MORE DOT Grants Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 31, 2025
Bottom line
The MORE DOT Grants Act seeks to level the playing field for rural, public-land-heavy communities in securing federal transportation infrastructure funding by easing financial burdens and providing targeted support.
What it actually does
This bill aims to enhance access to federal Department of Transportation (DOT) grants for rural counties with significant federal land ownership, as well as local and Tribal governments within those counties. It achieves this by reducing local matching fund requirements by 50 percent, mandating additional technical assistance, and establishing priority and special consideration in the grant application process for these specific entities. The bill also grants the Secretary of Transportation flexibility to address various barriers that disadvantage small and isolated communities in the grant application process.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that rural counties with a high percentage of federally owned land face unique challenges, including limited tax bases and administrative capacity, which hinder their ability to compete for and secure federal infrastructure grants. This bill directly addresses these inequities by reducing financial barriers and providing essential technical support, thereby promoting equitable infrastructure development and economic opportunities in underserved areas.
Opponents contend
Potential critics might contend that while the goal of supporting rural communities is laudable, creating specific carve-outs and reducing matching requirements for a defined subset of counties could inadvertently disadvantage other rural or non-rural communities competing for the same finite pool of federal grant funds. Some may also raise concerns about the precedent of reducing local match requirements, potentially shifting more financial burden onto the federal government for projects that might otherwise have higher local investment.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(1)
Definition of High-Density Public Land County
This provision defines a 'High-Density Public Land County' as a county or equivalent jurisdiction in a U.S. state or territory that has a population of no more than 100,000 people, based on the most recent Census Bureau estimates, and where more than 50 percent of the land is owned or managed by the Federal Government. This definition is crucial as it identifies the specific beneficiaries of the bill's grant-related improvements.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this specific definition accurately targets communities that face unique fiscal constraints due to large federal landholdings, which limit their local tax base and economic development opportunities. They contend that these communities are often overlooked in broader rural assistance programs.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against definitional provisions, though some might argue that the specific thresholds (e.g., 100,000 population) could arbitrarily exclude other deserving rural communities.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff involves balancing the desire to precisely target aid to the most impacted communities against the risk of excluding other rural areas that also face significant challenges but do not meet the exact criteria.
Section 2(2)
Definition of Qualifying Grant Program
This section lists 13 specific Department of Transportation (DOT) grant programs, such as BUILD/RAISE, Mega Grant, INFRA, and Airport Improvement Program, that will be subject to the new rules. It also includes a broad 'catch-all' provision for any other discretionary DOT grant program that awards funds to counties, local governments, or Tribal governments. This ensures that the bill's benefits extend across a wide range of federal transportation funding opportunities.
Section 3(a)
Reduction in Local Matching Requirements
This provision mandates a 50 percent reduction in any local matching funds requirement for qualifying grant programs when the applicant is a High-Density Public Land County or a unit of local government or Tribal government within such a county. This directly addresses a significant financial barrier for these communities, making it easier for them to fund and undertake infrastructure projects that would otherwise be cost-prohibitive.
Section 3(b)
Technical Assistance for Applicants
Upon request, the Secretary of Transportation is required to provide additional technical assistance to High-Density Public Land Counties and their local or Tribal governments before and during the annual application period for each qualifying grant program. This aims to help these communities navigate the often complex federal grant application process, improving their chances of successfully securing funding.
Section 3(c)
Application Priority for Eligible Entities
The Secretary of Transportation must give priority to applications from High-Density Public Land Counties, their local governments, or Tribal governments within those counties, especially if they have not received support under the specific qualifying grant program in the preceding 10 years. Additionally, the Secretary may prioritize Tribal governments within these counties for technical assistance and other support. This aims to ensure that communities with a demonstrated lack of prior federal investment receive a fairer chance at funding.
Section 3(e)
Flexibility in Grant Requirements
The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to provide additional support and flexibility for High-Density Public Land Counties and their local/Tribal governments by considering and, if appropriate, adjusting requirements or barriers related to grant applications. This includes flexibility regarding scoring criteria that disadvantage small communities (e.g., number of jobs created), requirements for partnerships with institutions not present in their jurisdiction, financial or cash-on-hand requirements, and overly complicated application processes. This aims to remove systemic barriers that disproportionately affect smaller, isolated communities.
This clause expands the scope of 'qualifying grant programs' beyond the 13 specifically enumerated programs to include 'any other discretionary grant program of the Department of Transportation under which grants are awarded to counties; other units of local government; or Tribal governments.'
Section 2(2)(N)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure comprehensive coverage without needing to constantly update the statutory text as new programs are created or existing ones are renamed. It provides necessary flexibility.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this broad inclusion ensures the bill's benefits are future-proof and apply to the full spectrum of relevant DOT discretionary funding opportunities, maximizing its impact on eligible communities.
Case against: Potential critics might argue that this broad language grants significant discretion to the Secretary of Transportation in determining which additional programs fall under the bill's purview, potentially leading to inconsistent application or unintended expansions.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly broadens the potential reach of the bill's benefits, extending the matching fund reductions, technical assistance, and priority considerations to an unspecified number of additional DOT discretionary grant programs.