The bill is headed to the White House, where President Bush has said he would sign, reversing a veto threat earlier this year.
All but one of New Jersey's 13 House members voted for the bill. Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, voted "No," arguing Congress should instead vote on a broad energy package.
I understand that Garrett's idea for reforming transportation dollar appropriation is never going to get out of committee, as well as opposed to by major heads of mass transit. However, when we've had massive bridge collapses, as well as our own studies here in NJ saying we have major problems, what kind of Representative votes against fixing things? Furthermore, what kind of Representative makes up some lame/disingenuous reason for doing so?
There's a world of difference between doing what is right for the people you're supposed to represent and being an ideologue (read: sore loser). Garrett seems, on this vote at least more than any other recent vote, to have put his ideology above his constituents.