The noted Irish playwright and critic George Bernard Shaw once observed: "If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion." Such was not the case for economists forecasting the construction market for the upcoming year. The news was not good, as virtually all predicted modest declines in new contracts in 2003. At the same time, most were quick to point out that these declines would come from historic highs in most market sectors.

The forecast numbers generally are national macroeconomic projections that tell an interesting, if incomplete, story. What these numbers do not show is the change construction firms are undergoing as they move from lackluster markets into new and more fertile fields like health care and education. Thus, firms must be prepared for even stiffer competition. And owners must be more careful in selecting bidders and winning bids, being more careful than ever to select based on qualifications rather than simply on price. The level of competition will guarantee that prices will be more attractive than ever, but the lowest bid will not guarantee quality. The irony is that this heightened competition and price squeezing will come in a market that is only slightly down from 2002’s record levels–effectively equivalent to 2001’s healthy market level.

There are a few things that Washington can do to stimulate the construction market, not just to benefit the construction industry but to help the country as a whole. First and foremost, stop playing political games over the appropriations process. The process has become so politicized that nothing seems to matter except damaging the other side. No one is thinking about doing good for constituents and the country.

As of Nov. 12, Congress had completed only two of 13 annual appropriations bills. And it is unclear whether federal appropriations for construction will be approved in an omnibus appropriations bill or whether it will simply be tacked on to a continuing resolution maintaining funding at 2002 levels. For many in the industry, maintaining 2002 levels is not necessarily a bad deal. But we believe that stopgap funding resolutions are quite simply an abdication of Congress’ constitutional appropriations responsibility. We don’t expect congressional decision-making to be perfect, but we do expect funding to be appropriate to the conditions the country currently is facing. Continuing funding resolutions are the political equivalents of "This is too hard. I don’t want to play anymore." We expect more out of national leaders.

Another thing that Congress must work out is the federal terrorism insurance bill. This bill protecting property owners against liability from terrorist attacks will not instantly turn around the sluggish general building market. But it would remove a major roadblock to development when the market does turn around. Unfortunately it is stalled in Congress thanks to the insistence in some quarters that the federal government assume liability for punitive damages against property owners that are victimized by terrorists. Why? We believe, and many agree, that this provision is designed solely as a sop, and a potential gold mine, to trial lawyers. We believe that the punitive damages provision must be eliminated.

With the election over, we hope that the "lame duck" Congress can put aside its partisan bickering and pass reasonable funding bills and a terrorism insurance package. It will help the industry and the nation.