U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–023 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 111–1181 

THE NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 25, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 25, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 2 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .................... 4 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 6 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 8 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 11 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ............... 12 

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 13 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 14 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania .................... 16 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 18 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 18 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 19 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 17 

WITNESSES 

LaHood, Ray, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation ............................. 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Udall ............................................................................................. 32 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 39 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 43 

Response to an additional question from Senator Bond ............................... 47 

Rendell, Edward G., Governor, State of Pennsylvania ......................................... 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 67 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 70 

Response to an additional question from Senator Voinovich ........................ 72 

Novak, Kathleen M., President, National League of Cities; Mayor, 

Northglenn, Colorado ........................................................................................... 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 81 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 84 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 86 

Response to an additional question from Senator Bond ............................... 89 

(1) 

THE NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION 

INVESTMENT 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Barrasso, Baucus, Lautenberg, Inhofe, 

Voinovich, Bond, Cardin, Carper, Klobuchar, Sanders, Gillibrand, 

Udall, and Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everybody. Sorry it is running a 

little late. I was on the floor this morning, the Senate floor. Today’s 

hearing focuses on the need for transportation investment as we 

move forward with the next highway transit and highway safety 

authorization. 

The current legislation, SAFETEA-LU, will expire on September 

30, 2009. The new bill, we are calling it MAP–21, Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st century. This legislation will impact all 

Americans because it sets the policy and provides the funding for 

transportation nationwide and this Committee will be taking the 

lead to authorize the new legislation. 

We held several hearings in the 110th Congress on issues including bridges, goods movement, safety and the Federal role in transit. 

I also held field hearings in several California cities to hear directly 

from my constituents on their ideas for a new bill. 

At this time, I would ask unanimous consent that all the statements which were submitted as part of my California field hearing 

be inserted in the record. Without objection. 

[The referenced material was not available at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. We will continue to hold hearings, meetings and 

listening sessions to make sure all points of view are considered. 

We continue to hear loud and clear that the need for investment 

is great. 

Congress passed and the President recently signed into law the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, H.R. 1, which 

provided a total of $48 billion for transportation improvements. Of 

that $48 billion, $27.5 billion was included for the highway program. These funds are currently being used to improve our Nation’s infrastructure and are already creating jobs, and the Com-
2 

mittee does plan to oversee the use of those funds informally and 

formally. 

The funding provided in H.R. 1 was a good start, but certainly 

not enough. We must have continued investment to maintain these 

jobs and make additional needed improvements to our infrastructure. 

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study 

Commission, which released a congressionally mandated report in 

January 2008, called for investments of up to at least $225 billion 

annually over the next 50 years at all levels of government to bring 

our existing surface transportation infrastructure to a good state of 

repair and to support our growing economy. 

All combined, our States, our cities and the Federal Government 

are spending 40 percent less than that amount. The more recent 

February 2009 report of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission estimates that we need to invest 

at least $200 million per year at all levels of government to maintain and improve our highways and our transit systems. 

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 2006 Conditions and Performance Report, the costs at all levels of government to maintain our current highway system is $78.8 billion a 

year. That is just to maintain, while the costs to improve the system would be $131 billion per year. The same report shows that 

the backlog of needed improvements to simply maintain the current highway program is $495 billion. 

Today’s witnesses will further highlight the need for investment 

in transportation at the Federal, State and local level. I appreciate 

each of the witnesses because they took time out of their busy 

schedules to be with us today, and I look forward to hearing their 

testimony. 

I would like to give a very special welcome Secretary LaHood 

who is making his first appearance before this Committee as the 

Secretary of Transportation. I appreciate his being here today and 

I look forward to working with him and all of my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle on MAP–21. 

And we are very happy to have Governor Rendell with us, and 

Mayor Novak, who will be on the next panel, on the final panel. 

So at this time, I am happy to turn it over to Senator Inhofe for 

his opening statement. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to defer my opening statement to Senator Bond, who 

has a conflict, and if you could wind me back into the system after 

that. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Senator Inhofe, I very much appreciate it. Unfortunately, I do 

have another hearing I have to attend, but this hearing is an extremely important opportunity to examine the transportation investment needs throughout our system, and also to develop a proper transportation infrastructure that fosters economic development 

and produces the greatest return to taxpayers. 
3 

I thank all the witnesses for appearing today. Your perspectives 

will give us a unique glimpse into our Nation’s transportation 

needs at the local, State and Federal levels, to give us a more accurate understanding of our system’s deficiencies, develop a better insight into how transportation dollars are best spent, and examine 

how all of these needs can come together to move our Country forward. 

It needs to be said again and again that quality infrastructure 

connects people and communities with one another. It is this connection that attracts and sustains businesses, jobs, and high quality of life for our constituents. 

One of the toughest questions that we are going to face is funding for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. As we all know, the decline in road miles has really hurt that fund. I was very disappointed that we could not add in the stimulus bill a withdrawal 

of the rescission scheduled for September 30 of this year; $8 billion, 

that is $8 billion worth of work that would be under way that will 

be cut off if we are unable to deal with that in the time between 

now and then. 

In my home State of Missouri, we have seen a significant improvement over the last decade, but obviously, like all States, we 

have a long way to go. We are maintaining our current infrastructure better. We have seen the major percentage of our major highways in good condition, go from 47 percent to 83 percent over 4 

years. Structurally deficient bridges have decreased by 5 percent 

over the same time period. 

That being said, obviously there is a lot of work yet to be done. 

We have made great strides, but to continue forward we must 

make investments to bring our infrastructure up to speed. 

There is a growing concern in Missouri in the capacity of the system. We are at the crossroads of the Nation, right in the middle 

of the Country. Traffic north, south, east and west goes through 

our State. We are beginning to bust at the seams. Our vehicle 

miles traveled are at historic highs. Congestion rates are up, with 

more and more Missourians and interstate travelers tied up in traffic next to truck carrying products that are necessary for commerce. 

Congestion is a real problem. It is taking an economic toll at a 

time when we simply cannot afford more burdens on our system. 

Moving forward, we have to invest more in good roads, but we cannot rely on roads alone. We have to look toward rail and river 

transport as efficient ways to move goods and ease checkpoints. 

River transportation is the most economical energy-efficient, and 

environmentally friendly way of transporting large commodities. 

We have to start to think in a comprehensive manner that stresses 

flexibility of one entire transportation system, rather than just the 

separate several ones. 

There will be a tendency just to throw money at it, but we remember that it won’t necessarily fix our problems. We have to be 

diligent in creating an authorization bill that makes infrastructure 

investments in a wise way, and provides taxpayers a good return. 

One issue that could have an enormous impact on our needs for 

transportation investment return is project delivery time. And we 
4 

worked with the Department of Transportation in the past and 

look forward to guidance on this in the future. 

As we speak, the cost of transportation projects across the Country are increasing, while contractors, municipalities, and State 

DOTs wade through the mass of bureaucracy that is our current 

project development process. Simply put, we cannot afford to continue down the path of 10 to 15 year delivery times for transit and 

highway projects. It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out 

such an impediment means project costs doubling or tripling, for 

congested highways, decreased productivity, and compromised road 

safety. 

We have difficult decisions before us, Madam Chair, but understanding both the challenges ahead and establishing a clear path 

can make those decisions more informed and more effective. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Inhofe, Senator Baucus, Senator Voinovich for your hard work. And I look forward to hearing 

perspectives from our witnesses and from you on how together we 

can craft a new authorization bill that will move us forward in 

solving our infrastructure needs, and thus our economic needs. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

We are so fortunate on this Committee we have so many senior 

Members of the Senate, and you know, not the least of which is the 

Chairman of the Finance Committee. We are so fortunate because 

we have to work so closely with the Finance Committee as we move 

forward. 

Here is the order of arrival on the Democratic side: Cardin, Baucus, Lautenberg, Klobuchar, Merkley. So if there is no disagreement, I will call you in that order. 

And on the Republican side would be Inhofe, Barrasso and 

Voinovich, if that is OK. 

So we will hear from Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And let 

me thank you for holding this hearing. 

I would ask unanimous consent that my entire opening statement be placed in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Senator CARDIN. And I want to just underscore some brief points. 

There is no question that our national transportation system is 

in dire need of repairs and investments. We have heard the dollar 

amounts of what it would take in order to get our transportation 

infrastructure up to date. But let me just share with you the frustration of motorists in the Washington area and the Baltimore 

area. I commute every day between Baltimore and Washington, so 

I see first hand the frustration of motorists and those who are trying to commute back and forth to work. 

It has been estimated that we spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic. That translates to about $78 billion lost to our 

economy and 3 billion gallons of fuel wasted every year. So this is 

a huge issue, a huge challenge for America, to try to get this right, 

to invest in our transportation system. 
5 

I think the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a good 

first start. It provided significant investments in transportation in 

the right way for our Country. It provided $48 billion of investment 

in transportation, and did it in a way that will be friendly toward 

energy independence and toward our environment. 

So I think our challenge, Madam Chair, is to craft the Surface 

Transportation Reauthorization Act, that you referred to as MAP, 

that will meet our investment needs in a fiscally responsible way. 

That means it is nice to talk about the dollar amounts that we 

need, but let’s talk about how we are going to pay for it. 

And I understand that Senator Baucus is here and he has probably the greatest burden of any of us as Chairman of the Finance 

Committee. I know it is not easy to figure out how we can do what 

we need to do in our economy, without jeopardizing our economic 

growth. But I think we need to make sure that what we do in the 

Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act is consistent with our 

overall responsibility to balance the Federal budget and I hope that 

we will take up the revenues as part of the way that we go about 

a realistic reauthorization bill. 

Second, I think we need to make sure that this is done in an environmentally friendly way. We talk about that, but transportation 

can play a huge role in reaching our goals on our responsibility to 

future generations toward our environment. This Committee has 

heard me talk frequently about public transportation, and how our 

investments in public transportation will help us deal with energy 

independence, will help us deal with reducing greenhouse gases, 

will help us deal with quality of life. 

I think these are important points and need to be part of the 

policies that we look forward to in our next effort on reauthorization. 

And let me just mention another area where I think we can 

make incredible progress on our environment, and that deals with 

the quality of our water. The way that we do transportation construction can have a major impact on runoff issues and quality of 

water in this Country, which is another coordinated policy that I 

hope we will use as we look at the reauthorization. 

So yes, it is critically important that we make the right investments. And my colleagues will be giving numbers of how America 

is behind the rest of the world in the investments that we make, 

the public investments we make generally, as well as what we 

make in transportation. And we need to increase that. We need to 

increase our investment for our future. 

But let’s make sure it is not done in tunnel vision, that our only 

priority is to see how many roads we can build. Let’s take a look 

at the overall problems that we have in America in dealing with 

quality of life and our commitment to our environment, our commitment to energy independence. And if we get this right, I think 

we truly will be making the right investments for America’s future. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I really 

do look forward to the work of this Committee in giving constructive suggestions, along with our President, to meet these goals. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 
6 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. 

Our Nation’s surface transportation system is in desperate need of repair while 

being stretched to its limits. As a consequence there have been increasing expenses 

to motorists and commuters in terms of operating costs and lost time due to congestion. 

As anyone who drives in the Washington, DC, or Baltimore area knows, we have 

an extraordinary problem with congestion and it’s getting worse. Americans spend 

4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic, at a cost of $78 billion a year to the economy 

and nearly 3 billion gallons of wasted fuel. 

At the urging of the Obama administration, we enacted the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1) earlier this year. It contained a major infusion of 

transportation funding: $48 billion overall with $27.5 billion for the highway program. 

In Maryland, we provided $431 million for highway infrastructure investments. 

The State also received $179 million for transit capital assistance and $15 million 

for the fixed guideway modernization program. 

All across my State of Maryland, these transportation dollars were greeted with 

enthusiasm—and a request for more. The funding we provided merely put a dent 

in the enormous backlog of transportation needs in this country. 

Maryland is actively pursuing additional Federal funding through the competitive 

grants programs established in the Recovery bill. 

In 2007, Dr. Jay Mandle, a Professor of Economics at Colgate University, published a brief article in which he analyzed the fraction of the Gross National Product 

that represents our public investment in non-defense structures and equipment: 

bridges, roads, wastewater treatment plants and the like. 

Taking data from 1960 to 2005, Professor Mandle found that the Nation had a 

public investment rate that has been in constant decline from a high of 0.430 in 

1980 to 0.299 in 2005. 

Less than three-tenths of 1 percent of our GDP is being invested in our non-defense public structures and buildings. What is even more remarkable is the fact 

that—not including the Recovery funds enacted last month—this level of investment 

is the lowest it’s ever been in the 45 years that Professor Mandle analyzed. 

The price tag associated with addressing these critical needs is measured in the 

hundreds of billions of dollars. Total current spending is well below what is needed 

to improve the condition of our national transportation infrastructure. As we will 

learn today, investments in infrastructure are required for the U.S. to remain competitive in our global economy. 

I hope today’s witnesses will go beyond a recitation of needs and instead focus 

on two aspects of how we meet those needs in the coming years. 

1. Roads, rails and runways don’t pay for themselves. Who will foot the bill, and 

how will they secure the funds they need to get the job done? 

2. What ideas do our witnesses have that will deal with our infrastructure needs 

in a holistic fashion? Roads and bridges—yes, of course, but what about light rail 

. . . rapid bus . . .freight rail . . . intermodal ports . . . airports. We need a truly integrated transportation system that breaks down the barriers not only at our DOTs 

but also here in Congress where different committees share jurisdictions. 

As this debate moves forward, we will need to focus on other key issues besides 

financing and program integration. We will need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, generally work to improve air quality, and also 

address the polluted stormwater runoff from our highways. We face critical challenges. I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses as we begin the dialog 

about how we transform our transportation infrastructure for a sustainable, economically viable future. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator, very much. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We all appreciate the opportunity to get into this thing. We have talked about 

it now since we saw the expiration coming. This will be my fourth 
7 

reauthorization. My first one was when I was serving in the House, 

so it is something that I am very, very much concerned about. 

There is a direct link between a robust economy and a strong 

transportation infrastructure, and that is one of the problems we 

are having right now. We started this system way back in the Eisenhower days, relying on the proceeds, the revenues from the gas 

tax, and this just really hasn’t worked. 

I think that today the witnesses that we have, Governor Rendell, 

I remember meeting you up in Philadelphia when we, not that you 

were attending the Republican Convention, but we were up there 

together. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. And Ms. Novak, it is nice to have you here. 

And of course, I called up the President when he nominated Ray 

LaHood to be the Transportation Secretary. And I said, this is by 

far the best nomination that you have made, and then I thought 

afterwards, am I destroying his career? So I am glad to see you 

made it through confirmation and just look forward to continuing 

to work with you. 

As I mentioned, the Highway Trust Fund has always had surpluses until just recent years. And this is something that is very 

difficult to deal with because others noticing the surplus, they 

started hitchhiking, putting different things that were not really 

roads and bridges, and other interests in there, because the money 

was there. 

And I can remember back in 1998 when then-President Clinton 

took a very large amount of money, $9 billion, out of the Highway 

Trust Fund and put it back into the general fund. And it was 10 

years later that we were able to get that reversed back over. So we 

have to be kind of patient with these things. 

Nonetheless, we have greater needs, and we are going to have 

the money in the conventional sources to get it done. While the 

Chairman and myself philosophically differ on a lot of things, we 

are together, and it really bothers people how much we like each 

other when we talk about transportation. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. But we tried. We tried to put an amendment on 

the stimulus bill to triple the amount of money that would have 

gone. Out of $787 billion, only $27 billion was going to go to this 

cause, 3 percent. And that is not adequate. We tried to triple that 

amount and were unsuccessful in being able to get the bill up. 

So I think, and I will wait to hear from Senator Baucus on this, 

I think we are going to have to get a little more creative. If we are 

going to be able to do what we have to do, it is going to be close 

to $400 billion to $500 billion to do the job that needs to be done. 

I know in my State of Oklahoma, I notice that the Senator from 

Missouri had to leave, but he used to be dead last in terms of the 

condition of the bridges in his State. Now, my State of Oklahoma 

is dead last. And we want to do something about that. We have 

that obligation. So we are going to get together. We have had several Big Four meetings and we are going to try to get this done. 

And as I say, Madam Chairman, we tried. We talked about this 

for so long now, about whether it is a VMT or what we have to do 
8 

to deviate from what we have done for the last 50 years, but we 

are going to have to do something. So let’s get creative. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Chairman Boxer. I appreciate the opportunity to examine the investment needs of our Nation’s transportation system. This next bill will be my 4th authorization, and I believe the challenges in continuing to provide a safe and free 

flowing transportation network have never been greater. I am sure our witnesses 

will agree that our Nation’s transportation needs outpace our current investment 

levels. 

The link between a robust economy and a strong transportation infrastructure is 

undeniable; yet when it comes to other spending priorities in the Federal Government, transportation is often neglected. We cannot continue to rely on investments 

made over 50 years ago. 

Since the Highway Trust Fund has historically maintained high balances, it has 

become a favorite funding source for all surface transportation activities, all while 

maintaining the highway users as the only revenue stream into the fund. As this 

Committee addresses growing infrastructure investment needs, with limited resources on hand, we will need to be bold in re-evaluating our highest national transportation priorities. 

I was disappointed that the Stimulus Plan signed last month provided less than 

7 percent of spending for all classes of infrastructure, and highways was only about 

3 percent. This level of funding for highways in an economic stimulus bill is unacceptable, as it largely ignores the immediate job creation and economic growth associated with infrastructure investment. In response to this insufficient level of investment, Senator Boxer and I worked together to craft an amendment, that it if had 

successfully been added to the package, would have provided an additional $50 billion for highways, transit and clean and safe drinking water, without increasing the 

size of the bill. Unfortunately, this was blocked. It is important to note that the $27.5 billion for highways in stimulus is no way 

a substitute for the hundreds of billions needed to address our Nation’s infrastructure crisis. In fact, the U.S. Department of Transportation calculates that the backlog of projects needed to simply maintain our Nation’s current highway and bridge 

network is $495 billion and growing. 

As we wait for a re-authorization proposal to emerge from the Administration, I 

would encourage President Obama to prioritize the transportation needs of this 

Country. Now more than ever, we cannot afford to ignore the needs of our aging 

highway network. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. And you certainly 

speak for me. We are partners on this effort, and it is a very good 

thing for the Country, I think. 

Senator Baucus, we are thrilled you are here. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you 

for calling this hearing on needs. 

Clearly, we have many needs for our transportation system. One 

definition of need is in Webster’s Dictionary, and I quote it, I repeat it here. It is ‘‘a lack of something requisite, desirable or useful.’’ 

Transportation infrastructure has always been requisite, desirable and useful to our economic growth and our national security. 

Whether it was Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin building the 

first National Road at a cost of about $13,000 per mile, which was 

a staggering sum for a Country steeped in debt in 1911, or it was 

the 1862 passage of the Pacific Railway Act that connected the 

Missouri River to the Chairman’s home State of California, or it 

was the first authorizing legislation for Federal highways, such as 
9 

the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 and the Federal Aid Highway Act 

of 1921. 

All of these things and others have combined to make our Country the safest and most prosperous place on earth. And we can still 

see the fruits of those efforts. As Governor Rendell might know, 

Gallatin’s National Road runs close to southwestern Pennsylvania. 

It is today called U.S. Route 40. The President who led the passage 

of the Pacific Railway Act was Lincoln, from Secretary LaHood’s 

home State of Illinois. And his efforts resulted in what we now 

refer to as the Union Pacific Railroad. And our current interstate 

network is based on maps developed as far back as that 1916 authorizing legislation. 

My State of Montana depends on Federal infrastructure, deeply, 

especially on Federal investment in infrastructure. We are a vast 

rural State. We have more Federal miles per capita than any State 

in the Nation. However, we have a smaller population, with one of 

the Nation’s lowest rates of per capita income. Back after World 

War II, Montana ranked 10th in the Nation in per capita income. 

We now rank about 48th or 49th in per capita income: big State, 

lots of highways, low income. 

That makes it difficult to meet the needs by ourselves, although 

we are on the top one-third in the Country in State gasoline taxes. 

Like many other nearby rural States, Montana serves as a key 

bridge State for freight movements moving through the State. Montana is 10th of all the States in terms of interstate miles. However, 

nearly half our primary roads are nearing the end of their 50-year 

design life. 

And Montana is not alone. Other rural States such as Idaho, Wyoming, Vermont and New Mexico also have needs that can only be 

addressed through a national highway program. 

And finally, it would be very easy to just focus on urban needs, 

to the detriment of rural needs. And that is one of the major concerns, although I have several, with the ideas that some people 

have, such as the national infrastructure bank. I fear that a national infrastructure bank will serve urban areas at the expense of 

rural. And I am afraid that a lot of money in a national infrastructure bank, again proposed by some, would go to fund non-transportation matters, such as urban water treatment systems and public 

housing, rather than addressing our highway, bridge and road 

needs. 

Instead, I think that bank idea will rob the future growth of the 

highway program. And that will destroy the national scope of our 

highway program. The key strength of our highway program is it 

is national. The interstate program is based on the premise that we 

are one Country. It links the various parts of our Country together. 

Some can pay for highways more easily than others. Rural States 

clearly cannot. 

And I also want to point out that we have lots of financing mechanisms to pay for surface transportation. The mechanism is not the 

problem. The problem is the funds. It is the money that flows 

through those mechanisms. So we don’t need new mechanisms if 

we don’t have the money. That is why I urge all of us to figure out 

ways to make this surface transportation program really work and 

address future needs. 
10 

I have sometimes mentioned, probably ad nauseam to many of 

the Members of this Committee, how a couple of years ago when 

I was in China, I got off a plan in Chongqing, China, to say nothing 

of Shanghai and other parts of China. But just go to Chongqing. 

Fly to Chongqing, a wonderful, big new airport, a fancy big airport. 

When I arrived there, the counsel over in Chongqing met us, and 

he is very angry. He said, why couldn’t Americans help build this 

airport? Why couldn’t American engineers help build this airport? 

It was German, and other engineers, that were there. 

Then we got in the car and drove on the highways. I could not 

believe it. The best, fanciest interstate highways I have ever seen. 

They are better than those in the U.S., nice big ribbons going 

through Chongqing. Chongqing is nearly 33 million people, and 

that is just one part of China. That is just one part. 

And there are many other parts of the world that are building 

wonderful infrastructure programs. Not to talk too long here, but 

as an example here. Several years ago, I was meeting with the 

Business Roundtable here on Capitol Hill. We were just trying to 

figure out what is it that gets our Country moving again in terms 

of infrastructure, gets it going again. This Country response to crisis. We responded to Pearl Harbor. We responded to Sputnik. We 

respond to crisis. 

The trouble is that the competitive crisis we are facing from competitive pressures overseas is not well defined. It is not like a Sputnik. You can’t see it in the sky immediately, nor is it like Pearl 

Harbor or the Great Depression, when we did respond to a crisis. 

But there is one fellow who was in the room here, who was the 

CEO of a major railroad. He said, Senator, I have seen Sputnik. 

Sputnik is the Shanghai Harbor. All of you should go to Shanghai 

if you haven’t already. Look at that harbor. Look at the massive 

infrastructure spending. China is undertaking up to date, modern. 

It far surpasses that of the United States, far surpasses. 

I have been in Vietnam not too long ago. Vietnam has built a 

huge, huge seaport. It is going to rival Singapore and Hong Kong. 

And I have been to Dubai. Dubai is doing the same thing in both 

air and sea transportation, a big hub, brand new airport, and a 

brand new port. 

So I am saying, Madam Chairman, and I will stop here, that we 

have to in the United States get our act together and address infrastructure in a big way. We can’t just authorize another highway 

bill. We have to big time figure out a way to reauthorize a transportation system with many new funding mechanisms and relying 

basically upon the current highway system because that is a formula which allocates dollars to States and gets away from big political fights that would otherwise occur in an infrastructure bank. 

Frankly, a bank is just for project deals. It is not for a system approach. 

So I just urge us to keep our eye on the ball and get a very good 

transportation system program passed. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Senator Baucus, I know hectic you are and 

what is on your shoulders. I really want to thank you so much. I 

will take just 60 seconds or less to say that your being here today 
11 

is very important, and your message and your challenge to us is 

equally as important. 

The public should know that for the last, well I would say 6 

months, even before the election, we were meeting, the four of us 

who will deal with this as a first shot. The rest of the Committee 

will soon enter the negotiations. 

We have been looking at all of the possibilities that have been 

laid out by the various commissions on how to do what Senator 

Baucus says, which is to look at how we are going to do this in the 

future. 

I think that statement about I have seen the new Sputnik and 

it is public works, that we are falling behind. It is a brilliant point. 

It does challenge us. 

And I know, Senator Voinovich, if I could maybe say something 

about you, sir. You know, Senator Voinovich, a senior member of 

our Committee who is now part of the Big Four has said to me that 

he wants to solve this problem because, as you know, he comes 

from State government. We have to do our share. The States have 

to do their share, but we can’t do our share with an ever-dwindling 

Highway Trust Fund. 

Now, President Obama at first in the budget took this whole 

trust fund idea and basically said it is not working, and we don’t 

accept that. We are going to make sure that there is a stream of 

funding. 

So I guess what I want to say is my commitment is to everything 

in my power, working with my friend, Jim Inhofe. We are going to 

look at, along with Senator Baucus, Senator Voinovich and every 

member of this Committee, ever idea that has come before us. And 

we welcome more ideas. 

I say to our panelists as they come up, because this is our challenge, and we cannot walk away from it because we would be walking away from the future, and none of us wants to do that. 

So it is my pleasure now to call on Senator Barrasso. I know colleagues have to run off to other places, but your words will not be 

lost on us. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I enjoyed visiting with 

you prior to this hearing. 

I also want to thank you, Madam Chairman, for trying to get 

Governor Freudenthal of Wyoming to testify, and I request that 

you do invite him in the future, because just as Senator Baucus 

has just testified, there are huge issues in terms of the rural 

States, great miles and long miles and not many people in between. 

So as we look forward to this new highway reauthorization bill, 

it is important that this Committee and Congress not lose sight of 

the importance of a national interconnected system of highways 

that includes access for rural America. 

Both Wyoming and Montana are bridge States, as Senator Baucus has mentioned, and these are States that allow the flow of com-
12 

merce to move from coast to coast. The great majority of the truck 

traffic in the States of Montana and Wyoming doesn’t originate in 

those States, doesn’t terminate in those States, but yet they travel 

through, and it is those large trucks for which we must make sure 

that the roads are maintained for the trucks and the national commerce, not just for the folks that live within the States. 

So we must ensure that the next highway bill enables transportation between major cities by connecting rural areas with wellmaintained roads. 

Mr. Secretary, as you know, you can’t drive from Illinois to the 

Chairman’s home in California without driving across Wyoming 

and Interstate 80. So again, I want to thank you for coming up 

here to testify and I look forward to your testimony today. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg, we are so happy you are here, such a leader 

on this. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Coming from the State of New Jersey which is the most densely 

populated State in the Country, you can pre-determine my interest 

in transportation. 

Secretary LaHood, good to see you here. We continue to have discussions along the way and we are happy that you have your heart, 

as well as your mind, in investments in transportation. 

I focus a lot on rail, but highways and air are all necessary 

places for attention. Each year, we need $250 billion just to meet our Country’s transportation needs, according to a Federal commission. And yet, we 

are investing less than half of that amount. Now is the time to 

change our priorities and our plans for the future. Now is the time, 

despite the hardship, the economic hardship that we face as a 

Country, for a policy that will renew and vitalize our transportation infrastructure because it will create jobs, reduce congestion, 

reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and fight global warming. 

First, America needs more not only passenger rail service, but to 

expand our freight rail systems as well. Goods move more efficiently, people and goods, on rail than they do on congested highways. Amtrak, for instance, saw ridership hit historic records last 

year, and that was the sixth straight year in a row that ridership 

on Amtrak increased. 

As a user of the Acela train, I find out that airplanes seem to 

be getting slower. It takes longer to get where you want to go on 

an airplane these days. Last Thursday night, I went to the airport. 

To get a train to the New York area, I can fly either to New York 

or New Jersey because I am mid-point between there on the Jersey 

side. And I got on an airplane, 6:30 flight, shuttle, to LaGuardia 

Airport. They closed the door on the airplane, and almost concurrent there was an announcement by the pilot who said, I am sorry 

to tell you we have a 2-hour wait. That was just after announcing 

flying time was 40 minutes, a 2-hour wait. They have to get better 

airplanes. 
13 

Anyway, to see Governor Rendell, our distinguished Governor of 

our neighboring State here, and see what progress he has made in 

the State of Pennsylvania with a new line that he was very happy 

to talk to me about some time ago, and the success of that line. I 

guess Philadelphia to Pittsburgh has been eminently successful. 

Getting cars off the road, getting people onto trains saves time, 

money, and energy. Last year, we passed a law that I wrote to revolutionize Amtrak and passenger rail. Combined with new funding 

in the economic recovery law, it will lead to more reliable service 

and major improvements in rail service throughout the Country. 

And as an aside, if we make the updates, the changes that we 

need for high speed rail, we will relieve significantly the congestion 

in the skyways. One out of four flights that take off today, as determined by 2007, one in four flights was late. And if we can get more 

people on the trains for shorter distances, we can improve conditions even up in the air. 

Second, we need transit options for our commuters, from subways and buses to commuter trains. More people are riding America’s public transit options than ever before. In 2008, Americans 

showed the highest ridership in 52 years. Mass transit reduces our 

dependence on foreign oil, relieves stress, and congestion on our already crowded roads and bridges, and save commuters money on 

gas and other costs associated with commutation by car. 

And third, we need to repair our highway infrastructure. We 

heard it from Senator Baucus just now about how countries far less 

advanced, far less developed than we have improved their highway 

systems. He talked about China in particular. A 21st century economy cannot be built on collapsing bridges. Nearly 25 percent of our 

Nation’s bridges are still deficient. We have to be able to repair 

them to carry the cars, trucks and buses that will continue to be 

part of our transportation network. 

To meet the demands of tomorrow, we need to make major 

changes and commit to investments in our surface transportation 

programs today. This hearing, as was noted, marks the beginning 

of our Committee’s work in crafting a new surface transportation 

bill. I sit on the Commerce Committee, as well as the Environment 

Committee. I am Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee here. I welcome the opportunities ahead of us. I look forward to working with our energetic Chairperson, and my colleagues 

in the new Administration, to rebuild our roads, our tunnels and 

bridges, while also expanding our rail, subways and bus service. 

In the past, this legislation, Madam Chair, has been called the 

highway bill, but our future needs call for a true surface transportation bill that encompasses all modes of transportation. 

I thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator, very much. 

Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to 

publicly thank you for your leadership in getting our staffs together 

to begin to try to make sure that we get this transportation bill 

done on time. 
14 

I experienced two of the transportation bills while I was Governor of the State of Ohio, and I am glad that Governor Rendell 

is here and Mayor Novak. I think it is important that we have the 

perspective of both State and local government. And I lobbied here 

as president of your group and as chairman of the National Governors, and I think so often your perspective isn’t adequately heard 

here. 

You, indeed, are our partners. And I think it is important that 

you emphasize how important it is that we get this done on time, 

because even though we have the stimulus bill, we need to know 

where we are going, not only in terms of our infrastructure, but 

also in terms of the economy. 

I know in my State, and I am glad that the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member encouraged more money in the stimulus bill, but 

my State, we have $2.7 billion worth of shovel-ready projects, and 

we, out of the stimulus bill, got less than $1 billion. So the need 

is there, and I think it is important that we get this done on time. 

Second, I think we all know that the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission came back and said 

that we need, overall, another $234 billion between the Federal 

Government and the role that State and local government plays. I 

think it is important that we decide what the number is, what we 

are capable of doing, so that there is a consensus there. And then 

the second, just like working with your legislators, it is nice if the 

Governor sits down with a legislature and says, here’s the budget. 

Do you guys agree with the number? OK, fine. We agree on the 

number. Then how do we get the money to take care of getting the 

job done? 

So I think that is important, Madam Chairman, that we decide 

on what that number is. And second of all, then, how are we going 

to pay for it. And there is a lot of discussion about how we should 

do it. The thing that, and I know this doesn’t ring a bell with too 

many people, but I am absolutely surprised, and I met with the 

Chamber of Commerce people and all the other groups that in the 

past have been just adamantly opposed to seeing an increase in the 

gas tax, and of them coming on board and saying this is necessary 

for us to get the job done, understanding that that isn’t the sole 

source of revenue, that there are other revenues that will be available to us. 

So Madam Chairman, I am just anxious to work with you and 

see if we can get a consensus and move forward and get this done 

on time, and get the money on the street, and put people back to 

work. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Senator, that is music to our ears. It think 

this is one area where we are going to see tremendous cooperation. 

I am so thrilled to see all the attendance here. It is slowing us up, 

so if we can move to 4-minute opening statements now, if you can, 

and if you can’t, you can add another minute. 

Amy, you can add your other minute if you want. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 
15 

Thank you to our witnesses, Mayor and Governor. I wouldn’t 

have gotten to Washington without having driven on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Thank you. 

Secretary LaHood, who just visited our State with the Vice President during the past week. I think you saw that people care about 

transportation not just in densely packed New Jersey, but in St. 

Cloud, Minnesota, where at the town meeting I would say they 

were very results-oriented, especially about the route of the rail 

from Big Lake to St. Cloud. Thank you so much for spending the 

time out there. 

The need for transportation investment in our State, and I think 

you could feel it when you were there. It became tragically clear 

to us when the I–35W bridge collapsed in the middle of the Mississippi River, killing 13 people, injuring scores of others. And as 

they said that day, a bridge just shouldn’t fall down in the middle 

of America. It was at tragedy that shocked our Country and exposed our deteriorating transportation infrastructure. 

For far too long, we have neglected our roads and our bridges. 

According to the Federal Highway Transportation Administration, 

more than 25 percent of the Nation’s 600,000 bridges are either 

structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. I think we talked 

about the bill that Congressman Oberstar and I have which mandates that bridge repair money be used for bridge repair money, because we found that was an issue in our State and others, as there 

is a natural tendency to want to build new bridges and open new 

infrastructure, when in fact some of our infrastructure needs to be 

fixed. 

It is not just a safety issue. It is also an economic issue. Congestion and inefficiencies across our transportation network limit our 

ability to get goods to market. They exacerbate the divide between 

urban and rural America, and they constrain economic development and competitiveness. 

Our State is ninth in the Country for Fortune 500 companies, 

from 3M to Target to Best Buy to Medtronic to General Mills, and 

our business community actually has been very focused on trying 

to get more transportation funding on the State and the Federal 

level because they see this connection. If we are going to move into 

a 21st century economy, we need a 21st century transportation system. 

The Recovery Act, the stimulus package, was a good first start 

toward bolstering our investment in our transportation system, but 

it is just a start. As we have all discussed, there are going to be 

challenges with funding, but we also see this as an opportunity. 

Every billion dollars of highway spending creates 35,000 new jobs. 

And as we have discussed today, it is not just about the roads and 

bridges, and I know you understand this from our meeting, rail, 

rapid transit, high-occupancy lanes, pedestrian walkways, other options. 

Smart planning decisions at the local level will also serve to 

broaden options for many Americans, while helping to reduce our 

dependency on foreign oil. Research and innovation, something we 

haven’t talked about as much, can stretch our transportation dollars even further. IBM in the Twin Cities and Rochester, Minnesota is looking to partner with the University of Minnesota to ex-
16 

amine how advancement in intelligent transportation solutions can 

solve some of our most pressing transportation needs. 

So whether it is predicting a traffic jam before it happens or 

using smart cards to provide a paperless transit system, public-private partnerships all across America will play a key role in leading 

us into the 21st century. 

So those are some of the things that I am going to be focusing 

on this week and debate this bill. But I want to thank you for recognizing, which I clearly saw when you came to Minnesota, how 

important this is to our economy’s future. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks so much, Senator. 

Senator Specter, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

The good news is that there are 10 Senators here to listen to you. 

That is a lot of Senators, considering what is going on this morning. The bad news is that everybody is going to speak. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. But not for too long, at least here. 

But I wanted to come by and pay my respects to the new Secretary of Transportation and the longstanding Governor of Pennsylvania, two very distinguished public servants tackling very, very 

important issues. 

I am pleased to hear that you were in Minnesota. I know that 

you have been in Pennsylvania. You have probably been in all 10 

States represented here today. And as the saying goes, if you 

haven’t been, you probably will be, and sooner rather than later. 

But I appreciate the chance to talk to you on the train ride when 

Vice President Biden came to Philadelphia to join Governor 

Rendell, Senator Casey, me and others on the stimulus package 

and the important needs of our region. 

I am glad to have had an opportunity to discuss those with you, 

Mr. Secretary. And Ed Rendell and Arlen Specter and others are 

going to be following you. And you have a big, big, critical, critical, 

important job, and it applies in two ways. One is to make the stimulus package work. And right now, we have an America which is 

not enthusiastic about spending $787 billion, in fact, very 

unenthusiastic. Lots of political perils for those of us, those few of 

us, those very few of us who voted for it in a certain context, but 

it is necessary for America, and now we have to make it work, and 

we have to make it work to put people to work. 

An early conversation I had with Governor Rendell was how fast. 

And after we negotiated a while, he said, ‘‘as early as 6 months on 

a lot of the transportation matters.’’ And there are big projects on 

infrastructure, highways, bridges, and mass transit. And we have 

already given you a long list. 

So it is putting people to work and it is also putting people to 

work on very, very important items which will last and which will 

promote economic development. 

As we speak, we have FBI Director Muller in Judiciary, and then 

in another committee, we have former Supreme Court Justice San-
17 

dra Day O’Connor and others, so I am going to yield back the balance of my minute and 9 seconds. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you for coming. 

And I also wanted to note Senator Gillibrand had to go to another committee as well, but she will submit her statement for the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Gillibrand follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I want to begin by thanking our witnesses for being with us today; in particular, 

I want to recognize our first witness—Secretary LaHood. 

Secretary LaHood and I had the pleasure of meeting early last week, and I am 

so thankful for his leadership on the critical issues facing our Nation’s transportation system. 

I look forward to hearing from the Secretary as well as our other witnesses, Governor Rendell and Mayor Novak. 

Thank you all for being here. 

The state of our Nation’s infrastructure, as one leading advocacy organization has 

stated, ‘‘is poorly maintained, unable to meet current and future demands, and in 

some cases, unsafe.’’ 

Given the great economic challenges this Nation faces, our core infrastructure 

needs should be seen as an opportunity to put Americans back to work, address the 

issue of global climate change, and invest in long-term economic development opportunities. 

For States like New York, the numbers illustrate the importance of our transportation infrastructure: 

• The New York City area is home to nearly one in every three Americans that 

use mass transit. 

• In terms of passenger rail, two-thirds of the Nation’s rail riders reside in New 

York. 

• While 90 percent of Americans commute to work via automobile, nearly twothirds of those who commute to the New York City from surrounding areas use 

mass transit. 

Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels through the development of alternative 

energy vehicles and encouraging the use of mass transit systems are critical to our 

Nation’s future. 

Investments in our mass transit systems are critical to prevent service cuts and 

further increases in transit fares, which will only further burden American families 

who rely on mass transit for their primary transportation needs. 

Congestion issues in our metropolitan areas have a significant impact on our 

economy and our ability to move goods. 

• By the year 2020, traffic congestion could cost the city of Buffalo more than 

$150 million annually. 

• For Rochester, $70 million, Albany, nearly $100 million. 

At research centers like SUNY-Stony Brook’s Center for Excellence in Wireless & 

Information Technology on Long Island, researchers are developing technology to 

better measure transportation infrastructure usage to aid city planners and emergency personnel. 

This type of innovation will save money and save lives. 

The challenge before us is finding the funding mechanisms that will meet America’s growing infrastructure needs from maintaining our critical freight rail systems, 

developing the high speed passenger rail lines of the future, to ensuring the safety 

of our bridges and roads. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the counsel of individuals 

like the distinguished panel that we have before us today, to improve our Nation’s 

transportation and our ability to move people and goods across this Nation. 

Senator BOXER. So we will turn to Senator Merkley. 
18 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I can’t go to a town meeting in Portland or anywhere in the State 

of Oregon without hearing about transportation issues. So there is 

a great deal at stake here. Certainly, I am interested in how our 

transportation policy and how this bill will affect our strategy to 

fight global warming, our ability to take on congestion, and develop 

livable communities, to improve our approach to multi-modal transportation, and to strengthen our economies, particularly our rural 

economies. 

And so I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you very much. 

Senator Sanders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. LaHood, welcome, and we look forward to working with you. 

Vermont has not been one of the States that you visited, so we 

want to get you up there. The weather is clearing, I want to tell 

you. We look forward to having you, if we could work that out. 

Madam Chair, Congress and this Committee deal with enormously complicated issues such as global warming and so forth. 

But the truth of the matter is that transportation and infrastructure are not all that complicated. The bottom line is, and I say this 

as a former Mayor, but I think it will not surprise anybody, is if 

you allow your infrastructure to deteriorate, year after year after 

year you don’t put funding in it, you know what? It is going to get 

worse; probably will not get better. And that is precisely what we 

have done as a Nation. 

And the irony there is it costs more money to rebuild a crumbling infrastructure than it does to simply maintain it. So we have 

been really dumb and we have wasted enormous sums of money. 

In my State of Vermont, we are one of the smallest States in this 

Country. We need an additional $1 billion over the next 5 years 

just to keep our roads and bridges in the same poor shape they are 

in right now. I am embarrassed about the condition of our roads 

and bridges in the State of Vermont and I suspect that is true all 

over this Country. 

So Madam Chair, No. 1, as others have said, we need, the American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that we should be investing over $2 trillion in infrastructure. So we are going to have 

a major debate on how we raise that money, but we must raise 

that money, because if we are not investing in infrastructure, we 

are only going to see more deterioration. 

And I hope that every member of this Committee shares the embarrassment that when we go to so-called third world countries, 

whether it is China, Vietnam or other countries, we are seeing 

transportation technology that we don’t have in the United States 

of America. 
19 

I was in China some years ago. We were going from the airport 

to Shanghai, and suddenly this thing whizzed by. We couldn’t see 

it. It was a magnetic levitation train. China. We don’t have them 

in the United States of America. 

As I think Senator Lautenberg pointed out, people are crowding 

into airports because we don’t have fast rail to get from one city 

to another, et cetera, et cetera. 

So Madam Chair, our Committee has the responsibility for not 

only rebuilding the infrastructure in this Country, but also creating 

millions of good jobs as we do that. You understand better than 

anyone that infrastructure is also related in terms of mass transportation to greenhouse gas emissions and cutting back on that. So 

infrastructure ties a whole lot of issues together, and I hope very 

much that after years and years of neglect, this Committee will 

rise to the occasion, rebuild our infrastructure, our mass transportation. 

And in that regard, Mr. Secretary, we certainly look forward to 

your leadership and working with you. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, as usual you made it very simple and 

straightforward. 

Senator Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And it is 

great having you hold this hearing today. 

And Secretary LaHood, great to see you again. You are a great 

service to our Nation, and your position is very much appreciated. 

You know, we know from government studies and reports by respected organizations such as the American Society of Civil Engineers that much of our Nation’s transportation infrastructure is 

crumbling, which was just emphasized by my colleague Mr. Sanders. And all of us remember, as Amy Klobuchar said, the Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis collapsing in 2007. 

In my State, there are over 400 structurally deficient bridges, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. This is just one 

example that illustrates the overall problem that exists across the 

Country. 

It seems to me we face two fundamental challenges with our 

transportation infrastructure. First, much of it was built more than 

50 years ago. And second, we know today about the dangers of 

global warming and our dependence on foreign oil and we must do 

more to encourage alternatives to automobiles. 

Given the grave transportation infrastructure challenge, we need 

better coordination at State, local and Federal levels, and it is 

great to see Governor Rendell here and Mayor Novak, so that you 

can engage with us in this conversation. 

I am going to focus my questions on the transportation needs of 

my State of New Mexico, but I also am looking forward, Governor 

Rendell, to hear you talk about, and Secretary LaHood, talk about 

this whole issue as we try to develop a transportation system that 

is going to be lower carbon and carbon-neutral and move in that 

direction, what are the wise ways to do that? How do we, and I 
20 

know you are going to talk about competitive bids and things like 

that, but I think it is very, very important that as we move forward 

with transportation, we look at the issues of global warming, our 

dependence on foreign oil, and how we move to a low-carbon future. 

So with that, because I am very excited about hearing you testify, I am going to yield back 1 minute and 46 seconds and move 

forward. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is great. 

Well, finally, I think, if I could just say this. I think it is important that so many people came here, so for those who are saying 

why do they want to put their statement on the record, I think it 

is very key and very important that on both sides of the aisle, we 

heard unanimity here. We want to get this job done. 

And by the way, you don’t hear that on all the issues we take 

up, as you know. 

This is important. And I want to also say the dynamic of having 

Senator Voinovich in his important position as he really builds a 

tremendous legacy in politics, is very, very helpful. So you should 

be complimented, I say to the panel, that so many folks wanted to 

get their ideas out here. It is a signal to the public that we are very 

serious on this. 

So with that, we want to hear from our honored guest, Ray 

LaHood. 

STATEMENT OF RAY LaHOOD, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, Madam Chair, my statement is not any more 

enlightening that what has already been said. I will be happy to 

suspend with it and go to questions. 

Senator BOXER. Just give us a 5-minute, off the top. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAHOOD. Then you want me to read it, is that right? 

Senator BOXER. Well, I feel like it is important that we know 

where you are coming from, where the Administration is coming 

from on the highway bill. Then we will go to questions. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Sure. 

Senator BOXER. I think it is worth taking 5 minutes of your time. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for holding this hearing to discuss transportation investment needs. 

Today, I would like to focus primarily on the funding required to 

maintain and improve the condition and the performance of our 

Nation’s highway system. America’s transportation systems are the 

lifeblood of our economy. They allow people to get to jobs and allow 

businesses to access wider pools of labor, suppliers and customers. 

Without efficient transportation routes, economies stagnate. We 

need to protect, preserve and invest in our transportation infrastructure to ensure it can meet our present and future demands. 

Above all, we must make our roadways safe for all travelers. 

Where public safety is concerned, there is no room for compromise. 

As you know, less than 1 month after taking office, President 

Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
21 

Act of 2009. The resources made available for transportation infrastructure through the Recovery Act are significant and a good start 

on what we need to do to address some of the most significant challenges. 

These challenges include: reducing fatalities, mitigating the impact of transportation on the environment, improving highway and 

bridge infrastructure, and ensuring mobility in transportation 

choices for travelers in congested metropolitan regions. These 

needs will continue to exist long after the recovery funds are expended, and dealing with them will help create and preserve many 

good paying jobs for years to come. 

While we await the release of the 2008 edition of the Conditions 

and Performance Report, which is now being reviewed by OMB, we 

can draw some conclusions about highway and bridge infrastructure needs from data published in the 2006 version. At the heart 

of the report is an analysis of future capital investment requirements under different scenarios. 

The cost to maintain highways and bridges scenario presents the 

investment required to keep future conditions and performance at 

current levels. The cost to improve highway and bridges defines the 

upper limits of cost beneficial investments based on engineering 

and economic criteria. 

Sharp increases in construction materials costs since 2004 have 

substantially increased the costs identified in the 2006 report. The 

average annual cost to maintain would now require at least $100 

billion in investments from all sources. The estimated average annual cost to improve level would now equate to at least $170 billion. 

While we have seen some improvements in physical conditions of 

roads and bridges, particularly on the NHS, their performance has 

deteriorated, wasting travelers’ time and fuel. Without renewal and 

restoration of our transportation infrastructure, the system will not 

be able to support the needs of a growing economy. 

The real challenge in addressing the needs I have outlined will 

be the availability of funding at the Federal level. We are looking 

at every option to solve this problem, but it will not be ready overnight. The new authorization bill for surface transportation programs is one of the highest priorities. We will be seeking changes 

and encouraging more effective investments in an environmentally 

friendly and multi-modal approach. Taxpayers want to see results 

from infrastructure investments that directly benefit their lives, 

better access to jobs and goods, and improved mobility within and 

between communities. 

We need an increased focus on measuring the outcomes of infrastructure investments such as improved safety, reduced congestion, 

improved pavement and facility life, and better air quality. 

Our transportation infrastructure is critically important to our 

Nation’s economic health. As this Committee considers the next authorization, I ask you to work to maintain the safety and integrity 

of our highways and bridges, while improving the overall performance and reliability of our transportation infrastructure. 

This must be done in the context of striving toward the goal of 

livable and sustainable communities. This is a tall order, but we 
22 

look forward to continue working with the Committee, the States, 

and our partners in the transportation community to succeed. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. LaHood follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

As we work to craft our new bill, our MAP–21, will you be available to work with us? Because I think we need your expertise. I 

know that you spoke about vehicle miles traveled as a concept, and 

some folks in the Administration said, well, we are not interested 

in that. 

You know, I guess my question to you is, I hope the Administration is open to working with us on every possible idea. Senator 

Inhofe and I have been talking, just here this morning, but really 

for months about this. There are many options in terms of how we 

can get a funding stream that meets our needs. 

So I guess my question is, do you believe the Administration, despite whatever the back channels were that responded to you, do 

you think they are open to looking at all of our ideas and have not 

put anything off the table? Because I think as we meet, we are 

going to have another meeting today, we want to make sure that 

we are working with you. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I was at a meeting, which I think would explain 

in pretty good detail, last Friday with Governor Rendell, Governor 

Schwarzenegger, and Mayor Bloomberg in the President’s office. 

They presented the President with a report. I can tell you, there 

is a very, very strong commitment from President Obama to put 

everything on the table, to throw out all the ideas that we can, and 

see which ones stick and which ones make sense. 

I am committed as a part of his team and a part of his Cabinet 

to work with you. Whenever you need me up here, I will be here. 

When you need our staff, we will be here. We are going to be full 

partners in trying to work through what resources we need and 

how to get those resources. 

And the President is committed to that. I know Governor Rendell 

will talk to you about the work that he has been doing with other 

Governors and Mayors and so forth. But I think we came away 

from meeting with a full commitment from the President. 

We have to talk about a lot of creative ideas to do all the things 

we want to do with infrastructure and roads, and to create livable 

communities and other opportunities. 

And so you will have a full partner. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is really my only question, because I 

think that is what we need right now. None of us is ideological 

about all this. We just want to be pragmatic and get this to happen. 

I want to thank Governor Schwarzenegger and Governor Rendell, 

who I will have a chance to formally thank again, and Mayor 

Bloomberg, and yourself, because this is really in a way a 

tripartisan team, Independents and Republicans and Democrats. 

And that is what we need. 

This is something we can get done, but nothing should be off the 

table, even if at first blush, you know, we reject it. We just need 

to be very open to all the ideas. 

So thank you for that comment. I really appreciate it. 

With that, I will turn to Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

It might be a good time just for any brief thoughts that you have 

on some of the options that we are looking at. Let’s start with pub-
49 

lic-private partnerships. Have you developed any ideas that you 

think might be something we might want to look at? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, there are a lot of innovative public-private 

partnerships that we can model after. In Miami, they are building 

an intermodal facility that I had the privilege of visiting with Vice 

President Biden to make some announcements on a couple of 

weeks ago. 

There are some folks out west that are putting together a publicprivate partnership having to do with high speed rail. There are 

lots of people in this Country who want to work with us at DOT 

and all of you to put some private dollars with public dollars, and 

really leverage what we can to make these things happen. 

It is not only on high speed rail. It is on highways. It is on intermodal facilities. And there are lots of examples out there that we 

can use to build on. 

Senator INHOFE. You know, I am glad to hear you say that because all too often, we want to reinvent something that has already 

been invented. We have a testing area out there, like Governor 

Rendell and others, have tried things. Some things haven’t worked. 

Some have worked. And I would hope that we could go and try to 

pick the very best of those and perhaps use them. 

One of the areas, well, let me thank you again for your appearance at our Chamber the other day. That was very helpful. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Sure. 

Senator INHOFE. One of the other areas that we talk about up 

here, you have been there long enough you have probably looked. 

Both Chairman Boxer and I have complained about some of the bureaucratic delays that might be eliminated. Have you looked at 

some of these and how we might be able to expedite some of the 

programs that we have? 

Mr. LAHOOD. When we implemented the recovery plan, our part 

of it, the $40 billion plus at the Department, we put together for 

the highway portion, the $28 billion, what we call—well, for all of 

it, including transit—we put together a TIGER team, where we 

took all the modes and they meet every day. I meet with them once 

a week and we talk about how we are getting the money out the 

door and how the money is being spent, and we make sure we are 

following the rules and regulations and the law that was passed by 

Congress. 

And this kind of approach has enabled us to get about $3 billion 

out the door to 33 States and over 800 projects in a very short period of time. So we have cut a lot of the bureaucracy, a lot of the 

red tape. No short cuts. We are following the law. But we have 

done it with the TIGER team approach and we are hoping to be 

able to use that kind of approach in getting dollars out the door 

as Congress passes a bill. 

We can do it. We know we can do it. We are doing it right now 

just by getting people in a room working together. And so it works, 

and we are going to take that model and use it to work with all 

of you as you, you know, put together the bill that will continue 

our successes. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, that is great to hear. That is great to hear. 

I appreciate that very much, Mr. Secretary. 
50 

A couple of times we have referred to the 2006 report and the 

2008 report is out there somewhere. Where is that? 

Mr. LAHOOD. It is at OMB. And it was sort of suspended in the 

interim between our Administration and the previous Administration. OMB is reviewing it. 

I think we will have a report to you very soon. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. I was saying that at all critically, because 

you just got there. 

Mr. LAHOOD. No, no. I know. 

Senator INHOFE. I would just think that might be very helpful to 

us. 

Now, as we look at what our job is and what we are going to be 

doing, it is kind of scary to think about the magnitude. I can remember during the 2005 bill, and I guess I was Chairman at that 

time. And it was a $286.4 billion, I think, bill. And I remember 

going to the President at that time, President Bush, and he said, 

well, this is just too much. We’ll veto it. And I said I would head 

up the veto override, and of course he didn’t do it. 

But that amount in 2005 was really just enough to kind of maintain what is out there. We are just not doing it, not keeping up. 

Have you given any thought to any top line figures that, as much 

as we hate to talk about them publicly, any thoughts that you 

might have? 

Mr. LAHOOD. We have put together some principles in the Department for what needs to be done and how to pay for it. And we 

have sent those to the White House. As a part of the Cabinet, we 

feel that we have to get the President and his team at the White 

House on board on these principles, and once they have signed off 

on them, we will be happy to share them with you. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. That is good. That is fair enough. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. 

I listened with interest, and watched the degree of more than interest, perhaps even gluttony, in terms of what it is that we need 

to get this job done. 

You say in your remarks that if we look at the year 2004, that 

we approximated $170 billion in annual maximum economic investment. However, if we put this in perspective and we look at 2006, 

what we spent was $78 billion. The shortfall is so dramatic that 

it strikes one as that can’t be true; it has to be an arithmetic thing. 

Well, we know that is not the case. 

Mr. Secretary, when it comes to the Highway Trust Fund, an important element, the current financial situation is simply not sustainable. What kind of plans does the Administration have to address this crisis in the near term? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, as I said, we have sent some principles to the 

White House for what the needs are for the way forward, and we 

are waiting. But I have been saying all along, Senator, that we 

need to think outside the box. The Highway Trust Fund is simply 

not going to allow us to do all the things that we want to do in 

America, and in developing our opportunities for the way forward. 

So we need to think about public-private partnerships. As much as 
51 

I hear what Senator Baucus says, we need to think about an infrastructure bank. 

We need to throw a lot of ideas out there and see which ones 

stick. And you all are going to write the bill. But we are not going 

to be bashful about saying if you do this, this is what you get; if 

you do this, this is what adds to it. 

We need to build on the Highway Trust Fund. There is not 

enough money in the Highway Trust Fund to do what we need to 

do. So we ought to throw a whole bunch of ideas out there and you 

all decide which ones you think are sound politically policy-wise, 

and what kind of results we get from them in terms of new resources. 

I was in Miami and I rode on a lane that was built on Interstate 

95 with tolls. That works, and they are very happy about it. They 

made that decision. They made the decision to build an extra lane 

on I–95 using tolls, and they paid for it that way. 

And so that works. We know that works. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That was a State endeavor, and in all fairness, a State endeavor. But what do we do nationally? I hear a review of opportunities, but what specifically? I mean, Mr. Secretary, 

we are going to have to get leadership from the Administration on 

these things. I mean, we can battle it out here, but if we come up 

to OMB and they say, not possible, where are we? 

So we are asking you, I am asking you, to come up with particular specific suggestions on how we replace and fulfill the obligations of the Highway Trust Fund. We see transit systems forced to 

cut service; increased fares to cover budget shortfalls. At the same 

time, Americans are taking public transportation in record numbers. The economic recovery bill contained $8.4 billion for transit 

capital costs, but these funds, and all Federal funds, cannot be 

used for operating assistance. 

Might we change the law, Mr. Secretary, to allow Federal dollars 

to be used for operating expenditures? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, I said to another committee, Senator, that I 

am very open minded in these hard economic times to looking at 

the possibility of allowing transit systems to use part of their 

money for operating expenses. It is fine to provide a lot of new 

buses and a lot of new equipment, but if you don’t have the drivers 

and you can’t pay the drivers, it doesn’t make any difference how 

many buses you have. 

We are open minded about that. We are going to look at that 

very carefully. And we think when the transit districts don’t have 

enough money to pay bus drivers, it seems logical that we should 

be open minded about that and we are. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, if we are talking about job creation, 

you just pointed out a place that suggests there are lots of jobs 

available. Do we have the applicants? Do we have the interest from 

the public to take these jobs? And if not, where? Show me the 

money. Absolutely critical. 

The situation that we are in is one that is so difficult. And Mr. 

Secretary, I wouldn’t want to be in your position right now because 

you are our flag bearer. You are the one that has to continue to 

fight for a share that will sustain us. And I think in the process, 

you have got to close your ears to the other appeals that are being 
52 

made. You have this mission and this mission is critical to the 

well-being and the ability of our Country to get back on its feet. 

So we will give you some more stripes if you can do that. 

Mr. LAHOOD. We are going to provide the leadership. We take 

our cues from the President, and a big part of the economic recovery plan was the $40 billion to $50 billion to put people to work 

quickly because the President knows that works. 

And when you see people out building roads this summer and 

you see transit districts buying buses and you see people driving 

these buses, these are people that are in good paying jobs that are 

going to be working this summer. I think the President recognizes 

the value of a very, very strong infrastructure program. You will 

see the leadership, but we need a little bit of time here. The President has been a little bit preoccupied with a few other things. We 

are trying to get his attention on these things. We will get his attention. He knows the importance of it. And we will provide the 

leadership, Senator. I guarantee you of that. 

Senator BOXER. And I want to say, we will as well. So I think 

this is, we are ready to go. We are very close to being ready to go. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Secretary, first of all thank you very much 

for getting the money out quickly. I know people think that is an 

easy thing to do, but for many years, that was not the case. So 

thank you for doing that. 

And thank you for your strong advocacy for the stimulus package 

which I think is one of the most important pieces of legislation, for 

a dozen different reasons, that this Country has passed in a very, 

very long time. 

I want you to focus for a moment on rural transportation. You 

know, I am aware of the problems in urban America. My State is 

a very rural State. And you know what? Throughout most of rural 

America, you don’t have a transportation system. You really don’t. 

I could tell you that in my State that if you live in, say, Hardwick, Vermont up in the northeastern part of the State, and you 

are going to Burlington, our largest city, there really is no practical 

way for you to get there other than your automobile. 

So if we are talking about greenhouse gas emissions, if we are 

trying to talk about saving people money, in many parts of rural 

America, you can’t go from one town to another town other than 

with your automobile. 

Can you give us, share with us some thoughts about how we are 

going to make some very profound changes in rural transportation 

in America? What do you think? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, I think that the way to do it, Senator, is to 

take some leadership on our own and take the ideas that you all 

have to try and persuade transit districts that are in areas that are 

not serving rural areas to begin to really look at those kinds of opportunities. Now, obviously they would need some dollars to do 

that. 

I think the other part of it is really trying to think of opportunities for perhaps some other modes of transportation other than just 

buses. The idea of light rail, you have to be able to show that that 

can work and that you would have the ridership, but we know that 
53 

in some parts of the Country, folks are planning those kinds of opportunities. 

To me, those are the two things that we can really look at as opportunities to work with transit districts to determine their level 

of interest in really providing the kind of service into rural areas. 

I met with a group of mayors recently that are big city mayors 

that have tried to reach out into the rural parts of the areas—— 

Senator SANDERS. If I could interrupt you to tell you why that 

is important is often in the urban areas, the larger towns, is where 

the jobs are and you want to get people from the rural areas, the 

workers, to get to the jobs. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Correct. 

Senator SANDERS. You need that transportation. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Correct. When I was in Philadelphia, Chaka 

Fattah, the Congressman from that area, told me of a plan where 

he got the transit district in Philadelphia to actually take buses out 

to rural and suburban areas to bring people in for jobs. 

Senator SANDERS. Right. 

Mr. LAHOOD. That is the kind of innovative thinking we need to 

be doing with transit districts, to provide the kind of transportation 

to people who maybe are starting a first job and don’t have a car, 

and have no way to get into the area where the job is. 

Senator SANDERS. I think that is exactly right. 

Let me ask you this, do you see potential use, when we talk 

about buses, very often we are talking about large, expensive 

buses. Sometimes in rural areas you don’t have the people to get 

on those buses. What about vans and small buses? 

Mr. LAHOOD. The example I described of Congressman Fattah 

actually used a van. It wasn’t a bus, it was vans that went out to 

these rural and suburban areas to bring people in to jobs. I don’t 

know if it was a program that Governor Rendell started when he 

was Mayor, but the point is there are innovative things that we 

can do with the dollars that we have, and there are systems available to do it. We have to get transit districts to think outside the 

box and we have to develop other opportunities. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

Madam Chair, my only point here is that as we discuss the 

transportation infrastructure crisis in America, we cannot forget 

rural America. That has to be part of the equation. 

Senator BOXER. Well said. 

Now, Senator Voinovich, I owe you an apology. You should have 

been next, and I missed that. I am sorry. 

After you are done with your questions, we are going to move to 

the second panel, so go ahead, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Secretary, a little Ohio problem. I 

brought Continental Airlines to Cleveland back when I was Mayor 

and Continental Airlines needs an international connection with 

the STAR Alliance. They have had an application pending in your 

Department since last year. And I would like somebody here that 

is from your staff to write that down and see if we can’t get that 

decision taken care of as soon as possible because they are on hold 

right now because they haven’t had that decision made by the Department, and we need to have that as soon as possible. It is a 
54 

great job creator in our town in Northern Ohio, so if you would 

take care of that. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Second of all, you know, we had Mary Peters 

here and Mary, we asked her about how she was going to pay for 

a lot of this, and she kept talking about principles and public-private partnerships and so on and so forth. When we got to the legislation in the last bill, we came up with $286 billion. We knew we 

needed $320 billion or $300 billion, something like that. They said 

it was too much, couldn’t do it. Many of us said that the money we 

made available wouldn’t keep up with inflation, that we would fall 

behind. 

And I was wrong. It is worse than what I predicted, because with 

the cost of steel and the cost of oil, they haven’t been able to do 

what we thought they would be able to do with the money. 

Now, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission said that we need to enact a modest 10 cent increase in the Federal gasoline tax, 15 cent increase in the Federal 

diesel tax, and commensurate increases in all special fuels taxes. 

And what they pointed out is that these adjustments approximate the amounts required to recapture the purchasing power lost 

to inflation since 1993. That is the last time it happened, 1993. 

That translates into approximately $20 billion per year more to 

just keep us up to where we would be if we got that money originally. 

And the question I have is how are we going to pay for all these 

things we are talking about? I think we need to level with the 

American people. It is going to take a gas tax increase and it is 

going to take public-private partnerships and it is going to take a 

whole lot of other stuff to get the job done. And I think the sooner 

we face up to it, the better off we are all going to be. 

I know we were talking about doing it here in the Senate. I think 

we would have had some votes in the Senate to pass a gas tax increase, but your colleagues over in the House that took Grover 

Norquist’s pledge that they wouldn’t increase taxes, oh, no, we’re 

not going to do that. 

Well, let’s get serious. We have a really awful infrastructure 

problem in this Country, and you have heard the other Senators 

talk about other countries. It is time we looked the American people in the eye and told them we are in bad shape. People complain 

to me all the time about the time that they spend on the road, the 

gas we burn, the pollution that is taking place. I think that we 

have to be forthright. 

And I would like to know, you know, how are you going to take 

care of this? And it can’t be principles and other things. Let’s get 

serious. Where are you going to get the money? 

Mr. LAHOOD. We are going to get the money from Congress, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAHOOD. You all write the bill. I am just telling you though, 

Senator, and you have heard me say this before, this Administration in these hard economic times, with so many people out of 

work, can ill afford to tell people we are going to raise the gasoline 

tax. 
55 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, then you can’t—look, you can’t—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. That is off the table for now, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You can’t do it. You know it and everybody 

else knows it and it is about time we leveled with people. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Senator, respectfully, I disagree with you. I think 

we can do it. I think we can take the Highway Trust Fund and do 

a number of other things that will help us raise the revenue to satisfy the needs that we want to meet here. 

Senator VOINOVICH. If you just did what I said, it would give us $20 billion that would put us even. It wouldn’t deal with the gap 

of 43 percent in terms of maintaining, or the 31 percent gap to improve the highway system in the Country. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, I think it is pretty difficult. I met with the 

Governor of Michigan yesterday and she told me that their unemployment rate is 12 percent, and if the automobile industry continues in the decline that it is in, it is going to be higher than that. 

How do you say to people you are going to raise their gasoline 

taxes when 12 percent of the people in Michigan are out of work? 

It is very difficult to do that and we are not in a mode to do that. 

We are in a mode to think about a lot of other things. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Then what you tell them is, I am sorry, 

folks, we are not going to be able to do the job that needs to be 

done in our Country, to take care of the logjams and other things 

that you have. We are not going to do it. We are going to delay this 

for a couple of years of whatever it is. But we just have to be honest with people. It is time to level with them. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for that candor. 

I just think that before you said everything was on the table. 

Now you said the gas tax is not on the table. All I want to say is, 

I am averse to raising the gas tax. But I have not signed a pledge, 

and that means I am willing to see what we have to do. 

Now, we are going to have this meeting this afternoon. We are 

putting everything on the table. There are some proposals not to 

raise the tax, but to index it to inflation in the future. Now, I 

would urge you to take a look at that because if you index it to inflation in the future, you are not raising it today and you are doing 

it in the future. And by the way, if there is no inflation, it doesn’t 

go up. 

But I just think we all, including myself, you know, we have to 

be completely flexible here because at the end of the day, you 

know, I think Senator Voinovich has been very forceful on the 

point, this is one of our constituents’ biggest complaints. I don’t 

care where you live. It is a problem: congestion, pollution, congestion, pollution, falling behind, goods movement, business losing 

money, all this and that. 

Now, Senator Udall did come in to ask a question, a couple of 

questions to the Secretary, so I will allow that, but then, drum roll, 

we will hear from Ed Rendell and our head of the Conference of 

Mayors. 

Yes. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. The League of Cities. Sorry. 
56 

Senator UDALL. Secretary LaHood, the issue I wanted to have 

you focus on a little bit is how we bring back the railroads. And 

you can enlighten, I think, all of us, but I understand that it is 

much more efficient to move goods and people on railroads than it 

is to move them in automobiles and trucks. And so if we are trying 

to be energy efficient, we should be moving in that direction. 

My Governor, Governor Richardson, who I believe you served 

with in the House, has been a real leader in terms of commuter 

rail. We have now built about 80 miles of commuter rail from 

Belen, New Mexico up to Santa Fe. And the ridership is going up. 

I mean, when we hit $4 gasoline, they couldn’t put enough rail cars 

on the system in order to accommodate people at certain times of 

the year. 

So I really believe that commuter rail is the way to go, and 

bringing back our railroads. And I hope that your Transportation 

Department will be at the front edge of that. So I really want, my 

question is what actions will you pursue to provide funding or to 

encourage commuter rail and to move in that energy-efficient area 

where you have rail being more efficient than some of our other 

modes of transportation? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Senator, let me say that a couple of things we want 

to do to implement the Amtrak program that was passed by Congress. It is a very good bill and we want to be at the forefront in 

working with all of you to implement that. The President personally put $8 billion in the recovery plan for high speed rail to launch 

our opportunities in America for the first time, and to say to Americans that high speed rail has a priority. 

He also has put a marker down for the next 5 years, $1 billion 

in each of his budgets for the next 5 years for high speed rail. We 

have identified corridors in the Country where this can be implemented rather quickly. We are in all different iterations of high 

speed rail, but there are some places that could begin rather quickly. You have a President and his team in the White House that 

comes from the Chicago area where people getting on trains every 

morning is a common practice, whether they live 25 miles from the 

city of Chicago or just a few minutes from downtown. They have 

one of the best mass transit systems in terms of delivering people 

to jobs of anyplace in America. 

So the President’s vision is that we do get people on to light rail, 

on to buses, on to mass transit, and on to high speed rail in order 

to get them out of their automobiles and provide opportunities for 

people to use this. 

When gasoline prices went up, ridership on transit, light rail, 

and Amtrak went way up. And even as gasoline prices have fallen, 

the ridership has stayed up. People found that it was efficient. It 

was one time and it was comfortable. And we want to continue that 

kind of progress, and we know that Congress is committed through 

the Amtrak bill that you all passed. And I can tell you, this President is committed to the idea that passenger rail is very, very important and a priority for this Administration and for the Department of Transportation. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. And it is great to hear 

that you support that Amtrak bill and that the President has put 
57 

in his budget the kinds of funds that I think are going to allow us 

to do that. 

One of the areas that is the most under served in terms of transportation is Indian reservations. I have many in my State and I 

know that there is a significant amount of money, I think it is to 

the tune of about $310 million for Indian reservation roads. Apparently much of that, because you have interstate highways, is used 

on those that are within the Indian reservation, and then the other 

tribal roads are neglected. 

So I hope that you will work with me to see that we can get 

money out to those other tribal roads. And I think one of the ways 

to do that would be the piece of legislation, SAFETEA-LU, established a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs. 

I hope that you will fill that position. I don’t believe the position 

has been filled. I think it would help you reach out to tribal communities and bring them together and figure out the best ways to 

provide transportation on Indian reservations across the Country. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, I take your point, but I would also tell you, 

Senator, that none of our positions have been filled, so it is not just 

that one. We are working on it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. If you send them over here, our Chairman has 

been great at moving these positions along that she has jurisdiction 

over. 

Senator BOXER. Once they come through here, we will try to do 

our best. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. You have been more than kind. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. I think it has been very important. So thank you 

so much. 

If we can move very quickly, we are going to open it up with 

Governor Rendell, our long-awaited Governor, and Hon. Kathleen 

Novak, President of the National League of Cities. 

We honor you. We welcome you. And I think the stage has been 

set now for you to give us that final push forward. 

I would ask people to leave very quickly and quietly. Thank you, 

because we have a vote that starts around the noon hour. We want 

to get started. 

Governor, I am going to give you 7 minutes, and I am going to 

give Kathleen Novak 7 minutes, so please begin. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD G. RENDELL, GOVERNOR, STATE OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Governor RENDELL. Good morning, everyone. It is a pleasure to 

be here. 

I am going to break my testimony into three parts. No. 1, defining the problem. And I think you have all asked that question, 

what exactly is the problem. No. 2, suggestions on how we can 

come up with the funds to deal with the level of funding that is 

needed. And No. 3, how we sell this in a very difficult economic 

time to the American people. 
58 

Let me start out by saying I am here wearing three hats. First, 

as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Senator 

Udall, you said your State has 100 structurally deficient bridges. 

We have 6,000, despite the fact that I have tripled State funding 

on bridge repair in my 6 years as Governor. 

I am here wearing a second hat, and that is as one of the cochairmen of Building America’s Future, an organization that is 

dedicated to revitalizing the American infrastructure, and to having a major infrastructure revitalization program over the next 5 

to 10 years. My co-chairs are Governor Schwarzenegger and Mayor 

Bloomberg. 

And third as the President of the National Governors Association. The Governors this year have devoted, as our project for the 

year, infrastructure revitalization. 

Let me start with the first question. When Senator Inhofe said he estimated the Federal gap at $400 billion to $500 billion, he is 

correct. If you take what the American Society of Civil Engineers 

says, we have a $2.2 trillion gap just to put what we have in good 

condition. They say that that needs to be spent over the next 5 

years. 

If you take State, local and Federal funding, we are destined to spend about $1.1 trillion over the next 5 years. It is about a $1 billion or $1.1 billion gap. But the Federal Government isn’t, and 

shouldn’t be, expected to fill all of that. I would say $500 billion 

is the appropriate Federal share of that gap. There should be State 

and local funding and private investment filling in that gap. 

The second report is your own Surface Transportation Commis- sion, which said you have a $140 million gap each year in just 

transportation infrastructure. The Society of Civil Engineers was 

all infrastructure. We are spending as a Nation $80 billion a year, 

that is Federal, State and local. We should be spending $220 billion 

a year. So that would be over 5 years just for transportation, a 

$700 billion gap. 

So the definitions of the gap are pretty certain and pretty clear, 

and I think they are right on. 

Now, how do we fund that gap? There are a number of suggestions in the financing report of the Surface Transportation Committee, and they are all good, but they are death by a thousand 

cuts. There is a little fee here, a little fee there. By the time you 

are finished, you will have raised about 17 fees and taxes, including the gas tax, as Senator Voinovich recommends. 

That doesn’t mean they are bad, but I think it is a very difficult 

way to sustain the dollars that we need. We support many of them 

as an organization. We support, for example, radically increasing 

TIFIA, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act. In the stimulus bill, TIFIA is given $200 million of additional 

authority to guarantee loans, to do direct loans to projects to fill 

the bridge. These are projects that have private funding. We think 

TIFIA should be radically increased. We want to lift the $15 billion 

cap on private activity bonds. 

It is all in here, and they are good suggestions, and they all can 

total up to a decent figure. But in my judgment, there is only one 

way that we are going to come to grips with the financing problem 

that we need for infrastructure in this Country, and that is for the 
59 

Federal Government to do exactly what every State does, every city 

does, and every county does, and have a capital budget. It’s as 

plain and simple as that. 

That $500 million share, $500 billion share, Senator Inhofe, you 

could do that if you have a capital budget for $45 billion a year in 

debt service. Now, I am not saying $45 billion a year is easy. It 

isn’t. It isn’t easy. But it is doable. It is achievable. And that would 

produce the $500 billion of the billion dollars that needs to be done 

by State, Federal, local and private sources of income. So I think 

whether you would do Federal Garvey bonds, or you call it that, 

or you do an actual capital budget, it is time to do it. 

President Clinton convened a Commission on Capital Budget, 

and Jon Corzine out of Goldman Sachs, and Kathleen Brown, the 

Treasurer of California, were the co-chairs. I testified before that 

Commission as the Mayor of Philadelphia and as the head of an 

organization called Rebuild America. I testified in favor of a capital 

budget. The Commission took testimony and made a report with no 

recommendations. 

The time has come for us to deal honestly with the problem. Senator Voinovich is right. A gas tax increase on the Federal level 

would help, but it is not in and of itself the long-term answer. 

Third, how do we get public support, particularly in this troubled 

time? I am sorry Senator Baucus couldn’t stay, because I know he 

has a whole host of other responsibilities, but he couldn’t be more 

wrong about the infrastructure bank. We need something created 

first of all to deal with multi-State projects. We have no mechanisms for multi-State projects right now. Each State gets its allocation from SAFETEA-LU. 

There are earmarks. I am a supporter of earmarks. As Senator 

Lautenberg knows, he and I have done a few over the years. Most 

earmarks are good. They are right on the money and they help 

transportation needs in this Country. But the public hates them, 

and no matter what you do, no matter how good earmarks are, no 

matter how many controls you put in, earmarks will be a dirty 

word in the American political lexicon going forward. 

We at Building America’s Future took a poll. We had Frank 

Luntz do the poll. I am sure you are all familiar with Frank. And 

the poll found that 81 percent of Americans would pay 1 percent 

more on their Federal income tax, and by the way, the poll was 

taken in December in the middle of the recession, and 81 percent 

would pay 1 percent more on their Federal income tax, and that 

was 90 percent Obama voters. Seventy-five percent of people who 

voted for John McCain said they would pay more in taxes if they 

could be assured that the decisions on infrastructure spending were 

transparent, accountable, and made not through the political system, but made by some balance that took into account cost-benefit 

analysis, value to the Nation, does it meet other long-term goals 

like climate change, et cetera. 

So I think we need an infrastructure bank. All Federal funding 

shouldn’t funnel through the infrastructure bank. Each State 

should get their own regular stipend because we don’t want to 

leave out the rural States. But for the major projects, for the 

projects that are going to change the way this Nation does its infra-
60 

structure, the way we transport goods, the way we move people, we 

need a facility to make those decisions. 

Now, just because it is an infrastructure bank, it doesn’t mean 

that there can’t be any input into it by the Congress. You could 

fashion something that has a certain amount of appointees from 

the Administration, a certain amount of appointees from each caucus of the Congress. So I think we need something like that for 

major projects, but most of all we need to be able to sell this to the 

American people. 

And the good news is, last thought, most of these funding sources 

and the capital budget have relatively moderate impact on the operating Federal budget. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Rendell follows:] 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Governor. 

The Honorable Kathleen Novak, thank you for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN M. NOVAK, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

LEAGUE OF CITIES; MAYOR, NORTHGLENN, COLORADO 

Ms. NOVAK. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, 

and members of the Committee. 

I am Kathy Novak. I am the Mayor of Northglenn, Colorado and 

President of the National League of Cities. The National League of 

Cities is the Nation’s oldest and largest organization devoted to 

promoting cities and towns as centers of opportunity and innovation. We represent over 19,000 cities and towns from New York 

City, with eight million people, to Taos Ski Valley, New Mexico 

with 56. So when we come, we speak with a collective voice that 

represents both urban and rural interests. 

You have my written statement, so I would like to just offer a 

couple of comments based on what I have heard so far today. I am 

pleased to be here with former Mayors Inhofe, Voinovich, Sanders 

and Rendell. So often, my citizens come to me and see government 

as government. They don’t really distinguish the Federal, State and 

local levels. So I am getting questioned every single day: What are 

you doing about immigration? What are you doing about transportation? What are you doing about homeland security? 

And while local governments are certainly partners, we need I 

think to do a better job of really working together in a seamless 

manner to serve the people that we all serve. 

I was reminded by Senator Baucus’s comments about the story, 

and he was talking about the crisis, and how we respond very well 

to crisis. There is a story about boiling frogs, that if you throw a 

frog into a pot of boiling water, he immediately reacts and jumps 

out. However, if you put a frog in cold water and slowly turn up 

the heat, he will boil to death because he doesn’t realize the crisis 

that he is getting into. 

That is, I think, how we have treated our transportation system. 

We made great investments in our national highway system, but 

we have been slowly turning up the heat, not investing the way we 

need to, and are now at a crisis point. 

I think this situation really requires a sustainable revenue 

source, as you were talking about, Senator Voinovich, one that is 

really dedicated to meeting our needs. But it is more than just 

throwing money at the process, just money at the situation. And 

we really need a collaborative partnership between all levels of government to make this work. 

Hometown America is where investments meet Federal, State 

and local policy goals. For our citizens, transportation is not an end 

in and of itself, but a means to an end. It is about getting our kids 

to school. It is about getting to work. It is about providing and accessing the goods and services that we need. It is critical to economic development and quality of life. 

Transportation isn’t just highways and bridges, but it is rail, and 

air, roads, pedestrian bikeways, and transit. And all of these must 

work in a systematic way in sync with our environmental goals, 

our economic development goals, affordable housing goals, and livable community goals. 
74 

According to the Brookings Institute, individual household investment in transportation has risen. It is now the second largest 

expense for most Americans after housing. As we better understand the impact of transportation systems and the impact that 

they have on environmental quality, economic strength, housing 

and public health, all levels of government need to think comprehensively about how we ensure that all transportation investments yield a greater level of return for our residents. 

In my region, we often talk about driving until you qualify, that 

you have to drive further and further away from the Denver metro 

area in order to qualify and get affordable housing. Well, people are 

just trading housing costs for transportation costs, and that is in 

direct conflict with our regional goals of increasing density, reducing congestion, improving our air quality, and discouraging sprawl. 

We encourage you, and actually we want to work with Congress 

to develop a comprehensive national transportation plan that does 

a number of things: strengthen our cities and towns as centers of 

economic growth; create economic opportunity for all our residents; 

recognize the link between energy consumption and transportation; 

and help us meet our goals for livable, vibrant, health and sustainable communities. 

I think this partnership involves breaking down silos not just between governments, but within the different levels of government. 

For example, metropolitan planning organizations, which play a 

large role in bringing a variety of communities together in a region, 

are making transportation decisions. But often the Federal programs aimed at helping communities are too siloed with different 

rules, different timeframes, different sources of funding, and different regulatory frameworks that don’t allow the local officials to 

integrate these programs efficiently to better serve our communities. And that is just within the transportation programs. 

I think Secretary LaHood’s creation of the TIGER team to really 

help break down the bureaucracy, work among the different departments and agencies of the Country, of the Federal Government, 

will really help local governments. 

The National League of Cities applauds last week’s announcements by Secretaries LaHood and Donovan to link Federal housing 

and transportation programs, and we look forward to working with 

both of these agencies to develop integrated planning and better coordinate these important programs. 

This is, I think, the first step to help break down the complexities. It is often overwhelming. I have been in local government as 

a City Council member and a Mayor for 18 years now. And I still 

don’t understand how it all works. 

But when I look at a transportation program, for example in our 

area we are trying to develop FasTracks, a metro-wide system 

buildout. And when I look at a project in my area, it could potentially involve affordable housing, senior housing, day care, CDBG, 

transit funding, transportation enhancement funding, energy efficient street lighting, potentially brownfields sites, issues of access 

to credit, all with trying to follow the principles of Complete Streets 

and NEPA requirements. 
75 

There is so much there and so much energy, time and resources 

devoted to dealing with the bureaucracy that I don’t think we are 

really leveraging the dollars as well as we could. 

Local government has been partner and has raised taxes in order 

to deal with our transportation systems and fund them. And we 

need to continue to invest in both maintaining our current infrastructure, as well as building a real system that works for all 

Americans. 

We look forward to partnering with the Federal Government. 

Just last week, we had over 2,500 local officials here for our congressional City Conference. Really, I think it launched a renewed 

intergovernmental partnership, and I am here today to pledge 

NLC’s support, to work with you, to collaborate in developing a forward-looking infrastructure that encourages economic recovery and 

growth and sets the stage for the future success of our Country. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Novak follows:] 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Here is what we are going to do. I have a question for Governor 

Rendell. Each of us will have 4 minutes. I need to leave to do a 

presentation in 5 minutes, so I will hand over the gavel to Tom 

Udall, and he will close us down about 12:15, whenever we have 

to vote. 

I want to talk to you, Governor, because I am of a mind that pay 

as you go is really a good thing. And I like the stream of funding 

that goes into the Highway Trust Fund, that people say, OK, I am 

paying this tax and I know where it goes and I know what it is 

for. 

So I hope that as the four of us continue to meet, the Big Four 

on this Committee, we are going to be able to take from the potpourri of ideas that you held up, because there are ways to generate some significant funding. 

Now, the one thing Senator Inhofe and I agreed on is, and I am 

not speaking for him. I will speak for myself. I think he agrees, but 

I will speak for myself. The idea of vehicle miles traveled is very 

attractive because, after all, I happen to drive a car that is a hybrid so I don’t fill up very much. I am not paying my fair share, 

frankly, you know, of the taxes here, and I am going on the road 

a lot. But I get 50 miles to the gallon and I am not filling up. 

That is a good thing, but at the same time, the Highway Trust 

Fund now goes down. So a way to go is for me, how many miles 

do I travel? The one thing I know we agree on is we don’t like the 

intrusiveness of that type of system on, you know, a family. So that 

is a problem for us. 

We are going to look at some other ways to get at that, but that 

is the one area where I think we don’t like the Big Brother aspect 

of that situation. 

Now, in commercial vehicles, my staff says they already have 

these mechanisms inside the vehicle and they have to be used. So 

that may give us an opening there. 

The point I am making is, to throw up our hands on getting a 

pay as you go system an go to essentially borrowing, which is what 

you are recommending, gives me a little bit of trouble because I 

like the notion of pay as you go. So let me ask you this, you did 

mention, sir, at the end of your remarks, almost in an offhand way, 

in an offhand way, maybe using the infrastructure bank for major 

projects. 

So I am thinking as I look ahead, in the last bill, SAFETEA-LU, 

we had a new item. It was called projects of major significance. So 

to say we can’t do big projects in the highway bill frankly doesn’t 

hold up because we have done them and it is not really a problem. 

But if we were to look at how to go about this, maybe for certain 

projects of major significance, those projects would be funded 

through that mechanism. 

Is that something that you think we ought to take a look at? Instead of throwing out the whole notion of pay as you go, just saying 

maybe for these big projects that, you know, are very visionary and 

will take years and so on and so forth, a new mechanism for that. 

What is your feeling on that? 

Governor RENDELL. Three quick points. One on vehicle miles 

traveled, I think it is inevitable that we go to that. But you are not 
92 

going to be able to do that in this bill. What I would do is put some 

money in for a pilot project to do VMT, so the next time you look 

at this, VMT has a real chance. No. 1. 

No. 2, I am for all of these pay as you go things. Right now you 

limit tolling on Federal interstates for the States to go in and toll 

Federal interstates, to three States. We wanted to toll I–80. We 

couldn’t get permission. We were turned down by the Federal Highway Administration. 

If we really want pay as you go user fees, let the States toll the 

infrastructure all throughout the Country. That is a very important 

component. It would be very helpful to the States. 

And you are absolutely right. You can craft this any way you 

want. You could take the infrastructure bank, give it the power to 

do Federal Garvey bonds or a capital budget, and make the capital 

budget much smaller. For $15 billion, you get $180 billion of money 

for major projects. 

But let me make one point, and you should check with your Governors, every one of your Governors. We can’t do major projects 

anymore off of SAFETEA-LU. We cannot, because construction 

costs, and I think Senator Inhofe or one of the Senators said it, 

construction costs for building roads in Pennsylvania have gone up 

38 percent in the last 3 years. The Federal money that you give 

us now, it is impossible to do basically anything other than fix and 

repair and maintain, which is not bad, by the way. We ought to be 

doing that, I think Senator Klobuchar said that. But there hasn’t 

been a new project started in Pennsylvania for 2 years because we 

simply don’t get the Federal money we used to get. 

Earmarks. You know, earmarks are watched more closely than 

ever before. Do you think there will ever be a Big Dig earmark 

again? I need to double deck the Schuykill Expressway coming in 

from the northwest suburbs into Philadelphia. That is a $2 billion 

project. Will I ever see that type of Federal money to do the 

Schuykill Expressway? Of course not. 

So I think your suggestion is a good one. Just like I said, all of 

the Federal money shouldn’t go through the infrastructure bank. 

We can pay for the basic Federal SAFETEA-LU money, user fees, 

you know, gas tax. I am for all of those things that are included 

in here. We have to make the tax code more attractive so that private investors can get in and we can do more projects with private 

money. 

And then last, you are going to have to do major projects. Let’s 

just think for a moment. We all agree that a passenger rail system 

linking the big cities of this Country would be a great idea. You 

go to Europe and Asia, nobody flies 500 miles or less. It is all high 

speed rail. 

How are we going to finance a high speed rail system? Building 

a high speed rail system, that is like when Dwight Eisenhower decided he was going to build the interstate road system. How are we 

going to finance a high speed rail system today without some form 

of capital funding? You simply can’t do it. 

So I think you are absolutely right, Madam Chairman. We need 

an amalgam of different things. And they can go through different 

flows, as well. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 
93 

Mayor Novak, you have to leave soon to catch a flight. What time 

do you have to leave? 

Ms. NOVAK. Probably about 5 minutes, unfortunately. 

Senator BOXER. Ouch. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Let me ask a question. 

Senator BOXER. All right. Here is what we are going to do. We 

are going to have Senator Inhofe take his 4 minutes. I am giving 

the gavel to Senator Udall and we will continue until we have a 

vote. 

And thank you very much. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Let me start. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mayor Novak, I am not going to ask you to answer this question 

because it would be too long, but I am going to ask you to answer 

it for the record, which means you will submit it in writing and we 

will have a chance to look at it. And that is, after your experience 

today in watching the trauma that we are going through right now 

and the challenges that are almost insurmountable, how do you 

suggest that we identify the appropriate Federal role in addressing 

mobility needs of cities without spending limited Highway Trust 

Fund dollars on local projects and limited national or regional benefits? 

So that is something for the record. 

Now, Governor Rendell, let me make a couple of comments on 

your comments. First of all, when I became Mayor of Tulsa, we 

didn’t have a capital budget. We had to build one. That was what 

we did to overcome the problems we had. So I understand where 

you are coming from. 

Second, on earmarks, I have always said if you define earmarks 

appropriately, then I would go along with all the hysteria on earmarks, and that should be an appropriation that is not authorized. 

We on this Committee, we set up criteria on a formula basis, about 

30 criteria that these projects have to meet that criteria. And then 

they go into the appropriations. I think that is an appropriate way 

to do it, but I just would like to get that definition cleared up. 

Now, last, I noticed that when I was talking to the Secretary 

about using the States as our test tubes because so many good 

things are happening. You were smiling and nodding at that time. 

And I notice that you have really done a lot of things in Pennsylvania in terms of, you mentioned trying to, supporting the proposals to put tolls on Interstate 80. But you have also supported 

some of the privatization on the turnpike. 

Would you take whatever time we have here and elaborate a little bit on that? 

Governor RENDELL. Well, again, I think we have to look at every 

possible funding source. 

Senator INHOFE. I agree. 

Governor RENDELL. And there is private capital. Even now, there 

are funds, billions of dollars of funds being formed right now, even 

with all the problems of getting money out into the market. And 

we have to have access to that private capital. 

Now, there are two ways to do it. No. 1 is to let them come in, 

lease major toll roads or new concepts like the additional lane on 
94 

I–95 in Miami, and toll that. There has to be revenue streams from 

there, for transportation to get private capital interested, and let 

them actually run it, but with appropriate government controls. 

We were going to control when tolls could go up, if the turnpike 

had been leased successfully, and maintenance schedules, the two 

most important things. With appropriate government oversight, 

leasing can work. It has worked in Chicago. You should certainly 

hear from Governor Mitch Daniels. He has made it work in Indiana. Everyone said that people hate it in Indiana and there was 

a fiasco. Well, it has turned out to be a great success, and Governor 

Daniels got 58 percent of the vote last year in reelection, even 

though President Obama carried his State. So apparently people 

didn’t hate it as much as everyone thought they did. 

So there are instances where it has worked very effectively. It 

has to be part of what we do. But that is one level of private investment. Level two is just make it easier for institutional and individual investors to invest in infrastructure. Tax credit bonds, tax 

credit Federal bonds for infrastructure is an easy way to get individuals who are looking for a relatively safe return on their money 

to contribute to helping build our infrastructure. There are Flower 

bonds, Patriot bonds, all sorts of things that we can do, and we can 

improve them using the tax code, to get the American people to pay 

for infrastructure repair and revitalization themselves. 

So there are many great ideas out there. I don’t think it is insurmountable. Particularly, I want to say how great it was hearing 

you and Senator Voinovich talk about your commitment to this, because this can only be done in a bipartisan way. If this becomes 

a political issue, we are sunk. So your leadership and Senator 

Voinovich’s leadership is absolutely essential. 

I think we can do it. I understand that you all don’t like capital 

budgeting. I know the OMB has always hated capital budgeting. I 

don’t know why, but they do. Well, let’s do a limited capital budget 

for something like the infrastructure bank, and let’s do the same 

SAFETEA-LU formula so that every State gets something, so the 

rural States are not left out. And let’s continue earmarks, but have 

controls over earmarks. 

I agree with you. The problem is perception governs reality so 

much in our Country, with our 24/7 media. And I don’t think earmarks will ever regain the type of public support that they need. 

And that is why I am saying we have to find a different way to 

fund major projects. There is never going to be another earmark for 

the Big Dig. It is never going to happen. And every State, could 

New Jersey use Big Dig-type money, Senator? Of course you could. 

I have five projects in Pennsylvania I could use Big Dig-type Federal money and use it well, but that is not happening. I think we 

have to realize that. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, thank you. Let me just thank you very 

much. I know how valuable your time is. You have given us some 

great ideas. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL [presiding]. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg, we are trying to get three more Senators in 

here in a limited time. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I will be real short because Governor 

Rendell and I are neighbors, practically speaking. I just wanted to 
95 

say, and I will be informal, Ed, the one thing I respect is your leadership. You are willing to step up to the tough problems. That is 

what made you so popular in Pennsylvania. And everything you 

did wasn’t popular, but the total sum of things made you a reliable, 

strong defender of the public interest, and my hat is off to you. 

And just one thing that I had my staff produce for me, 25 percent 

of domestic flights are 250 miles or less; 2.3 million flights a year 

are less than 250 miles; 6,300 flights every day are 250 miles or 

less. What would a reasonably speedy train do for that? 

Governor RENDELL. Oh, it would be unbelievable. Philadelphia 

Airport, Newark Airport, and BWI have some of the worst waiting 

times and congestion anywhere. It is because of the New York to 

Washington shuttle. If Amtrak had the proper track bed, Amtrak 

now takes 2:40 or 2:37 to go from New York to Washington. Amtrak could go, the Acela could go, with the proper track bed, New 

York to Washington in 1 hour and 30 minutes. If the Acela could 

go in 1 hour and 30 minutes—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. It could go in 2 hours. 

Governor RENDELL. Would anybody fly? Would anybody fly? You 

would end the shuttle. And by ending the shuttle, you would end 

congestion in major eastern airports. We should have high speed 

rail. And this is the time to do it, because people know the problems, know what we are confronting, and I think people support 

things that they can see. 

I forget who said it, but one of the Senators said, I think we were 

talking about Sputnik, you can see it. Well, you can see the building out of a high speed rail system around this Country. 

And by the way, not just for urban areas. Someone from Wyoming might go to Chicago and then take that train from Chicago 

to Pittsburgh. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The National Governors Association, when I 

was involved we had the big seven. And what we would do, and 

I have talked to Ray Scheppach about this, that if the Governors 

got together with the National League of Cities and the Conference 

of Mayors and the legislators group, and came down here kind of 

united on what it was that you wanted, you could have a major, 

major impact on what we are doing. And I would suggest that you 

go back and talk to your colleagues. You have great ideas. You are 

also building America’s future. If you could say that the Governors 

are building America’s future, and the other local governments on 

a bipartisan basis are coming here and saying these are the things 

that we need to do, and are forthright about the fact that, you 

know, we know we are going to have to pay for them. We may have 

a gas tax. We may have the bank. The idea is, please do that, will 

you? We really need your help. 

The other thing is that you ought to be in touch with the national Chamber of Commerce and other groups out there. They are 

your allies. If you would come down here and be united, I think we 

would get this thing done and it would really be something great 

for our Country. 

Thank you for your work already. 
96 

Governor RENDELL. Well, interestingly, Senator, I have spoken, 

Mr. Engler and I have spoken to people in the Chamber and NAM 

as well. Both of them are very high on infrastructure, and know 

we have to invest. And I have spoken to each one of the Big Seven, 

and we have had joint meetings on this. And we are signing up 

members of the Big Seven as members of Building America’s Future. 

I have said that we need sometime before SAFETEA-LU gets reauthorized, we need to have hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands of Mayors and County Commissioners and Governors and 

people like that here in Washington, with the Chamber, supporting 

and telling the American people the truth. 

You know, it is funny, I tell the American people all the time, 

I said, you know, you spend $10,000 or a car and you get a car that 

is serviceable. You spend $28,000 for a car, and you expect to get 

a better car. Right? You get what you pay for. 

Well, the same thing is true in government. What you have the 

right to do is demand that government spend your dollars wisely, 

but they have to spend them for certain things that are crucial to 

our future, and infrastructure is that. I think the American people 

understand that. 

I would like to submit to the Chairwoman, and I hope she will 

give every member of the Committee the Luntz poll. It is very, very 

revealing. It is very, very revealing. The American people do like 

and understand infrastructure. Interestingly, the No. 1 thing that 

concerns them even more than highways and roads was energy infrastructure. People are very concerned about energy right now, as 

well. And energy infrastructure is building out the grid. I mean, 

give President Obama a lot of credit for having the foresight. We 

should have been building out our electrical grid 10 years ago, 10 

years ago. We are late to the game. We are late to the game. But 

we need to do that, and we need to get on the stick. And there is 

no way out but to pay for it. 

Do I think we need an increase in the gas tax? Sure we do. It 

can’t be the only thing we do, but we need an increase in the gas 

tax and we have to talk directly to the American people. And you 

are right, if you think the Grover Norquist people are damaging 

here, you should come to State capitals. It is brutal in State capitals. I once said that if I had a cure for cancer and I said if you 

guys give me an appropriation of $100 million, we can end cancer 

tomorrow, I would have one-fourth of my legislature voting against 

it. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, someday you and I will talk about 

that. 

[Laughter.] 

Governor RENDELL. Absolutely. 

But don’t stop. I think the American people will support common 

sense infrastructure investment. 

You know, I was on a TV show last night and they were mocking 

President Obama for saying—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. Sorry. I have to go vote. 

Governor RENDELL. They were mocking President Obama for 

saying investment instead of spending. But that is what it is. We 
97 

are investing in our infrastructure. We are investing in our Country’s future. 

Senator UDALL. Governor, you have enlightened us today. You 

have been a great leader on these transportation issues. And I 

think because of your testimony, we are going to be able to do a 

lot better job when we craft this bill. 

So we very much thank you for your testimony here today. We 

are all going to now run for a vote, but thank you for your service. 

I ask unanimous consent to submit testimony for the record from 

the American Society of Civil Engineers, the authors of the 2009 

Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. 

[The referenced document follows:] 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 

Senator UDALL. The Committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ