You’ve got WHO on the line?
By Cian Cashin
It’s something akin to those sappy romantic comedies when the protagonist promises they won’t call their ex-significant other. They then grow through the milieu of situational slapstick, and eventually reconcile their differences for a happy ending. I’m not promising a joyful conclusion to the surface transportation measure, but the stars seem to be very slowly aligning.
The latest rumblings are that both chambers have come together in the most fundamental ways. The House Republican leadership has directed the Transportation and infrastructure Committee to draft another version of a short-term extension of Highway Trust Fund programs, taxes and spending authority which would continue to fund programs until the end of fiscal year 2012. (Anybody remember hearing this absolutely would be the “last” short term extension of a bill that should have been resolved two years ago?)
While they seem strange bedfellows, the House plan to move on this 90-day extension (if passed) would allow the Senate to go to conference between the House proposal and their much more extensive two-year measure (S 1813). This is due to the fact that the Senate has already instituted a unanimous consent agreement between the minority and majority leader of the chamber to select any House-passed bill and deem it to be the companion measure to the Senate’s bill. With the moon hanging pastorally in the sky, it seems they’ve found their match in whatever comes out of the House T&I Committee – a kind of political prearranged marriage of legislation if you will.
That being said, there are still some kinks in the process. First of all, the conference between two such unlikely and uncompromising measures could result in a lengthy and disastrous conference. The House is still pushing for inclusion of the Keystone XL pipeline provisions in their measure, and that has proved a large obstacle to moving the measure through both chambers in an efficient manner - President Obama has more than once threatened to veto a highway bill containing such inclusions. On the other hand, the Senate may have chosen the wrong partner to dance with. While it’s the most similar, there are sure to be striking differences between the House priorities and the Senate (as there always have been). That being said, perhaps the timing will show that it’s a small dose of medicine to swallow for both chambers who are more than eager to put the drama of a seemingly simple piece of legislation behind them – and perhaps we can all sigh with pleasure when the two competing measures are forced to share a table. Or perhaps the whole restaurant will catch fire.
It’s something akin to those sappy romantic comedies when the protagonist promises they won’t call their ex-significant other. They then grow through the milieu of situational slapstick, and eventually reconcile their differences for a happy ending. I’m not promising a joyful conclusion to the surface transportation measure, but the stars seem to be very slowly aligning.
The latest rumblings are that both chambers have come together in the most fundamental ways. The House Republican leadership has directed the Transportation and infrastructure Committee to draft another version of a short-term extension of Highway Trust Fund programs, taxes and spending authority which would continue to fund programs until the end of fiscal year 2012. (Anybody remember hearing this absolutely would be the “last” short term extension of a bill that should have been resolved two years ago?)
While they seem strange bedfellows, the House plan to move on this 90-day extension (if passed) would allow the Senate to go to conference between the House proposal and their much more extensive two-year measure (S 1813). This is due to the fact that the Senate has already instituted a unanimous consent agreement between the minority and majority leader of the chamber to select any House-passed bill and deem it to be the companion measure to the Senate’s bill. With the moon hanging pastorally in the sky, it seems they’ve found their match in whatever comes out of the House T&I Committee – a kind of political prearranged marriage of legislation if you will.
That being said, there are still some kinks in the process. First of all, the conference between two such unlikely and uncompromising measures could result in a lengthy and disastrous conference. The House is still pushing for inclusion of the Keystone XL pipeline provisions in their measure, and that has proved a large obstacle to moving the measure through both chambers in an efficient manner - President Obama has more than once threatened to veto a highway bill containing such inclusions. On the other hand, the Senate may have chosen the wrong partner to dance with. While it’s the most similar, there are sure to be striking differences between the House priorities and the Senate (as there always have been). That being said, perhaps the timing will show that it’s a small dose of medicine to swallow for both chambers who are more than eager to put the drama of a seemingly simple piece of legislation behind them – and perhaps we can all sigh with pleasure when the two competing measures are forced to share a table. Or perhaps the whole restaurant will catch fire.
Comments