U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

85–520 1APDF 2014

S. HRG. 110–1238 

PERSPECTIVES ON THE SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REPORT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 6, 2008 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 6, 2008 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 135 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 136 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 138 

Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia ........................ 140 

WITNESSES 

Peters, Hon. Mary E., Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation ............... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 7 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 13 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 16 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 22 

Miller, Hon. Debra L., Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation ......... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 46 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 49 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 50 

Kavinoky, Janet F., Director, Transportation Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 68 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 68 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 70 

Cohen, Gregory M., President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance .... 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 80 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 81 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 83 

Hecker, Jayetta, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 87 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 112 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 112 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 113 

(1) 

PERSPECTIVES ON THE SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REPORT 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Warner, Carper, Cardin, Sanders, 

Whitehouse, Voinovich, Isakson, Vitter, Barrasso, Craig, Alexander 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The hearing will come to order. 

We are not going to have opening statements, because this is 

really a continuation of our last hearing. So unless Senator Inhofe 

has a few remarks when he arrives, if it is all right, we will just 

get right to this hearing. Because last week, we heard testimony 

from members of the National Surface Transportation Policy and 

Revenue Study Commission regarding their released report. And 

commissioners who really, we were so impressed with their dedication to this task. They spoke about the need for significant investments in our Nation’s infrastructure, surface transportation system 

and also fundamental reform of Federal transportation projects. 

And the Commission called for the Federal Government to take a 

lead role in addressing these challenges facing our Nation. 

Again, I wanted to thank the Commission, and I know Secretary 

Peters, you served on it, you did not sign on at the end of the day 

to the recommendations, is that correct? OK. But I really do want 

to thank you, for all of the time and effort that you spent working 

with the Commission. Because I know you, and I know that, I am 

sure you were an excellent resource for them and enabled them to 

get their work done. 

So there were several recommendations on which all 12 commissioners did agree. I am going to ask you about those. And also on 

the second panel, we will hear from representatives of the States, 

the business community, the highway users as well as the GAO regarding their views on the Commission’s recommendations. So with 

that, unless Senator Inhofe is here to make a couple of statements, 

we will start with you, Hon. Mary Peters. Thank you so much, and 

the floor is yours. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

2 

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

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you Madame Chairman. As I said in last week’s hearing, anticipation for 

the Commission Report has been high. We must recognize that our nation’s transportation needs have outgrown our current transportation policy. The link between 

a robust economy and a strong transportation infrastructure is undeniable; yet 

when it comes to other spending needs in the Federal Government, transportation 

is often neglected as a priority. As we move into reauthorization in 2009, it is the 

responsibility of Congress to continue to ensure that American’s receive a full and 

effective return for the fuel taxes they paid into the Trust Fund. The results of the 

Commission’s study will be an important part of those deliberations. 

First, I want to point out that although Secretary Peters along with two other 

Commissioners voted against the final report, there was much agreement on most 

of the policy recommendations. For the most part, all the Commissioners found 

agreement on the vast and unmet needs of our nation’s transportation network, but 

where they differ is in how to pay for it. I have long advocated for a decreased Federal role, which I believe allows for greater flexibility for states to manage their own 

transportation funding priorities. It would appear those who wrote the dissenting 

views concur. 

Public Private Partnerships or PPPs are a great example of innovative funding 

ideas we will need to encourage States to explore. When I was Mayor of Tulsa, we 

did several PPPs and were able to better leverage scarce public funds to accomplish 

many good projects. To date, our thinking on funding highways has been too limited. 

We need to acknowledge there are other options. Certainly, no one should assume 

that PPPs are the magic bullet, this type of financing is not appropriate in all cases, 

but it is certainly something that must be explored further by States and frankly 

this Committee. There are several larger policy issues that I think need to be discussed, such as the length of leasing options and whether there should be any restraints on how States use lease payments. Finally, before development of these 

long term lease agreements become more widely used, we should thoroughly examine the consequences of foreign investment in these leases. Many argue that the 

consequences of foreign investments is minimal since the asset is fixed, I would tend 

to agree; however some concerns have been raised about of the loss of possible future State tolling revenues when tolling proceeds are diverted outside the United 

States. There is still much to learn about these lease agreements, and although I 

support them in principle, I consider them only part of the solution to the highway 

financing shortfall. 

I think the important lessons to take from the report are that if we don’t take 

dramatic action, growing congestion and deteriorating pavement conditions will 

choke the US economy. I am glad that there is consensus among the commissioners 

that modal specific decisions and the current program structure are outdated. 

Finally, I have to comment on the proposed financing mechanism. I believe increasing the Federal fuel tax by the amount proposed in the final report is neither 

politically viable nor economically sound. Furthermore, I am not convinced it is necessary. Certainly, given the balances in the Highway Trust Fund, an increase in the 

fuel tax must be considered, but not to the level that is proposed. I had hoped that 

the Commission would have considered in more detail alternative financing mechanisms that could eventually replace the fuel tax as the primary method to collect 

revenue for transportation. As vehicles become more fuel efficient, the existing funding model of paying per gallon of fuel will not be effective. 

Again, I appreciate your efforts and thoughtful recommendations and look forward 

to discussing them further with you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. PETERS. Madam Chairman, thank you so much. I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today and your courtesy in allowing me to also testify about the Commission report. 

Over the last 20 months, the Policy and Revenue Commission 

met on numerous occasions, and we engaged in very widely ranging 

discussions addressing the Nation’s current and future infrastructure needs. I believe the time has been well spent, and I value and 

appreciate, as you mentioned, the contributions by all of my fellow 

commissioners. 

3 

Although I did disagree with a number of the central elements 

of the Commission’s report, that disagreement in no way detracts 

from my respect for my colleagues on the Commission. They are to 

be commended for their hard work and their dedication. 

This week, the Administration released its Fiscal Year 2009 

budget. This budget funds the final year of the $286.4 billion 

SAFETEA-LU authorization. It is clear that we are just limping 

across the finish line when it comes to funding. The Highway Trust 

Fund’s short-term future is unclear, and the long-term prospect is 

in serious jeopardy. This highlights, I believe, the significant demands that we are facing in the future and that our current policies do need a new direction. 

We are focusing at this time on better air quality, a reduction in 

our dependence on foreign oil and increased fuel efficiency. So it is 

short-sighted, in my opinion, to continue to depend on fuel taxes 

as the primary method of funding surface transportation. It simply 

is not a sustainable solution. 

While we may not have reached complete agreement on the appropriate solution to surface transportation problems, I believe it is 

critical that we come together, chiefly this Committee, that will 

have such an important role in the next authorization, to agree on 

a common definition of the problem and recognizing that fundamental change is required. 

I, like some of you, have spent many years working in this field. 

I have concluded that the central problem in transportation is not 

how much we pay for transportation, but how we pay. Our current 

transportation funding, an indirect user fee, provides the wrong incentives and signals to both users and owners of the system. It results on the over-use of the system, especially during peak periods 

of time. 

In fact, I believe that the chronic revenue shortfalls we face are 

more a symptom of the problem than the cause of the problem. 

Americans overwhelmingly oppose gasoline tax increases. And they 

do that because real world experience tells them that it doesn’t provide a benefit to them. This is evidenced by a failure in our system 

performance. 

Over the last 25 years, despite substantial increases in Federal, 

State and local transportation spending, much of it from fuel taxes, 

we have witnessed a rapid growth in highway congestion. In the 

last 25 years, highway funding has increased 100 percent; yet congestion over that same period has increased 300 percent. This systemic failure is impacting our families, our businesses, our ability 

to compete in a global marketplace and of course, our environment. 

Americans have become increasingly disgruntled about the declining performance of their transportation systems, but they are 

unwilling to support transportation-related tax increases. Some in 

the transportation field argue that we have simply failed to communicate the importance of the transportation system to the average American. To me, however, and to other observers, this represents a failure in public confidence and traditional approaches. 

Public opinion surveys confirm this view. 

A recently released survey out of Washington State found that 

voters preferred high-speed variable tolling to gas tax increases by 

77 to 17 percent. This survey is consistent with a number of others 

4 

conducted across the United States that have found a deteriorating 

support for gas taxes and a growing support for direct user 

charges. 

I agree with those who call for greater Federal leadership, as the 

Commission report does. But I do not, however, concede that the 

Federal leadership simply implies a substantially greater Federal 

spending at 40 percent of the total and dramatically higher fuel 

taxes. In fact, I believe it is far more critical that the Federal Government establish clear policies, provide appropriate incentives and 

allocate revenues more efficiently than it is for a substantial increase in the Federal spending to occur. It is essential that we on 

the Federal level work together and demonstrate this kind of leadership. 

I truly believe that there has never been a more exciting time in 

the history of transportation. We are at a point where meaningful 

change is not only conceivable, but it is actually being implemented 

in various parts of the United States. We have before us collectively a tremendous opportunity to make significant changes, 

changes that will reverse the substantial performance declines in 

our Nation’s transportation infrastructure to the benefit of American businesses, American families, and our competition. 

I thank this Committee for the opportunity to testify today. I 

look forward to answering your questions. But mostly, I look forward to working with you toward the next surface transportation 

organization. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Peters follows:] 

5 


85520.001
6 


85520.002
7 


85520.066
8 


85520.067
9 


85520.068
10 


85520.069
11 


85520.060
12 


85520.071
13 


85520.072
14 


85520.073
15 


85520.074
16 


85520.105
17 


85520.076
18 


85520.077
19 


85520.078
20 


85520.079
21 


85520.080
22 


85520.106
23 


85520.082
24 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I am a little confused at how we are going to meet the needs by 

being, you said, more efficient. What was your other priority—how 

are we going to meet the needs being proactive? ReState what you 

said your answer is. 

Ms. PETERS. Madam Chairman, I believe the answer is, and I 

can refer back to my notes and get it exactly. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Ms. PETERS. But my answer is that we need to prioritize, provide 

Federal leadership, prioritize what our responsibilities are on a 

Federal level, and track and incentivize the use of other revenues 

that can come to bear to meet transportation challenges through 

public-private partnerships, through private sector investment, a 

variety of tools where we can bring additional investment to bear. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, now I see it here. You say, clear policies, appropriate incentives, and allocating resources more efficiently are 

more important than providing additional Federal funding. I just 

have to say, if you knew a family and they were earning $10,000 

a year and they came to you for advice and they said, you know, 

we want to send Johnny to summer camp, because the teacher says 

it would really help with his motor skills, small motor skills and 

large motor skills, it is important to his health. Would you say, just 

run your family more efficiently? Clearly, they can’t. 

So I just think it is so much of a false—I know you believe what 

you are saying—but it is a false expectation for the people to believe that we can meet our needs as a great and growing and 

strong Nation. It is very disappointing to me. How we come up 

with $225 billion a year by simply allocating our resources more efficiently, encouraging States to impose fees such as tolls and congestion pricing, it is just not going to happen. 

So we need to be a little bit more forthcoming with each other. 

That is why I thought the Commission, and that Commission, with 

Republicans and Democrats and Independents, and they came together and said, we need to have a new sources of funding based 

on vehicle miles traveled. 

Now, a lot of us had a problem with the way you figured that 

out. But speaking for myself and Senator Inhofe, who will speak 

more, I think, eloquently, we need to really try to come together 

on this. And I find your testimony a tremendous let-down. I don’t 

know how many other people on the Commission agreed with you. 

Do you recall who said this is the answer? 

Ms. PETERS. There were two others. 

Senator BOXER. Out of how many? 

Ms. PETERS. Twelve. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So it is just very disappointing to me. 

I need to ask you a question that had to do with the California 

waiver. Because again, this is an area where I got no answers. 

Now, we know that your Department worked to contact Governors 

and Members of Congress to generate opposition to the California 

waiver request. And I asked you to describe to me in writing how 

that lobbying started, whether it was your idea alone, or whether 

others were involved. Your entire response was to refer us to emails that you had sent to Chairman Waxman. Well, we have reviewed all those e-mails, and clearly, the e-mails don’t answer the 

25 

question of, what were the roles of the people in the White House, 

the Vice President’s office, CEQ, EPA and others. 

Now, I am not going to put you on the spot and ask you to answer this right now, but I am going to ask you if you will please 

go back and answer my questions rather than just say, it is in the 

e-mails. That is just not the proper answer to give the Chairman 

of this Committee. So I am going to ask if you would be willing to 

go back and give me responsive, complete and truthful answers to 

each of those questions within 2 weeks of today. 

Ms. PETERS. Madam Chairman, I will be happy to respond to you 

within 2 weeks. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I really appreciate that. 

Senator, I think we will do early bird for this round, and then 

we will go—so it was Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Peters, for being here. 

First of all, I will take a little liberty with my time and express 

my appreciation to you. Delta Airlines, which is home-based in 

Georgia, applied for a direct route to Shanghai. That route was approved, and after its approval we had some difficulties on securing 

the proper landing and takeoff times, and your Department and 

you personally interceded on our behalf. That wa successful, and I 

want to thank you very much on their behalf for doing so. It is 

great to have a Secretary that is proactive in that. 

I know also that you are a former Arizona Department of Transportation head, is that correct? 

Ms. PETERS. Yes. 

Senator ISAKSON. My State of Georgia just finished—everybody’s 

doing joint transportation study committees, obviously, all over the 

Country, because of the crisis we have. The Georgia legislature did 

a joint study committee on transportation funding and issued their 

final report, of which I have a copy. In that final report, the committee recommended the general assembly introduce a resolution 

urging the U.S. Department of Transportation to dissolve or turn 

back the Federal Highway and Transit program to the States by 

allowing them to take over collection of the Federal fuel tax and 

spend those revenues on transportation priorities of their choosing, 

not the Federal Government’s. In other words, the Federal tax 

would remain, but it would be collected at the pump by the State, 

and the State would then prioritize the spending of money, and it 

wouldn’t go to Washington, get recycled and sent back. We have 

had lots of formula distribution arguments in the past over that. 

What do you think about that idea? 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, I think it is a good idea. And I do recognize 

that there are some things that we need to take care of on a Federal basis. There are some things that are truly and uniquely in 

the Federal interest. But I believe that a large part of the decisions 

can and should be made by the States. 

When the interState highway system was first being built, Senator, State departments of transportation were relatively inexperienced and unsophisticated. So given what the Nation was undertaking with the interState highway system, it was likely appropriate that the U.S. Government have a very large role in that. 

That is not the case today. Having managed a DOT, I can support 

26 

the sophistication with which they their work. I think that many 

decisions can and should be made on a State level, not a Federal 

level. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, on that point, and in your comments with 

the Chairman a minute ago regarding seeking efficiencies and accountability in our money first before hauling off and raising taxes, 

this proposal provides in and of itself a number of efficiencies that 

would increase the amount of money, I think, that would end up 

going to paving surface transportation because of the streamlining 

of the process. Would you agree with that? 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, I would absolutely agree with that. 

Senator ISAKSON. I thought it was a good—and I also agree that 

there still remains a Federal role, but it is far different than it was 

at the creation of the Eisenhower InterState System. In fact, many 

people might be interested to find out that in the 1970’s, Federal 

interState highway construction rolled from being pretty much 

done by the Feds to where we put in a 90/10 match for State innovation in the completion of the interState highway system, or in 

some cases, the redoing of interchanges. 

So we actually incentivized the States to do that on the interState system as far back as the mid–1970’s. So I agree that it is 

something we really ought to look at exploring, and I am glad you 

agree with that. 

The only other thing I will say is on the VMTs, I would like to 

hear your comments. I think Oregon is doing a demonstration 

project. I heard the testimony and came to the testimony last week. 

I would like your take on the VMTs. 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, I think eventually paying directly for the 

use of the transportation system based on the time of day we use 

it, the weight of our vehicle, the number of occupants, a variety of 

things, is within reach doing so. There are privacy concerns that 

have to be dealt with, and I believe can be dealt with appropriately. I believe that is where we ultimately need to get. But the 

transition period, as I mentioned earlier, is focusing the Federal 

money only in the Federal interest, returning or letting States keep 

the balance of that, supplementing that with private sector investment, and moving toward a longer-term vehicle mile system. 

Senator ISAKSON. I am intrigued by it. I understand the privacy 

concerns. I went through that when we did the tolling authority in 

Georgia, when I was in the Georgia legislature. There was a real 

concern over cameras taking pictures of the license plate going 

through, and the Civil Liberties Union and a lot of people wanted 

to make sure it wasn’t a government intrusion. But if we can deal 

with those privacy issues responsibly, the way we are changing the 

dynamics of surface travel with hybrid vehicles, with higher CAFE 

standards, the old just cents per gallon mechanism just does not 

work. We have to be willing to look at alternative fund-raising 

mechanisms that reflect what is going to be the reality of the 21st 

century. 

Again, thank you for your help on the direct route to Shanghai, 

and thank you for your service to the Country. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

27 

Secretary Peters, welcome. It is good to see you. Thank you for 

joining us today. 

Just a comment, if I could. Senator Voinovich and I spend a fair 

amount of time working on infrastructure needs in our Country. 

One of the pieces of legislation that we have collaborated on is one 

that would seek to build on the Commission on which you have 

been serving. I am one who believes we probably try to create too 

many commissions in Federal Government, blue ribbon commissions, than maybe we ought to. But every now and then they do 

some good work. I believe the Commission that you served on, in 

this instance, has done good work and we thank all of you for participating. 

Senator Voinovich and I authored legislation that has passed the 

Senate and is pending in the House that would create an eightmember blue ribbon commission, four appointed by Democrats, four 

by Republicans, not to replicate the work that you have done with 

respect to transportation, but to look to other parts of our infrastructure, including water, wastewater, dams, levees, our rail transit and so forth, airports. Some people say that we are on our way 

to becoming sort of a third-world nation with respect to our infrastructure. I think that is unduly harsh. 

I talked to a guy last week who had been to China. He told about 

his experience, landing at the airport in Shanghai, I think it was 

Shanghai. He said, you know, I didn’t take a cab, and I didn’t ride 

in somebody’s car or take a limo to get into town. I guess the airport is well outside of town. He said, I rode on a maglev train that 

went, I think he said, 200 miles an hour. And then he said he had 

landed not long ago, I think it was LaGuardia in New York, and 

he talked about the cab ride, trying to get from LaGuardia to 

downtown. He compared one against the other. 

One of the reasons why they have that kind of system, at least 

in Shanghai, and the rest of China is not up to those standards, 

one of the reasons why they have that kind of system is that they 

have made a decision this is important. It is important for the 

Country, and they are going to pay for it. Sometimes I think we 

mislead people in our States and cities and counties, and at the 

Federal level, too, to tell people we can have services, we can have 

all kinds of things but we don’t have to pay for it. I have long believed, as an old Governor, as a recovering Governor, I still believe 

it, that if things are worth having, we have to pay for them. The 

idea of saying to people, it is like we think they believe in the tooth 

fairy, you can have all kinds of things, but you are never going to 

have to pay for it. That just isn’t the case. 

Let me ask, just lay out your vision of how to pay for the transportation system, your vision, not necessarily that of the majority 

of the Commission. Just walk us through slowly your vision of how 

we are going to pay for the kind of transportation infrastructure 

that I think we want and we need. How would we pay for it? 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, I would be happy to do that. 

Senator CARPER. Walk us through it slowly. 

Ms. PETERS. I believe that we should continue to collect the fuel 

tax that we are collecting today on a Federal level. 

Senator CARPER. What is it, about 18 cents? 

28 

Ms. PETERS. Eighteen point four cents, last increased in 1993. 

We should continue to collect that today. But we should seriously 

redefine what the—— 

Senator CARPER. You can slow down just a little bit more. 

Ms. PETERS. I will do that. I was one of six children, I had to 

learn to talk fast or I didn’t get to talk. 

Senator CARPER. Well, here you are an only child. So take your 

time. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PETERS. Sir, I would continue to collet the gas tax that we 

are collecting today. However, I would seriously redefine what the 

Federal role in transportation is. I believe—— 

Senator CARPER. So that would be from what to what? 

Ms. PETERS. I can talk about several things that I think should 

be in the Federal role in transportation. I believe that the interState highway system and the national highway system, the condition of those systems is in the Federal interest. I believe that interState freight transportation is in the Federal interest. I believe 

that it is in our Federal interest to continue the safety programs 

that I believe are more appropriately run on a national level, such 

as the motor carrier program, as well as the highway traffic safety 

programs. 

I believe that there is some research that can be done in the Federal interest if it indeed is supporting Federal interest issues. And 

I believe finally, sir, that there are projects of national and regional 

significance that are beyond what States might be able to do on 

their own but should be considered in the national interest because 

of freight movement, mobility, things like that. 

I would stop there, and I will confess to you that I am a 

minimalist when it comes to that. And in fact, even on the interState highway system, or the national highway system, I believe 

that we could establish standards on a national level that State 

and local governments would then adhere to and have the funding 

to adhere to as opposed to those moneys being kept by the Federal 

Government. 

Senator CARPER. And they would have the funding by? 

Ms. PETERS. I am sorry? 

Senator CARPER. You say the States would have the funding to 

do, from what sources? 

Ms. PETERS. We would return the rest of that, or ideally, as Senator Isakson mentioned, let the States keep that so it doesn’t take 

on a Federal identity, so States can use it the way they would use 

other State moneys within the State. 

I would supplement that, sir, with private sector investment in 

the near term where it is appropriate to do so, where it can attract 

private sector investment. An example that I would give you would 

be in Southern California, on several routes there that have what 

we call demand pricing, that is a toll that varies by time of day or 

the level of traffic, they get 40 percent greater throughput on the 

lanes that are dynamically priced than they do on adjacent socalled general purpose lands. 

So attract private sector investment, improve the efficiency of the 

road system that we have today by using pricing, and in the long 

term, we should move to some kind of a vehicle miles tax system 

29 

that would have us pay the cost of using that system, varying 

again by time of day, weight of vehicle, other factors. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks for your response. 

Madam Chair, will we have a second round? 

Senator BOXER. I am not sure. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thanks very much for being here today and 

thank you for your service. You have been terrific over there. 

I remember the debates that we had during SAFETEA-LU. I was 

one, with several others, who said that the money was absolutely 

inadequate, that the money that we, and I remember the Administration threatening we wouldn’t go to $318 billion, we had to be at 

$285 billion, and we nickled and dimed all over the lot. At the 

same time we were spending all that money on infrastructure all 

over the world. I just couldn’t believe it. I said that wouldn’t even 

keep up with inflation. We have fallen behind. Actually, this last 

highway bill we passed doesn’t even keep up with inflation. The 

statistics at that time were, according to the 2004 Federal Highway 

Administration report, said that just to improve our highways and 

bridges would take $118.9 billion, just to maintain the current condition and performance of highways and bridges would take $77.1 

billion. 

The Commission’s report comes out and even gives us more stark 

figures in terms of the challenges that we have before us. States 

like Ohio are looking at a $3.5 billion shortfall. 

I think we have to let the American people know that we are in 

deep trouble in terms of our highway infrastructure. We are going 

to be talking this year about what we are going to do about this. 

We are going to be getting into the budget again about what we 

are doing in appropriations. I think that you have a responsibility 

to speak up a little bit louder about what the needs are. We need 

look at some other things like what and Senator Isakson said— 

when I was Governor, have more of money not going to Washington, stay in State, and the states could utilize it more efficiently. 

Another point that the Commissioners brought up is to shorten 

the length it takes to do major highway projects. This report says 

it still takes 13 years to get it done. I fought like crazy to try and 

get 4(f) during the last highway bill, and we got a little bitty 

change in the provision. 

But I think we are going to need a lot more advocacy from you 

this year. It is your last shot. You won’t be around. I hope you don’t 

just hunker into a hole some place and just kind of ride out this 

Administration. You have a wonderful opportunity—you have been 

a State leader, a national leader—to tell it as it is. The American 

people have to have someone tell it like it is. 

I don’t even hear the Presidential candidates talking one iota 

about the infrastructure crisis that we have here in our Country. 

My State is a just-in-time State. We are really feeling it. We don’t 

talk enough about the time on the road that people spend in traffic 

jams and the fuel that the use and the frustration and all the rest 

of it that is connected with it. But someone has to level with the 

people. 

30 

The question I would like to ask you is that we have a shortfall. 

How are we going to pay for it this year, just keeping up with what 

we promised, which is not adequate? 

Ms. PETERS. It is not, Senator. Please know that I agree, and 

agreed with my fellow commissioners that we do need substantially 

more investment. But what I am saying is, it has to be a different 

kind of investment, collected and used differently than we do today 

if we are going to be successful in doing that. 

Again, I think a way that we can attract that investment is, one, 

prioritize what we are spending today. Rough numbers, approximately 60 percent of what we collect today goes to roads and 

bridges, highways, roads and bridges. About 20 percent goes to 

transit, and the other 20 percent goes to a variety of programs. 

Overall, there are 108 programs in highways and transit that this 

money is sliced and diced into today and then sent back out to 

State and local governments to figure out how to use those categories. 

That tells me that we probably have 20 percent to play with. If 

we take efficiencies, like I spoke about on the Southern California 

roads, and are able to get 40 percent greater throughput, then we 

wouldn’t need to perhaps build as much more. We certainly need 

to build more, but we wouldn’t have to build as much, because we 

would be using the infrastructure more efficiently. Those are the 

ways, in the near term, that I think we need to approach this, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. When I was Governor, we set up our track 

proposal—we had tier one, tier two, tier three. We did the planning 

and all that you are supposed to do. But the fact of the matter is, 

right now, we are just having difficulty doing the tier one projects, 

because of the high cost of oil and the high cost of steel. We are 

falling behind. 

I agree there are things to look at. I asked our highway director 

recently about these sound barriers. He said it is a million dollars 

a mile. I thought to myself—some of the developers, build developments right next to a highway and then they come back to the departments of transportation in their respective States and say, put 

up a barrier. My attitude is, you shouldn’t build there in the first 

place, and if you do, you should pay for the barrier, we ought not 

to pay for the barrier. 

We have the same thing in terms of highway interchanges. When 

I was Governor, I said, you want an interchange? You pay for it. 

In fact on Monday night I stayed at a motel in the Cincinnati area, 

in West Chester. It was unbelievable what had happened there. 

The development was fantastic, but you want to know what? They 

paid for it. I said to the developers, this is not going to be a windfall. 

I think there are a lot of things we can be doing, and I am asking 

you to speak out this year. It is your last shot at it, at least from 

the point you have. We need your help. 

Ms. PETERS. I will do that, sir, thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Voinovich, thank you. By the way, you 

are the Ranking Member today, because Senator Inhofe won’t be 

coming. 

I wanted to mention, if we are fortunate enough to get 10 colleagues, there is some business to take care of, S. 2146, a bill to 

31 

authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to accept funds as 

part of a settlement for diesel emission reduction supplemental environmental projects. This bill has bipartisan support, and I congratulate Senators Carper, Voinovich and Clinton for their leadership on this issue. So if we are fortunate enough to get 10, we will 

move to that and try to get it done. If not, we will try to get it done 

as soon as possible. 

So in order of arrival, we will now go to Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your work and for the Commission’s work. I just want to focus on two sub-issues right now. 

One is tolling. I think we have actually missed an important opportunity in the last highway bill, not doing more in that area and not 

providing more flexibility. I hope we don’t miss it again in the next 

highway bill in 2009, or whenever that is going to be. 

I believe that if we take certain things off the table at the very 

beginning, which in my mind would be all existing capacity, I don’t 

think it is defensible to start slapping tolls on existing routes and 

capacity. If we do that at the beginning, we can build solid consensus for a much greater use and flexibility of tolling. 

I would like your comments on that generally, No. 1. And No. 2, 

I would like to know if the Department will, if they could, develop 

this year a very specific, robust set of proposals in that area for us 

to look at for the next highway bill. 

Ms. PETERS. Senator Vitter, to your last question, yes, we will. 

In fact, we are working on documents like that today. To Senator 

Carper’s point, we know that this Committee has a big task before 

you. And even though I won’t be here next year, we owe it to you, 

as the Senator said, to advocate for the best use of funds and a goforward position. 

In terms of tolling, and whether or not we should toll existing capacity, I think you are right, there is a lot of opposition to that. 

I would only draw the line that if you substantially improve the existing capacity, make substantial improvements to it, have it work 

better, that perhaps that could be reconsidered. 

And please know that when I say tolling or pricing, it is instead 

of additional taxes, not additional taxes and that. Because I think 

we have a tremendous opportunity, as you said, to expand the use 

of pricing where it is appropriate to do so. That then frees up 

money that can be used in a variety of other places, in rural areas, 

where we have safety and access issues, it could be used, and in 

other areas where we need to improve interchanges to make them 

safer, things like that. 

Senator VITTER. Great. Again, I would very specifically ask you, 

encourage you to develop, again, a very specific and very aggressive 

and very robust set of proposals to give this Committee, at least 

among others, before the end of the year, as just a proposed chapter, if you will, of the next highway bill. And again, to both you and 

the Committee, I believe we should be rather broad in the front 

end of what we take off the table in order to build consensus of the 

use of tolling and other situations, building new routes and new capacity. That would be sort of my general formula. 

Second general issue, which I don’t think we talk about nearly 

enough in these discussions, and these discussions are always 90 

32 

plus percent more money, more revenue, and that is needed. I am 

not disagreeing with that. But that is almost all the discussion, 

something I don’t think we talk about nearly enough, is the cost 

that we have built into the system of building new capacity. 

The way Congress works, everybody has this good idea about a 

bike path this or mandating that. And it gets passed, and before 

you know it, there are 100 new mandates which add an enormous 

additional cost per mile of new highways. Everybody of all parties 

lauds the Eisenhower push to build the interState system. And I 

am one of those who lauds it, it was a great step forward for the 

Country. 

As we laud that, I think we should realize that if we were trying 

to make that happen today, under the current regulatory framework and under the current set of mandates and Federal law, it 

would never happen. It would never happen in 50 years, it would 

never happen. It couldn’t happen under our current regulatory 

framework instead of mandates, which add price onto every mile 

of highway we construct. 

So I would like your comments about that, and specifically if you 

have or can develop, again, very specific, very robust recommendations in that category for us to consider for the next highway bill. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Vitter’s time has expired. Feel free to 

answer the question, and then we will move on to Senator Alexander. 

Ms. PETERS. I will be brief, Madam Chairman. 

Yes, I think you are right. Too much process today, tons of processes built into these highway projects, instead of what the outcome is, what the performance is, there are all kinds of things that 

you have to do in order to spend Federal money. 

In fact, when I was director at the Arizona Department of Transportation, we would take Federal money that might have otherwise 

gone to local governments and keep it and give them State money, 

because the requirements were just so egregious for them to have 

to comply with. So it is too much process that has been built up 

over many years. I think we should zero-base it and say, what 

should the Federal Government do and then turn everything else, 

including the money that goes with it, back to the States. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Madam Secretary. 

I have a comment and then a question. My comment is this. We 

have a rare opportunity here. We have a Committee that is, in a 

bipartisan way, interested in taking a big look down the road about 

what our Country’s needs are. We have members of this Committee 

who have been either senior in the Congress for a long time, who 

have been Governors of their States, who have been mayors in 

their States. We know the value of having adequate infrastructure. 

I still vividly remember how recruiting automobile plants to Tennessee, I discovered that locating their suppliers depended almost 

exclusively on having a good four-lane highway system. So we had 

three big road programs and doubled our gas tax, and everybody 

in the State was for that, because it raised our family incomes. 

33 

Here is my comment. We never talked about how to pay the bill 

until we talked about where we wanted to go. In fact, when I was 

Governor, I would now allow discussion about how to pay the bill 

until we had an idea about the plan. What kind of system do we 

want? Then paying the bill is relatively easy. We could figure out, 

there are many options for paying the bill. Senator Vitter said that 

too often we talk about more money. I don’t think we should talk 

about money at all, to start with. I think we should talk about 

what kind of Country do we want to have, what are our needs, 

what do we need to do. Then we can have an argument, if we need 

to have one, about how much we can afford of that big plan and 

where the money comes from. 

So I would hope that we would take advantage of this rare opportunity we have in the Senate to dream big and think 25 years 

ahead and your leadership and the Commission’s report and this 

Committee, the way it is currently composed, provides a real opportunity for that. 

Now, let me go to my question, if I may. This is about a specific 

idea. In Tennessee, as in most places, there is nothing more irritating than traffic jams. I have heard you say that, other than 

deaths on the highway, congestion is the biggest challenge. And the 

head of the National Transportation Safety Board said, if I heard 

him right, that sometimes up to half of highway congestion is 

caused by the inefficient use of highways. 

So it makes me wonder, if we have fuel efficiency standards for 

cars, why don’t we have highway efficiency standards for States? 

If a State wants to persist in having road construction in the middle of rush hour, creating long lines and a lot of fumes and inefficient use of roads, why don’t have a highway efficiency standard 

published every year by your Department that rates States from 

top to bottom, 1 to 50, and make it an issue in the Governor’s race? 

I believe if I ran for Governor, and we were 50th in highway efficiency, I would stand out by the traffic jam in Nashville and Chattanooga and Memphis and Knoxville and say, you know, we could 

fix that. Fifty percent, the idea that as much as 50 percent of the 

congestion might be caused by the inefficient use of highways is a 

staggering amount of money. 

We have discussed this before, and I have asked your Department to suggest to me some of the factors that might go into a 

highway efficiency standard. I wondered if you would want to say 

anything about that idea and whether it might be useful. It might 

embarrass some Governors. It might also unclog some highways 

and it might create a lot less commute time for people driving to 

work in California or Atlanta or Nashville or New Orleans or any 

other place in this Country. 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, I think you are exactly right. We could get 

much efficient use of our system than we have today. In fact, the 

figure I gave earlier to the Senate was, we get 40 percent greater 

throughput when we use pricing. 

Here is another little known fact. The household travel survey 

that is conducted by U.S. DOT and Federal Highway Administration evaluates who is actually out on the road during rush periods 

of time. We can’t say rush hour, because it is not an hour any 

more, it is big, long periods of time. Fifty percent of those who are 

34 

out using the roadways during that period of time are not commuting to work. In fact, 20 percent of them are retired, which 

would give you the assumption that they could perhaps schedule 

their trip at a different time. But because there isn’t any price differential in their doing so, they don’t do it. 

So I think absolutely, performance standards need to be established and we need to tell the public, this is what we are doing 

with the money and with the infrastructure that we have responsibility for, this is how we are serving for. 

I will defer to my former colleague, Deb Miller, in terms of comparing one State to another. She might be able to speak to that a 

little better than I can. 

Senator ALEXANDER. We Governors know how to do that. We always go to conferences, and if Governor Carper were way ahead of 

me, or Governor Voinovich, I could be sure I would have to answer 

for it by the time I got back home. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I understand Senator Whitehouse doesn’t have a statement. How 

about Senator Warner? Do you have a statement or questions for 

Secretary Peters? 

Senator WARNER. I would just like to observe, and thank you 

very much for the courtesies that you have extended to the State 

of Virginia recently in our deliberations on the essential need to establish a system by which rail services can be afforded Virginians 

and a lot of visitors who come to the Nation’s capital and a lot of 

the Members of the Congress who have to fight their way to and 

from the corridors to Dulles Airport. 

You very promptly recognized the need for our Governor to rewrite and prepare a case. I think he has done an able job. I visited 

with him the day before yesterday on Richmond on this subject. It 

is my hope that as soon as the staffs have sort of defined the parameters of where these issues might be that we could sit down 

with you, the Governor and several Members of the congressional 

delegation and once again, do our very best to make this system 

workable from a technological standpoint, a financial standpoint 

and an environmental standpoint. 

I just want to commend you on the manner in which you have 

handled that. I do hope we can sort of do it quietly among ourselves until such time as a decision, whatever that is, has to be 

made, and then we go public with that. Beforehand, I think we had 

best just be quietly working together. I thank the Secretary. 

I would want to ask the Secretary one question, is that appropriate? 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

Senator WARNER. Obviously, this Committee, under the leadership of our distinguished Chairman, is working on the greenhouse 

gas emission issue. What are the steps that you feel overall policies 

should be followed by our Federal Government in working with our 

States in the combined efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions? 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, I would be pleased to answer that question, 

and thank you, and thank the Chairman for your leadership on 

this issue as well. 

35 

I think there are several things, and I will speak mostly to what 

we do within the transportation world. Substantially increasing 

fuel efficiency standards is one. Thanks to this august body and 

many others in Congress, that has been done, and we are in the 

process of implementing that now. Alternative and renewable fuels 

are very important, especially fuels that burn cleaner than the fossil-based fuels that we use today I think are going to be very important to us in the future. Certainly part of this also is lessening 

our dependence on foreign oil. 

But one factor that doesn’t always get talked about that has an 

incredible opportunity to help us with greenhouse gas emissions is 

fighting congestion. In fact, I would refer to Mayor Bloomberg in 

New York City, who has put a very ambitious proposal out to substantially reduce congestion in the lower Manhattan area. He and 

we are looking at how to quantify the savings in greenhouse gases 

and the savings that will accrue to that city as part of that. We 

believe it can be a tremendous effect and something that we can 

do very quickly when we can get these mechanisms put into place. 

So Senator, I think there are a number of things that we at U.S. 

DOT can do to help with this issue. I promise you that we are 

working very hard on those. 

Senator WARNER. Good. Senator Lieberman and I introduced legislation which has passed this Committee and will hopefully be 

considered by the full Senate in the spring. If there are thoughts 

that you have on this, we would appreciate examining them. We 

are quite open to suggestions, most especially from our colleagues, 

a very diverse group but equally important, to get a clear understanding of just where the current Administration is on this issue. 

I judge from what you say that you feel that there has been a 

significant or sufficient amount of scientific data to indicate there 

are abnormalities in our weather patterns today which can be attributed to man-made sources. Do you have that premise? 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, yes, I do. 

Senator WARNER. Good. I thank the distinguished witness. 

Ms. PETERS. And Senator, thank you again for your leadership 

with Dulles. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. OK, Senators, we have nine of us. I hope, and 

I know Senator Sanders has to go to another hearing. So if we 

don’t have someone in the next 2 minutes, we lose, it becomes one 

of these Three Stooges things where one walks in and one walks 

out. 

Senator WARNER. Senator Inhofe is two stories below us in the 

Armed Services Committee, and he could be asked to come up. 

Senator BOXER. Hang tight 2 minutes. We very much appreciate 

that. 

Let me just say, because we are going to move ahead to the panel 

and not have a second round with you, Madam Administrator, but 

this is the thing. I feel compelled just to set the record straight on 

a couple of points before we move on. The impression that one gets 

when one listens to you is that the Federal Government is lifting 

a really heavy load when it comes to transportation infrastructure. 

36 

The fact is, we are doing 40 percent. And the States and the cities and everybody else, and the counties, are doing the rest. We are 

spending our contribution, $40 billion a year. 

Now, $40 billion a year from the Federal Government, that is 4 

months in Iraq. So I think we need to think about these comparisons when we, woe is me, we are spending so much. We seem to 

have an open checkbook, I would agree with Senator Voinovich, for 

other countries at this point, but not for the taxpayers. 

The other point that I would make is to address Senator Alexander’s impassioned point about why are we talking about how much 

money, we really need to say what we need. I absolutely agree. 

However, the Commission did both. The Commission didn’t just 

look at how much money we need, the Commission looked at the 

need. And they said, we need goods movement, we need passenger 

rail, we need freight rail. We need to repair the current system, we 

have to address congestion. In order to do that, they honestly said, 

we have to go up to, what is it, $225 billion a year from all sources, 

all sources. 

The reason I make the point is that, again, I don’t want people 

out there to think the Federal Government is doing most of the lifting when it comes to the infrastructure. I think most people think 

we do, but we don’t. So if it is a Federal priority, and some of us 

think it is, in a great Nation and a growing Nation and the greatest economy, we pray, for all times, then we have to meet the need. 

I would just close by saying that I want to associate myself with 

the remarks of Senator Voinovich. Because when he said, please be 

brave, please be strong, please help us here, I think the point is 

that your staff is the one who developed all these numbers. And 

you mentioned Mayor Bloomberg. Well, Mayor Bloomberg has 

teamed up with my Governor, Governor Schwarzenegger, he has 

teamed up with Governor Rendell, that is an Independent, a Republican and a Democrat, and they have stated very clearly, let’s 

not put our heads in the sand, we need more resources. 

The last point I would make, I think it is depressing, frankly, 

when we have testimony. You are a very upbeat person, you do a 

wonderful job, you have saved California on many occasions when 

we have had tragic things happen on our freeways. I will always 

be grateful to you. 

But it is depressing not to have a forward-looking vision of where 

this Country is going. It just is. So I am hopeful that we can work 

with you, maybe get some of your ideas about how we can truly 

have that can-do spirit about the greatest Country in the world. I 

think the people want it, the people are responding to it with this 

Presidential election on all fronts, both sides of the aisle. I think 

we should reflect it, rather than sort of the depressing testimony 

that, woe is us and we are doing too much and we can’t do any 

more. 

That is how I feel about it. If we could have the panel come up 

now and this time, and we thank you so much, Secretary Peters. 

The Honorable Debra Miller; Janet Kavinoky; Gregory Cohen; 

JayEtta Hecker. And I know, I could tell by looking at Senator 

Sanders’ face that he is really concerned. So he is going to have to 

leave us. 

37 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Madam Chair, Senator Sanders and I both 

have to be in the Budget hearing. The Secretary of the Treasury 

is there, we are up and we have to go, very soon. 

Senator BOXER. Where are they? One minute. If they are not 

here in 1 minute, I think you should leave and that is it. You can’t 

do this, 1 minute, 1 minute. One minute on the clock, you should 

do your work, because we have a budget problem. 

OK. Debra Miller, we welcome you. We will start with you. You 

are the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Transportation. You 

are speaking on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. We will be very interested in 

your testimony, and please proceed. Five minutes is your time. 

By the way, we may have a vote soon, that is why I am trying 

to move forward. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBRA L. MILLER, SECRETARY, KANSAS 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. MILLER. Thank you very much. I am Deb Miller, I am Secretary of the Kansas Department of Transportation and I am 

speaking on behalf of the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials. 

AASHTO commends this Committee for establishing the Commission and we are proud that one of our own, my colleague, Frank 

Busalacci, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, served on the Commission. Through the testimony of our 

members and a series of reports, AASHTO provided substantial information to the Commission. 

In May 2008, we convened transportation leaders from around 

the Nation in a Transportation Vision for the 21st Century summit. 

The resulting vision document was co-signed by 21 national transportation organizations. Much of that input has been reflected in 

the Commission’s report. We believe that the Commission got the 

big ideas right, including the need for fundamental reform of the 

Federal transportation program, the need for significant additional 

investment, a strong Federal role and a shared funding responsibility by Federal, State and local governments, the need for a 

multi-modal approach with greater emphasis on transit and intercity passenger rail, an increase in Federal revenues, be it through 

fuel taxes or other means, and the need to transition to alternative 

sources 20 years from now. Greater use of tolls and public-private 

ventures to supplement revenues at the State and local levels, systematic planning to guide investment and a performance-based 

program, accountable for results, and investments focused on matters of genuine national interest. 

We believe the Commission was accurate in the assessment that 

the U.S. needs to invest $225 billion per year from now until 2050 

to meet national needs. Today we are investing less than 40 percent of that amount. We also believe they were correct in their assessment that the only way to increase funding to the levels needed 

is for all levels of government to continue to fund their share. State 

and local governments, even with the aid of private partnerships, 

will not be able to meet national investment needs. We need a 

strong Federal partner. We need a strong Federal partner not just 

to meet the investment needs, but to craft the national vision necVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:31 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85520.TXT VERN
38 

essary to meet the continuing growth of this Nation, the explosion 

of intermodal trade and the expansion of the global economy. 

The Commission called for reform of the Federal program to ensure that it is performance-based, accountable and focused on 

issues of true significance. They called for restructuring the program to address 10 priorities: preservation, freight, metropolitan 

congestion, safety, connecting with rural America, inter-city passenger rail, environment, energy, Federal lands and research. We 

want to work with Congress to make sure that these reforms are 

implemented in ways that can work at the State level and also to 

craft programmatic solutions that meet the needs of all States, 

both large and small, rural and urban. 

We agree with the Commission that it takes too long to deliver 

transportation projects and that reforms must be instituted to 

speed project delivery. When Congress first proposed the idea of 

creating the national Commission, one of its fundamental question 

was whether we could continue to rely on the Federal fuel tax as 

the main source of revenue to support the highway trust fund. 

We find it instructive that the Commission determined that the 

fuel tax will continue to be a viable source of funding, but that a 

transition to an alternative, such as a VMT tax, will be needed by 

the year 2025. It will be up to Congress to determine how to sustain the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and how to increase 

future revenues, so that the Federal share of surface transportation 

funding can be increased to the levels needed. 

We are depending on the Senate and House to find ways to avert 

the immediate funding crisis pending this year, so States receive 

highway and transit fundings at the levels guaranteed in 

SAFETEA-LU. When these programs come up for reauthorization 

in 2009, unless Congress finds ways to sustain highway and transit 

funding, States will face two equally grim options: reduce their 

highway and transit programs by the amount of the Federal cutback, or sustain their program by raising State taxes to make up 

the difference. 

The final aspect of the Commission report that we find significant is its call to action. They call on Congress first to create and 

sustain the preeminent surface transportation system in the world; 

second, to bring about fundamental reform to restore public confidence in the Federal program; and third, to increase transportation investment to the levels needed to keep the U.S. competitive 

in the global economy and to assure a bright future for our children 

and grandchildren. Those are recommendations with which we at 

AASHTO strongly endorse. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:] 

39 


85520.003
40 


85520.004
41 


85520.005
42 


85520.006
43 


85520.007
44 


85520.008
45 


85520.009
46 


85520.107
47 


85520.084
48 


85520.085
49 


85520.086
50 


85520.087
51 


85520.088
52 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. Your timing is perfect. 

By the way, that was such straightforward testimony. It was 

very clear. I thank you very much for it. 

So just stay where you are, thank you very much for being here, 

thank you, Ben, for coming too, and thank you, John, for coming. 

The hearing is in recess for a moment. 

[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the Committee proceeded to other 

business.] 

Senator BOXER. Now we will go back to our hearing. We are very 

happy to welcome Janet Kavinoky, Director, Transportation Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce. We welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF JANET F. KAVINOKY, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Thank you, Madam Chairman and distinguished 

members of the Committee. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and the policy changes and investments required to meet the 

needs of our Nation’s transportation system. My name is Janet 

Kavinoky, and I am the Director of Transportation Infrastructure 

at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Executive Director of 

the Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition. 

Over the past several months, the Nation has seen abundant evidence that America’s infrastructure is not only showing its age, but 

showing that it lacks the capacity to handle the volume of people 

and goods moving today. From exploding steam pipes under New 

York streets to record-level flight delays in the skies across the 

Country, it is evident that now is the time to move on a robust, 

thoughtful and comprehensive plan to build, maintain and fund a 

world-class 21st century infrastructure. 

We cannot treat infrastructure like other problems or programs 

where you can wait until the very last minute and then write a big 

check. Because infrastructure projects require foresight and years 

of careful planning. As the Commission report says, the time is 

now. There can be no more delay. 

What is at stake is simple and stark. If we fail to address our 

challenges, we will lose jobs and industries to other nations. If we 

fail to act, we will pollute our air and destroy the free and mobile 

way of life we cherish. Ultimately, we will see more senseless 

deaths on our bridges and roads, not to mention our rails and waterways. 

While the collapse of the I–35 West bridge in Minneapolis shone 

a spotlight on the State of our Nation’s bridges, it is important to 

recognize that we have a much larger infrastructure problem in 

this Country. Fundamentally, our current approach to delivering 

transportation is not set up for today’s robust economy or the economy of the future. The Chamber agrees with Senator Inhofe’s observation made at the hearing last week that both the current 

model of stovepipe modal decisions and the current program structure are outdated. It is time to address these issues and create a 

new era in transportation. 

We wholeheartedly agree with the Commission that continued 

under-investment and business as usual transportation policies and 

53 

programs will have a detrimental impact on the ability of the Untied States to compete in the world economy and on the everyday 

lives of Americans. Like the Commission’s majority report, the 

Chamber believes that the next era in surface transportation requires a multi-modal and intermodal vision and emphasizes the important role of the Federal Government. 

On the issue of the Federal role, although every level of government must step up to the plate, the Federal Government must bear 

a significant part of the responsibility to ensure that national needs 

are met, legacy assets are maintained and improved to guarantee 

nationwide connectivity, and infrastructure investment is aligned 

with the needs that arise from the global economy, trade policies 

and the flow of interState commerce. The Chamber is pleased to 

see that the Commission calls for a transportation system that explicitly values freight movements. On a typical day, about 43 million tons of goods, valued at $29 billion, move nearly 12 billion ton 

miles on the Nation’s interconnected transportation network. According to the Federal Highway Administration, without new strategies to increase capacity, congestion may impose an unacceptably 

high cost on the Nation’s economy and productivity. 

We also agree with the Commission that metropolitan mobility, 

congestion relief and small city and rural connectivity deserve national focus and resources. Increasing congestion imposes additional costs on the work force and employers alike. I am reminded 

constantly by State and local chambers of commerce that their 

communities need transportation choices and those options are a 

valued aspect of economic development strategies. 

Programmatically, the Commission mentions another important 

priority, and that is speeding project delivery. As a Nation, we have 

allowed governments to pile on complex and overlapping regulations. It takes years, even decades, to bring projects online. Red 

tape and lawsuits can grind the most common sense improvements 

to a grinding halt. We concur with the Commission that it is possible and indeed, essential to speed project delivery while adequately addressing environmental and community impacts. This 

must be a top priority in the next authorization. 

Finally, when it comes to funding and financing, every option 

must be considered to address the enormous problems of the aging 

transportation infrastructure. We agree with you, Madam Chairman, and your assessment at this Committee hearing last week 

that continuing the current programs art their current funding levels is not sustainable, will not fix our Nation’s crumbling infrastructure and will not meet the needs of our growing economy. Although it is clear that chronic under-investment is a major contributing factor to the problems across the modes of transportation, we 

must also address the mis-use or diversion of funding away from 

its intended uses, the lack of resource prioritization and poor comprehensive planning that marks current Federal transportation 

programs. 

As we all prepare for SAFETEA-LU reauthorization, the Chamber encourages Congress to examine ways to spend infrastructure 

dollars more wisely. The public must trust and have confidence 

that transportation programs will deliver real solutions to their 

problems. Otherwise, they will not support increased investment. 

54 

Before we get to SAFETEA-LU reauthorization, Congress has another important issue to address: the Highway Trust Fund. 

Senator BOXER. Can you wrap up? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Yes, ma’am, I can. 

The Highway Trust Fund shortfall, and we commend Senator 

Baucus on his leadership in this issue. 

So Madam Chairman, the question facing us is this: can we do 

this and will do it together? The Chamber is ready to do so, and 

we are ready to help lead. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kavinoky follows:] 

55 


85520.010
56 


85520.011
57 


85520.012
58 


85520.013
59 


85520.014
60 


85520.015
61 


85520.016
62 


85520.017
63 


85520.018
64 


85520.019
65 


85520.020
66 


85520.021
67 


85520.022
68 


85520.092
69 


85520.093
70 


85520.094
71 

Senator BOXER. We are very excited with your testimony. Thank 

you very much. 

Our next speaker is Gregory M. Cohen, President and CEO, 

American Highway Users Alliance. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. COHEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

AMERICAN HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. 

Chairman Boxer, members of the Committee, I am honored to 

have this opportunity to present testimony and the views of the 

American Highway Users Alliance on the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission. The Highway Users is 

am umbrella group representing 270 national and State associations and businesses of all sizes, including AAA clubs, bus and 

truck companies, motorcyclists, recreational vehicle users and a 

very diverse range of companies whose bottom lines depend on a 

safe, efficient and reliable network of highways. Our members represent millions of highway users throughout the country, and we 

serve as their united voice in Washington for better roads and fair 

taxation. 

For over 75 years, the Highway Users has been an outspoken 

stakeholder on every major Federal highway and transportation 

bill. Highway Users applauds the Commission for its comprehensive report, Transportation Tomorrow, and we thank this Committee for authorizing their work. While we do not endorse every 

single one of their recommendations, we believe their report provides a great starting point for reforming the current highway and 

transit programs, to craft a fundamentally different, better transportation bill than the previous TEA bills. 

The Commissioners were united that the highway and transit 

programs should not be reauthorized in their current form. The 

Highway Users agrees with this fundamental call for bold change, 

and we are pleased that the Commission accepted so many of the 

recommendations we made. 

The Highway Users reviewed the recommendations of both the 

majority and minority of commissioners. Fundamentally, our views 

are much more closely aligned with that of the majority. A critical 

distinction between the two views is the role of the Federal Government. We agree that the Congress should authorize a strong, focused Federal program designed to meet national safety and mobility objectives. It is our view that a shrinking Federal role would 

seriously damage the integrity of the national highway system, create dangerous imbalances between States over bridge quality, road 

quality and safety, and severely impact the flow of interState commerce. 

Another major difference between the majority and minority 

views is the role of tolling and public-private partnerships. Again, 

our views are closer to those of the majority. We believe that tolling 

and PPPs have a role to play in the construction of new lanes, new 

roads and bridges. We would welcome private construction of new 

roads. We also would support the construction of new toll express 

lanes along existing toll-free interState lanes, or the conversion of 

under-utilized HOV lanes to hot lanes. However, consumer protections are critical to ensure that tolling and PPPs do not create barVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:31 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85520.TXT VERN
72 

riers to commerce or safety problems. We urge the Committee to 

maintain its longstanding opposition to tolling existing toll-free 

interState lanes. 

One of the areas of unanimity among commissioners was the call 

for speeding up project deliveries. Every 10 years a project is delayed, the cost doubles. That doesn’t include the social costs of congestion and safety, which would rack up into the billions for a 

major congestion relief project. We endorse the recommendations of 

the Commission to speed project delivery and also recommend that 

the five-State pilot program you authorized in SAFETEA-LU be authorized for all States. I know that California and Oklahoma are 

among those States that are currently participating in the fiveState pilot program. 

The Commission identified 108 Federal programs funded by the 

Department of Transportation to combine into 10 new programs. 

Although we don’t necessarily endorse the 10 specific programs 

that the Commission proposed, we agree that a smaller number of 

performance-based, outcome-driven programs are needed. We believe the lack of focus and a lack of national priorities greatly reduces the public support for increasing funding for transportation 

programs. We believe that this Committee can fix that. 

The Highway Users is actually surprised that one of the 10 programs is a ‘‘ ‘stove-piped’’ program, because they made their other 

program recommendations mode neutral. That ‘‘stove-piped’’ proposal is the inter-city rail program. We believe that such a proposal 

eliminates competition between rail and cost-effective bus rapid 

transit without a compelling case for doing so, particularly when 

highway users finance the vast majority of the surface transportation program. It is simply unfair to ban highway projects, particularly highway-based transit projects, from competing with rail. 

We would object to the creation of a rail-only ‘‘stove-piped’’ intercity passenger program. 

Highway Users supports the Commission’s recommendations to 

develop national performance standards for competing States and 

metropolitan areas. Such a program could encourage innovation 

and safety, congestion relief, freight mobility, pavement and bridge 

quality and project cost savings. For example, States that are successful in reducing their traffic fatalities should receive a bonus in 

funding. They are on the right path and they should be rewarded. 

For congestion relief and freight mobility, we will officially propose a performance-based congestion relief program later this year 

that targets the national highway system. We hope that you take 

it into consideration. 

Senator BOXER. Can you finish it up now? 

Mr. COHEN. On funding, again, as the Chamber did, we endorse 

Senators Baucus and Grassley’s highway trust fund fix. We also 

support increasing fuel taxes, provided that the program is reformed. We also strongly support the addition of new non-highway 

user fees to diversify the revenue sources into the program. And in 

the long term, we are studying the VMT proposal. We have similar 

concerns as you do, but we are also open to looking at that. 

In conclusion, the Highway Users really looks forward to working 

with you on the 2009 bill. I think there is a lot more work to be 

done than there was for the SAFETEA-LU bill, because fundamenVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:31 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85520.TXT VERN
73 

tally we need a major restructuring. The 2009 bill needs to be reauthorized on time, because the Highway Trust Fund is out of money. 

The current program cannot be sustained past 2009 unless reauthorization is done on time. 

Thank you again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:] 

74 


85520.023
75 


85520.024
76 


85520.025
77 


85520.026
78 


85520.027
79 


85520.028
80 


85520.095
81 


85520.096
82 


85520.097
83 


85520.098
84 


85520.099
85 


85520.100
86 


85520.101
87 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. 

And last but not least is JayEtta Hecker, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JAYETTA HECKER, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. HECKER. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Committee. I am very honored to be here. 

As you know, we do our work for you. In fact, I am speaking on 

a body of work that we have completed for this Committee, for the 

House and some ongoing work that we have as well. This is truly 

a critical juncture. We think there are severe problems with the 

performance of the system, the performance of the program, not 

only in congestion, but it is unreliable, it is affecting business, very 

severe economic consequences. And as you know, in your State, environmental and health consequences that are indeed very real. 

So we have some very significant economic problems, performance problems, quality of life with infrastructure in this Country. 

And solutions are complicated, complicated by the fact that this is 

such a broad area. There are so many sectors involved, private sectors, public sectors, all levels of government with different ownership and different interests. 

Another severe complication that has never been effectively addressed in the past is transportation is inextricably linked with environmental issues, with energy issues and aviation issues. We 

really haven’t made those links very effectively. The next bill is an 

important opportunity and challenge to really get that nexus between transportation and environment, in particular that this 

Committee is uniquely in a position to do. 

Another factor that GAO often points to is the fiscal crisis. The 

Federal Government is running out of money. Any time anyone 

talks about, well, this should be a general fund activity, they are 

saying, this should be borrowed, we should borrow the money for 

this because there is no money in the general fund. So there is a 

very high standard that has to be applied. 

My remarks today will focus on two things. First, some principles 

that we have developed which we believe should assist the Congress in reviewing any of the reform, restructuring or reauthorization proposals. We have tried to build a foundation to help focus, 

how complete is this, how sustainable is it. 

Then I have some preliminary observations on the Commission’s 

recommendations vis-a-vis these principles which basically serve as 

criteria to look at various proposals. The principles are painfully 

simple. But they do not match the current program we have. 

The first principle is that there be clear national interests and 

a clear Federal role; we have had not had that since the interState. 

There are currently 118 programs. It is an agglomeration, it is 

more and more and more. The way the money moves out and the 

way it is disbursed, there is no real interest, there is no real link 

to what we spend $30 billion to $40 billion on a year and the result 

in transportation. There is no link. 

88 

So the first is to have an idea of what outcome we want, what 

the national interest is, what the Federal role is. The second principle is also painfully simple: build in performance and accountability for results in those desired areas. And link it to the funding 

decision, so it is not just nice, prefatory language, which the Congress often has at the beginning of a bill, but the linkage to the 

actual programs. 

The final principle one is fiscal sustainability. The current program is not sustainable. We need to focus on treating all the resources as scarce. It is imperative that the national public benefits 

of any Federal investment be optimized. We have to make the best 

use of the dollars, get the best return on the investment. No matter 

how much you are able to increase it, it is still scarce and we need 

to have that kind of discipline and fiscal sustainability. 

So the principles are identifying clear national interests, requiring performance and accountability and ensuring a fiscally sustainable system. The preliminary comments on the Commission, on the 

national interest, they identify areas, as many people have said, 

they have very specific areas. They recommend reorganizing transportation programs around those. 

We raise the question, though, and have concern that the underlying organization of all the programs is 80/20 money. If you are 

focusing on where there is a national interest, presumably the 

money that the Federal Government puts in aligns with the level 

of Federal national benefits, not local benefits, not private benefits, 

not railroad benefits, not local community choices of what they 

want versus a national benefit. 

So we are troubled by not only the continuation, but the enormous expansion of 80/20 funding for areas where States now spend 

everything. If States find it in their interest, like California on rail, 

that rail is really important to us, why would we substitute 80 percent Federal funding? It just completely substitutes for local 

choices, local decisions, local preferences. 

On performance——— 

Senator BOXER. I’m going to have to ask you, you are so good, 

but we need to wrap up. I am fearful we are going to get a vote 

shortly. 

Ms. HECKER. Performance, lots of emphasis on performance, but 

no link to funding. We are very concerned about that, and need to 

learn more about it. Because the commitment is there, but we don’t 

see the link. It is basically a need-based system and the cost to 

complete. 

The issue of sustainability, we think it is pretty unclear whether 

the Commission’s recommendations are fiscally sustainable, target 

the best use, really will introduce a return on investment approach. 

Basically, our core focus has been for a comprehensive reexamination of whatever the Federal Government does, how it does it, and 

we are not sure that this Commission report really represents that 

zero-based review that is so sorely needed. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hecker follows:] 

89 


85520.029
90 


85520.030
91 


85520.031
92 


85520.032
93 


85520.033
94 


85520.034
95 


85520.035
96 


85520.036
97 


85520.037
98 


85520.038
99 


85520.039
100 


85520.040
101 


85520.041
102 


85520.042
103 


85520.043
104 


85520.044
105 


85520.045
106 


85520.046
107 


85520.047
108 


85520.048
109 


85520.049
110 


85520.050
111 


85520.051
112 


85520.102
113 


85520.103
114 


85520.104
115 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Let me just thank the panel. I think your point about a connection between the environment and our infrastructure is key. This 

is the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is not the Environment or Public Works Committee. So I think it is key here, 

and as we see the need to clean our air and move goods and reduce 

congestion, it is really compatible, they are compatible goals. 

I don’t want to get into too much detail, I just want to ask in 

general to the three that represent various organizations, I have a 

good feeling about this Committee’s work when it comes to infrastructure. We proved ourselves on the water infrastructure. With 

a lot of your help out there, we in this Committee were able to 

cross over party lines, we worked very well together. Senator 

Inhofe and I were joined at the hip on this particular bill, the 

WRDA bill. We were able to successfully not only get it through the 

Committee and through the conference and through the Senate and 

all the rest, but we got it, we had to override a veto. That was not 

easy for my colleagues on the other side, and I have great respect 

for them. 

But we, I think, on this Committee, when it comes to looking forward, we want this Country to be as great as she can be, and you 

can’t do that without an infrastructure that is really sufficient to 

our needs. So I guess my question to the three of you, without putting you out on a limb, but if we do produce such a bill, are we 

going to be working, my goal, as Chairman of the full Committee, 

and I know, I have spoken to Senator Isakson about this and Senator Baucus as well, we want to see where we can come together 

on principles. 

For example, I have a sense we are all going to want to reform 

the way we have all these 108 different categories. The Commission suggested 12. Maybe we decide to do 10, maybe we decide to 

do 20. But I think that is an example of where maybe we have 

some agreement on the goals. If we come to such an agreement and 

we are able to be united, I would hope that your organizations 

could really get behind us. Because we are going to need to let the 

American people know what it is we are trying to do and what our 

vision is. 

So I guess my question to the three of you is this: you have been 

very passionate about your support for a lot of what the Commission said, not all, certainly. But are you willing to get out there and 

be our voices if we are able to come to some agreement and you 

approve of this bill? Would you invest time and energy in helping 

us get it through? 

Ms. MILLER. Senator, I would be happy to start first. I would say 

I have been very impressed today by the questions and the comments made by the Committee. My own observation in the Sate of 

Kansas is that transportation tends to be a very non-partisan 

issue. There is a lot of strong support around it. I think I see those 

same issues playing out before this Committee. 

On behalf of AASHTO, I believe I can say absolutely, categorically we would love to work with this Committee and would be enthusiastic voices throughout our States and working with our local 

governments. I think without question, all State DOTs have very 

116 

closing working relationships, not only with their MPOs but with 

their city and county government structures. 

Senator BOXER. Good. Janet? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Madam Chairman, the Chamber is investing resources and significant amounts of our own overall agenda into infrastructure investment. As my written testimony noted, we have 

launched a multi-million dollar initiative to bring attention to the 

needs of America’s infrastructure. So we are with you all the way. 

Senator BOXER. That is wonderful. Gregory? 

Mr. COHEN. The Highway Users, as I mentioned earlier, represents 270 different associations and businesses that represent 

millions of highway users. We will put the full force of our grass 

roots to support you in reforming and increasing the size of this 

program. 

Senator BOXER. I am very happy about that. My only other question is this. This vehicle miles traveled that Senator Isakson is so 

interested in, and I am very interested in, but I don’t understand 

why it is such a mystery as to how you figure it out. When I go 

to register my vehicle every year, if there is a line in it and it says, 

last year, certify how many miles did you travel, and that becomes 

something you have to fill out, and you just say, for my little Prius, 

I went 15,000 miles last year. And based on that, I pay this fee 

that is turned over to whichever agency gets it. 

I don’t know why we have to come up with this thing about spying on people and putting GPSs in their cars and spending millions 

of dollars to figure this out. I guess what I want to ask you, and 

I would ask all of you, am I missing something here? Would that 

not be a way to figure out how many vehicle miles each car or 

truck or van travels? Am I missing something here? 

Ms. HECKER. We have looked at the Oregon study, we have 

looked at other studies around the world. The key is that it is to 

make the actual cost of the infrastructure you are using more apparent to you. So it wouldn’t work to be an annual bill that you 

say, well, I had this many miles last year, this many this year. It 

is which road you are using, which time of day. 

The thing is that infrastructure has congestion costs. Everyone 

who uses the road imposes congestion. And the potential of new 

pricing and use time of day pricing is that it will tell you, as we 

heard the Secretary say, if there is somebody who has a lot of discretion but perceives that it is just as free to use the road at 6 p.m. 

as it is at 3 p.m., then it creates excess demand. So the principle 

of VMT is getting it aligned to the specific road and the time of 

day. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that really turns me off. I mean, people 

don’t ask me when I pay my gas tax, they don’t say, well, if you 

don’t use the road on a certain time, then you can pay a smaller 

gas tax. This is out—I just want us to get off this as fast as we 

can. It really disturbs me to think that Government would know, 

first of all, the whole idea, if you want to know how many people 

are using a road at a certain time of day, you just set those little 

strips and you can find out. Now, you don’t know who, you don’t 

want to track that. 

But the whole notion of knowing all this about people is very 

concerning to me, just as Chairman. So again, I am bringing it up 

117 

because I hope we don’t have to have this battle. But I think Senator Inhofe and I, I think we agree on this. But he is not here. But 

I just don’t know how other people feel, but I just think it is a nonstarter. 

So what happens, you have to put a quarter in the meter every 

time you go at 3 o’clock in the afternoon? 

Ms. HECKER. No, it is like an E-Z pass. So it is just automatically 

deducted. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, wonderful. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HECKER. But it is what is done in the electricity industry 

and the telecommunications, it is basically introducing more supply 

and demand discipline and information to users on the use of 

the—— 

Senator BOXER. But it is not fair, either. What if I have to be at 

work at a certain time? I don’t have a choice of when I go out on 

the road. It just is irritating. 

Anybody else care to comment on this argument that I have now 

gotten into with myself? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. Let me say as an engineer that we sometimes want 

to design the most robust system technically feasible, and perhaps 

something scaled-back would make a lot more sense and protect 

privacy a lot more. A couple of things just to watch out for: Right 

now, our fuel tax program has a serious amount of fraud in it. We 

have been working with Senators Baucus and Grassley on legislation to close some of those fuel tax fraud problems. I think a VMT 

system based on certification could also, of course, have a certain 

amount of fraud associated with it. 

And the other thing you have to watch out for is to make sure 

that the amount of miles is charged to the correct State. For example, if you are a trucker driving across the Country and you are 

registered in one State, you don’t want all of your VMT taxes paid 

to your home State. It is just something to think about. But I don’t 

think we need to have a system that follows people around. 

Senator BOXER. The point is, when you are registering your car, 

this would be a Federal tax or a Federal fee. They would just collect it, it doesn’t stay in the State. 

Mr. COHEN. That is true. 

Senator BOXER. The State would be the collecting agency when 

you go to get your registration. It is pretty simple. 

Debra? 

Ms. MILLER. Senator, I might weigh on that. I think really, for 

many of us, when we look at the long-term viability of the motor 

fuels tax, think about transitioning into other forms of taxation. 

The issue isn’t just at the Federal level, it is at the State levels as 

well. So we would also be interested, over time, in replacing our 

State motor fuels taxes with VMT type taxes, certainly having that 

exploration. So it does get back to the issue that you would need 

to know what portion of this tax goes to the Federal Government, 

what portion stays with the State. There are also issues at the 

local level. 

Senator BOXER. Well, those are formula questions, which, as you 

know, are so easy for us to handle. 

118 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. OK, I am going to call on Senator Voinovich as 

Ranking, then Senator Carper, then Senator Isakson. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

One of the issues that I brought up with Mary Peters was the 

issue of the 4(f) and the impediments. I would like you to briefly 

comment on why it is you think we can’t make the changes. I tried 

very hard, and appreciate the fact that AASHTO recognized my effort on 4(f). But we have a situation in Cleveland right now where 

we want to put in an exit off a major highway. The building is eligible for the National Registry of Historic Places. It is eligible—it 

is not on the register—it is eligible. I have been told by the Department of Transportation that there are eight things that you have 

to show before they we will allow the city to take down the building 

even though the County owns it and wants to tear it down. 

Why haven’t we been able to somehow get rid of some of this 

stuff that is just standing in the way that causes us to have a 13- 

year tenure on a project, a major highway project? Any of you. 

Ms. MILLER. Senator, I think that is an excellent question and 

it is one I would have myself. I think as if oftentimes the case with 

any major public policy, there are people who are on all sides of 

it, and there are those who feel strongly that there are elements 

of 4F that need to be protected. So it becomes a very difficult discussion. 

But certainly in my own State, we have had situations where we 

have had 4F impediments. I think it is hard to step back and 

think, from just a common sense approach, that they should have 

been impediments to the project. I don’t think there is a clear understanding on the public’s part what it is that is slowing projects 

down. And I think there is not sufficient transparency in that process, so people understand what is slowing the project down. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I am going to make a suggestion to all of 

you. It seems to me that as we move into the next highway bill, 

we are going to be getting into this. I would suggest that we— 

members of the Committee—and you, identify the various groups 

that have a stake in this, and rather than having them come in 

and lobby us, and you lobby some place else, that you all get into 

a room together and talk about this issue to see if there isn’t something that can be worked out. Because so often we run into an environmental thing or this thing or that thing. I think that if you 

sat down and said—environment, energy, economy—work it out, 

you could help us a great deal. That is just a suggestion. 

Yes, sir, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. I worked a bit on this issue. I really appreciate your 

leadership on getting that 4F provision in there. The reality is 

right now it is possible to filibuster a project for decades if you 

don’t like it. The simple fact of the matter is that some time lines 

need to be put on this process. It just can’t go on forever. 

Senator VOINOVICH. As you know, we had a provision in the 

highway bill that said that somebody would be the quarterback and 

all these groups would have to come in within a certain period of 

time, and show cause why they didn’t want to go forward. And 

then somebody would finally be the determining factor about 

whether or not it was relevant or not relevant. For some reason, 

119 

we were not successful with that. But it seems to me, that if we 

worked at it, we could get that done. But it is going to take a lot 

of communication, I think, between those of you that are out there 

in the private sector. 

Ms. Hecker, You were talking about the infrastructure costs that 

are required. The Commission estimates that we are going to have 

to invest $255 billion annually to maintain and improve the existing, which is tripling the $86 billion. In other words, the public 

ought to know this, we are spending $86 billion, but the Commission says we have to spend $255 billion in order to just get the job 

done. And the Federal Government should maintain its current 

share of 40 percent. This implies that the States would have to increase the revenues to match the increase in Federal funds. 

The question is—is it reasonable to believe that the States would 

triple their investment in infrastructure at the current required 80/ 

20 match? Would they raise the State gas taxes or other forms of 

revenue to match these Federal funds? Do you think this Commission report is realistic in terms of the dollars? 

Ms. MILLER. One thing I would say it is certainly a varied answer from State to State. But for instance, in my own State, we 

have in about the last 20 years, and this is just using State revenues, not looking at what is contributed by local governments to 

transportation, but the Federal revenues are only about 25 percent 

of our overall State programs. So we are dramatically over-investing even the 40 percent which are national averages. There are certainly other States that are doing that. 

I think many times in the past, it is the Federal program which 

has led both State and locals. Oftentimes it has been the growth 

in the Federal program that then has encouraged State and local 

leaders to raise their local taxes, so that they could continue to 

make matches. I think you will find that there is a great deal of 

concern and interest in increased transportation spending at all 

levels of government. 

Now, absolutely I come from a State that like many States has 

many anti-tax voices, both in our legislature and in organizations 

who appear regularly before the legislature. We have had trouble, 

I think, in our Country in recent times talking about investments. 

We tend to talk about taxes as though that is the cost that is going 

to suck the life out of our economy, as opposed to thinking about 

investments that might help grow it. In my mind, we are not to the 

end of that discussion yet in our Country. 

So I am not saying it will be an easy discussion, but I do think 

frequently the leadership at the Federal level has brought along 

State and local governments. I see very strong interest and concern 

about greater investment in transportation from my own State. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I have one more question, and that is, your 

organization, Mr. Cohen, did not support an increase in the gas tax 

last time around, I believe, is that correct? 

Mr. COHEN. That is correct. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And it is my understanding now that at this 

stage of the game, you would be willing to support an increase in 

the gas tax? 

Mr. COHEN. Fundamentally, the last bill, when the gas tax was 

called for in the other body, we did not know what policy was assoVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:31 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85520.TXT VERN
120 

ciated with it and where exactly the money would be going. As one 

of the other Senators mentioned, we believe that the program reform must come first, and then highway users will come forward 

and pay for it and we will support an increase for a reformed program. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I think that it would be good for your organization to begin with saying that we need more money. Because 

sometimes there is a trick bag out there, they say, well, you figure 

out how you can do it and then we will cypriot It—and you know— 

you never get to it. But I think there should be a unanimous crescendo that we need more money, federally and state-wide. The 

question is, is it user taxes or some other method. But we need 

more money to get the job done. 

Then I think that it was Senator Alexander who made the point, 

we have to show the American people that we are working harder 

and smarter and doing more with less; i.e., we are taking the dollars that you are making to us, and we are coming up with a whole 

new system. For example, we have the interState system. Somebody should look at it broadly. In my State, for example, we have 

the TRAC. We look at the main arteries that have to be taken care 

of. They are the ones that get the money off the top. We have to 

look at the national system. There should be a consensus that says, 

we have to keep these major highways, maintain them and then 

move from that so that people can see the logic of what we are 

doing and show them how we are eliminating some of the red tape 

that stops some of these projects from going forward, that there is 

some prioritization of where money is going to be spent, so that we 

just don’t nibble away at this, so that there is not much left for 

some of the things that we should be doing. 

But you will all admit, we need more money? OK, that is good, 

thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Carper? 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Secretary Miller, I am trying to remember the name of the Governor who spoke, who gave the Democrat response after the 

State—— 

Ms. MILLER. Governor Sebelius. 

Senator CARPER. What State is she from? 

Ms. MILLER. Kansas. 

Senator CARPER. Would you tell her that an old recovering Governor said he was very proud of her? 

Ms. MILLER. I would be happy to tell her that. 

Senator CARPER. I have heard a lot of very positive comments. 

Give her a big thumbs up. 

One of my colleagues referred to the next version of our 

SAFETEA-LU, whatever we are going to call it, as the next highway bill. I would just remind us all, it is not the next highway bill, 

it is the next transportation bill. 

Ms. MILLER. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. Highways are certainly a big part of it, but not 

the only one. 

What we have here is a shared responsibility in trying to figure 

out, one, what are the responsibilities of us at the Federal level, 

is 40 percent the appropriate amount of funding that we should be 

121 

providing, or should it be something more or less? I think it was 

Secretary Peters who was talking about national Federal role, national role. I would suggest to all of us that as a Nation, we have 

a dog in this fight. We have an interest in reducing our dependence 

on foreign oil. We have an interest in improving the quality of our 

air, reducing the health implications that flow from dirty air. We 

have an interest in reducing the threat to our planet that is posed 

by climate change and global warming. And we certainly have an 

interest in enhancing productivity in this Nation, and our transportation systems are not the only part of that, but a significant part 

of all of that. 

I want to come back to congestion mitigation, while the Chairman is not listening, and just say that on the idea of pricing services, we used to charge people a lot more to make long distance 

phone calls during the day than we did at night. We have cities 

like New York City that are now exploring charging people more 

money to come into the city at different times of the day. They are 

literally borrowing that idea from other cities around the world. 

I used to serve on the Amtrak board, and we used to ask, why 

is it that whether we are selling tickets to folks who want to ride 

the trains at the busiest rush hour part of the day, charging them 

the same amount of money that we do when not many people are 

riding the train during the middle part of the day? Why is that? 

Now Amtrak prices tickets with respect to what the market will 

bear. So there is plenty of precedent for that, and I hope we 

wouldn’t shy away from it. I hope I can say that without starting 

a food fight up here with my Chairman. 

I want to ask each of you to just mention one or two things, very, 

very briefly, where you think that there is a broad agreement, including from among the four of you at the table, broad agreement 

on what the Commission has recommended. Just a couple of ideas 

very quickly, each of you. Where do you think there is broad agreement? 

Ms. MILLER. Well, I’d say there’s broad agreement that we need 

fundamental reform. I think that has to come first before people 

have confidence in giving us more money. I think there is broad 

agreement around the fact that we need a higher level of investment in transportation in our Country. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Well, she took my answers, so I will offer you a 

couple more. Because I do think that there is broad—— 

Senator CARPER. You could also say, I agree with that, but—— 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Well, I could say that, but I thought I would try 

a different transition. 

I think that speeding project delivery, and the fact that we are 

dealing with a multi-modal system here and not just one mode 

versus another is very important. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. I would say that streamlining is one that is unanimous, reform of the program, reduction of the number of programs, 

performance-based and outcome-driven programs were all things 

that all of the groups and the commissioners supported. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

122 

Ms. HECKER. Others haven’t mentioned it much, but the Commission in its discussion makes a big thing about getting better return on the investment, integrating cost-benefit decisionmaking, 

that we get a return on our investment and improved performance. 

I think that is a fundamental, central tenet and we would like to 

work with them to assure that there are program ideas that would 

effectively achieve those results. 

Senator CARPER. Good. When we took a break during your testimony earlier today to pass, report out legislation that helps, enables the Environmental Protection Agency to better fund some of 

our diesel emission reduction needs. We were able to convince our 

colleague, Senator Voinovich, we were able to convince our colleagues to support it, because for every one dollar that we raise, 

we basically have a $13 payoff. And even in this town, people sit 

up and take notice at that. 

Let me ask the flip side of my question. That would be, you have 

indicated you have a number of ideas of concepts and recommendations around which there is great consensus. Maybe mention one 

that you think that there is little or no consensus that the Commission has recommended. 

Ms. Miller. 

Ms. MILLER. I think that one of the issues that there is some concern about is the concept of the NAS track, I think is what it was 

called. Our organization had raised the issue of having some kind 

of a postal-style commission to deal with revenue increases. So 

there was support about that. But the Commission took the authority of that NAS track, if I am using the right term, much further 

than I think our organization supports. My sense is that there are 

others who have concerns about that approach. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. I agree with Secretary Miller. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. I would agree with that. I think also that the highest amount of the gas tax that they propose is somewhat controversial. But I think there is broad agreement that it will need to go 

up. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator ISAKSON. Senator CARPER. Madam Chair, could we add 15 seconds so Ms. 

Hecker can actually respond to that question as well, please? 

Thank you. 

Ms. HECKER. Actually, it is one that you have raised. I think 

they talk a lot about the importance of pricing, getting the prices 

right. I don’t think we really have a kind of national consensus on 

the role of pricing in transportation infrastructure. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. A couple of comments. No. 1, Ms. Hecker made 

a tremendous opening statement, the first part of your opening 

statement I think hit the nail on the head when you talked about 

we needed two principles, a clear national interest and a clear Federal role, that we needed fiscal sustainability and we need to build 

in link to outcomes and build in performance standards and results. I think that ties in to what Secretary Miller said about the 

123 

increase. We have to ensure the American people, if we get into 

this business of enhancing revenues, that we fix some of the systemic problems. 

In my State, where we recently had a change in commissioners 

of transportation, and I love the new one and I loved the old one, 

this is not a critical statement. But when the new one came in and 

did what new people do and started analyzing the system, they realized we had far over-promised in our DOT what our State could 

deliver. 

Well, Congress has far over-promised what we can deliver in 

terms of what we put in, in terms of designated projects in 

SAFETEA-LU. I think we all need to back up a second and say, 

what fundamentally can we do to put some principles and outcomes 

and base results in our system. And then when you look at revenues, you have a realistic chance to evaluate whether or not you 

in fact can do it, because fiscal sustainability does not exist right 

now with our current revenue statement. So that is a little statement, rather than a question. 

Second, I want the Chairman to be sure she understands that 

my interest in VMTs has nothing to do with her private lifestyle. 

And I agree with the comments that you made about being concerned about that. But—— 

Senator BOXER. It is not about me. It is about your constituents. 

Senator ISAKSON. Our constituents. But it certainly is an intriguing process that we should investigate as we look at the financing 

model in the 21st century. So I am not sold on it by any stretch, 

didn’t want you to think that. 

And I commend Senator Voinovich on the streamlining comments 

that he made. We have such a problem now in getting a road from 

concept to paving, it is unbelievable. And it is getting worse. Senator Carper made the comment about China’s road system and how 

great they were doing. Well, they don’t have an OSHA and they 

don’t have an Environmental Protection Agency. And they don’t 

have standards that we impose on our people. But we have to find 

a way to streamline the process from concept to actually making 

pavement in this Country, or we will never have financial sustainability under any circumstance. 

So those were not questions, those were just comments. I will 

say, I think this panel has given, in each and every case, a good 

cross-section of interest in what we need to do with regard to the 

report, Madam Chairman. I think if we can all leave everything on 

the table, from the revenue side to the end product side, and look 

at building in systems where we are looking to results, we are looking to outcomes and there is accountability up and down the situation, then I think it is possible to do things that some might think 

are impossible to do. 

But my home town of Atlanta, the Atlanta Regional Commission, 

which is the metropolitan planning agency that does our TIP, I believe the last number I saw is that they can only complete 38 percent of the projects that are in the TIP now. And that is getting, 

that is reflective around the Country, I think, with the escalated 

price of putting in transportation. So we have to follow the admonition of Ms. Hecker in terms of demanding results and accountVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:31 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85520.TXT VERN
124 

ability, and follow what Secretary Miler in putting that responsibility first, and then putting the revenue mechanism second. 

I won’t ask a question, I just wanted to make those comments. 

Senator BOXER. Before you have to leave, let me just say that I 

am all for streamlining, as long as we keep protections in there. 

Because in China, they can’t breathe very well, either. 

Senator ISAKSON. That was my point. 

Senator BOXER. We need to make sure we can build the roads, 

but do it right, make sure that we have environmental protections. 

I have seen it in my State where we have waived certain statutes 

because we have had emergency situations. Frankly, it has turned 

out pretty well. So I think, as I look at it, as a strong environmentalist, what I don’t want to do is take away the rights of people 

to have a say, but I think there should be timeframes built in. Because if you stall things too long, this is when you have the escalation in costs and frankly, we have wasted time. And a lot of times 

when we are building a road that is going to move goods faster, 

that is going to help us cleanup the air, rather than have trucks 

stalling. 

So it is all about getting the right balance. I really do look forward to working with everyone to get that balance, so that we 

know we are not—there should not have to be a choice between a 

clean environment and an efficient infrastructure. We have to be 

able to figure out how to make it compatible. I think that we can. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I 

appreciate your taking the time to hold these hearings. I appreciate 

all those coming to testify today. 

Between our first hearing last week and the hearing today, there 

was a second transportation commission report issued. They really 

talked about the damage done to roads in places like Wyoming that 

I brought up last time. It says rural lane miles represent over 70 

percent of the Federal system lane miles and are important to the 

national network. It gets to the issues that I talked about with 

moving product across the Country from the ports to the markets. 

It says, ‘‘Preservation and maintenance of rural infrastructure enables the movement of people and goods between large metropolitan areas and across the Country and can place a significant burden on State and local rural governments. Overall, funding of 

transportation in rural areas is particularly challenging.’’ Then it 

says, in those places, things like tolling don’t work, and the specific 

costs and fees. 

Ms. Kavinoky, I would start with you, because you are from 

Thermopolis, Wyoming. In reading your conclusion in your report, 

it sounds like someone with that can-do approach from 

Thermopolis, Wyoming. It sounded like a Bobcat, it is magnificent. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. I don’t know if you have any thoughts on the 

whole funding mechanism, from the Chamber’s standpoint or from 

your own, growing up there, on the best ways that we can handle 

these long expanses that are used, but the local folks aren’t the 

ones that are really tearing up the roads. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. I think the one thing I would point out, and 

thank you for the question, is that there are different ways to get 

125 

projects done. In rural areas, it is really about systemic funding. 

Those are things like the gas tax, user fees on fuels, heavy use vehicle taxes, the things that we collect at the Federal level, but that 

are also collected at the State and local levels, that go to fund the 

system as a whole. Then there are ways to finance projects, and 

that is when we start talking about dealing with congestion issues 

or tolling. 

So that is why the Chamber says it is going to take everything 

that we have to deal with these problems, both an increase in systemic funding as well as looking more at things like project financing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great. Madam Chairman, I don’t have any 

additional questions, but just listening to you and to Senator 

Voinovich, I would like to just quote one of the final words in Ms. 

Kavinoky’s conclusion. She says, ‘‘Surely we ought to be able to create the vision, forge the consensus, secure the resources and find 

the political courage to make this happen.’’ 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I do find those words inspiring. I was 

hoping that we could hear them from the Secretary of Transportation as well as from this panel. 

But it is all right. We are going to have that passion right here 

on this Committee. 

Senator Carper, would you like to have another round. Because 

I do not need another round. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have been talking with some of our colleagues, including some 

of our colleagues on this panel, about the economic stimulus package that is before us that we will be voting on today or tomorrow, 

and probably again next week. A couple of my colleagues have said, 

it is all well and good that we try to do something in the near term 

to stimulate the economy, but how about something beyond the 

near term? It occurs to me, I would say to my colleagues, it occurs 

to me that among the things that we can do in longer term, not 

just to stimulate our economy and create jobs, but to make us more 

productive as a Nation and do all the other good things that I 

talked about in terms of cleaning our air and reducing our reliance 

on foreign oil, is to take to heart the recommendations from the 

Commission that we are holding this hearing on today. 

A lot of times, commissions are created, we get the reports, we 

file them away and they never see the light of day. I arrived here 

in January 1983 as a freshman Congressman, with Senator Boxer 

and Tom Ridge, John McCain, a whole lot of other people, John 

Spratt. We arrived at a time when the Social Security Administration was about to go broke, not like in 20 or 30 years, it was about 

to go broke that year. 

And we had a commission led by Alan Greenspan who submitted 

their report, the commission was bipartisan, truly bipartisan, not 

only in its membership but the buy-in of President Reagan and the 

buy-in of Speaker Tip O’Neill. And they sort of rolled up their 

sleeves and said, we have to make this happen. They provided little 

political protection, if you will, for Democrats and Republicans to 

do some of the difficult things we needed to do. We went out and 

did them. We didn’t save Social Security forever, but we certainly 

126 

got it through the next quarter century. Now we come back to revisit that. I think we can take, if we have the same kind of leadership, we will come up with ways to protect Social Security for a 

whole lot further. 

There is a great opportunity here that you, that the Commission 

has presented to us. Your comments today are helping us to look 

at it maybe through a different set of glasses. It is very helpful and 

valuable. I appreciate very much having this hearing. I think this 

is important. I hope people don’t under-estimate the importance of 

what could flow from this. 

The other question I have is, I mentioned earlier in my comments, I once served on the Amtrak board of Governors. I was 

Tommy Thompson’s successor and his predecessor. At that time, 

one member of the board was a Governor appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. I still follow passenger rail 

issues pretty closely. I noted that in the first quarter of this fiscal 

year, from October 1st to this past December 31st, ridership on 

Amtrak was up by about 15 percent, revenues were up by about 

15 percent. Something is going on. Something is going on. I think 

it is a combination of people getting tired of sitting in their cars, 

trucks and vans, people are getting tired of congestion around airports, and they want an alternative. 

We are going on a separate track to reauthorize Amtrak and to 

try to provide for, if you will, a vision for passenger rail service in 

the 21st century. With that in mind, let me just ask each of you 

to give us some thoughts as we pass the legislation through the 

Senate. We are going to be working with our colleagues in the 

House. If you will envision what should passenger rail service be 

in the 21st century, how do we marry passenger rail with freight. 

Because when Amtrak travels outside the Northeast Corridor, they 

have to share the tracks with the freights. The priority is moving 

freight, not people. 

How do we sort of get a partnership that would involve the 

States, involve local governments, involve the Federal Government, 

involve the freight railroads, to help make passenger rail not something of the past, but to make it relevant for the 21st century? And 

I think it is. Any comments on that? 

Ms. MILLER. If it is all right, I might start in. Because I would 

say, Senator, you are exactly right. Something, I think, is afoot 

with Amtrak. Again, I come from the State of Kansas, where highways are king. And I increasingly get questions from communities 

and citizens, there is a huge movement afoot in our State to try to 

extend Amtrak services. 

It is a true interest. We had a meeting with Amtrak and BNSF, 

because that is the track in Kansas, the freight track that this line 

would go on. I invited members of our house and senate transportation committee, and on a day when they would not normally be 

in Topeka, we got eight members of our legislature to come to a 

meeting, which tells me a lot about the level of interest. 

My other observation, because I would have to say, this is not 

an area in which I am very expert, so I don’t mean to imply that. 

But it was fascinating to me, we had a great meeting listening to 

both the Amtrak folks and the BNSF folks talk very cooperatively 

but about the challenges we would have in trying to establish this 

127 

service. Practically impossible was my conclusion, quite frankly. 

The investment is going to be huge to get the kind of siding, so 

that you could actually have timely service. 

So what I am struck by, and listening to your example from 

Shanghai, increasingly, and it would certainly get my husband off 

my back, who says regularly, why can’t we have rail service in this 

Country, there is a need to make an investment far and away larger than we have been willing to date to make, it seems to me. And 

I think we have to recognize that you can’t have passenger service 

sharing freight service rail lines, or at least you need to do it in 

a way that gives opportunities for passing. Or it is just simply 

never going to be a service that works. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Ms. Kavinoky? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Senator Carper, passenger rail is not something 

that the Chamber traditionally has delved into. I will say this, as 

I speak with chambers of commerce that represent corridors like 

the Northeast Corridor and also in California, we get strong opinions on the need for different kinds of transportation service and 

different kinds of options. I think that will lead us to consider 

where we want to go in terms of passenger service. 

I will agree, though, with Secretary Miller, unless we make a 

real commitment in this Country to supporting passenger rail, and 

that is a commitment that is a dollars and sense commitment as 

well, then we will continue to have sort of a haphazard system. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. COHEN. As a highway expert, most of my knowledge about 

Amtrak and passenger rail comes from what I read from GAO. My 

feeling about it is that Amtrak can do well in certain corridors of 

the Country and could probably survive on a ticket tax as the Commission proposed. The simple fact is that in other parts of the 

Country, the subsidy would have to be so high that the ticket tax 

would have to be equal or more to the fare to make it work. 

So of course, we all want to see good a mass transportation system. But I wouldn’t leave out the private bus operators, who compete with Amtrak without any subsidies at all, except perhaps 

maybe building a multi-modal bus station at a train station, and 

are doing quite well in the private sector. 

Senator CARPER. I would just add, there is a way for them to 

work together instead of being stovepipes, there is a great way for 

them to work together. One of the things we are trying to focus on 

is, how do we make train passenger rail work better with airports. 

We have some great examples, BWI is a pretty good example, it 

works very well. Newark, New Jersey is a good example, where 

people can take the train to those places, get on a plane—and how 

about Cleveland, Ohio? 

Senator VOINOVICH. How about Cleveland? 

Senator CARPER. How about Cleveland, all right. 

Senator BOXER. In the whole Bay Area, we have BART. 

Senator CARPER. That is good. Last comment, please. 

Ms. HECKER. We have done a substantial amount of work on 

inter-city passenger rail. Our comprehensive review of Amtrak 

management actually raised substantial concerns that they really 

didn’t have strategic planning, that they didn’t have financial manVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:31 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85520.TXT VERN
128 

agement, that they didn’t have good controls, they didn’t control 

their procurement, that it was not a functioning organization. Its 

route map has barely changed in 35 years, and if we think about 

transportation and how all of the transportation sectors have transformed, so the structure that we have, the incentives are not working very well, we are not getting good value for the over $1 billion 

we invest in Amtrak each year. 

While there is some growth, we found that almost all the growth 

in inter-city passenger rail are State-supported routes. Amtrak supports the core system and they don’t support the add-on systems. 

States that have made the decision to invest, those are the routes 

that are taking off. They know where the demand is, they know 

where the return is, and they have made enormously efficient decisions. That is one of the dangers of the proposal here, to substitute 

80 percent Federal money, which is not well-planned, not well-utilized. So there is a role for passenger rail. It shouldn’t be rhetorical, we shouldn’t just say, oh, it is efficient or, oh, it is a better 

environmental option. Because as we know, on a long distance 

basis, it is less than half of 1 percent of the demand to get between 

D.C. and Chicago. I mean, who gets on a train to go to Chicago? 

And yet we have these long distance routes. And the loss per passenger is over $400 per person on many of those routes. 

Senator CARPER. My time is expired. I was kidding with our colleague Mark Potter yesterday, who along with Blanche Lincoln has 

invited me to come down to Little Rock for a luncheon later this 

month. I am happy to go. I was kidding him about how difficult it 

is to get from Delaware to Little Rock by airplane. And Mark Potter, who knows my interest in passenger rail, said, well, you could 

take the train, and you can go through Chicago and then come 

back down to Little Rock, you will be there in a couple of days. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Let me just close, Madam Chair, thank you, you 

have been very generous with the time, let me just close with this 

thought. Over half the people in our Country now live within 50 

miles of our of our coasts. Think about that. Over half the people 

in our Country live within 50 miles of one of our coasts. There are 

any number of densely populated corridors, which have developed 

over time, that can be well served by passenger rail, and I think 

in some cases it makes a lot of sense, not in all parts of our Country, but certainly in those densely populated corridors. 

I don’t think anybody is suggesting that it should be an entirely 

Federal undertaking. But there is a shared partnership. And California has done wonderful things, some of the great growth you 

have seen in passenger rail is on the west coast where the States 

have bought in big time. 

But if you look at the Northeast Corridor, the Acela Express 

Service, which is one of the things I worked on when I was on the 

board, sells out. I won’t say it is a cash cow for the rest of the system, for the rest or the corridor, but with the kind of investments 

in the Northeast Corridor to allow those trains to run 150 miles an 

hour, it literally can be a cash cow to carry this part of the system. 

Last comment, Madam Chair. I heard Ed Rendell say this the 

other day, too, which I thought, he must have stolen that from me. 

But to move one ton of freight by rail from Washington, DC. to 

129 

Boston, Massachusetts, one ton of freight by rail from Washington, 

DC. to Massachusetts, takes one gallon of diesel fuel. One gallon 

of diesel fuel. There is real potential there for us, and we shouldn’t 

lose sight of that. 

Madam Chair, you have been very, very generous. Thank you 

very much and to our panel. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

I would just say to Ms. Hecker, if you were going to say, who is 

going to go from Paris to Berlin by train, everybody. I think that 

it is a matter of culture, it is a matter of letting people know. Because I will tell you, I take the train a lot to New York. Do you 

ever do that? 

Ms. HECKER. I do, yes. 

Senator BOXER. So it becomes a way, I mean, I much prefer to 

do that, frankly, than go to the airport. By the time I get to the 

airport, go through security, it takes hours. I get on a train, it is 

pleasant, I am there. So I think the question that we face here, and 

why I am a very strong supporter of what Senator Carper does 

with rail is, as it gets tougher and tougher to go with other modes, 

it would be tragic to just take away that option. 

It reminds me, in California, they ripped up every single ounce 

of rail line, because the motor vehicle was coming. Now we are 

spending a fortune to buy back the right-of-way to put down the 

tracks that they ripped up. So I think before we just say who does 

this and who goes there, I think we need a bit more of a broader 

look at the future, rather than just say, and yes, you are right, we 

obviously don’t want to throw money away. We can’t afford to. But 

we also need to preserve these options, I think. 

The last thing I will say is, in Marin County, where I lived for 

so many years, in the Bay Area, we had a ferry boat system. And 

everyone said the same thing, who is going to take the ferry boat. 

And for years, they didn’t take it. It is so true, it was really tough. 

Now, they take it. Because when you compare it to the price of a 

toll on the Golden Gate Bridge and the cost of gasoline, et cetera, 

suddenly, this becomes a viable option. So I would be very careful 

not to just throw things away and capacity away without thinking 

it through. 

Senator Voinovich, you can finish this whole thing up. It’s all in 

your hands. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. I will try and make it brief. 

First of all, Madam Chairman, I would appreciate my statement 

being put in the record. 

Senator BOXER. I will put your full statement in, and also the 

Coalition for America’s Gateways and Corridors, at the same time, 

without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OHIO

Thank you, Madame Chairman, for holding this hearing today to hear the views 

from these groups on this commission’s report. 

It is no secret that this nation has an aging transportation infrastructure. And 

I believe that it’s the government’s role to provide funding for our nation’s infrastructure so our businesses can compete in this global marketplace. 

Federal transportation policy is of particular importance to my State because Ohio 

has one of the largest surface transportation networks in the country. The State of 

130 

Ohio has the 10th largest highway network, the fifth highest volume of traffic, the 

fourth largest interState system and the second largest number of bridges. 14 percent of all freight that moves in the United States moves in, through, or out of 

Ohio—the third greatest amount of any state. 

Throughout my career, I have worked to increase funding for infrastructure. As 

Governor, during ISTEA, I fought to increase Ohio’s rate of return from the Highway Trust Fund from 80 percent to 85 percent. In 1998, as Chairman of the National Governors Association, I was involved in negotiating TEA–21 and I fought to 

even out highway funding fluctuations and assure a predictable flow of funding to 

states. 

During consideration of SAFETEA-LU, I pushed for increased funding. I thought 

the total funding levels were well below what was appropriate and necessary for the 

nation’s infrastructure needs. Even, the Federal Highway Administration acknowledged that more funding was needed. In 2004, Federal Highways stated that the 

average annual investment level needed to improve our highways and bridges would 

be $118.9 billion. The average annual investment level necessary to just maintain 

the current condition and performance of highways and bridges would be $77.1 billion. 

I predicted that the money spent from that authorization bill would not be 

enough. Sadly, I was right. Because of the rising costs of construction and energy, 

the purchasing power from SAFETEA-LU has significantly declined. This bill did 

not keep up with inflation, and as a result, we have fallen behind. Highway projects 

are being canceled and states and locals have had to step-up and assume more of 

the financial burden, and they are doing so at a time when many states are projecting severe budget shortfalls. The State of Ohio is facing a shortfall of $3.5 billion. 

If any of us think that we can deal with these problems without more money, we 

are being intellectually dishonest. I hope the next president understands this clearly. 

I don’t trust that the Presidential candidates truly understand the gravity of the 

situation either—they have completely ignored the topic on the campaign trail. I 

hope that the witnesses today can shed some light on a topic that so many elected 

officials seem to be ignoring. 

Recently, we have been talking about putting together an economic stimulus package to jumpstart the economy. I think our failure to invest in the improvements necessary to keep pace with our growing population and increasing demands is one of 

the roadblocks standing in the way of moving our economy forward. Investing in our 

nation’s transportation could create hundreds of thousands of jobs and move our 

sluggish economy down the road to recovery. Manufacturing states, such as Ohio 

with a ‘‘just-in-time’’ economy, cannot be competitive with failing infrastructure 

where traffic congestion and bottlenecks in our rails and waterways is the norm. 

I am very encouraged that this report recognizes the link between our infrastructure 

and our ability to compete in the global market. 

As Ranking Member of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, I am 

well aware of the important relationship between highway planning and air quality. 

I am pleased that this report emphasizes environmental stewardship and recommends more State flexibility on funding efforts to improve our air quality. 

I also support the Commission’s recommendations on improving and streamlining 

the delivery of transportation projects. As a former Governor and Mayor, I have 

been frustrated at how long it can take to finish a highway project from beginning 

to end. In fact, during my first Senate campaign—as part of my platform, I pledged 

to reduce this timeframe. I am pleased that this report acknowledges this lag time— 

major projects take nearly 13 years on average to complete. I was pleased with the 

changes we made with 4(f) in the last highway bill, but the fact is that it didn’t 

get the job done. 

This report echoes what I have been saying for years—it’s the government’s role 

to provide the infrastructure for American business, and unless we develop this infrastructure of competitiveness, our children and grandchildren will not be able to 

enjoy the same standard of living and quality of life that we have enjoyed. 

The American people must be made aware of the infrastructure challenges our nation faces. Hopefully, with your participation, our hearing today can shed more light 

on this critical issue. 

[The prepared statement of the Coalition for America’s Gateways 

and Corridors follows:] 

131 


85520.064
132 


85520.065
133 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to read a portion of my statement to the panelists. It says, recently we have been talking about 

an economic stimulus package to jumpstart the economy—we are 

going to do something here hopefully before the President’s break. 

I think our failure to invest in the improvements necessary to keep 

pace with our growing population and increasing demands is one 

of the roadblocks standing in the way of moving our economy forward. Investing in our Nation’s transportation could create hundreds of thousands of jobs and move our sluggish economy down 

the road to recovery. Manufacturing States, such as Ohio, with a 

just-in-time economy, cannot be competitive with failing infrastructure. Traffic congestion and bottlenecks in our rails and waterways 

is the norm. I am encouraged that this report recognizes the link 

between our infrastructure and our ability to compete in the global 

marketplace. 

Then as ranking member of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety 

Subcommittee, which I serve on with Senator Carper, I am well 

aware of the relationship between highway planning and air quality. I am pleased that the report emphasizes environmental stewardship and recommends more State flexibility on funding efforts 

to improve our air quality. So those are good things. 

We need to really emphasize how important it is that we develop 

the infrastructure of competitiveness, so that our children and 

grandchildren can enjoy the same quality of life and standard of 

living that we have. This is really important stuff, and I am very 

pleased that those of you representing outside groups seem to be 

pleased with this Commission’s report and seem to be really enthusiastic about it. 

But I can assure you that unless you really get involved—and we 

are going to get started on this highway bill probably toward the 

end of this year—when we do a lot of preliminary stuff, but as 

someone mentioned, you have to get this highway bill done on 

time. I think Ms. Miller said, you have to get it done on time or 

we are really in deep trouble. 

But I have learned, I was president of the National League of 

Cities, and then I was chairman of the National Governors Association, I lobbied this place for over 18 years. The way you get things 

done down here is to get groups together on a bipartisan basis— 

Republicans and Democrats, private sector people and in this particular case, you are going to have to involve some of the environmental groups and so forth that are out there, to get together and 

say, this is important for our Country and work this out, so that 

we can really do the things that we need to do in the area of infrastructure. 

It is absolutely one of the ingredients of our future success as a 

Nation. Somehow, we have to communicate that to the American 

people. It is through organizations like yours that we can get the 

job done. 

So I want you to know that the Chairman and I and others are 

looking forward to working with you. We need your help. Thank 

you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you so much. That echoes, as you 

said, what I asked them in my very first question. 

134 

I am excited about the job we have ahead of us. And it is made 

so much easier when we hear your voices, really it is. And we say 

that in all humility. We cannot get the momentum we need without 

those voices. So if you could take back to your membership that we 

really appreciated your testimony here, it means a lot to us, and 

we are going to get ready with an ambitious bill that has vision, 

it is going to meet the needs, we are going to present it to our colleagues, and I feel, and to a new President. We don’t know who 

that will be, but whoever it is, one party or the other is going to 

know that we can’t have a growing economy without an infrastructure that meets the needs. 

So thank you very, very much, all of you. We really appreciate 

your contribution today. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

135 


85520.052
136 


85520.053
137 


85520.054
138 


85520.055
139 


85520.056
140 


85520.062
141 


85520.063