Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS -- (House of Representatives - April 02, 2004)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Isakson amendment, which would include high-priority projects as well as projects of national regional Significance within the minimum guarantee program.

Supporters of the amendment claim that by including these projects, which are really Member earmarks, in the
minimum guarantee program, funding to States' core programs will be increased. The amendment, however, will actually hurt many States' core programs because Member projects are earmarked and thus not available for States to use on their existing capital plans. Under the existing legislation, California, for example, without the amendment will get its apportioned funds for use in its existing core programs plus the $1 billion it currently has in earmarks. Therefore, it makes no sense for Californians, for example, to vote for this amendment.

The amendment is also dangerous because to include projects of national significance in the minimum guarantee is to negate the entire program of projects for national significance. This category was established to fund projects that have a national significance and impact and that require a significant amount of funding. Eligible projects must be at least $500 million or 75 percent of the State's entire annual highway apportionment. If a project this size were counted against a State's allocation, the State would have virtually no money for its regular core program or existing capital plan. As a practical matter, no State would seek funding under this program.

The purpose of the program is to fund projects of national significance that normally would not get funded because of their multi-State nature or their size. These projects may be necessary because of our national trade policy or to improve national security. It makes no sense to count these projects against a State's formula allocation.

The reality, of course, is that this amendment is offered because its supporters are upset about the minimum guarantee, that it does not rise from 90.5 percent immediately. This amendment will do nothing to address that concern and will in
fact punish many States in the process.

I disagree with that position. I believe the minimum guarantee should stay where it is. But if they are upset that funds are allocated 90.5 percent, why would they want to put more programs under this formula? Why not allow all States to receive funds in addition to those allocated by formula? Including projects of national significance in the minimum guarantee certainly does not help them as it has nothing to do with the donor/donee issue. Under this amendment, neither the country as a whole nor any State would be able to benefit from this program, and the whole initiative which is of national significance would be rendered useless. The money would go to waste.

This amendment undercuts much of the progress made in the underlying TEA LU bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT