Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users -1

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS -- (House of Representatives - March 10, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairman YOUNG and Ranking Member OBERSTAR, as well as the Subcommittee leadership for their hard work in crafting the underlying legislation. However, I offer my support for the Manager's Amendment that seeks to incorporate very important initiatives that were contained in some of the amendments that were made in order by the Committee on Rules.

While the underlying bill before us proposes to provide $620 million for some 175 high priority projects in the State of Texas, there remain issues that will pose significant problems for Houston and for Texas unless this body offers its commitment to address in the future.

Toll credits are a significant resource for transit providers because they can use them in lieu of obtaining a Federal match-thereby greatly expediting the development of major projects that serve the communities. This amendment will cripple the value of the toll credit program.

Without the revenue from toll credits, Texas will have less funding for the reduction of congestion and the improvement of air quality. In reducing an otherwise viable revenue stream, this amendment would restrict local governments like Houston from choosing the best tool to respond to local conditions and priorities. I would have voted against the amendment that would prohibit the tolling of new interstates, including the I-69 Corridor, which lacks an alternate source of financing.

I ask that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure continue its efforts to provide funds to complete the Interstate 69 Corridor. The termination of the Interstate Program in 1995 left no mechanism to finish the nation's few remaining incomplete Interstates such as I-69. Currently, there is no program to fund major projects which benefit the nation as a whole but whose costs exceed states' apportioned funds. Based on these needs, I ask my colleagues to include the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program and the Projects of National and Regional Significance provisions in the bill underlying today. Furthermore, I ask that the Committee include them at a funding level equal to those included in H.R. 3550.

The Manager's Amendment proposes key technical and program improvements to the underlying bill language. In particular, I support the changes to the calculation of "Revenue Aligned Budget Authority" (RABA"; re-establishment of budgetary firewalls for highways and transit programs; reauthorization of the Swift Rail Act at $100 million per year (title IX of the bill); and extension of revenue provisions approved by the Ways and Means Committee.

Moreover, I support the improvements to the bill proposed in the Manager's amendment. In particular, due to the tremendous bipartisan efforts of my colleagues, the amendment now includes language to guarantee that TEA 21's 90.5 percent Minimum Guarantee is protected, with a scope defined as no less than 92.6 percent of the highway program funds in the bill. This is a significant improvement over the bill passed by the House last year. I thank the distinguished Majority Leader for his work in ensuring that this measure will protect these provisions, allowing the House to move into conference in a stronger negotiating position toward achieving a higher MG above 90.5 percent. The Manager's Amendment makes this a better bill for Houstonians and for Texans.

I would like to offer my support for the amendment offered by Mr. DAVIS of Virginia that will ensure that tolls are applied equally to all users of toll facilities. This amendment would eliminate language in the underlying bill that requires lower tolls to be charged to low income drivers. Since the administration of differential tolls may be challenging for our existing and future toll authorities, this amendment will make important adjustments to the underlying bill.

Secondly, I support the Burgess Amendment, which would change the calculation for transportation development credits to ensure that Texas and other states with toll facilities are able to take full advantage of these credits for the benefit of our transit, highway, and highway safety programs. This proposal is vital to the provision of a pro rata calculation of the credits so that we are not penalized for using Federal dollars in our transportation development projects. I support this amendment and ask that my colleagues join me as the Gentleman brings this proposal to the floor.

Furthermore, I support the proposal of Mr. PITTS that would provide a temporary transition period for transit entities (including three in Texas) that, under the most recent Census, are now subject to the over 200,000 population prohibition on the use of transit formula dollars for operating expenses. The Pitts amendment would allow those small transit entities in this new situation to use up to 50 percent of their formula funds for operating expenses for FYs 2005 through 2007 and up to 25 percent of the formula funds for operating expenses in FYs 2008 and 2009.

In addition, I join my colleague from Texas, Mr. BARTON in the initiative of his amendment to require studies and assessments of risks to human health or the environment to use sound and objective scientific practices.

Mr. Chairman, for the foregoing reasons, I support the Manager's Amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Davis of Virginia amendment to TEA-LU, which would remove the requirement that toll rates on high occupancy toll lanes be differentiated for low income drivers. I find it unfortunate that Members of this body would offer amendments to this legislation that effectively say that lower income individuals are on the same financial footing as those who are in upper income brackets.

The fact is that we as Americans have decided that those who make less, share less of the burden to bring revenue into our local, State, and Federal government. Indeed, we all know that we are taxed based on our income and value of our possessions. In the same vein, tolls that will go towards paying for public transportation projects, should have some variability based on the income of drivers. This principle is applied throughout our economic practices and it is a fair principle because we recognize that unduly burdening lower income individuals will only weaken our national economy.

The fact is that lower income Americans depend on their automobiles the same way higher income Americans do. Lower income Americans often need their cars to reach jobs they can't otherwise reach through public transportation. They use their cars to transport their families and take part in commerce that would otherwise be unavailable to them without their own private transportation. However, if we insist on making lower income drivers pay the same tolls as higher income drivers then we make the cost of transportation more prohibitive for lower income Americans. These drivers already have to deal with the soaring costs of fuel and the high premiums they pay to maintain car insurance. If we also burden them with high tolls then we will keep them from achieving their potential and we can only hurt our overall society that benefits from lower unemployment and increased commerce.

I urge the Members of this body to reject this amendment because it only seeks to create a larger burden upon lower income Americans. We must all be given a chance to achieve the American Dream and this dream is made harder for too many lower class Americans when we unfairly raise the level of their tolls.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov