Congress stalls on Transportation Act renewal: sixth extension within the past year takes TEA21 into the 109th Congress.

The 108th Congress adjourned for the election season without passing the long-anticipated reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). Park and recreation advocates viewed the departure of Congress with a mixture of chagrin and relief Chagrin, because no one can figure out why Congress can't get a bill passed that is vital to the nation's transportation needs; and relief, because some provisions of the bill under consideration, if passed, would have had serious negative consequences for park and recreation interests.

Just before adjournment for the fall recess, Congress passed an eight-month extension of TEA21, the sixth such extension since the act expired on Sept. 30, 2003. The provisions and funding authorized for TEA21 will now remain in place essentially unchanged until May 31, 2005, or until such time that a new bill is passed. Federal transportation funds will be allotted for construction projects and transportation enhancements in a proportional formula at the funding level that was in place when TEA21 expired last September.

The eight-month extension will allow Congress to pass a reauthorization bill without the complications of a contentious presidential race, and without the pressure of a deadline to complete a major bill that was not fully written before Congress adjourned. There may be some pressure to complete the reauthorization of TEA21 before next year. However, if the bill is pushed off till the start of the 109th Congress, and is not taken tip until well into 2005, the amount of funding available for the nation's surface transportation program is likely to be less--perhaps far less--than is available now.

Conference committee leaders were reported to have voiced optimism that a bill could be passed by the end of 2004 because the pressure to follow party lines would be old, and some Democrats in the Senate could be expected to break ranks and vote with the Republican majority. Prior to the collapse of conference committee deliberations in October, inside sources widely reported that there were only two Senate holdouts preventing acceptance of Sen. James Inhofe's $299-billion compromise proposal. "Without enough votes in the Republican-led conference committee, however, the Inhofe compromise could not muster a majority of conferee votes.

The biggest roadblock to passage of a comprehensive bill appears to be the "donor/donee" state issue, or, what to do about states that pay more into the transportation trust fund from fuel excise taxes than they receive in transportation project funding. Under current law, donor states receive 91.5 percent, but virtually every donor state legislator in Congress expected that a new bill would provide 95 percent of funds contributed. A $299-billion bill just won't make that equation balance, even with fine-tuning of this formula in the waning days of the regular session. The formula would have given donor states the highest amount possible under the plan, reported to be around 92.7 percent, but there was ultimately no agreement, and the compromise proposal collapsed.

There is also the issue of earmarked and special projects called "mega-projects," which complicate passage of the bill. Some senators want earmarked projects to count against a state's allocation, but this would have the net effect of reducing the overall amount each state would receive for all other surface transportation needs. Others want these projects exempted from the allocation formula, but that would inevitably raise the total cost of the bill, an outcome unacceptable to the current leadership.

One other sleeper issue may yet need to be resolved--namely the matter of unspent funds apportioned to the states, but not yet spent. These unobligated funds may total up to $15 billion nationwide, but initial analysis shows that they are disproportionately allocated to high-priority parks and recreation projects, such as bike-pedestrian trails and other Transportation Enhancement categories. Some conference staffers believe that there might be a push to rescind this funding and use the unspent, un-obligated balances to make up the difference in funding for the bill, but this remains to be seen. Park and recreation advocates should be alert for this grab for non-highway construction funds.

Finally, in the last days before adjournment, somewhat bitter partisan accusations were thrown across the aisle when Democrats accused Republicans of abandoning their promise to craft a bi-partisan bill. Republicans then accused Democrats of obstructing important legislation that was needed to bring money to the states and stimulate job growth. Tempers frayed, but because the Republican majority still could not muster the votes for passage of the compromise bill, the fallout over abandonment of a bi-partisan agreement was subsumed into the larger failure to pass any bill.

The eight-month extension is not necessarily a bad thing, because it allows all parties some breathing room. Also, it is possible that the outcome of the fall elections will change the dynamics of how the debate proceeds. Advocates for programs such as the Transportation Enhancements, the Recreational Trails Program, and other park and recreation portions of this bill generally breathed a sigh of relief when the eight-month extension was passed--the outcome of pushing through a bill that was not well-planned would just make for greater complications in the future.

Additionally, there is now a longer timespan to address the Section 4(f) issues that have been on the minds of park and recreation advocates. Section 4(f) of TEA21, and part of all surface transportation bills since 1965, provides solid protection for four protected classes of resources--historic sites, parks, wildlife areas and waterfowl areas. An amendment to the Senate version of the bill by Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio would create a new "de minimis" standard for minor impacts for not only historic sites, but also the other three protected classes of lands. NRPA has generally not objected to changes in 4(t) for historic sites, but has strongly objected to changes in the Section 4(f) standard of the other three protected classes of resources, and urges the conferees to leave the current law for protected classes of parks, wildlife and waterfowl unchanged in any new bill.

Look for NRPA to provide additional analysis to help educate members about the benefits and protections afforded by Section 4(f) in the coming months. If you have had a 4(f) project in your park district, please contact Senior Policy Associate Rich Dolesh in the Public Policy Office at rdolesh@ nrpa.org, or call at [phone] to share your experiences. Certain state highway departments and some national transportation advocacy organizations have asserted that 4(f) reviews add needless delay and expense to projects and "have no value." NRPA contends that Section 4(f) does exactly what Congress intended it to do when the law was passed in the mid 1960s, and should be left unchanged with respect to the provisions regarding parks, wildlife and waterfowl areas.

Richard J. Dolesh is the senior policy associate for NRPA. His principal duties are national policy development, legislative analysis, and advocacy for federal and state legislation relating to parks, recreation and natural resources conservation. He can be reached at [e-mail].