Congressman Earl Blumenauer On The Sum and Substance of Federal Transportation Funding

Congressman, please update our readers on the six year $284 billion transportation funding bill that just passed the House. What's the timeline for passage in the Senate of the reauthorization Bill, and what do you expect will be the likely sticking points between the House and the Senate versions?

This has been a long process. We've had to extend the surface transportation act six or seven times. The current expiration date is May 31st. I think that there is a better than 50% chance that we will get it passed this time. The administration appears to be softening its position on the funding level and there is a great deal of public pressure to get this done, because the extensions have not allowed communities to move ahead with major projects.

Sticking points continue to be the unrealistic expectations for reducing the gap between what donor states contribute and what they receive. There are still some states that, frankly, get much less than they contribute in transportation funds. The irony is that these are often the same states that get far more in federal funding from general revenue sources than they contribute. That imbalance doesn't bother them, but if they are shortchanged on the transportation fund they get quite cranky. Further, if we commit to returning to donor states 92 percent or 95 percent of what they contribute, it's unlikely that there will be enough money in this bill, unless other important transportation priorities are cut. This could be the sand in the gears that brings this process to a halt.

The House bill has been reduced by roughly $90 billion since last year. What amount is the Senate likely to agree upon and press for in conference?

The House committee could not get authorization from the leadership to advance a bill at the $375 billion level last year. Now we are down to $284 billion and even that was a little rich for the White House, which had drawn a $256 billion dollar line in the sand. The Senate passed a $318 billion dollar bill with more than 70 senators voting in favor of it, including both of your senators and both of mine. The Senate would like to put more money in, but it's not clear that they will have the ability to override both the White House and the House leadership if they both insist on the lower level. There continues to be a little more upward pressure, however. If such a bill ever got to the floor in either the House or the Senate, it would get overwhelming support, but the Republican leadership in the House is not likely to agree to that. Without stating it, the Republican leadership has accepted the President's level, and they are not going to back away from it as near as I can tell.

The Senate bill includes language funding an additional $1 billion in mitigation for high-density states. But to qualify for those funds, a density of 370 people per square mile is required, which is about 100 people per square mile greater than in California. Despite not meeting the criteria, California has some of the highest density urban areas of the country. Is the bill's requirement an example of ABC politics - Anywhere But California?

There are a number of things in the bill that are troubling for our country's largest state. You would think - if people are really concerned about economic impacts, traffic congestion and air pollution -- that the bill's provisions would be targeted at areas where these problems are the greatest, like California. Unfortunately that is not necessarily where the money is going.

Last year I had an opportunity to spend some time in Southern California during our Rail~Volution conference. While here, I saw the incredible congestion near the ports of LA and Long Beach and along the Alameda Corridor. The Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County metropolitan region contributed 1.6 billion dollars more in transportation dollars than it received in the period from 1998-2003. That is a significant imbalance, maybe one of the largest in the country. However, it's not atypical; the majority of metropolitan areas across the country were shortchanged. I am trying to bring attention to this as the present bill moves through Congress and as we prepare for the next round of reauthorization that will happen when this bill runs out in four years. These imbalances need to be addressed; they have a profound effect on California.

The Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program was, thankfully, left untouched in the House bill, but in the Senate bill, LA County's program is cut by $100 million despite the county being one of the most severe non-attainment districts in the country. Is this another example of ABC?

It is troubling that the Senate bill reduced this funding for California, but there are also other problems with funding for air quality. I'm concerned that some areas are going to be shortchanged even by the House bill because of the funding formulas. At present, metropolitan regions count on federal funding to achieve compliance with the Clean Air Act, but as soon as they achieve compliance, the resources are taken away.

Could you provide our readers with an update on where the bill's enhancement provisions stand?

The Enhancements Program is in good shape. A year ago, there was an effort to take funding away from this popular program in the appropriations process. That was a call to arms, and many people, myself included, considered it a test: if funding could be stripped away during the appropriations process, the stage would be set for an assault on enhancements funding when we went through reauthorization. I was pleased with the response. We had a strong show of support: every single Democrat and more than half of the Republicans in the House voted against cutting that guarantee. As a result, no one attempted to eliminate funding for enhancements during the reauthorization process.

Other things, including the Enhancements Program, could still be at risk if there are significant efforts to equalize funding between donor and donee states. Up to this point, however, the public support for enhancements has been strong and the program has remained intact.

The House bill includes about 3,600 earmarked projects, while the Senate bill presently includes none. For the uninitiated here in Southern California, could you explain the process?

Historically, the Senate does not include earmarks, but the final bill will include the projects identified in the House bill.

The earmarked projects are a mixed bag. A few of these projects receive lots of notoriety because they don't really measure up very well to federal standards for reducing pollution or congestion or providing economic development, but they don't reflect the majority of those included. I have been able to use earmarked projects in my own community to leverage partnerships, to advance regional agendas, and to bring local governments together to support initiatives that have paid significant dividends. I have even been able to include projects that haven't even been in my district but nevertheless have made a positive difference for our region.

I continue to feel that we need to educate communities and members of Congress about how best to use transportation funding to enhance the goals of livable communities. We can solve multiple problems if we assemble the pieces in a strategic fashion, rather than create a patchwork of projects that don't relate to one another. This bill looks like it will include projects that, in some cases, are going get some bad publicity. But most of the earmarks provide a real opportunity to jump-start good projects across the country. I am much less concerned about the earmarking than I am about equipping members of Congress and people in communities throughout the country to use the process more effectively.

Speaking of livable communities, you helped develop Oregon's model land use measures more than two decades ago. How will/might Measure 37, approved in November by the citizens of Oregon, potentially undermine your state's landuse and growth management controls?

This is a subject that is worthy of attention in every state that is struggling to provide a framework for guiding growth and development. I think you will see similar measures in every state and local jurisdiction that has an initiative process. If these measures have ballot titles that are as appealing as that of Measure 37, it's possible that many of them could be successful. During my re-election campaign, I used some of my television ads to highlight the harmful implications of Measure 37. I was deeply disappointed by its passage but not surprised. Sadly, people in Oregon have come to take the protections of thirty-two years of land use planning for granted. Since we passed the land use regulations when I was in the legislature in 1973, they have been successful beyond our wildest dreams. Despite some pushing and pulling and some mistakes, these regulations have become part of how we think about Oregon. They have provided the best tools for citizens and communities to manage growth and development, not just in the Portland metropolitan area, but in many other areas around the state. People just always assumed there would always be growth controls. When they were provided with Measure 37's actual language -- which allows somebody who has owned land prior to the land use plan and zoning controls to put anything from a drive-in movie theater to a hog farm next to someone's lovely home -- they didn't believe it. They simply believed that government would never allow it to happen. It was quite vexing. Even today, there has been no hue and cry to roll back environmental protections. People are quite perplexed and frustrated when they find out that the neighborhood protections they have counted on are no longer there.

Oregon is now in a state of limbo regarding Measure 37. Our legislature is scratching its head, watching the situation. Though there has not been any concerted effort to roll back environmental and land use protections, the measure is having an effect. Title companies and financial institutions, for instance, are reluctant to finance development, since it's not clear whether your neighbor will be able to build an undesirable use in the future. These issues did not get much media attention during the campaign but they are certainly raising red flags around the state now.

What are the next steps for those who support now threatened planning controls in Oregon? And how are local governments sorting through the legal issues raised by Measure 37's passage?

Each of Oregon's more than 285 units of local government is having its own case-by-case experimentation with Measure 37. The more cases we have to look at, the more we will know what needs to happen. There may be some adjustment from the legislature and there will probably be legal challenges to how local jurisdictions are interpreting the law. We are about one-third of the way into this learning process now. There may very well be some rough cases before we are able to reach consensus about what we should do in the future. It is critical, however, for people around the country, especially in California, to take a closer look at this, to understand the implications, and, if an initiative arises -- as it looks like it will in Washington - to communicate those implications to voters.

To close, let's move on to the issue of railroad safety. Communities across America are becoming increasingly aware of the dangers of railroad derailments. Is this issue of interest to you? How is Congress presently addressing the issue?

I'm on the Railroad Subcommittee for the House Transportation Committee and this is an issue that I am deeply concerned about. We just had an Amtrak train derail near Portland last week. Fortunately, there were no fatalities, although 30 people were hurt. There is evidence that track inspection was very poor. Amtrak is running on main lines that are operated by the large Class 1 railroad companies. When these freight companies don't do their jobs . . . well, in this case, Amtrak and its passengers paid the price.

Frankly, the media has been doing a better job of shining a spotlight on railroad safety issues than either Congress or the Railroad Safety Administration. I expect these issues to receive more attention this year. The railroads got a significant financial benefit - hundreds of millions of dollars per year -- from the repeal of the diesel fuel tax. I think we can work with them to ensure that some of these resources are spent to maintain the safety of the tracks for both passengers and freight.