Lawmakers’ last-minute push for infrastructure funding

With Congress set to leave the Capitol at the end of this week for a summer break lengthened by the Republican and Democratic conventions later this month, lawmakers pushing the House and Senate versions of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 are trying to get their colleagues to take up bills largely viewed as nonpartisan.

The Senate version is a $9.3 billion bill that authorizes 25 Army Corps of Engineers projects in 17 states that already had funding approved but need final authorization. The bill also spends $4.8 billion on the country’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.

It’s a popular piece of legislation, having sailed through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with a 19-1 vote, but has sat on the Senate floor since late April.

Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., said the bill should get through the Senate before the summer break. It would be a major step toward getting back on a regular two-year cycle of passing similar legislation, which previous Congresses did regularly until 2007. It took seven years for Congress to pass the next version of the law in 2014.

“Passing this bill assures communities will get the protection they deserve from both floods and EPA regulators and maintains the federal government’s commitment to reliable waterborne navigation and strong commerce,” Inhofe said.

“I believe passing this bill before the July recess will show all Americans that Congress is capable of coming together in the best interest of all Americans to pass legislation that will move our country and our economy forward.”

Part of Inhofe’s press to get the bill voted on is that his legislation differs in both cost and scope than the House Water Resources Development Act.

Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., ushered his $5 billion bill through the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in May. Shuster’s bill authorizes 28 Army Corps of Engineers projects, three more than Inhofe’s bill. The bill deauthorizes $5 billion in spending from projects that were previously approved but later deemed unnecessary by the Corps to fund the 28 new projects.

Since passing the committee, which Shuster heads, on a voice vote in May, the Pennsylvania Republican has been working with House leadership to get the bill to the floor for a vote. He said he shares Inhofe’s desire to start passing regular versions of the bill every other year and is concerned about what could happen if the bill fails to make it through Congress this year.

“The further we fall behind in addressing these needs, the more difficult and expensive it becomes to move goods into, out of and across the country, and the less competitive we become globally,” Shuster said.

Part of the reason the two chairmen want to get the bills through their respective chambers is because of the significant differences between the two pieces of legislation that would have to be worked out in a conference committee.

Shuster’s bill spends $4.3 billion less than Inhofe’s and stays away from the investments in the country’s drinking water infrastructure that the Senate bill spends billions on.

Included in the Senate bill is a $220 million package for Flint, Mich., and other cities around the country dealing with lead in their drinking water. The bill also includes $1.4 billion over the next five years to help update water infrastructure in places with drinking water crises.

Among the plans are $300 million over the next five years to replace lead pipes and $100 million over the next five years to test for lead in the water in schools and daycare centers.

There are also some modifications and additional funding for the State Revolving Loan Fund programs, which allows the EPA to back loans to communities around the country to update their infrastructure.

The package for Flint and other communities with lead water issues originally was attached to a comprehensive energy bill, but senators took it out after it stalled that bill. Despite urging from environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers, Congress has yet to pass any additional federal funding for Flint since President Obama declared a federal emergency in January.

Inhofe calls his bill “must-pass” legislation, and the drinking water portions of it are very important to protect communities such as Flint, he said.

“Our nation saw what happened when Congress went seven years without taking up WRDA legislation,” he said, “and this bill will prioritize many of those overdue Army Corps projects and get Congress back on track to addressing the needs of our communities, ports and waterways.”

The foggy future of the legislation is concerning to industry groups, who have taken to Capitol Hill in recent months to lobby lawmakers to pass the water bills.

Robyn Boerstling, vice president of infrastructure, innovation and human resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said lawmakers should look to past successes like last year’s Highway and Transportation Funding Act as models for the Water Resources Development Act.

Water infrastructure around the country needs to be replaced or repaired, and construction companies are ready and willing to work, she said. But Congress must act quickly to give them that opportunity.

“Manufacturers cannot go from one infrastructure crisis to the next without harm to our ability to compete, create jobs and create opportunities,” she said. “Now is the time for Washington to break the cycle and take investing in America’s infrastructure and future seriously.”