Presidential candidates Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have provided little information so far about what their infrastructure priorities would be if elected.
“Both presidential candidates have been strategically light in their campaigns, which makes it difficult to predict how they might govern,” says DJ Gribbin, Trump’s former special assistant for infrastructure at the White House.
But industry officials have been studying the political landscape and recent history for clues about the policy paths each candidate might take on infrastructure.
Steve Hall, executive vice president of the American Engineering Companies Council, said in an interview: “There is an assumption that a Harris administration would be inclined to support policies, and perhaps funding, that are consistent with the what the Biden administration has done.” Hall adds, “That may not be the case with a Trump administration.”
The standout infrastructure achievement of the Biden-Harris administration has been the Jobs and Infrastructure Investment Act of 2021. Harris has been instrumental in rolling out funding for this landmark package, says Dave Bauer, president and CEO of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA).
Looking ahead, Gribbin, now an infrastructure consultant, said via email: “A Harris administration is likely to stay the course set by the current administration and would be inclined to find ways to keep infrastructure spending high coming from the IIJA, as well as the Inflation Reduction Act” or IRA.
While Harris has been tight-lipped about his infrastructure policies, President Biden has linked him to the IIJA. In a speech at the Democratic National Committee Convention in Chicago last month, he declared that “because of what Kamala and I have done … we are giving America a decade of infrastructure, not a week.”
Public infrastructure districts
In Oklahoma, state Sen. John Haste (R-Broken Arrow) is promoting State Question 833 as a way to address the housing shortage. The ballot measure would authorize municipalities to create “public infrastructure districts” that can issue bonds to finance public projects.
“Oklahoma has a statewide housing shortage, and we know that one of the biggest barriers to new homes is the need to build the infrastructure needed to support them,” Haste said in a statement about the question of the vote.
There would be controls for public infrastructure districts. Its creation would require signatures from 100% of acreage property owners within the applicable area, and municipalities can impose limits on districts.
Biden added: “We are modernizing our roads, our bridges, our ports, our trains, our buses.” He also mentioned removing lead from drinking water lines and expanding broadband across the country.
A Trump administration, Gribbin says, would likely “take another look at spending under the Inflation Reduction Act.” This 2022 law includes tens of billions of dollars and an extensive list of provisions to address greenhouse gas emissions.
Gribbin also says Trump would likely take steps aimed at streamlining the project approval process. “The need to address the excessively long permitting process has bipartisan support,” he says.
ARTBA’S Bauer said in an interview, “President Trump was very supportive of infrastructure when he ran in 2016 and throughout his presidency.”
In 2018, Trump unveiled an outline of a major infrastructure proposal that had an estimated price tag of $1.5 trillion. But that plan included only $200 billion in direct federal funds. It also sought to tap state and local matching funds as well as private sector assistance. This plan got nowhere in Congress.
Michele Stanley, executive vice president and director of advocacy for the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, said by email that members of both parties support infrastructure needs. But he adds, “Democrats tend to be more willing to spend the money” and Republicans “are more in favor of a business-friendly environment with rules and regulations that encourage economic growth.”
When the dust settles after Nov. 5, infrastructure advocates, especially those focused on transportation, will be anxiously awaiting what the new Congress and White House say about what will be a top legislative priority. of construction in the 119th Congress. : The reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs.
The legislation deals only with federal highway and transit programs that are supported by the Highway Trust Fund. The current authorization is part of the IIJA.
Surface transportation authorization is vitally important for construction and states. According to ARTBA, the current five-year authorizations total $303.5 billion in highway contract authority and $69.9 billion in transit contract authority.
Many IIJA provisions are not covered by the surface reauthorization, such as non-transportation programs as well as aviation and most DOT discretionary grants.
Still, at more than $370 billion, the surface transportation portion of the IIJA was huge. It also served as the engine to pull other transportation and non-transportation infrastructure programs and form the eventual mega-measure.
With a new road traffic measure now on the horizon, ACEC Hall says the key question is whether Congress will aim to pass another massive, multisectoral package — “a bipartisan infrastructure bill Part II “- or lawmakers will pursue something narrower, a surface. freight invoice only, perhaps with some add-ons.
So what do Harris and Trump prefer? Hall says, “We don’t have a sense yet of what either candidate will be looking for.” Construction and transportation groups stress that, in any case, Congress must not miss the Sept. 30, 2026 deadline. “Otherwise,” says Hall, “the program expires and we have chaos with state DOTs “.
A transportation issue may also come into play on Capitol Hill in the debate over another major construction-related issue: the upcoming expiration of elements of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. That law is scheduled to expire in end of December 2025.
Stanley says NSSGA sees the upcoming tax reform debate “as a timely opportunity to resolve the Highway Trust Fund’s solvency issues once and for all.” The problem is “long-standing,” Stanley adds. The trust fund’s revenue, from motor fuel taxes and other sources, has fallen short of its disbursements for highway and transit projects.
To keep the trust fund out of a deficit position, Congress has approved a series of transfers since 2008, primarily from the Treasury’s general fund. To date, these infusions have totaled $275 billion, including $118 billion in the IIJA.
This has bought the trust fund some breathing space for several years. But more help may be needed in the future.
