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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–168 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–944

NOMINATION OF MARY E. PETERS TO BE

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 20, 2006 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Burns ................................................................................... 19

Statement of Senator DeMint ................................................................................. 21

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 16

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 14

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 23

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

Statement of Senator Lott ...................................................................................... 14

Statement of Senator McCain ................................................................................. 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 25

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 17

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22

Statement of Senator Snowe ................................................................................... 26

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 1

WITNESSES

Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona ............................................................ 2

Peters, Hon. Mary E., Nominee to be Secretary of Transportation ..................... 3

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

Biographical information ................................................................................. 8

APPENDIX

Chilson, George, President, National Association of Railroad Passengers, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 33

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Mary E. Peters by: 

Hon. Barbara Boxer ......................................................................................... 48

Hon. Conrad Burns .......................................................................................... 40

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 50

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 33

Hon. John F. Kerry .......................................................................................... 45

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 53

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 41

(1)

NOMINATION OF MARY E. PETERS TO BE 

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. 

The Chairman would agree that it would be proper to allow time 

for the two Senators from Arizona to introduce the nominee. Senator McCain, you’re the senior Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thanks very much. I remind Senator Kyl of 

that daily. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, thank you. 

It’s with great pleasure, Mr. Chairman, I introduce to the Committee Mary Peters, who has been nominated, as you well know, 

as the 15th Secretary of the Department of Transportation. And, of 

course, all of us are familiar with Mary through her nearly 4 years 

of service as the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration from 2001 to 2005. She’s a fourth-generation Arizonan, was 

the director of the Arizona Department of Transportation, known 

as ADOT, prior to taking the helm of the Highway Administration. 

She gained nearly 16 years of firsthand transportation agency experience during her service at the Arizona Department of Transportation, and another 4 years at the Federal Highway Administration. 

I appreciate very much the President of the United States selecting such an outstanding and capable individual to fill this important leadership position. She has a long and accomplished professional record. And, Mr. Chairman, she has so many awards, I will 

not repeat them. I would ask that my complete statement be made 

part of the record. 

And I would like very much that this committee approve, or consider and then approve, her nomination as quickly as possible, as 

2

I think it would be good for the country to have her on the job before we go out for recess. 

And I thank you for allowing me to make this statement on her 

behalf. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your statement will appear in the record in full. 

[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

Thank you. It is with great pleasure that I introduce to the Committee Mary Peters, who has been nominated to serve as the 15th Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation. Of course, most of you are already familiar with Mary through 

her nearly 4 years of service as the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), from 2001–2005. 

Mary Peters is a fourth generation Arizonan and was the Director of the Arizona 

Department of Transportation, known as ADOT, prior to taking the helm at FHWA. 

She gained nearly 16 years of firsthand transportation agency experience during her 

service at ADOT and another 4 years at FHWA. This hands-on experience will serve 

her well in fulfilling the duties of the Secretary, and I commend the President for 

selecting such an outstanding and capable individual to fill this important leadership position. 

Mary has a long and accomplished professional record and has often received welldeserved recognition for her efforts, whether in Washington, D.C. or in Arizona. For 

example, she has received numerous awards throughout her career from the Women’s Transportation Seminar, including the 2004 National Woman of the Year 

Award. She has also received awards from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO), the National Council on Public Private 

Partnerships and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. And 

not surprising, Mary also been recognized as one of the Top 100 Who’s Who of Arizona Women in Business, and as the Most Influential Person in Arizona in Transportation. 

On a personal side, Mary is one of the kindest persons you’d ever want to know. 

She is a great humanitarian and is genuinely interested in the lives of all of her 

employees. I am told Mary not only knew the name of every Arizona DOT employee 

by their names, but she also knew the names of their spouses and children. She 

understands the importance of family and friends and she shows it every day in her 

care and concern for those around her. 

And finally, I cannot resist mentioning something from Mary’s past that I hope 

she will rely on as she works to meet the challenges she will face as the DOT Secretary: 

Before Mary became involved in transportation, she was in the butchering business. She made her living by cutting pork. As I said during her last confirmation 

hearing, this background should come in very handy and I urge her to rely heavily 

on her past pork-cutting expertise as she works to carry out her new responsibilities. 

Mary will undoubtedly face unlimited requests to support and fund Members’ pork 

projects but to the extent of her authority, those projects would more appropriately 

deserve the same treatment that she mastered as a butcher. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kyl? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, first let me agree with 

my colleague Senator McCain that it would be very much in the 

best interests of this country if the nomination of Mary Peters 

could move forward very expeditiously, first through the Committee and then on to the floor of the Senate. 

My colleague, of course, traced the career of Mary Peters, a distinguished career focused on transportation issues. I’ll just note a 

couple of things that were not said. 

When she was here in Washington as the head of the Federal 

Highway Administration at DOT, among other things she led efVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Jul 27, 2007 Jkt 035168 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35168.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
3

forts to improve the safety and security of our country’s highways 

and bridges, reduce congestion, and institutionalize better fiscal 

oversight and accountability. And she distinguished herself in the 

same way when she headed the Department of Transportation in 

the State of Arizona. Both Senator McCain and I know Mary Peters personally; and so, we’re obviously biased. But, for my place, 

I couldn’t recommend more strongly someone who has all of the attributes, not just the skills and the experience, but the personal 

qualities to be a part of the President’s Cabinet, to be advising him, 

to working with Members of Congress. And so, when, once again, 

she agreed to answer the President’s call to leave the warm and 

sunny weather of Arizona to come back to Washington, I applauded 

her choice, and I urge the Committee to act quickly so that she can 

begin her responsibilities here as soon as possible, serving the people of this country. 

She’s a person of great integrity and charisma, and I’m very 

proud to call her a friend and commend her to the Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Senator. 

I would suggest that the nominee present her statement, then 

we’ll go around and give Senators an opportunity to question the 

nominee. 

Ms. Peters? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, NOMINEE TO BE 

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, thanks so much. 

Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye, and Members of the 

Committee, it is an absolute honor to appear before you today as 

you consider my nomination for Secretary of Transportation. And 

I sincerely appreciate my home state Senators, Senator John 

McCain and Senator Jon Kyl, for being here today to introduce me. 

I am deeply grateful that President Bush has offered me the opportunity to again serve my country in the field of transportation. 

I also would like to express my gratitude to my family, whose 

love and support have made it possible for me to be here today. My 

husband is home today; however, he is with our two brand-new 

grandchildren. One got out of the hospital 8 days ago, one got out 

of the hospital 2 days ago. So, they are appropriately there taking 

care of those new babies. I have pictures to bore you with, should 

you like to see those later. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PETERS. But I know that they are with me in spirit here 

today. 

And my grandchildren have asked me to say their names. Jeremy, Jenna, Charles, Shannah, and Daniel, I love you. 

Thank you, Senators. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, are there any of your family with you 

today? 

Ms. PETERS. No, sir, they are not here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, America’s continued economic vitality, our ability to compete in a global economy, and our citizens’ 

high quality of life are all dependent upon dynamic, well-perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Jul 27, 2007 Jkt 035168 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35168.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
4

forming transportation systems. And while the current systems 

have served our nation well, those systems must be strengthened 

to meet even greater challenges ahead. 

The challenges are numerous, and they affect every mode of 

transportation. Our vital transportation infrastructure is showing 

signs of aging. Traditional transportation programs and their funding sources are no longer able to keep pace with demand. Increasing congestion on our highways, railways, airports, and seaports reduces our nation’s economic productivity and consumes our citizens’ 

time. 

Despite the progress that we have made, transportation safety 

and transportation security are a greater concern than ever before. 

I do not take lightly the challenges that I would face, nor the responsibilities that I would accept, should you vote to confirm my 

nomination. I believe my 20-plus-year career in transportation has 

given me the hands-on experience, the technical knowledge, and 

the leadership skills necessary to identify and implement the right 

solutions for these challenges. 

For more than 16 years, as Senator McCain has said, I worked 

for the Arizona Department of Transportation. That position allowed me to gain valuable insight on the way Federal policy affects 

real-life aspects of planning, building, and operating transportation 

systems on state, regional, and local levels. 

As director of ADOT for the last 3 years of that time, I oversaw 

highway, transit, rail, and aviation, as well as motor carrier programs, driver licensing, vehicle registration, transportation-related 

clean-air programs, transportation tax collection and distribution. I 

learned the economics of developing and maintaining transportation infrastructure, as well as the responsibilities and accountabilities necessary when entrusted with public funds. 

I was then privileged to serve for nearly 4 years as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, and had the honor 

of working with you, with Congress, to develop the important 

SAFETEA–LU legislation. 

As Administrator, I made safety my highest priority. And if confirmed as Secretary, I will ensure that safety continues to be the 

Department’s highest priority and that safety considerations are 

built into every transportation decision. 

As Administrator, I also focused the Federal Highway Administration on improving its oversight and accountability for public 

funds. During my tenure, we implemented policies for better management of mega-projects, and I worked very closely with Ken 

Mead, the Inspector General, to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse 

in the programs. 

If confirmed, a significant priority will be the reauthorization of 

the Nation’s aviation programs. I look forward to working with 

Congress to improve aviation safety and to identify new approaches 

for modernizing the Air Traffic Control System, improving the environmental review process for airports, and addressing the aviation 

needs of small urban communities and rural areas. 

We must continue to promote the use of public transportation 

and assist states and communities to maximize transit capacity 

and reliability. Intercity passenger rail should be an important 

component of our nation’s transportation network. If confirmed, I 

5

look forward to working with Congress to pass a bill that will ensure the Nation’s passenger rail system delivers maximum benefit 

to its customers. 

Our nation’s maritime industry plays an important role in daily 

commerce. In fact, our seaports handle 2.5 billion tons of goods and 

materials each year. If confirmed, I will work with industry and 

state officials to alleviate congestion at our nation’s seaports. 

Small urban and rural transportation needs—air, rail, and public 

transportation, as well as roads—were always very important considerations to me when I served at the Arizona DOT. And, if confirmed, I would look forward to working with you to maximize the 

mobility options for all Americans, regardless of where they live. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe my experience, my understanding of 

state and local transportation needs, and my commitment to ensuring the continued excellence of the American transportation system 

will enable me to provide effective leadership for the U.S. Department of Transportation. In these challenging times, we need that 

leadership. If confirmed as the next Secretary, I look forward to 

working with Congress, with President Bush, and other members 

of the Cabinet, as well as our public- and private-sector partners, 

to ensure our nation and the American people are provided a safe, 

secure, efficient, and effective transportation system, both now and 

into the future. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity that you have given me here today, and I will 

respond to questions, as the time is appropriate. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms. Peters follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, NOMINEE TO BE SECRETARY OF

TRANSPORTATION

Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye, Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you today as you consider my nomination for Secretary of 

Transportation. I am deeply grateful that President Bush has offered me the opportunity to again serve my country in the field of transportation. I also want to express my gratitude to my family whose love and support have made it possible for 

me to be here today. 

I am especially honored to succeed Secretary Norman Mineta and am grateful for 

having had the experience of working on his team. Through his outstanding career 

in public service, Secretary Mineta made an indelible impression on transportation 

policy. If confirmed, I know I will have quite a legacy to live up to at the Department. 

America’s continued economic vitality, our ability to compete in a global economy, 

and our citizens’ high quality of life, are all dependent upon dynamic and well-performing transportation systems. And, while the current systems have served our nation well, they must be strengthened to meet even greater challenges ahead. 

These challenges are numerous, and they affect every mode of transportation. Our 

vital transportation infrastructure is showing signs of aging. Traditional transportation programs and their funding sources are no longer able to keep pace with demand. Increased congestion on our highways, railways, airports, and seaports reduces our nation’s economic productivity and consumes our citizens’ time. Despite 

the progress we have made, transportation safety and security are a greater concern 

than ever before. 

I do not take lightly the challenges I would face, nor the responsibilities I would 

accept, should you vote to confirm my nomination to be Secretary of Transportation. 

I believe my 20-year career in transportation has given me the hands-on experience, 

technical knowledge, and leadership skills necessary to identify and implement the 

right solutions for these challenges. 

6

For more than 16 years, I worked for the Arizona Department of Transportation 

(ADOT), where I gained valuable insight into the ways Federal policy affects reallife aspects of planning, building, and operating transportation systems on local, 

state, and regional levels. As Director of ADOT for 3 years, I oversaw highway, transit, rail, and air transportation in Arizona, as well as motor carrier programs, driver 

licensing and vehicle registration, transportation-related clean air programs, and 

transportation tax collection and distribution. In Arizona, I learned the economics 

of developing and maintaining transportation infrastructure, as well as the responsibility and accountability necessary when entrusted with public funds. 

I was then privileged to serve as the 15th Administrator of the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) for nearly 4 years, and had the honor of working closely 

with Congress on the development of the important Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) legislation. 

As Administrator, I made highway safety my highest priority and worked closely 

with the Administrators of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop strategies for reducing fatalities and injuries. During the drafting of the Administration’s surface transportation reauthorization proposal, I championed an increased focus on, and funding for, safety. 

Yet, despite the gains we have made, safety remains an ongoing challenge. We 

cannot complacently accept fatalities and injuries as the ‘‘price we pay’’ for mobility. 

If confirmed as Secretary, I will ensure that safety continues to be the Department’s 

top priority and that safety considerations are built into every transportation decision. 

While rail accidents have begun to decline as a result of the National Rail Safety 

Action Plan, which was issued last year in response to several major accidents, we 

must do even more to reduce the number of train accidents, including those that 

involve highway-rail grade crossings. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Federal 

Railroad Administration continues to work with industry to implement new technologies that will create a safer rail system. 

This year’s incident at Prudhoe Bay demonstrates we also have more work to do 

on pipeline safety and, if confirmed, I will ensure the Department continues to 

proactively reach out to stakeholders and other Federal, state, and local agencies 

to ensure a safe and reliable pipeline infrastructure. If confirmed, I also look forward to working with this committee on the pipeline safety program reauthorization. This is an important bill that will allow the Department to ensure the continued safety, security, and reliability of our pipeline system. 

If I am confirmed, reauthorizing the Nation’s aviation programs will be a significant priority, and I look forward to working with Congress on crafting a bill that 

not only improves aviation safety, but also identifies new approaches to modernizing 

the air traffic control system to meet increased travel demand, improves the environmental review process for airport infrastructure, and addresses the aviation 

needs of small urban communities and rural areas. 

We must continue to promote the use of public transportation and assist states 

and communities to maximize transit capacity and reliability. Transit is not just a 

big city concern. Many rural areas are increasingly recognizing the many benefits 

of transit and, if confirmed, I plan to ensure the successful implementation of 

SAFETEA–LU’s expanded rural transit programs. 

The terrorist attacks on the transit systems in Madrid and London have highlighted the importance of transit security in this post-9/11 world. Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the lead on security matters, if confirmed 

as Secretary, I assure you the Department of Transportation will continue to work 

collaboratively with DHS to address the vulnerabilities of our nation’s open public 

transportation systems. 

Intercity passenger rail should be an important component of our nation’s transportation network. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to pass 

a bill that will ensure our nation’s passenger rail system delivers maximum benefits 

to consumers. 

Our Nation’s maritime industry plays an important role in our daily commerce 

as well as an auxiliary role for security in times of war or national emergency. In 

today’s global trade economy it is vital that we maintain a robust marine transportation system. The backbone of that system is the Jones Act, which I strongly support. We must also continue to work to address congestion at our ports. Innovative 

technologies such as PierPass at the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach have made 

progress in addressing congestion at that facility. If confirmed, I will work with industry and state and local officials to find other novel ways to tackle this problem 

at our ports. 

7

My experience in transportation management in Arizona, and at the Federal 

level, made me acutely aware of the need to focus on better overall management 

and operation of an integrated system, and to identify the appropriate balance of 

transportation alternatives. I am convinced that the Department of Transportation 

for the 21st century must employ a systems approach to managing transportation 

and support operational strategies with cutting-edge technologies. Research will 

play a vital role and we must define and promote an appropriate national agenda 

for research and technology deployment. 

Small urban and rural transportation needs—air, rail, public transportation, as 

well as roads—were always important considerations when I served as Director of 

ADOT. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to maximize mobility options for all Americans, regardless of where they live. 

As Administrator of FHWA, I worked to fulfill a commitment I made at my confirmation hearing to improve and strengthen FHWA oversight and accountability for 

Federal funds. To improve the accuracy of financial data and assure the agency fully 

executed its stewardship responsibilities, I established an Office of the Chief Financial Officer reporting directly to the Administrator, and led the development of 

FHWA’s Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) Program, an important 

tool for better financial controls. I worked very closely with the Office of Inspector 

General to increase awareness of transportation fraud and, more importantly, to 

take action to prevent it. I oversaw implementation of policy and guidance for better 

management of mega-projects, and worked to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in 

programs administered by the agency. 

If confirmed as Secretary of Transportation, I pledge conscientious stewardship for 

resources and responsibilities entrusted to the Department. The American public 

and the Nation’s business community must feel confident that every dollar provided 

to transportation is used wisely and well. This confidence must derive from results 

the public can see, such as reduced traffic congestion, fewer lives lost, seamless delivery of goods, improved livability, and respect for human and natural environments in transportation construction, operation, and performance. Accountability 

must be the watchword for every Department of Transportation program. 

Mobility is one of our country’s greatest freedoms, but congestion across all of our 

transportation modes continues to limit predictable, reliable movement of people 

and goods, and poses a serious threat to continued economic growth. Congestion no 

longer affects only roads in larger urban areas, but is spreading across America. 

After a decline following 9/11, our aviation system is once again nearing capacity, 

and instances such as severe weather or a security alert can result in gridlock of 

the system. 

The Department of Transportation, under Secretary Mineta’s leadership, recently 

launched a national multi-modal initiative to alleviate congestion in travel and 

freight movement. The initiative provides a clear plan for Federal, state, and local 

officials to follow for improving operation of our surface transportation system, encouraging the development and deployment of new technologies and construction 

methods, and expanding opportunities for private investment in transportation infrastructure. If confirmed as Secretary, I will continue to advance this comprehensive national congestion strategy. 

Public-private partnerships can bring much-needed capital to the table, and market-based congestion solutions can provide a means to fund infrastructure improvements and fight congestion. I recognize these methods are not appropriate solutions 

in every situation, rather they should be among the options available for state and 

local government to use as they determine appropriate. 

We cannot assume that methods of the past, whether for designing, financing, 

constructing, or operating transportation infrastructure and systems, will necessarily continue to be appropriate in the future. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission Congress established in SAFETEA–

LU is taking on exactly such issues for surface transportation. 

I was honored to be appointed by President Bush to serve on the Commission and 

believe it affords a great opportunity for historic changes in transportation policy. 

If you confirm my nomination to be Secretary of Transportation, it will be my goal 

as Chair to ensure that the Commission produces a comprehensive and timely report to inform the next reauthorization of surface transportation programs. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, I believe my experience, my understanding of 

state and local transportation needs, and my commitment to ensuring the continued 

excellence of the American transportation system will enable me to provide effective 

leadership for the Department of Transportation in these challenging times. If I am 

confirmed as the next Secretary of Transportation, I will work closely with Congress, with President Bush and other members of his Cabinet, and with our publicand private- sector partners to ensure our nation and the American people are proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Jul 27, 2007 Jkt 035168 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35168.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
8

vided a safe, secure, efficient, and effective transportation system now and in the 

future. 

I sincerely appreciate the time you have given me today as you consider my nomination. I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used):

Mary Elizabeth Peters. 

Maiden name: Mary Elizabeth Ruth.

2. Position to which nominated: Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

3. Date of Nomination: September 7, 2006. 

4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

Residence: information not released to the public. 

Office: 3200 E. Camelback Road, Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018–2311.

5. Date and Place of Birth: December 4, 1948, Phoenix, Maricopa County, AZ. 

6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children 

by a previous marriage).

Spouse: Terryl Gene Peters, Sr., Consultant Engineering, Inc. (CEI), Construction Technician, Phoenix, AZ.

Children: Tamara Marie (Peters) Cleavenger, age 38; Terryl Gene Peters, Jr., 

age 34; Christina Rose Peters, age 27.

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended: University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, B.A. Management, 1994. 

8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate 

to the position for which you are nominated.

HDR Engineering, Inc, Sr. Vice President, Oct. 2005–present.

Federal Highway Administration, Administrator, Oct. 2001–July 2005.

Arizona Department of Transportation:

Director, March 1998–October 2001, 

Deputy Director, July 1995–March 1998, 

Deputy Director Admin., September 1992–July 1995, 

Contract Administrator, January 1992–September 1992, 

Contract Manager, July 1988–January 1992.

9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time service or positions 

with Federal, state, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the 

last 5 years. 

Commissioner, National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, June 2006–present. 

10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, 

agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, 

or other business, enterprise, educational or other institution within the last 5 

years.

HDR Engineering Inc., Sr. Vice President, Oct. 2005–present.

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 

Board Member March 1998–October 2001.

Western States Association of State Highway Transportation Officials 

(WASHTO), Board Member, March 1998–October 2001.

Women’s Transportation Seminar, Member Washington, D.C. and Phoenix, AZ 

Chapters, Member 1990–present; Advisory Board Member 2001–2005.

National Leadership Conference of Women Executives in State Government, 

Treasurer and Board Member, September 1999–October 2001.

Project Challenge, Board Member, February 1997–October 2001.

Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Board Member, 1995–2000.

Arizona Clean and Beautiful, Advisory Council Member and past Board Member, 1993–1995.

11. Please list each membership you have had during the past 10 years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Jul 27, 2007 Jkt 035168 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35168.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
9

ternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or handicap. 

I have held no memberships with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or 

other membership that restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or handicap. My memberships during the past 10 years 

and current are as follows:

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 

Board Member March 1998–October 2001.

Western States Association of State Highway Transportation Officials 

(WASHTO), Board Member, March 1998–October 2001.

Arizona State University, College of Extended Education, Deans Council, October 1999–October 2001.

Grand Canyon State Employees Federal Credit Union, Past President and 

Board Member, 1993–1995.

University of Phoenix, Alumni Advisory Council, September 1994–October 2001.

Arizona Quality Alliance, Board Member and former Senior Judge, March 

1999–October 2001.

Women’s Transportation Seminar, Member Washington, DC and Phoenix, AZ 

Chapters, Member 1990–present; Advisory Board Member 2001–2005.

Arrowhead Republican Women, Member 1997–2001 and September 2005–

present (does not restrict membership to women).

National Leadership Conference of Women Executives in State Government, 

Treasurer and Board Member, September 1999–Oct. 2001. (The organization, 

now defunct, was focused on professional development for women leaders in 

state government, and did not, to my knowledge, restrict membership on the 

basis of gender.)

Project Challenge, Board Member, February 1997–October 2001.

Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Board Member, 1995–2000.

Arizona Clean and Beautiful, Advisory Council Member and past Board Member, 1993–1995.

American Road and Transportation Builders, Public-Private Ventures Committee, December 2005–present.

12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? I have never been a candidate for public office. 

13. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, 

political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the 

past 10 years.

Sen. Jon Kyl, $700. 

Sen. John McCain, $500. 

Bush for President 2000, $750. 

Bush-Cheney 2004, $2000, $250, $200. 

Bush-Cheney 2004 Compliance Committee, $600. 

Hull for Governor, AZ 1998, $500.

14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements.

Top 25 Most Influential Business Women, Greater Arizona Area, 1995.

Who’s Who in Arizona Women, 1997 Person of the Year, Women’s Transportation Seminar 1998.

Most Influential Person in AZ transportation, AZ Business Journal, 2000.

Scholarship, Harvard University, State & Local Government Executive Program 

Kennedy School, 2000.

Woman of the Year Award, Women’s Transportation Seminar, 2004.

Woman of the Year Award, Women’s Transportation Seminar AZ, 2005.

American Road and Transportation Builders Assn. Award, 2005.

National Council on Public Private Partnerships Leadership Award, 2005.

Am. Assn. of State Highway and Transportation Officials Bartlett Award, 2005.

10

15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have given on topics relevant 

to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of these 

publications unless otherwise instructed.

Numerous speeches, articles, columns, etc., while Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 2001–2005.

Numerous speeches, articles, columns, etc., while Director, AZ DOT, 1998–2001.

Speech, American Highway Users Alliance, May 2000.

Article, Associated General Contractors, Arizona Division, 2000.

Article, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, 2000.

Speech, AZ Alliance for Construction Excellence, 2005.

Remarks, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

2005.

Remarks, Tucson/Pima County, AZ Regional Transportation Association, 2005.

Remarks, AZ Trucking Association, 2005.

Speech, Multi-State Highway Commission, 2006.

Speech, AZ Transit Association, 2006.

Presentation, Design Professionals Coalition, 2006.

Speech, AZ State University Distinguished Transportation Seminar, 2006.

Presentation, Indiana Top Officials, 2006.

Article, Better Roads Magazine, 2006.

Article, Innovation Briefs, 2005.

Foreword to book, Street Smart, 2005.

16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing 

before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and specify the subject matter of 

each testimony. 

Testimony before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 

Ground Transportation Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives regarding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Planning and Environmental Processes, September 

13, 2000. Testimony was provided in my official capacity as Director of the Arizona 

Department of Transportation. 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. 

As required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on my financial interests or those of any person whose interests are imputed to me, unless I 

first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to section 208(b)(1), or qualify for regulatory 

exemption, pursuant to section 208(b)(2). I understand that the interests of the following persons are imputed to me: my spouse, minor children, or any general partner; any organization in which I serve as an officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee; and any person or organization with which I am negotiating or 

have an arrangement concerning prospective employment. 

When I began working at HDR, Inc., I received a signing bonus, contingent upon 

my continuing to work for the company for a minimum of 2 years. This bonus is 

reported on Schedule A of my financial disclosure report (SF–278) as a part of my 

‘‘salary and bonus.’’ I am contractually obligated to repay HDR, Inc., this bonus if 

my resignation occurs within 1 year. As a result, upon my resignation from HDR, 

Inc., I will promptly repay the signing bonus. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation or practice with any business, association or other organization during your appointment? If so, please explain. 

No. Upon confirmation, I will resign my position as Senior Vice President, HDR, 

Inc. Furthermore, pursuant to 5 CFR § 2635.502, for 1 year after I terminate this 

position, I will not participate in any particular matter involving specific parties in 

which HDR, Inc., is a party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate. 

3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated. 

11

As required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on my financial interests or those of any person whose interests are imputed to me, unless I 

first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to section 208(b)(1), or qualify for regulatory 

exemption, pursuant to section 208(b)(2). I understand that the interests of the following persons are imputed to me: my spouse, minor children, or any general partner; any organization in which I serve as an officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee; and any person or organization with which I am negotiating or 

have an arrangement concerning prospective employment. 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last 5 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of 

interest in the position to which you have been nominated. 

Upon confirmation, I will resign my position as Senior Vice President, HDR, Inc. 

Furthermore, pursuant to 5 CFR § 2635.502, for 1 year after I terminate this position, I will not participate in any particular matter involving specific parties in 

which HDR, Inc., is a party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate. 

My spouse is employed by CEI, Inc., from which he receives a fixed annual salary. 

Pursuant to 5 CFR § 2635.502, I will not participate in any particular matter involving specific parties in which CEI, Inc., is or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate. 

5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy.

Testimony and discussions related to the SAFETEA–LU transportation authorization legislation bills while Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 

2003–2005.

Testimony and discussions related to appropriations bills for programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration, 2001–2005.

Testimony, Indiana General Assembly, 2006 related to Major Moves Legislation.

Testimony, Illinois State Senate Approps II, 2006, regarding public-private partnerships.

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

As required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on my financial interests or those of any person whose interests are imputed to me, unless I 

first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to section 208(b)(1), or qualify for regulatory 

exemption, pursuant to section 208(b)(2). I understand that the interests of the following persons are imputed to me: my spouse, minor children, or any general partner; any organization in which I serve as an officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee; and any person or organization with which I am negotiating or 

have an arrangement concerning prospective employment. 

Upon confirmation, I will resign my position as Senior Vice President, HDR, Inc. 

Furthermore, pursuant to 5 CFR § 2635.502, for 1 year after I terminate this position, I will not participate in any particular matter involving specific parties in 

which HDR, Inc., is a party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate. 

My spouse is employed by CEI, Inc., from which he receives a fixed annual salary. 

Pursuant to 5 CFR § 2635.502, I will not participate in any particular matter involving specific parties in which CEI, Inc., is or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate. 

My spouse and I participate in defined benefit pension plans with the Arizona 

State Retirement System. Therefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that will have a direct 

and predictable effect on the ability or willingness of the State of Arizona to provide 

these contractual benefits to my spouse and me, unless I first obtain a written waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics by, or been the 

subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, professional association, 

disciplinary committee, or other professional group? No. 

12

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal, 

state, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, state, county, or municipal 

entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? No. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, 

please explain. 

I was named, in my official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of 

Transportation, in a civil rights action filed against the agency. I had directly supervised two of the individual plaintiffs at some time during their tenure with the 

agency. Without admission of any fault on the part of the agency, a settlement was 

negotiated with the plaintiffs on the class action suit. Cases for individual plaintiffs 

have been adjudicated in favor of the State of Arizona. To the best of my knowledge, 

other agency proceedings and civil litigation relating to my matters occurring during 

my service at Arizona DOT from 03/98 to 10/02 have not referenced specific action 

by or relationship to me personally. 

As Federal Highway Administrator, from 10/02 to 07/05, I was named in an official capacity in a number of lawsuits involving the Federal Highway Administration. To the best of my knowledge, I (as well as the Secretary and Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administrator) was named personally in only one lawsuit, filed in 

December 2001, which involved the admission of Mexican owned trucks into the 

United States. The complaint involved decisions going back to 1995, but at the time 

of my appointment as Federal Highway Administrator in 2001, and thereafter, the 

Federal Highway Administration had no role in deciding whether to allow Mexican 

trucks to operate in the United States. This case was dismissed by the Federal District Court in January 2003, a decision which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals 

in February 2004. 

HDR, Inc. has received subpoenas from government investigators to produce 

records pertaining to the collapse of a pre-cast concrete ceiling panel in the I–90 

Boston Marine Industrial Park Tunnel. HDR was the designer of the tunnel structure (the concrete ‘‘box’’) in the early 1990s. HDR was not the designer of the ceiling 

panels or the hangers that collapsed. HDR is complying with all requests for documents and is assisting the NTSB with the investigation. 

HDR, Inc. has been named in a lawsuit filed by the family of the woman who died 

as a result of the ceiling collapse. I had no involvement with HDR’s work on the 

I–90 Boston Marine Industrial Park Tunnel. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? No. 

5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination. 

As director of the Arizona Department of Transportation, I had responsibility over 

functions involving highways, roadways, structures, aviation, transit, research, vehicle registration and driver license functions, motor carrier licensing, motor carrier 

safety inspections, titling and tax collection. 

6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any other basis? If so, please 

explain. 

I was named, in my official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of 

Transportation, in a civil rights action filed against the agency. I had directly supervised two of the individual plaintiffs at some time during their tenure with the 

agency. Without admission of any fault on the part of the agency, a settlement was 

negotiated with the plaintiffs on the class action suit. Cases for individual plaintiffs 

have been adjudicated in favor of the State of Arizona. To the best of my knowledge, 

other agency proceedings and civil litigation relating to my matters occurring during 

my service at Arizona DOT from 03/98 to 10/02 have not referenced specific action 

by or relationship to me personally. 

As Federal Highway Administrator, from 10/02 to 07/05, I was named in an official capacity in a number of lawsuits involving the Federal Highway Administration. To the best of my knowledge, I (as well as the Secretary and Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administrator) was named personally in only one lawsuit, filed in 

December 2001, which involved the admission of Mexican owned trucks into the 

United States. The complaint involved decisions going back to 1995, but at the time 

of my appointment as Federal Highway Administrator in 2001, and thereafter, the 

Federal Highway Administration had no role in deciding whether to allow Mexican 

trucks to operate in the United States. This case was dismissed by the Federal District Court in January 2003, a decision which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals 

in February 2004. 

13

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes. 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the Committee? Yes. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Peters. 

I think we’ll have a round of questions, as I said. We’ll limit the 

first round to 5 minutes. I expect that almost every member will 

come. We’ll see how much time we’ll take. 

Let me start off by saying, you know, as the junior member of 

this committee, I remember when we eliminated the Civil Aeronautics Board. One of the mechanisms we put in place to assure 

that small isolated areas would continue to get air service, where 

needed, was the Essential Air Service program. There have been a 

lot of comments about it. And, undoubtedly, it needs to be reviewed 

and reformed. But have you had a chance to examine that program? Do you know that program? 

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do know of the program, and 

I know of its importance. It was certainly an important program 

in the State of Arizona, as well. And, if confirmed, I would look forward to working with you to continue that program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. 

We’re also looking at two concepts. One is the next-generation air 

transport system, and the other is a joint planning and development office for that system. Are you familiar with the background 

of what we’ve done so far on that approach to that new system? 

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, yes, I have had the opportunity to 

be briefed by Administrator Blakey, as well as others in the agency, and would look forward to helping provide leadership for that 

system. The coordination with other agencies, like DHS and Department of Defense, as well as NASA, would be very important in 

that regard. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that. We’ve got an enormous 

problem with these new small business jets—I like to call that the 

‘‘mosquito fleet’’—that’s going to enter the system. And they’re 

going to be very efficient aircraft. I’m told that they’ll consume 

about 35 percent of the fuel of the existing planes of that size, 9 

to 12 passengers. And they will have about 40 percent of the 

weight of the current planes. But they’re going to enter the system, 

and primarily be used by private executives. Have you looked at 

that problem and reached any conclusion on how to handle the 

enormous number of new planes that are going to enter the system? 

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the issue, and aware 

of the incidence—the higher incidence of these planes in the aviation fleet. I have not yet reached any conclusions as to the impacts 

of those planes coming into the fleet, but, if confirmed, would look 

forward to learning more about that issue and working with you 

on that. 

14

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. 

Our Co-Chairman is here now. Senator, I did not make an opening statement. We just went right into Ms. Peters’ statement. And 

I would call on you for any questions or comments you might have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator INOUYE. Well, I’d just like to congratulate the nominee. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator INOUYE. I had the great honor and privilege of meeting 

her yesterday. And I’m supporting her. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. That’s my statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Then we will go by the early bird rule here. The staff tells me 

the next person who entered the room was Senator Lott. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

having an expeditious hearing on this nominee. And congratulations, Ms. Peters, on——

Ms. PETERS. Thank you. 

Senator LOTT.—being nominated by the President to this very 

important position as Secretary of Transportation. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you. 

Senator LOTT. Mr. Chairman, I’ve had occasion in the past to 

work with the nominee when she was at the Federal Highway Administration, and I found it to be a very satisfactory relationship, 

and we actually produced a result, and it led to a completion of a 

project that had been in the mill for 40 years. And so, I know she 

can help make things happen. 

I don’t want to ask a lot of questions now, because a lot of the 

questions I would ask you would be in areas that you may not have 

been involved in in the past. But let me just say that, as I told the 

nominee when I met with her, I think transportation is a critical 

part of our society and our economy. I think it’s the best department in the government, in terms of actually creating jobs and 

doing things for people. Of course, the Defense Department obviously does a whole lot in that area. But I just believe that we need 

to have an agenda, a plan, and we need to be forward-leaning when 

it comes to transportation and how we build our roads and bridges, 

and doing more in the aviation area. We have so much we have to 

do there. Next year, we have the reauthorization of the FAA coming up. We have an air traffic control system that is just not up 

to the standards that we’re going to have to have. 

We have had improvements in railroads, the short lines and the 

big freight lines, but we need even more. We need more capacity, 

and we need it soon. And Amtrak, we’ve got to decide, do we want 

a national rail passenger system, or not? Do we want some real reform, or not? Do we want it to be able to provide good service, ontime service, you know, with input from the states and the passengers, or not? We need leadership. 

15

Now, I can just say that in Congress we’re going to provide initiatives in all these areas. As a member of the Finance Committee, 

we have a tax incentive proposal to greatly encourage the freight 

railroads to expand their capacity. We’re going to keep pushing on 

Amtrak until we get a reform. And so on down the list. 

So, as our new Secretary of Transportation, I challenge you to 

get hold of this issue and get us moving forward. And I think 

you’re going to have to speak to the White House and OMB a little 

bit, because they’re not going to want to spend some of the money. 

But there is never a better dollar spent, other than for defense, 

than the money we spend on lanes, planes, trains, ports, and harbors. So, I hope that you will provide real leadership in this area. 

Just a couple of specific questions with regard to your appointment to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue 

Study Commission. Can you give us an update on how that commission is going? I thought that was a good idea that could give 

us some direction. But one of the things we need is an on-time report from that commission. What do you know about that, as a 

member of the Commission? 

Ms. PETERS. Yes, Senator, I can answer that question. Senator, 

as a member of the Commission, we met, I believe, four times before my nomination was moved forward, and I have stepped out of 

that role for the duration of this nomination process. 

But, Senator, the Commission is looking at developing a work 

plan that will address all of the issues that were included in the 

legislation authorizing the Commission. There has been much discussion among the Commission members, and I, for one, have 

strongly stressed the need to complete that report and submit it to 

Congress on time so that it can inform the next surface transportation authorization. 

I’m not sure that all of the other members of the Commission 

shared that view, but, if confirmed, sir, I would have the honor of 

chairing that commission, and would certainly look forward to driving home the need to get that report completed accurately, completely, and to you on time. 

Senator LOTT. Well, I hope that you will push that and get it to 

us. 

One of the other areas that I have developed some concern—and 

it involves a conversion on my own part—is my concern about safety in all of these areas—in trains, in planes, and also in the highways. And we had a significant portion of the highway bill that had 

safety proposals in it. We actually changed our approach to states 

on seatbelts, for instance. And instead of trying to punish them or 

threaten them or beat them into submission, we gave them incentives, that if you pass the comprehensive seatbelt laws, you’ll get 

a little extra money. And my state, which is always recalcitrant on 

being told by the Federal Government what we have to do, within 

6 months did it. And we’ve seen, already, an improvement in our 

statistics with regard to seatbelt use by people involved in accidents. 

We also have asked your department, the appropriate department, to look at some other safety proposals to see how it might 

work with regard to child safety and some of the rearview activities 

and how kids accidentally can knock cars out of park and have 

16

them roll forward and kill children. So, I hope that you will also 

take a look at some of these safety initiatives that are being considered. I don’t advocate doing them just for appearance’s sake, but 

if we can do some things that would help in that area, I think it 

would be a very good thing for you to focus on. 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, you have my commitment to do so. I think 

the greatest tragedy is for a child to lose his or her life in an automobile crash because they were not properly buckled in or in a 

child restraint seat. 

Senator LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dorgan is next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I intend 

to support the nomination. 

Let me congratulate Mary Peters. I think she has very substantial experience directly in these areas, so I think this is a good 

nomination. 

And I would also join my colleague Senator McCain in suggesting 

that it would make sense for us to move quickly on this nomination. I think having vacancies in these top positions in agencies is 

a hindrance, and I would hope we would move quickly on it. 

I want to mention just several things. First, Essential Air Service. We have, in western North Dakota and eastern Montana, particularly in the Williston area, an Essential Air Service contract 

connecting Williston and Dickinson, to Denver, and that contract—

they had attempted to have a third flight a day when it was reauthorized a few years ago. Since that time, there has been substantial activity in the oil patch, and our region has increased ridership 

over 23 percent in one city, and 12 percent in another. And I want 

to work with you and visit with you about that, because we need 

to connect that increasing activity in the oil patch to the hub in 

Denver with better EAS service. 

I also want to mention, on Amtrak, if I can, the Empire Builder,

which runs from—it affects a number of us on this committee—it 

runs from Chicago to Seattle. The previous Secretary, Norm Mineta, whom you succeeded, once said, ‘‘Trains that nobody wants 

to ride’’—he was talking about long-distance trains, and used the 

Empire Builder as an example—‘‘Trains that nobody wants to 

ride.’’ I sure hope you’ll dig into this Amtrak issue, as Senator Lott 

indicated. Senator Burns knows how important Amtrak is across 

Montana. I know how important it is across our states. And it is 

full. Unbelievably popular. It’s a terrific service. And obviously Secretary Mineta didn’t know what he was talking about, hadn’t done 

his research. But I think all of us look forward to working with you 

on Amtrak. Zeroing out Amtrak funding or coming in with a proposal that would essentially eliminate all long-distance trains is 

not the way I think the majority on this committee believes we 

should approach this. So, I look forward to working with you on 

that. 

And then, Senator Inouye has been very active—and I have 

joined him—on this issue of a rulemaking with respect to foreign 

control of U.S. airlines. That is very controversial, as you know. 

17

Senator Inouye has proposed an amendment to interrupt that. I’ve 

supported that amendment. I hope we can have discussions about 

that issue, because I think that is—that’s very important. 

So, those are a few of the issues. I talked to you about a radar 

issue at—in our state, as well, at the Bismarck Commerce Center. 

But, having said all of that, I—you know, Mr. Chairman, we 

have a lot of nominees that come to the Congress who are marginally qualified—I shouldn’t say ‘‘a lot,’’ but a number of times someone’s friend is nominated. You have a depth of experience, I think, 

in transportation issues that’s very, very important. 

I do want to mention one additional thing, and that is the issue 

of surface transportation, the STB, with respect to railroads. Again, 

my colleagues, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Burns, and myself, 

have worked long and hard on the issue of captive shippers. And 

to say that the STB does nothing is to give them much greater 

credit than they deserve. It’s an unbelievably inept agency that—

I mean, glaciers move more rapidly than the STB on very serious 

issues that they are confronted with. So, those of us on this committee, on a bipartisan basis, who push and try to cajole and force 

the actions on some of the important things for captive shippers, 

who are really, literally held captive and are paying a massive 

amount of extra money—our Public Service Commission estimates 

that North Dakotans are overcharged by $100 million—$100 million a year. You know, we’d just like an agency to stand up for the 

interests of consumers. And that has not been the case for a long, 

long time. And, again, on a bipartisan basis, Members of this committee would very much like some action. That falls under your jurisdiction, at some point here, and we hope to be able to visit and 

work with you on all of these things. 

I’ve not asked you a question, because we didn’t have opening 

statements. I know the Chairman said we could either ask questions or make a statement. I wanted to at least alert you to those 

issues of interest from the standpoint of one rural state, North Dakota. And I look forward to working with you, and I will look forward to seeing that—if we can get this nomination to the Senate 

as expeditiously as possible. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, for the interest of the members, Senator 

Inouye has just consented that we’ll have a vote after the next vote 

on the floor. We will convene in the President’s Room to see if we 

can get an agreement to report out the nominee’s name for consideration by the Senate. 

Senator Rockefeller? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would say, Ms. Peters, that if we’re going to have a vote on you 

after our next vote, that your situation doesn’t sound exactly dire 

to me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. And, I think, for—I think, for very, very 

good reason. You came to see me. We had a—we had a very good 

talk. We discussed a number of issues. But the thing that struck 

18

me most about you is your openness, your—the sense of transparency about you, and that you, kind of, look for the right solutions, and you’re willing to stand by them, and you’re plainspoken 

in the way you do it. So, I just—I want to praise you, and the 

President in his selection of you——

Ms. PETERS. Thank you. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER.—because I think you’re—I think you’re 

going to be terrific. And I agree with what Senator Dorgan said 

about the transportation background. That’s important. 

I’ll just raise, a little higher than he did, the issue of captive 

shipping. That drives most of our colleagues on this committee 

crazy, but it ought to drive all of them, I think, in the direction of 

trying to solve this, and it’s a very—it’s a very simple thing. Staggers, who is a West Virginian—that Staggers Deregulation Act of 

1984, everybody got deregulated if there were two lines going into 

a business, but the 20 percent who weren’t didn’t get deregulated. 

And that’s—when he was referring to the STB—ICC, before that—

there’s never been any movement on that. And then, there’s the 

question of revenue inadequacy. And the railroads always have inadequate revenues, and then, as you’re discussing that, you open 

up their annual reports, and the revenues are overflowing in all directions. 

And this is serious, because I don’t know what the West Virginia 

figures are. If his are 100 million, that means, probably, ours are 

more, because there are so many chemicals and coal and timber 

that comes out of our state—car parts, all kinds of things. And I 

think it’s just a question of a Cabinet officer, sort of, grappling with 

that issue. And we’ve been—I’ve been at it for 22 years, made absolutely no progress whatsoever, and so have others. It affects every 

one of us individually, as—virtually equally. Senator Kay Bailey 

Hutchison isn’t here today, but, you know, Houston was just in a 

mess—or parts of Texas were in a mess when a certain situation 

happened down there. And it’s got to be solved. And I think your 

transparency creates an atmosphere for doing that. I mean, maybe 

there would be a special meeting that you call. I met with the head 

of one of the big railroads this morning, and he seemed very open, 

accommodating in his attitude. Maybe things are changing. 

It isn’t good enough to, sort of, take an individual industry which 

is having a problem and then make an accommodation to them, because that slides past the real problem. But that’s a hard one. 

I would also mention the safety of motorists and pedestrians 

who—at rural rail crossings. That’s a huge thing in West Virginia. 

And it’s a—it’s not just you, it’s the DHS, Coast Guard, TSA, the 

Corps of Engineers, all kinds of other folks, local also, and the behavior of people. But it is an enormous problem. And I won’t ask 

for an answer right now, but I would actually appreciate if you 

would, maybe, send me a letter giving me some of your thoughts 

on what we do about that, because the costs involved and the safety involved—like you mentioned, the child with the seatbelt—well, 

this is, sort of, Americans with a seatbelt for a period of a number 

of yards. And a lot of people die as a result of this. 

Another issue that I would just bring up is the—something that 

we face very much in West Virginia, where we have—only 4 percent of West Virginia is flat. Everything else is either going up or 

19

down. And so, that means that when you have as many chemicals 

as we do, up and down the Ohio, and then into the interior and 

the Kanawha River, so, it was really the foundation state for 

chemicals—and so, there’s the question of, what do you do when 

there’s an incident, whether it’s a terrorist attack or whether it’s 

just a car that overturns? And the way of systematically handling 

those problems is something that is in your realm. 

And I would conclude, with 12 seconds. I am ranking on the 

Aviation Subcommittee here, and we’ve seen that the aviation industry has been turned upside-down, as you very well know. And 

its budget—the FAA’s budget for dealing with these things—the 

Congress has consistently rejected cuts to airport construction 

funding. We ought to be redoing O’Hare Airport. I was there 2 days 

ago. I mean, it’s wildly inefficient for today; very, very expensive. 

But the budget that gets submitted for FAA construction is extremely important. You will have a voice in that. 

Ms. PETERS. Yes. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. And I want you to be sensitive to—you 

know, we’ve had all kinds of things that have been taken from our 

budget, but some of these things affect Americans every single day. 

And, with that, I’d just say that if you would think about those, 

respond to me on the rail-crossing thing, and to say that I’m going 

to very proudly vote for you. And evidently, very soon. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Next is Senator Burns. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Peters, thank you very much, and congratulations on your 

nomination. And we’re glad you’re willing to serve. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Rockefeller was talking about aviation, 

and the area of aviation. I think our challenges there are a great 

deal more than they were before 9/11. All the passengers are back 

in the air prior—we had prior to 9/11. But the problem is, it’s taking more airplanes to carry them. We’ve got our regional jets now, 

not big—not as big as airports, but making more frequent flights. 

I think that is—has to be put in the mix. And general aviation—

how general aviation is treated, it will play, I think, an even larger 

role in the years to come. And if decisions are made in the Department of Transportation, in the FAA, or wherever, we’ve got to 

make sure that the big and the small are considered, and to be at 

the table. 

And as we talked about—in surface transportation, I think we’re 

going to be facing great challenges in the terms of capacity constraints in our network. The next 20 years, freight shipments are 

expected to dramatically increase, placing serious demands on 

roads, aviation, rail, and waterways. My particular concern, as you 

know, relates to the role of what freight rates—or the freight railways play in our nation’s infrastructure. I think we have a problem 

20

in the rail industry that cannot be ignored any longer. There are 

capacity constraints. I understand that. But most of those limitations are a symptom of a much larger problem, the lack of meaningful competition for rates and service in many parts of our country, especially Montana, and I think Senator Dorgan alluded to 

that for North Dakota a little while ago. 

We’ve got to remember, the other day, the Surface Transportation Board issued some rules on trying to deal with small shippers, that they may have a place to obtain, but it’s anything under 

$200,000. That’s—that is—that rule is not—I don’t think has a lot 

of merit to it. And we will probably address that, some way or 

other, here in this committee. 

But one has to remember that it is in the law now, in Section 

10101, in Title 49 of the U.S. Code— ‘‘...it is the policy of the 

United States Government to allow, to the maximum extent possible, competition and the demand for services to establish reasonable rates for transportation by rail.’’ But there’s also another line 

to that, ‘‘to maintain reasonable rates where there is an absence of 

effective competition.’’ We have to address that. And—because it’s 

being reflected not only in our grain that we ship from the State 

of Montana to our ports, but the energy, the coal we ship from 

our—from ours that goes into—that goes into electricity. And, of 

course, ratepayers pay that. And we’ve seen a big increase there. 

And we have to deal—now, we have to deal with it in the context 

of what’s good for the railroad, too, because we cannot operate 

without good rail service. We can’t—we have to have them. But 

we’re down to four. And so, we have to find some way—some way 

that the small and the large can survive, and along with our railroads, even our short lines and how we handle that. 

And there are certain things that we can do, and we should do 

in the near future, in order to address those problems and still take 

care of the infrastructure that they need to improve their capacity 

to move freight by surface transportation. 

Amtrak, I will tell you, I want you to move some folks down to 

the Department of Transportation. 

Ms. PETERS. You’ve mentioned that, sir. 

Senator BURNS. I mentioned that to you, and I think it—because 

they have to be in the overall mix of our transportation plan in this 

country. And everybody says there’s no—there’s nobody who rides 

those trains across—the Empire Builder. Try and get on it, because 

it’s a pretty busy train from Minneapolis to Seattle. 

So, those are the areas that I think—and I look forward in working with you in all of these challenges. I have no questions now. 

Thank you for coming to the office and visiting with us. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing. And let’s us 

get this—let’s get this person in the seat that she deserves. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. 

I have to amend the statement I made, because absent Senators 

may have questions for the record that you will need to answer, so 

we will delay the vote on your nomination. But we will meet off of 

the floor on the next vote after the questions have been answered. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you. 

21

The CHAIRMAN. They will be presented to you in writing by tomorrow at 10 o’clock. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator DeMint? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DEMINT,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to express to you my full support for the nomination of Ms. Peters. I appreciate her courtesy in coming by my office. She has actually been 

to South Carolina to work on some innovative transportation solutions. I think she is open to consider innovative ideas. 

I think we all know that the federal Department of Transportation can do only so much, and I think it was the thought of considering taking some of the road responsibilities back to local and 

state governments while we look at national infrastructure for rail 

and what we’re going to do with aviation may make sense at this 

time—and she seems willing to look at some innovative ideas. 

So, I appreciate her very much and look forward to supporting 

her nomination. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Smith? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mary Peters, I congratulate you on your nomination. And 

I join my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, in looking forward 

to voting affirmatively for your confirmation. 

As we spoke in my office about a range of issues from planes, 

trains, and automobiles, you’ve got a huge job. And I know you’re 

up to it, both personally and professionally. You’re a wonderful selection. 

There are now reports coming out that the Highway Trust Fund 

will be out of money by, or short of money by 2008. Yet, Americans 

love to travel, and they particularly love their cars. We previously 

spoke of the I–5 Columbia River corridor that connects the States 

of Washington and Oregon, and the congestion is so bad there that 

by 2 in the afternoon it’s a parking lot, and yet, it is a vital link 

for commerce and transportation in our country. 

So, obviously, I’m anxious to work with you and to learn of any 

ideas you have to help us to alleviate the congestion on our highways and how we’re going to finance it. 

Ms. PETERS. I’ll look forward to that, sir. 

Senator SMITH. I want to comment on the railroads. Obviously, 

part of alleviating congestion on our roads is investing in our rails. 

And the Federal Government has had a minimal role in investing 

in rails. On the Finance Committee we recently implemented a tax 

credit for the railroads to invest in rails, and we find, in the operation of that tax credit, that much of it was nullified by the AMT. 

The IRS is now coming out with a ruling further restricting it, and, 

therefore, frustrating the very unanimous—or near unanimous intent of Congress. 

22

Anything you can do to help us come up with ideas for how we 

can obtain more investment in rails, both cross-country and short 

line, would be appreciated. It is critical to relieve congestion on our 

highways and to increase efficiency in our transportation means. 

I would also throw in my support for Essential Air Service. Oregon has many rural places. It’s a big state, geographically, and 

rural airports cannot be forgotten. I appreciate anything that you 

can do for those rural airports. 

And I look forward to working with you on these issues. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Congratulations on your nomination. You have an excellent track record on transportation issues, particularly road and highway issues. I look forward to working 

with you in solving our nation’s transportation problems and developing Oregon’s 

unique transportation projects. 

I have a great deal of interest in how this country is going to address the increasingly congested and over burdened transportation system. Our airports and airways 

are reaching their saturation point. There is concern the Aviation Trust Fund is 

running out of money and the aviation transportation infrastructure is outdated and 

overwhelmed. 

Our highways are experiencing unparalleled amounts of congestion. New construction projects can not keep up with demand. There are now estimates that the 

Highway Trust Fund will be out of money as early as 2008. 

A perfect example of this congestion is the Interstate–5 Columbia River Crossing 

linking Oregon and Washington. Interstate–5 is a vital commercial link along the 

Pacific coast. In its current state, the congestion is so bad along this route that 

backups begin to occur at 2 p.m. in the afternoon. This congestion is currently choking the region, restricting commerce along the corridor, costing our businesses extra 

money in time and fuel and frustrating drivers of all types. 

Our national transportation systems are reaching a critical point. I expect you to 

put forth the necessary leadership to address these problems and work with Congress to develop adequate, affordable, and common-sense solutions. 

There are a couple of issues I would like to raise. To begin with, I am concerned 

with the Essential Air Service to the rural airports in my state. In Fiscal Year 2007, 

the President’s budget included a $59 million reduction for this vital program, from 

$109 million to $50 million. My hometown airport, Eastern Oregon Regional Airport 

in Pendleton, is a recipient of EAS funds. Such a cut would hurt these airports. I 

am aware that there have been efforts to change the funding formula for this program and I suggest you work with Congress to make the needed changes, these 

changes must be made without placing too much of the financial burden on these 

small communities. 

Oregon’s medium-sized airports are expanding. Roberts Field in Redmond now 

services San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Denver, Los Angeles, Seattle, Eugene, and 

Portland. McNary Field in Salem has an opportunity to add jet service to Salt Lake 

City in the coming months. The airport has done an admirable job of improving its 

aviation capabilities and the Salem business community stepped up with a commitment of over $500,000 to expand the airport and make it suitable for a major carrier 

use. In order to address this increased demand, these airports must continue to expand to keep up with this expansion. I hope that we can work together to ensure 

these airports receive the support they need from the Department of Transportation. 

We are shipping more products today, using all modes of transportation, than ever 

before. As our economy continues to expand, transportation demands will only increase. Railroads are an efficient and safe means to transport goods, and a critical 

component of our national transportation system. It is important that our railroads 

have sufficient capacity to accommodate the shipping needs of our nation. Sufficient 

rail capacity is not only important to the rail industry but also to the overall health 

of our transportation system. Increasing capacity and shipping more products by 

rail will also alleviate congestion and strain caused by trucks on our Nation’s highways. Although our railroads do not receive Federal funding similar to our highways, this mode of transportation is vital to our economy and our nation. 

Portland has a state-of-the-art light rail transit system. There are other communities, such as Denver, Salt Lake, and Phoenix that are passing local measures to 

match Federal funds for light and commuter rail. The Federal funds needed to conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Jul 27, 2007 Jkt 035168 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35168.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
23

struct these types of projects are going to have to grow to meet demand. I support 

these transit projects as they lead to a high return on investment to help remove 

cars from the roads, leading to less congestion and a cleaner environment. They are 

easy to use, safe, and clean. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the expansion of these transit programs and how to fund these increasingly popular transit 

systems. 

Congratulations again on your nomination. I look forward to working with you to 

update and grow our nation’s transportation infrastructure.

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Smith. 

Senator Lautenberg? 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And greetings, 

Ms. Peters. 

It looks like you have made a lot of friends in your private discussions, and I, sort of, feel the same way, but I’ve got a couple of 

questions to ask. 

Ms. PETERS. Absolutely. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The fact of the matter is that, while we 

can’t do much about the destruction that we get from extreme 

weather and other conditions beyond our control, we can do things 

to provide transportation. And I’d like to know that you’re going to 

tackle all the problems that exist for every mode of transportation. 

And so, let me start. Mr. Chairman, you will have full opening 

statements in the record, I assume? Yes, he said. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, you didn’t object, right? 

OK. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing. 

Like electricity and water, we need and expect our transportation systems to 

work. Trains must run. Planes must fly. Roads must be paved. Our personal livelihood and national economy depend on it. 

If confirmed, we will look to Ms. Peters, to keep our system running as Secretary 

of Transportation. With, freight cargo doubling, our skies getting more crowded and 

cars and trucks stuck in congestion on highways across America, you will have 

much to do to keep our country moving. If Ms. Peters takes the helm at the Department of Transportation, I hope she will focus on passenger rail. 

This committee developed legislation to grow our nation’s rail infrastructure for 

high-speed corridor service—and provide $11.4 billion over 6 years to reauthorize 

Amtrak. Senator Lott and I hope to debate that bill on the floor soon. The Amtrak 

bill will help bring balance to our nation’s transportation system. This year alone, 

we will spend more on highways than we have in the last thirty-five years on passenger rail. 

Another area of concern is aviation. As you know, Conair Flight 5191 crashed in 

Kentucky. Forty-nine people were killed. Only one air traffic controller was on 

duty—contrary to Federal Aviation Administration policy. We already have 1,081 

fewer controllers in our towers than we did 3 years ago—and seventy percent of 

those controllers can retire by 2011. 

These are difficult problems, and I look forward to questioning Ms. Peters. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

24

Senator LAUTENBERG. You certainly have experience on the highway side of things, but future transportation needs of our country 

will not be met by highways alone. I’ve met with officials from the 

freight rail industry. And, you know, I’m very concerned about Amtrak, and listen with interest as other Senators from other parts 

of the country beside the Northeast have shown today a serious interest in seeing that Amtrak continues to operate and appropriate 

investments are being made to bring it up to date. This year, we’re 

going to celebrate the 35th anniversary of Amtrak. But the budgets 

tell us the true story, that in a single year we spend more on highways than we’ve spent on Amtrak improvement over the last 35 

years. And we just can’t continue like that. 

It was noted that the skies are going to be fuller with the advent 

of the light jets. Right now we’re trying to find room in our national airspace for all the flights that we have—by reducing separations and limiting flights at certain airports. But I also note that 

there are shortages of air traffic controllers. At Newark, for instance, Federal Aviation Administrator Blakey has said we need 35 

controllers for safe operations, but we’re 15 percent short. And so, 

we have to continue to see that that population is built relative to 

the need. 

Ms. Peters, do you see a role for rail service as part of a security 

measure dealing with emergencies like 9/11 or the hurricanes, like 

Katrina? Do you see rail as an essential part of that structure that 

helps us deal with these emergencies? 

Ms. PETERS. Well, Senator, I also agree that we need a national 

passenger rail system. And I certainly, to respond to your specific 

question, see a role for passenger trains, in terms of evacuating 

areas. In fact, part of the emergency response that is in place in 

the post-Katrina situation for the Gulf Coast area is to use Amtrak 

to help evacuate people from that area, should another hurricane 

come into the area. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I have a letter that you sent to Senator 

Kyl. It goes back a few years, but it is about the safety concerns 

with heavier, longer trucks. You wrote ‘‘rollovers and jack-knifings 

by trucks already’’—this was, again 7 years ago—‘‘already a problem on our interstates and our highways. In addition to safety consequences, we’re reminded about the effect of additional weights on 

our highway facilities, especially bridges.’’ Do you still maintain 

that view? 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, I do. I think safety has to be a predominant consideration, and certainly the wear and tear on our roads. 

If confirmed, I would look forward to discussing that issue with 

you. There are circumstances where we could perhaps define situations where longer and heavier trucks could be safe, but I share 

your concern about making sure that safety is always first in this 

issue. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The principal thing for us is to make sure 

that we have this balanced highway system. And so, we’ve discussed shortages in FAA controllers, the search for more capacity 

in the airspace, on the freight rail lines, and dealing with the congestion and pollution that we now get from jammed highways. So, 

we have little choice. Senator Lott and I have a bill that’s sponsored by many of our friends here to get Amtrak the Federal fundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Jul 27, 2007 Jkt 035168 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35168.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
25

ing that would permit it to operate without having to go out there 

with a tin cup every time they need something. So, I’m hoping, Ms. 

Peters, that you will join us in that quest to make sure that Amtrak gets the investment that it needs to bring our country’s passenger railroad up to date. 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, I look forward to working with you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks. 

Mr. Chairman, are we going to have another 5-minute round? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Pryor? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Peters, thank you for being here before the Committee today. 

Let me ask a couple of questions about trucking security. Last 

week, the Senate passed the port security bill, and it had some 

trucking security provisions in there to clarify authority and responsibility when it comes to fraudulent CDLs, state and local law 

enforcement, those type issues. I’ve noticed, in some of my reading, 

that the FMCSA is considering a pilot program to allow some longhaul Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate throughout the 

United States. Do you know anything about that? 

Ms. PETERS. Sir, I have also heard that, Senator. And I have 

asked the question. And there are no immediate plans to do so. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. I’d—if there are plans, I’d be curious about 

what statutory authority there is to do that. Do you know what 

statute might give the agency that authority? 

Ms. PETERS. Sir, I do not. And I understand your concern about 

the issue, and, if confirmed, would look forward to getting to the 

bottom of the so-called rumors and addressing the issue. 

Senator PRYOR. I’d say this, that—and I look forward to working 

with you on this, but I would say this, that if DOT is planning on 

moving forward, the kinds of things I would want to know is, what 

legal authority is there? And then I would want to know, is there 

some sort of agreement with Mexico to allow U.S. safety inspectors 

and auditors to look at the trucks? Do they have to meet the same 

requirements that U.S.-domiciled carriers have to meet? Would 

they have to pay all the same fees, the various registration, fuel 

taxes, those kind of things? Would they have to do the international registration plan, the IRP, and the internal fuel tax agreement? Would they have to comply with all the same rules and regs 

that the U.S. carriers would have to? So, as you look at that, I 

would very much appreciate having a dialogue with your Department and those agencies as that is being developed. 

And the other thing I wanted to touch on, something you and I 

talked about several days ago, is the real infrastructure needs that 

we have in this country. I mean, we just talked about trucking. Obviously, our highways are overcrowded. We all know that in the 

trucking industry there’s a driver shortage right now. But you look 

at our railway system, it’s about at capacity in many places. Air 

Traffic Control Systems are outdated. We’ve not done a great job 

of upgrading and maintaining our locks and dams on our rivers. 

26

You know, we can go through a long list of our needs. And I know 

part of your responsibility is to try to address all those things. And 

I know you’ve given that a lot of thought. But let me just ask my 

question, then I’ll let you answer. 

In some of my reading, I read where you said that we can’t depend on the Federal Government to bring the money in, that it was 

around—that was around when the interstate system was first 

built. And I guess my question is, what does that mean? When you 

say, ‘‘We can’t depend on the Federal Government to have that 

same kind of money when the interstate system was first built,’’ 

what does that mean? That sounds like toll roads, to me, but I’m 

curious to hear your response on how you think the Federal Government will—or we, as a Nation—will pay for these transportation 

needs that we have. 

Ms. PETERS. Sir, the basis of the remark was the fact that the 

gas tax system which was put in place to finance the interstate system is likely not going to be viable to help meet all of our nation’s 

transportation system needs in the future, because of the greater 

incidence of hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles coming into the 

fleet, which is a very good thing, in terms of air quality and other 

issues. So, the basis of my remark was that we have to look beyond 

those traditional methods of funding infrastructure to look for new 

and innovative ways to bring a diversified set of funds to bear to 

meet our nation’s transportation needs. 

Senator PRYOR. Does—would that include toll roads? 

Ms. PETERS. It could very well, sir, yes. 

Senator PRYOR. Would that include toll roads on existing highways, or just on new construction? 

Ms. PETERS. Sir, I believe that the intent right now is only on 

new construction or improvement construction, but those are decisions, as was mentioned by one of your colleagues, that I think are 

better made, in most cases, by state and local governments. However, the Federal Government certainly has an interest, especially 

in our interstate system, in ensuring that that system continues to 

serve all Americans, and, importantly, serve commerce needs 

throughout the United States. So, it is an issue that I would look 

forward, if confirmed, sir, to discussing more with you and learning 

more about your position on the issue. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Snowe? 

STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I welcome you, Administrator Peters. And you certainly come 

with, you know, the highest level of commendation with respect to 

your past accomplishments and experience, so I’m very pleased 

that you’ll become the next Secretary of Transportation because of 

your breadth of expertise in the areas that are going to be so critical to the future. 

I know some of my other colleagues on the Committee have already referenced it, and I’m very pleased as well that we had the 

opportunity to meet recently on some of the issues that I consider 

27

to be critical, certainly to my State of Maine, as also to, I think, 

the national transportation policy. But obviously as we look to the 

future, one of the concerns that I had, and I’ve expressed, is making sure that, you know, rural states like Maine are not forgotten 

in the overall transportation policy. 

First of all, as I mentioned to you about Amtrak—and we were 

fortunate to be one of the last states to have the benefit of an extension of Amtrak from Boston to Portland, and it’s extremely successful, has a 92-percent, you know, customer satisfaction rate, because of the outstanding services provided to the people of Maine 

and the vicinity. It’s worked exceedingly well, so much so that 

we’re looking to extend it even further up into the State. It’s heavily utilized. It’s one of the most successful routes—second-highest 

revenue routes in the country. So, I think that there’s no question 

this bodes well for the future. 

And one of the reasons for its success, as I mentioned to you, was 

the Federal waiver that was granted to the State to use the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds for that purpose, and that 

will expire in 2009. Can you state for this committee what your 

views are with respect to the use—the flexibility using Federal 

transportation funds for this purpose? Because that certainly has 

contributed to the success for the Downeaster, the extension of Amtrak to Maine, and certainly will in the future, and if—particularly 

if we want to extend that service even further up because it’s so 

heavily utilized by the people in New England, in my state. 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, as a former state transportation administrator, I very much encourage the exercise of local discretion to use 

funding that is allocated to states, such as Maine has done, to help 

support the Amtrak operation. In fact, in terms of having a viable 

national transportation—rail transportation system, I think having 

that kind of flexibility, and state participation and involvement, 

will be essential in the future. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, I appreciate that, because I think that it 

is—I think it’s going to be critical. You know, I happen to believe 

in—and I gather you share that belief, as well—that it is essential 

that the Federal Government play a role in creating a strong national rail system. It is absolutely essential that we have one, and 

one that—obviously, that’s going to provide—that’s going to have 

the benefit of Federal support. You know, hopefully we can move, 

you know, further and further away from, you know, huge Federal 

subsidies. I mean, that’s obviously what we have striven for in this 

committee over the years. But, nevertheless, I think it’s so vital 

and central to our overall transportation policy. 

Second, on aviation, rural aviation—and, again, I know my colleagues have raised this issue, but I do think it is paramount—and 

that is, of course, regional airports, such as those that exist in 

Maine, or Essential Air Service communities that depend upon the 

Essential Air Service, you know, funding. And one, of course, is the 

fact that—first, referring to the operational evaluation plan—it 

seems that much of the focus in the past of—by these plans—and 

certainly the most recent, focused on the large hub airports—understandably so, because of the congestion that exists at these hub 

airports. But, on the other hand, what concerns me is what is occurring in, you know, my state with the small regional airports, is 

28

that we’re, you know, losing—a loss of seats and overall—both in 

terms of flights and seats in passenger service—there’s no question 

that our airports have been very hard hit over the years, and yet 

it’s pivotal and central to economic development. 

So, I would like to get your views—one, in terms of examining, 

you know, how you incorporate, you know, regional airports and 

those that serve the rural states of this country, in the overall 

plans for the future. 

Ms. PETERS. Senator Snowe, I do think it’s essential to have air 

service into our rural areas. You know, it’s been over 25 years since 

deregulation of the aviation industry, and we—we need, I think, to 

look again at how the service is working, and look at the situations 

that you describe, and determine where it’s most appropriate to 

provide assistance to those airports. 

Having come from a state, also, with a large amount of rural 

area, I do appreciate how important those regional airports are, 

and think they have to be part of the complement of transportation 

services in the future. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, I appreciate that. And I hope you will give 

that consideration, since they play a premier role in the development of our economies, as does the Essential Air Service program 

that—you know, Maine is one of the—other than four other states, 

we’re the largest beneficiaries of that program. It’s absolutely vital 

to ensure that those airports receive that service. 

I’m also concerned about the Administration’s proposed, you 

know, community cost-sharing between the Federal Government—

in some cases as much as 80/20. It’s something that we have rejected in the past, and certainly, hopefully, will do so in the future, 

because I think that places an inordinate burden on those communities that depend on the EAS program. But in—it’s obvious it’s 

going to have a paramount impact on them if they have to—if they 

have to provide for the cost-sharing and they see a reduction in the 

overall program, which—the Administration has submitted, you 

know, a program and a budget for that, for less than, I think, half 

of what exists today. 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, I absolutely understand your concerns in 

that area and would be happy to get more information, should I be 

confirmed, and follow up with you personally on that. 

Senator SNOWE. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Peters, I’m told that while you were reading your opening 

statement this committee finally received clearance to seek unanimous consent to pass the National Transportation Safety Board reauthorization bill. Aviation safety is one of our major concerns. 

In Alaska, I was alarmed when I found that one out of 11 pilots 

were being killed in aircraft accidents, and we have the highest 

number of pilots per capita in the country. We developed what we 

called the Five Star Medallion Program, with the help of the Department of Commerce and FAA, and we have reduced significantly 

pilot deaths and increased safety in our state. 

I want to know if you’re willing to come up and take a look at 

that program and study it to see if it couldn’t be replicated 

29

throughout the United States, particularly the rural areas of the 

United States. 

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, it sounds like an exemplary program, and one I would be very pleased to come to Alaska to review. 

The CHAIRMAN. I look forward to showing you a little bit of my 

marine research capabilities, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PETERS. Ah. I’ll look forward to that, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to get back to the whole problem of financing. As other Senators have said, FAA will be reauthorized 

next year. And we’ve had hearings now on aviation investment 

needs. And I think we’re going to have to have a major session 

with the aviation communities in order to try and develop a plan. 

We need a financing option that pulls in both the increased needs, 

in terms of investment, and the transformation to the next-generation air transport system. I do hope that that is something that you 

will help us on. As a matter of fact, we have one of your people 

here on this committee as a fellow for a year to help find ways that 

we can work together on that issue. 

I’ve not talked about highway issues. We all know your background is in highways. And so, all I can say is, is that we have an 

increasing number of fatalities on our highways. I think if we can’t 

reverse that any other way, we’re going to have to restore the 

speed limits on interstate highways. We have to find some way to 

reduce those deaths. 

Ms. PETERS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And each year they’re going up. So, I would hope 

that we would have a chance also to work with you on that, particularly with regard to the fatalities on our interstate highways. 

Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, you have my commitment to do so. 

There is no higher priority at USDOT than reducing the number 

of deaths and injuries that occur on our nation’s highways every 

year. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I was appalled at some of the statistics I 

saw today as we prepared for this hearing, and that is an alarming 

rate of increase. 

Let me now turn to Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Peters, you struck a note of alarm with me, which passed because I ran out of time, but to say that you were looking at the 

opportunity in—for areas where truck size and weight standards 

could be changed, so long as it’s done safely. Now, if I look at your 

letter that I mentioned before, when you were with the Arizona Department of Transportation, you talked about the damage that results from heavier weights in the trucks. And here, you’re telling 

us—and we’re laggard by billions and billions of dollars in repairing bridges. We have lots of functionally obsolete bridges across the 

country. And I hear you say you’re looking for opportunities to increase truck weights—the size and the weights. Isn’t that kind of 

a reversal of position? And, if so, please let me know, because that’s 

not something that I would take to as a positive indication of where 

you want to go. 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, please forgive me if I miscommunicated on 

that. What I was referring to is that some states are considering 

30

proposals for truck-only lanes, lanes where trucks might be segregated from the rest of the traffic, with deeper pavement depths, 

deeper pavements that would withstand the weight of a truck better. If traffic could be segregated as in those weight proposals—

which some states are considering now—that is what I was referring to. I was not referring to lifting the ‘‘Longer Combination Vehicle’’ freeze or the truck size and weight limits. The position that 

I took in that letter, back 7 years ago to Senator Kyl, remains my 

position. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. I just wanted to be sure that we’re on 

the same truck length, as they say. 

And the matter of foreign ownership of our airlines, ownership 

and control, that’s a matter of great concern to me, and to many 

of us. U.S. airlines are important national assets. And I’d be wary 

and resistant to the notion that we might turn over—let control be 

taken by foreign owners. I think it’s a bad idea, for many reasons. 

But do you intend to—if you’re confirmed, to pursue changes in the 

rules on foreign ownership of U.S. airlines? 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, I certainly have heard your concerns, as 

well as those of many other Members of this committee, and of 

Congress, as well, and I do understand that there have been comments received by the Department on a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking as it relates to the control of airlines. I commit 

to you that I will carefully review all of those comments, and review them with you, and talk with you, before the Department 

makes any decision on that issue. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You’re aware of the fact that there is a 

strong interest, in our region, to open up another rail tunnel under 

the Hudson River——

Ms. PETERS. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—so that we can increase the capacity to 

allow enough trains to go through there. And I’d like to know that 

you will at least consider seriously the requests for help from you 

to make sure that we get going with that project. That’s a project 

of national interest, even though the tunnel is between New York 

and New Jersey, because right now it is the biggest bottleneck on 

the entire Northeast Corridor from here to Boston. And so, can I 

have an indication of the fact that you’re—that you understand the 

need for this tunnel and will be helpful to us as we pursue a way 

to get it done? 

Ms. PETERS. Senator, certainly. I certainly appreciate the need 

for that tunnel, and have had an opportunity to work with my 

former colleagues, Jack Lettiere, as well as Joe Boardman, who are 

now in different positions, but have impressed upon me the need 

for transportation solutions in that area. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Now, I don’t want to ask any questions 

that might be interpreted as being on the personal side, but you’re 

a motorcycle rider, are you not? 

Ms. PETERS. Yes, sir, I am. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you always wear a helmet? 

Ms. PETERS. I never ride without a helmet, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I just wanted to be sure, because——

[Laughter.] 

31

Senator LAUTENBERG.—everybody—I would buy you one, if you 

didn’t have one. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Because I had a ski accident a couple of 

years ago on my skis. The helmet that I was wearing was 2 days 

old, and I’ve been skiing 60 years, and it virtually saved my life. 

I had to go in for emergency surgery as a result of that. 

That was for foolishness, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Ms. Peters. I look 

forward to working with you. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. A bike rider, huh? 

Ms. PETERS. Yes, sir, an avid motorcyclist. In fact, I own two. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’ve got another one down there at the White 

House, in Josh Bolten. Now we understand why you move so quickly. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much. As I said, there are 

some absent Senators and we have agreed that they will have until 

10 o’clock tomorrow morning to file questions. As soon as those answers are received, we will move to consider reporting your nomination to the floor, in a meeting held in the President’s Room off 

the floor. I cannot tell you exactly when that time will be. It depends on how long it takes you to answer those questions. 

We do thank you very much for your appearance today, and I 

think you’ve been very frank to all these people. You’ve made some 

promises that I’m not sure you can keep, but that’s all right. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I’ll be hanging over there, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. We do have a fairly bipartisan approach to many issues, particularly in transportation here in this 

committee. I look forward to working with you, along with our CoChairman and members on both sides of the aisle. You have a 

grand assignment. It’s a very difficult one. We wish you very well. 

Ms. PETERS. Thank you so much, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(33)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE CHILSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

RAILROAD PASSENGERS

I commend the Bush Administration for nominating Mary Peters to lead USDOT. 

Her comprehensive vision of transportation makes her an excellent choice. 

I had the pleasure of working with her when she was director of the Arizona Department of Transportation. I found her to be smart, creative and action oriented 

as well as open-minded and willing to listen. I was most impressed by the fact that 

she had a strong belief in multi-modal transportation. 

I believe she understands that rail will become an increasingly important component of our transportation system as we confront the dual challenges of intractable 

congestion and rising oil prices. Rail represents a strategic solution that will help 

preserve America’s mobility, quality of life and competitive position in a global economy as we adapt to new realities. 

If confirmed as Secretary of Transportation by the Senate, she will have an important opportunity to broaden the scope of Federal transportation policy beyond its 

traditional emphasis on highway & air transportation. Her talent for finding common ground among competing and diverse interests makes such an important 

change possible. 

There is increasing recognition that public investment in rail infrastructure is essential just for freight railroads to maintain their existing market-share, much less 

increase it as most Americans including DOT officials would like. Maintenance and 

growth of rail’s market share is critical for maximizing safety, fluidity and energy 

efficiency of our national transportation system, and for minimizing that system’s 

environmental impacts. 

The Alameda Corridor in southern California and the CREATE project in Chicago 

are happy exceptions to an overall pattern of Federal non-involvement in rail infrastructure investment. Railroad trackage in the New Orleans area has needs similar 

to those in Chicago. One of Ms. Peters’ challenges will be to make critical investments in rail the rule rather than the exception. We look forward to working with 

her on this. 

If Ms. Peters succeeds in finding ways that incorporate rail within the scope of 

Federal transportation policy and planning—as I believe she will—her appointment 

will prove to be a transforming event that will serve the American people well for 

generations to come. 

NARP urges speedy confirmation of Ms. Peters and looks forward to a productive 

dialogue with her about the future of passenger rail in America. Thank you for considering our views. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

HON. MARY E. PETERS

General 

Question 1. What do you believe are the significant challenges facing the U.S. 

transportation system? Do you believe that the Department of Transportation is 

doing all that is necessary to prepare the Nation for the transportation challenges 

ahead? 

Answer. The most significant challenges facing the U.S. transportation system are 

safety, system reliability, and the uncertainty of future funding sources. I believe 

that the Department is confronting each of these issues head-on, and if confirmed, 

my goal will be to make significant advances in each area during my tenure.

Question 2. The Department of Transportation is a collection of stove-piped modal 

agencies, with modal-specific programs and responsibilities. Do you believe this 

structure restricts the ability of the Department to address the needs of our multimodal transportation system? 

34

Answer. While it is true that the Department’s modal administrations were established with specific programs and responsibilities, I believe the Department can and 

will continue to evolve to meet the Nation’s transportation and economic needs by 

building links across those administrations to address new developments in safety, 

multimodal travel, and international transportation Breaking down traditional 

stovepipes was an important goal of Secretary Mineta’s and one that I also intend 

to embrace if confirmed. 

Amtrak 

Question 3. As Secretary, you will have a position on Amtrak’s Board. Will you 

regularly attend the Board meetings or do you plan to have a designee attend on 

your behalf? 

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to appoint Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph 

Boardman as my designee on the Amtrak Board, and will remain informed of the 

issues before the Board.

Question 4. What is your personal vision for the future of intercity passenger rail 

in the Nation? 

Answer. I support a national rail passenger system. I believe the system must be 

operated on a sustainable business model and deliver maximum benefits to consumers while recognizing the need to invest the taxpayers’ money wisely.

Question 5. Do you agree with the Administration’s Amtrak reauthorization proposal and previous suggestions that Amtrak should be reformed through bankruptcy? 

Answer. I support the Administration’s desire to have a national rail passenger 

system that is driven by sound economics. I do not believe that bankruptcy should 

be the preferred route to reform.

Question 6. Do you believe that multi-year, dedicated funding is a critical aspect 

of the Federal highway, transit, and aviation programs? Should such multi-year and 

dedicated Federal funding exist for major intercity passenger rail capital projects for 

use by Amtrak or the states? If so, what should be the funding sources and how 

should the funding be distributed? If not, why is Federal multiyear, dedicated funding not appropriate for major passenger rail capital projects? 

Answer. I will support dedicated funding for a national passenger rail system that 

is operating on a sustainable business model. I believe that multi-year funding 

should be established through a reauthorization and if confirmed, I look forward to 

working with Congress to pass such legislation. I am sure the structure and source 

of such funding will be the subject of a lively debate and I look forward to discussing 

that issue with Congress and the stakeholder community.

Question 7. What is your personal opinion of S. 1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2005? 

Answer. I have not had the opportunity to study S. 1516 in great detail. However, 

I do support a national rail passenger system, and I understand S. 1516 incorporates a number of key reforms. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you 

and your colleagues to pass a long-term reauthorization to end the annual funding 

crisis that Amtrak has operated under for too many years now.

Question 8. According to Amtrak data, three Amtrak lines—the California Zephyr

(Oakland, CA to Chicago, IL), the Coast Starlight (Seattle, WA to Los Angeles, CA), 

and the Sunset Limited (Los Angeles, CA to New Orleans, LA) —were more than 

4 hours late over 50 percent of the time in the month of June. This has been the 

case for the Coast Starlight for the entire Fiscal Year (since October 1, 2005). As 

Secretary, will you commit to reviewing this situation, determining the causes of 

delays, and help to ensure that Amtrak’s passenger trains are not unnecessarily delayed? 

Answer. The success of a national rail passenger system is predicated on on-time, 

quality service. Amtrak cannot be successful if its trains continue to run late. I recognize that this is an area that Amtrak and the freight railroads, which control the 

right-of-way over which Amtrak operates, must address and I commit that the Department will be engaged on this issue if I am confirmed. 

Motor Carrier Safety 

Question 9. In 1999, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

set a goal of reducing truck fatalities by 50 percent by 2008, but it does not appear 

likely that this goal will be achieved under present conditions. Truck fatalities increased from 5,190 in 2004 to 5,226 in 2005. What would be your first actions as 

Secretary to reduce motor carrier crash deaths and injuries? What can the Congress 

do to make the most immediate improvements in truck safety? 

35

Answer. If confirmed, safety would continue to be the Department’s top priority. 

Congress, by passing SAFETEA–LU, has equipped the Department with additional 

tools to prevent truck deaths and injuries and one of my first actions as Secretary 

would be to ensure that FMCSA aggressively implements the relevant provisions of 

that legislation.

Question 10. FMCSA is preparing a rulemaking on the installation of Electronic 

On-Board Recorders (EOBR) to verify driver hours of service regulation compliance. 

When will this rule be released? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will review the Electronic On-Board Recorder (EOBR) 

NPRM and work with FMCSA to expedite the rulemaking process.

Question 11. FMCSA has suffered the embarrassment of having had two of its 

major rules, one on commercial driver hours of service limits and the other on minimum training requirements for entry-level commercial motor vehicle operators, 

overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Consumer, health and safety groups have 

sued the agency again on the Hours of Service rule because FMCSA essentially reissued the identical rule overturned by the Court. How would you approach this rule 

if it should once again be thrown out by the Court? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will always consider input from stakeholder groups on existing and proposed regulations, while at the same time ensuring that safety remains the Department’s first priority. On the hours of service suit in particular, I 

will respectfully refrain from commenting while a judicial decision is pending. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Question 12. Do you support the Railroad Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Financing Program that was expanded in the SAFETEA–LU legislation? 

Answer. If confirmed, I assure you that the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) will continue to implement the law.

Question 13. Are you supportive of Federal financing for freight railroad projects 

that have significant national public benefits? 

Answer. I recognize that our freight rail infrastructure needs to be upgraded and 

that there may be specific areas where public funds are justifiable, such as those 

that involve highway-grade crossing separation and highway congestion relief The 

Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program is a good example of a potential public-private partnership that can yield numerous public benefits. I look forward to meeting with the railroads to better understand their capital 

investment needs, and am also interested in exploring potential tax credits for rail 

infrastructure development.

Question 14. The Federal rail safety program authorizations have been expired 

since 1998 and the Department has not put forward a reauthorization proposal for 

rail safety since 2003. As Secretary, will you push the Department to release a rail 

safety reauthorization proposal? 

Answer. I am aware that DOT launched the National Rail Safety Action Plan last 

year, which was issued in response to several major accidents. However, DOT must 

do even more to reduce the number of train accidents, including those that involve 

highway-rail grade crossings, and this means enhancing rail safety throughout the 

industry. If confirmed, rail safety will be a major focus of mine and I will work with 

Administrator Boardman to determine how best to accomplish the Department’s rail 

safety priorities.

Question 15. One of the National Transportation Safety Board’s ‘‘Most Wanted’’ 

recommendations is to require the equipping of mainline railroads with Positive 

Train Control (PTC) technology. Do you believe that freight railroads should be required to implement this safety technology as its effectiveness and availability increases? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Federal Railroad Administration continues to work with industry to implement new technologies that will create a safer 

rail system; however, I do not know enough about this technology at this time to 

say it should be required for all railroads. If confirmed I will ask Administrator 

Boardman to brief me and will consult with industry stakeholders and my colleagues at the NTSB.

Question 16. Some rail carriers have proposed voluntarily installing PTC systems 

on their railroad, but only if they could operate certain trains over such systems 

with a single crew member. As Secretary, would you commit to ensuring that the 

safety aspects of any such single-person crew operations were thoroughly evaluated 

before such operations commenced? 

Answer. DOT’s core mission is safety. I assure you that no decision will be made 

on any issue until its impact on safety is fully addressed.

36

Question 17. I joined Senator Lott in introducing a bill that would provide tax 

credits to freight railroads for infrastructure and capacity expansion. Do you support 

this approach? Do you believe Congress should look at something similar for promoting the development of passenger rail capacity and infrastructure? 

Answer. I recognize that the rail transportation network will need added capacity 

to meet the freight demands for the next several decades. I look forward to working 

with you and industry stakeholders to discuss ideas that could spur additional investment in rail infrastructure. 

Highways 

Question 18. Are there circumstances under which the new tolling of existing 

interstates might be appropriate? 

Answer. Under current law, there is limited authorization to do so under the 

Interstate Toll Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Toll Pilot and the Value Pricing 

Program. I support states’ having this flexibility to finance important reconstruction 

and rehabilitation of their Interstate routes and to manage congestion.

Question 19. In your nomination hearing, you mentioned that the gas tax is unlikely to be a sufficient source of Federal funds for surface transportation improvements in the future. What other sources of revenue do you believe the Congress 

should consider? Is moving to a mileage-based use tax for automobiles and motor 

carriers, given the new technologies that are available, an option? 

Answer. I believe that we need to explore any number of innovative financing 

mechanisms. For example, a 2005 special report from the Transportation Research 

Board recommends expanded use of tolling and road use metering (as your question 

suggests) among other long-term alternatives for transportation funding. I believe 

we should explore all innovative possibilities that will allow us to maintain a vibrant and effective transportation system. I look forward to working with Congress 

and surface transportation stakeholders in this endeavor.

Question 20. There are still significant restrictions on how states can use Federal 

transportation funds to enhance the mobility of people and goods in their regions. 

Do you believe that more flexibility needs to be provided to the states in their use 

of Federal funds so that they may invest in intercity rail and transit options that 

reduce road congestion, energy-use and protect the environment? 

Answer. While I understand that providing funds by program category enables 

Congress to target resources according to national needs and priorities, I believe it 

is important to provide states significant flexibility to transfer funds among programs in order to improve their ability to choose the best mix of solutions to meet 

their individual transportation needs. For example, programs like the Surface 

Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) offer broad eligibilities for funding highway and transit 

projects. 

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission is currently 

examining future transportation program direction, as well as funding alternatives. 

If confirmed, I look forward to chairing the Commission and presenting programmatic recommendations to the Congress next year.

Question 21. How will you as DOT Secretary implement the language in 

SAFETEA–LU that requires state and metropolitan transportation plans to ‘‘accomplish’’ the planning objectives set out in the preamble of the planning section of the 

law, to support mobility and economic development while minimizing fuel use and 

emissions? This provision in law is designed to ensure state and metro areas focus 

on considering options to boost transportation system performance to cut congestion 

while protecting our nation’s energy security, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and health-threatening air pollution. There is concern that the proposed DOT 

planning rule slated to be finalized in a few months failed to even mention that requirement. Will you, as Secretary, ensure the final DOT planning rule includes clear 

criteria for state and metro areas to demonstrate their compliance with this statutory requirement? 

Answer. As Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, environmental 

stewardship and reducing congestion were priorities of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). I believe that these remain high priority goals of the FHWA as 

well as the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and I will continue them as high 

priority goals, if I am confirmed as Secretary. 

SAFETEA–LU changed the transportation planning and transportation conformity process to more closely align the transportation and air quality planning horizons for purposes of transportation conformity, and to better integrate the transportation planning and air quality planning processes. 

37

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that, in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas, transportation plans and improvement programs demonstrate they 

conform to the air quality goals of state implementation plans through the transportation conformity process. This integration of transportation planning and air quality planning processes will ensure that the continued reduction of motor vehicle 

emissions and the improvement of air quality, while reducing congestion.

Question 22. A growing number of cities—London, Oslo, Stockholm, Singapore, 

and others—have put congestion charges on existing roads to manage traffic and 

support expanded travel choices and better transportation, typically cutting congestion delay by a third, reducing pollution, and sharply boosting use of public transportation. On Sunday, voters in Stockholm, Sweden, affirmed their support to reinstate such a congestion charge on existing roads into and out of central Stockholm 

after a 6 month pilot project, again demonstrating the popular appeal of true traffic 

congestion relief strategies. The USDOT Congestion Initiative, advanced by Secretary Mineta in May 2006, has been promoting consideration of this promising performance-oriented transportation management strategy by major U.S. cities. What 

will you, as DOT Secretary, do to help encourage such initiatives that might deliver 

real relief from traffic problems? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to carry this important initiative forward, 

as I share Secretary Mineta’s concern about congestion on our highways, railways, 

airports and seaports—and the staggering costs this congestion imposes on families 

and businesses. 

I believe there is much that the United States and U.S. cities can learn from 

Stockholm’s congestion pricing demonstration, and we will continue to watch the results closely as Stockholm implements a more permanent pricing system. It’s my 

understanding that several American cities are very interested in what Stockholm 

accomplished during the demonstration and the positive effects that pricing have 

had on congestion and the environment. 

The Department’s National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network offers incentives to a state, city, county or locality that can commit 

to a broad congestion pricing or variable toll demonstration similar to Stockholm. 

If confirmed, I will continue to reach out to Congress, our state DOTs, Governors, 

and municipal leaders to educate them on congestion reducing strategies.

Question 23. You are a big supporter of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in 

transportation. These have been used in the U.S. to date largely to extract cash up 

front from existing publicly-owned toll roads and to attract private investment to 

build new roads faster than they could be delivered by the public sector. Some have 

raised concerns that this may not produce cost-effective congestion relief, but could 

leave behind an increasingly dysfunctional network of existing roads. Pat DeCorlaSouza, a senior staff person at the Federal Highway Administration and Michael 

Replogle at Environmental Defense have recently suggested that public agencies use 

PPPs to contract directly for performance, inviting concessionaires first to better operate and manage existing corridors, rewarding them based on the number of people 

and amount of freight moved without congestion while meeting environmental performance standards. Will you, as DOT Secretary, help encourage wider consideration and use of these innovative approaches and a ‘‘fix-it-first’’ approach to PPPs? 

Answer. I am a supporter of public-private partnerships (PPPs). Although the financial aspects of PPPs are most commonly discussed, we use the term ‘‘public-private partnership’’ more broadly to refer to contractual agreements between a public 

agency and private sector entity that allow for greater private sector participation 

in the delivery of transportation projects. There are opportunities for the private 

sector in the operation, maintenance, and management of a highway facility or corridor, beyond existing toll road concessions and building new roads faster and 

cheaper. In these cases, it is possible to structure contracts so that contractors are 

paid on a fixed fee basis or on an incentive basis, where they receive premiums for 

meeting specified service levels or performance targets. If confirmed as Secretary, 

I will encourage wider consideration and more innovative approaches to partnering 

with the private sector in appropriate circumstances.

Question 24. FHWA has apparently determined that Tribal Governments are not 

eligible to apply for the Safe Routes to School program, stating that ‘‘Since Congress 

did not specifically list federally-recognized Indian tribal governments as eligible 

grant recipients, state DOTs may and should find another means for reaching this 

important constituency.’’ Some believe that FHWA has the latitude to make grants 

directly to Tribal Governments, but has chosen instead to interpret the statute very 

narrowly. Do you agree with this interpretation? 

Answer. Coming from a state with a large tribal population, I am sensitive to the 

needs of this important constituency; however, I am not familiar with the FHWA’s 

38

interpretation of this provision of SAFETEA–LU. I understand that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently included in its technical corrections bill a provision for making Indian tribal governments eligible grants recipients 

under the Safe Routes to School program, and if confirmed I would support that provision.

Question 25. The DOT has found, through its Highway Cost Allocation Study, that 

certain trucks operating on our interstate system do not cover the costs related to 

the damage they cause to highway infrastructure through the various excise taxes 

paid by motor carriers, thus resulting in a subsidy which skews the freight transportation marketplace. As Secretary, what will you position be on subsidies such as 

these that advantage one transportation mode over another? 

Answer. I believe that user fees should recover costs imposed by the user on the 

transportation system. This principle should be applied to all users and all modes 

of transportation to ensure the efficient allocation of infrastructure investment. On 

the highway side, the Department is studying alternatives to the Federal fuel tax 

that better reflect a vehicle’s actual use of highway resources, rather than the 

amount of fuel it consumes. These alternatives include mileage-based fees that can 

be varied to reflect the number of axles and weight of the vehicle, the functional 

class where the vehicle is operated and the volume-to-capacity operating condition 

of the roadway. I understand that the Department is also currently conducting an 

update of the 1997 cost study, to provide a more recent context for analysis of user 

fees relative to cost responsibility. 

Transit 

Question 26. I understand that you have been a strong proponent of private investment in public infrastructure. Clearly, there are some public infrastructure 

projects, such as public transit systems, that have a limited ability to attract private 

investment. Will you, as Secretary, be requiring transit applicants for Federal funds 

to first seek private investment in their project before approving a grant for Federal 

funds? 

Answer. No. With public funding—whether it be Federal or state or local—becoming increasingly scarce, I believe we must begin to consider innovative financing 

ideas, for all modes of transportation, including transit. However, I have no plans 

to require transit applicants to seek initial private investment. 

Maritime 

Question 27. The Nation’s port facilities are facing record growth. The DOT has 

apparently prepared a ‘‘SEA–21’’ port infrastructure proposal, but this has been held 

up by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and has never been publicly 

released. What are your views on the status of the Nation’s existing port infrastructure and its capacity to meet the growing throughput demand as international commerce continues to expand? Will you push to have the ‘‘SEA–21’’ proposal released? 

Answer. Like most of our nation’s infrastructure, our ports are increasingly congested and are at or nearing capacity. Congestion is one of the single largest threats 

to our economic prosperity and way of life. The Department is working to address 

this serious problem through its National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network announced in May 2006 by Secretary Mineta. Through 

this initiative, the Department is using its resources and expertise to help its partners at the state and local levels use their existing transportation networks better 

and to add capacity where it makes the most sense, and develop better policy 

choices to reduce congestion. As Federal Highway Administrator, I was not involved 

in the development of the SEA–21 proposal and was not aware of where it was (or 

is) in the process. However, if confirmed, I will work closely with Administrator 

Connaughton and Congress to determine how best to address our nation’s maritime 

needs, including moving forward with a legislative proposal.

Question 28. Do you fully support the Jones Act and the related cabotage laws 

like the Passenger Vessel Services Act? If so, how do you intend to ensure the protection and expansion of the U.S. maritime fleet both domestically and internationally? 

Answer. I fully support the Jones Act and related cabotage laws. If confirmed, I 

will work closely with Administrator Connaughton to ensure that both the spirit 

and the letter of such laws are adhered to in order to ensure the continued vitality 

of the U.S.-flagged fleet. 

Aviation 

Question 29. Do you agree that the Secretary of Transportation is required to consider several objectives as being in the public interest, including: keeping available 

a variety of adequate, economic, efficient, and low-priced air services; encouraging, 

39

developing, and maintaining an air transportation system relying on actual and potential competition, and; encouraging entry into air transportation markets by new 

and existing air carriers and the continued strengthening of small air carriers to 

ensure a more effective and competitive airline industry? 

Answer. Yes, I agree with these objectives.

Question 30. While it appears the DOT has opted not to move forward on the 

issue of foreign control of U.S. air carriers prior to this year’s elections, there have 

been indications that the Administration intends to fmalize a deal on this matter 

before the end of the year. Do you support a year-end timeline for permitting foreign 

ownership despite the clear objections raised by the Congress through overwhelming 

votes in both Houses over the past months? 

Answer. While I was not involved in the development of the Department’s proposed rulemaking, I can assure you that, if confirmed, I would carefully review the 

comments and that I would be fully committed to discussing these matters with 

Congress before the Department makes any decision.

Question 31. While it is the Department’s job to interpret and enforce the laws, 

it is the Congress’ prerogative to enact laws. Do you prefer the current approach 

of using a rulemaking to alter the meaning of ‘‘actual control’’ of U.S. air carriers 

to move foreign ownership forward, or would you rather see a legislative fix in 

which the Congress determines an acceptable process for allowing increased foreign 

investment in domestic airlines? 

Answer. I was not involved in the development of the Department’s proposed rulemaking. I understand Congress’ interest in this matter. If confirmed, I can assure 

you that I would carefully review the comments filed by interested parties and that 

I would be fully committed to discussing these matters with Congress before the Department makes any decision. 

Highway Safety 

Question 32. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has 

set a goal of achieving a 1.0 fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 

(MVMT) by 2008. However, recent decreases in the fatality rate have only been incremental. In 2005, the fatality rate actually increased for the first time in twenty 

years. At the same time, the actual number of highway and traffic fatalities has increased almost every year since 1992, reaching a total of 43,443 in 2005, the highest 

number of fatalities in over a decade. How does the Department intend to achieve 

a fatality rate of 1.0 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by 2008? What specific 

steps are you going to take as Secretary to ensure that future National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) undertakings are directed at reducing the 

fatality rate? 

Answer. Like you, I am troubled by the increase in the fatality rate in 2005. As 

FHWA Administrator, I made highway safety my highest priority and worked closely with the Administrators of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop strategies for reducing fatalities and injuries. Should I be confirmed, I plan 

to continue placing a heavy emphasis on safety initiatives and programs. For example, it is important to incentivize states to implement key highway safety programs 

such as primary and secondary seat belt laws enforcement of drunk driving laws, 

and motorcycle helmet use.

Question 33. The CAFE Program was funded at approximately $20 million annually at the program’s inception through the 1980s. In 2006, the CAFE Program was 

funded at $1.6 million, and the CAFE Program staff is entirely reliant on data provided by the auto industry and has no ability to do independent assessments. The 

fines collected from CAFE are currently deposited in the Treasury. Would you be 

willing to consider redirecting CAFE fine receipts back to the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the purpose of supporting current and 

future CAFE rulemakings? 

Answer. I have not been made aware of any funding problems faced by NHTSA’s 

CAFE program. However, if confirmed, I will ask NHTSA to provide a status update 

on that specific program, and will keep your proposal in mind if funding is determined to be inadequate. 

The Environment 

Question 34. Based on current greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reporting guidelines, the transportation sector directly accounted for approximately one-third of 

total U.S. GHG emissions. Transportation is the fastest-growing source of U.S. 

GHGs and the largest end-use source of CO2, which is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. Estimates of GHG emissions do not include additional ‘‘lifecycle’’ emissions related to transportation, such as the extraction and refining of fuel and the 

40

manufacture of vehicles, which are also a significant source of domestic and international GHG emissions. As Secretary, what would you have the Department of 

Transportation do to promote GHG emissions reductions in the transportation sector, including through technology and fuel efficiency requirements? 

Answer. The U.S. Department of Transportation, with its agency and state partners, works to ensure that policies balance environmental goals with our transportation goals of safety, mobility, and efficiency. All programs that reduce fuel consumption also reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Among many important DOT programs, I am aware of three new initiatives that are of particular importance:

• The National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network, released by the Department in May. Effective policies—including technology, public/private partnerships, and market-based approaches—have the potential to reduce fuel usage, and hence emissions in aviation, freight, and passenger travel.

• New legal authority to reform passenger car Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE), as requested by Secretary Mineta in April. With the support of Congress, it will be possible to develop a new passenger car CAFE rule that increases fuel economy and provides net benefits to the economy.

• The Federal Aviation Administration has been working with airlines to improve 

fuel efficiency through improvements in operations that save fuel and otherwise 

reduce environmental effects.

Question 35. Does the Administration have any plans to reduce the contribution 

of GHG emissions by the transportation sector? 

Answer. The Administration’s long-term strategy for reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions in the transportation sector is to hasten the transition to a hydrogen economy, through the President’s Hydrogen Initiative. DOT’s work focuses on helping 

develop safety codes and standards for hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure, and 

demonstration programs for hydrogen fuel cell buses.

Question 36. At a time when it is clear that we cannot count on an uninterrupted, 

cheap supply of energy, isn’t it in the Nation’s interest to ensure we harness technology and incentives to use the least amount of fuel possible to transport people 

and goods? This would be a ‘‘no regrets’’ measure, because it makes both economic 

and environmental sense. If confirmed, would you work with us to devise such a 

tangible win-win strategy for America? 

Answer. The President and I share your concerns about the current energy situation, and if confirmed, I look forward to working with the Congress to implement 

cost-effective strategies to improve the efficiency of the transportation sector. 

The key elements on the Department of Transportation’s energy agenda are congestion, CAFE reform, and modernizing the air traffic system. These programs 

make both economic and environmental sense. Collectively, they incorporate technology, incentives, and market-based measures. Each program requires the support 

of Congress to achieve its potential. I look forward to working with you on them. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CONRAD BURNS TO

HON. MARY E. PETERS

Question 1. Ms. Peters, if you are confirmed as Transportation Secretary, you will 

face a substantial challenge in terms of capacity constraints on our transportation 

network. In the next 20 years, the freight shipments are expected to dramatically 

increase, placing serious demands on roads, aviation, rail, and waterways. My particular concern, as you know, relates to the role that freight rail plays in our nation’s infrastructure. I think we have a problem in our rail industry that can not 

be ignored any longer. There are capacity constraints, but those limitations are a 

symptom of the much larger problem of a lack of meaningful competition for rates 

and service in many parts of the Nation. 

Ms. Peters, do you see competition issues as a serious problem for the freight rail 

industry, and what will you do, if confirmed, to help address those problems? 

Answer. I recognize that our rail infrastructure will need added capacity to meet 

the freight demands for the next several decades. If confirmed, I look forward to 

working with and encouraging both large and small railroads to invest additional 

capital in new construction and technology that will expand our rail network and 

in turn allow for robust competition.

Question 2. Sec. 10101 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code sets forth the rail transportation policy for this Nation. It states, in part, that ‘‘it is the policy of the U.S. Government to allow, to the maximum extent possible, competition and the demand for 

41

services to establish reasonable rates for transportation by rail’’ and ‘‘to maintain 

reasonable rates where there is an absence of effective competition.’’ This is the policy of the U.S. Government—not just the Surface Transportation Board—so as 

Transportation Secretary, you share this obligation. Do you believe we have 

achieved these goals, and if not, what will do you if confirmed to help implement 

this vision? 

Answer. I recognize the Surface Transportation Board (STB), an independent regulatory agency, continues to struggle with this issue. Although I am not familiar 

with the specific cases before the STB, I am aware of the need to bring together 

small and large railroads, shippers, states, local communities, and other interested 

parties to mitigate some of these rate concerns. Where competition is not easily 

achievable, railroads and shippers need to have the ability to resolve their differences in a fair and unbiased manner. Additionally, if confirmed, I promise to 

reach out to the STB and have regular dialogue with its appointed board members 

on these issues.

Question 3. While we are on the subject of rail, let’s talk a little about Amtrak. 

We’ve had quite a battle over the last couple of years on Amtrak, especially in terms 

of the budget that the Administration sends up to us. What are your thoughts on 

Amtrak? Will you be an advocate for passenger rail and work with Congress to implement reasonable reforms that ensure Federal subsidies are well spent? 

Answer. I support a national rail passenger system and believe it is an important 

component of our nation’s transportation network. If confirmed, I look forward to 

working with you and your colleagues to pass a long-term reauthorization to end 

the annual funding crisis that Amtrak has operated under for too many years now.

Question 4. What are your thoughts on the Essential Air Service program, and 

what role do you believe rural air service plays in the national aviation system? 

Answer. As a former director of transportation for a state with large rural areas, 

I fully appreciate the impact that the EAS program has had on ensuring rural 

America access to our nation’s air transportation system. I also believe that it is 

time to take a fresh look at the program to assure that it is accomplishing it objectives as effectively as possible. The laws governing our administration of the EAS 

program have not changed significantly since its inception 28 years ago, notwithstanding the dramatic changes that have taken place in the airline industry. If confirmed, I would like to work with Congress to address these issues.

Question 5. As the months progress, this committee will be turning its attention 

to the FAA Reauthorization bill. Do you have any thoughts on how we can effectively modernize the aviation system through that process? 

Answer. If confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to reach out to Congress 

and the aviation community for input as the Administration develops a reauthorization proposal. Air traffic modernization is absolutely critical to ensure our aviation 

system remains the envy of the world. Consequently, a key element of the coming 

reauthorization will be to implement funding structures and mechanisms that will 

allow us to build air transportation systems for the 21st century. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

HON. MARY E. PETERS

Question 1. As a former director of a state transportation department, to what extent should states have the flexibility to utilize programmatic funds for transportation improvements? Do you advocate a relaxation of programmatic restrictions on 

Federal Highway programs? 

Answer. While I understand that providing funds by program category enables 

Congress to target resources according to national needs and priorities, I believe it 

is important to provide states significant flexibility to transfer funds among programs in order to improve their ability to choose the best mix of solutions to meet 

their individual transportation needs. For example, programs like the Surface 

Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) offer broad eligibilities for funding highway and transit 

projects. 

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission is currently 

examining future transportation program direction, as well as funding alternatives. 

If confirmed, I look forward to chairing the Commission and presenting programmatic recommendations to the Congress next year.

Question 2. Would you continue your predecessor’s support of a waiver for Maine 

to utilize Federal highway funds for continued operation and successes of the 

42

Downeaster? Is the success of Maine’s passenger rail system something that would 

serve as a potential model for other passenger rail routes nationwide? 

Answer. Yes. As a former state transportation director, I strongly support giving 

states appropriate flexibility to use Federal dollars under certain circumstances. I 

continued my support of this policy as Federal Highway Administrator. If confirmed, 

I will support the waiver for Maine to utilize Federal highway funds for the 

Downeaster. 

The success of the Downeaster demonstrates that passenger rail can be a successful component of a state’s overall transportation network if the state is directly invested in developing and providing ongoing support for its passenger rail routes.

Question 3. In your previous capacity as Federal Highway Administrator, I know 

you were a strong supporter of innovative financing. including public-private partnerships and the use of State Infrastructure Banks. Looking in the near-term, it is 

my understanding that a potential redistribution of leftover highway funds may 

occur this October. Do you foresee such a redistribution of funds occurring before 

the end of the Fiscal Year? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the annual redistribution occurred earlier 

this month, and a total of $2.1 billion of obligation authority was available for redistribution to the states for their highway programs.

Question 4. For example, one successful project you may be aware of is the WaldoHancock Bridge, which has been partially paid for by bonding. Is paying off something like a GARVEE Bond considered an eligible use for these funds? 

Answer. While I am not knowledgeable about the specifics of the Waldo-Hancock 

Bridge, Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles, or ‘‘GARVEE’’ bonds are an eligible 

use of Federal-aid funds.

Question 5. Can you assure my colleagues and I that, as Secretary of Transportation, you would ensure the Commission is allowed to proceed independently and 

is unbound by any ideological constraints in the formulation of its recommendations 

for Congress? 

Answer. Yes. Congress created the Section 1909 Commission in SAFETEA-LU to 

provide recommendations on transportation policy and financing that would inform 

the next surface transportation reauthorization process. Prior to my nomination as 

Secretary, I was honored to serve on that Commission as Vice-Chair. In that capacity, I worked with then-Chairman Mineta and my fellow Commissioners to ensure 

that all viable options and solutions for improving our transportation system would 

be considered in an independent manner. If confirmed, I will continue that approach 

as Commission Chairman.

Question 6. As it becomes more and more apparent that a new approach is needed 

for providing a sustainable, realistic method for Federal transportation funding, do 

you see an end of the Federal gasoline tax as the sole provider of these funds? 

Answer. The Federal fuel tax will continue to play a role in funding national infrastructure, but it has already ceased to be the sole provider of highway funding. 

I believe that the role of the fuel tax will continue to diminish as vehicle fuel efficiency increases and new transportation technologies are introduced. Over the last 

10 years, and with the blessing of the Federal Government, states have increasingly 

turned to private sector partners in the financing process, especially for new infrastructure. They are also looking for ways to implement new funding mechanisms 

that track more closely to the costs that highway users impose on the highway system.

Question 7. What sort of new funding regime to you foresee, relative to your discussions on the Commission? In the short term, is it a combination of means; gasoline taxes, bonding, public-private partnerships, and a smattering of other methods? 

How do you envision the Department accounting for vehicles like hybrid-use or electric? 

Answer. In the short term, the highway fuel tax will remain the mainstay of Federal highway funding. But already, for new highway infrastructure, private sector 

finance is playing a prominent role in highway infrastructure funding. The new Private Activity Bond provision in SAFETEA–LU is now being implemented, and will 

lead to an increase in tax-exempt bonding as a source of highway finance. And as 

you note, the proliferation of higher fuel efficiency vehicles will result in decreasing 

fuel tax revenues. The Surface Transportation Policy Revenue Study Commission is 

examining these very issues and at this point, it is too early to predict what new 

funding structures the Commission will recommend.

Question 8. Do you have any concerns that the changes in the collection of aviation fuel taxes, which went info affect as part of the 2005 Highway Bill, could have 

43

a significant negative impact on the Aviation Trust Fund, and that the Trust Fund 

could lose deserved revenues to the Highway Trust Fund? 

Answer. It is my understanding that we do not yet have sufficient data to estimate the extent of the impact on Aviation Trust Fund revenues from this issue. 

Given the low balance in the Aviation Trust Fund, any revenue loss would certainly 

be a concern. I am also aware that some in the industry have expressed concern 

about the administrative burden these changes have caused for the aviation industry. If confirmed, I will monitor this issue and work with Congress to make changes 

if necessary.

Question 9. What are the financial impacts of the hiring, training, and assimilating these controllers into our national Air Traffic operations? How does the financial outlook of the Aviation Trust Fund affect the ability of the FAA to hire and 

retain these vital employees who are so crucial to the unparalleled safety of our 

aviation system? How quickly can these new controllers become a part of the Air 

Traffic management system? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the FAA has recently released an updated 

Controller Workforce Plan that addresses these issues. If confirmed, I will work 

closely with the FAA Administrator and the Department’s Inspector General to ensure that the Plan adequately addresses all of these factors and that the FAA is 

hiring and training controllers in accordance with the Plan.

Question 10. With the potential to lose up to 33 percent of our current air traffic 

controller workforce, and the FAA rushing to get new systems and technology in 

place to fill that gap, a worst-case scenario where we are short on both human and 

technological resources are deficient to maintain the safety of our skies. What steps 

would you propose taking to develop a back-up plan if this scenario were to arise? 

Answer. I believe it is critical to develop and implement a plan of action to avoid 

a worst-case scenario. It is my understanding that the Controller Workforce Plan 

is designed to ensure that we do not face such a gap as you describe. As noted 

above, if confirmed, it will be one of my top priorities to review the Plan with the 

FAA Administrator and the IG.

Question 11. Among the cost-savings measures that have been proposed to account for the fact that many of our next-generation technologies for air traffic control are over-budget and behind schedule is the closure of overnight operations at 

some Air Traffic Control Towers, as well as the consolidation of certain TRACONs 

across the country. With such a vast increase in operations and the number of 

planes of various capabilities forecasted for the next decade, is it really wise to begin 

to close down facilities when the activity in our skies is only increasing? 

Answer. Following our meeting, I discussed this issue with the FAA Administrator, and she has assured me that the FAA has no plans to implement the overnight closures the agency had been considering at this time.

Question 12. Are you aware of any concerns on behalf of the aviation community 

that due to the growing number of planes, increased congestion, and an inability 

to increase capacity, other positions may come up short in the future, high-paying 

positions such as pilots that could conceivably affect the airlines’ bottom line? 

Answer. Concern with the health of the industry is one of DOT’s core missions. 

If confirmed, I will make it one of my first priorities to visit with the aviation community and seek its feedback on the challenges facing our air traffic management 

systems in the long-term.

Question 13. With the potential crisis in our aviation workforce, I found it somewhat stunning that some Towers are being considered for closure by the FAA, particularly some that possess both commercial and military utility. It is especially galling in light of the fact that the cost-savings are not only considered negligible, but 

such savings projections are completely inconsistent, ranging from $2 to $5 million. 

When is the final list of Towers that FAA is suggesting for closure going to be released? Do you anticipate that this is the first of several rounds of such closures 

to be conducted? 

Answer. As mentioned above, I discussed this issue with the FAA Administrator, 

and she has assured me that the FAA has no plans to implement the overnight closures the agency had been considering at this time.

Question 14. In the event that the FAA does close several of the towers on the 

preliminary list, does it retain the right to reopen them at a later time? If many 

of the projections offered by the FAA come to pass, having as many functional Towers and controllers able to handle the capacity issues would seem a prudent measure, given the potential dangers of overcrowding in our skies. 

44

Answer. As mentioned above, I discussed this issue with the FAA Administrator, 

and she has assured me that the FAA has no plans to implement the overnight closures the agency had been considering at this time.

Question 15. Administrator Peters, have you had an opportunity to examine the 

various reform proposals being issued for Amtrak? What are your thoughts on reforming the passenger rail system? 

Answer. I am aware that there are several different reform proposals that have 

been drafted and discussed, but I have not had a chance to go through them in detail. I believe there is a role for a national rail passenger system. It should be funded in a manner that allows it to deliver maximum benefits to consumers while recognizing the need to invest the taxpayers’ money wisely. I also recognize the need 

to create a national rail passenger system that incorporates significant reforms from 

its current state. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Senate Commerce 

Committee on a comprehensive bill that includes significant reforms.

Question 16. In the future, as Federal funding for Amtrak will hopefully be curtailed as its profitability increases, do you support some sort of partnership such as 

an 80–20 capital funding program to help states pay for infrastructure investment? 

Answer. I believe that the Amtrak reform process must keep all options on the 

table.

Question 17. Have you considered any ideas on using alternative or non-traditional sources of funding to supplement passenger rail? Has there been any examination of developing a financing regime outside the realm of receiving a check from 

the Federal Government every year? 

Answer. Funding for Amtrak is one area where significant reforms need to be 

made. I believe Amtrak must operate on a sustainable business model. I also believe 

that states should contribute to passenger rail service, as Maine already does. If 

confirmed, I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to pass a longterm reauthorization to end the annual funding crisis that Amtrak has operated 

under for too many years now.

Question 18. Do you feel the Department has a role in promoting the increased 

use, and possible expansion of, the existing Amtrak system in light of the dramatic 

increase in the use of rail and transit systems given the roller coaster ride that has 

become our domestic gasoline prices. 

Answer. DOT must continue to encourage the use of public transportation systems, including Amtrak. Additionally, DOT must assist states and communities to 

maximize transit capacity and reliability.

Question 19. It has come to my attention that the bulk of existing Amtrak passenger cars and their engines—excluding the Acela high-speed rail, which had its 

own problems with the braking system just last spring—are practically worn out. 

Will you seek funding for upgrades or even replacements if you are confirmed, before the equipment shortage becomes critical? 

Answer. Amtrak must look at its entire operation and prioritize its capital needs 

to ensure a future system that delivers maximum benefits to consumers.

Question 20. Just this past Monday, the University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute came out with a report stating that the Ford Motor Co., General 

Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG could increase their profits by $800 million 

to $2 billion a year by using aggressive strategies for improving fuel efficiency regardless of what happens to gas prices or what their competitors do. Needless to 

say they could use an infusion like this. 

Even taking into account gasoline prices and actions of their competitors, the 

analysis found the optimal strategy for each automaker was to take a proactive approach rather than business as usual, that this would be financially safer, regardless of what their competitors do. 

The report also said that if U.S. automakers do not take the aggressive approach 

on fuel economy, they could stand to lose as much $3.6 billion in profits and that 

they have more to gain from aggressively pursuing improvements in fuel economy 

than their Japanese counterparts in large part because they face more risk from 

high gasoline prices and have more room for improvement. Under this proactive approach, overall fuel economy would improve 7.4 percent over model year 2005 levels, 

which would mean a dramatic savings of around 8 billion gallons of gasoline per 

year. 

I am sure you are well aware that Senator Feinstein and I have been attempting 

to close the SUV loophole over the past 5 years and this year to increase CAFE 

standards by 10 miles as averaged over a manufacturer’s entire fleet over the next 

10 years—or 10 in 10. We already have the technology to do this and we sincerely 

do not want Detroit to be the industry time forgot. 

45

Do you think that, if Congress had increased fuel economy standards over the last 

5 years for passenger cars as we have the authority to do and NHTSA had appreciably raised SUV standards as it has the authority to do, the U.S. auto industry 

would be more competitive and we would have kept more high paying U.S. jobs? 

The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute report released last 

week certainly reflects this. 

Answer. As you know, the Department is seeking the legal authority to reform 

CAFE for passenger cars. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you 

and this committee to advance this legislation. It is the position of this Administration that reforming CAFE for passenger cars could be done in a way that does not 

diminish the competitiveness of U.S. automakers.

Question 21. It sounds to me from the Michigan report that both Congress and 

the Administration have done as much disservice to the U.S. automakers as the 

automakers have done to themselves by not calling for an increase in CAFE standards, especially in light of the 2001 National Academies CAFE report that gave us 

a clear signal that increasing fuel economy standards was feasible and economically 

viable if automakers were given enough lead time to design and build more efficient 

vehicles. The big loser here—and the most distressing to me—is the loss of high 

paying U.S. manufacturing jobs. If Congress were to abrogate its authority to you 

for increasing fuel economy standards for passenger cars, what kind of an increase 

can we expect NHTSA to make under your leadership, especially given the very 

small increase of less than two miles per gallon NHTSA came out with for SUVs? 

Answer. I agree with you that achieving higher fuel economy standards is important, but I also believe that such increases must not be made at the expense of passenger safety or American jobs. If given the authority by Congress to reform CAFE, 

I will ensure that NHTSA raises fuel economy standards for passenger cars to their 

maximum feasible level, while taking into account safety, data, technology, and 

American jobs.

Question 22. As part of the 2005 Highway Bill, a provision encouraged states to 

give diesel retrofitting of transit vehicles priority in making decisions when spending their programmatic highway funds. This provision did not pre-empt the states 

authority to make final decisions on how to spend those funds, but encouraged the 

states to focus on improving their emissions by using this diesel technology. It is 

my understanding that the DOT will be issuing guidelines very soon. This would 

be a tremendous help in reducing emissions for public transit, such as a fleet of city 

buses. Can you tell us how DOT plans to use the guidance to ensure that the legislative intent as it affects diesel retrofits will be carried out? 

Answer. Since my nomination, I have not had the opportunity to be briefed on 

the status or content of the proposed retrofitting guidelines. However, if I am confirmed, I will quickly get educated on this issue and will ensure that you receive 

a briefing before the guidelines are released. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN F. KERRY TO

HON. MARY E. PETERS

Highways 

Question 1. A number of states have taken advantage of Federal regulations 

which allow states to lease operational control over federally funded toll roads to 

private corporations, including foreign corporations. Indiana, for instance, recently 

leased the Indian Toll Road to an Australian-Spanish conglomerate, MacquarieCintra, for $3.8 billion over 75 years. While this provided an immediate influx of 

funding for the state, it will ultimately result much higher profits for the operator 

and has proven to be a divisive issue among Indiana residents concerned about 

highway management and toll increases. 

You have been a strong advocate of free-market solutions to public infrastructure 

problems. Do you support allowing states to lease federally financed toll roads to 

private corporations, including foreign corporations? 

Answer. States and other non-Federal authorities own and operate the vast majority of roads in America. Many of these roads, including the older toll road systems, were constructed prior to the creation of the interstate highway system with 

little or no Federal financial support. Where the facilities were built using Federal 

funds, I believe it is important that the public interest is protected in any potential 

transaction. 

In my time at FHWA, I supported giving states flexibility to explore new partnerships with the private sector. With the enactment of SAFETEA–LU, Congress also 

declared its support for more state flexibility. The question that must always be 

46

asked is: does the contractual arrangement improve performance of the facility, enhance customer services and protect the interests of the taxpayer. If the public interest and security can be protected in connection with these types of transactions, 

then we should continue to support them.

Question 1a. If so, do you believe this is the best way to solve highway funding 

deficiencies? 

Answer. There are multiple approaches that we must take to solve our highway 

infrastructure problems. Those problems extend beyond simply the need for more 

funding. We must also make significant improvements to how we manage our existing systems to reduce congestion and improve system safety and reliability. The private sector is willing and able to play a large partnership role with the public sector 

to help the country address these problems. But private sector participation will not 

necessarily make sense everywhere. The Federal Government can supply resources, 

expertise and leadership to help the diverse regions of the country tailor solutions 

to fit their own specific needs.

Question 2. Would you support allowing states to lease management and maintenance of any federally financed state road system to a private corporation? 

Answer. I support giving states the tools and flexibility to optimize the performance of their highway system. The Federal Government has historically played and 

continues to play a major investment role in the U.S. highway system. In certain 

circumstances, private entities, working in conjunction with state and local agencies, 

can improve the operational performance and provide high levels of customer service 

on highway facilities. This, in turn, can increase the returns on Federal investments. Congestion, undercapitalization and the misallocation of investment resources reduces the effectiveness of those investments. If confirmed, I will work tirelessly to assure that Federal investments produce positive results for the American 

taxpayer.

Question 3. How is the public interest served by allowing private corporations to 

control publicly funded infrastructure? 

Answer. Growing congestion, increasing safety risks and declining reliability are 

all threats to the public interest, the quality of life of all Americans and the U.S. 

economy. If private entities are capable of helping state and local governments reduce these trends, they will help governments advance the public interest. The public entity retains ownership of the infrastructure in these agreements, and exercises 

control of the infrastructure through specific requirements in the contractual documents. The degree to which governments call on the private sector for such assistance will vary across the country.

Question 4. Do you support extending private leasing authority to states for other 

modes of transportation? 

Answer. Most other modes of transportation have long had extensive private sector participation. Whether or not a leasing or concession model can be effective depends on the mode of transportation. The U.S. freight railroad system, widely considered to be the most productive in the world, is privately owned, financed and 

managed. Seaport terminals have been operating under a public/private model, including long-term leases to private terminal operators, for many, many years. To 

date, there has been less interest utilizing private capital (except of course through 

the access of private lenders in the tax-exempt marketplace) in public transportation and aviation infrastructure. The question that must always be asked is: does 

the contractual arrangement improve performance of the facility, enhance customer 

services and protect the interests of the taxpayer. The answer will likely vary from 

case to case. 

Aviation 

Question 5. As you know, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stands to 

lose more than thirty percent of its air traffic controllers to retirement and attrition 

over the next 3 years. It takes roughly a year to train a new controller, and it is 

unclear that the FAA has made progress hiring enough new controllers to avoid a 

staffing crisis. What is your plan to hire and train enough controllers to make up 

this shortfall and keep up with projected increases in air traffic? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the FAA has recently released an updated 

Controller Workforce Plan. If confirmed, I will work closely with the FAA Administrator and the Department’s Inspector General to ensure that the Plan is adequate 

to meet projected retirements and that the FAA is hiring and training controllers 

in accordance with the Plan.

Question 6. In 2003, Congress passed legislation preventing the FAA from 

privatizing the Air Traffic Control System (ATC) for 1 year. When the prohibition 

was lifted in 2004, the FAA leased control of Flight Service Stations to Lockheed 

47

Martin and required Flight Service Specialists to compete for their jobs. Do you support the FAA’s decision to privatize FSS’s, and will you support privatizing the entire ATC as Secretary of Transportation? 

Answer. Although I am not familiar with the specifics of the Flight Service Station contract, my understanding is that all affected FAA employees were either offered jobs with the contractor, Lockheed Martin, or were hired into other areas of 

the FAA. In 2002, Secretary Mineta determined that air traffic control services at 

en route and large terminal facilities are a core capability of the FAA and therefore 

not subject to outsourcing.

Question 7. Are you aware of any A–76 studies being conducted by the Office of 

Management and Budget in anticipation of privatizing the other components of the 

ATC? 

Answer. I am not.

Question 8. Do you believe that privatizing one or all components of the ATC will 

increase safety and reduce accidents? 

Answer. Any proposal to privatize a component of the system would have to be 

evaluated on its individual merits before making a final judgment.

Question 9. The FAA has also decided to consolidate its Air Traffic Organization 

(ATO), ostensibly to save money. As you know, the ATO provides maintenance and 

logistical support to FAA and local airport personnel. The FAA’s plan will require 

the closure of several regional ATO offices, including the Burlington, Massachusetts 

office. Instead, the ATO’s New England operations will be conducted from Atlanta. 

Burlington office employees who do not want to transfer to Atlanta can either quit 

or take a reduced pension. 

Do you believe it is feasible to conduct air traffic support for New England from 

Atlanta, and do you believe that the FAA is capable of providing the same quality 

of service from Atlanta that it does from Burlington? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the FAA will continue to staff the Burlington 

office while consolidating administrative functions, such as budgeting, finance, personnel support, and procurement support to Atlanta. The FAA does not believe consolidating administrative functions will affect the maintenance and logistical support that is provided to the New England airports or affect the control of air traffic.

Question 10. Are you concerned that closing the Burlington office could compromise safety at Logan and other regional airports? 

Answer. I do not believe that consolidating administrative and support staff functions will affect the safety of the air traffic control system or compromise the safety 

at Boston Logan or other local airports. It is also my understanding that major operating facilities, such as those in Boston, will continue to have administrative staff 

in place to support the local facilities and local airports.

Question 11. If Congress allows the FAA to finish consolidating the ATO, will you 

commit to helping employees at the Burlington office who do not or cannot move 

to Atlanta find comparable jobs at other FAA facilities in Massachusetts? 

Answer. To the extent that comparable FAA jobs exist in Massachusetts, I will 

commit to helping employees at the Burlington office find those jobs. Additionally, 

if confirmed, I will direct the FAA to work with the Department’s other operating 

administrations to identify potential openings within the Department’s other Massachusetts offices. 

LORAN–C 

Question 12. As you know, LORAN–C is an international multi-modal navigation 

and timing system used by commercial and recreational mariners, general aviation 

pilots, the telecommunications industry, the military, and other government agencies as a back-up to the Global Positioning System (GPS). Earlier this year the 

Coast Guard asked Congress to shut-down LORAN despite having failed to coordinate its request with the Department of Transportation and other Federal agencies 

that have an interest in the system or solicit public comments. 

I am very concerned by the Coast Guard’s effort to shut down a valuable civilian 

and national security asset and have worked with Chairman Stevens and others to 

prevent it. 

Do you support maintaining LORAN as a back-up to GPS? If so, will you commit 

to working with the Department of Homeland Security to develop a national 

LORAN policy? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the Department, in coordination with the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is required to make a decision regarding 

the future of the LORAN system by the end of 2006. If I am confirmed, I assure 

you that any decision regarding the future of LORAN will be consistent with existing Federal policies to ensure sufficient back-up in the event of a disruption of GPS. 

48

Furthermore, if the decision is to maintain LORAN as part of the Nation’s infrastructure, DOT will work closely with DHS to develop a national policy on LORAN. 

Amtrak 

Question 13. In 2003, the Bush Administration introduced an Amtrak plan that 

called for separating the Northeast Corridor from the Amtrak system and hiring a 

private operator to run it. Additionally, the President’s budget requests for Amtrak 

have been well below what Amtrak says is necessary to provide adequate service 

and avoid bankruptcy, leaving Congress to increase funding to maintain the system. 

Do you support federally funded intercity passenger rail service? 

Answer. I support a national rail passenger system. I believe the system must be 

operated on a sustainable business model and deliver maximum benefits to consumers while recognizing the need to invest the taxpayers’ money wisely. I also believe that states should be involved in and contribute to passenger rail service, as 

Massachusetts does. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to pass a long-term reauthorization to end the annual funding crisis that 

Amtrak has operated under for too many years now.

Question 14. Will you commit to maintaining the Northeast Corridor as a part of 

a federally funded Amtrak system? 

Answer. I look forward to working with the Senate Commerce Committee to create a national rail passenger system that incorporates significant reforms from its 

current state. I believe that the Amtrak reform process must keep all options on 

the table.

Question 15. Will you oppose privatizing any part of the Amtrak system? 

Answer. As I previously mentioned, I look forward to working with the Senate 

Commerce Committee to create a national rail passenger system that incorporates 

significant reforms front its current state. I believe that the Amtrak reform process 

must keep all options on the table. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BARBARA BOXER TO

HON. MARY E. PETERS

Question 1. Last year, the Federal Government purchased 64,000 passenger vehicles. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the average fuel economy of the 

new vehicles purchased for the fleet in 2005 was an abysmal 21.4 miles per gallon. 

Today, hybrid cars on the market can achieve over 50 miles per gallon and SUVs 

that can obtain 36 miles per gallon. The government’s average of 21.4 miles to the 

gallon is too low. 

I have a bill, S. 2773, ‘‘Government Fleet Fuel Economy Act of 2006,’’ that requires the Federal Government to purchase vehicles that are fuel-efficient to the 

greatest extent possible. Yes or no, will you support my bill? If no, why? 

Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review to review your legislation in 

detail, but there is no question we can do more to improve the fuel economy of all 

vehicles, including government vehicles. However, should I be confirmed, please be 

assured that I will examine your proposal and work with you on this critical issue.

Question 2. In the last few months, there have been problems at Los Angeles 

International Airport and the TRACON. 

ILS Failure: In 2 weeks, the Instrument Landing System (ILS) at LAX failed 

twice. 

Power Outage: A power outage in Palmdale (which was not the fault of the FAA) 

occurred in July. This is where the TRACON, the regional radar system, is located. 

Back-up generators immediately started. However, the backup generator eventually 

failed and the radio and radar systems were not operational. Controllers lost radio 

communication with pilots for 15 minutes, and the radar was out for 2 hours. 

Near Miss on Ground: In July, two small airliners on the ground came within moments of colliding with each other. It was pilot error when one pilot did not follow 

instructions and went into another plane’s runway. An air traffic controller saw 

what happened and yelled into the radio to warn the other plane. However, part 

of the problem was a warning alarm that was turned off on a ground radar system 

after it had a false alert. 

Accident: A cargo truck hit a Qantas Airways jet damaging the plane’s engine but 

causing no injuries. 

Are the problems in Southern California separate incidents or part of a larger 

mismanagement problem by FAA? 

Answer. It is my understanding that all recent incidents at LAX were largely due 

to unrelated factors and have been addressed by the FAA. A service technician has 

been stationed at the airport 24 hours a day, 7 days a week until construction is 

49

finished. If confirmed, I will work with the Administrator to ensure that LAX and 

other California airports receive the highest level of air traffic services.

Question 3. The Palm Springs Airport needs a new control tower because the old 

one is out of date and too short, so it is a potential safety problem. Last year, Rep. 

Bono obtained $2.3 million. This year, Rep. Bono and I each obtained $2 million in 

the TTHUD appropriations bill. Can FAA begin the process of building the new 

tower? 

Answer. The Air Traffic Control Tower at Palm Springs Airport is on the FAA’s 

list for terminal replacement projects, earmarked by Congress. I understand the importance of a replacement tower to you and to the people of Palm Springs and, if 

I am confirmed, I will work with you to ensure this project is completed as expeditiously as possible.

Question 4. Over 40 percent of the Nation’s imported goods come through the 

ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. After the goods arrive, they are shipped 

through Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire (the counties to the east of Los 

Angeles County), which causes increased air pollution and congestion both with 

trains and truck traffic on the highways. 

This is a national issue because people across the Nation receive less expensive 

goods while people in California are negatively impacted with increased congestion 

and public safety concerns. What are potential solutions to solve this problem? And, 

how would you pay for the solutions? 

Answer. The Department is working to ease congestion at our ports, not only to 

reduce the economic costs that such congestion imposes on the United States, but 

also to limit the environmental impacts that it can bring. My understanding is that 

the Department’s Congestion Management Initiative specifically targets congestion 

at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. As a part of that Initiative, DOT has 

reached out to other Federal agencies, states, and stakeholders to define the parameters of this problem and to think creatively about public and private funding 

sources that could be tapped in order to tackle it.

Question 5. One issue of concern with the highway bill is the decreasing highway 

trust fund and how to fund the next bill. What are your suggestions for a dedicated 

source of funding to continue to pay for highway and transit construction? 

Answer. While I believe that the gasoline tax will continue to be an important 

source of dedicated funding for our highways and transit systems, I also believe it 

is critical that we begin to diversify our funding resources using innovative financing mechanisms. For example, a 2005 special report from the Transportation Research Board recommends expanded use of tolling and road use metering among 

other long-term alternatives for transportation funding. I believe we should explore 

these and other innovative possibilities that will allow us to maintain a vibrant and 

effective transportation system. I look forward to working with Congress and surface transportation stakeholders in this endeavor.

Question 6. Amtrak is important for California, which has the second highest Amtrak ridership in the country and the ‘‘Pacific Surfliner’’—the second most traveled 

corridor in the country. Amtrak offers three different services in California: (1) 

state-supported—the most important; (2) commuter operations; and (3) long-distance 

service. Do you support Amtrak? If yes, how do you suggest Amtrak is funded in 

the future? 

Answer. I support a national rail passenger system. I believe the system must be 

operated on a sustainable business model and deliver maximum benefits to consumers while recognizing the need to invest the taxpayers’ money wisely. I also believe that states should be involved in and contribute to passenger rail service, as 

California does. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to pass a long-term reauthorization to end the annual funding crisis that 

Amtrak has operated under for too many years now.

Question 7. I am concerned over losing the oil produced in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay 

due to corrosion of the pipeline operated by BP and the lack of oversight by the Department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 

Even before the BP pipeline incident, gasoline prices were already high enough 

to cause American consumers and businesses to struggle. BP neglected the upkeep 

of its pipeline, despite its phenomenal profits in recent quarters. 

How would you ensure that the Federal Government is providing oversight in protecting pipelines whose proper functioning is so crucial to our economy and environment? 

Answer. This year’s incident at Prudhoe Bay demonstrates we have more work 

to do on pipeline safety and, if confirmed, I will ensure the Department continues 

to proactively reach out to stakeholders and other Federal, state, and local agencies 

to ensure a safe and reliable pipeline infrastructure. I also look forward to working 

50

with the Senate Commerce Committee to pass pipeline reauthorization. This important legislation will provide the Department additional authority to ensure the continued safety, security, reliability and enforcement of our pipeline system.

Question 8. California has obtained expanded service options to Mexico, including 

flights by low-fare carriers. This has helped expand economic growth. Are you supportive of low-cost carriers—for both domestic and international service? Do you believe that the Department of Transportation should promote competition in the aviation industry? 

Answer. Yes, I believe that competition within the airline industry has a positive 

effect on the traveling public, which benefits front the availability of new services 

and more low-fare options both domestically and internationally. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

HON. MARY E. PETERS

Question 1. The Essential Air Service (EAS) program, established as part of the 

Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, is a program that helps to ensure that our Nation’s rural communities are serviced by commercial air carriers. With jet fuel costs 

having risen more than 165 percent since the attacks of September 11, 2001, carriers are faced with considerable challenges in maintaining eligibility under the 

EAS program in providing service to rural communities. 

What adjustments will be necessary to ensure rural communities across the U.S. 

continue to receive commercial air service under the EAS program? 

Answer. I support the Administration’s view that it is time to take a fresh look 

at the EAS program to assure that it is accomplishing it objectives as effectively as 

possible. The laws governing our administration of the EAS program have not 

changed significantly since its inception 28 years ago, notwithstanding the dramatic 

changes that have taken place in the airline industry. If confirmed, I will work with 

Congress, particularly Members from rural states, to review the EAS program in 

light of today’s realities.

Question 2. The most significant transportation issue for my constituents in southwest Washington State concerns the construction of a new bridge crossing I–5 at 

the Columbia River. With thousands of people crossing the river every day for work 

and 75 percent of all commercial traffic in Washington and Oregon traveling on I–

5 at some point, construction of a new bridge is critical. Bridge traffic stops completely for 4 hours a day, every day due to rush hour traffic and bridge lifts for maritime traffic. An accident or bridge malfunction snarls traffic all over the Portland 

metropolitan area for hours. Analysis of new bridge solutions are costing tens of millions of dollars to taxpayers and projected costs for the bridge are estimated to be 

between $500 million to $1 billion. Annual traffic growth estimates, conservatively 

projected at 15 percent annually, dramatically exacerbating this problem. 

What can the Federal Government do to alleviate this problem, accelerate the 

process and ameliorate the financial burden on taxpayers in Oregon and Washington? 

Answer. I understand that the replacement of the bridge crossing I–5 at the Columbia River is a vital project from metropolitan, regional, national, and international perspectives. The bridge is a critical link between Washington State and 

Oregon and needs to be replaced due to age and increased traffic. Work on the environmental impact statement (EIS) is underway and on schedule to be completed in 

2009, due to the streamlining efforts of all the Federal, state, and local parties involved. The cost of this project will be shared by Washington State, Oregon, and affected local governments, and will include Federal highway and transit funding. I 

also understand that both Washington State and Oregon have public-private partnership enabling legislation, and while that option is not on the table now, it could 

be a consideration in the future. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you 

and the states to ensure that this critical bridge project is built in a timely and costefficient manner.

Question 3. The Northwest corner of our nation is host to burgeoning international trade. Trade with Canada is substantial and measured in tens of billions 

of dollars annually in the I–5 corridor alone. It is widely acknowledged that global 

trade with existing and emerging trade partners, including China, will at least double over the next decade or so, and highway, rail and marine port capacity will be 

far exceeded. Non-highway solutions for existing and anticipated highway congestion have been championed by past and present administrations, but while appearing to offer relief, little difference in modal distribution has been seen. Congestion 

51

prevails as infrastructure and regulatory barriers to highway, rail and marine options defy solution. 

What multi-modal solutions and strategies will you set in motion to change this 

economically untenable condition? 

Answer. Our transportation systems must be upgraded to accommodate the 

growth in international trade—particularly with Pacific Rim nations—that shows no 

signs of abating. We must improve modal connectivity and encourage the widest 

possible array of funding options. Strategies such as short sea shipping and 

multimodal construction projects such as the Alaska Way Viaduct and Seattle Seawall improve the efficiency of regional transportation and remove traffic from congested transportation corridors. If confirmed, I look forward to advancing these and 

other solutions to our transportation chokepoints.

Question 4. Emergency Medical Service (EMS) aviation operations provide an important service to the public by transporting seriously ill patients or donor organs 

to emergency care facilities. Next week marks the 1-year anniversary of a fatal 

crash of an EMS transport helicopter just north of Edmonds, Washington, that took 

the lives of the pilot and the two nurses on board. In January 2006, the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released a report on its investigation of the 55 

EMS accidents and identified recurring safety issues. While the NTSB noted that 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had recently taken positive steps to improve the safety of EMS operations, it concluded ‘‘the FAA has not yet imposed any 

requirements for all aircraft EMS operators regarding flights without patients on 

board, risk management, flight dispatch, or the use of technologies.’’ In your testimony before the Committee, you said that safety is the Department’s highest priority. I agree with you and look forward to working with you on EMS and other 

aviation safety issues during the upcoming FAA re-authorization. 

In light of your statement, do you believe that all helicopter EMS should operate 

under more stringent Part 135 rules for all flights with medical crews on board? 

Answer. Due to the emergency nature of these operations and the life saving mission which they serve, it is heartbreaking to realize that the causes of some of these 

accidents were avoidable. It is my understanding that the FAA and industry have 

taken steps which have led to a marked decrease in accidents in this area. Nevertheless, if confirmed, I will undertake a review of this issue to determine whether 

requiring helicopter EMS to operate under Part 135 rules would improve safety 

without otherwise negatively impacting life saving operations.

Question 5. We’ve seen in recent years that UAV’s can play an invaluable role in 

both the military theatre and homeland security, as well as in non-defense capacities. Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aerial Vehcles integration in the National Airspace structure is a critical issue as we look to expand the use of UAV’s. 

What is the Department’s plan to accelerate this integration? What steps are currently being taken? What are your thoughts with respect to a graduated regional 

UAV integration strategy that builds from less densely populated regions in the 

U.S.? 

Answer. I have not been thoroughly briefed on this subject; however, it is my understanding that the FAA is working to develop standards to integrate UAV’s into 

the national airspace. It seems reasonable that UAV’s could be integrated into the 

airspace more readily in sparsely populated regions of the country; however, I would 

want to have a more thorough understanding of any potential safety issues before 

the Department committed to a course of action. If I am confirmed, I will make it 

a priority to get educated quickly on this program.

Question 6. This past June, the Surface Transportation Subcommittee held a 

hearing concerning service and capacity in the freight railroad industry. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) testified that that there are competition problems 

in the rail industry and the rate process at the STB doesn’t work. The GAO went 

on to testify that the STB has broad powers to investigate and address rail industry 

practices, but that they have only exercised this authority in the area of mergers 

and actual rate cases. 

Do you believe that there are legitimate concerns with regard to freight rail competition? What actions do you intend to take to assert the role of the STB and 

broaden its limited scope of investigation? 

Answer. During my courtesy meetings with Members of the Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation Committee, several Senator raised the concerns you have highlighted. I recognize the Surface Transportation Board (STB), an independent regulatory agency, continues to struggle with this issue. Although I am not familiar with 

the specific cases before the STB, I am aware of the need to bring together small 

and large railroads, shippers, states, local communities, and other interested parties 

to mitigate some of these rate concerns. Where competition is not easily achievable, 

52

railroads and shippers need to have the ability to resolve their differences in a fair 

and unbiased manner. Additionally, if confirmed, I promise to reach out to the STB 

and have regular dialogue with its appointed board members on these issues.

Question 7. Do you believe that the STB should have more authority? Should they 

have the power to suspend rates during an investigation? Should the burden of 

proof in rate cases be shifted from the freight rail shipper to the freight rail carrier 

itself? 

Answer. I believe it is generally accepted that the Staggers Act has been a success 

for both railroads and shippers. I also understand that the Surface Transportation 

Board (STB) has several matters pending that could address some of these issues, 

including one dealing with fuel surcharges and another addressing rate case resolution. At this time, I do not have any personal opinions on whether any changes need 

to be made. If confirmed, I would be interested in discussing these issues with the 

rail industry, shippers, states and local communities to determine how we can ensure an equitable process.

Question 8. As you know, the U.S. and the nations of the European Union (EU) 

have been working on an ‘‘Open Skies’’ agreement. However, a key issue in this negotiation involves increased foreign ownership rights. Through a recently announced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Administration is proposing to redefine 

the actual control test to cover only safety and security decisions, and permit other 

economic decisions, including day-to-day operations, market strategy, and purchase 

of aircraft, to be controlled by foreign officials. 

What are your thoughts with regard to granting all the European Community carriers rights to U.S. domestic routes and vice-versa, giving U.S. carriers rights to 

intraEuropean Community (EC) routes? What are the economic implications, if any, 

of shifting from bilateral to multilateral aviation agreements? 

Answer. The United States has not proposed, nor does the draft U.S.-E.U. Air 

Transport Agreement reached last November contain, rights for EC airlines to operate U.S. domestic routes. Such operations are prohibited by U.S. law, and I would 

not support changing this law. 

I believe that the benefits of extending the Open-Skies regime to all markets between the U.S. and the EU through a single agreement will transcend anything 

achieved through the bilateral process.

Question 9. As you know, the contract negotiations between FAA and the National 

Air Traffic Controllers Association reached an impasse last April and formally ended 

negotiations. To my disappointment, Congress was unable to review the FAA proposal within the 60 days as required under statute and as a result, the FAA implemented its own proposal without have to return to the bargaining table with 

NATCA. That is why I cosponsored legislation (S. 2201) that would have required 

the FAA and NATCA to go back to negotiations. 

What is your experience with handling contract negotiations between an employer 

and its employees? Given current law, how do you intend to ensure the FAA puts 

forward the best contract offer on its employees? 

Answer. I believe that contract negotiations between employers and employees 

should be conducted in good faith, and follow all legal requirements. If confirmed, 

I will work with Administrator Blakey and the NATCA to open dialogue between 

the agency and the union. I placed a call to Pat Forrey, the new President of 

NATCA, immediately after my nomination was announced and should I be confirmed, would plan to meet with him to start this process.

Question 10. The FAA’s goal to enhance the quality of flight service centers at a 

considerable savings while improving service and technology is laudable. However, 

I strongly believe enacting reform to achieve cost savings cannot come at the expense of government workers. 

What is your strategy/approach to improving aviation services while at the same 

time, reducing air traffic control operating costs? 

Answer. I am committed to delivering government services in as efficient and 

cost-effective manner as possible. My experience at both the state and Federal levels 

has taught me that this can be achieved through strategic budget planning, effective 

program oversight, and smart management of our personnel—our most important 

resource. One of my management priorities is to have an open dialogue with all Departmental employees as to how we may best serve the public, including how we 

can invest in the best training and most advanced technology to improve productivity. If confirmed as Secretary, I would take every opportunity to improve efficiency and safety of the air traffic operation while maintaining a high degree of customer service and a commitment to be fair to our employees.

Question 11. One of the pending issues is the implementation of the program 

called Projects of National and Regional Significance at the Federal Highway AdVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:49 Jul 27, 2007 Jkt 035168 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\35168.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
53

ministration. The SAFETEA–LU legislation set out activities for that program that 

include working toward a recommendation for the full Federal involvement in 

projects funded by the program. In my state, the Alaskan Way Viaduct project in 

Seattle was allocated $ 220 million from this program in SAFETEA–LU. 

What will the Department, working with Washington State DOT and the City of 

Seattle, do to ensure that the full funding provided for the project in SAFETEA–

LU remains available for the project and to develop a Federal funding recommendation for the project that extends beyond the life of the SAFETEA–LU legislation? 

Answer. I understand that the FHWA is working with the State of Washington 

in the development of the finance plan for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which will include identification of funding for the project beyond SAFETEA–LU. If confirmed, 

I assure that I will monitor the progress of this important project. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

HON. MARY E. PETERS

Question 1. If confirmed, will you encourage or pursue the sale of state roads, 

even to foreign corporations? 

Answer. States and other non-Federal authorities own and operate the vast majority of roads in America. Many of these roads, including the older toll road systems, were constructed prior to the creation of the interstate highway system with 

little or no Federal financial support. Where the facilities were built using Federal 

funds, I believe it is important that the public interest is protected in any potential 

transaction. 

In my time at FHWA, I supported giving states flexibility to explore new partnerships with the private sector. With the enactment of SAFETEA–LU, Congress also 

declared its support for more state flexibility. The question that must always be 

asked is: does the contractual arrangement improve performance of the facility, enhance customer services and protect the interests of the taxpayer. If the public interest and security can be protected in connection with these types of transactions, 

then we should continue to support them.

Question 2. If confirmed, will you ensure that any redesign of the airspace over 

New York and New Jersey takes into full account the effects of noise pollution on 

citizens? 

Answer. Yes.

Question 3. If confirmed, will you ensure that the air traffic controller contract 

which was unilaterally imposed on the U.S. air traffic controller workforce will be 

fairly implemented? 

Answer. Yes.

Question 4. If confirmed, would you work to reinstate the mandatory rest period 

after 2 hours of work for air traffic controllers? 

Answer. While I am not familiar with the specifics of the air traffic controller contract, I will consult with the FAA Administrator to ensure adequate rest periods for 

all safety-sensitive positions including controllers.

Question 5. If confirmed, will you work to formulate a fair agreement with the 

State of New Jersey on a full funding grant agreement for a new rail tunnel under 

the Hudson River, consistent with state matching requirements for other Federal 

projects? 

Answer. It is my understanding that this project was recently approved into preliminary engineering by the Federal Transit Administration. Should I be confirmed, 

I look forward to working with you and the State of New Jersey on this regionally 

significant project.

Question 6. If confirmed, will you ensure that Amtrak receives its capital and operating grants from the USDOT in a timely manner? 

Answer. Yes.

Question 7. Aside from notifying Congress, as you promised to do before taking 

any departmental action on the USDOT’s rulemaking effort to change the rules on 

foreign ownership and control of U.S. airlines, if confirmed, will you commit to withdrawing the rulemaking, which has been voted down by both Houses of Congress? 

Answer. I was not involved in the development of the Department’s proposed rulemaking. As such, I will not commit to any action before I have had the chance to 

review the comments filed by interested parties.

Question 8. If confirmed will you take any action to pursue changes in the Federal 

laws concerning truck size and weight standards, aside from the use of truck-only 

lanes? 

54

Answer. No.

Question 9. If confirmed, will you pursue or require the use of electronic on-board 

enforcement devices for trucker hours of service enforcement? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will review the Electronic On-Board Recorder NPRM and 

work with FMCSA to expedite the rulemaking process.

Question 10. Regarding New Jersey’s continued use of multi-year funding as an 

accepted financing method for infrastructure projects, the former Secretary and current FHWA Administrator stated that the Administration will not back away from 

the agreement reached with the New Jersey Department of Transportation last fall. 

The statement in that agreement pertaining to multi-year funding indicates that 

FHWA will continue to honor New Jersey’s multi-year funding approach. Can you 

confirm my understanding that this agreement applies to both the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FY06–FY08) as well as the FY07–FY10 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program? 

Answer. Yes.

Question 11. If you are confirmed as Secretary, will FHWA continue to approve 

New Jersey’s use of multiyear funding in Statewide Transportation Improvement 

Programs beyond FY07? 

Answer. Yes.

Question 12. As former Secretary Mineta stated, congestion costs our country 

about $200 billion a year. He proposed a strategy to reduce congestion, but I found 

it to be lacking in terms of passenger travel needs, and the use of rail service. Will 

you continue this initiative, and will you take the opportunity to correct some of the 

problems? 

Answer. If confirmed, I plan to continue this initiative. I share the former Secretary’s concern about congestion clogging our highways, railways, airports and seaports—and the staggering costs this congestion imposes. I see the National Strategy 

to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network, as a flexible document 

intended to offer useful guidance to states, counties, cities and other localities in 

search of solutions for combating congestion. As we progress with this initiative, we 

will continue to modify our strategy as further analysis and circumstances dictate. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to ensure that rail, intercity bus, 

and other long-distance travel modes are included in the congestion solution for our 

states and localities.

Question 13. If confirmed, will you pursue Federal efforts to encourage or require 

motorcycle helmet use? 

Answer. As an avid motorcyclist, I would never consider getting on one of my 

bikes without wearing my helmet. As FHWA Administrator, I made highway safety 

my highest priority and worked closely with the Administrators of the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop strategies for reducing fatalities and injuries. Should I be confirmed, I plan to continue placing a heavy emphasis on safety 

initiatives and programs such as those promoting greater use of motorcycle helmets.

Question 14. If confirmed, how will you ensure that we have a balanced transportation system, with rail travel options for both travelers and freight shippers? 

Answer. The success of passenger rail systems is predicated on on-time, quality 

service. I recognize this requires frequent dialogue between passenger and freight 

rail operators. Additionally, America’s economy relies on an efficient freight rail system which we must preserve. If confirmed, I commit to you the Department will be 

engaged on this issue.

Question 15. Do you have plans to privatize our government functions that are 

currently handled by Federal officials and employees? What about the contracting 

out of work currently performed by Federal officials and government employees? 

Answer. I have no plans to privatize government functions that are currently handled by Federal employees. I support DOT managers using contractors as part of 

their overall workforce planning, if such use provides a cost benefit to the American 

taxpayer and the service provide by the contractor is not inherently governmental.

Question 16. If confirmed, will you allow the hiring by USDOT agencies of contractors to prepare reports of agency activities? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will allow USDOT agencies to utilize contractors as part 

of their overall workforce planning, if such use provides a cost benefit to the American taxpayer and the service provided by the contractor is not inherently governmental.

Question 17. If confirmed, will you ensure that all ‘‘prepackaged news stories’’ 

funded or produced by the Department of Transportation will include disclaimers 

55

clearly notifying the audience that the U.S. Government produced or funded the 

news segment? 

Answer. Yes.

Æ