The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 8508·119th Congress·Introduced Apr 27, 2026

Piers Reinvestment Act

IntroducedTransportation and Public WorksSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42]
Committees
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
Last action
Apr 27, 2026

Bottom line

The bill directs more federal funding towards making municipal piers more resilient to climate change and other hazards by expanding grant eligibility and increasing overall authorization for a key infrastructure program.

What it actually does

This bill, titled the 'Piers Reinvestment Act,' expands the eligibility for federal resilience grants under the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) program to include municipal piers. Specifically, it allows grants for strengthening, upgrading, or improving municipal piers and makes them eligible for at-risk coastal infrastructure grants. Additionally, the bill increases the authorized appropriation for a relevant section of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act from $300,000,000 to $500,000,000.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that municipal piers are vital infrastructure for coastal communities, supporting local economies, tourism, and sometimes transportation. They contend that these piers are increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as sea-level rise and extreme weather events, and require dedicated federal investment to ensure their long-term resilience and functionality. Expanding grant eligibility and increasing funding will protect these critical assets and the communities they serve.

Opponents contend

Critics might express concern that expanding the scope of eligible projects and increasing authorized appropriations could divert funds from other equally critical transportation infrastructure needs within the PROTECT program. They may also raise questions about the overall increase in federal spending and its potential impact on the national debt, especially if the additional authorized funds are fully appropriated and spent.

The bill is very short and clear, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.

Section 2(a)

Eligibility for Resilience Improvement Grants for Municipal Piers

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision amends existing federal law (title 23, United States Code) to explicitly include 'strengthening, upgrading, or improving municipal piers' as an eligible activity for resilience improvement grants. These grants are part of the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) program, which aims to enhance the resilience of surface transportation infrastructure to natural hazards and climate change.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupMunicipalities and local governments with piersImpactPositive: Increased access to federal funding for infrastructure improvements.MechanismDirect eligibility for federal grants.ScaleLocal to regional
GroupCoastal communitiesImpactPositive: Enhanced protection and longevity of vital infrastructure, supporting local economies and tourism.MechanismImproved resilience of piers against natural disasters and climate impacts.ScaleLocal

Supporters argue

Proponents argue that explicitly including municipal piers ensures that these often-overlooked but critical assets receive the necessary federal support to withstand environmental threats. This targeted investment will safeguard coastal economies and public access.

Critics contend

Opponents might argue that broadening eligibility without a corresponding increase in appropriated funds could dilute the impact of the PROTECT program on other existing priorities, potentially spreading resources too thin.

Tradeoffs

The tradeoff involves balancing the specific needs of municipal piers with the broader mandate of the PROTECT program to improve resilience across all surface transportation infrastructure.

Section 2(b)

Eligibility for At-Risk Coastal Infrastructure Grants for Municipal Piers

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This section further amends title 23, United States Code, to include 'municipal piers' among the types of infrastructure eligible for 'At-Risk Coastal Infrastructure Grants.' These grants are specifically designed to address infrastructure vulnerable to coastal hazards, ensuring that piers facing significant environmental threats can also receive targeted federal assistance.

Section 2(c)

Increase in Authorized Appropriations for Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

buried in fine printmoderately complex

This provision amends a specific section of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to increase the authorized appropriation amount from $300,000,000 to $500,000,000. While the bill does not specify the exact program this increase is for, given the context of the PROTECT program, it is likely intended to provide additional funding capacity for resilience projects, including the newly eligible municipal piers.

FOUND

The bill increases the authorized appropriation for a specific section of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (23 U.S.C. 101 note) from $300,000,000 to $500,000,000.

Section 2(c)

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes. It's not necessarily evasive, but its technical nature makes it less prominent than direct policy changes.

Case for: Supporters would argue that this increase is a necessary financial commitment to support the expanded scope of the PROTECT program and address the substantial costs associated with strengthening vulnerable infrastructure.

Case against: Critics might contend that such an increase, even if an authorization, signals a willingness to increase federal spending without sufficient debate on the broader fiscal implications or alternative funding mechanisms.

Estimated impact: This provision increases the potential federal investment capacity by $200,000,000 for the relevant program, subject to future appropriations.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Buried treasure
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this