Leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released a roughly $580 billion proposal this week that outlines how congressional leaders plan to structure federal investment after the collapse of the expansive Jobs and Infrastructure Investment Act of 2021.
The BUILD America 250 Act would authorize transportation spending through fiscal year 2031 and direct funding toward roads, bridges, transit, rail and safety programs.
But the legislation may prove more consequential for how federal dollars flow to projects and how infrastructure owners, contractors and investors assess the certainty of funding.
Committee leaders framed the proposal around the funding formula, streamlining project delivery and greater flexibility for states. More than 90 percent of highway funding would be moved through formula programs rather than discretionary channels, according to committee materials summarizing the legislation.
“I believe the BUILD America 250 Act is the most important surface transportation law since President Eisenhower built the interstate highway system,” committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-Mo.) said in a statement announcing the proposal.
Ranking member Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) touted the scale of the investment, saying, “You can’t have a big-league economy with little-league infrastructure.”
However, industry companies and associations are more concerned about whether the proposed legislation will continue the kind of funding structures that helped fuel a surge in federally supported infrastructure work in recent years.
Looking for quick answers on construction and engineering topics?
Try Ask ENR, our new intelligent AI search tool.
Ask ENR →
Beyond the $580 billion title
Previous ENR reporting found that the IIJA established two parallel funding channels: the traditional highway trust fund mechanisms and supplemental appropriations written directly into law. These advance appropriations provided agencies with greater long-term visibility and helped support project planning beyond annual appropriations cycles.
As an industry lobbying and advocacy group, the Associated General Contractors of America has long pushed Congress to prioritize formula funding over discretionary grant structures administered through the U.S. Department of Transportation because projects move faster that way, Alex Etchen, AGC’s vice president of construction advocacy and risk management, told ENR.
“The five-year bill would give the construction industry certainty to invest in new construction equipment and hire and train additional workers,” Etchen said. “When funds are provided through a formula, projects are able to get off the ground sooner.”
According to the analysis by law firm Holland & Knight, about $474.4 billion of the proposal’s roughly $580 billion authorization would come through the Highway Trust Fund contracting authority, while about $106 billion would depend on future annual appropriations.
Etchen said the legislation would also prevent a number of short-term extensions that could complicate planning for major infrastructure works.
“This bill would provide long-term certainty for the construction industry,” he said.
The structure marks a shift from IIJA-era priorities by emphasizing formula funding and state flexibility while reducing reliance on some discretionary and climate-focused programs.
Analysis by the National Association of Counties indicates that the bill would eliminate the Carbon Reduction Program and the PROTECT formula program created by IIJA while consolidating several discretionary grants. Etchen said eligibility for those project categories would continue under the core highway programs, allowing states to continue moving forward on many of the same underlying project types.
The legislation also attempts to address long-term pressure from the Highway Trust Fund through annual fees of $130 on electric vehicles and $35 on plug-in hybrids starting in 2027, increasing every two years starting in 2029 and capped at $150 and $50, respectively. Holland & Knight estimated that the fees would raise less than $10 billion in five years and roughly $29 billion in a decade.
The bill also raises the threshold for “major projects” requiring a larger review to $1 billion from $500 million and expands the use of categorical exclusions intended to speed up project approvals.
Anirban Basu, Chief Economist of the Associated Builders and Contractors, told ENR that construction activity supported by the IIJA would likely continue to extend beyond the law’s expiration because projects and funding obligations have been slower than expected.
RELATED
Federal loan programs cannot keep pace with growing clean water needs
Basu also cautioned against assuming that financing tools can replace broad federal spending, arguing that public-private partnerships “are not a panacea” because “in the end someone has to pay back investors and lenders through tolls, taxes or other revenue sources.” This may be especially true in many preservation and rehabilitation project, which simply does not have the specific revenue required for private financing.
