Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS -- (House of Representatives - April 01, 2004)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would rather be standing here today supporting a $375 billion transportation bill. $375 billion is what the U.S. Department of Transportation has said is necessary to meet our most basic infrastructure needs over the next 6 years. Unfortunately, the President insists that we not fund our transportation system adequately and that we not fund the hundreds of thousands of jobs that such a bill would create, but we must do what we can, and despite the funding constraints, there are many things to be proud of in the bill before us.

The committee has done a remarkable job of preserving many of the important new initiatives in TEA LU, such as safe routes to school, freight intermodal connectors and, in particular, projects of national and regional significance. At the same time, we have maintained our core highway and transit programs and increased funding for critical initiatives such as senior transportation services and the ferry boat discretionary program.

This legislation maintains the minimum guarantee funding formula established in TEA 21, but it contains a provision that essentially cuts off highway funding in fiscal year 2006 unless a law is passed in the interim raising the minimum guarantee to 95 percent, while guaranteeing States that they would receive no less than subsequent years, plus the cost of inflation.

I understand the frustration expressed on this floor by the so-called "donor" States. New York, as a whole, is a donor State. We send about $18 to $20 billion more to the Federal Government every year than we receive in total Federal spending. Transportation is one of the few areas in which this is not the case.

New York has invested huge amounts of money in mass transit. Therefore, we are more energy efficient than the country as a whole. We buy less gasoline, and we pay fewer gas taxes into the Highway Trust Fund, and apparently, because we are more efficient, because we are saving the country on sending money to the Middle East, we must be punished by getting less highway funds. That is the idea of the 95 percent guarantee.

Yet, New York has a lot of transportation needs with older, aging infrastructure, and one out of every three transit riders in the country, which is capped at 15 percent. It is just not right to punish States for being energy efficient, and, therefore, I am generally opposed to this provision, but it does not do it right away. It puts off a final decision for 2 years.

Because of the many good features in the bill, I urge its enactment.