Originally Posted by
hercretired
Oct 1 is fiscal year. In most all cases, agency budgets start and stop there, unless a Continuing Resolution is in effect or sequestration. Oct 1 is not optimistic with Congress. They need 10 subcommittee meetings to decide what to eat for breakfast.
Also, "chatter" on this bill has slowed recently.
The bill will happen, they can't just shut down the FAA. So less chatter doesn't mean the FAA re-authorization will die on the vine. It might mean that it's a done deal and they've moved on to other things. Compared to the defense authorizations which I've been remotely involved with in years past, this seems about as white bread as it gets.
Unless somebody wants to hold the entire thing hostage to make a very public grandstand point about something likely unrelated, this HR should pass on time or close to it. They can use a CR to extend it a bit.
The specific contents can still change, and most likely will at least a little bit. But it's noteworthy that the senate web page says the HR is a joint house and senate proposal... basically says Senate committee and leadership is generally OK with the house proposal. They add a few of their own items, but didn't propose deletions or changes to the HR... as I said that's a pretty benign development, often the two houses propose their own separate versions and then have to hash it out to synchronize them to something which will pass both houses.
There's still potential for somebody to make a public stand against it, possibly even Biden but again he'd have to go on very public record as being opposed to old guys staying on the job. See the problem there? The WH regurgitated ALPA's statement but nobody noticed except the people who were supposed to: You and I. If he defunds a major agency, just in time for holiday travel when the FAA is already struggling to perform, THAT will get attention, and not the kind he needs.
Somebody will need a powerful motive at this point because these bills are rigged with pork and special interests... everybody gets something. If you want to make a public spectacle out of taking away some other politicians goodies, then who's going to scratch YOUR back. It could happen but somebody will need a motive and the willingness to go against the grain on what in the grand scheme is a minor issue. In other circumstances I'd say veto might be the best bet, but not this year.
Let's call it 70-80% going to happen as of today. Effective date likely 1 Oct or sooner since there's no hint of delays, which again would be politically counter-intuitive since the FAA needs help, not defunding.