Why It Matters

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Biden-era infrastructure law that reshaped federal transportation spending, expires on September 30, 2026. This deadline disrupts federal funding for highways, public transit, safety programs, and intercity passenger rail across the United States. And a newly updated Congressional Research Service report makes it clear that Congress has rarely managed to replace a surface transportation authorization on time.

Federal surface transportation programs touch nearly every community in the country, funding the construction and repair of roads and bridges, subsidizing urban bus and rail systems, and financing the safety research that underlies transportation policy. When authorization lapses, or when Congress scrambles to pass short-term patches rather than durable legislation, state transportation departments are left in planning limbo, unable to commit to long-term projects that depend on reliable federal dollars.

The Big Picture

Transportation Authorization History

Congress began passing multiyear surface transportation authorization acts in 1978, consolidating what had previously been separate highway and public transportation bills. Since then, nine major multiyear authorizations have been enacted, and the data compiled in this CRS report reveals that the process of replacing them has almost always run past the expiration date.

After the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) expired in 2009, Congress passed ten separate short-term extensions totaling 33 months before finally enacting its successor, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which expired in 2003, required twelve extensions spanning 23 months before SAFETEA-LU was signed into law. Even the relatively smooth transition to the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act in 2015 required three extensions over 14 months.

Surface transportation authorizations govern federal spending on highway programs, public transportation networks, surface transportation safety and research, and, since 2015, intercity passenger rail. The Highway Trust Fund, financed primarily through the federal gasoline tax, is the central mechanism through which these dollars flow to states.

The BUILD America 250 Act

In May 2026, House Republicans introduced the BUILD America 250 Act (H.R. 8870), a proposed successor to the IIJA's surface transportation provisions. The bill's name, referencing the 2026 United States Semiquincentennial, signals an effort to frame reauthorization around national pride and infrastructure investment.

The CRS report documents that every surface transportation bill since 1991 has required extensions before a successor was passed. What the BUILD America 250 Act represents is the opening bid in what will likely be a prolonged negotiation, one that Congress may well resolve through a series of short-term patches rather than a comprehensive new highway authorization act.

A Shift in Partisan Dynamics

One of the most revealing data points is the comparison of the vote tallies in the CRS reports.

  • 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed 228-206 in the House, 69-30 in the Senate.
  • FAST Act (2015) passed 359-65 in the House and 83-16 in the Senate.
  • MAP-21 (2012) passed 373-52 in the House and 74-19 in the Senate.
  • SAFETEA-LU (2005) passed 412-8 in the House and 91-4 in the Senate.

The IIJA was, by a wide margin, the most partisan surface transportation bill enacted in the modern era. That partisan narrowing has direct implications for reauthorization. Bills that once attracted overwhelming bipartisan supermajorities now pass on near party-line votes, a dynamic that makes the already-difficult task of replacing a surface transportation authorization significantly harder.

Political Stakes

For the Administration

On one side, infrastructure investment has been a rhetorical priority — the administration has not shied away from claiming credit for projects funded under the IIJA even as it has sought to roll back other Biden-era programs. On the other side, the administration's aggressive push for federal spending cuts through the Department of Government Efficiency creates direct tension with the scale of investment a successor transportation bill would require.

The IIJA included significant funding for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, climate-resilient transportation projects, and equity-focused grant programs. The administration also has a track record of terminating competitive discretionary grant programs at the Department of Transportation, a posture that could reshape the formula-versus-discretionary balance that has defined transportation authorization debates for decades.

Intercity passenger rail, funded through surface transportation authorizations since 2015, is another flashpoint. The administration has proposed significant cuts to Amtrak and has shown little appetite for expanding federal rail investment — a position that puts it in direct conflict with members from both parties who represent corridors dependent on federal rail support.

For Congressional Republicans

The BUILD America 250 Act gives House Republicans a vehicle to drive the reauthorization debate, but passing any major spending bill in the current environment requires managing the competing demands of fiscal hawks who want deep cuts and members from infrastructure-dependent districts who cannot afford to see federal highway and transit dollars dry up.

The transportation authorization history documented in this CRS report also serves as a reminder of how politically useful short-term extensions can be. They allow Congress to keep the money flowing without forcing a definitive vote on contested policy questions. Republicans may find that path politically preferable to a bruising floor fight over a multiyear bill before the November midterms.

For Democrats

Democrats face the opposite problem. They championed the IIJA as a generational infrastructure investment and will resist any successor bill that they see as gutting its core programs. But with the House under Republican control, Democrats have limited ability to shape the final product. Their leverage lies primarily in the Senate, where the 60-vote threshold for most major legislation gives them meaningful influence, and where the historical vote tallies in this CRS report show that surface transportation bills have traditionally required genuine bipartisan buy-in to pass.

For the Public

For ordinary Americans, the most immediate risk is uncertainty. State departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations make infrastructure commitments years in advance. When federal authorization is in flux, or when it lapses entirely, those long-term plans stall, construction projects get delayed and transit agencies face budget uncertainty. The ripple effects of a prolonged authorization gap are felt not in Washington but in the communities waiting for bridges to be repaired and bus lines to be maintained.

The Bottom Line

The single most important takeaway from this CRS report is that Congress rarely replaces a surface transportation authorization on time. The historical record is unambiguous: from the twelve extensions that followed TEA-21's expiration to the ten that followed SAFETEA-LU's, short-term patches have been the rule, not the exception. But extensions only defer the harder question. The surface transportation bill that eventually replaces the IIJA will reveal, in concrete dollar figures and program structures, what the current administration and Congress actually believe the federal government's role in transportation should be.