The overhaul of the nation’s infrastructure, despite efforts from the Trump administration, appears to have stalled for the remainder of the year.
The only exceptions are two infrastructure-related measures to reauthorize existing programs.
President Trump has promoted a massive infrastructure plan since his time as a candidate. In February, the White House released a blueprint for lawmakers that proposed using $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.
Although Trump’s plan was met with lackluster support among lawmakers, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., initially signaled that an infrastructure proposal would emerge close to the summer months. But as 2018 progresses, it increasingly appears an infrastructure overhaul will not happen this year, experts say.
“The timing is going to be the biggest hurdle, which has been true for some time,” said Joseph Kane, a senior research analyst and associate fellow of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.
Late last month, Trump said it was likely an infrastructure overhaul would come after the midterm elections. Additionally, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has said Congress is planning to address infrastructure in “five or six” pieces of legislation, rather than one large measure.
Included in those pieces of legislation are a long-term Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill and the biennial Water Resources Development Act — measures Congress was already planning on taking up this year.
“In some ways, those are more business-as-usual type of bills,” Kane said.
In the past year, Congress has authorized multiple short-term extensions to continue the FAA’s legal authority. But Shuster announced in February that he would be dropping a controversial air traffic control reform effort, which experts believe could pave the way for a longer-term FAA reauthorization bill later this year.
According to Michael Sargent, a transportation and infrastructure policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, it’s “certainly likely” a longer-term FAA reauthorization bill will pass before the midterms. However, Sargent also noted he would be a “little surprised” if a full, comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill was approved.
Under Shuster’s leadership as chairman, the Water Resources Development Act has been passed every two years. The legislation, which authorizes projects from the Army Corps of Engineers, was designed to be passed every two years but had not followed the biennial schedule in more than a decade until 2014.
“If the past is any sign of things to come, [the Water Resources Development Act] has been able to pass over the past few years,” Kane said.
Sargent doubts any significant reforms would be included in either of those pieces of legislation, but left the door open that if any infrastructure reforms were accomplished this year, they would be included in those measures.
“I would be surprised if they did anything major to either one of them, and certainly nothing along the lines of a large comprehensive infrastructure bill that had been talked about for the last year or so,” Sargent said.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee said these two pieces of legislation remain Shuster’s top priorities for the remainder the year, in addition to an infrastructure plan. However, the committee did not provide details on new infrastructure legislation, or a timeline for when such legislation would be introduced.
“The chairman’s priorities continue to be passing FAA reauthorization legislation, enacting the next Water Resources Development Act, and working on a bipartisan infrastructure plan,” a committee spokesperson told the Washington Examiner.
Shuster, who announced this year he would not be seeking reelection, has long said an infrastructure plan must be a bipartisan effort.
“Passage of an infrastructure bill will require presidential leadership and bipartisan congressional cooperation,” Shuster said in a statement after the White House’s infrastructure proposal was released.
The Committee echoed similar sentiments to the Washington Examiner about Shuster’s outlook on an infrastructure overhaul.
“He believes Congress can address infrastructure if we work in a bipartisan fashion, and if the plan is realistic, fiscally responsible, and forward-looking in how we address our infrastructure needs,” the spokesperson added. “He will continue to work towards that goal.”
The office of the top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., did not respond to the Washington Examiner.
According to Sargent, an infrastructure overhaul has lost momentum this year because there hasn’t been a hard deadline to complete it.
“It’s always been more of a political promise rather than a policy need,” Sargent said. “Without that sense of urgency, it’s hard to do most anything in Congress.”
Kane pointed out though that infrastructure did see increased financial support in the omnibus spending bill that Trump signed last month, which included more than $10 billion in funding for existing infrastructure programs.
“Even though that was not an infrastructure bill … it did provide additional financial and program support that otherwise we haven’t seen,” Kane said.
Although it’s unlikely any major infrastructure overhaul will pass this year, Kane argued that recent efforts have brought a “heightened awareness” to infrastructure issues.
“It’s not as if it’s been completely on the back burner and no one has been talking about it,” Kane said. “It has at least gained greater visibility among many in Congress, and I would argue in particular among many in states and localities.”
