This Subcommittee earmarked $2.7 million for the Buffalo Light Rapid Rail system in the FY 85 Appropriations Act. I wrote to the Secretary on March 8 regarding the issue of a reprogramming. In that letter I indicated that assuming this Subcommittee accepts the Budget's position on any of the reprogramming, which I seriously doubt, the funds for Buffalo fit the criteria set forth in the Budget. The $2.7 million is designed to be the final payment to the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) to complete the 6.4 mile operable segment which will start service next month. project is therefore under construction and could be fully financed within the $2.7 million made available.

This

In fact,

UMTA, understanding this, issued a letter of no prejudice allowing the NFTA to spend a large portion of these funds so as not to delay the opening of the system. The Buffalo project is currently expected to come in one time and relatively on budget. It seems to me that this project certainly fits the budget proposal's criteria for funding.

I am concerned that this budget is forcing transit to bear the brunt of belt-tightening measures in a manner disproportionate to other programs that have either been frozen or increased. The Federal Government has made a

tremendous investment in public transit. Without adequate

funds, sorely needed maintenance and rehabilitation work will be further deferred and there will be an even more rapid

decline in service and safety.

The STAA provided a formula for cuts in operating assistance.

Transit agreed to "bite the bullet" by agreeing to cuts of 20 percent, 10 percent, and 5 percent. In FY 1984,

- an

$875 million was available for operating assistance overall cut of 16 percent from the 1982 level. Despite the cooperation of transit in absorbing this cut, attempts were made again last year to slash the program by 38% to $545.5 million with a total phase-out by 1989. Congress rejected that proposal and funded the program at $875 million for FY 1985.

APTA's survey reveals that transit fares would have to rise substantially in 82% of the transit systems. Nearly one-quarter, mostly small systems, predicted increases of 90% or more. Half predicted increases of 50% or more. These increases would occur on top of a national average base fare of 60 cents. Although Federal operating assistance comprises a relatively small share of the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority's total budget, it is essential to many small transit systems which may be forced to shut down without it.

Capital assistance is so severely limited under the FY 1986 budget that APTA's survey revealed that over 70% of the nation's transit systems would be forced to forego the purchase of new buses. This is made even more significant by the fact that over 30% of the nation's bus fleet is past its useful economic life of 12 years. The New York MTA would receive a devasting cut of about $285 million in capital assistance. Such a reduction will mean the further deferral of vital repair and rehabilitation work on the 81

year-old system. This work is necessary not only to improve service, but for safety.

I am shocked at the statement in the budget' that "funding of local transportation is not an appropriate role for the Federal Government since benefits accrue locally." Passage of the STAA, with its creation of the Mass Transit Account in the Highway Trust Fund, was a clear reaffirmation of Congress' commitment to a Federal role in the nation's transit program. Furthermore, there are many Federallyassisted projects of direct benefit only to one part of the country or to one particular city or area. The cornerstone of our Federal system of government is that we address and promote the varying needs and strengths of the different states for the greater good of the nation. We must not become insensitive to the needs of sister states because eventually we will harm the union itself.

Finally, I am concerned that this budget would not provide any new funds for UMTA's Research, Training and Human Resources program. Rather, $24.6 million in unobligated balances from the FY 1984 appropriation would be deferred to fund the program in FY 1986. During FY 1985, $51 million is available for use in this program which includes vital funding for safety grants used to fight transit crime. $15 million dollars was earmarked for transit safety and security in last year's appropriations bill. At last year's UMTA budget hearing, I asked UMTA Administrator Ralph Stanley if he would place a greater emphasis on safety and security and he agreed to do so. How will this be possible without any new funds? During the State of the Union Address, President Reagan said:

"Of all the changes in the past 20 years, none has more

threatened our sense of national well-being than the

explosion of violent crime. One does not have to have been

attacked to be a victim. after shopping at night is a victim. The couple draping their door with locks and chains are victims, as is the tired, decent cleaning woman who can't ride a subway home without being afraid."

The woman who must run to her car

It is my belief that the Federal commitment to transit will rise above this budget's proposed 70% reduction in the program. The Administration has recognized the problem of crime on our subway systems, it must now be responsive to its duty to help preserve the Federal investment made in those systems. In addition, Congress must act to ensure that the other parts of the transit program remain intact. It is by creating safer, more reliable and efficient transit systems that we are able to increase ridership and to provide needed

revenues.

The Budget Committee has recently voted to slash mass transit funding by 25% and the recent Senate White House compromise on transit funding would also cut transit by nearly 25%. Although this is better than the devastating 70% cut envisioned by the Administration's budget proposal, it is still far too high and will damage the integrity of the program. I have introduced a bill, S. 352, that would permit an additional $900 million to be spent on transit grants over a three year period. These funds are now available from revenues accruing from the one penny of gas tax dedicated to mass transit. Public mass transit is not receiving the full benefit of that tax because of artificially low authorization

ceilings in the program.

Thus, I think it is unfair to

suggest that transit take a 25% cut. What really needs to be done to fulfill our promise to transit is to raise the authorization ceiling on the program to match the actual revenues collected. If, in the effort to reduce the deficit, we must control spending on transit, as well as on other domestic programs, then I believe the best approach would be simply to freeze transit funding at current levels.

Again, I thank you for affording me this opportunity to offer my remarks, and I thank our witnesses for agreeing to share their views with us today.

STATEMENT OF MR. STANLEY

Mr. STANLEY. Senator, thank you. With your permission, I would like to submit my prepared statement for the record, but I would like to mention an item that is not addressed in that statement. As you know, the White House and the Senate recently reached a compromise on the fiscal year 1986 Federal budget. The agreement includes the following actions on the budget as it pertains to UMTA. Operating assistance is to be phased out over 5 years at 20 percent each year. Capital funding under the gas tax and the general funded formula grants is to be reduced from the fiscal year 1985 appropriated level of $2.68 billion to $2.25 billion in fiscal year 1986 and to $1.7 billion by fiscal year 1988. Substitute mass transit projects are to be funded from the Highway Trust Fund under the Federal Highway Administration's obligation limit on Federal Aid Highways. For WMATA, the appropriations under Stark-Harris are to be reduced from approximately $250 million per year to $186.5 million in fiscal year 1986. This would represent a 25-percent reduction. I do want to point out, though, that this compromise, as you are well aware, is acceptable to the administration only as part of the total budget package. If significant changes are made elsewhere in the package, the transit portion would be jeopardized.

INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES

I also want to introduce staff members from UMTA who are at the witness table with me. First, from the right, Robert McManus, the Associate Administrator for Grants Management; Ken Butler, Associate Administrator for Budget and Policy; Al DelliBovi, Deputy Administrator; Joe LaSala, the Chief Counsel; Ray Sander, the Executive Director; and Peter Benjamin, Associate Administrator for Technical Assistance.