Three Policy Potholes in New House Transportation Bill

After plenty of delay, Congress’ mammoth transportation bill has finally been released. On May 17, the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee announced its massive $580 billion surface transportation reauthorization proposal spanning more than 1,000 pages. 

The “BUILD America 250 Act” would renew key highway and infrastructure programs for five years, order a slew of transportation-related studies, and address the growing sprawl of environmental regulations holding back construction and maintenance. Despite laudable reforms, including required Amtrak audits (Sec. 10208) and hard limits on the volume of environmental compliance submissions (Sec. 1203), the bill contains quite a few problematic proposals that would undermine the nation’s infrastructure and impose higher costs on taxpayers. Below, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance highlights three policy potholes in the surface transportation reauthorization bill:

1. Amtrak continues to get a blank check.

The current proposal would continue increasing subsidies for Amtrak, providing $1.95 billion in Northeast Corridor-specific grants for fiscal year (FY) 2027 and $3.9 billion in FY 2027 funding for Amtrak’s National Network. These figures increase through FY 2031 to $2.19 billion and $4.39 billion respectively.

These figures mark a significant increase from the status quo. In 2026, Congress enacted $1.57 billion in Northeast Corridor funding and $848 million in National Network funding. Meanwhile, Amtrak has yet to put forward a realistic plan as to how it will avoid net losses in the future. As industry analyst Bob Johnston notes, “the company’s operating loss has decreased from $772.2 million in fiscal 2023 to $607.8 million in 2025, along with expectations of a $460.6 million loss in the current fiscal year and $307.9 million in fiscal 2027.”

An assumption of improved finances is “based on numerical trends and does not offer the cautionary disclaimers about … how headwinds could negatively impact results. Despite continued high travel demand, limited capacity and high fuel prices promise to be wild-card factors that could affect the numbers.” In other words, Amtrak is asking taxpayers to trust it with even more of their money despite its abysmal track record.

2. Needed liability reforms kicked down the road.

 Skyrocketing legal payouts are making everything more expensive, fueling inflation and driving economic anxiety. As reporter Camila Domonoske notes, car insurance premiums are up nearly 50 percent over the past five years, and the increasing cost of accidents is a key contributor. According to Patty Kuderer (insurance commissioner for the state of Washington), “The claims paid really drive the cost of the premiums.” Unsurprisingly, states like Louisiana with historically high litigation rates also tend to have high auto insurance rates. In extreme cases, car accidents are being staged entirely as a pretext for lucrative litigation. 

Congress addressed the issue of lawsuit abuse for rental car and leasing companies in 2005. The Graves Amendment, introduced by House T&I Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-Mo.), established a clear national standard: rental and leasing companies should only be held liable for their own negligence, not simply for owning a vehicle. But the exclusion of rideshare apps and “Transportation Network Companies” (TNCs)—which connect riders with drivers on a mass scale—from Graves Amendment language has posed a significant issue for taxpayers and consumers. In the past two decades, the automotive market has been absolutely transformed by the advent of rideshare apps and TNCs.

TNCs have been sued in instances where the driver didn’t even work for a TNC, or when the driver wasn’t on the clock at the time of the accident. TNCs have bizarrely been taken to court even when the driver at fault was an inebriated third-party or ran a red light. While states in general should be in the driver’s seat when it comes to designing their tort systems, legal certainty is sorely needed at the federal level because of the nationwide design and operating model of TNCs. State jurisdictions allowing plaintiffs to sue TNCs when the plaintiff is clearly at fault jeopardize the ride-sharing experience in all jurisdictions. And because TNCs have deep pockets, unscrupulous lawyers will always have an incentive to pursue meritless claims.

Unfortunately, the bill in its current form fails to update Graves Amendment language, setting the stage for continued costly litigation for the foreseeable future.

3. Yellow paint protectionism increases taxpayer costs.

Unfortunately, not even the paint used on roads is safe from the rampant cronyism and protectionism seen across the federal government. Sec. 1328 of the bill orders a study of “the feasibility of requiring yellow paint (including the pigment used to produce water-based paint) for road and highway surface markings to be manufactured domestically.” The language specifies that the study should consider factors such as “the domestic availability of yellow paint” and “the number of domestic manufacturers producing such yellow paint,” with “the costs associated with requiring the domestic manufacturing of such yellow paint” thrown in as an afterthought.

The truth is that federal “Buy American” rules and domestic preference requirements impose significant costs on taxpayers and consumers. According to policy analyst Jack Nicastro, “A September 2024 working paper published by the National Bureau for [sic] Economic Research (NBER) found the Buy American Act has created more than 50,000 jobs. Just one catch: Each one of those jobs costs the economy more than $100,000.” Increasing costs on taxpayers to prop up one domestic manufacturer is not only incredibly costly, but deeply unfair. Federal, state, and local governments should reject protectionism and procure products based on cost and quality. 

Conclusion

Congressional markup of the surface transportation reauthorization bill is expected on May 21. Lawmakers have their work cut out for them if they are to avoid policy potholes and keep costs low for taxpayers and consumers.