[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 172 (Sunday, November 23, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2438-E2439]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       INTRODUCTION OF THE ``METROPOLITAN CONGESTION RELIEF ACT''

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, November 21, 2003

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to 
introduce legislation that strengthens our commitments to the public 
and their local decision-makers in both urbanized and rural areas of 
this nation.
  The ``Metropolitan Congestion Relief Act'' proposes a number of 
simple adjustments to the TEA-21 law, which as you know is now under 
discussion in the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee. Two 
days ago, the leaders of the Committee introduced legislation setting 
forth a six-year reauthorization plan for TEA-21, legislation that I am 
proud to cosponsor.
  My legislation compliments the Committee legislation and proposes key 
adjustments to current congestion-related programs. This legislation 
would ensure that our national policy more fully engages and supports 
local elected leaders and the communities they represent. We need to 
engage the public and local decision-makers to address the nation's 
many transportation challenges.
  The proposals in this legislation include two initiatives that follow 
the basic thrust of the Committee's TEA-21 renewal package.
  First, this legislation invests more in our local decision-makers, 
those who now lead our nation's very important metropolitan economies 
and those in non-urbanized areas. Secondly, it further strengthens the 
partnership set forth in the 1991 ISTEA law that began devolving 
resources and decision-making to the nation's larger metropolitan 
areas. Finally, this legislation continues to place more responsibility 
where it belongs, with local community leaders and metropolitan 
planning organizations. These are the entities most challenged by 
pressing transportation needs, be it traffic congestion, air quality 
degradation or the rising demands of global competition.
  These selected reforms and adjustments will yield results for all 
areas of our states. In those provisions targeted to metropolitan 
areas, all taxpayers and areas will benefit as these additional 
commitments will improve the performance of our existing assets and 
help us use available transportation dollars more efficiently.
  Mr. Speaker, let me talk for a minute about the key features of this 
legislation and what it does and does not do.
  First, it does not affect the allocation of resources from any of 
TEA-21's formula highway programs to the states, which is to say that 
it is policy neutral on the donor/donee issue. For the record, I am one 
member who has an interest in seeing more equity among the states, and 
this legislation does not disrupt any of these important efforts.
  Second, the law this legislation amends is the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century. As we make progress on equity among the 
states, we should also make some greater strides in providing some 
modest assurances of equity to local areas and local taxpayers within 
our states. Here in this chamber and in the Transportation Committee we 
talk often about ``fair share'' among the states, and yet there is 
nothing in current law that addresses how equity is assured at the sub-
state level.
  Let me illustrate this point further from the perspective of my 
district and the Dallas-Fort Worth region. As each new fiscal year 
arrived under TEA-21, local decision-makers in my region were certain 
that they would determine the fate of about 2\1/2\ cents of every 
highway formula dollar coming to the State of Texas. This is an 
inadequate commitment to a region that accounts for nearly one out of 
every five Texans and, in recent years, more than one out of every 
three new jobs in the State. By the donor/donee yardstick, this amounts 
to my local decision-makers having the certainty and direct control 
over about 10-12 cents on every federal highway dollar that is 
generated from local taxpayers and returned to the state. This is 
simply inequitable and can no longer be justified.
  My legislation proposes to deliver more certainty to all areas of the 
state, both large and small, helping make some modest gains in ensuring 
more funding equity for the public in their local areas.
  The legislation directs that Surface Transportation Funds provided to 
each of the states,

[[Page E2439]]

either through the STP or indirectly through the unprogrammed share of 
the Minimum Guarantee program, be directed to local areas, following 
existing law using the fair share distribution to urbanized and non-
urbanized areas. All areas within the states will have more funding 
certainty as a result.
  Third, the Metropolitan Congestion Relief Act enhances our federal 
surface transportation policies by enlisting local decision-makers and 
their substantial transportation assets under their control more fully 
into the TEA-21 partnership.
  In addition to directing more STP and Minimum Guarantee resources to 
metropolitan planning organizations and other local areas under ongoing 
state-directed programs, the legislation specifically directs states to 
work more directly with local decision-makers, particularly in the 
larger urban areas, in deciding on investments in the National Highway 
System. This is a critical asset for all of us and one where local 
governments either own a share of these facilities or where locally-
owned facilities are substantially affected by NHS facility 
investments.
  Let me provide some additional background on this and related points. 
One of the weaknesses of the current Federal policy is that it relies 
too heavily on overburdened State transportation agencies. Overall, 
States own the smallest share of the Nation's transportation facilities 
relative to local governments and yet are given direct control over an 
overwhelming share of Federal transportation dollars. On average, for 
each highway dollar that a State receives, only six percent is 
guaranteed to reach local decision-makers, those in metropolitan areas 
of 200,000 or more where more than one out of every two Americans live.
  Let me explain further. Presently, local governments--cities, towns 
and counties--directly or indirectly through regional agencies own and/
or operate more than three-quarters of the Nation's roads and streets, 
about one-half of the Nation's bridges, more than ninety percent of all 
transit systems and about the same share of the Nation's airports, most 
of the train stations, port facilities, traffic signals, public parking 
structures, sidewalks and trails, and so on. Let us not forget that 63 
percent of urban area highways in the Federal Aid System, which 
includes those facilities generally eligible under Federal TEA-21 
programs, are owned by local governments. Yet, existing policy directs 
virtually all of the resources to State highway and transportation 
departments.
  In aviation, Congress rightly directs resources to the agencies, be 
it the State, region or local government who own and operate airports. 
In transit, Congress rightly directs resources to the level of 
government who delivers these services. In flood control, the State, 
region, or local agency responsible for the improvements receives the 
funding. And so on.
  As this Congress seeks to address the burdens of congestion the need 
for smarter and more balanced transportation investments to give 
taxpayers more for their dollars, we must recognize that we have 
reached the point where it is impossible to achieve these outcomes 
without more fully involving our local transportation partners. This 
means bringing local elected officials--mayors, city council members, 
county executives and commissions, and others--more fully into this 
partnership. This legislation makes some modest adjustments and 
empowers these critical officials in the transportation partnership.
  Finally, this legislation specifically addresses the needs of local 
areas with the most air quality and congestion problems. It does so by 
directing States to allocate Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
Improvement program (CMAQ funds to local areas that are in non-
attainment or maintenance of applicable national ambient air quality 
standards. Specifically, it requires States to pass these funds to 
local areas on a fair share basis where metropolitan planning 
organizations are in place. Simply put, States earn CMAQ funds based on 
local air problems and the legislation makes sure that funds are passed 
through to these areas. Recently, this chamber debated the extension of 
the compliance deadlines in some Texas cities and other places, all the 
while my own State of Texas had piled up more than $270 million in 
unspent CMAQ funds that could have helped improve air quality in my 
area and others in the State. This provision will make sure that the 
local areas that carry these-requirements under Federal law are certain 
to receive their fair share of the resources that are provided.

  There are also two new initiatives in the legislation that address 
congestion. One is a new $2 billion annual formula program aimed at the 
Nation's most congested metropolitan markets, as analyzed by the Texas 
Transportation Institute. This program will target resources to areas 
of the Nation with clear congestion needs. The other program will 
provide modest resources of $500 million annually to local governments 
to support incident management programs.
  Let me speak to the need for these targeted programs. Every taxpayer 
and every community in our States benefits if we make some selected 
investments that improve the performance of our Nation's most 
productive economic centers. All of our economic data shows that our 
metropolitan areas are truly the economic engines of our State 
economies and help drive overall U.S. economic growth. They now account 
for the overwhelming and disproportionate share of the Nation's new 
jobs, personal income and total economic output. This legislation 
speaks directly to the pressing needs of these city and county 
metropolitan areas by investing immediately in congestion relief 
strategies and programs that will pay substantial dividends to the 
economic bottom lines of our State and the Federal Government. These 
initiatives, coupled with other provisions in this legislation, will 
help us extract more economic output from these areas.
  This investment in our regional economic engines will also position 
our Nation more favorably in the global competition of world trade. For 
instance, consider my own district, the Dallas Metro area, not 
including the adjoining Fort Worth Metro area. The Dallas Metro area 
produced more goods and services--about $170 billion in 2001--than 29 
States. This output exceeded that of many countries, such as Denmark or 
Hong Kong. This legislation is about recognizing the importance of the 
role local decision-makers play in steering these vital economic units 
and the value of tapping the vast range of our Nation's broadest asset 
base. In the end, our Federal policy needs to go beyond the Federal/
State partnership of the 1950s that was built around the Interstate 
era. The 1991 ISTEA made some strides to update our institutional 
arrangements, and this legislation builds on those improvements.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is nonpartisan. It represents an effort 
to establish a fair and equitable distribution of our Federal 
transportation dollars.

                          ____________________