This week leaders of key congressional committees dealing with the reauthorization of TEA-21 finally admitted to themselves and the world at large that the time has come to drop the idea of doing a six-year bill this year and focus on an extension. A consensus appears to have been reached on a five-month extension (through February 29). Why five months and not six? It seems the answer is that if Congress is able to get something done in five months, their bill will be completed before the March 15 deadline (not always met) for the Budget Committees to report out a fiscal 2005 budget. There is concern the Budget Committees may use the absence of a reauthorization to push for the elimination of the “firewalls” in TEA-21 that ensure highway trust fund dollars are not held back in order to make the Federal deficit appear smaller.

Most observers believe a five-month extension will be followed by another extension that will carry through at least until September 30, 2004. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is trying to prevent this by pushing for language in the five-month extension which would preclude an additional extension. The House is fighting hard to prevent such a provision because of the high risk of a program lapse resulting from it.

For its part, the House committee is causing controversy by trying to insert language which would give the states free rein during the extension period to allocate federal-aid highway dollars among the various programs as they see fit. Theoretically, a state could use that authority to use its five-month allocation 100% for the National Highway System and make STP and CMAQ, for example, wait until after the extension period to be made whole. Needless to say, this proposal has supporters of STP and CMAQ up in arms.

The strategy leaders are trying to follow is that there would be agreement between House and Senate committees on the extension bill, it would be passed by the House under Suspension of the Rules (i.e. no amendments allowed) and then the Senate would pass it by unanimous consent. Obviously, these sticking points will need to be removed before this approach can work.