HR-7437-119
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsored by Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI)
What it does
The BASICS Act would create a new federal formula program allocating $5.5 billion per year from 2027 through 2031 specifically for bridge construction, replacement, rehabilitation, and preservation, with each state's share determined by the estimated cost of repairing its bridges in poor condition. It would also allocate $150 million per year for rural transportation planning organizations and expand the allowable uses and administrative structure of metropolitan planning funds, including allowing qualifying metro planning organizations to receive federal funds directly rather than through state governments. Additionally, the bill would require states to consult with local governments before spending certain highway safety and transportation funds, and would require states to hold open competitions before transferring highway safety funds away from local use.
Who benefits
Motorists and communities in states with large numbers of structurally deficient bridges, who would see accelerated repairs. Rural communities and small towns, which would gain a dedicated voice in transportation planning through funded regional planning organizations and mandatory local consultation requirements. Local governments (counties, municipalities, townships), which would gain more direct input into how federal transportation dollars are spent in their areas. Metropolitan planning organizations in large cities, which could qualify to receive federal funds directly, bypassing state intermediaries. Tribal governments, which would receive 100% federal cost-share for off-system bridge repairs. Construction and engineering firms specializing in bridge work. States with older or more deteriorated bridge infrastructure, which would receive proportionally larger shares of bridge funding.
Who is hurt
State departments of transportation, which would lose some discretion over how federal transportation funds are allocated and transferred, and would face new consultation and competition requirements before redirecting safety funds. States with newer or better-maintained bridge infrastructure, which would receive smaller proportional shares of the new bridge formula funds. Metropolitan planning organizations that do not qualify for direct recipient status, which would remain dependent on state intermediaries. Taxpayers broadly, who would bear the cost of the new spending programs. Existing federal highway programs, whose base apportionment percentages would be reduced to accommodate the new bridge and rural planning set-asides.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that more than 42,000 U.S. bridges are currently rated in poor condition according to Federal Highway Administration data, representing a documented safety and economic risk that existing programs have not adequately addressed. They contend that tying each state's share directly to its bridge repair backlog ensures dollars flow where the need is greatest, and that requiring local consultation corrects a longstanding imbalance in which state agencies have directed federal funds with little input from the communities most affected. The 100% federal match for tribal and local off-system bridges, they argue, removes a financial barrier that has historically left the most vulnerable infrastructure unrepaired.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill adds a large, rigid new formula program on top of existing bridge funding — including the $27.5 billion Bridge Formula Program already enacted in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — raising questions about whether duplicative spending is the most efficient use of federal resources. They contend that the mandatory local consultation requirements and restrictions on fund transfers reduce state flexibility to prioritize projects based on statewide engineering assessments, potentially slowing project delivery. Critics may also argue that the shift of obligation authority directly to metropolitan planning organizations bypasses state accountability structures without clear evidence that MPOs are better positioned to manage federal funds.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to fund and condition federal highway programs rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the Spending Clause. The bill delegates administrative and formula-setting responsibilities to the Secretary of Transportation; under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts would independently review whether any resulting agency rules stay within the statutory authority Congress has granted, rather than deferring to the agency's own interpretation.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (Secretary of Transportation) gains new administrative authority to approve state distribution formulas and certify competitive processes, but Congress retains control through specific statutory funding caps, formula requirements, and set-aside percentages written directly into the bill.
Historical precedent
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 established a $27.5 billion Bridge Formula Program using a similar needs-based state apportionment structure, providing a direct legislative and administrative precedent for this bill's approach.