Guarantee of L.A. Subway Funds Periled

A crucial federal financing guarantee for the first leg of the Los Angeles Metro Rail subway has become caught in the cross fire of a bitter power struggle between two transportation panels in the House of Representatives.

Rep. William Lehman (D-Florida), a leading congressional supporter of the subway, has warned that a guarantee to provide $429 million for the subway over the next few years, which some officials view as essential to plans to break ground early next year on the much-delayed project, could be a casualty in the dispute.

The latest flare-up--as one city official termed it--in the long saga of the project is not related to Metro Rail. But it spotlights the political booby traps that can snag a project that must return to Congress every year to scrap for funds.

Leverage Measure

In this case, the project is being used as leverage to pressure a leading Metro Rail advocate, Rep. Glenn Anderson (D-Long Beach), to change his stand on another transportation issue.

Without the federal financing guarantee, the coalition of city, state and county agencies that will help pay the $1.2 billion needed for the first 4.4-mile section of the subway would face what RTD President Nikolas Patsaouras has called a “soul searching” about how to proceed. Most important, they would have to decide whether to begin construction on the project when a significant share of federal financing needed after next year remains in doubt.

Lehman, who will spearhead negotiations for the House next week when a two-house conference committee finishes with the $10-billion, 1986 transportation spending bill, told The Times this week that he and other House members of the conference committee are demanding that Anderson drop efforts to move highway and transit trust funds outside the normal budget process.

The dispute between Anderson and Lehman appears to be primarily a battle over turf.

Effect of Shift

If the trust funds are shifted off the budget, the Public Works subcommittee on surface transportation, which Anderson chairs, would play a larger role in disbursement of those funds for highways, bridges and transit projects. Anderson said the change would free billions of unspent trust fund dollars for transportation that are being treated as a surplus in a “phony” scheme to make the federal deficit appear smaller.

The Appropriations subcommittee on transportation, which Lehman chairs, would lose control of those billions if that change is made. Lehman says the trust funds should remain in the budget because they cushion cutbacks for such agencies as the Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration and Amtrak.

Lehman and Anderson each argues that his plan would be the best for Metro Rail.

John Dyer, general manager of the Southern California Rapid Transit District, which would build the subway, has refused to take sides, saying only, “There’s no question it (the dispute) can affect L.A. . . . (We) could get hurt as a third party.”

A long-running struggle between the Appropriations and Public Works committees intensified earlier this month when Anderson and his allies attempted to move transportation trust funds outside the budget process. In a tough House floor fight that tested many congressional alliances, Lehman and his allies narrowly defeated the Anderson forces.

Lehman is now trying to thwart an expected attempt by Anderson’s subcommittee to insert the change into another major transportation bill.

If Anderson does not give assurances that the idea will be dropped, Lehman, who has been a powerful voice for Metro Rail, told The Times, he will “not lead the charge” for Metro Rail financing this year in the conference committee when differences between the House and Senate versions are resolved. “It could well come down to the fact that Mr. Anderson could have his trust funds or the Los Angeles Metro. But not both,” Lehman said in a telephone interview.

Anderson charged Lehman with “blackmail” and vowed to continue to press for the trust funds change because “it’s right.”

If Lehman carries through on his threat--some lobbyists and congressional sources say it is hard to believe he would intentionally damage a project he has championed for years--it would be a serious blow. Lehman had been expected to fight for improvements over the Republican-controlled Senate’s version of the transportation bill in the conference committee. Unlike the House version, the Senate bill includes no full-financing guarantee. It also earmarks about $33 million less for Metro Rail in 1986 than the House version. Both the Reagan Administration and Sen. Mark Andrews (R-N.D.), who will lead Senate negotiators in the conference committee, oppose full-financing guarantees.

Both Anderson and Lehman said they had discussed the dispute with Mayor Tom Bradley this week. Before leaving New York on a trade mission to Israel, the mayor made several calls to conference committee members and House leaders in an effort to extract the Los Angeles project from the line of fire. Deputy Mayor Tom Houston acknowledged that the full-financing guarantee “appears to be what’s at stake,” but he said city officials remain optimistic that the guarantee will survive.

“It’s a flare-up--temporary, we hope,” he said.

Dyer said both sides have tried to enlist the considerable lobbying apparatus of the RTD, but the agency does not dare become involved and risk alienating either side. “It’s impossible to deal with,” he said. “I hope they resolve the issue in an environment that is unrelated to the Los Angeles Metro.”