More information available about House, Senate recovery bills

Info from NADO conference call

Steve Hawley, Jan 28, 09.

The National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) held a conference call yesterday with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to discuss more details of the House and Senate versions of the recovery and reinvestment plan. According to a NADO email, here are the basic takeaways of the call:

* Under the House bill, at least (which the FHWA representative was most familiar with), all projects and all phases of work eligible under the Title 23 core programs (including earmarked projects) would be eligible for stimulus funding. Some local sponsors have been confused about this, given the emphasis placed on construction in public discussions.

* FHWA has told states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs, such as the Houston-Galveston Area Council) that they can plan for up to an additional year’s authorization amount for purposes of fiscal constraint within the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Other than that, there will be no additional flexibility forthcoming. There is nothing in the draft bill providing any type of relief or waiver or administrative discretion. States and MPOs and local sponsors must be taking care of Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), STIPs, and other issues right now. Details are in the FHWA Q&A.

* There was a brief but interesting discussion concerning the price of materials (asphalt, etc.). There may be price and scarcity problems due to competition for these.

* It was noted that the most recent version of the House bill has provided some relief in the form of altering the definition of “obligation” as “based on award” back to its usual definition, which is based on project authorization.

* Expect that there will be significant differences between the House and Senate bills. This is largely due to the effort on the part of the Senate Democrats to get Republican votes. The differences may be greater on the Finance (taxing) side than on the Appropriations (programs and spending) side.

* Look for the possibility that differences between the two bills may be resolved through “pinging” the House bill back and forth between the House and the Senate, rather than through a joint conference report, so as to avoid a potential filibuster in the Senate at that stage. This option would send the House bill to the Senate for adjustments, then back to the House for further adjustments, until both chambers agreed on the bill. A conference report, on the other hand, would resolve the differences between the House and the Senate through a joint committee, at which point the resulting bill would be voted on in both houses. At that point, a filibuster could possibly prevent a vote in the Senate and therefore prevent implementation of the recovery plan.