Culberson responds to Chron's charge that he derailed Metro funding
In our forum, commenter rorschach points out that the Chronicle is running a letter to the editor from Rep. John Culberson criticizing the Chronicle for the way it reported and editorialized Metro's federal funding delay:
AS an elected representative, I have a responsibility to honor the will of the voters. The recent coverage of Metro's rail plan is a stunning example of the Chronicle's failure to live up to its responsibility to print the facts. The Feb. 13 article, "Proponents question whether 2 congressmen still oppose plan," argued that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and I blocked a change in federal law for Metro, when a similar change was made for San Francisco.
The Chronicle's reporting of this incident reminds me of the old adage, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story." Here are the facts: I learned about Metro's request for the Federal Transit Administration to pay for 100 percent of the next two light-rail lines with federal money and Metro paying 100 percent of the last two lines with local money, during a meeting with the Chronicle's Editorial Board last October.
I knew Metro's proposal would not pass muster with the FTA since it did not meet legal requirements, so I tried to help Metro devise a better plan by sending them letters from the Chairmen of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee expressing their strong opposition to Metro's funding scheme.
Metro appeared to follow our advice, amending their application to FTA to reflect a 50/50 split between federal and local funding for each of the next four lines.
FTA Administrator Jennifer Dorn even sent a letter to Metro saying, "I am very pleased with this 50/50 approach, as it is consistent with both the administration's and congressional guidance on advancing proposed projects."
Just before Thanksgiving last year, Congress finished its business for the year with a 1,600-page omnibus spending bill written by House and Senate Appropriations Committee staffers during round-the-clock negotiations between the two houses.
U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Tom DeLay and I had agreed to help Metro by supporting language that would allow them to bypass the redundant process of studying alternative routes for the rail lines (since they were clearly spelled out on the ballot).
This language saves Metro $8 million to $12 million of taxpayer money and months of time on unnecessary studies. When the final draft of the bill became available online, I saw that this language was included.
The 100 percent federal funding proposal that Metro had agreed to abandon was also included in the bill, but it had been crossed out.
For the record, Hutchison did not insert the 100 percent federal funding language into the bill, and Tom DeLay and I did not remove it. Actually, one of Metro's lobbyists bypassed all of our elected officials and gave the language directly to a House subcommittee staffer, who mistakenly put it in the bill instead of the language we had all agreed on.
The Chronicle's story made for a better headline, but it doesn't report the facts.
The Chronicle also highlighted language in the bill for San Francisco as identical to what Houston was requesting, but the comparison is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
San Francisco asked for and received FTA approval for all of its light-rail lines, even the line that was built entirely with local money. Metro has never asked for FTA approval for its Main Street line, and has not yet received FTA approval for its other lines.
Metro is attempting to bypass FTA approval for its last two rail lines, meaning they could build lines that do not meet federal standards.
The language in the bill did not give San Francisco the same "flexible funding" Metro was requesting. It simply allowed San Francisco to apply some of the money they spent on their locally-funded, FTA-approved line toward the next line, but the federal share for the next line was still only 77 percent before the language was passed.
Metro asked for 100 percent federal funding for the next two lines, which is well beyond the maximum 80 percent federal share spelled out in law. San Francisco will use local money from a current project as the local match for a future project. Metro wants to use future projects as the local match for current projects, which has never been done, according to FTA.
I will continue doing my part to honor the will of the voters by working with Metro to help secure federal funding for rail after Metro gains FTA approval.
U.S. Rep. John Culberson
Houston
There are plenty of facts in that letter that did not make it into the three news stories and one editorial the Chronicle ran about Metro's federal funding delay. And again, it's a delay in funding. Metro has not been turned down; the FTA is examining Metro's resubmitted application.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 02/21/05 09:38 AM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.