S-2619-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
What it does
This bill would reduce local matching fund requirements by 50% for counties with populations under 100,000 where more than half the land is federally owned or managed ("High-Density Public Land Counties"), as well as for local governments and Tribal governments within those counties. It would also require the Department of Transportation to provide additional technical assistance to those applicants and direct the Secretary of Transportation to give priority consideration to qualifying applicants — especially those that have not received funding from the relevant program in the past 10 years. The bill would also allow the Secretary to waive or adjust other application barriers, such as scoring criteria that favor large populations, partnership requirements, cash-on-hand requirements, and complex application processes.
Who benefits
Rural counties where the majority of land is federally owned — concentrated in Western states such as Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Oregon, and Alaska. Local governments (cities, towns, special districts) within those counties. Federally recognized Tribal governments located within qualifying counties. Residents of those communities who would gain improved transportation infrastructure. State transportation agencies that would see reduced administrative burden in supporting local applicants. Contractors and construction workers in rural areas who would benefit from increased project activity.
Who is hurt
Applicants from non-qualifying counties who compete for the same discretionary grant pools — reduced match requirements and priority status for qualifying counties could shift awards away from other rural or suburban communities. Urban and suburban local governments that meet standard requirements but face stiffer competition. Taxpayers who fund the federal share of grants, which would increase as local match requirements are reduced. Communities in states with little federal land ownership that do not qualify under the bill's definition, even if they face similar fiscal constraints.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that counties with large federal land holdings face a structural disadvantage: because federally owned land is not subject to local property taxes, these counties have a significantly smaller tax base from which to raise matching funds, even though federal land use generates transportation needs. They contend that existing grant scoring criteria — which reward large population counts and job creation numbers — systematically disadvantage small, isolated communities regardless of need, and that the 50% match reduction and technical assistance provisions would level the playing field without creating new programs or spending categories.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that reducing match requirements for one category of county effectively shifts costs to federal taxpayers and disadvantages equally deserving communities that happen not to meet the bill's specific acreage threshold. They contend that the bill's broad waiver authority in Section 3(e) — allowing the Secretary to adjust "any requirement" of a qualifying grant program — delegates significant discretionary power to the executive branch with limited standards, potentially undermining the competitive integrity of programs Congress designed to reward the strongest projects regardless of applicant size.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to set the terms and conditions of federal spending programs under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), and the Commerce Clause supports federal transportation grant programs. The bill's Section 3(e) grants the Secretary discretion to waive "any requirement" of qualifying programs, which could raise nondelegation questions under Art. I, §1 and the major questions doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA (2022) if applied to override congressionally mandated program structures — though the scope here is more limited than the sweeping agency actions that doctrine has blocked.
Checks and balances
Congress retains authority over the underlying grant programs; the Secretary of Transportation gains expanded discretion to reduce match requirements and waive application barriers, subject to existing statutory program structures and potential judicial review under the post-Loper Bright independent interpretation standard.
Historical precedent
The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, enacted in 1976, similarly compensates counties for lost tax revenue from federal land ownership, reflecting a long-standing congressional recognition that high federal land density creates fiscal disadvantages for local governments.