House of Representatives - March 10, 2005

Debate over Pitts amendment to H.R. 3, the Transportation Bill

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Pitts:

In the matter proposed to be inserted as paragraph (1) of section 5307(b) of title 49, United States Code, by section 3008(c)(1) of the bill--

(1) strike ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C); and

(2) strike the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and insert ``; and'' and the following:

"(E)(i) in the case of fiscal years 2005 through 2007, 50 percent of the operating cost of equipment and facilities for use in mass transportation in an urbanized area with a population of more than 200,000 if the transit system with respect to which the grant is being made operates in an urbanized area that exceeded 200,000 in population according to the 2000 Census; or

"(ii) in the case of fiscal years 2008 and 2009, 25 percent of the operating cost referred to in clause (i).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 144, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, under current law, when an urbanized area exceeds 200,000 in population, the transit system serving the area not only receives less Federal transit funding, but also loses their flexibility to use Federal transit funds to meet unique local transit needs.

The 2000 Census was the first census carried out under this law, and we are now seeing the consequences of this law, which uses an arbitrary and outdated threshold that was really first established and used in the 1950s.

Today it is hurting our Nation's most thriving communities. Fifty-two small transit systems across the Nation and the communities they serve face a financial crisis that they are not equipped to handle. That means more than 11 million people across the country will have their public transit service affected.

These systems will have to cut routes and raise fares in the hope of making ends meet. But for most, even that will not be enough. This will hurt passengers who rely on transit, workers who need to get to their jobs, elderly who need to get to the grocery store or pharmacy and, in my district, particularly the Amish, who rely on transit because it is against their religion to owns cars.

We need to give these transit systems time to find alternative funding solutions at the State and local levels. My amendment allows these small transit systems, only 52 of them, to have flexibility in using 50 percent of their Federal transit funds through the year 2007 and then reduces that 25 percent for 2008 and 2009.

This is the least we can do for these systems that are servicing some of the healthiest growing communities across the country.

Two systems in my districts, Red Rose Transit and BARTA in Reading are facing a financial crisis because of this law. We should not punish healthy systems in growing communities.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's support for holding these systems harmless over the past couple of years. However, due to the uncertainty surrounding this year and the transportation programs throughout the country, these small systems have not been able to find local solutions. We need more time, and I urge Members to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has made a very strong case for the issue which he presents with this amendment, and we in the committee have worked with the gentleman and his staff to allow transit systems in urbanized areas to retain flexibility in the use of Federal transit formula funds, and I thought we had worked out throughout the development of TEA-LU the extension that the gentleman was seeking to extend the period of flexibility for urbanized areas to use Federal funds for operating assistance through this year, which is half the time before the next census.

More than 50 urbanized areas have been eligible to use their transit grants for operating expenses, but apparently the gentleman wants to go further than we agreed in our internal deliberations and discussions, and I think that it goes beyond the agreement that we reached in committee. For that reason, I cannot support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the extensions we have had are only 6 months at a time. We have had a couple of those. We would like to extend to the end of the authorization period.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which will help small transit systems maintain flexibility in the use of their Federal money. I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue, which is particularly important to my constituents in Lubbock, Texas.

I want to repeat, this amendment does not increase funding for transit systems. Rather, it gives them some flexibility to manage those transit systems in the most efficient and effective ways.

Under the current law, once an urbanized area exceeds 200,000 people in population, it loses that flexibility. What impact that is going to have on my constituents in Lubbock, Texas, is my transit system has had to try to scale back the hours of operation, particularly some on Saturday. Saturday is when a lot of families need to get to the doctor and need to go buy groceries. But quite honestly, also for people who live in my district who are employed, that have to get to work on Saturdays.

So what we need to do is have these communities work with their transit systems and look for alternative ways to fund transit in the future. We need to give them some time and the flexibility they need to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this amendment.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say, again, this is not asking for more money; it is flexibility, and it is a phased-down flexibility to soften the blow on the small transit system and provide them more time to find alternative solutions to the funding crises they face. There are some 52 systems, many represented by Members from the other side of the aisle.

I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, certainly there is a concern among those metropolitan areas whose population has grown significantly since the 2000 Census, and they are seeking more flexibility for the use of funds on their Federal transit formula grant to use those dollars for operating assistance. But to extend the flexibility beyond the 5 years, as we have provided in TEA-LU, would undermine the statutory formulas.

It might benefit some areas, the pending amendment might benefit some areas, but would inflict a fairness issue upon other areas, to indicate that statutory formula that we use to apportion funds using most recent census data is no longer applicable for a certain area.

The amendment as offered would create confusion and would create unfairness among users, among other transit systems across the country.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, as a point of clarification, it is my understanding that what is in TEA-LU only extends the flexibility to 2005. What mine does is just extends it to end of the authorization.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is correct. I said that at the very outset. I made it very clear we extended it through 2005. That was our understanding. That is what I thought was the agreement we reached and the compromise, that we would go through 2005. Then you just have a few more years until the next census, and then the issue would be resolved for all of the country and not just a few areas.

So I urge defeat of the amendment.

* [Begin Insert]

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment proposed by Mr. PITTS of Pennsylvania. The Pitts amendment protects smaller transit systems' flexibility in utilizing Federal transit funds. Unlike current law, which punishes these transit systems and communities, the Pitts amendment extends flexibility by providing additional time to seek State and local solutions to the funding problems they face.

Transit systems across the country are severely restricted by the current regulation. In my district in Massachusetts, the Southeast Regional Transit Authority is being constrained by this regulation, making it impossible for them to meet local needs of the city of Fall River.

Current law punishes smaller transit systems and the communities they serve simply because they are thriving. These smaller transit systems rely on budget flexibility and cannot make major revisions overnight. On October 1, 2005, these systems will lose all flexibility. The Pitts amendment extends their flexibility by phasing out their funding options over a 5-year period. That's a good idea. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

* [End Insert]

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) will be postponed.