As the White House and members of Congress begin to tackle a massive infrastructure plan, a key early topic of debate is how much federal funding should be included in the bill.
Last week, the White House released a blueprint for lawmakers that proposed $200 billion in federal funding to spur a minimum of $1.3 trillion in infrastructure spending from state and local governments, in addition to the industry.
But Democrats want $1 trillion in direct federal funding. They put forth their own infrastructure proposal this month that would provide federal investment into airports, roads, bridges, ports, and schools. They worry that the Trump administration’s plan would burden states and local governments.
“The federal government is a necessary partner in this effort to rebuild our country,” Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., told reporters after the Democrats’ plan was unveiled. “It’s not enough to punt this to the private sector, as the president wants.”
Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has backed the plan and criticized the White House’s proposal for being “embarrassingly small.” He also urged Trump to work with Democrats to find “sustainable solutions.”
Democrats would likely not want to give Trump an “easy win” on a legislative accomplishment and would try to increase the amount of federal funding in the package, said Michael Sargent, a transportation and infrastructure policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
“Once it starts working its way through the legislative process, they’re going to start using every tool at their disposal to up that figure,” Sargent said.
The issue of federal funding was a primary topic during a meeting at the White House on Wednesday with President Trump and key congressional infrastructure leaders, DeFazio told reporters afterward.
Additionally, DeFazio said he “felt positive about the president’s recognition that there needs to be some additional real federal investment beyond what is reflected” in the White House’s initial proposal.
The discussion concerning the federal price tag comes as experts believe it’s unlikely an infrastructure bill would attract the necessary support to pass unless it was bipartisan.
“If you’re going to pass this thing, it is probably going to have to be bipartisan in some way,” Sargent said.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., said after the White House meeting the “success in getting a bill done will depend on presidential leadership” and has long said an infrastructure bill must be bipartisan.
He has signaled that there is interest in Congress to move forward in such a fashion and said he and DeFazio would work together to create their own proposal.
“An infrastructure bill needs to be bipartisan, fiscally responsible, and make real long-term investments in our nation,” Shuster said in a statement last week after the White House’s proposal was released.
“There is widespread desire to work together on this effort,” he added. “Passage of an infrastructure bill will require presidential leadership and bipartisan congressional cooperation. I look forward to the constructive debate ahead of us on this critical issue.”
Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., pointed out that nothing is finalized in the White House’s proposal and that the plan will develop as more input from Democrats and stakeholders is included.
“Like the president’s budget, his transportation proposal is a blueprint — it’s a starting point,” Graves said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “Moving forward, these concepts will evolve to incorporate feedback from Democrats and stakeholders. It’s a commitment that Chairman Shuster has made publicly and that I support.”
Although the administration has provided sparse details concerning how it intends to pay for the plan, Graves said he believes a solution can be met.
“You have to keep in mind that paying for the bill will be a priority, but I’m confident common ground can be found,” Graves said.
According to Joseph Kane, a senior research analyst and associate fellow of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, the amount of direct federal spending included in an infrastructure plan is only one piece of the puzzle lawmakers must figure out.
“The dollar total is only one part of this,” Kane said. “Certainly, that is a major component — how much investment are we talking about here — but I think there are also some fundamental disagreements on the vision or lack thereof in the administration’s plan.”
The next step would be figuring out how those funds can be used to “accelerate” infrastructure improvement across the nation, Kane said.
Dallas Gerber, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, also noted there are other priorities beyond spending, such as shrinking the permit process to two years as the White House proposed.
“I think the president’s plan shows that repairing our infrastructure network isn’t just about spending,” Gerber said. “Reforming policy and cutting red tape is just as important.”
But Gerber left the ball in the Democrats’ court to work with Republicans.
“As far as Democrats coming to the table and working together, that’s going to be up to them,” Gerber said.
