U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–803 PS 2002

BUILDING ON SUCCESS:

REAUTHORIZATION OF TEA-21

(107–61)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 7, 2002 (Administration Perspectives)

FEBRUARY 28, 2002 (Governors and Local Officials)

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JACK QUINN, New York

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

C.L. (BUTCH) OTTER, Idaho

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

MAX SANDLIN, Texas

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine

MARION BERRY, Arkansas

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JACK QUINN, New York

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisana

JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

C.L. (BUTCH) OTTER, Idaho

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota, VICE-CHAIR

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(ex officio)

ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan

BOB FILNER, California

FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

MAX SANDLIN, Texas

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois

BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee

JERROLD NADLER, New York

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

(ex officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

Proceedings of:

February 7, 2002 .................................................................................................. 1

February 28, 2002 ................................................................................................ 94

FEBRUARY 7, 2002

TESTIMONY

Page

Clapp, Hon. Joseph M., Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ................................................................................................................... 11

Dorn, Hon. Jennifer L., Administrator, Federal Transit Administration ........... 11

Peters, Hon. Mary E., Administrator, Federal Highway Administration ........... 11

Runge, Hon. Jeffrey W., Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration .......................................................................................................... 11

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Ferguson, Hon. Mike, of New Jersey ..................................................................... 37

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 38

Otter, Hon. Butch, of Idaho .................................................................................... 39

Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, of West Virginia ............................................................. 88

Tauscher, Hon. Ellen O., of California ................................................................... 91

Thune, Hon. John, of South Dakota ....................................................................... 92

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Clapp, Hon. Joseph M ............................................................................................. 40

Dorn, Hon. Jennifer L ............................................................................................. 40

Peters, Hon. Mary E ................................................................................................ 40

Runge, Hon. Jeffrey W ............................................................................................ 40

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions from the Federal Highway Administration ................... 55

Responses to questions from the Federal Transit Administration ...................... 59

Responses to questions from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ........................................................................................................................ 63

Responses to questions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ........................................................................................................................ 69

FEBRUARY 28, 2002

TESTIMONY

Page

Barr, Hon. Kenneth, Mayor, representing Fort Worth, Texas, and the U.S.

Conference of Mayors ........................................................................................... 110

Greyson, Hon. Sandy, Councilmember, representing Dallas, Texas, and the

National League of Cities .................................................................................... 110

Hart, Hon. Chris, County Commissioner, representing Hillsborough County,

Florida, and the National Association of Counties, Transportation Steering

Committee ............................................................................................................. 110

Lehman, Maria, Commissioner of Public Works, on behalf of Hon. Joel

Giambra, County Executive, Erie County, New York ....................................... 110

Miller, Hon. Karen M., County Commissioner, representing Boone County,

Missouri, and the National Association of Counties, Executive Committee ... 110
Page

VI

Patton, Hon. Paul E., Governor, representing the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and the National Governors Association ................................................ 100

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 147

Millender-McDonald, Hon. Juanita, of California ................................................. 184

Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, of West Virginia ............................................................. 203

Thune, Hon. John, of South Dakota ....................................................................... 206

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Barr, Hon. Kenneth ................................................................................................. 128

Greyson, Hon. Sandy ............................................................................................... 149

Hart, Hon. Chris ...................................................................................................... 159

Lehman, Maria ........................................................................................................ 166

Miller, Hon. Karen M .............................................................................................. 190

Patton, Hon. Paul E ................................................................................................ 197

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

Barr, Hon. Kenneth, Mayor, representing Fort Worth, Texas, and the U.S.

Conference of Mayors, charts .............................................................................. 137

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

Board of Commissioners of Fulton County, Chairman Mike Kenn, letter to

Rep. Isakson ......................................................................................................... 208

Georgia Department of Transportation, State Highway Alliance for Real Equity (SHARE), statement ..................................................................................... 209
(1)

BUILDING ON SUCCESS: ADMINISTRATION

PERSPECTIVES ON CURRENT ISSUES AFFECTING REAUTHORIZATION OF TEA 21

Thursday, February 7, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPOR- TATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order.

We are meeting this morning to hear perspectives from new administrators of the Department of Transportation on reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, known

as TEA 21.

We are now in the fifth budget year of the landmark six year

Service Transportation Law, which is far enough along to know

that, on the whole, it has been a tremendous success.

Last Fall, at our hearing on TEA 21 success stories, we heard

from State directors of transportation, CEOs of transit authorities

and their consultants. These witnesses representing all geographic

regions of the country had a message in common.

Overwhelmingly, TEA 21 has been a success. Each witness spoke

of projects funded by TEA 21 that improved mobility, reduced traffic congestion, strengthened our economy and improved our quality

of life.

The theme of this hearing is building on that success. This hearing represents a look forward to the next authorization bill, a fitting start to our subcommittee’s business for the second session of

the 107th Congress.

This will be the first in a series of hearings on reauthorization

of TEA 21. We will build on the success of the program by keeping

the promises of TEA 21 in place.

These included: keeping the trust in the Highway Trust Fund by

not allowing diversions of these funds for non-transportation purposes; extending the budgetary firewalls to make sure that surpluses in the Highway Trust Fund are not used to mask deficit

spending; extending the minimum guarantee to continue the promise of funding equity among the states; maximizing program flexibility, so each State can best utilize funds to meet their needs; and

continuing incentive-based approaches to encourage the states to

reduce highway injuries and deaths; and supporting truck safety

through enforcement of standards, through roadside safety inspections, and overseeing the commercial drivers license program.
2

Building on TEA 21 also requires new ideas, including improving

the revenue-aligned budget authority calculation to avoid excessive

swings in funding levels, something very much on our mind at this

particular moment; providing clearer direction on how to expedite

projects; project delivery through streamlining; and creating stable

allocated and discretionary programs that will not be earmarked by

the appropriations committees. I am very pleased that this issue is

being raised in the President’s budget.

The growth in highway and transit funds, provided through the

guaranteed firewalls of TEA 21, has fostered a meaningful increase

in construction, interstate maintenance, transit ridership, and expanded availability of transit services in every city and community

around our Nation.

Transportation improvements have been planned and built or expanded during this authorization cycle, and the oversight of how

these funds are being spent has been sharpened at every level,

from planning to preliminary engineering and design through construction.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new agency

heads to this committee room, and probably not for the only time.

We are fortunate to have a capable group of leaders to serve our

area in the transportation sector. We thank you for your public

service, and we welcome you.

At this time, I would like to yield to the Ranking Democrat on

the subcommittee, Bob Borski, for any statement that he would

like to make.

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, let me first commend you for scheduling today’s

hearing to receive testimony from the modal operators on current

issues affecting reauthorization of TEA 21.

Today’s hearing also provides the subcommittee with an opportunity to raise concerns about the Administration’s proposed fiscal

year 2003 budget, and its impact on the transportation sector of

the economy.

As the subcommittee moves forward with the reauthorization of

the Surface Transportation Programs, we must focus our attention

on the accomplishments of the past, and support efforts to make

improvements for the future that will enhance our transportation

program.

The condition and performance of our transportation infrastructure is crucial to the Nation’s economic growth, global competitiveness, and overall quality of life.

Through the enactment of TEA 21, the Congress took a major

step towards improving the Nation’s transportation infrastructure

by providing increased funding and guaranteed funding for transportation programs. The guarantees funding levels were protected

by the budgeting firewalls.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this committee must be vigilant and resolute in our efforts to maintain the guaranteed funding levels with

the firewall protections.

Over the past three years, the Nation has benefitted from the improvements made to the transportation infrastructure, resulting

from the increased funding levels provided in TEA 21.
3

The TEA 21 firewalls for the transit program have had a very

favorable impact on local transit agencies. The agencies have been

able to plan and advance projects with a significant level of predictability. However, with 110 new start projects, costing more than $60 billion under consideration for future funding, the committee needs to

address the full funding grant agreement mechanism for the delivery of new start funds.

With safety and security being major priorities for the committee, we need to hear how the administration proposes to enhance

safety on our Nation’s highways and transit system.

Last year, over 40,000 fatalities occurred on our Nation’s highways. Due to ongoing increases in vehicle miles traveled, the number of fatalities may continue to grow. The committee, along with

the support of the Administration, must develop programs that will

enhance highway safety among all users of the system.

Mr. Chairman, as the Nation struggles to climb out of the recession, the Nation’s transportation infrastructure must not fall victim

to budget battles and conflicts. We must target our efforts on transportation programs that will stimulate the economy and maintain

jobs.

The transportation sector has a long history of providing good

paying jobs and critical infrastructure improvements that enhance

economic growth throughout the country. For every $1 billion invested in transportation, over 40,000 jobs are created. The projected negative funding levels will result in an $8.5 billion or 27 percent reduction in Federal aid to highway program

funding levels.

Such a drastic reduction may very well extend the term of the

current recession. State and local governments will be forced to

scale back their highway programs. This would be devastating in

my home State of Pennsylvania. We would lose over $346 million

and 14,500 jobs.

The Nation is facing a number of challenges at home and abroad,

Mr. Chairman. We must do our part to strengthen this great Nation. One of the most effective tools available to this committee is

continued investment in the Nation’s transportation infrastructure,

using dedicated transportation revenues.

So as we proceed with this hearing, I am very interested in hearing how the witnesses will respond to the concerns of our committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

A statement by the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Young,

will be made a part of the record.

Mr. Oberstar?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for inaugurating these hearings, and my appreciation

to you and Mr. Borski. This is the best day for transportation since

the budget appeared.

[Laughter.]

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is because this is the day we begin to turn

things around and get the transportation investment programs

back on track.
4

I see we have an all star line-up. We welcome Ms. Peters, Ms.

Dorn, Dr. Runge, and Mr. Clapp. Thank you very much for being

with us today. We have got the first string up here today.

So I just want to make a few observations, since I said an awful

lot yesterday. First of all, the capital investments we make in

transportation have the effect of contributing 25 percent to the Nation’s annual productivity growth. One-fourth the yearly productivity improvement of the Nation’s economy is directly attributable to

transportation. If you cut transportation, you have an adverse serious direct effect upon productivity.

Beginning with ISTEA, and continuing with TEA 21 and expanding upon ISTEA, we have continued to improve productivity, improve mobility, enhance personal safety, and increase the movement of goods, as well as people, throughout the United States.

In the 42 years of the Interstate Highway Program and the initial Highway Trust Fund, we spent $114 billion on that 44,000 mile

system of roadways. The states spent another $14 billion.

In the first four years of TEA 21, we invested $114 billion, in

four years, because of the guaranteed account, because of the dedicated revenue stream, because the states could count on that

money, because the contractor community could count on that

money, because the building trades knew they could train people

and put them to work, and we created 1.5 million new jobs.

Flexibility, minimum funding guarantees, establishing the 80

percent Federal match for both highways and transit were critical

to winning the broad base of support, and to generating those benefits that I mentioned a moment ago.

So the Administration’s proposal now to chop the Federal match

to 50 percent for new starts breaks faith with TEA 21, breaks faith

with the coalition we brought together, and must not be allowed to

stand.

The minimum guarantees that we established, that took a lot of

work, with staff on both sides of the aisle, members on both sides

of the aisle, working together to create the minimum guarantee to

bring everybody together under the tent. Now we are saying, sorry,

that does not work. We are going to have an $8.5 billion cut.

TEA 21 authorized $15 billion beyond the firewalls, including $3

billion for the current fiscal year, or the upcoming fiscal year, I

should say. The Highway Trust Fund has a current account balance of close to $20 billion. Some of that, of course, is committed

against projects under way, but there is money.

Now the President says, I am for jobs, and that is the answer.

I pat him on the back. But you cannot be for the jobs and not for

the money to create the jobs.

We had a vote yesterday to reaffirm the tax cut. Well, let me tell

you, if this budget cut stands, then we will have, in fact, ratified

a tax increase, because you are continuing to collect money and

generate revenues for projects that are not going to be built. That

was a principle that infuriated Chairman Shuster over the previous

years, and for which we joined forces to create the firewalls.

The taxes collected should be invested in the projects for which

they were collected. If you are not going to do that, then cut the

tax, roll it back. Otherwise, that is a tax increase. We have said
5

that over and over and over again, and I will say it once more. So

I do not think we can let that stand.

A further concern I have about the President’s budget is that all

the resources for the transportation security administration that

will be transferred from other modal budgets for security functions

that are important and necessary to do, we have got to be very

careful that we are not taking out of one transportation pocket and

putting it into another, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Finally, we must not lose site of highway safety. When the interstate program was being crafted in 1956, projections then were, if

we did not improve the Nation’s transportation network, we would

be killing 100,000 people a year. That was 1956. The highway

death toll continued to increase until we began to put the interstate highway system into place, and draw those deaths down.

But we still, last year, had 41,800-plus people killed, 3.2 million injured, $150 billion spent in insurance and other costs; not even

to mention the toll in human suffering. We put a lot of money into

highway safety in TEA 21, and we must not let those investments

be degraded.

So I look forward to this set of hearings that you inaugurate, Mr.

Chairman, Mr. Borski, and I thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Coble?

Mr. COBLE. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Bereuter?

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to welcome the witnesses, as well.

My comments will be very brief, for emphasis. I think at a time

when we are trying to pull ourselves out of recession, it is the last

time that we should be reducing expenditures for highway construction and maintenance, or for other transportation infrastructure. So I am going to do whatever I can to make sure that we do

not have those kind of reductions. It is an inappropriate time to be

cutting back.

When Americans pull up to the gasoline pumps, they expect that

their Federal and State highway tax dollars are going to be spent

for transportation, primarily for highway construction and maintenance; and they expect, as Congress has made itself clear, that

those are going to be spend expeditiously.

Administrations of either party, of course, have resisted that, because they want to be able to borrow from the Highway Trust

Funds at, of course, a reduced rate from private sector borrowing.

I understand that, but that is not the arrangement we have with

the American public.

Finally, I want to say that my State and this member has particular concerns about the progress on the highway rail grade

crossing safety programs; about not only the progress, but the priorities in funding.

My State probably has one of the most severe rail crossing problems in the world, because of the extraordinary and growing number of unit trains hauling coal across the country and returning to

Wyoming and Utah. So we are very concerned about that. We do

not think sufficient priority has been given to it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Rahall?

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I do commend you and Ranking Member Borski

for holding this hearing today. I look forward to the testimony from

the Administration witnesses. I want to commend both of you, as

well, for the bipartisan fashion in which you continue to work to

try to keep faith, as our Ranking Member, Mr. Oberstar, has said,

with TEA 21.

These cuts that are proposed in the Administration’s budget are

devastating to many states. They affect, of course, all 50 states.

The 50 states rely on the monies from TEA 21 for planning for

their projects, just as any industry would rely and must rely on a

definite flow of money to make investments for their job producing

activities.

This does mean jobs. The ripple-down effects are evident to all

of us in all aspects of our economy. In my home State of West Virginia, it means not only money, but it means jobs, as well. I hope

that we will continue in the bipartisan fashion that has been set

out by you and Mr. Borski in restoring these cuts.

Thank you, and I ask unanimous consent to put my remarks in

the record.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, without objection, so ordered.

Mr. Otter?

Mr. OTTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you

for your leadership in calling this hearing.

I believe that TEA 21 has been one of the great success stories

in the history of the American infrastructure spending. TEA 21 restored fundamental fairness to the taxpayers, while creating the

highways that our communities depend upon, and providing good

jobs for the men and women who build them.

The Administration’s proposed cuts in Highway Trust Fund disbursements would pose a great loss to our economy, both in the

number of jobs lost and in the number of lives lost on roads and

highways that need modernization.

This cut in HTF funds is especially unwelcome because of the diversion of the RABA funds in the last Transportation Appropriation Bill. While Idaho gained more than it lost, and mostly due to

the tireless work of Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, our Nation’s

highway program is much better served by adhering to the TEA 21

formula as it was set forth.

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and also

Chairman Young, in putting those funds and keeping the RABA

funds in tact, and keeping our highway programs moving forward.

I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Highway Trust

Funds Restoration Act, and look forward to its expeditious passage

by the House.

Our Nation’s highway building is also being hit by delays in the

permitting process by bureaucracy run amuck. TEA 21 mandated

that the Administration develop ways to expedite highway projects.

Unfortunately, the prior Administration failed to comply with the

spirit of the law, bringing much greater expense to the highways

that we are now trying to build.
7

I believe that it is possible to expedite the highway projects and

reduce cost, while maintaining the letter and the spirit of the law,

including our existing environmental laws. We need a real streamlining bill passed into law, and we need that as soon as possible.

In prior testimony before this committee last year, Mr. Chair- man, it was stated that there are some $14 billion today in highway projects that are being held up as a result of delays in the bureaucratic mess.

One of the best programs in TEA 21 is the Intelligence Transportation System Program. I am proud to be a member of the Intelligence Transportation Caucus, chaired by my fellow freshman,

Mike Rogers of Michigan.

The ITS program funds research and deployment of intelligent

transportation systems to communities to ease congestion and save

lives. The University of Idaho and Moscow and one of TEA 21’s

university transportation centers has demonstrated a special skill

with these programs.

Moscow is located along Highway 95, which I might had, has 682

miles of the 26,000 mile Pan American Highway so designated in

1939, which run through Idaho.

The University of Idaho and Moscow has demonstrated its ability

to provide for safety and for fundamentally increasing the ability

of our highway system to handle its needs. Moscow is located along

Highway 95, the only north/south corridor for NAFTA trade.

Highways in America are very important. To be playing games

with the appropriation process now and denying what has fundamentally been promised is simply not holding faith with TEA 21.

ITS programs that will save lives and money in Moscow, and will

serve as an example to the rest of the country. I am pleased that

the project did receive a $1 million earmark in the last Appropriations Bill, and I will support any additional requests.

I have here quite a bit of information, and I would submit it to

the Federal Highway Administrator and her staff for their review.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate and look forward to the

testimony we are going to receive today.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. That is a strong statement to follow.

Let us see, Mr. Cummings?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank you and the Ranking Member for this hearing this morning.

The other night, Mr. Chairman, when the President gave the

State of the Union address, he said the key to stimulating our

economy is, and then he paused, and said the word, ‘‘jobs.’’ For our State of Maryland, TEA 21 is extremely important, for

it brings jobs, but it does something else. While I think everybody

in this room agrees that we have to address the whole issue of terrorism, and certainly the war effort, but we also realize that we

have got to keep this country in tact while we are doing it.

The fact is that TEA 21 is a piece of legislation, or a reauthorization thereof, is something that will help our economy stay in tact.

So Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to hear from our

experts. I want to thank them for being here today. There is nobody better than those people who administer the provisions of

TEA 21 to give us the testimony and let us know what is working

and what is not.
8

All of us agree that we want out constituents’ tax dollars to be

spent in an effective an efficient manner, and we will make sure

that that happens. At the same time, we want to make sure that

those highways are in tact, and that our people are safe.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Are there other opening statements? Ms. Tauscher?

Mrs. TAUSCHER. I will just be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I am

anxious to hear from the panel. But I do want to continue to register my concern regarding the Administration’s highway budget,

and what my colleagues have already mentioned about the negative RABA situation facing our states.

Under the current budget, my home State of California would be

hit hardest, losing $118 million in highway funding next year,

which translates into about 26,000 jobs.

This is unacceptable, especially during a recession, when California families are spending more time sitting in traffic than with

each other at the dinner table.

I want to thank the bipartisan leadership of this committee for

committing to fix much of this problem through legislation, that I

hope will be welcomed with open arms by the President.

I look forward to working with Administrator Peters and the Administration to ensure that highway problems in California and

around the country are not interrupted.

Finally, I just want to mention that my colleague, Mike Rogers

of Michigan, and I are putting together a Congressional caucus on

intelligent transportation systems that I hope will be useful to

members as we start the reauthorization process.

ITS technologies are one of TEA 21’s success stories, and we hope

to work with Administrator Peters and this committee to highlight

the many uses of ITS technologies.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for holding the

hearing. I yield back.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

We will try to accommodate members who have opening statements before we go to vote. If you could make them as brief as possible, then we would immediately come back and hear from the

panel.

Mr. Mascara?

Mr. MASCARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief.

First, I commend you and the Ranking Member for holding these

hearings. We certainly welcome the witnesses and are anxious to

hear their testimony, but I would just like to make a couple points.

One, it has been editorialized, and you should know this, that

Frank Mascara, who is a former County Commissioner and now a

Member of Congress, will build the road to any place. I will tell you

why; because studies around the world have shown a strong correlation with investments in infrastructure and highways and transit, and sustained economic growth. It does not take a genius to figure that out.

I would imagine that Mr. Borski, our Ranking Member on this

subcommittee, has said this. But since I came in a little late, just

to repeat it, to Pennsylvania, what it means, absconding with this
9

money, you know, there is no sacrosanct place for transportation

funding. They have been trying to get at it for years.

But that money was paid by the people of this Nation, and it

should be invested in infrastructure. There were 14,500 jobs lost,

good jobs, $35,000 a year, for these employees; $5 million lost in

payroll in Pennsylvania; $150 million lost in tax revenue; $335 million in payouts of unemployment compensation; and $185 million

lost to the Pennsylvania economy.

So leave this money alone. It was paid by the people to build the

infrastructure in this country and to create jobs. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Representative Berkley?

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member

Borski. I, too, will attempt to be brief, although this is such an important issue.

The population of Nevada grew by 70 percent in the 1990’s. In

addition to that, we have approximately 36 million visitors to the

Las Vegas Valley every year. Nevada is the fastest growing State

in the country. Arizona ranks second in population growth, but is

far below Nevada, with approximately a 40 percent increase.

As our population increases, our transportation systems become

more stressed, and our transportation improvement needs increase.

Congestion on our highways is chronic and a growing problem.

Nevada’s transportation officials have, throughout the last decade, diligently worked to address increased congestion and air pollution by improving and expanding roadways and mass transit options.

Currently, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern

Nevada and the Nevada Department of Transportation have embarked on many essential projects to alleviate some of the burden

on Southern Nevada’s transportation systems.

In Clark County, and you are well aware of this, construction

continues on a beltway skirting the Las Vegas Valley to ease traffic

on I–15, the city’s most heavily traveled artery. In addition, I–15

and U.S. 95 are undergoing major and critical improvement

projects.

Later this year, Las Vegas area travelers will see smart signs on

the Las Vegas roads as part of an overall intelligent transportation

system of Clark County.

Over the next decade, Las Vegas area residents and visitors will

have an opportunity to utilize a variety of new transportation options. By 2003, a bus rapid transit system with low floored, clean

diesel/electric powered vehicles will be up and running in the areas

most utilized bus route. A monorail is being constructed, connecting resort properties on the strip to downtown properties, to help

reduce pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the Las Vegas Boulevard.

I look forward to working with the members of the panel and my

own colleagues on the reauthorization. I would ask that we assess

the transportation needs of all of our states and evaluate possible

avenues to address needs unique to high growth states like the

State of Nevada.
10

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also am looking forward to

hearing your testimony and working on this together.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Pascrell?

Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, I want to thank the Administration for reinforcing our unity on this community. They could not have done a

better job. That is number one.

Number two, we are working out of an economic straightjacket.

You know, every election has a consequence and every budget has

a consequence.

Number three, we are talking, Mr. Chairman, about intermodal

transportation. If you stop one project, you are impacting upon

other projects which are critical. That is what TEA 21 and that is

what ISTEA were all about. Fourth, billions are going to be lost

every year because of congestion and accidents to the Nation’s efficiency. Finally, 8,000 jobs in New Jersey, what kind of an economic

stimulant is that?

So I lay out the case, Mr. Chairman. We have our work cut out

for us. I want to commend you and the Ranking Member for bringing us to this point united.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Are there other opening statements? Mr. McGovern?

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You may be thinking that everything has been said, but not everybody has said it. I just want to add my voice to the bipartisan

concerns that have been raised here about the Administration’s

proposed budget cuts.

I am not going to go into a lot of detail about how they will affect

Massachusetts. I have talked to you, Administrative Peters, about

that. You know our special needs and unique challenges up there.

But clearly, the status quo would be devastating to us in a whole

bunch of ways.

We need to figure out a way to reverse what is in this budget

at this particular point. I look forward to your testimony, and I

thank you very much for all being here today.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Representative Johnson?

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much.

I ask unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record.

Mr. PETRI. Without objection.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON OF TEXAS. But I simply want to

thank you for calling the hearing, and thank the witnesses for

being her, and to say that if this goes through, Texas stands to lose

22,000 jobs, and we have already run out of unemployment compensation money.

It is so critical that we move forward. As a matter of fact, I

thought all along that this should be the stimulus package, because

it creates so many jobs when you work on transportation issues.

I am hoping that the interpretation of TEA 21 will be seen as

the floor, as outlined, rather than the ceiling; and that we can go

back and recapture what we began. Because if we go back as far

as what the Administration has proposed, we will actually lose investment dollars for projects that perhaps have been started and

cannot be finished.
11

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

The subcommittee will recess for the vote on the Floor. I assume

there is just one vote. If that is the case, we will back and start

up at quarter to the hour.

[Recess.]

Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will resume.

Today’s panel consists of the Honorable Mary E. Peters, the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration; Honorable

Jennifer Dorn, the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration; Dr. Jeff Runge, Administrator of the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration; and Joe Clapp, the Administrator of

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Welcome, and we will begin with Ms. Peters.

STATEMENTS OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, ADMINISTRATOR,

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; HON. JENNIFER L.

DORN, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; HON. JEFFREY W. RUNGE, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND

HON. JOSEPH M. CLAPP, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR

CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I also want to take the opportunity

to thank you and the Ranking Member for holding these hearings.

Clearly, reauthorization is very important to us, and it will be here

before you know it. So your hearings are very timely and very important.

Mr. PETRI. I forgot to mention, your full statements will be a part

of the record. We encourage you to summarize them in about five

minutes, and we thank you. Please proceed.

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, sir.

We all recognize the importance of reauthorization in terms of

our Nation’s surface transportation program. I am pleased to have

the opportunity to testify before you today for the first time as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration.

It is also an honor to be here today with my colleagues, the Administrators of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and we are pleased to have the opportunity to talk with you. With your permission, as you said, we will

submit our full comments for the record.

I know that I speak for each of my colleagues this morning in

saying that we are grateful for the leadership that this committee

has provided in the area of surface transportation. We certainly

look forward to working with you over the next year to build on the

programmatic successes of ISTEA, and the financial incentives of

TEA 21, to meet the transportation challenges now facing our Nation.

I would like to take a few moments to provide an overview of

surface transportation improvements accomplished under TEA 21

and, in particular, highlight highway accomplishments. My colleagues will report on achievements within their respective areas

of responsibility, as well.
12

In five principal areas, TEA 21 has strengthened the Nation’s

transportation system: funding levels and program equity; safety;

mobility and system upgrading; new technologies; and quality of

life.

TEA 21 dramatically altered the nature of transportation funding, authorizing record amounts of funding, building confidence

with the firewalls, ensuring fair distribution with the minimum

guarantee, and augmenting resources with innovative loan and

grant programs.

Equally important is funding flexibility. Flexible funding has allowed states and communities to tailor their transportation resources to meet their unique needs. From my years of experience

as a State highway administrator, I know these mechanisms allowed us to significantly accelerate programs that were tailored to

our specific needs.

One funding provision that is foremost in all of our minds this

morning is the adjustment for the Highway Trust Fund revenues,

or the revenue aligned budget authority.

It is important for me to note that this adjustment is not a policy

call on behalf of the Administration. It is a budget calculation that

was called for in law. Unfortunately, due to the recent economic

slow-down and current projections of future Highway Trust Fund

receipts, as we know, that adjustment will be negative in 2003.

As we discuss the reauthorization of TEA 21, we need to look for

ways to smooth out the degree of positive and negative swings in

funding adjustments that have resulted under the current formula.

Nevertheless, even with the 2003 negative calculation, over the

life of TEA 21, the RABA adjustments will have provided a net

gain of over $4.6 billion in highway spending. So while we need to

look for mechanisms to smooth out the flows, the overall RABA has

been a positive mechanism.

TEA 21 gave us the funding and flexibility to significantly improve our surface transportation system, and to address the most

important challenge that several of you mentioned this morning,

that of safety. We still lose far too many lives; as was indicated,

more than 40,000 per year on the Nation’s highways, as well as

more than three million injuries annually.

Infrastructure safety improvements enabled by TEA 21 have allowed us to make improvements, but clearly, much remains to be

done in this area.

The reauthorization process furnishes the opportunity to enhance

the security of the system, while addressing core national goals of

mobility, congestion relief and, of course, economic growth.

TEA 21 funding also has allowed us to enhance mobility by upgrading the condition of our highways and our transit systems, and

by improving connectivity across the modes. We have seen a steady

improvement in pavement condition and a reduction in the number

of deficient bridges on our system.

Building on the intermodalism of ISTEA and TEA 21, we established and funded new programs, such as the Corridors and Borders Program, and these have improved intermodal connectivity,

especially for freight movement.

Under TEA 21, the Department of Transportation has made

great strides in research, especially in the areas of Intelligent
13

Transportation Systems, in pavement improvement, congestion reduction, seismic hardening of highway infrastructure elements,

strengthening of bridges, and new tunnel technologies.

Significant progress has been made in ITS deployment. However,

to date, only 22 percent of freeways in major metropolitan areas

are instrumented for real time monitoring. To better address congestion, security and, of course, emergency response, we need to

complete the deployment of ITS infrastructure in both rural and

urban areas of our country.

TEA 21 has given states and communities additional tools and

opportunities to enhance the environment and the quality of life for

their residents as well, including important programs like the

Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program, the CMAQ Program, and the very popular National Scenic

Byways Program.

TEA 21 also directed us to streamline the environmental review

processes. I believe very strongly that we can improve our processes and make them more efficient and less duplicative, while still

being mindful stewards of our environment.

I am happy to report that the median time it takes to do an EIS,

or an Environmental Impact Statement, and get to a record of decision has been cut by an entire year. But, while this is progress,

again, much, much more needs to be done in the area of environmental streamlining.

The Secretary has defined a set of core principles and goals to

frame the Department’s approach to TEA 21 reauthorization. Some

of these include things that I heard you speak about this morning:

building on the intermodal approaches of ISTEA and TEA 21; assuring adequate and predictable funding that will allow State

agencies to confidently develop long-range plans; preserve funding

flexibility; expand innovative financing programs and look for new

ways to augment revenues; make substantial improvements in the

safety of the Nation’s surface transportation system; enhancing the

security of the system and improving incident response; improving

freight movement and intermodal connections; and working to simplify and accelerate project approval and implementation. Working

together, we can continue to improve surface transportation programs for our Nation.

Mr. Chairman and members, the Department of Transportation

looks forward to working with both Houses of Congress, with State

and local officials, tribal governments, and many other stakeholders on the reauthorization of surface transportation programs. A

viable transportation system supports a strong America.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before

you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you

have, following the statements of my colleagues.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Administrator Dorn?

Ms. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be with

you again today on this very important topic.

In recent years, transit has experienced the highest percentage

of ridership growth among all surface transportation modes. In the

year 2000, transit ridership reached its high level in 40 years.

Traveling to and from work, medical appointments, school, and so-
14

cial events, people rode our Nation’s transit systems 9.4 billion

times, 320 million more than the previous year.

Nonetheless, we face new challenges in 2002 and beyond. soon

after September 11th, the Federal Transit Administration launched

a major security initiative, working with transit agencies across

this Nation, to enhance transit security.

In December, FTA began deploying expert security assessment

teams to the 30 largest transit agencies in the Nation, using proven threat and vulnerability assessment methodologies. These professional teams are helping transit agencies identify security gaps

and make specific recommendations to reduce the risks.

I am particularly pleased to report that transit agencies are voluntarily and enthusiastically partnering with the FTA, and continue to take steps on their own to improve the safety and security

of our public transportation systems.

I am equally pleased to note that we are working across the

modes at the Department of Transportation, to ensure that our efforts to enhance security are coordinated and complimentary.

FTA has been partnering with the Federal Railroad Administration to ensure that commuter rail systems are covered by our security assessments; with the Federal Motor Carrier Administration

on bus safety and security training for drivers; with the Federal

Highway Administration on the ITS Deployment Program and regional security workshops.

Mr. Chairman, from major urban centers to small communities,

TEA 21 has communicated a revolution of sorts in public transportation, leading to increased mobility, more transportation choices,

and more economically vital communities for millions of Americans.

Although Federal funding represented only 17 percent of the Nation’s total investment in transit in the year 2000, reliable TEA 21

funding streams for both formula funds and new starts capital investment programs have had a tremendously positive impact on

transit development.

They have improved the ability of communities to finance, to

plan, and execute public transportation projects, and have generated financial and mobility benefits throughout the Nation.

For example, based on the reliable Federal formula funds provided under TEA 21, Phoenix Transit, a small public transportation agency successfully worked with the city to secure grant anticipation bonds. As a result, Phoenix Transit was able to upgrade

its entire fleet to clean natural gas vehicles, and install the necessary fueling infrastructure within a single year, saving three

years and an average of $30,000 per bus, a total of $1.65 million.

Similarly, based largely on the Federal commitment, under their

new starts full funding grant agreement, New Jersey Transit was

able to issue $450 million in grant anticipation bonds, to fund the

Hudson Bergen Light Rail Project.

The assurance of this reliable Federal funding source is permitting the project to be completed three years early, and will reduce

costs by more than $300 million.

Today, there are 27 active and pending new starts with full funding grant agreements and seven more projects recommended for fiscal year 2003 funding in the President’s budget. In addition, there

are 50 more transit projects in the new starts pipeline, in prelimi-
15

nary engineering or final design, and many, many more in early

planning stages throughout the Nation.

In communities of all sizes, from over five million in population

to less than 500,000, these projects span all types of public transportation service, from ferry boats to commuter rail to light rail to

bus rapid transit.

It is, therefore, more important than ever that we provide stable

resources, opportunities to partner with the private sector, and innovative financing tools that will permit communities to leverage

the Federal investment in public transportation and respond to

local needs for public transportation service.

We have learned that real success comes when public transportation is given the opportunity to work with State and with local

officials to envision, plan, and develop economically vital communities.

Public transportation is the key to connecting communities, ensuring that every American has access to the employment opportunities, services, and recreational facilities in the community, and

helping businesses gain access to and attract customers and employees.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before

you today. I look forward to working with you and the subcommittee to keep our communities safe and moving.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you

Mr. RUNGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to give you a brief update on highway safety, since the enactment of TEA 21, and a few of the issues that are facing the program today.

Congress gave us a prime goal to save lives and to prevent injuries on the Nation’s highways. NHTSA has pursued this goal for

more than 30 years since its inception and has accomplished a

great deal.

The rate of fatal injury is at an all time low of 1.5 deaths per

100 million vehicle miles traveled, compared with 5.5 in 1966,

when Congress enacted the law. The serious injury rates have also

fallen.

In TEA 21, Congress recognized that further reductions would

require more resources. Accordingly, the Act gave us a tool kit of

programs, some new and some renewed, to help prevent crashes

and mitigate their effects. Unfortunately, although the rates have

improved, as Mr. Borski pointed out earlier, the numbers of Americans dying on our highways each year is wholly unacceptable.

The solution to the problem lies both in preventing crashes and

mitigating injuries when crashes do occur. To prevent crashes from

occurring, we focus primarily on human factors and environmental

conditions; the most important of which is reducing alcohol-related

crashes.

By encouraging sound public policy, enhancing law enforcement,

and improving public education, we have brought the rate down.

Sadly, however, alcohol is still a factor in 40 percent of fatal crashes, and over 16,600 Americans die each year in alcohol-related

crashes.
16

TEA 21 provided a set of programs to address the impaired driving problem, including incentive grants to States for enacting laws

to reduce the level of alcohol with which it is legal to drive. NHTSA

continues to work intensely with the states to implement these

safety improvements.

To mitigate the effects of crashes when they do occur, the most

effective tools we have are seat belts and child restraints. We know

from long experience that seat belts reduce the chance of fatal injury by half, and that properly secured child restraints are essential to keep our children safe.

TEA 21 provided a welcome set of incentive programs to increase

the use of seat belts and child restraints. As a result of our efforts

and those of our partners in the private sector, the national seat

belt use rate is now 73 percent, up from 65 percent in 1998. Several states are over 80 percent, and two states are now at or near

90 percent.

But the improvement in child restraint use is a real success. The

rate for infants is 95 percent, and for children one to four, it is 91

percent. While this is a tremendous improvement, traffic crashes

are still the leading cause of death for children over three years old

in our Nation. Over half of children who die in those crashes are

totally unrestrained, and that is unacceptable.

In the adult population, people are still being killed by the thousands, due simply to their failure to buckle their seat belts and

tens of thousands are seriously injured.

The vast resources spent in this country for safety improvements

to vehicles are all for naught, if people do not wear their seat belts,

and this is a tragic waste and a tragic economic waste for America.

In the current fiscal year, we are using the flexibility provided

by the innovative seat belt incentive program in Section 157 to

focus on programs that combine intense seat belt enforcement with

high public visibility through the use of strong media campaigns.

Last year, we worked with eight states in the Southeast in this

intensive effort, and that achieved a nine percentage point increase

in seat belt use across that region. This year, we are expanding the

effort to 12 other states across the country. Our data so far shows

that this approach offers the best hope of raising seat belt use levels across America.

The programs authorized under TEA 21 have made America

safer for its citizens. We will build on TEA 21 as we look towards

the reauthorization of our safety programs, and we appreciate your

time. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Administrator Clapp?

Mr. CLAPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation for Mr. Oberstar’s characterization of our panel as being

all star. I associate myself with that remark.

However, my wife probably would not hire whoever did the seating arrangements for our next dinner party, because we like to do

‘‘boy/girl, boy/girl.’’ And while I like Jeff a lot, I would prefer to sit

between Mary and Jenny, almost any day.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CLAPP. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank

you for the opportunity to speak today on the progress being made
17

to improve truck and bus safety under TEA 21 and the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.

In 2000, fatalities and large truck crashes declined by three percent from the previous year, despite an increase in overall highway

fatalities. This committee is to be commended for its role in this

achievement through its commitment to strong State and Federal

motor carrier safety programs. Since 1998, states have received more than $400 million under

the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. With the flexibility

provided by TEA 21, states focused their efforts on the particular

safety risks they see in their states. This has led to many successful safety initiatives.

Under TEA 21, participation in the innovative PRISM Program has grown from five to twenty states. Since 1998, more than $15

million in grants have been awarded to states to improve commercial drivers license programs, and $15 million more will be distributed this year.

By closing loopholes that can lead to fraud and increasing the exchange of licensing and violation information, we can improve both

safety and security.

FMCSA is taking active steps to help motor carriers reduce the

vulnerability of commercial motor vehicles to terrorist attack.

Across the country, our investigators conducted more than 36,000

visits to hazardous material carriers, alerting them to potential

risks, and making recommendations to tighten security.

We are also working with commercial passenger carriers to identify further ways to reduce the vulnerability of inter city motor

coaches, a vital part of our national passenger transportation system.

While we are taking action to reduce vulnerabilities, we are

maintaining our focus on our commercial vehicle safety mission.

This committee can be assured that I will continue strong enforcement of the safety rules, and strive for continuous improvement in

our safety programs.

We will soon issue rules for background checks on hazardous materials drivers, commercial driver licensing, new entrants, a unified

carrier register, and for Mexican-domiciled motor carriers. Work on

the important Hours of Service Rule is also moving ahead.

A wide range of actions are under way to ensure there is no compromise to motor carrier safety, as the Administration maintains

its commitment to the North American Free Trade Agreement. In

reauthorization of TEA 21, one of the Department’s core values will

be making further improvements in safety on our highways.

I really look forward to working closely with this subcommittee

on an initiatives that will continue our progress in motor carrier

safety.

Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your statements.

Mr. Borski?

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Administrator Peters, let me start with you, if I may. We are obviously very concerned about RABA, and I think you are, as well.

Obviously, the members on both sides of the aisle here have expressed a strong desire to see that this is corrected.
18

I see this problem as only getting worse in the future. As we use

more ethanol, and that is probably a good idea, and as we look to

raise CAFE standards, which I think is a good idea, the trust funds

will correspondingly get less revenues.

So that is something I want to get to in a minute or so, and

would really like your thoughts on that. Perhaps this is a good

wake-up call to all of us who are concerned with this issue, to think

this through in the long term.

In the near term, for this budget that was put through, it is my

understanding that there was an additional $3 billion in TEA 21

for this year that the President could have recommended that we

use, and that the appropriators put that $3 billion to use in the

Highway Trust Fund. Why was that not done?

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Borski, in terms of the

additional $3 billion, to my knowledge, that is not accurate. I certainly will go back and check, but we looked very hard.

When we received the third quarter numbers and looked at what

the negative impact was going to be on RABA, we were very disappointed in that. We looked at a number of methods to try to not

have that happen. I am aware of no $3 billion, but we will certainly

look into that.

Mr. BORSKI. I would appreciate you looking into that, because I

understand that is in the law that we said you could do that; and

particularly, when we hit this kind of a situation, that there was

$15 billion that was in TEA 21 that could be used for highway

spending, in my view.

If you are correct, and you think only the law can be changed to

correct this situation, and we are going to work hard to see that

that is done, why did the President not recommend changes in the

law, when he presented his budget?

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Borski, certainly, I

cannot speak for the President of the United States.

However, in our discussions with the Office of Management and

Budget, the issue was following the law. They felt that in terms of

putting our budget out, it was important to follow the law as it was

written, and then engage with Members of Congress, should there

be alternative thoughts about doing that. There was, of course, concern about the deficit issue, as well.

Mr. BORSKI. All right, let us get back to my earlier point, then.

We do have some long-term problems here with the Trust Fund. It

is a program that obviously works very well. I know from your experience, you are a supporter of firewalls and spending in the

Highway Trust Fund, Transportation Trust Fund, all on transportation issues.

But we do have a looming problem here. Perhaps some of it is

caused by the recession, and some is caused by increased use in

ethanol now. If that situation continues to get worse, what alternatives will we have to maintain the spending that we need to repair and maintain the highways of our country?

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Borski, I think you are

very insightful in your focusing on this issue. I think also, as you

said, perhaps as bad as this news is this year, it can serve as a

wake-up call for us.
19

The predominant factors that affected the negative RABA in this

cycle were two. One was the sale of commercial trucks, new trucks,

which was down 45-plus percent. That perhaps can be looked at as

a point in time issue, rather than a point over time issue, and certainly additional analysis is continuing on that.

But the other factor was, we saw a 28-plus percent increase in

the use of ethanol and a corresponding decrease in the use of gasoline. Because ethanol does not contribute to the Highway Trust

Fund at the same rate as gasoline, certainly that was a more negative effect.

As you say, I think that is a trend indicator that we need to look

hard at in the go-forward position, because states such as California have passed laws regarding MBTE’s, and this will continue in

other states. In my home state, we had to use oxygenated fuels half

the year.

These will continue as we deal with a number of issues throughout the Nation. I think, again, you are very perceptive in suggesting that we look hard at this as we go forward, and perhaps within

reauthorization, even to find mechanisms for re-examining the

whole highway funding structure, as we approach the next authorization cycle.

Mr. BORSKI. OK, thank you, and we look forward to working with

you. Again, I think this committee you will find, and I think you

know, is one that works in a bipartisan fashion. We believe that

the highway and transit spending is good for the Nation, not just

for Democrats and Republicans.

I remember when Administrator Slater was before us, and were

initiating this fight on TEA 21. We asked for his help, and I am

sure we got it. We will ask for your help, and I am sure we will

get it, where you can, to be an advocate for this position, within

the Administration.

I know sometimes here, your hands could be tied, and I know

this is your first visit here. But we do think highly of your record.

We understand you know this program and know it well, and we

look forward to your advocacy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling

this important hearing.

Administrator Peters, I would like to first ask you, just prior to

TEA 21, we had a delegation of governors sit at your same table

and testify.

We had also earlier had a panel of highway administrators, who

had testified. They said their main problem was all the environmental rules and regulation and red tape, and that these highway

projects were costing, on average, about three times as much as

they should, and were taking many years longer than they should.

I think one person said it was an average of about 10 years for a

major highway project, from conception to completion.

I remember we heard the same thing on the Aviation Subcommittee. They told us that the main new runway in Atlanta was

14 years from conception to completion, but it was only 99 days of

actual construction.
20

I am wondering, are you doing anything? That seems to me to

be a real area of opportunity for major savings. You know, lives are

lost if these projects are delayed for years past when they should

have been completed. What are you doing about that; or do you see

that as an area in which progress can be made, so that some of

these projects can be speeded up, or at least not delayed this long?

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Duncan, my colleagues

will think I asked you to ask that question, because it is a very important question.

Mr. DUNCAN. But you did not ask me to ask that question.

Ms. PETERS. I did not.

[Laughter.]

Ms. PETERS. But it is one that I certainly empathize with you on.

In fact, I had an opportunity to testify before this subcommittee in

September of 2000, before I achieved this job and while I was still

a State administrator. You heard from me, at that time, some of

the same things that you mentioned.

It is problematic and, as you said, while lives are being lost, the

economy is being damaged by not being able to move forward these

projects much more quickly.

We are aggressively moving forward with methods to streamline

environmental processes. Administrator Dorn and I, because there

are so many interrelationships between the processes in the Federal Transit and the Federal Highway Administration, have spent

much time talking about this.

We have some efforts that are underway already, in terms of dispute resolution, so that when there is an issue with an environmental resource agency and a transportation agency, we can get in

and try to get that resolved very quickly.

We believe that we can delegate more authority to our State

partners and our local partners to do some of the lower level environmental processes. We believe that we can concurrently process

a lot of documents, as opposed to sequentially processing them.

It is a subject that was so important to me that I, in fact, spoke

to Secretary Mineta about it when I was interviewed for this position, and we must do something about it.

Mr. DUNCAN. Good, well, I tell you, people do not think about

this, but when you make things, Government projects cost three or

four times what they should. Who you are hurting is the poor and

the lower income and the working people of this country. That is

who gets hurt most of all.

Administrator Dorn, let me ask you this. I am told that in the

budget in brief, there is a new program proposed by your agency

called the New Freedom Program, and $145 million is being requested to be authorized for that. Can you tell us what that program is?

Ms. DORN. Yes, sir, I am very enthusiastic about this program,

because it will address some very problematic issues for those in

the disability community, who are seeking access to the work place.

There are a number of things, creative kind of opportunities, that

some agencies have already taken advantage of, but it is not a systematic approach.

As you may well be aware, we have 54 million people across the

country who have mental or physical disabilities. Seventy percent
21

of those have a concern about the part about getting to a job. So

we want to make that easier, so they can become a more productive

part of society.

It is a two-part program. One piece of it is a competitive grants

program, which would be formula based, and then another piece

would be using innovative sorts of practices.

We are very eager to put this into place and to utilize existing

creative methods that we have used in other programs that have

been very successful, that encourage cooperation and collaboration

at the community level. So we look forward to implementing that

program, should the Congress approve it.

Mr. DUNCAN. I just was wondering what that was. I have got

several more questions, but let me just ask one quick question

here. I do not know who wants to answer it.

But just prior to TEA 21, we were told that while the population

had increased so much, and I remember in Tennessee where I am

from, they said the population had increased since 1990 by 11 percent; but the vehicle miles traveled had gone up by 55 percent.

That was pretty typical across the Nation, that the vehicle miles

traveled in the decade of the 1990’s had gone up at about five times

the rate of the population.

Are we still seeing those increases over these last two or three

years? Can anybody tell me, is the number of vehicle miles traveled

continuing to explode?

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Duncan, yes, we are

continuing to see increases in vehicle miles traveled overall. However, last year, we saw a more modest increase. We saw an increase of just less than one percent. There are some other factors

that could have affected that in the past year.

In fact, that is one of the issues that we look at in terms of the

calculation of RABA. It was a more modest increase, but we are

still seeing vehicle miles traveled increase, yes.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Mascara?

Mr. MASCARA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

In my former life, I was an accountant. I still have my license,

but I do not practice, thank God, given the Enron situation.

I am just curious as to the calculations that were made regarding

current and future revenues from gasoline taxes. Who made that

estimate or calculation, Treasury?

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Mascara, yes, the

Treasury Department makes those calculations.

Mr. MASCARA. And currently, there is some suggestion that

would like to see the GAO look over the shoulder of Treasury, to

make sure that those estimates are accurate.

I would also like to admit my ignorance on the ethanol. Are you

saying there are less taxes? What is it, 18-what per gallon currently in Federal taxes? What is it on ethanol?

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Mascara, let me make

sure I get that number right, rather than me flipping through the

book.
22

Sir, I am told it varies by the rate of alcohol that is in the ethanol. But it contributes substantially less to the Highway Trust

Fund than does gasoline.

Mr. MASCARA. And currently, it is somewhere about 28 percent,

that you testified to, earlier?

Ms. PETERS. Yes, that was the effect. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Mascara, that was the effect on the forecast for the current

year.

Mr. MASCARA. So we are not sure about those figures, yet, but

you are anticipating that there will be a reduction in the amount

of revenues going into the Trust Fund, as a result of September the

11th, less people traveling, it is wintertime, less people traveling.

Will your proposal include an anticipation of any increases and

suggested changes in the amount that we are talking about? I

mean, originally, we were at $9.2 billion, and then we were at $8.7

billion, and Treasury apparently over-estimated.

Will your department or the Treasury Department be in a position to anticipate changes in the revenues as they come in, and be

prepared to report to Congress that we need to take another look

in the future at any cuts that might be necessary?

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Mascara, I think it is

important for me to clarify that the RABA calculation is both a

look back and a look forward. The look back calibrates or estimates

revenue to what the actual revenue was. In fact, that constitutes

about 60 percent of the negative figure that we are seeing this

year. Unfortunately, that was the effect of that look back, 60-plus

percent of the negative figure.

It was because, as you indicated earlier, the early estimates of

what revenue would be were much more optimistic than the actual

revenue that came in, in the year 2001.

So that is an issue that we have to look at. As we look at the

other piece of it, which was the go forward piece, and look forward,

this is the piece, again, that we have to, as Congressman Borski

indicated earlier, look at the effect of ethanol as a percent of the

fuel consumption overall, and whether we see that trend line increasing over time.

What we did see in the look back was a 28 percent increase in

the use of ethanol, a 28-plus percent increase. Again, what we need

to collectively look at is, is that a trend that is going to continue?

Under law, Treasury continues to have the responsibility for

doing those revenue forecasts. They are not done by the Department of Transportation. But certainly, we will do everything, and

any intelligence that we have that would help them look at those

components of the Highway Trust Fund, we will make available to

them.

Mr. MASCARA. I apologize for my reluctance to entirely rely upon

Treasury. It is my understanding that Ranking Member Oberstar

and Ranking Member Borski of this subcommittee has asked the

GAO to look over the shoulder of Treasury. Am I correct, Congressman Borski?

Again, given my background in accounting, and to lend a little

levity to this hearing, you know, figures do not lie, but liars figure.

[Laughter.]
23

Mr. MASCARA. The other is, to lend a little levity, that in hiring

an accounting firm to audit their books, the first two firms were

asked, what two and two was. They said, two and two was four.

Then they asked the third accounting firm what he thought it was,

and he said, anything you want it to be.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MASCARA. So I am a little bit reluctant sometimes to accept

Treasury.

But thank you very much, and I appreciate your appearance here

today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Bereuter?

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Administrator Peters, Administrator Runge, you heard or perhaps you recall hearing my comments about highway rail grade

crossing safety programs. I see the paragraph in the joint testimony which addresses that: the amount of dollars spent, the

amount of lives saved.

My home State is Nebraska. Let me give you a little brief lesson

in settlement and economic geography. The low sulphur coal in Wyoming, that is so much in demand for power plants across the center and eastern parts of the country, is nearly all channeled right

through two routes in my state. In my home town, for example, a

small community, it will have over 50 coal trains a day. These are

the large unit trains.

The settlement patterns is that in the Western Midwest and in

the Great Plains, the rail lines let the settlement, and the local

people who came in from the eastern part of the United States or

as immigrants were told, there will be a community here. There

will be one here every six or eight miles.

Literally, they told them, this one will start with ‘‘A.’’ You pick

the name. This one will start with ‘‘B.’’ You pick the name. Most

of those communities are small. Some have grown to be sizable

communities.

But inevitably, the school or the fire safety or the ambulance will

be on one side of the tracks or the other. The amount of time that

the crossings are blocked each day is becoming a major problem.

I have some horror stories to tell you from my constituents, but

there is not time for that.

Eventually, those routes of taking the coal and other kinds of

freight will fan out across the aisle of Kansas and other places. But

right there, there are two corridors, and they have got all of it coming through there.

Now the Department of Roads, with the allocation of Federal

funds and the State highway tax, simply cannot put the overpasses

where they need to be placed, under the current financial arrangements for dealing with rail grade crossings and under the priority

system.

So I would like to ask each of you to what extent you are aware

of this problem? What kind of solutions or what kind of studies are

examining additional resources or some changes in the priority system?
24

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Bereuter. I hope I am pronouncing your name correctly.

Mr. BEREUTER. Bereuter.

Ms. PETERS. Bereuter, thank you; I certainly sympathize with

your problems. In fact, we lived in mid-north Indiana for a number

of years, and when I was expecting my third child, the hospital was

on the other side of the railroad tracks from where my home was.

That was of some concern to me.

Mr. BEREUTER. I can imagine.

Ms. PETERS. I am going to ask my colleague, Dr. Runge, to give

you the first response, and then I will follow-up with some of the

infrastructure issues.

Mr. RUNGE. Thank you, Congressman Bereuter. Clearly, this is

an issue. It is not technically in NHTSA’s jurisdiction, but it is

within the jurisdiction of DOT.

Administrator Alan Rutter is well aware of this problem. We

have discussed it. I frankly do not have the numbers on the numbers of fatalities. The midwestern states are over-represented in

grade crossing crashes, however.

But even in North Carolina, where I came from, it was a real

issue, not only with respect to infrastructure, but with respect to

driver behavior: getting around crossings, not just the unwitting

crossing of an unmarked track. So there are a lot of issues to be

considered.

Non-construction projects are eligible for 402 funding, that states

have the discretion to spend. One of the beauties of State funding

is, they can look at actually what their priorities are, and address

their priorities. We would support any suggestion you might have

on how we could improve that.

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, if I could follow up a

little bit. As Dr. Runge indicated, it is a subject that we have

talked about. I also have met with Federal Rail Administrator Alan

Rutter to talk about this, as well. We know that we can do a better

job of preventing crashes at those at-grade crossings.

Other things that we can do though is look at the sign placement, the stop point placement. I also have had an opportunity recently to talk with a senior official with Norfolk Southern Railroad.

They actually mounted cameras on some of their locomotives,

and have some real time film of these incidents that will help us

analyze them and determine better ways to improve them.

But as you said, sometimes the issue is simply having enough

money to deal with the crossing. Here again, I think funding flexibility is what we need to provide, so that we can use that money

where it is appropriate to fix those issues.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much.

Well, we are closing rail crossings, wherever possible, to try to

reduce the number. That is never popular, but it has to happen.

But we still need construction dollars far beyond our capacity to

fund them. If we met our needs in the state, we would not build

a single mile of highway.

So Mr. Chairman and Mr. Borski, I look forward to working with

the subcommittee, trying to find a solution to this problem. Thank

you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
25

Mr. McGovern?

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, again, I again want to thank Administrator Peters for all

the cooperation and help that you have provided me and my colleagues in the Massachusetts Delegation during some of our challenges up there.

I just want to change the subjects a little bit here. As you know,

among the many controversial issues that the Department and

Congress will confront during the TEA 21 reauthorization process

are questions involving the regulation of truck sizes and weights.

In your previous position as Director of Transportation for the

State of Arizona, you wrote a letter to members of your Congressional Delegation, urging them to oppose proposals to increase the

size and weight of trucks, and I happen to agree with you.

But can you tell me more about your concerns with bigger

trucks? Even as the head of a State agency, you thought that truck

size and weight regulation was one of areas reserved to Congress.

Can you tell me a little bit more about that?

And what is the Bush Administration’s position on proposals to

increase truck size and weight, and will you and the Department

support the continuation of the freeze on triple trailer trucks without changes or thaws of any kind?

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman McGovern, thank you

for the question. Let me explain first what my reservations were

at the time I wrote the letter about that.

My reservations were in two areas. One was safety, the interaction of the commercial vehicle with other vehicular traffic. My

second reservation was a reservation concerning the infrastructure

itself and the impact on the infrastructure of heavier or longer

loads.

I felt at the time, and continue to feel, that we want to carefully

evaluate that issue before making changes, to determine if those

changes are warranted.

My position in terms of why it was appropriate for Congress to

act on that issue, sir, was related to the fact that this is a factor

that affects interstate commerce.

While I am very much an advocate of states making decisions,

when it is appropriate to do so, when we are dealing with issues

of interstate commerce, I felt it was more appropriate for Congress

to speak to that issue, than it would be for individual states to

speak to that issue.

In addition, I felt that it would be very chaotic for the trucking

industry to have to remember which State allowed which. Many of

those long haul carriers do not travel intrastate—they travel interstate.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. McGovern, if we could just suspend for one

minute. There are several votes on the Floor. We have made arrangements for one of the members to run over and vote and return.

So we will just try to continue, because there will be several people who will want to ask questions. We will hopefully accommodate

them and wrap this up by the lunch hour, if at all possible.

If there are other members who would like to ask questions, you

could go vote and come right back. We will try to keep the hearing
26

going, without the 20 or 30 minute break that we would otherwise

have.

Although if there are two votes, he is not going to be able to

come running right back, is he, until the second vote? Well, we will

maybe rest for five minutes, but as soon as Mr. Kerns comes back,

the hearing will be continued.

[Recess.]

Mr. PETRI. Please go ahead, Ms. Peters.

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman McGovern.

To your third issue, the Bush Administration has not yet taken a

position on this.

I believe as you are aware, the Federal Highway Administration

conducted a very extensive study on truck size and weight issues.

The Transportation Research Board has been asked to review that

and make recommendations as a result of the study. The Federal

Highway Administration study, by intent, did not make recommendations. It simply collected a lot of data.

The TRB study was initially due in the Summer of 2000. Obviously, we do not have it, yet. But I am told that we are expecting

that very shortly, and we will all collectively have an opportunity

to comment on that, once it is made public.

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, I appreciate that, and you answered my

second question about the Administration’s reaction to this study

that was done, the Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study

that came out in August of 2001, which I think supported the fact

that we should not alter the freeze right now.

I have legislation, that a number of us on this committee are also

supportive of. I would appreciate your review of that. Hopefully, we

can get the Administration to be supportive of it.

But I think that given the budgetary issues that we have talked

about here, and the numerous safety and infrastructure concerns

that have been addressed and raised with longer and heavier

trucks, that it would be economically wise for us not to change the

policy. I hope we can work together on that.

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, we would be happy to

provide any technical assistance you desire.

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Kirk?

Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to reiterate and thank Jenna for all the help with

Metra and transit funding. We made a major commitment in Illinois in seeing that through, both not only to my district, but the

Speaker’s district as well.

I have a concern about having the next Transportation bill enable consensus building, especially on highways. In my state, we do

not have an overarching organization that can bring together different agencies and jurisdictions to build consensus.

This is something I have discussed with the Chairman. We have

an enormous pot of money available. But sometimes when communities are divided, there is no mechanism to bring them together

for common solutions.

I am wondering, Ms. Peters, what you would think about having

you being able to convene kind of a Federal entity that would bring

together, for example, the communities in Northern Illinois, basi-
27

cally giving a red light/green light to projects. We could say, ′′If you

guys do come together, the Federal Government will be able to do

certain things for you.′′ We could also say, ′′If you are not, we will

look at other states.′′

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I think you bring up

an important issue. In some cases, there are metropolitan planning

organizations or councils of government that are very effective. In

other areas, they do not have that.

The Department has engaged in what we call a capacity building

program, to go in where local governments or others perhaps do not

have the capability or the expertise to do long-range planning and

look at what their transportation needs are, and how they might

match those needs in the best method possible to available Federal

funding sources.

Our capacity building program is one that has received a lot of

accolades where it has gone in. It is a joint program with FTA. We

think that that type of thing is ideal for the situation that you describe.

I would like to defer to my colleague, if she has anything else to

add.

Ms. DORN. Only to reaffirm your very important point, Congressman, that in our experience in Federal Transit programs, as well

as in the mobility of communities, there is nothing more important

than that planning at the front end, and coordinating, truly intermodal studies.

I think that that is the thing that the Administrator and I want

to work together on. We will do anything we can, in terms of technical assistance in your State or others, to encourage that kind of

cooperation.

Part of it is an issue of political will, and part of it is an issue

of incentivizing, as you suggest. I think we are willing and eager

to use whatever appropriate means to make that happen, because

that is what will leverage the Federal dollar and make sure that

we have mobility in all of our communities, because of that kind

of planning.

Mr. KIRK. I think we save a lot of money, in the long run. So we

want to help you in the capacity building. Jenna, thank you; you

are my top priority.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Ms. Peters, we are up from

Charleston, South Carolina. We were very interested when we got

the news that I–73 was going to be coming from Detroit, I guess,

to Charleston, by way of Myrtle Beach. I was just wondering if you

could give us an update of where that is taking place?

Ms. PETERS. I am going to consult my notes here. I have a few

notes on projects in South Carolina, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Brown. If I do not have that right with me, I apologize. I do

not. I would be pleased to get back with you on the specifics of that

project.

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. OK, thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
28

There are two votes on the Floor. Mr. Kerns has promised to

come back as quickly as he can after the second vote. So we will

suspend for about 10 or 15 minutes. There were several other

members who had some questions, and we should be able to accommodate them and wrap things up by about 12:15 or 12:20.

The subcommittee will recess for a vote.

[Recess.]

Mr. PETRI. The committee will resume.

I discussed this with Mr. Borski. Without objection, the record of

this hearing will be held open, so members will have an opportunity to submit questions for written response from our panelists

within the next week.

Mr. Otter?

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have quite a few questions. I know my time is

not going to allow me to ask them all and to pursue them in the

way I want. So for the record, I would like to submit those to the

agencies and would request an answer.

But I do have a couple that I would like to bring forward now,

and I am out of breath; not because of the question, although this

could knock the breath out of me, if the answer if wrong.

[Laughter.]

Mr. OTTER. To Administrator Runge, last year, Congress passed

the Thread Act, to guard consumers in the wake of a rash of tirerelated accidents in the year 2000. This act empowered your agency to issue new rules and regulations concerning tires.

I have been informed that motorcycle apparel is also covered

under the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued by your agency.

Not once, Mr. Runge, during the debate over this bill was motorcycle apparel ever mentioned.

So I would like to ask you whether or not you believe it was the

intent of Congress for motorcycle apparel to be included and covered by this act.

Mr. RUNGE. Thank you, Congressman. I have no idea what the

intent of Congress was here. But the beauty of a rulemaking is

that if a proposed rulemaking goes out, and we get lots of comments about it, we respond to all of those comments. I believe what

you are referring to is the Early Warning Rule that we are proposing. Congress was very intent on our getting information from

manufacturers, both the vehicle manufacturers and the equipment

manufacturers.

In the event that there is a complaint about that equipment or

those vehicles, then we will get an early warning of potential problems.

So to the extent that one’s motorcycle coat could harm them, I

suppose they would need to report that. But I would think it would

be very unlikely. I am kind of a common sense guy, and I just do

not see where that would apply.

Mr. OTTER. Well, I certainly appreciate that. I am kind of a common sense guy, too, I think. But I also remember, as Lt. Governor

of the great State of Idaho for 14 years, as I watched agencies continue to over-reach missions that Congress had set before them,

with the limited and precious resources that we have to do the jobs

in the core mission that each of these agencies ought to be doing.
29

Then I would hope that we would govern ourselves and limit ourselves to those core missions, and use those previous resources that

we have got to do that, rather than some adventuresome efforts on

the part of perhaps some enthusiastic folks within your agencies.

Mr. RUNGE. Thank you.

Mr. OTTER. It is common sense that I did not call them bureaucrats. I want you to recognize that.

[Laughter.]

Mr. OTTER. To Administrator Clapp, our Nation’s economy is

highly dependent upon motor carriers. Trucks and truck drivers

are still, in part, demonized by the media, and feared by large segments of our population.

I think, as you might recall this, during my introductory testimony that I offered on the 682 miles of Highway 95 in our section

of the Pan American Highway, and hopefully, NAFTA’s north/south

trade corridor. I am really disappointed that your agency does not

put a little bit more emphasis on enhancing the popular view, and

there should be a popular view, that the industry has and should

have, rather than just regulating it.

Your agency does not even have a hot link that goes from its web

site to at least an educational process for the general public, that

they could find out many of the benefits.

In fact, one of my other questions which would deal with you or

perhaps any of the other agencies is that, you know, probably nobody spends more time on the highways than the Nation’s truckers

and their families that travel on the highways. As a result of that,

they probably have more eyes and ears at any one moment than

all the law enforcement that we have got from the state, the counties, the cities, the Federal Government, everybody.

Yet, we have not developed a system which allowed them a hotline into the tunnels they may be going under, when they see something that is out of the ordinary. This is in this day where we never

know when the next terrorist act could come from, or something

that is naturally problematic.

I am wondering out loud here in two areas. One, is there not

anything that your agency can do to help educate the public as to

the benefits and to the great good that the truck industry does?

Number two is to provide some sort of a national hotline, that

when they see something out of the ordinary on this Nation’s highways, that they could become a tremendous resource of intelligence

and influence for your agency.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I would like to hear your answer.

Mr. CLAPP. Thank you, Congressman Otter. Those were very perceptive remarks, and you have given me something to chew on a

little bit.

I will say that I just came from the Midwest Safety Conference,

which is pulling together people from our agency, other modal

agencies, as well as their counterparts in the states, on a voluntary

basis. They are sitting together almost all of this week, to brainstorm ways in which we can work together, between modal agencies and between Federal and state, to improve safety on our Nation’s highways.

I had the privilege of addressing that conference. What I thought

was the key element of what I had to say was that, of course, I do
30

have an appreciation of the significance of the motor carrier industry to our entire economy. Also that we have a cadre of what I like

to call the competent majority, a very large number of competent

people, whose profession is operating those vehicles up and down

the Pan American Highway and east/west across this country. They

are doing an excellent job of it. Indeed, every day, by their sheer

professionalism, they save people’s lives by not allowing another

person’s mistake to result in that person’s severe consequences,

and possibly even death.

I must admit, there is also what I refer to as a memorable minority, which I believe to be a small minority, of drivers who choose,

for whatever reason, not to behave in a responsible fashion.

When it comes to enforcement, an area that Jeff and I both share

an interest in, as well as Mary, we need to deal with those particular individuals who, for whatever reason, have made the choice not

to act in a responsible way.

But it is certainly true that the guys you do not notice and the

gals you do not notice, who are doing their jobs well, day in and

day out, are a big resource.

There are programs in a number of states, between industry and

the Highway Patrol, for example, in which the drivers do know

that they can reach the Highway Patrol on CB, and report not only

unsafe behavior, such as a DUI, but also suspicious behavior. Since

September 11th, these folks have really been sensitized to notice

things that do not look right around them, and to contact a hold

of law enforcement authorities.

Of course, our agency is cooperating with the FBI in communicating the results of the 36,000 carrier visits that we have made,

especially if we happen to run across something that does not look

right. We and the carriers are making that known to the FBI. But

we can do more, and I appreciate your idea on that subject.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Kerns?

Mr. KERNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend the Chairman for the timeliness of this hearing. I have just recently met with members of the State of Indiana,

Department of Transportation. Certainly, Indiana is facing a potentially serious shortfall in funding. We met also with the industry

folks.

It is very difficult in an environment where revenues are coming

in, perhaps at this level, and they may be coming in the next year

at this level; and then not knowing what they will be in the future.

I know other industries, the steel industry and others, have difficulty when foreign competition flood our markets with products

and decimate their ability to compete. Similarly, they were facing

that in the highway industry, with revenues, if there are shortfalls

and not knowing what their future may hold, then employment

drops in a time when we need to be increasing employment to try

to stimulate the economy.

Certainly, with the safety in the infrastructure of the states, you

know, I sympathize and empathize with those states that are trying to plan for a future in the budgets, and they have projects in
31

place. It is important to the community and to the safety to the

communities; and not being able to know those revenues, if they

are going to be there.

I think there is a piece of legislation that we are going to be behind in introducing, that is going to work to, in fact, shore up some

of the funding, the shortfalls that may be occurring. I think that

would be important.

I did note your comment that sometimes agencies do not know

the intent of Congress. Well, this being my first time as a student

of government, I have often thought that was the case, with the

legislation and the way things are implemented, but I know you

are dealing with lots of things.

I do want to thank you for being here today, as panelists. I know

you have a big job ahead of you. Anybody can take this question.

We want to work with you to get as much of the funds that are

available from the Trust Fund into the hands of the states, into the

hands of those that are building our Nation’s roads and highways

and bridges.

It is a vital interest to the national security of this country. It

a vital interest to the safety of the people of the states, and after

all, the American people. They pay taxes, gas taxes and other

taxes, for that purpose, so those roads, in fact, can be built, and

bridges and infrastructure. This is for whomever would like to like

to answer that question, and then I have another question after

that.

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kerns, just so I can

specifically understand, your question is, are there methods by

which we could get that money into the hands of those who use the

money to build and operate the infrastructure more quickly?

Mr. KERNS. Well, we want to work with you, the Congress, we

and the Administration, on ways that we can, in fact, get as much

money into the hands of the states; that money that is coming into

the Trust Fund, making sure we do all we can to conserve and run

a streamline operation, so that the money goes to building roads,

highways, and bridges, and those things, and is distributed as

quickly as we can.

Ms. PETERS. Right.

Mr. KERNS. I guess cooperation is one thing that we are asking

for; but also, if you have other ideas and ways in which we could

be helpful, in fact, to shore up some of the shortfalls on money that

is going to the states.

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Kerns, I will start, and

I will certainly ask my colleagues to jump in here, as well.

But I think some of the key tenets of TEA 21 that were discussed

earlier are the best opportunities for State governments, such as

Indiana, to have programs that can be responsive to their needs.

The firewalls, the Trust Fund, the minimum guarantees, all of

those were very important parts of a piece of legislation that allowed a number of states to have more stable programs than they

had ever had in the past.

Funding flexibility also is very important, because each State

does not have needs that duplicate other areas. They are very

unique needs.
32

I spent a number of years in Indiana. I know the issues. In fact,

that is where I lived when the hospital was on one side of the railroad track, and my home was on the other.

Mr. KERNS. That is what I understood, yes.

Ms. PETERS. So those are issues that by giving flexibility to the

states so that they can use the money in the manner that best

meets their needs, I think that is another very important tenet.

As I responded to Congressman Borski earlier, I also think that

we do need to look comprehensively at the compilation of the Trust

Fund. We need to diversify our portfolio a little bit and look at the

long-term stability of those funding mechanism into the future. Because clearly, there are indicators already in this forecast that we

cannot continue to depend on the same mechanisms that have

served us well perhaps in the past.

Again, I would defer to my colleagues for other answers.

Mr. KERNS. Yes, sure.

Ms. DORN. In addition to what the Administrator mentioned

about that very important source of revenue, Congressman Kerns,

I would add two things that I think are very important, in order

to ensure that we get the most money out to the states, so that

they can be utilized for effective projects.

There would be two things I would add. One would be that we

need to ensure that we have effective oversight to ensure that

projects go well and the planning goes well. We need to make sure,

however, that that is value-added oversight.

We can have oversight upon oversight, rule upon rule upon rule,

and that dilutes the effectiveness of the Federal dollar, and getting

it out there, so that it can be of value to communities.

So we, in the Administration, need to work with you under reauthorization, to determine how can we simplify, if possible, and

make more effective our oversight. That is one piece.

The other piece is, I think that what Congressman Kirk mentioned earlier, about the community-wide planning studies on an

intermodal basis from the get-go, to ensure that the local community consensus is there before projects are begun. That saves time,

saves money, and ensures mobility.

So I think that is a piece that we may want to think about reinforcing in reauthorization, and I look forward to working with you

on that particular piece.

Mr. KERNS. Well, thank you, and another question, I raised or

someone raised, concerns that perhaps new emphasis on security of

airports and infrastructure needed there would, in fact, potentially

hurt funding for highways, roads, and bridges.

Have there been discussions or any concerns on your part? I did

not suspect that there would be. But I think that we need to go

in multiple directions, and the security of airports is paramount, in

looking at ways to build safer and more secure airports. But at the

same time, we would not want to impact the important work of the

folks going on the highways and to those airports.

Ms. PETERS. That is correct. Mr. Chairman and Congressman

Kerns, I think you make some very good points there. I can assure

you, and it is very important to the Secretary, as well, that highway funds not be diverted to other uses.
33

Airport security is important. The Department is working very

hard with the Transportation Security Administration, which will

encompass all modes eventually. Certainly, initially, their emphasis is on aviation. But eventually, we all will work with Transportation Security, in terms of our various modal functions. But there

is no intent, by this Secretary or this Administration, to divert

highways funds away from that.

Initially, we do have what is called the National Infrastructure

Security Committee, that is chaired by our Chief of Staff. We are

working across modes on security issues, because we recognize that

while the terrorist attacks that were inflicted on this country in

September were through the aviation mode, we know that there

are vulnerabilities in other modes.

We are working very hard with State and local partners to ensure that we are identifying high vulnerability, high risk assets,

and protecting those, to the greatest extent possible. There is a lot

of cross-modal communication here, as we do that. All of us are

members of that committee.

Mr. KERNS. Thank you.

Mr. RUNGE. If I may, Congressman, I would also like to remind

you that these funds are also very important for not only the security of transportation, but also the safety of those that want to get

home at night safely, and have dinner with their families.

My job is to make sure that that happens. I want to make sure

that the committee understands the huge economic toll, the burden

of injury and fatality, that is placed on this country by 41,800 people dying on its highways every year.

So I would ask you please to talk about safety, as you talk about

security and as you talk about road building and bridge building,

and to please be reminded that this is not just a human toll, but

it is very much an economic toll in our country.

Mr. KERNS. I want to thank you all for being here. I know you

have a very tough job, and I think you are doing a very good job.

I know in recent conversations that I have had with new Commissioner Mendott in Indiana, that we are currently in Indiana at

about a four percent congestion rate. Within a few years, we will

be at 25 percent congestion rate. So infrastructure is vitally important.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

I will submit questions for the record. But I do want to ask a

few, if I could, as well.

First of all, Administrator Peters, I think you are aware of the

concern about the shortfall in this year’s budget. Our committee,

with strong bipartisan co-sponsorship with the Senate Environmental Committee, will be introducing identical bills to restore the

$4.4 billion in highway funding to reach the unadjusted levels written into TEA 21 as a minimum.

Can we count on you to take the time to review this bill, and to

consider offering your support, or at least taking it up in the Administration, and trying to get a more consistent approach here?

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, we certainly are sympathetic to the

issues raised by members of this committee, as it relates to transportation funding. We would be glad to work with you in reviewing
34

bills, and the impact of the bills, and what they might be able to

do, yes.

Mr. PETRI. The bill number is H.R. 3694, which has the unanimous support of all of the Republicans and Democrats on the committee, and the original co-sponsorship of all but one. So we think

that is a sign that there is strong concern here in the House, which

we feel is matched in the Senate, with addressing this problem in

as expeditious a way as possible.

As you know, states are analyzing their budgets. As a State administrator, you understand the pressures that they are also

under. They have balanced budget requirements. Many of these are

matching fund programs.

If we start looking like the money is not going to be there at the

Federal level, there will be big pressure to eliminate money at the

State level, or to defer that as well. We are talking about how

many hundreds of thousands of jobs, with the loss of just the Federal funds.

But you can multiply that with the loss that will occur because

of deferred State and local matching for some of these projects.

So I think we are engaging in dangerous budget gamesmanship

here, which we need to get off the table as quickly as possible, so

that we have some confidence and a framework that people can

move forward, as they plan and invest in the transportation sector

of economy. We are hoping to work with you on that.

I have a couple other quick questions. There was, in TEA 21, language calling for a study on the adequacy of rest stops. That is six

months overdue. Do you have any idea when that study will be

coming out?

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the study. Let me consult with staff, and see if we know a specific date. If not, I will certainly get back to you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Then Administrator Dorn, in analyzing

the budget proposals, we notice that there is a proposal to limit the

Federal share of new rail start projects to 50 percent for all

projects that do not have their grant agreements in by October 1st.

Is this a sign of new policy going forward? If it is, will this cause

some tension, because we have a higher match for highway

projects, and that may put transit projects at a disadvantage, as

people are allocating their matching dollars at the State and local

level? Could you address that?

Ms. DORN. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, you are correct. It is the

Administration’s intent in the fiscal year 2003 budget that that be

a part of long-standing policy, or new policy, of the 50/50 match.

It should be pointed out, as I know you are aware as an expert

in this arena, that the average is now, for full funding grant agreements, about 53 or 54 percent. So most of the projects are already

achieving that match.

I believe that this approach, this 50/50 change, really allows us

to leverage the new starts funds for a growing number of projects

that are in the pipeline, and that this is an appropriate sort of action; that it does incentivize the localities, and it ensures that we

will have the opportunity to fund, from the Federal level, a larger

number of projects.
35

At the same time, as the Secretary has said, it is important to

ensure that the community is guided in its selection of projects by

the merits, rather than the matching ratio or the Federal match.

So I know that this Administration would work with you to craft

legislation which attempts to meet both of those goals.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Well, it is a concern, and we will be hearing from a lot of people who are concerned in this area. So we want

to work to come up with as good a framework as possible, that is

fair to the different modals, and does not buy us investment unnecessarily.

As you may have noticed, the 2002 transportation appropriation

bill, by our colleagues on that committee which passed the Congress, included 76 new start earmarks, of which 36 were not yet

in final design or construction stage.

These less mature projects represent some 16 percent of the new

starts program funding; although in TEA 21, we had a limit of

eight percent for new start funding. As a result, 14 full funding

grant agreements were under-funded, since they shifted money

around. I mean, it does not come from the tooth fairy. It was coming from other projects that were more thoroughly vetted.

How does this earmarking affect the integrity of the full funding

grant agreement financing mechanism, and how might it affect reauthorization, as we go forward?

Ms. DORN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is a very good question. I

think that this committee should be proud, as I know that it is, of

the comprehensive rating criteria that they instituted in the TEA

21 legislation for projects larger than $25 million.

That merit-based evaluation, I believe, is beginning and has, for

some period of time, allowed that merit-based consideration to happen more often than it would have, had those criteria not been in

place.

I think in the context of reauthorization, the committee may well

want to consider the development of priority criteria in other areas;

say, for example, in the bus capital program and the research program. That would then give the Executive Branch an opportunity

to evaluate the merits of particular programs, and that could then

be a strong guide, if you will, for Congress, in how it chooses to

deal with the funding issue for particular projects.

So we look forward to helping to develop a rating criteria, or a

set of guidelines, or a system that might help serve as a guide, because earmarks can tend to be problematic in that regard.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Are there additional questions?

Mr. Borski?

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, if I may ever so briefly follow up on

your question to Administrator Dorn, and I share your concerns

about changing of the transit formula or spending ratios.

I would strongly urge you, if the Administration is considering a

change, that they do it here, through this committee, and not the

Appropriations Committee. It is our responsibility in the next

Transportation Bill, TEA 21 or NEXTEA or TO–3 or whatever we

are calling it, to make those decisions. I would strongly suggest

that that would be a mistake.
36

Ms. DORN. I certainly concur with you, and thank you, Congressman.

I would make the point that the announcement by the Administration, which was made last year and this year, is only a headsup. It was with our full recognition that this requires a change in

law that would come to this committee.

We felt it would be fair to those who are considering, on a local

basis, projects that they know in advance of the Administration’s

intent. We certainly respect the right of this committee to make the

final decision. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Otter?

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my apologies for asking for one more question. But I want some clarification from Administrator Peters, if I might.

There are some corners that are calling for expanding the eligibility of the Highway Trust Fund. We have discussed, in the substance of the entire panel this morning, the limited resources that

we have.

I would hope that you and the rest of your colleagues would resist any expansion of eligibility until we take care of the core needs

that we already admit have limited resources. I would just like to

get at least some sort of an idea of how you feel about expanding

the eligibility.

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Otter, it is an

issue that we have had some discussion about. While there certainly are merits in application to other modes, the Secretary has

indicated just what you said; that the needs are so great within

this mode right now, within the modes that we now support with

the Highway Trust Fund, that we should confine our application of

those funds to those modes, and perhaps look for other funding

sources for other transportation needs.

Mr. OTTER. Is that a quote from the Secretary?

Ms. PETERS. That is not a quote from the Secretary. I am not authorized to speak for the Secretary, but that is the gist of the discussion that we have had.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

With that, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94

PERSPECTIVES OF GOVERNORS AND LOCAL

ELECTED OFFICIALS ON REAUTHORIZATION OF TEA 21

Thursday, February 28, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPOR- TATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m. in room 2167,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri [chairman

of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. PETRI. We are meeting this morning to hear from the leaders

of our States, cities, and counties regarding their perspectives on

the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century, or TEA–21.

I am very happy to see our friend, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, here again before this committee. We are looking forward to your testimony in your capacity as Vice-Chairman

of the National Governors Association. The Governor was part of

a delegation of governors that met with President Bush on Monday

afternoon to speak out in support of this committee’s proposal to

support cuts in the Federal Aid Highway Program. That is certainly an important initiative.

The proposed restoration of at least $4.4 billion in highway funds

to TEA–21 baseline levels is a critical step in both short-term and

long-term efforts to meet our Nation’s transportation needs. And I

say ‘‘at least’’ because I think the prospects are looking increasingly

bright on the Senate side and hopefully we can march with them

in doing somewhat better than that. Hopefully, a lot better than

that. In the short-term, we will save a minimum of 180,000 jobs

supported by Federal highway funds. Tens of thousands of additional jobs will be saved with State and local matching funds.

In the long-term, the restoration insures that a higher baseline

is used to estimate future highway expenditures when TEA–21 expires. Higher baseline numbers must be consistent with the actual

receipts in the highway trust fund. If artificially low funding levels

were assumed to be the baseline going into the reauthorization,

huge balances would build up in the highway trust fund. This

would occur while our roads, bridges and transit systems deteriorate.

Although we made progress with TEA–21, the Department of

Transportation reports that all levels of government are not spending enough even to maintain the current system. We are only providing 57 percent of the funds necessary to fund needed improvements. Clearly, this is not the right time to cut our investment in

surface transportation infrastructure.

Our second panel will consist of witnesses from cities and counties across our Nation. Earlier this week, I received a letter of endorsement for our bill signed by the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors,

the American Public Works Association, the Association of Metro-
95

politan Planning Organizations, the National Association of County

Engineers, the National Association of Development Organizations,

and the National Association of Regional Councils. All of the witnesses on the second panel are members of one or more of these

organizations.

The support among Members of Congress for the Highway Funding Restoration Act is now overwhelming. We have 265 cosponsors

in the House and every day we add more. The bipartisan leadership of the Senate Budget Committee has now issued statements

in support of restoring highway funding in the budget, as I indicated earlier. We are meeting with the House Budget Committee

and hope to have their official support for restoration of highway

funding very soon.

We appreciate the support from all the witnesses here today for

our efforts to increase highway funding and know that you will do

your part to ensure that State and local funds are made available

to meet matching requirements. This is but the first step in a long

series of battles this committee will take on to ensure the longterm strength of the Federal highway and transit programs and

highway and motor carrier safety programs.

Overall, TEA–21 has been a tremendous success. We would like

to duplicate that success and strengthen the provisions that are

most helpful in meeting our Nation’s needs. These include budgetary firewall protections that guarantee minimum levels of annual

spending, holding the highway trust fund harmless while encouraging production of alternative fuels, equitable funding among the

States through the minimum guarantee, flexibility in the eligible

uses of formula funds, community-based transit programs, and expedited projects and services delivery.

The committee addressed these issues in TEA–21, but in many

cases improvements can be made in the reauthorization. I am very

interested in each of the witnesses’ views of these issues and look

forward to hearing what we can do to strengthen our surface transportation programs through the reauthorization of TEA–21.

At this time, I yield to the Ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, my colleague, Bob Borski.

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I first want to commend you on your efforts to continue to move

forward with the reauthorization of the surface transportation programs. Today’s hearing will provide the committee with an opportunity to hear from State and local government officials on the successes, as well as shortcomings, of the surface transportation programs. TEA–21 has been considered an overwhelming success by

many State and local government officials. However, that success

is in jeopardy, threatened by a proposed reduction of $8.6 billion

in funding for fiscal year 2003.

The Administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2003 pro- vides $23.2 billion in obligation authority, a 29 percent reduction

below fiscal year 2002. Such a dramatic reduction in highway

spending during a recession will have a devastating effect on the

Nation’s economy. The loss of funds will translate into a loss of approximately 350,000 transportation-related jobs.

Along with the leadership of the committee and virtually all of

its members, I have cosponsored H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding
96

Restoration Act, to restore as much of the reduction as possible.

This interim legislative proposal will help restore faith and trust

in the program and the funding levels authorized in TEA–21. H.R.

3694 will also establish a baseline for reauthorization of the surface

transportation programs. Without a financially stable baseline for

reauthorization of surface transportation programs, the committee

will be faced with a baseline at pre-TEA–21 levels.

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to work with you, other members

of the committee, and others to advance the principles embodied in

H.R. 3694 so that the reauthorization of surface transportation programs start on a sound financial footing. As the committee continues to advance the reauthorization process, we must reaffirm our

commitment to rebuilding America by providing a balanced investment in our Nation’s highways, transit systems, and intermodal facilities. More importantly—or just as important—we must do so in

a fiscally responsible manner.

The guaranteed Federal funding levels for the surface transportation programs must be continued and keyed to the receipts of the

highway trust fund. A modification to provisions will enhance funding stability for the highway program in future years. Working in

partnership with State and local government officials, we want to

preserve and strengthen the policies and principles embodied in

TEA–21. Much of the success of TEA–21 may be attributed to the

flexibility, intermodalism, enhanced safety, livability, and preservation principles embodied in the statute.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to receiving the views and recommendations from today’s witnesses as we seek to improve the

Nation’s surface transportation programs.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

A statement by the Chairman of the full Committee, Don Young,

will be submitted, as well as from Congressman Oberstar, although

he may be here in a few moments.

Are there other members of the subcommittee who wish to make

opening statements?

Mr. Rahall?

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you, Chairman Petri and Ranking Member Borski, for

holding today’s hearing. I appreciate our first witness, a governor

from a neighboring State to my State, West Virginia, the governor

of Kentucky, Governor Patton, and other local officials that are

with us today. Each of you has the hands-on experience of putting

Federal highway money to use once it is allocated to the States. I

commend you for that experience and professionalism.

I also want to thank all of our witnesses today for supporting

H.R. 3694, referred to by both the Chairman and the Ranking

Member, the bipartisan Highway Funding Restoration Act. Your

support shows your willingness to work with this committee on this

very critical issue.

Through this bill, we are working to prevent 340,000 job losses and delays in highway projects that the proposed $8.5 billion budget cut could cause in all 50 States. As of today, we have 265 bipartisan cosponsors. I encourage our witnesses to talk with their particular members of the House of Representatives who have not yet

signed on and ask them to cosponsor.
97

As we look at how we can continue to improve TEA–21, I want

to note that research does play a vital role in how we can best provide highway and transit services. I was proud that TEA–21 authorized $158.8 million in transportation research funds and $36

million in transit funds for university transportation centers in all

ten regions of the Nation. Particularly, at Marshall University in

Huntington, West Virginia, we were able to start the Rahall Appalachian Transportation Institute with TEA–21 funds. My vision

statement for the institute is building jobs through transportation.

Not only is the institute working to create jobs through research

projects that will enhance our transportation infrastructure, but

since it began operating in 1981, the institute has conducted research in highway safety, environmental streamlining, ITS, using

advanced technology to improve signage, railroad and truck intermodal transportation, and critical personal safety issues such as

drowsy driving. And I could go on. But these centers are certainly

educating tomorrow’s transportation experts, and that is a very important and vital success story of TEA–21.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to hearing the witnesses today.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Any other opening statements?

I think we will call Mr. Clement to make a statement and to introduce the witness.

Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Borski, it is my pleasure to

join you in welcoming Governor Patton from my neighboring State

of Kentucky, and several distinguished local government officials

we have with us from across the Nation.

Today we continue the initial process of reauthorizing what

many have called one of our greatest legislative successes, TEA–21.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century stands as a

shining victory for this subcommittee and for the American people.

While I am sure that our witnesses share this view, I want to

hear from you, Governor Patton and others, on how we can improve the bill, making a great piece of legislation even greater. For

instance, I am interested to know if there is a need for changes to

the TEA–21 formula system that would protect against the gross

fluctuations in highway funding levels we see projected for 2003,

and which prompted this committee to introduce H.R. 3694. Clearly, any change must not compromise the essential principle that

tax and user fee revenue be the major factor in determining highway funding levels. But we need to avoid the kind of funding cuts

offered by the President in his 2003 budget if we are to maintain

and expand our transportation infrastructure.

I am also concerned with the FTA’s decision to shift new start

local State match requirements to a 50 percent share and if this

puts some communities’ transit initiatives at a disadvantage compared to highway programs. Additionally, the States need even

more flexibility to direct their funds to the projects that are most

important within their communities.

As we look to reauthorization, I know this subcommittee will

work diligently together to protect the gains we have made thus far

and to continue us on the path we have started. Now, more than
98

ever, our need for a true multimodal transportation system is clear,

for our economy, our defense, and our way of life. TEA–21 is the

vehicle to get us there, and I remain committed to strengthening

it and our Nation.

And I might say, Governor Patton, you have been a good governor and a very effective governor. I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say. I know I have been working with your

people on passenger rail, moving Amtrak from where we have it all

the way down to Louisville and bringing it into Nashville. As you

know, it comes into Louisville at 7:30 in the morning and that Amtrak equipment just sits there all day until 9:30 at night, where

you can run it all the way down to Nashville and make it more

profitable for Amtrak. We would have more riderships on the Kentucky Cardinal Line, which I know is important to you and me.

But I also want to mention the high-speed corridor. We really

have an opportunity there for Kentucky and Tennessee, out of Chicago and all that. We need to look at that very seriously. I sure

hope the State of Kentucky will participate at a level, and I know

Tennessee will as well, because we could very well run those highspeed corridors right down the interstate highways, down the median where we have those rights-of-way and where we wouldn’t

have a heavy expense when it comes to grade crossings. I know you

know how expensive those railroad crossings are.

We have some real opportunities on this high-speed corridor. I

sure hope you and your fine staff will look at it very seriously.

Governor Patton, it is good to have you here.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Representative Kelly, do you have a statement to make?

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Governor Patton, on behalf of the Kentucky branch of my family,

I do welcome you also.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the witnesses. Our hearing today is not just useful in helping us prepare for TEA–21 reauthorization, but it brings to attention the issue that is even more

pressing to all of us, and that is the effect of the proposed budget

reduction on Federal highway aid for this next fiscal year.

Solid, predictable funding streams for transportation enable our

State and local governments to implement far-sighted transportation policies that best suit the needs of our own communities.

Stability is what TEA–21 is all about. It is what we have to provide.

I think with the proposed budget cuts that have come up recently, we have already seen that there are some problems that

have been created when the certainty of Federal assistance is jeopardized. So I feel we need to build on the successes of TEA–21. I

thank you all for being here to testify. I look forward to your testimony, but I wanted to put on record that I feel very strongly that

we need to give our States a sense that they can plan for a solid

stream of money coming from the Federal Government. That is a

job we all pledged to do, and we need to do it.

I yield back.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Are there other opening statements?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
99

TEA–21 and the Federal highway transit programs it authorizes

are extremely important for our Nation’s urban areas. This legislation has proven to be the backbone of funding for the many transit

systems that are sometimes the lifeblood of communities. In many

depressed areas, like those found in my district in Baltimore, programs authorized under TEA–21 have provided funding for various

community-related initiatives. One such program, the Job Access

and Reverse Commute Program has proven invaluable to many

urban residents. The program helps to provide transportation options for inner city residents who may not have reliable transportation that would give them access to suburban jobs.

In other words, people seeking viable employment are no longer

limited to available inner city jobs, which are often scarce. With the

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, they have the flexibility to commute to surrounding areas. This is a case of Federal

transportation programs working to promote economic development, but more importantly, the programs help people to improve

their lives and their neighborhood.

While I am on the subject of access, I would be more than remiss

if I did not mention the Maryland Rail Commuter Program, MARC,

trains that provide a viable alternative to driving while at the

same time help reduce congestion for commuters traveling from

Baltimore to Washington. Riding a MARC train definitely has its

advantages. While most motorists face a daily battle against gridlock and difficult driving decisions, the most difficult decision a

MARC commuter is likely to face is which section of the paper they

should read first.

Another program that has played a critical role in the economic

development of Baltimore City is the Enhancement Program. We

are very proud of our pedestrian promenades along the waterfront.

We have TEA–21 funds to thank for those improvements.

Mr. Chairman, TEA–21 improved the spirit of ISTEA by requiring that governments and citizens stay involved in the transportation planning process. It then took this involvement and commitment to another level by requiring that industry participate as a

major stakeholder in the metropolitan planning process, a process

that before had almost solely involved local and State government.

Maryland has a remarkable experience working with local governments in monitoring and controlling traffic congestion. TEA–21

afforded the State the opportunity to work with its local universities, such as Morgan State University, to cooperatively develop

technology solutions to address challenges such as electronic

screening of motor carriers for safety inspections.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, while I sing the praises of TEA–21, I

must note that during the reauthorization process I would like for

us to look at the problem of congestion and the ever-growing need

for improved transit services in our cities and counties. I also realize that with reauthorization we face serious concerns regarding

funding for safety and new security measures, while simultaneously funding additional transportation needs.

So, as I have said before, I applaud TEA–21, but it is by no

means perfect. Mr. Chairman, the State of Maryland has many

success stories that I could report on. I could go on and on, but I
100

will not. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing today. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Otter?

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to submit my opening statement for the record, but

inasmuch as most of the opening statements have not touched on

an issue that I would like to elicit a response from our panels

today, and that is the $14 billion—and we are talking about $8.6

billion that is not in the next appropriation—but about the $14 billion nationwide that is tied up in studies so that construction cannot go forward. So it makes precious little sense to me, although

I am an enthusiastic champion of putting that $8.6 billion—or as

much of that $8.6 billion as we can through House Bill 3694—back

in the program, I am still concerned that one of the great magics

that we were going to work with TEA–21 has not been realized. We

have spent a lot of money, as was intended in the authorization.

But one thing that we have not done is streamline the effects of

going forward with construction.

So it would be my hope—we heard in this committee that there

is $14 billion nationwide. In my State of Idaho, we know that there

is $58 million that is presently being tied up waiting for some additional government agency to give their permit to go forward. And

although I realize that these are important, I think that the

streamlining aspect of TEA–21 has not been realized. I would hope

that this committee would be as enthusiastic about the streamlining aspects and the streamlining promise of TEA–21 as we are now

about getting the $8.6 billion back.

It makes precious little sense to me to appropriate the money

and then not be able to spend it. If we really want economic recovery, if we really want to put some enthusiasm into our economy—

we have $14 billion that is already spent laying in the bank waiting to be exercised, yet we have some agency somewhere holding

up laying the asphalt and getting on with the process.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I very much appreciate this

hearing today. I would elicit responses from our panels today relative to how much time it takes to get a project going forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Any other statements?

Mr. PETRI. Governor, thank you very much. If you have a chance,

we would like you to express your appreciation to the 45 or 46 colleagues of yours who have joined in a letter endorsing the increase

in maintenance of funding for our Nation’s highways. We appreciate that and look forward to your statement, sir.

TESTIMONY OF HON. PAUL E. PATTON, GOVERNOR, REPRESENTING THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, AND THE

NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION

Governor PATTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Borski, and other members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you representing the National Governors Association, where I serve as Vice-Chair. As you have noted,
101

I am backed up by a letter from the governors of 44 States and two

territories that endorse the proposal.

With your permission, I would like to summarize my written remarks and perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion.

Roads are us. Roads are me. I am a road man, an engineer by

education, a businessman by profession, a person that knows how

to build roads, a person that has hauled millions of tons of coal to

market on roads, and a person that has shared the grief of family

and friends who have lost their lives on dangerous roads in the

mountain with which Congressman Rahall is very familiar.

I am from an area of the Nation that needs roads very badly, Appalachia. Only because of the Federal Government’s support

through the Appalachian Development Corridor does that part of

our Nation even have a chance to participate in the prosperity that

is modern America.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to talk with you. I think

I speak from a standpoint of knowledge and passion. I was fortunate enough 22 years ago to be able to retire from business and got

into public service because of my devotion to roads, serving as the

deputy secretary of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. As a

county executive for ten years, roads were my primary focus. Even

as governor, I find that one of my prime responsibilities is to make

sure that our road program is working effectively and to address

the concerns of citizens and businesses that need roads in their

daily life.

One of the most common opportunities I have to discuss with

business people in my State is roads. I have business people come

to me and say, ‘‘Governor, I control almost all of my business. I

control the work force. I buy the equipment. I control the property.

But the roads are an integral part of my business, and I don’t control them. And when I am involved in a traffic tie-up, it is making

my business less efficient.’’ We do everything that we can to try to

address the specific needs of specific businesses that have particular problems that are making their business more inefficient. And

we make an extra effort to do that. But I also have citizens that

have similar problems that perhaps are even more dramatic because they do involve the safety of their family and their children.

So this is an important issue. It is an appropriate role for the

Federal Government. We certainly look forward to working with

you and this committee on the reauthorization of TEA–21.

This morning, I would like to speak more specifically to the funding level for this next year. I would acknowledge that from what

I understand about the situation, this would be this $23 billion

level of expenditure would be what would be calculated as the result of RABA in the TEA–21 law. As I say in my statement, a proper reply to a governor might be, ‘‘Well, that is what you asked for,

that is what you have, now live with it.’’ And if governors were the

only ones that were affected, that might be very appropriate. But

governors are not the ones that are affected: it is businesses and

people that are affected.

So I strongly support your proposal for a minimum of $4.4 billion

additional appropriation to what I understand is a formula calculation, but let us urge you to maintain the level of spending at the

current level of about $31.6 billion for the next fiscal year. Then
102

as we go into reauthorization of the surface transportation programs, let’s try to maintain a system that adds more stability to

the program.

As you may recall, I was very much involved with Governor

Schaefer of Nebraska talking about the reauthorization of TEA–21

some 5 years ago. At the time, I think we had a couple of objectives. One was to get all of the highway trust fund money spent

on highways. Our goal that year was not only to get the recurring

monies spent on highways, but also to get the reserve spent on

highways. My understanding is that in previous years, when all of

the money was not spent, there accumulated a balance of $19 billion or $20 billion that we attempted, at that time, to get spent

over a period of years. We were not successful, but we were successful in getting the committee to be able to spend all current revenue.

This is an excellent time to begin to work down some of what I

understand to be an unappropriated balance in the highway trust

fund. Our request would be a full maintenance of funding, which

I think would require an additional $8.6 billion or so.

Maintaining that continuity of expenditure was also a very important part of our goal 5 years ago and remains so. I would say

that for another reason, for the maintenance of the effort of our

economy to recover—and hopefully we are in a recovery, but if we

are, it is very fragile. This reduction of the spending, which will

begin this year, of $8 billion or $9 billion, will affect the economy

of my State. I submit it will affect the economy of every State. We

estimate it will cost us 5,000 good-paying jobs. Multiply that

throughout the Nation and you are probably talking about 300,000

or 400,000 jobs that will be lost.

And I want to emphasize that this reduction of activity will begin

almost immediately because even though the Federal fiscal year

starts in October, our fiscal year starts July 1, as does most States,

and actually we are planning right now. We pre-finance Federal

construction. As a matter of fact, just this year, my State is already

being reimbursed $60 million for work that was done on the Federal Highway Program prior to October 1, that is, in the last Federal fiscal year, and only reimbursed.

While I share Congressman Otter’s concern about the money that

is not being spent—and I will address that very briefly—we do preadvance a lot of Federal construction in Kentucky. I would submit

that we are not talking about just the transportation jobs that will

be lost, but rather the machinery equipment manufacturing business that—obviously, if this industry has got a capacity that is

going to be 27 percent, 29 percent, or 30 percent under-utilized,

there is going to be very little need for additional construction

equipment in the next year or two for this particular segment of

the construction industry.

So this cut in expenditure will directly translate into losses of

jobs, not just in the construction industry, but also in the manufacturing industry supporting that construction industry, and in the

retail industry’s business that supports the workers in those industries. So for economic reasons, for the fact that we need to maintain our commitment to have a level level of investment—which

means we can have stable employment in this industry—and the
103

fact that we need to continue our commitment to catch up on our

basic infrastructure upon which our businesses depend, I would

urge the Congress to maintain the level of funding for next year

at about $31.6 billion, and then let us address the stability issue

as we reauthorize TEA–21.

I would echo Congressman Otter’s remarks that there are some

unnecessary delays that we would ask also to be considered in the

reauthorization bill. And I think Kentucky is very environmentally

conscious. Our major initiatives in the Legislature today are dealing with the environment. But it takes an average of 5 years for

us to get from the beginning of a project to the construction stage,

where there is an environmental impact required. I could relate to

you several specific instances where the environmental restrictions

are just all out of proportion to the environmental benefit that has

been achieved.

Let me go on to say that we are interested in safety. We appreciate the partnership where we can work together on issues of safety. But an overall request that the governors would have is, Tell

us what you want us to achieve with your money and give us the

flexibility to do it in the most efficient way. I think with many programs, the governors have demonstrated their commitment to follow through on Federal intent. Give us the flexibility. We will do

a better job, we will do it more efficiently, and we will do it

quicker.

With that, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, again, I appreciate your audience and will be glad to discuss further some of

these issues.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much for your testimony. I want you

to know that this committee looks forward to continuing to work

closely with the National Governors Association as we perfect and

strengthen the robust investment in our transportation infrastructure.

Your former colleague, the President of the United States, understands. Texas is a big State and they need good roads and lots of

them, and other infrastructure. I had a chance to talk about this

with the President on a trip he took to Wisconsin before the numbers came out. He indicated at that time that that was what he

was told by the Budget Office that the law required. Our analysis

is that that is not the case, that it is the minimum the law required, not the maximum. They could not have done a penny less,

but they certainly could have done more under the staff analysis

of this committee, our counsel, and I think some others in the

transportation area.

You had a chance to discuss this, with some of your colleagues,

with the President lately. Has he indicated, from his point of view,

that this is something they are willing to go to war over? Is there

flexibility there? Maybe they were misled and just were doing what

they thought the machine was requiring to do in their submission

to this Congress.

Could you comment on that?

Governor PATTON. I would admit that I do not know the details

of exactly how this came about. But I understand there was some

justification in the language to get to this point. I think the governors are very, very strong on this point—that is, a bipartisan coa-
104

lition of governors—and many of them have taken the opportunity

to address those concerns to the President and to his staff. On

Monday, when we had the opportunity to visit with the President,

it was my charge to bring this particular subject up. The President

seemed very receptive. He seemed that he understood it, and I am

sure that he did. Being a governor, I understood it. As a matter of

fact, I concluded my remarks by assuring the President that we

knew that he understood it, we just wanted to make sure that his

staff understood it. I suspect that perhaps some of the staff are not

as road-oriented as perhaps myself and members of the committee

and as the President is.

Mr. PETRI. On a subject slightly unrelated to this, but very important, this committee is working on and trying to collect ideas

on—and something that States have to be very concerned about as

well—the gas tax highway trust fund concept relies on sort of a

user fee concept, so that the more you use the roads, the more fuel

you use, the more you pay in. But because of ethanol, because of

different new ways of fueling vehicles and operating them, that

concept is going to have to be modified or the tax base potentially

broadened going down, or we are going to have trouble because not

everybody is going to be using the road on an equal basis.

So if there are any ideas that you or different States in your association have experimented with or thought about, we would be

very eager to work with you on that. Our thought is that it is better to get something in place before, rather than imposing a tax on

people afterward to try to catch up for something where they are

using it and not paying for it.

Any ideas you have would be much appreciated.

Governor PATTON. Ideally, funding a government service through

a user fee, to me, is the ideal way to do it. You can’t do prisons

that way and you can’t do social welfare programs that way, but

you can do transportation. It is a pretty good method. It is not

going to be perfect and it is not going to be equitable in every situation. We do have to recognize that with the increased fuel efficiency that we have realized in this country over the last 20 years

we are not putting as much money in a mile traveled on our highways as we are getting traveled. That is, we have an increased

mileage but we are not having a proportional increase in funding.

I think that needs to be looked at. As you mentioned, the favorable

tax treatment given to certain non-petroleum fuels achieves, I

think, a good societal purpose. I would question, Do we do that by

reducing the payment to the highway fund? Could we figure out

how to achieve that societal purpose with another funding source?

All of those are very complex problems, but the need for us to

maintain modern infrastructure is very, very apparent. And I know

the committee understands that fully.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Borski?

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Governor, for an excellent presentation. And thank

you for your work with the President. I think we need it, not only

from a bipartisan effort of the governors, but a bipartisan effort of

the Congress, both sides. I think everyone on this committee understands the importance of getting this money back.
105

Governor, you mentioned in your statement that your—and I believe most States—fiscal year starts July 1 rather than October 1.

What will you do—and what have you heard from other governors—if this low amount of money—is that what you need to

plan your road building on?

Governor PATTON. We just will not award the contracts until we

know we will have the money to pay the contractor when the work

is done. We are already beginning to anticipate lower revenues, so

we will be awarding fewer contracts this spring. Our custom is to

award the contract, get them to work, go ahead and use State

funds to pay that 3 months, and then my understanding of our

Federal reimbursement is that we send you a big invoice in October and we get a pretty hefty refund pretty quickly.

We sort of pre-finance a lot of our Federal construction to get it

a year ahead of time. If we waited for the money, we would have

to wait for a whole construction season.

Mr. BORSKI. So you are anticipating at this point stopping work,

or not going forward?

Governor PATTON. We just will not award as many contracts. We

are awarding contracts all the time. We just will not award as

many contracts as we anticipated. I personally only became aware

of this potential reduction about a month or so ago.

Mr. BORSKI. And are you hearing that from other governors?

Governor PATTON. Yes. It is an absolute fact that even though

you all are talking about next fiscal year, the governors are talking

about this fiscal year because of the construction season. If you do

not get started this summer—you do not start in October.

Mr. BORSKI. You indicated—and the chairman talked about this

as well—that the President’s budget proposal follows the mandates

of TEA–21 by using criteria to calculate the funding proposal.

TEA–21, however, does authorize an additional $15 billion or $3

billion per year in non-guaranteed amounts to be available for the

surface transportation programs. Could the President’s budget

have reflected additional amounts above the guaranteed firewalls?

Governor PATTON. Again, I am not familiar with the details of

exactly how this calculation came about, but I certainly support a

level funding for this one fiscal year so we can see exactly how we

can stop these big swings from occurring through our reauthorization.

Mr. BORSKI. I would like to talk a minute or two about your proposal to spend down the trust fund. We have tried that around

here for a number of years. Staff reminds me that in 1978 the committee was faced with a similar situation and we tried to use the

unspent balance in the trust fund, and that was totally rejected by

the Ways and Means Committee. I am not sure we could fare any

better now, to tell you the truth.

But CBO does estimate that continuing to push the program in

the $32 billion to $35 billion range will push the trust funds into

a deficit by 2006, while current service in the range of $28 billion

to $32 billion range would maintain a stable balance. I believe we

need to ensure that the trust fund can sustain a healthy program

after 2003, and that is part of our concern as well.

Do you have any comments on that?
106

Governor PATTON. Again, let me say that I think stability is very,

very important. Consistent funding, particularly for this kind of industry, is very, very important because you put a big hunk of

money into your engineering firms, for instance. They design and

they hire a lot of engineers to get the work done. Then you have

a funding lull and they have to downsize their staff. It is very inefficient for a construction company. They have to go out and buy

equipment to perform at this level. And when you have to let

equipment sit for a year, you have really lost some money. Their

money comes from working that equipment.

So in this industry it is very important that there be stability in

funding for a lot of reasons. I think that needs to be a real goal

as we go into the reauthorization.

Mr. BORSKI. I know in Pennsylvania, we have a pride in keeping

our engineers in State employment and not leave to go to greener

pastures. With an instability in the funding level, perhaps more of

them will go. Is that a reoccurring problem for you, as well?

Governor PATTON. True.

Mr. BORSKI. I noticed in your statement—and I wanted to applaud you for your enactment of highway safety laws, such as the

.08 BAC and open container laws. Unfortunately, several States

have not been as aggressive as you and the State of Kentucky in

taking advantage of the incentive programs. You mentioned in your

testimony that we should maintain the carrot rather than the stick

approach. But at what point should we use the stick, if people are

not complying?

Governor PATTON. I always prefer the carrot. It is much more

palatable politically. It gives State legislators more cover for taking

actions that some might object to you when you can say that by

doing this we can get this. It just goes down better than saying

that if we don’t do this, we will have this taken away from us. I

think that the carrot is more effective. But that does give State legislators more of a cover to do some of these things that all of us

know need to be done, but there might be some people that are

very vocal that would object to it.

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Questions on this side?

Mr. Thune?

Mr. THUNE. I don’t have any questions at the moment, Mr.

Chairman, but I would submit a statement for the record. I appreciate your holding this hearing. This is an issue that is of extreme

importance in my State. We have lots of highways and lots of miles

to cover. We want to make sure that we have the adequate funding

levels in place, not only this year, but as we head into the future

and we start looking at the reauthorization. I appreciate your holding this hearing and the witnesses.

Governor, thank you for being here and for testifying.

Mr. PETRI. Your statement will be made a part of the record.

Mr. Isakson?

Mr. ISAKSON. I have just one question, Governor.

I saw in your remarks talking about the time it takes to get environmental approval. You were referring to a clover, if I remember

correctly, in your written testimony.
107

Do you have any suggestions on what we might do to expedite,

and what do you see as the biggest problem giving the environmental approvals? Is it inner-agency? Is it lawsuits? What is your

experience in Kentucky?

Governor PATTON. I couldn’t address it in detail. I have some

people with me that might, if you wish. But I do know that it takes

a lot of time. I have been talking to my secretary time after time

after time. Why is this project taking 3 or 4 years? The answer is

environmental. The details are the kinds of things that I talked

about in my written remarks. I know of another situation where

we have wetlands. I have a legislator raising all kinds of Cain with

me and the secretary over an environmental issue that he just

doesn’t comprehend. He just doesn’t understand it. It is a major

problem and I have experts with me who can go into more detail,

if you wish.

Mr. ISAKSON. I have come to the belief that we need to create

some system for environmental concerns—particularly when it

comes to the litigation period and you can’t abrogate anybody’s

rights to go to court—but it seems like it can be abused to the point

of delaying projects or final decisions forever. I am one that sort

of subscribes to the belief that we ought to create some type of a

one-shot arbitration system before litigation to try and mediate

some of these environmental problems brought out by outside

groups, not the agencies necessarily. I would love to see—if your

people have any suggestions along that way, please send it to us

at the committee. We are getting into some 5-to 10-year episodes

that are just exasperating.

In our State, the clean air problems we are trying to fix by improving capacity, improving interchanges, the stop-and-go traffic. I

think somewhere along the line we have to find a mechanism

where a meeting of the minds can come faster and less litigious to

expedite these projects. So I would love any input your commissioner or other highway people might have, or your environmental

agency, for that matter.

Governor PATTON. I will have that prepared, not only for Kentucky, but also for the National Governors, and then give it to you

and the committee.

Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you, Governor.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Mascara?

Mr. MASCARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Governor. I note from perusing your testimony that

there are some similarities between our careers. I came from business. You were Deputy Security of Transportation. As Washington

County Commissioner, I was the chairman of the southwestern

Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission that did planning for

Southwestern Pennsylvania. I note that you were a county executive and I was chairman of the Board of Washington County Commissioners for 15 years. I don’t equate my membership in the

House with your governorship, but certainly I am now a Member

of Congress.

It has been opined that Frank Mascara would build a road to

anywhere. So I guess you get an idea where I come from because

I simply believe that studies around the world have shown a strong

correlation between investment in infrastructure and economic de-
108

velopment. As long as I have been reading from other countries

around the world who have made large investments—I recall that

when we did ISTEA and TEA–21 that someone said $240 billion

and $250 billion—that is a lot of money—and it is. But the Japanese will spend $1 trillion over the same 6-year period. So we really have some catching up to do with some other countries around

the world.

I want to get back to what Congressman Borski touched on concerning the proposed cuts as a result of the Treasury’s calculation

of anticipated revenues from gasoline taxes, and that ethanol does

not produce the same kind of tax that regular gasolines produce.

What effect has that had on Kentucky? Congressman Rahall and

I work very closely on transportation and I had a note from one

of his staff. Perhaps you would want to touch on that.

The 50 States are being hurt by the proposed budget cuts to the

Federal Highway Program. You and I both come from Appalachia

States. We have been working to improve the economy in Appalachia and one method is to continue to build roads and to promote

interstate commerce.

How detrimental do you see the proposed highway budget cuts

to your plans to reinvigorate the economy in the distressed counties

in Appalachia?

Governor PATTON. You correctly understand that our highway infrastructure is an integral part of our industrial capacity. It is just

that part that we pay for commonly through our taxes and expect

our governments to construct for us. You understand it, as do I.

If you do an analysis of the small towns in Kentucky that have

done well, it is the towns that are on the interstate. The ones that

are atrophying a little bit are the ones that do not have good access

to interstates. We can ameliorate that by building them a good

four-lane access to the interstate, if we have the money. Unfortunately, we did not build the interstates through hardcore Appalachia. Where I live, we sort of went a little north to get away from

the steep mountains or we went a little south to get away from the

steep mountains. But we did not take I–64 straight from Lexington

to Washington right through my hometown. We did not take the

most direct route. That has resulted in isolation.

The Appalachian Development Program is our only hope to get

away from that permanent isolation that the lack of interstates in

hardcore Appalachia has produced. I just cannot overemphasize

how important that it is.

Mr. MASCARA. Given that the country’s economy is in a decline,

you would think that we would want to continue to spend at a level

that would certainly create more jobs. In Pennsylvania, the proposed cut equates to approximately 14,000 job losses in Pennsylvania. I suspect you will experience the same thing with those cuts.

Governor PATTON. We are a little smaller than Pennsylvania, but

5,000 jobs means just about as much to our economy as 14,000 does

to Pennsylvania, sir.

Mr. MASCARA. Thank you, Governor. Thank you for coming.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Representative Capito?

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you.
109

Governor Patton, I represent the State of West Virginia, as well

as Mr. Rahall. I have three questions, I will just kind of give you

the questions and you can answer in order.

You sort of touched on the last one, the isolation created by lack

of roads in certain areas. We certainly feel that in West Virginia.

You may be familiar with a controversy that is not really Federal, but in our State right now, the weight of coal trucks and how

to enforce the law or raise the weight limits on the trucks. I am

interested to know how you have addressed that issue in Kentucky.

Another question is in assessing the grand needs that we have

in West Virginia to build roads and the lack of Federal and State

funds to meet all of those needs. One of the suggestions that has

come out of our State Legislature is to do a private/public partnership in terms of building toll roads. I wonder if you have considered

that in Kentucky.

And the last question really was close to what Congressman

Mascara asked, so I will just leave it at those two—overweight coal

trucks and toll roads.

Governor PATTON. I do know the coal business. I was in it for 20

years and we did haul a lot of coal. Because of the lack of rail, we

began hauling it by truck. And because of the economy, they started hauling overweight and it has grown totally out of proportion.

It is a problem, but local officials just will not put people out of

business.

I proposed a program a couple of years ago to get it to a reasonable limit, and I could not get that passed through the Legislature.

I know that you are considering the subject in West Virginia. It is

a subject that most States need to address and I have asked my

Legislature to do that.

As to the subject of toll roads—and we have built a lot of them

in Kentucky—I am not a big fan of them. It is a very expensive

way to get revenue. It means that people using certain roads will

be charged a greater fee than people who have other roads that

have been built by the general fund of road money. I pay for my

gas tax just like everybody else, and then I have to pay an additional fee. So I am not a big proponent of tolls, generally. In Kentucky, they really never generated enough money to even begin to

actually pay for the roads. At times, we were spending 50 percent

of the money collected just for the wages of the people that collected it. I am not a big proponent of tolls.

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Representative Millender-McDonald?

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the

Ranking Member. I am very appreciative to both of you convening

this meeting.

Thank you, Governor, for being here this morning. I am encouraged by you being here. You are the voice for other governors.

I know we have a vote on the Floor. We just say thank you and

thanks to all of those who have come this morning from local governments and State governments to come and really talk about

how TEA–21 has made such an impact in your States.

I am from California. Of course, it has made a tremendous impact with my State.
110

We thank you. We hope that you continue to walk with us as we

walk through this. Again, thank you so much for being here.

Mr. Chairman, I have a statement. I will not have any more

questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Your statement will be made a part of the

record.

Governor, thank you very much for your testimony. We do look

forward to working with you and your associates.

There is a vote on the House Floor. It is the only vote of the day,

I am told. Representative Kelly was kind enough to go over. I think

she is probably on her way back by now. We would like to ask the

second panel to organize themselves at the table and we will probably begin as soon as Representative Kelly returns, which should

be no more than 5 to 7 minutes from now. We will recess until her

return.

[Recess.]

Mrs. KELLY [ASSUMING CHAIR]. Thank you very much for being

here today. We welcome the second panel.

First we will hear from the Honorable Kenneth Barr, the mayor,

representing Fort Worth, Texas and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Second, we will hear from the Honorable Chris Hart, county commissioner, representing Hillsborough County, Florida and the National Association of Counties Transportation Steering Committee.

Next we will hear from the Honorable Sandy Greyson,

councilmember, representing Dallas, Texas and the National

League of Cities. After that, we will hear from the Honorable

Karen M. Miller, county commissioner, representing Boone County,

Missouri and the National Association of Counties Executive Committee. Finally, we will hear from Maria Lehman, commissioner of

public works, on behalf of the Honorable Joel Giambra, county executive of Erie County, New York.

I know Congressman Quinn, who I think is coming back, had

wanted to make a statement welcoming you here, Ms. Lehman. We

will let him do that when he does arrive. I know you all have

planes to catch, so in order to get this committee moving, we will

get started. We are glad to have you here and we welcome your testimony.

Mr. Barr?

TESTIMONY OF HON. KENNETH BARR, MAYOR, REPRESENTING FORT WORTH, TEXAS, AND THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF

MAYORS; HON. CHRIS HART, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, REPRESENTING HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES TRANSPORTATION

STEERING COMMITTEE; HON. SANDY GREYSON,

COUNCILMEMBER, REPRESENTING DALLAS, TEXAS, AND

THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; HON. KAREN M. MILLER,

COUNTY COMMISSIONER, REPRESENTING BOONE COUNTY,

MISSOURI, AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; AND MARIA LEHMAN, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS, ON BEHALF OF HON. JOEL

GIAMBRA, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and members of the

subcommittee. I am Kenneth Barr, the mayor of Fort Worth, Texas.
111

I am here to appear today on behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors, where I serve as Chair of the organization’s

Transportation Committee.

I want to thank the members of the committee for holding this

panel and giving us the opportunity to speak about the reauthorization of TEA–21.

Last month, when Boise Mayor Brent Coles testified before the

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, his statement

highlighted a number of issues pertaining to the economic importance of cities in the reauthorization of TEA–21. As a starting

point, I want to emphasize a statement by Mayor Coles, which captures the Conference of Mayors’ broader view on TEA–21 reauthorization. He said, ‘‘TEA–21 certainly provides the tools and the laboratory, but it doesn’t guarantee success. This is up to the mayors

and the other local officials working with citizens, the governors

and State transportation officials to use the tools you have provided.’’ I know that TEA–21 has been classified and is an innovative,

problem-solving tool that has improved the quality of life for millions of citizens both in large cities and rural towns in America. I

would like to call your attention to several emerging issues that

have considerable bearing on this committee’s review of the TEA– 21 reauthorization.

Since 1999, the Conference of Mayors has released annual data

prepared by Standard & Poor’s DRI, which measures the gross

metropolitan product for the Nation’s city/county metro areas. As

the focal points of economic activity, metropolitan areas are vital

to the Nation’s continued economic development.

If they were counted as a single country, the gross product of the

five largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. would rank fourth

among the world’s economics. The importance of metro area economies can also be illustrated by their size relative to the output of

U.S. States. The gross product of the ten largest metropolitan areas

exceeds the combined output of 31 States. In the study, we found

that 47 of the top 100 economies in the world are U.S. city/county

metro areas.

To give you a local perspective, the Fort Worth/Dallas metropolitan product is larger than Greece, New Zealand, Iraq, and Vietnam

combined. And between 1990 and 2000, city/county metro economies contributed 86 percent, or more than $3.6 trillion, of the

growth in the Nation’s economy.

The correlation between continued national economic growth and

urban transportation investment is clear. Strengthening that correlation is that the fastest growing segments of the U.S. economy,

including business services and high-tech, are almost entirely located within metro areas. In addition, over the past decade, the

majority of new jobs in the financial services and transportation

and utilities sectors have been created in our metro areas. Continued economic growth requires strong transportation investment in

cities.

The implications of this information for Federal and State policymakers are far reaching. There is no doubt in my mind that the

resources provided by ISTEA and TEA–21 have played a significant role in the economic vitality of cities in metro regions. ISTEA
112

and TEA–21 success stories are many. CMAQ has spurred innovative projects in cities across the Nation to improve air quality. In

Fort Worth, we were able to combine CMAQ and surface transportation program funds provided through our Council of Governments

to promote mixed-use development projects along four key corridors

of the city. The successful transportation enhancement programs

have created new bicycle facilities and have promoted communitybased transportation initiatives.

The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program is more important than ever with the Bush Administration proposing revisions to

the 1996 law that overhauled the welfare system by increasing

work requirements on people who get government assistance. The

Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot

Project encourages cities to make new linkages between land use

and transportation. This is a linkage that is working.

Cities have enjoyed the fruits of ISTEA and TEA–21, yet, despite

the progress, there are still areas of concern. The U.S. Conference

of Mayors recently surveyed a group of 40 mayors to solicit their

general views on how TEA–21 is working. Nearly one-half of the

mayors indicated that under TEA–21 their State had committed

additional funding, or planned to commit additional funds, to local

projects of particular priority to the State or the region. When we

asked if their MPOs had set any targets for fair share funding

under TEA–21, one-half of the respondents said yes.

Based on the survey, it appears that States are reaching out to

local governments under TEA–21. However, only 40 percent of the

mayors had been asked to participate in the State process to decide

funding priorities for TEA–21 dollars.

The area of concern highlighted by the survey of mayors is that

often we are not at the State table when funding priorities are finalized.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Barr, your time is up. The red light is blinking.

I don’t know if it was explained to you that we have 5 minutes for

each of you to summarize your testimony. Your full written testimony is a part of the record. So if you could summarize, I would

appreciate that.

Mr. BARR. Thank you.

If there is one point I want to leave with the subcommittee

today, it is that when you consider the very impressive economic

performance of my region and the other metropolitan regions

across the United States, you can understand why it is so important that we be at the table when the funding and priority decisions are made.

Let me just ask you for a moment to comment on the President’s

2003 Highway Program. The impact of such a cut would be devastating to State and local transportation programs. The Conference of Mayors supports the Highway Funding Restoration Act

that would increase the budget at least back to the $27.7 billion

level. The chairman referred earlier to the letter from the eight

local governmental organizations supporting H.R. 3694. The Conference of Mayors strongly supports that.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you very much for your testimony.
113

Just to explain the lights, there is a timing system that we have

control of up here. The green light means you have 4 minutes, the

yellow light means you have 1 minute to summarize, and when the

red light starts to blink, it means you are well over your time. I

would like to try to hold that timing factor in your testimony.

Please do understand that your full written testimony is already

a part of the record and many of us have read it in full. So anything you would like to do to summarize it will be good.

Thank you very much.

We move now to Mr. Hart.

Mr. HART. Good morning, Madame Chair and members of the

committee. I am Chris Hart, commissioner of Hillsborough County,

Tampa, Florida. I am here as the Chair of the Transportation

Steering Committee for the National Association of Counties. I appreciate the comments of the previous speaker and also Governor

Patton. You will find a great thread of continuity between our comments.

Based on Madame Chair’s guidance, I will quickly go from telling

you what a great place I come from and go right to the heart of

the matter. I was only going to use that as reference, since it is

testimony, to let you know that I am from a dynamic community

that has all the complexities of urban, suburban, and rural regions.

All the transportation systems that I have my hands on on a daily

basis are no different than those I represent at the national level

working with people across America representing America’s over

3,066 counties.

Karen Miller, our Vice Chair, will be following me later, and will

address the rural aspects of TEA 21 reauthorization in separate

comments.

To summarize, there are about 1,000 local governments that are

urban counties. Much like the mayor was talking about, your metro

centers, in many cases—city, county governments, like my home in

Tampa Bay, accounts for 80 percent of the gross domestic product

and have over 125 million people in just 100 of the most populous

counties in America.

ISTEA—starting in 1991 and now TEA–21—provided a 40 percent boost in the funds that are relevant to what we are exactly

addressing here today. So we have seen the benefits of this. And

very directly is an example in 2000 in my area of Tampa Bay—

which is seven counties and 3.5 million people—we were able to

have $1 billion—‘‘B’’ as in big—allocated to our area to improve

State, local, and Federal transportation systems because of TEA–

21. I think that is a significant point that each of the members

have been asking about here.

We believe that there would be an economic disaster if Congress

were to eliminate the firewalls established in TEA–21 or begin to

use the trust fund for other programs or to mask the deficit. Madame Chair and members of the committee, the financing decisions

made in 1998 were the right ones.

With that as a backdrop, I would just like to simply say that

NACo supports H.R. 3694 and S. 1917, which Chairman Petri had

mentioned. Seven or eight local organizations support these bills.

But it is just not how we find this effective. A funding reduction

would include the Surface Transportation Program and a flexible
114

program that many regions had used to fund transit improvements.

As we have established our own reauthorization committee, we are

now finalizing our recommendations. But I can tell you without

reservation that one of our top issues will be environmental

streamlining. But let me be clear. We are not talking about any

change or reductions or repeal of environmental protection laws.

We are talking about ensuring that the system we have is timely

and efficient. And this would look at concurrent permitting, not sequential permitting, regardless of the agencies involved. That is

key.

Another part of this is certainly the flexibility we have had under

TEA–21 that has made this all possible. We are able to make better decisions, and we get right to the very issues. As the growth

patterns of American populations have changed, we are able to better match or lead these changes with transportation decisions at

the local level based on the discretion and guidance TEA 21 has

given.

There are a couple of quick issues I would like to address—and

I see the yellow light—congestion. That is going to be a key issue

and there are ways to address that. One part of that is obvious: because it involves our tourists, citizens, and commerce. That is the

key to why we must address competition. And 50 percent of this

occurs because of breakdowns and accidents on our highways. So

incident management, which can be done at little cost, but directed

in your legislation, would be key to that.

Another key is signalization, or intelligent transportation systems. The reason is that at the local level throughout America, we

get an eight to one return on that investment by reducing congestion.

I wish I had another 5 minutes to talk about transit. We believe

the firewalls created to protect that funding are important and that

the basic highway transport funding ratio of four to one should be

continued. There is no backing away from these principles.

In conclusion, flexibility is a keystone of the transit program and

the ability for us to work with our State to get the best results in

this.

With that, Madame Chair, this concludes my testimony. I look

forward to your questions. Thank you.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Hart. We appreciate

your awareness of the time limit.

Ms. Greyson?

Ms. GREYSON. Thank you, Madame Chair and Ranking Member

Borski. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you

today to discuss such an important issue for the Nation’s cities. I

am Sandy Greyson. I am a city councilmember from Dallas, Texas.

I am pleased to be here today with my friend, Mayor Barr, not only

as a Texan but also as a representative of the National League of

Cities.

The National League of Cities represents 18,000 cities and towns

and over 140,000 local elected officials. NLC represents all cities,

regardless of size. Our largest member is New York City with a

population of 8 million and our smallest member is DeGraff, Minnesota with a population of 149. As the representative of the Na-
115

tion’s local leaders, NLC has a vital interest in the reauthorization

of TEA–21.

Last year, the TIS Committee of NLC appointed a special TEA– 21 Reauthorization Task Force to examine TEA–21 issues and their

impact on cities. I served as Chair of the task force, which recently

completed a year-long rewrite of our surface transportation policy,

which was adopted by our full membership last December at our

annual meeting. I would like to submit NLC’s 2002 transportation

policy for the record.

In addition to representing NLC today, I am here on behalf of

my city, Dallas, where I have served on their Council’s Transportation Committee as Chair and a number of organizations.

Madame Chair, as we embark on the reauthorization process, we

must take into account the current climate in Washington, D.C.

and the Nation. These are tough economic times and in the aftermath of September 11th, local officials are shifting priorities.

Therefore, we are very concerned that the President’s budget calls for a severe nearly $9 billion reduction in TEA–21 funding.

The Nation cannot afford to lose thousands of jobs by indefinite

project postponements and possible cancellations if the program is

so drastically cut. In my State alone, it is estimated that Texas

may lose over $560 million in vitally needed Federal transportation

dollars.

This week, NLC joined our local partners to issue a letter to Congress supporting the Highway Funding Restoration Act, H.R. 3694,

which would increase funding by $4.5 billion to $27.7 billion in

2003, the level authorized by TEA–21. The Nation’s local leaders

would like to thank members of the subcommittee and Chairman

Young and Ranking Member Oberstar of the full Transportation

and Infrastructure Committee for sponsoring this important legislation. We pledge to work with you to ensure its passage. In addition, we plan to work with the House and Senate appropriators to

ask for at least 2002 level funding for the program in 2003.

Madame Chair, as we pledge to work together to protect the

funding levels of this vital infrastructure program, the Nation’s

local elected officials would also like to highlight some key priorities for the next surface transportation bill.

Following the events of September 11th, it has become clear that

security issues will have to be a priority in TEA–21 reauthorization

discussions. As cities across the Nation shift valuable resources to

an increased public safety budget to protect our citizens, the question becomes, What will the role of the next Federal surface transportation program be in homeland security? Will the Federal Government be able to offer greater assistance to cities to meet their

needs? In my city alone, we have spent approximately $3.2 million

on heightened security following the events of September 11th.

NLC recently created a working group on homeland security to

try to answer some of these important questions and to help better

define the new role of local governments in national defense and

what those new responsibilities require in terms of Federal support, intergovernmental partnerships, and local budgets.

In addition to security, NLC members identified congestion as a

major concern when they created the TEA–21 task force. The

themes of funding, flexibility, and intermodalism dominated the
116

discussions. On funding, NLC supports the budgetary mechanisms

developed in TEA–21, which directly link transportation user fees

to transportation funding and protect highway trust fund revenue

from being used for non-transportation purposes.

In addition, NLC supports the Federal-State matching financial

relationships that currently exist and oppose any reduction of the

Federal financial commitments. On flexibility, NLC supports local

flexibility to design, manage, and operate a city’s transportation

systems. To continue to provide the most options to local governments, NLC supports the continuation of CMAQ, Transportation

Enhancements Program, the Transportation and Community and

System Preservation Pilot Program, and the ITS Program. These

programs have made a huge impact on localities and had a positive

effect on quality of life.

We urge the subcommittee to consider the development of a congestion relief program that recognizes that congestion is a local

issue and provides direct funding to cities and regions of all sizes

to address related problems in their communities. We strongly support Federal programs that fund different transportation modes,

such as the Federal transit and rail programs.

In addition, NLC also supports the development of intermodal facilities to help create a seamless, uninterrupted transportation network.

In conclusion, the Nation’s local elected officials stand ready to

work with you throughout the reauthorization of TEA–21. We

value our place at the table and value the efforts you are making

to address this bill.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you very much, Ms. Greyson.

Now we move to Ms. Miller.

Ms. MILLER. Thank you, Madame Chair and members of the

committee. I am Commissioner Miller from Boone County, Missouri. Today I am here to speak on behalf of the National Association of Counties where I serve as its first vice president.

NACo has a diverse membership. Today I will be addressing

issues relating to rural counties. Of the 3,066 counties, 2,000 are

rural and they have approximately 1.65 million miles of countyowned highways. Counties also own 45 percent of the Nation’s

bridges, most of which are located on our rural system.

It is extremely expensive to maintain and improve this system.

Many of the 2,000 rural counties try to do so with a dwindling tax

base so that they can remain competitive in today’s economy and

retain their current population. NACo believes that TEA–21 reauthorization must include a commitment to rural regions and rural

elected officials because rural local governments cannot sustain a

good transportation infrastructure by themselves.

This is really about economic development and its impact on

rural counties. I think we know that many of our citizens will not

remain in rural areas without good jobs, and employers who pay

good salaries will not come to a community without a good transportation system. It is also about safety and protecting our citizens

who travel on rural roads.

Counties have benefitted from the funding increase for transportation in TEA–21. The firewalls need to stay in place. The policy
117

reflected in the Administration’s 2003 highway budget is not the

direction in which we should be moving. NACo believes that more,

not less, highway spending is needed and that rural regions of our

country will be hurt by the proposed $8.6 billion cut. I expect many

of our counties will also be facing reduced State aid, and that

means fewer dollars for transportation. For all these reasons,

NACo supports H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act.

Beginning with ISTEA and continuing with TEA–21, a major

philosophy in the highway and transit programs has had greater

input from local elected government officials. The result has been

better planning, better decisionmaking on project selection, and

better projects. TEA–21 called for a consultation process in each

State for obtaining rural local officials’ input in a statewide transportation plan. This was not a one-size-fits-all proposal, but rather

an effort to ensure that rural elected officials had some voice on

how Federal funds are to be spent. No one has ever explained to

me why an urban elected official is more qualified to be heard on

project selection than a rural official.

I must add that while some States have a process in place, and

the Federal Highway Administration did issue guidance on this

change to its field offices, the USDOT has yet to issue final regulations on rural planning requirements. It has been 2 years since

USDOT issued the proposed regulations. We very much hope this

issue can be resolved so that it does not carry over to the reauthorization.

NACo has a TEA–21 Reauthorization Task Force that has met

several times. While we have not finalized our policy, there are a

number of items that I expect to be included. I have already mentioned guaranteed funding, the firewalls, and the rural planning

process. Environmental streamlining is also likely to be included.

Rural roads are in need of substantial Federal investment. Safety is the primary reason. According to a U.S. General Accounting

Office report issued in July 2001, rural local roads had the highest

rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled of all types of roadways—

over six times that of urban interstates. In 1999, over 25,000 fatalities occurred on rural roads across the United States, and that figure was 2.5 times greater than the fatality rate from accidents on

urban highways.

In Missouri, 72 percent of the fatalities in the State happen outside the Kansas City and St. Louis metro areas. If Congress wants

to reduce auto fatalities, there is no better investment than on

roads in rural counties.

NACo will be proposing a new program to address rural road

safety in the coming months. The concept behind this program will

be to focus Federal resources on dangerous two-lane rural roads

that can be improved through investment and correcting vertical

and horizontal alignment, signage, pavement markings, and other

safety improvements.

The Federal Bridge Program has always been one of importance

to rural counties, and this subcommittee has demonstrated great

support for it. Frankly, there cannot be enough funding for deficient bridges. Forty percent of the bridges in Missouri under the

responsibility of local governments are either functionally obsolete

or structurally deficient. In particular, we support what has been
118

known as the Off-System Bridge Program. That is a percentage

NACo believes should be increased to at least 25 to 30 percent of

the Federal fund.

Let me comment, finally, on transit in rural areas. Transit is

commonly perceived as an urban issue. However, it is also a rural

issue and the Federal Rural Transit Program is very important to

our members. The many small transit agencies serving rural America make a difference, particularly as the population ages. While

$225 million does not seem like a lot out of an annual $7 billion

transit program, it goes a long way. Transportation needs to be

available because counties are responsible for getting individuals

off welfare and into the job market.

Madame Chair, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for allowing us to testify before you today.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you very much, Ms. Miller. We move to Ms.

Lehman now.

Ms. LEHMAN. My name is Maria Lehman and I am the Commissioner of Public Works for Erie County, New York. I am also currently the Vice President of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Erie County is a large upstate New York county with a total area

of 1,048 square miles, and home to New York State’s second largest

city of Buffalo. As the rest of the country enjoyed the economic

boom of the 1990’s, upstate New York saw little to no growth.

As commissioner, I have the responsibility for 2,440 lane miles

of Erie County roadways. Roughly half of those are on the Federal

Aid system. Within the system, there are 300 bridges and 400 culverts, 58 percent of which are structurally deficient or functionally

obsolete. Fifty percent of our roadway system is in fair to poor condition.

I applaud this committee for your leadership in the introduction

of H.R. 3694 on February 7. In doing so, you made a pronouncement that now is not the time to cut highway investment. I urge

you, as you deliver this bill as a committee, that you consider the

amount as a bargain basement amount.

The RABA impact to New York will be a cut of funding of over

$345 million in fiscal year 2003. This equates to a job loss of over

14,500. When you consider the devastating effects of September 11

on the New York State economy, as well as the infrastructure rebuilding costs in New York, this cut will have a very severe impact

on the entire State, especially in the upstate area because rebuilding will occur in Manhattan.

As we are looking at reauthorization, I can summarize priorities

in three separate areas: expanding infrastructure investment, enhancing infrastructure delivery, and maximizing infrastructure

quality.

Infrastructure investment needs to be expanded just to keep up

with the backlog of work. A reliable, sustained user-fee approach

to building and maintaining the Nation’s highways and transit systems is integral to our economic prosperity. Current needs without

capacity improvements are in the $50 billion range for annual Federal investment.

Serious consideration should be given not only to indexing the

Federal gasoline tax to preserve the purchasing power of the user
119

fee, but also to increase this user fee. The trust fund balance needs

to be managed to maximize the investment in infrastructure and

to keep cash balances at the minimum required level, as opposed

to carrying ever-increasing amounts. Taking the trust funds off

budget will preserve firewalls in the program.

We also need to maintain guarantees on the equitable distribution of funds with a greater focus on infrastructure preservation.

Infrastructure in the northeast is the oldest in the country, and

due to the relatively level or decreasing populations, there has been

great pressure to have all the funding follow the census. That can

have devastating effects in our area as it mortgages a problem into

the future.

Innovative finance also has a major role in the ability of States

and local municipalities to meet great backlogs of needs. Things

like the State Infrastructure Banks, TIFIA, and Garvey need to be

expanded and complimented with other similar programs.

Due to the successful implementation of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations over the past 2 decades as urban area coordinators of Federal aid programs, consideration should be made to having the MPOs get some of the Federal aid directly from Federal aid

programs. This would put the source of money directly, and project

administration costs close to product delivery, thus making more

effective use of funding and stretching the value of every Federal

dollar.

One concern I have on the revenue side of the house is the effect

of ethanol on revenues and how this bodes in the future with fuel

cell technology. The reauthorization will need to address the incentives to decrease our country’s dependence on gasoline, while providing for single occupancy vehicles and the mobility to which we

have all grown accustomed. Fuel cells are the future, but incentives

will be required to change the paradigm. We need to facilitate this

change with a look to the future horizon and how to support our

Nation’s surface transportation without gasoline taxes.

Enhancing infrastructure delivery boils down to getting the best

bang for the buck. There are serious issues currently that need to

be addressed to expedite project decisionmaking, consistency between agencies—and in some cases within agencies—and providing

time lines for project review and delivery. We need to find ways to

deliver projects more quickly, procure faster, provide alternative

delivery of projects, expedite regulatory decisionmaking, remove

delays, and spend more money on steel, concrete, and construction

materials and not on paper.

Environmental streamlining needs to be seriously addressed.

There are more incredible stories that are stranger than fiction. A

current example is that in a 2000 flood, we had a FEMA declaration, and we had rip-rap along a stream that was coming away. A

major problem. We had the State Historic Preservation Office ask

us to use a manual shovel on 18-inch stone. This is a physical impossibility.

The anecdotal stories are true representations of frustrations felt

by municipalities and design professionals, which spend needless

time, resources and talent responding to ridiculous commentary. In

order to minimize this, reauthorization should mandate peer review of environmental technical regulations by outside, independ-
120

ent experts in technical fields affected by the regulation’s implementation.

Maximizing infrastructure quality is a matter of research in surface transportation. A Federal research program should focus on

emerging and long-term issues, including the traditional transportation themes, but expanding on items such as creative financing

and infrastructure security.

Mrs. KELLY. Ms. Lehman, I am sorry, but you are running out

of time. Could you summarize, please?

Ms. LEHMAN. In summary, I would just like to reiterate that the

needs out there are great. We need to be able to provide more bang

for the buck, as well as keep the funding at the high levels.

Thank you.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you very much.

Because he has a prior commitment, I am going to allow Congressman Quinn—and because she has a prior commitment, I am

going to all Congresswoman Johnson—to go ahead of Congressman

Borski and myself in their questioning.

Congressman Quinn?

Mr. QUINN. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I appreciate your

understanding.

I want to thank the full panel. While I was not here for your testimony, I appreciate and have taken a look at your statements. All

of you other four members on the panel are elected officials. Maria

Lehman, I talked into her job, so I feel responsible for her being

here this afternoon.

I represent Erie County in New York and we have been longtime friends; an expert in the field. I want to assure the four of you

that if you could you would love to have her on your staff to do the

great job she does for our county executive, Joel Giambra, in Erie

County.

Maria, when you were talking about peer review by an outside

agency, I thought we had another Enron hearing, like a dozen is

not enough in the Congress.

I wanted to give you a chance during my time to talk about the

Garvey bond issue, and its effect on a place like Erie County, New

York because I think it is typical of what we are looking at all

across the country.

Ms. LEHMAN. Basically it is a Federal guarantee where the

locals, States, or municipalities can actually bond the projects with

a Federal guarantee.

We are now working on that in Erie County. I might add that

there are about a dozen States that have actually taken advantage

of that. Even though the legislation allows local municipalities, no

one has ventured into that water. We are venturing into it right

now. What it does allow for is the fact that—right now my backlog

is about 50 years at the level we are doing our work. Obviously,

with the life span of a road being approximately 20 years and a

bridge 30, we will never catch up. What it is trying to do is solve

some of our problems on the infrastructure system, while at the

same time providing for the economic growth that we need so badly

right now.

Mr. QUINN. Thank you so much.

I yield back.
121

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Quinn.

Ms. Johnson?

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Chairwoman.

Calling this hearing and being here for it is important. It is especially important for my State and my area, Texas, which is miles

and miles and miles of highways. Contrary to some of the other

parts of the country, our population in the Dallas/Fort Worth area

doubled in the last 5 to 6 years. So we are out of containment and

we are trying very hard to address it through some of the highway

money. If we do not get it, we will be in worse shape. So I fully

support the bill, and I have about 30 others to join me. We have

a councilwoman from Dallas who served on the DART board for 4

or 5 years, who is very familiar with our transportation system.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.

I have a couple of questions. First I would like to address a question to Mr. Barr.

Mr. Barr, you talked about the impact of a budget cut on you

specifically. Have you seen a magnifying effect falling into place in

some of the States, or have other State governors spoken with you

about a magnifying effect if we come back with a reduced amount

of money that is available to the States? Would this have an impact on you and on your city?

Mr. BARR. Yes, ma’am, it would have a very substantial effect.

I think you have heard testimony this morning about the backlog

of projects. These projects, to me, especially in the urban areas, lubricate the machinery of the economy. When projects are delayed,

not only do we not have the money being spent on the projects, but

it has other ramifications that negatively impact the economic

growth and the economic activity.

Mrs. KELLY. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that

a reduction in jobs is the result.

Mr. BARR. Not only are there direct jobs that are lost, but there

is an echo effect out into the general economy. At the very least,

there is enormous missed opportunity for economic growth and expansion and enhanced employment.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you.

Mr. Hart, a couple of States—my own State of New York, California, Pennsylvania, Texas—transfer a significant portion of their

Federal highway funds for use in transit projects. These are flex

funds, and you spoke about them. I am just wondering how your

State’s ability to use the flex funds for the transit programs would

be affected by a decrease.

Mr. HART. That would be significant, even though I cannot put

a dollar value on it right now, in part, jokingly, because our Legislature is in session and will be for another month or so.

But very directly, just in my immediate community of

Hillsborough County—and we have three cities, Tampa, Plant City,

and Temple Terrace—but we have over 1 million people. As a

major urban center, our challenge really is to get more people to

use our transit system. Without that, we are now finding out that

we cannot get outside the immediate urban area. And without that,

the significance is that there are 600,000 people that live beyond
122

those municipal boundaries and just 300,000 inside, in round numbers. So you have two-thirds of our population that we cannot serve

if we cannot have a mix between transit and our regular road system. So that would be the impact to us if that decreases.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you.

That backs up what you said, Ms. Miller. So let me talk to you

about some of the growing pains that happen in rural areas when

development spreads. Certainly in the area I represent we have

seen a lot of this.

Was TEA–21 effective in addressing the transportation needs in

rural communities before this?

Ms. MILLER. Every reauthorization, from ISTEA to TEA–21, we

have had improvement. As I spoke about having a seat at the

table, a lot of times the rural counties do not have staff, so they

know all the information that staffs know in the urban counties.

Then the urban county sends their official, who has not been at the

table working on these things locally. So that is a reference as to

why I believe that they are equally—or more so, sometimes—qualified to be at the table as a rural official.

So I think it has made a difference. In my State, we have a regional planning commission that the State has chosen to use as the

vehicle to meet the intent of TEA–21, and that is working. We do

have a larger say. But not all States are that lucky, to have a State

that is willing to put a process in place.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you.

I have one question for the whole panel.

Going back to this job issue, are transportation-related jobs an

important component of the labor market in your city or county?

And have you estimated in any way the potential job loss impact

on your city or county if the proposed highway funding cuts are not

restored?

I am throwing this out to the entire panel, so we can start with

whoever wants to start first and then pick you all up.

Mr. HART. I would be glad to address this in two ways. Let me

address welfare to work on one side, where transportation is a key

component.

As you know, we were all challenged with a 2-year time limit to

move people off welfare, as we knew it, to jobs with training and

transportation being a key. In my community, we had over 14,000

families, and now we have less than 1,000. Even with that

progress, many of them are still at the poverty level and transportation is a key component.

The second side of that is—there was just a report rendered that

addressed the MSA of my community and said that in our last full

report our community led the Nation in job creation. If you look internal to that, the largest jobs were created right in my immediate

community. To give you a further example, we just had hundreds

of new jobs—CitiCorp has come down, Uniroyal. These are all there

and they are not entry-level jobs. We are talking about $50,000 a

year and up. And we are talking about in the thousands. We are

creating a new community a year with over 17,000 to 18,000 people, and it is that new growth of the economy because 10 years ago

we began to focus locally and regionally on our transportation sys-
123

tems. But for that, we would tell you that we could not be there

today.

Mrs. KELLY. That is incredible.

Does anybody else want to pick up on that?

Ms. Greyson?

Ms. GREYSON. I would like to say that in Texas it is projected

that we will lose 13,000 transportation-related jobs if this cut takes

effect. And since the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex provides a large

number of those jobs, it will very negatively affect our metroplex

and its economic health.

Mrs. KELLY. Ms. Miller?

Ms. MILLER. In rural communities, construction jobs are one of

the best paying jobs available. So because we do not have an equal

seat at the table, if this cut takes place, the rural aspect is probably going to be hurt worse than the urban aspect. That is just

going to create more poverty in those counties across America that

are really struggling just to keep even at this point.

Mrs. KELLY. Ms. Lehman?

Ms. LEHMAN. As I mentioned, statewide we are looking at

14,500. Again, our projections are with the amount of investments

that are going to have to be made in lower Manhattan, we see

those job cuts are going to happen in upstate New York and are

going to directly correlate to the areas that have had the economic

problems throughout the last decade.

Mrs. KELLY. Mayor Barr?

Mr. BARR. I would just echo that the job loss will be very negative. I think the numbers Ms. Greyson has quoted make sense for

our metropolitan area. It will have a very negative effect.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you very much.

We go now to Mr. Borski.

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Madame Chair.

Mayor and councilwoman, perhaps you have a friend in the

White House who might try to help a little bit?

Ms. GREYSON. We certainly hope that we are going to be able to

help convince the President that he should be supportive of the restoration of the funding.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Mayor, obviously we welcome your help as well.

I did want to ask, however, about the MPO and how that works.

Is it working? Is it working well? The idea in ISTEA was to take

the power away from rural America, which was controlling all

those highway dollars, and give a little input back to the cities and

counties. Has that happened?

Mr. BARR. Our MPO has been a tremendous success story. Dallas

and Fort Worth have a somewhat contentious history. At the

MPO—and this is partly because of superior staff leadership—we

have created the greatest partnership that I know of. We get great

partnering between the eastern and western regions within the

MPO, but also between the small cities and the large cities. It is

a great forum. And I believe it is because we come together and

we share the problems and the perspectives and there is a great

dialogue.

And if you go back to my earlier testimony, I think we need to

take that model to the local and State relationships and create
124

more of a round table of dialogue there. That would solve some of

the problems that we are most concerned about at that level.

Mr. BORSKI. So it works really well from your perspective?

Mr. BARR. I cannot tell you how impressive it is. I hear other

mayors from other parts of the country complain about their relationship with the MPO. That is not the case in north central Texas.

We have a great success story, great model.

Mr. BARR. Ms. Miller, why does it not work for rural America?

Ms. MILLER. Well, because it does not have the same standing

as the MPOs do. The rural planning organizations are more of a

consultation process where you just kind of identify issues in your

community, where the MPO—and I have served on our MPO, we

have a small MPO—it has a more direct effect on what project is

selected.

Our MPO does not work as well as yours does. The way it was

set up, there is one representative from the county and four from

the city. The area outside the city limits, that are in the urban

service area, is supposed to be the MPO boundaries. But all the

planning seems to stop at the city limits. We always have those

imaginary lines that are saying stop, where it is supposed to be

planned for the whole area. It is not. I focus on that a lot at our

State level, but it is the way. If we do not force it, it is not going

to change.

Mr. BORSKI. I guess my question is, Do you have the same lack

of success at the State level?

Ms. MILLER. As far as having input?

Mr. BORSKI. Yes.

Ms. MILLER. I do not, because I am pretty forceful in getting my

point across. But if you have not been involved in things like I

have—I was Chair of the Highway Subcommittee of NACo, I was

more familiar with the process and it was easier for me to approach my State, to know where the funds were and how to work

towards that. The general county officials do not have that ability.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Hart?

Mr. HART. I would like to address that as well. There are two aspects to this. I testified a few weeks ago before the Senate. That

was a key point I was making there, so I am glad you asked.

One, even though it was provided under law in TEA–21, the Department of Transportation has not given administrative guidance

on that aspect. That is one part. The second part is for communities, particularly rural, that have populations of 50 to 200,000.

They do not have the same authority that I have in my community

with over 1 million.

So those are two, sort of, balancing things. One is simple guidance and the other is Federal authority for them to act in a similar

way.

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you.

Councilmember Greyson?

Ms. GREYSON. Although I share with Mayor Barr a participation

in a very successful MPO, National League of Cities has heard

from many of its members—most of whom are small cities—that

they do not have the same ability that we have in our MPO. Part

of that is that there are the funding issues for MPOs. Many MPOs
125

are not adequately funded, so cannot staff and cannot do the range

of things that our MPO does.

Mr. BORSKI. Ms. Lehman?

Ms. LEHMAN. I would add that I think there is great inconsistency between MPOs around the country. I would totally agree with

the fact that there needs to be administrative guidance. I think

there are some best practices around the country that could provide

very good input. We have—I would not call it a dysfunctional

MPO—but we are working towards being more functional. But a lot

of that has to do with my own personal regulatory involvement

around the country and the fact that I have had involvement in

MPOs in other parts of the country. I think that practice is being

shared and might be a way to get those inconsistencies out of the

system.

Mr. BORSKI. Ms. Lehman, you raised something that has intrigued me for a while now, and that is the question of the trust

fund and use of ethanol, which are things that most of us who are

environmentally sensitive applaud. We would like to have cars that

run at higher and better rates. That would also affect the trust

fund.

I am glad you raised that because I would be interested in your

views as to how we make up for that. This could be a serious longterm problem for us as the use of ethanol increases.

Ms. LEHMAN. I think ethanol is a small issue compared to what

we will see with fuel cell technology. As a practicing professional

engineer, the technology for fuel cells has been there, we just have

not had the right prices to kind of thrust it upon us.

I think we are coming to a time when we are going to be able

to have a single passenger vehicle that has the speed to pick up

and the distance so that we will be able to do that. We are going

to have to look at—there is a mix there. Obviously, you want to encourage people to use creative technology, without starving yourself. But I think you are going to have to look at the same type

of user fee down the road for some of these emerging technologies

as they come on line. I think that is why it is very important that

there is some focus on the Federal level on some research in this

area as far as how we make that transition. It is going to be a thin

line between getting people excited about using fuel cells versus

looking at what our trust fund balance is.

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you all very much.

Mr. JOHNSON [ASSUMING CHAIR]. I have a couple of questions to

address to various of you and then a brief comment. Feel free to

keep your comments very, very brief, since we are at the end of the

day now.

Mayor Barr, I have two questions for you. First of all, can you

give us some examples of the economic impact of transportation investment in your community and what happens when that investment is not made? Secondly, I would like examples of how your city

transportation system is utilizing intelligent transportation systems. Feel free to keep those very brief. I am sure you have addressed some of them before.

Mr. BARR. First of all, I think the most visible project in our area

has to be the Trinity Railway Express Line that ties downtown

Dallas and downtown Fort Worth together. This project opened last
126

fall and is running more than 30 percent ahead of projections. I

think the last number I saw was that it was taking approximately

10,000 trips a day off extremely congested roadways. We will eventually tie that in to DFW Airport, and that will be an enormous

step forward for us.

In Fort Worth, we have been working on redeveloping central

corridors within the city. We are like so many cities, we have

moved out to the suburbs. We are rebuilding our corridors in the

cities. Transportation enhancement funds have been very helpful in

that process.

All of the newer roadways that have been built or upgraded recently have television systems built into them, roadway monitoring

equipment. We are just learning how to use it, but I can tell you

that the signage and things like that that indicate where the bottlenecks are is very much moving us forward.

In the city of Fort Worth, we recently put the TxDOT cameras

on our city cable television and we are making that information

available to our residents during specific rush hour times in the

morning. It is very helpful.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir.

Ms. Greyson, I think everybody recognizes that both politically

and substantively congestion in major cities and suburbs is a huge

issue, even some of the outlying areas. What do you believe are the

most effective transportation measures available to address those

problems?

Ms. GREYSON. Well, certainly the ITS Program helps us manage

our highways more efficiently and more effectively. Dallas has a

full range of ITS programs in place. The fact that you can manage

congestion using different modes is extremely helpful. We have a

very active passenger rail program in the Dallas area. That, combined with the road building, helps manage our congestion. We are

trying to be truly multimodal and intermodal. That helps us manage our congestion. But we need the funding to be able to do that.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Hart, the last question is for you.

How does the availability of the Federal aid highway funding

specifically affect the ability of States, cities, and counties to bond

and secure credit?

Mr. HART. You will find actually as many differences as you will

find differences in States and communities. I know earlier we

talked a little about the Garvey bond. I think the key to all this

is flexibility. As we see the challenges of transportation, you cannot

address the challenges without addressing the changes in populations and where people are deciding to live, and whether transportation leads or follows. So you have to have the ability to make

decisions on how to fund what you need. That is a key part of that.

Mr. JOHNSON. Actually, I was prepared not to ask specific questions, but to simply make a comment. With the permission of the

committee, I will do that.

I know that the issue of the impact of ethanol on our highway

trust fund revenues has been addressed. I feel compelled to comment on ethanol and specifically to emphasize my very, very strong

support for the use of ethanol and renewable fuels. I believe it is

critically important that we do everything necessary to promote

and expand the use of those renewable fuels, specifically ethanol.
127

I believe as we move forward in addressing transportation funding,

we have to be careful to do so in a way that does not in any way

hinder the development of renewable sources of energy.

I hand back the gavel—which I am very unaccustomed to—and

I appreciate your letting me have my 2 minutes in the sun, here.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. PETRI [RESUMING CHAIR]. I apologize. We had a delegation

meeting. I thank you very much for coming and offering the testimony. It will be part of the written record and we will be reviewing

it with staff as we go forward.

Mr. Borski, did you have any more questions?

Mr. BORSKI. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. In that case, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209

Æ