to fit into some larger discussions. That is one thing to keep in mind.”

With so many questions afloat, it will be interesting to see what the next steps are. What happens next, and in short order, could very well set the tone for the next long-term federal surface transportation reauthorization, especially with the September 30 expiration date of the FAST Act getting closer by the day. Stay tuned.