Letters: July 27, 2006

Funding Metro is a good investment for the federal government

Re: “Don’t give Metro the ‘largest earmark in history’ ” editorial, July 19

It is a journalistic travesty that The Examiner decided to re-write poorly reasoned press releases and masquerade them as editorials. Your editorial is based entirely — and indeed quotes at length — from a piece that originated with the Heritage Foundation, written by an author who never met a transit system he didn’t want to kill. The end result was an editorial that betrayed a stunning ignorance of my Metro legislation, the legislative process and the importance of Metro to the federal government and the region as a whole.

This sloppy cut-and-paste job does a disservice to your readers and to those of us who are working to find transportation solutions in a region desperate for them. It’s especially disappointing coming from a newspaper distributed primarily to Metro riders. You display a shocking lack of sensitivity to people who suffer every day because governments at the federal, state and local levels have failed to adequately sustain investments in the Metro system.

Calling my legislation an “earmark” and a “federal bailout” for Metro is both incorrect and inflammatory. The legislation approved by the House does not authorize one nickel of federal money.

The money for Metro was approved on June 29, when the House agreed to take a small portion of offshore drilling royalties and dedicate them to Metro for the next 10 years. That was possible because of the work my Government Reform Committee has done in recovering additional royalty payments the Clinton administration failed to identify or collect. Nothing was “earmarked.” Instead, a fiscally responsible source of the funding was identified.

Since 1965, Congress has, on four previous occasions, infused the Metro system with federal funding, recognizing the unique relationship between the federal government and the transit agency responsible for the daily commute of so many federal employees. Each vote illustrates Congress’ belief that the nation’s capital requires mass transit for the day-to-day operation of the federal government. More than half of Metro’s peak-time subway riders are federal employees or contractors, and more than 50 federal offices are located adjacent to subway stations. If Metro were allowed to deteriorate, the ability of the federal government to function would be severely compromised.

My legislation establishes a federal inspector general for Metro, adds new federal representation to the Metro Board (including requiring one member to be a regular subway rider), and requires Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia to “dedicate” revenue to match the renewed federal investment. Without my legislation, Metro would have additional money but no additional oversight.

“Dedicated revenue” does not mean the same thing as a “new tax,” despite what your outsourced editorial claims. It simply means a stream of money guaranteed to go to Metro every year, which is not subject to the annual budget whims of its member jurisdictions. The legislation leaves it up to them to determine where that money comes from — existing or new revenue — or they can just leave the federal money on the table.

But it is crucial for long-term planning for Metro to have a guaranteed revenue stream. Metro receives just 2 percent of its budget from dedicated revenue sources — compared to an average of 70 percent for the 25 largest American transit agencies.

In addition, while The Examiner dismisses the fact that 10 percent of Washington area commuters use Metro, that’s double the national average. The more relevant figure is the 42 percent of people working in the region’s inner core (the District and Arlington) who get to work each day via Metro. Would The Examiner prefer those 300,000 people hop in their cars and further clog our roads?

The long-standing federal investment in Metro is good for the federal government and good for the region. But that’s apparently not good enough for The Examiner’s editorial board — or whoever is writing your editorials these days.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Ron Utt is the individual referenced by Mr. Davis in his first paragraph. Dr. Utt was offered an opportunity to respond to Mr. Davis and will do so at a later date.

Congressman Tom Davis, R-Va.
U.S. House of Representatives

Advertisement