As the Biden administration steps up its push to advance a sweeping infrastructure plan, members of Congress are considering ways to make the package bipartisan. For Republicans, that means addressing America’s long-neglected infrastructure without hamstringing the economic recovery and leaving future generations burdened with debt.
The price tag of the Biden administration’s proposal is $1.7 trillion, which is of significant concern to conservatives, particularly given the trillions of dollars in pandemic relief that has already gone out the door under the current and previous administrations. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers recently suggested the country risks rising inflation if the current pace of government spending continues.
Republicans, led by West Virginia’s Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, offered Biden a nearly $1 trillion plan, which itself represented an increase from the GOP’s initial $500 million proposal. Democrats rejected it as too little. That was a mistake. If there was any policy that should be bipartisan in these polarized times, it’s infrastructure.
>
“Spending big doesn’t necessarily equal spending smart. As the country crawls out from under the weight of a 14-month pandemic-induced economic downturn, we can’t afford to waste limited taxpayer resources. Spending must be effective and done efficiently and Congress should focus as much – if not more – on removing obstacles that keep private sector investment on the sidelines as they do in creating new government programs. ”
Talks between Republicans and the White House are set to continue after Memorial Day but comments Thursday by several prominent Senate Democrats that the Republican package wasn’t a serious offer were clear warning shots across Biden’s bow.
While it remains to be seen whether Republicans and Democrats can strike a bargain – they still don’t agree on the definition of “infrastructure” – there’s no dispute that America’s crumbling roads, bridges and ports need more than a fresh coat of paint. If done right, an infrastructure deal could help modernize our outdated infrastructure, spur economic growth, create jobs, and improve environmental protection.
The GOP counteroffer to the White House focuses on “core infrastructure” investments and includes increased spending authorized in legislation already moving in the Senate. Those bills have attracted strong bipartisan support, including a transportation bill approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by a 20-0 vote, thanks largely to the commitment of Sen. Capito.
The transportation bill sets a new baseline funding level at a historic high of $303.5 billion to upgrade the nation’s highways, roads, and bridges – an increase of more than 34 percent from the previous authorization approved by Congress in 2015. It includes investments in electric vehicle infrastructure and provides incentives to curb carbon emissions. Another smart move by the committee was to codify some of the NEPA reforms by the previous administration to reduce permitting timelines to two years. The bill now heads to the full Senate for consideration.
Republicans also voted for a $48 billion increase in the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act that recently passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. The bill makes significant investment in improving the nation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
Bipartisanship is not completely without a pulse and should be applauded.
Proposals like the ones mentioned above – all of which went through the full vetting and scrutiny of the traditional legislative process – should be counted toward an infrastructure package. Congress doesn’t need to duplicate existing programs.
Spending big doesn’t necessarily equal spending smart. As the country crawls out from under the weight of a 14-month pandemic-induced economic downturn, we can’t afford to waste limited taxpayer resources. Spending must be effective and done efficiently and Congress should focus as much – if not more – on removing obstacles that keep private sector investment on the sidelines as they do in creating new government programs.
Reforming the antiquated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is one such effort that could reduce the cost of building infrastructure. While NEPA provides crucial environmental protections, over the past 50 years it has become an albatross around the neck of any project seeking a federal permit, including the deployment of renewable energy.
Modernizing NEPA was championed by the previous administration and remains smart policy that’s time is due. If the new administration feels they must rebrand the effort to remove any association with the previous administration, so be it. The substance of the reform proposal is still a good one and should be pursued regardless of who is in the Oval Office.
The federal permitting process for major economic projects of any kind is unnecessarily onerous to the point of increasing costs without delivering additional environmental benefits. What is the point of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure if it takes an average of seven years to get a permit for a single project? As the White House and Republicans continue negotiations, starting with market-based approaches that reduce barriers to investment rather than providing new layers of regulation and top-down mandates is the right approach.
There is an overwhelming need for investment in the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities needed for our country to remain competitive. But it should be done in a way that looks after taxpayer resources. Building back better and protecting the environment can be done in unison and in a bipartisan way.
Republicans have contributed legitimate ideas that are fiscally sound and focused on modernizing infrastructure and creating jobs, and they deserve a seat at the table. We hope the White House and Democrats in Congress will reconsider their position and take the Republican offer seriously.