Jay Inslee

Glimmer of Hope Surfaces on I-5 Bridge Project Restart

A glimmer of hope has appeared that Washington and Oregon may take the first steps to resume work on replacing I-5 Columbia River Bridge by restarting bi-state project office.

A glimmer of hope has appeared that Washington and Oregon may take the first steps to resume work on replacing I-5 Columbia River Bridge by restarting bi-state project office.

Someday, the I-5 Columbia River Bridge will be replaced. And Washington State hopes that someday is sooner rather than later.

The Washington Legislature generated some fresh enthusiasm when it included $450 million in a proposed transportation investment package to cover the state’s projected share of the cost to replace the bridge. Plus, Washington Governor Jay Inslee included $17.5 million to re-open a project office in his proposed 2019-2020 transportation budget.

The Southwest Washington legislative delegation has tried to stoke the appropriations fires and managed to make the bridge replacement that state’s number one priority in the propose transportation investment package that passed out of the Washington Senate Transportation Committee. However, with a portion of funding for such a packaged tied to creating a carbon fee in Washington, building the necessary support to pass it this year looks more like embers than sparks.

Washington looks poised to retain at least $8.5 million for a project office. While less than early-session expectations, opening a project office would begin laying the groundwork for replacing the bridge. Washington’s Department of Transportation, along with its Oregon counterpart, local cities and community partners, would start re-evaluating permits and design, develop a fresh budget and re-engage with stakeholders on both sides of the river.

Light rail, the bogeyman that helped sink a bi-state deal several years ago, remains a lightning rod. In his budget proposal, Inslee included a light rail provision, even though regional advocates encouraged calling for “mass transit“ to allow for further evaluation. Any mention of light rail has disappeared.

Meanwhile, Oregon, the putative partner in a bridge replacement deal, has been more or less quiet. There have been back-channel conversations between Olympia and Salem, but no real commitments. Majority Democrats in Salem are consumed with a cap-and-trade proposal and quest to raise $2 billion in new revenue for public education. A major transportation funding package is not anywhere near the adult table.

Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek remains the most ardent advocate for replacing the bridge, which is part of her North Portland legislative district. She probably has support in the office of Oregon Governor Kate Brown and a good chunk of lawmakers. But without a strong, definitive move by Washington officials there is little reason to start beating the drums in Salem. That definitive move appears to be on the horizon.

 

Oregon, Washington May Provide Presidential Hopefuls

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and Washington Governor Jay Inslee are seriously weighing Democratic presidential campaigns in 2020. Both are from the progressive lane of the Democratic Party, have earned national recognition for their key issues and have campaigned in early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and Washington Governor Jay Inslee are seriously weighing Democratic presidential campaigns in 2020. Both are from the progressive lane of the Democratic Party, have earned national recognition for their key issues and have campaigned in early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

Oregon’s and Washington’s role in recent presidential elections has been relegated to ATMs. Candidates swoop in, attend high-priced fundraisers and slip out of town, often without even a perfunctory press interview. That may change in 2020.

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and Washington Governor Jay Inslee have dropped huge hints they are considering entering the 2020 Democratic presidential sweepstakes. Though both would be considered today as political longshots, each has a distinct political issue to push. Merkley is focused on voting rights, Inslee on responding to climate change, as issue he has championed for years, including the book he coauthored, Apollo’s Fire

Merkley has earned national recognition for going to Texas to expose the internment at the border of asylum-seeking Latin American migrants and their children. Inslee gained recognition for leading the Democratic Governors Association as it reclaimed a number of statehouses in the 2018 midterm election. 

Both hail from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which could be a crowded lane in the 2020 Democratic primary with candidates such as Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris. Merkley and Inslee have been point persons confronting President Trump on key issues such as immigration, environmental protection and trade policy. Both have hit the campaign hustings, appearing side by side at a campaign event in Johnson City, Iowa and in New Hampshire, both early-voting primary states.

One advantage Inslee has over better-known candidates, and Merkley, is his executive experience (Inslee served in Congress before his election as governor). Now serving his second term, Inslee can point to achievements on voting rights, a higher minimum wage, ensuring net neutrality and major transportation investments.

As Jennifer Rubin, an opinion writer for the Washington Post, sees it: “[Inslee] might consider stressing his entire record as evidence of his ability to successfully govern, which includes climate change policies, and his role in challenging Trump’s immigration policies. Almost as an afterthought, he notes that renewable-energy legislation helped launched a multibillion-dollar wind industry and helped his state lead in GDP growth and wages. That seems to be his greatest selling point – creating a progressive haven while growing the economy, raising wages and saving the planet.”

Another advantage of potential Merkley and Inslee candidacies is that neither are in their 70s, as are Warren, Sanders, Joe Biden – and Donald Trump. Merkley is 62 and Inslee is 67. They also are fresh faces on the national political landscape, which might appeal to newly registered Democratic voters that helped Democrats regain control of the House.

Merkley faces a big decision. If he runs for President, he can’t under Oregon law run simultaneously for re-election to the Senate. He has told reporters he will make a final decision in the early part of this year. Meanwhile, Merkley has staged what amounts to a marathon of townhall meetings in Oregon before the new Congress convened this week. It is unclear whether he has taken steps to recruit a campaign staff or start fundraising in earnest. Political observers suggest it may take anywhere from $40 to $60 million for a Democratic presidential candidate to make it to Super Tuesday primaries in March, 2020.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee, like his potential Pacific Northwest presidential aspirant Jeff Merkley, has gone to the US-Mexico border to denounce Trump administration immigration policies and establish their credentials as credible national contenders.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee, like his potential Pacific Northwest presidential aspirant Jeff Merkley, has gone to the US-Mexico border to denounce Trump administration immigration policies and establish their credentials as credible national contenders.

Inslee received encouragement to throw his hat in the presidential ring in 2016 as one of the few Democratic governors to survive. He has campaigned around the country for Democratic gubernatorial candidates in 2018, giving him more exposure than usually accrues to a governor from the Pacific Northwest. Inslee is given credit for helping seven Democrats capture statehouses and assisting some Democratic incumbents such as Oregon Governor Kate Brown fend off well-financed GOP challengers.

There are indications Inslee is lining up donors to his political action committee and preparing to form a presidential exploratory committee, which is something Warren did this week as she moved closer to becoming an announced candidate. He also has amassed a list of more than 200,00 climate change supporters nationwide that could serve as a jumping off point for his candidacy.

The presidential primaries will have some other new twists. California and Texas have moved up their primary election dates in a bid to have a greater say about who emerges as party nominees. As big states with sprawling, expensive media markets, they pose special challenges for lesser known candidates without big campaign war chests. 

Another challenge is the emergence of Beto O’Rourke, who lost his bid to unseat Texas Senator Ted Cruz while gaining a rabid national following and lengthy small-donor contributor list, and Harris, who represents California in the US Senate and received positive national exposure for her sharp questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The best thing going for Merkley and/or Inslee candidacies is a clear focus, which will be essential in a field of up to 20 candidates and a Democratic debate schedule that begins as early as this summer. Democratic voters – and GOP political strategists – will be watching closely to see who stands out from the pack based on substance and style and who has the best chance to go toe-to-toe with Trump in the general election.

 

Brown, Democrats Ride Strong Wave of Voter Turnout

Oregon Governor Kate Brown overcame a trail of administrative miscues and an aggressive campaign by challenger Knute Buehler to win re-election to a full four-year term. High voter turnout also swept out three Republican House incumbents and gave Democrats supermajorities in both the House and Senate. [Photo Credit: Steve Dykes, AP]

Oregon Governor Kate Brown overcame a trail of administrative miscues and an aggressive campaign by challenger Knute Buehler to win re-election to a full four-year term. High voter turnout also swept out three Republican House incumbents and gave Democrats supermajorities in both the House and Senate. [Photo Credit: Steve Dykes, AP]

Governor Kate Brown turned back a spirited challenge from Republican Knute Buehler and Democrats earned super-majorities in both the Oregon House and Senate by unseating three sitting House GOP members.

Oregonians rejected ballot measures to end the state’s sanctuary status, ban public funding for abortions and block taxation on groceries. Voters approved a measure to allow local governments to use public money with private developers to build affordable housing. In Washington, voters defeated a carbon tax proposal.

In key local races, Kathryn Harrington won as Washington County Chair and Jo Ann Hardesty glided to victory on the Portland City Commission, becoming the first African-American woman to sit on the commission. Oregon City Mayor Dan Holladay won re-election. A majority of local ballot measures passed. A full list of election results can be found here

The Brown-Buehler contest set campaign spending records in Oregon and may be the spark for campaign finance reform in the 2019 legislative session. Despite running an effective campaign, Buehler’s loss further dented the notion that a moderate Republican could defeat a Democrat in a race for governor in Oregon.

There may not have been a blue wave throughout the nation, but strong turnout by Democratic voters contributed to the defeats of incumbent GOP Reps. Julie Parrish (West Linn), Rich Vial (Sherwood) and Jeff Helfrich (Hood River). House Democrats increased their margin of control to 38-22, up from their 35-25 margin in the previous session. It takes 36 votes to reach a House supermajority required to pass revenue-raising measures.

Democrats managed to flip one seat in the Senate where Jeff Golden prevailed in a seat held last session by GOP Senator Alan DeBoer who didn’t seek re-election. That one seat was enough to give Democrats a Senate supermajority of 18-12.

No changes are anticipated in Democratic leadership. Senate President Peter Courtney easily won re-election to a sixth term and has led the Senate since the 2003 session. Speaker Tina Kotek was elected to the Oregon House in 2006 and became Speaker in the 2013 legislative session.

Brown’s seemingly comfortable 5-point lead over Buehler didn’t necessarily reflect the bruising intensity of the gubernatorial campaign and the closeness of the contest, which drew national attention because the race was unexpectedly tight. The race also attracted gobs of out-of-state money as Brown and Buehler combined to spend a record $30 million.

In her post-election comments, Brown said her priorities in the next legislative session will be campaign finance reform, affordable housing and boosting Oregon’s low high school graduation rate, something Buehler poked at during the campaign. During her campaign, Brown announced a plan to incorporate federal clean air and clean water protections into Oregon law.

Other issues that will demand attention in the upcoming session include how to keep paying for Oregon’s Medicaid program, bolstering community mental health resources and improving child welfare programs.

There will be continuing pressure to address the unfunded liability of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System and realign the state’s corporate tax system. It is unlikely remnants of the culture wars – immigration, abortion, transgender rights – will rear their heads in the legislature during the next two years.

A well-coordinated campaign apparatus consisting of labor, environment and progressive groups contributed to Brown’s re-election and the defeat of several ballot measures. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, expected to return as Speaker of the US House, credited a similar coordinated effort with the discipline and financing to regain control of the House and win governorships across the country, including in Trump country. 

Washington Initiative 1631, dubbed the Green New Deal, lost after large industrial corporations poured $31 million into a campaign to defeat it. If passed, I-1631 would have imposed a new carbon fee to fund conservation projects, renewable energy farms and struggling communities. The measure was endorsed by Governor Jay Inslee who called it “well-balanced, thoughtful policy.”

 

 

Vancouver Acts to Relaunch Effort to Replace I-5 Bridge

Untimely bridge lifts delay and irritate motorists and freight haulers crossing the Columbia River on I-5. The City of Vancouver has stepped forward with a resolution seeking to restart a conversation to replace the bridge.

Untimely bridge lifts delay and irritate motorists and freight haulers crossing the Columbia River on I-5. The City of Vancouver has stepped forward with a resolution seeking to restart a conversation to replace the bridge.

Traffic and backups on I-5 haven’t abated and untimely Columbia River bridge lifts continue to slow and frustrate commuters, shippers and motorists just trying to get through. An effort to resume discussions of a new bridge is beginning to take shape.

The Vancouver City Council voted unanimously this week in support of replacing the I-5 Columbia River bridge. The Council resolution also asked Governor Jay Inslee to “provide adequate funding” for the Washington Department of Transportation to relaunch the process that came to a sudden stop in 2015 after Washington lawmakers refused to commit their share of costs and Oregon officials pulled the plug.

Other Southwest Washington municipalities may follow suit, with the goal of creating momentum that brings – or drags – Oregon policymakers back to the table.

That may be more complicated as Oregon transportation officials are finishing up recommendations to toll some or all of I-5 and I-205. The purpose of the tolling is to reduce congestion. Revenue raised from tolls would go to Oregon roadway investments, not a new I-5 Columbia River bridge.

Washington Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler has threatened to block Oregon Interstate highway tolls because of what she views as their disproportionate impact on her constituents.

If bridge talks do restart, the extension of light rail to Vancouver may remain a sticking point. Attitudes north of the river may have changed, but a transit component may be a precondition for Oregon officials to re-engage.

The Vancouver resolution addresses this challenge by seeking a bridge replacement that includes “high capacity transit with a dedicated guideway.” This language would allow for either light rail or bus rapid transit on a new bridge, and presumably would provide some breathing room for future debate on both options. Bus rapid transit has been embraced as a more affordable alternative in some areas in Clark County outside of Vancouver.

The timing of renewed discussion also presents challenges. Oregon lawmakers passed a major transportation and transit measure in the 2017 legislative session. It contained no provisions relating to a replacement I-5 Columbia River bridge,  but did create a panel to review mega projects in the state moving forward. Based on past experience, another major transportation funding proposal would be difficult unless party leaders put their full weight behind a new bridge project. Veteran legislative leaders such as Senate President Peter Courtney and House Speaker Tina Kotek may see this as an opening on a legacy project.

One of the failings of the Columbia River Crossing effort was its single focus on a new bridge and related highway improvements. In reality, Portland-area and Southwest Washington residents and businesses have broader transportation interests in common as population growth and business expansion continues on both sides of the river.

Vancouver officials have signaled a willingness to pursue some kind of bi-state partnership to identify common ground, regional transportation objectives and a strategy to find a bridge solution.

Collaboration has occurred at the ODOT-WSDOT level and there have been coalitions in both states supporting a new bridge, but elected officials haven’t driven the strategy or policy decisions.

 

Few Seem Neutral on Polarized Net Neutrality Repeal

The nerdy issue of net neutrality has stirred up a national hornet’s nest as the Federal Communications Commission repeals an Obama-era rule that critics say guaranteed a free and open internet, but supporters claim would hold back internet innovation with government regulation. The issue has turned into yet another partisan fistfight.

The nerdy issue of net neutrality has stirred up a national hornet’s nest as the Federal Communications Commission repeals an Obama-era rule that critics say guaranteed a free and open internet, but supporters claim would hold back internet innovation with government regulation. The issue has turned into yet another partisan fistfight.

Mere minutes after the Federal Communications Commission on a split 3-2 vote ended net neutrality last week, Washington state’s attorney general filed suit to neutralize the FCC’s action on procedural grounds. Washington Governor Jay Inslee has an even more ambitious plan.

Inslee has come up with five options to force internet service providers in Washington to live up to net neutrality standards. Perhaps the most aggressive option is to empower Washington public utility districts to offer internet service and compete with big-league telecommunications companies.

Washington lawmakers – from both political parties – aren’t far behind. Bills have been introduced for the 2018 session that would forbid internet providers from throttling speeds or charging to prioritize traffic – two of the main concerns expressed by net neutrality supporters.

The FCC anticipated state-level resistance and added a preemption clause. That will be challenged, too. The main legal challenge will center on the FCC’s process, which included a public record featuring as many as 2 million bot-driven comments.

David Olson , who until 2012 oversaw cable and broadband development in Portland, played a notable role in what emerged as the concept of net neutrality.

David Olson, who until 2012 oversaw cable and broadband development in Portland, played a notable role in what emerged as the concept of net neutrality.

Oregon has joined with a number of other states in the legal challenge to FCC’s action and, given the state’s history on internet openness, may look at legislative options in 2018, too.

A sign of our digital times, the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality has stirred up greater national angst than the GOP-backed $1.5 trillion tax legislation or the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. However, net neutrality is no less politically polarizing. The FCC hearing room was cleared before the vote because of unruly protests.

Democratic opponents say repeal of net neutrality will signal the “end of the internet as we know it.” Republican supporters say the internet grew without a net neutrality rule, which was only adopted in 2015, and will continue to flourish after the rule is overturned. FCC Chairman Ajit Pat issued a video where he appears to mock critics. Comcast, one of the expected beneficiaries of net neutrality repeal, went to Twitter to say it wouldn’t violate net neutrality principles.

One of the leading defenders of net neutrality is Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. One of the best expositors of net neutrality repeal is Oregon GOP Congressman Greg Walden. Wyden says repeal is the equivalent of “trickle-down telecommunications.” Walden predicts innovation will continue to propel the internet and ensure competition.

Critics predict repeal of net neutrality will lead to paid prioritization of the internet and the resulting creation of a slow lane for those unwilling or unable to pay the freight for the fast lane. One critic has offered suggestions for how to measure potential speed throttling and access restrictions –  https://imgur.com/gallery/zfxwB

Critics predict repeal of net neutrality will lead to paid prioritization of the internet and the resulting creation of a slow lane for those unwilling or unable to pay the freight for the fast lane. One critic has offered suggestions for how to measure potential speed throttling and access restrictions – https://imgur.com/gallery/zfxwB

Democrats warn small businesses, educators, telemedicine and rural communities may find themselves on internet “slow lanes.” FCC Commissioner Mike O’Reilly, a Republican, says fears expressed by critics are “guilt by imagination.” 

All this for a nerdy issue that a few years ago nobody ever had heard about, but which underscores how important the internet has become to virtually every aspect of business, education, medicine, research, communications and social interaction.

We certainly haven’t heard the last of net neutrality. Court challenges, a push to reverse the policy in Congress, state legislative action and debate on the political trail in the 2018 elections all loom.

 

Oil Train Rule Rollback May Spark Legislative Response

The Trump administration decision to roll back an Obama-era rule requiring electronically controlled pneumatic brakes on oil trains is likely to revive legislative attention in Oregon to require railroads to carry “worst-case” insurance and create spill-prevention plans in light of the 2016 derailment in Mosier.

The Trump administration decision to roll back an Obama-era rule requiring electronically controlled pneumatic brakes on oil trains is likely to revive legislative attention in Oregon to require railroads to carry “worst-case” insurance and create spill-prevention plans in light of the 2016 derailment in Mosier.

When they reconvene next February, Oregon lawmakers may revisit legislation to require railroads to carry “worst-case” insurance following a Trump administration decision to roll back a decision to require electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes on oil trains.

Railroads opposed the rule issued by the Obama administration in 2015 in response to explosive oil train derailments, claiming the cost of ECP brakes exceeds their safety benefits. The Trump administration cited a National Academy of Sciences study that backed up railroad industry claims.

The decision sparked an angry response from Northwest officials, environmental organizations and Columbia River Gorge residents in light of the June 2016 derailment of an oil train in Mosier that spilled 42,000 gallons of crude oil and igniting a fire. Union Pacific blamed the derailment on a faulty rail fastener, not the train’s braking system. Environmental activists insist ECP brakes would help because they control all train car brakes simultaneously.

Brown Oil Train Rule Reaction[1].jpg

The rule rollback is the kind of flash-point issue that can explode into legislative action, possibly in both Oregon and Washington. Governor Brown and Governor Jay Inslee issued a joint statement calling the rollback “reckless and dangerous.” Friends of the Columbia River Gorge said the Trump administration decision points to the need for “strong legislation” requiring railroads to carry worst-case insurance and create spill prevention and crisis response plans. Similar legislation was proposed in the 2017 Oregon legislative session, but failed to pass.

States have very limited jurisdiction to regulate railroads. For example, states lack the ability to ban oil trains. Brown did sign a bill in 2015 that requires railroads to notify states of oil train movements.

Majority Democrats who control the Oregon House and Senate already have a major environmental issue on their plate in the short 2018 session – a cap-and-invest proposal designed to ratchet down industrial greenhouse gas emissions while generating $1.4 billion in new revenue. California already has an emissions credit system in place, which presumably Oregon would join. Business interests are opposing the legislation.

The main event for the 2018 Oregon legislative session will be responding to a potential voter rejection of a pair of hospital and health insurance assessments to sustain the Oregon Health Plan. Defeat of Referendum 101 could blow a big hole in the state’s budget.

By February, Oregon lawmakers should know the fate of GOP-backed tax-cut legislation, including a provision to eliminate state income taxes as a deduction on federal tax returns that would disproportionately harm states such as Oregon that rely heavily on income tax revenues.

The Legislative Trail from Salem to Olympia

Passing bills in the Oregon and Washington legislatures is similar, but markedly different in key ways, such as a power Rules Committee and permitting floor amendments in Washington. But Oregon knows how to adjourn on time; Washington not so much.

Passing bills in the Oregon and Washington legislatures is similar, but markedly different in key ways, such as a power Rules Committee and permitting floor amendments in Washington. But Oregon knows how to adjourn on time; Washington not so much.

Early adjournment of Oregon's short 2016 legislative session provided an opportunity to hop on a train and see the waning days of the Washington Legislature in Olympia. I was looking for similarities and differences, and I found plenty of both. 

Generally, Oregon's and Washington’s legislatures are similar. They are both “citizen” legislatures. They meet annually, with longer sessions in odd-numbered years and shorter ones in even-numbered years. They also tend to wait until the last minute to pass major bills, after extended periods of political jockeying and horse-trading.

Now, here are are some key differences I noticed. 

Washington's Rules Committee wields real power: All Washington policy bills must go to through the Rules Committee before reaching the floor. This gives the Rules Committee significant authority, ultimately deciding, on almost all of the bills, whether they die or go to the floor for a vote. Oregon also has a politically driven Rules Committee, but leadership only sends select bills there for review – or to wait until a political compromise is worked out behind closed doors. 

Washington’s Senate operates more like Congress: Washington has a lieutenant governor, who presides over the Senate but only can vote in case of a tie, much like the vice president. Washington’s lieutenant governor is elected separately from the governor and serves with no term limit. Oregon doesn’t have a lieutenant governor. The independently elected secretary of state is next in line, as we saw last year when Gov. John Kitzhaber resigned and Secretary of State Kate Brown replaced him. Oregon’s Senate selects its own presiding officer from its membership, who votes on all bills just like his or her colleagues.

Floor amendments are permitted in Washington, but not in Oregon: Washington lawmakers can and often do offer floor amendments. On the day I visited, a public school bill that had been jerked to the House floor without going through the Rules Committee faced a floor debate over 27 separate amendments. After a lengthy debate, eight amendments passed, including one that replaced the entire original bill. Oregon lawmakers can petition to have a bill pulled out of committee, but it rarely happens. Once a bill reaches the Oregon House or Senate floor, it is not subject to amendment. Lawmakers can defeat a bill, vote to send it back to committee or vote for or against a minority report, if one is approved in committee. Most of the time floor votes on “amendments” are stalling tactics in Oregon. Overall, the committees have more sway in the Oregon legislative system. 

Oregon gets out on time, Washington does not: In six of the last seven years, Washington has developed a habit of missing constitutionally established deadlines on the budget, forcing one or more special sessions each time. Again this session, the Washington Legislature fell short of reaching a budget agreement by Thursday at midnight and went into a special session almost immediately. Governor Jay Inslee vetoed 27 bills as punishment for not reaching a budget deal in time. The intention behind his actions is to stop the cycle of consistently late budgets.

In Oregon, experienced legislative leaders have been able to adjourn early, including in the shorter even-year sessions during which Oregon has 35 days compared to Washington’s 60 days to hammer out bills and adjust the budget. Washington, unlike Oregon, has tried to skate around a state Supreme Court ruling that the Legislature inadequately funds public schools, which puts knots in the budget process.

Seeing the differences between legislating in Salem and Olympia firsthand was insightful. It was a reminder that the intricacies of how a bill becomes a law can vary from state to state and from bill to bill, but it’s never quite as simple as the Schoolhouse Rock interpretation of how a bill becomes a law.

Budget Stalemates in Olympia and Salem

Lawmakers in Washington and Oregon haven't found the answer to balancing their states’ budgets with more funding for K-12 schools. Now time is running out.The economy is improving and tax revenues are up, which should make it relatively easy to balance the budget. But Oregon and Washington lawmakers are finding it anything but easy.

The Oregon legislature, which planned to adjourn by the end of June, is bracing to grind on until July. The Washington legislature just completed its first special session, which The Columbian summarized in a tweet as "30 days, 0 bills, $77,000 in per diems."

Lawmakers in both states are hung up on how to get more money for K-12 schools. 

In Olympia, lawmakers face a court mandate to increase K-12 school funding, but can't agree how to do it.

In Salem, Democrats and Republicans have failed to reach agreement on deep enough cuts to the Public Employees Retirement System and new revenue. The Oregon Senate, which Democrats control by a slim 16-14 margin, is stymied because Senator Chris Edwards, D-Springfield, has balked at passing a large enough K-12 school budget to avoid more teacher layoffs and school day reductions.