U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–161 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1203 

TRANSPORTATION’S ROLE IN CLIMATE CHANGE 

AND REDUCING GREENHOUSE GASES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 14, 2009 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 14, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 2 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 5 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 7 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 9 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 11 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 13 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania .................... 44 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 155 

WITNESSES 

LaHood, Hon. Ray, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation .................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 21 

Response to an additional question from Senator Klobuchar ....................... 26 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 27 

Response to an additional question from Senator Voinovich ........................ 31 

McCarthy, Hon. Regina, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................. 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin ............................ 40 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Klobuchar ..................................................................................... 41 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 42 

Becker, Hon. Ralph, Mayor, Salt Lake City, Utah ............................................... 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 69 

Senator Klobuchar ..................................................................................... 71 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 72 

Bragdon, David, President, Metro Council, Portland, Oregon Region ................ 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 79 

Senator Klobuchar ..................................................................................... 81 

Winkelman, Steve, Director, Adaptation and Transportation Programs, Center for Clean Air Policy ........................................................................................ 100 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 102 

Response to an additional question from Senator Klobuchar ....................... 121 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 122 

Kuntz, Ray, Chief Executive Officer, Watkins and Shepard Trucking ............... 124 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 126 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 139 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Klobuchar ......................... 142 
Page

IV 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

National Congestion Tables .................................................................................... 157 
(1) 

TRANSPORTATION’S ROLE IN CLIMATE 

CHANGE AND REDUCING GREENHOUSE 

GASES 

TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Lautenberg, Udall, 

Merkley, Specter, Voinovich, Barrasso, and Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The hearing will come to order. 

This is our second hearing today, and I want to thank my colleagues. I know everybody is torn between the Supreme Court 

nomination, writing a health care bill, and working on a defense 

bill on the Senate floor. So, we understand. 

But we want to make sure, as we write our climate change legislation, that we are looking at every single area that will be affected. And here is Mr. Transportation coming now. 

As we work to pass legislation that will reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil, create millions of clean energy jobs, and protect our 

children from pollution, we need to consider global warming pollution from the transportation sector. Why? According to the EPA, 

transportation activities account for one-third of all U.S. global 

warming emissions. 

The Obama administration has already taken important steps 

this year to address global warming pollution from motor vehicles. 

I want to thank them for their action. And I want to thank Secretary LaHood, and, of course, Hon. Regina McCarthy, who are 

here with us. 

In May, the President brought together the Federal Government, 

the State of California, and the auto industry behind a nationwide 

program to cut new carbon emissions from vehicles and raise gas 

mileage requirements, along with new national automobile emissions standards that follow California’s lead. 

On June 30th, the EPA finally granted California’s request for a 

waiver providing the green light to my State and more than a 

dozen others to tackle tailpipe emissions of global warming pollution. The granting of this waiver will unleash innovative tech-
2 

nologies that will create millions of new jobs as we move forward 

toward new, cleaner and more efficient vehicles. It will make our 

families and our communities safer and healthier since more efficient transportation reduces the smog and soot pollution which is 

associated with asthma and other respiratory disease. 

I think this fact is overlooked. I know Senator Lautenberg gets 

it because he always talks about watching a child with asthma. We 

do know that when we cut back on carbon emissions, we also cut 

back on that particulate matter that comes out of our vehicles. 

In my own State, entrepreneurs are already making great strides 

in developing highly efficient vehicles and advanced renewable 

fuels as well, some based on algae. To continue to achieve significant reductions in transportation emissions, we will need cleaner, 

more efficient cars, advanced clean burning renewable fuels, and 

development policies that reduce the distances Americans need to 

travel every day. We need to invest in better transit systems and 

other ways to help reduce emissions from the transportation sector. 

National global warming legislation is the very best way to unleash the power of American innovation from coast to coast to create the full array of solutions we will need to step up to this challenge. 

I certainly look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses here 

today on the role the transportation sector can play in reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

Again, I want to say to Secretary LaHood how much I appreciate 

his being here today. He is the one who said that he wanted to personally be here. I commend him for that. He has been in so many 

of our States. He was just in our State at our port in Oakland talking about the incredible potential of our ports to be even greater 

economic engines. 

And, of course, Regina McCarthy, the Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Air and Radiation, at the EPA. And I want to thank my 

colleagues who are here for helping us get that nomination 

through, because her voice is really needed. 

So, I am giving everybody 5 minutes. I went under that, and I 

would encourage that, but it is up to you. We will give you up to 

5 minutes. And Senator Voinovich will start. Is that right, Senator 

Voinovich? I am sorry, Senator Barrasso will start. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The Waxman-Markey bill is designed to make fossil fuel use 

more expensive. We heard that at our hearing this morning. Advocates say that we must make fossil fuel more expensive to change 

the behavior of businesses and consumers. That makes making everything that is powered by fossil fuels more expensive: your car, 

your home, your office. 

Fossil fuels power the airplanes, the trains, the trucks that we 

use to ship goods from farms and small businesses to the marketplace all across this country and abroad. All these things will be 

made more expensive because of the Waxman-Markey bill. 

Increasing the cost of bringing goods and services to market in 

a recession, at any time but certainly in a recession, is a recipe for 
3 

disaster, for economic disaster. This is going to lead to lost jobs and 

lost economic opportunity. 

We cannot afford to lose any more jobs. In the month of June, 

we lost about a half-million jobs in the United States. The unemployment rate has hit 10 percent. Mandating that companies buy 

carbon credits or dramatically slash their emissions is only going 

to make matters worse. 

There is an article that appeared in Business Week, June 15th, 

entitled A Dogfight Over Greener Air Travel. In it, the author 

states that the U.S. airlines face their first big deadline to meet 

European Union rules on emissions linked to global warming. That 

is when carriers landing in Europe will have to submit proposals 

to the European Union on how they plan to track the emissions. 

The article goes on to say that this is the first step toward tough 

European cap-and-trade laws requiring airlines to either slash 

greenhouse gases or pay for permits to emit. The article states, 

U.S. airlines are watching these developments anxiously, in part 

because they are already struggling with weak travel demand and 

the yo-yoing fuel prices. Nancy Young, the Air Transport Association’s Vice President for Environmental Affairs, said having to purchase credits will stifle funding for the very innovation airlines 

must develop to cut emissions. 

The airline industry is not the only business struggling with 

weak consumer demand and already high fuel prices. The airline 

industry cannot afford these European regulations. By deciding to 

pass Waxman-Markey, the majority will increase their cost of doing 

business in an economic downturn. 

The legislation will also increase the cost of every small business 

by dramatically forcing them to pay more for everything that uses 

energy. Those costs will put businesses in debt or out of business. 

Jobs will be lost. Unemployment rates will continue to go up. 

This is an approach headed in the wrong direction. We need to 

keep business costs low so that businesses can expand and create 

new jobs. Now, we can do that by making American energy as 

clean as we can, as fast as we can, but without raising prices on 

businesses and on American families. 

Our goal must be to do everything we can to keep red, white and 

blue jobs that we have now, and then also find ways to add green 

jobs. We need them all. Let us move forward with those goals in 

mind. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

On my list, I have Senator Lautenberg next. No, Senator Carper 

is first. I am so sorry. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. 

To our witnesses, welcome. To this panel, it is nice to see that 

you both could be here, and the panel that will follow you. 

A quick comment in response to Senator Barrasso’s words. 

We met earlier today, a group of us interested Democrats met 

earlier today with Congressman Boucher, Congressman Waxman 
4 

and Congressman Inslee. Among the things we talked about were 

the costs of the Waxman-Markey bill. 

We learned that CBO, which is neither Democrat nor Republican 

but non-partisan, has actually put a price tag, per family, on the 

Waxman-Markey bill, and said it works out on the annual basis of 

$170 per family. That is about 50 cents per day per family, or 

about the price of a postage stamp. And the lowest 20 percent of 

families are basically, the lowest quintile if you will, are exempted 

from those costs, basically, at all. So, I would ask us to keep that 

in mind as we go forward. 

Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing. 

We have examined, as you know, many causes and solutions to climate change. But one area that has not received enough attention 

is the transportation sector. 

Transportation accounts for some 30 percent of greenhouse gas 

emissions in our country. If we do not curb emissions from transportation, we will either fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 

the level scientists say are necessary, or we will have to ask other 

sectors to make up the difference. 

When the transportation sector has been considered before, the 

focus has always been on vehicle fuel economy or tailpipe emissions. In the last, Congress I was extremely proud to play, with my 

colleagues, a role in increasing the CAFE standard for cars and 

trucks for the first time in some 30 years. The new standard requires the entire U.S. fleet of cars and trucks to average about 35 

miles per gallon by 2020, and President Obama recently announced 

that we will reach 35 miles per gallon by 2016. 

In the same bill that raised CAFE, Congress also established a 

renewable fuel standard requiring that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel is sold in 2020, up from 9 billion today. Taken together, 

the CAFE and the renewable fuel standard are expected to save $2 

million barrels of oil per day and save consumers more than $80 

billion. 

While this is a major improvement, we must remember that our 

goal is to reduce greenhouse gases by 60 to 80 percent. We need 

to look for other ways to make the transportation system cleaner 

in this country. 

In March, I introduced, along with Senator Arlen Specter, the 

Clean Low Emission Affordable New Transportation Efficiency Act, 

known as CLEAN-TEA. CLEAN-TEA reserves some 10 percent of 

allowance allocations and dedicates those funds to funding transportation projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Ten percent of allocations might sound like quite a bit. But, as 

I mentioned before, the transportation sector is 30 percent of the 

problem and growing faster. Not slower, but growing faster than 

any other sector. In addition, projects funded with these allocations 

will create jobs and reduce the transportation expense of Americans. I believe this is a critical piece of the puzzle which, if left out, 

hampers the effectiveness of our overall reduction efforts. 

In 1975, you will recall, we created the first CAFE standards. 

But, at the same time, we closed down transit systems and built 

homes far from workplaces, schools, groceries and doctors. As a result, driving increased by 150 percent, and, therefore, even though 

cars got significantly more efficient, American use of oil in the 
5 

transportation sector increased by some 50 percent. We cannot afford to make that mistake again. Last year, when gas prices went to $4 per gallon across our country, Americans sought ways to save money by driving less. Many 

of them found that their transportation options were, unfortunately, quite limited. Their neighborhoods had no sidewalks, and 

many of their communities had little or no transit service. Those 

who had options exercised them, but those who did not either had 

to pay the price of gas and skimp elsewhere or reduce the quality 

of their life. That is unacceptable. 

We fund our transportation system through gas tax, which goes 

to say that we pay for roads and transit by burning gasoline. When 

people drive less, our transportation budgets dry up. So States and 

localities that seek to reduce oil use, lower greenhouse gas emissions and save their constituents money receive smaller transportation budgets. We ought to be rewarding them by sending money 

based on how much they reduced emissions. 

As we develop a climate change bill, we must consider how every 

sector of the economy can play a part in lowering greenhouse gas 

emissions. When it comes to the transportation system, we, right 

here in Congress, have a lot to say about how that system is developed, how efficient it is, and how polluting it is. We should make 

sure that as we tell American businesses to get their house in 

order, we clean up our act as well. 

By incorporating transportation provisions in the next climate 

bill later this year, we have the chance to make progress addressing many problems at once, finding additional funding for transportation infrastructure, building money, saving transportation alternatives, and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. This is an opportunity that we cannot afford to waste. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe, since you are Ranking, I would call you or Senator Voinovich, whichever of the two. 

Senator INHOFE. I will wait, that is fine. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I appreciate the witnesses’ being here today. 

Senator Carper, I was interested in the CBO numbers. But I 

want to point out that those CBO numbers were based on the EPA 

analysis, and I have asked the Chairman to ask the EPA to re-run 

that analysis because it does not include some information that it 

should as it did last year when they came up with a comprehensive 

analysis of the bill. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing. I think 

we both agree that an open dialog among members is helpful. As 

we move ahead, I am anticipating the more substantive hearing on 

the legislative texts that you and I discussed and that you promised would occur. 

Having a hearing on transportation’s role in climate change is essential given the sector is responsible for roughly one-third of the 
6 

greenhouse gases released in the United States. Yet, as we seek 

policies to reduce these emissions, we must do so in a way that 

does not cripple an industry that our economy relies upon. 

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the transportation-related goods and services accounts for more than 10 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. Only three sectors, housing, healthcare and food, contributed a larger share of the GDP 

than transportation. 

Transportation also contributes to the economy by providing millions of jobs. Indeed, 1 of every 7 jobs in the United States is transportation related. The transportation industry, including direct and 

indirect jobs, employed more than 20 million people in 2002, accounting for 16 percent of the U.S. total occupational employment. 

Indeed, there are very few options available to the industry to reduce emissions, and many of these options are already being employed. These options include, one, increased vehicle fuel efficiency, 

which is already in the EISA through increased CAFE standards 

and through the new DOT tailpipe emissions standards; two, the 

blending of lower carbon additives with gasoline, which is already 

handled through the renewable fuel standard; and three, by replacing transportation fuels with something else. 

The Waxman-Markey treatment of transportation fuels creates 

numerous problems. It will do little to reduce greenhouse gases in 

the transportation sector and instead could significantly raise gasoline prices for all consumers and further erode our Nation’s energy 

security. 

In my opinion, the caps are completely severed from what technology is able to deliver in terms of reduced emissions. This is a 

problem that extends beyond the transportation sector. The main 

cost containment mechanism in the bill, international offsets, also 

allows for off-shoring of literally tens of billions of dollars annually 

to meet compliance obligations that are otherwise unachievable. 

The disconnects between what technology is capable of and what 

the bill requires is particularly troubling for our Nation’s refiners. 

Because there are limits on our ability to reduce carbon in transportation fuels, what we are talking about here is sun-setting an 

industry. 

The Waxman bill places disproportionate compliance obligations 

on producers of transportation fuels than for other major industries. Indeed, the bill holds refiners responsible for their own emissions, plus the emissions from the use of petroleum products, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, home heating and so forth. 

In total, refiners are responsible for approximately 44 percent of 

all covered emissions. Yet, the legislation grants them a mere 2 

percent of these allowances. By contrast, the electric suppliers, who 

are responsible for 40 percent, get a 35 percent allowance. 

This places an extremely high financial burden on the industry. 

Indeed, many refiners have indicated to me that they will not be 

able to pay for these costs in the face of decreasing demand and 

increased foreign competition. 

And because refiners are not covered by the bill’s provision which 

attempts to protect manufacturers from international competition, 

the legislation will force the off-shoring of U.S. refining capacity 

and jobs, leaving us at the mercy of foreign nations for refined gas-
7 

oline supplies. Our Nation has over 700 million gallons of crude oil 

stored at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for emergency. Of what 

use will that be if we do not have the refineries to refine it? 

To the extent that the price increases can be passed to the consumers, the price increases will be significant. In fact, the same 

CBO analysis that was released indicates that the bill could add 

as much as 77 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline over the 

next decade, with a significant impact on families, workers and industry. 

What is clear is the combination of policies appeared by Congressmen Waxman and Markey in their climate change and energy 

bill will have significant impact on consumers including the poor, 

the elderly, those on fixed incomes and the businesses that drive 

our economy. This has been confirmed by the President, echoed by 

the Treasury Secretary and OBM Director. 

In fact, increasing prices is the intent of the bill’s authors. For 

years now, proponents of cap-and-trade legislation have been calling for a price signal on carbon. So, the story goes, it will induce 

consumers to change behavior, thus reducing their emissions. 

While I believe climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed, we must not lose sight of the impacts that the policies will 

have on America’s economy, communities, workers and families. 

I think I would like to hear from the witnesses today about 

where they come out on all of this. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. 

I want to say to Secretary LaHood that I have watched you develop your views of how a Secretary of Transportation will operate, 

and I have seen wonderful signs of progress, and I commend you 

and urge you to carry on. 

Just to note, we are at a transformative moment in the way 

Americans travel and ship their goods. The choices this committee 

makes in the next few weeks can shape our country and our future 

generations, attitude and health. 

Right now, greenhouse gases from the transportation sector account for one-third of our country’s total emissions, and emission 

from transportation come to everybody’s neighborhood. There is no 

community that is free, and there is no doorway that is free from 

effects of toxic emissions from transportation and vehicles. 

With America’s population expected to hit 420 million people by 

2050, it could mean even more cars and trucks on the road producing emissions that cloud the atmosphere and create the greenhouse gases that warm our planet. 

So, we have a choice. We either hasten the effort to find alternatives, or run the risk of impairing the health of our children. 

Senator Boxer mentioned my interest in asthma. I have a child 

who has asthma. I note that the growth of asthma among young 

people over these last years is enormous. They are affected by bad 
8 

air which comes, ultimately, from the fact that our climate is 

changing and man is soiling the atmosphere. So, we have a choice. 

And the choice must include every sector of our economy working 

as one. 

When it comes to transportation, it means trains, subways and 

barges that are more energy efficient and less destructive to our 

planet. For the last few years, we have seen Amtrak, for instance, 

break ridership records. 

And I point out that the statistics are significantly threatening. 

In 1990, there were 189 million vehicles on the road. That is automobiles, buses and trucks. Sixteen years later, we had a gain of 60 

million vehicles. That is in a period of 16 years. So, the condition 

is not going to improve if we stand by and watch the growth in the 

number of vehicles on our roads. 

Just look at Amtrak. In fiscal year 2008, Amtrak’s ridership hit 

more than 28 million riders, marking the sixth straight year of 

gains. People want the convenience and reliability of public transportation. But they also want a better quality of air and the environment. 

We have seen similar gains with commuter trains, buses and 

subways. The numbers are improving enormously. We just have to 

work harder to keep up with the availability of public transit. 

These gains prove an essential point. If we provide convenient, reliable and efficient mass transportation options, Americans will 

choose them. And by making that choice, they are taking cars off 

the road and greenhouse gases out of the air. 

Moving travelers and goods by rail uses 20 percent less energy 

than moving the same travelers or goods with cars or trucks. Yet 

Federal investment in rail and other efficient modes of transportation has been almost non-existent compared to investments in 

highways and aviation. That needs to change. That is why the recovery law that we passed, and President Obama signed, contains 

more than $8 billion for high-speed rail. This money will not only 

improve faster rail service and create jobs, but it will also fight climate change. 

That is why the last Congress overwhelmingly passed a landmark law to prepare Amtrak and the States for the next generation 

of travelers. And that is why Senator Rockefeller and I have introduced a bill that would take a comprehensive and national approach to transportation planning and set clear goals for reducing 

emissions and congestion. Now, this committee in the Senate has 

to lead the way by passing a strong global warming bill that makes 

long overdue investments in developing energy efficient transportation options. 

We do not want to see fewer jobs in this country. We cannot afford to do that. But we can plan for better jobs accompanying 

movements to a greener climate, a cleaner atmosphere, and to have 

that become a yardstick for our future. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Inhofe. 
9 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I say to my good friend from Delaware, do not get too wrapped 

in this CBO thing because, one of the many faulty assumptions 

they have is that the revenues that will come in as a result of higher price for energy are going to rebated back to the people. Do you 

really think, in this Washington environment, that these things are 

going to rebated back? I think probably not. 

This is one of the areas where the Chairman and I do get along 

in terms of wanting a robust transportation system. We have 

talked to Secretary LaHood about this. We both want to see, if 

there is an extension coming up, perhaps tomorrow, from this committee, that we try to get this thing through because this is something that is not just a jobs bill, but is something that has to be 

done. We are way behind. 

I think, sometimes, about the 2005 bill and, as robust as it was, 

that did not really even maintain what we have today. The committee is going to consider the extension, and I look forward to 

that. 

But today we are examining a different aspect of the transportation sector, and that is the role it would play under a cap-andtrade system. There is some interesting debate about what its role 

would look like, but there is no debate about this: cap-and-trade 

will make gasoline more expensive for American consumers. 

The consumers represented here today are America’s truckers. 

Trucking is a highly competitive industry with very low profit margins, sometimes no profit margin. This explains why, as fuel prices 

increase, many trucking companies are reporting lower profits if 

they are reporting any profits at all. 

In 2007 and 2008, for example, over 5,000 trucking companies 

with at least five trucks went out of business, and thousands of 

independent operators, drivers and employees have lost their jobs. 

If we enact cap-and-trade legislation, fuel prices will rise, and more 

jobs in the trucking sector will be lost. 

Supporters of cap-and-trade say it is all worth it because their 

policy would help break our dependence on foreign oil. Just look at 

EPA which, in its analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill, actually 

predicts that cap-and-trade will barely make a dent in petroleum 

use. In fact, the opposite is true, which is that passing this legislation will make us even more dependent on imports of refined petroleum products like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and home heating oil. 

The ISCF international study on the impacts of last year’s 

Lieberman-Warner climate legislation indicate refining investment 

would drop over $11 billion in 2020 due to the burdensome costs 

cap-and-trade would impose on the U.S. refining sector. Moreover, 

the same analysis estimated that petroleum product imports would 

double from 15 percent to nearly 30 percent by 2020. 

It is kind of interesting, if you look back on the discussions we 

had over 10 years ago on Kyoto, the studies that came out such as 

the Charles River Associates, the Wharton School, the MIT, all of 

them consistently talk about the high costs of this thing. And then 

to come out and say, for some reason, that this is going to be dif-
10 

ferent, it is still cap-and-trade, we are still talking about the same 

thing. 

It is a little bit laughable when people say we want to do something about dependence on the Middle East to run this country 

called America when those individuals are the very ones who have 

a moratorium on drilling offshore, and on oil sands, on shale, in the 

Western United States, and we could become independent overnight if we just lift those moratoria. 

Whatever the solution is, we want to expand all domestic production, all forms of energy. That is our position, I think, on this side 

of the aisle. We want nuclear, clean coal, oil, natural gas, wind, 

geothermal. You name it, we want it. Bur we want it all. We want 

to leave everything on the table. I think we are the only country 

in the world that does not produce its own assets. So that is the 

thing that we need to change. 

So, whatever the solution, we cannot lessen our dependence on 

foreign oil through taxes, mandates and bureaucracy. We can only 

do it by opening access to all forms of domestic energy and occurring innovation and the creation of new technologies right here at 

home. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

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

Madam Chairman, you and I both know the importance of robust funding for our 

Nation’s highways and bridges and ensuring the Highway Trust Fund is able to 

meet its commitments. I look forward, as always, to working with you on passing 

a highway bill extension and Trust Fund fix in the next 2 weeks. 

As we have discussed many times in this committee, the Highway Trust Fund is 

going to run out of money sometime in the next few weeks and will require an infusion of $5 billion to $7 billion to get through the rest of fiscal year 2009. Additional 

funds will be needed to fund the highway and transit programs in future years. 

This committee is going to consider an 18-month extension later this week. The Trust Fund will require a total of $20 billion to get through this 18-month period 

according to this Administration. It is critical to fix this shortfall. Failing to do so 

will delay planned and ongoing road projects and result in people being laid off. This 

would be unacceptable any time, but more so during today’s economic downturn. 

But today, we are examining a different aspect of the transportation sector—that 

is, the role it would play under a cap-and-trade system. There is some interesting 

debate about what its role will be. But there’s no debate about this: cap-and-trade 

will make gasoline more expensive for American consumers. What’s more, it will actually increase our dependence on foreign oil. 

The consumers represented here today are America’s truckers. Trucking is a highly competitive industry with very low profit margins. This explains why, as fuel 

prices increase, many trucking companies are reporting lower profits, if they are reporting any profits at all. 

In 2007 and 2008, for example, over 5,000 trucking companies with at least 5 

trucks went out of business, and thousands of independent operators, drivers, and 

employees have lost their jobs. If we enact cap-and-trade legislation, fuel prices will 

rise, and more jobs in the trucking sector will be destroyed. 

For the sake of argument, let’s use EPA’s projected cost of carbon under cap-andtrade, which is about $20 per ton for CO2. According to EIA estimates, Americans 

consumed about 268 billion gallons of finished petroleum products such as gasoline, 

diesel fuel and jet fuel in 2008. What does this mean? Well, according to the Union 

of Concerned Scientists, in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, this would translate into an increase of 20 cents per gallon of gasoline for 

American consumers. 

If we take a step back and look at the big picture, this means consumers would 

pay almost $54 billion more annually for gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and other petroleum products. And that is a low-ball estimate. As the cost of carbon increases 

over time—in addition to fluctuations in the global price of oil and the costs of more 
11 

refined product being imported because of higher operating costs to refiners in the 

United States—these costs estimates are likely to be much higher. 

Supporters of cap-and-trade claim it will help break our dependence on foreign oil. 

In fact, the opposite is true: passing this legislation may make us even more dependent on imports of refined petroleum products like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and 

home heating oil. 

Refining trends are not encouraging. Many of the new refinery capacity expansions abroad are being built to produce fuels solely for the U.S. market. According 

to a recent article in the publication OPIS about Indian refining company Reliance 

Industries, ‘‘Reliance’s plan to sell oil products from its new 580,000-barrel per day 

Jamnagar refinery to the U.S. is beginning to take shape as the Indian refiner secured an additional 1 million barrel storage space at BORCO in the Bahamas.’’ The 

580,000 barrel per day figure alone represents more than 6 percent of U.S. daily 

gasoline consumption. This number is from one foreign refinery. 

An ICF International study on the impacts of last year’s Lieberman-Warner climate legislation indicated refining investment would drop over $11 billion in 2020 

due to the high costs cap-and-trade would impose on the U.S. refining sector. Moreover, that same analysis estimated that petroleum product imports would double 

from 15 percent to nearly 30 percent by 2020. 

Despite routine denial from environmentalists, it’s clear that we will be using petroleum for decades to come. This is no secret; it’s a fundamental fact of everyday 

life. So let’s get on with it: let’s expand domestic production of all forms of energy— 

nuclear, clean coal, oil, natural gas, wind, geothermal, you name it. Just last week, 

I introduced legislation to spur development of natural gas vehicles—which is one 

of many innovative ways to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. 

Whatever the solution, we can’t lessen our dependence on foreign oil through 

taxes, mandates, and bureaucracy. We can only do it by opening access to all forms 

of domestic energy and encouraging innovation and the creation of new technologies 

right here at home. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

On the issue of climate, picking up where we left off this morning 

in our discussion on climate change and energy, you know, we have 

a spectrum of opinions in the U.S. Senate. We have some people 

who believe that it is a hoax, and we have some people who are 

ready to jump off a cliff. I am sort of, well, I am not ready to jump 

off a cliff by a long shot, but I believe that it is enough of a problem 

that we ought to buy some insurance. 

I believe there are some other important issues before the American people that we have to consider, some of which Senator Inhofe 

just mentioned, such as the independence of our energy system, not 

relying on other countries too much, having large amounts of electricity, and especially having cheap energy. High priced energy 

drives jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. I mean, the Alcoa 

plant shut down in Tennessee waiting on a cheaper energy contract 

from TVA. 

Senator Leahy says that it will stop its expansion if the Waxman-Markey bill passes. Eastman Chemical hires 10,000 or 12,000 

people. So, costs matter. We should be looking for the cheap, easy 

way to do this, not for the hard, expensive way to do it. 

That is why, this morning, I was suggesting, why do you not, you 

know, if you are sitting around saying I really care about climate 

change and 40 percent of the carbon is electricity or coal-fired 

power plants, and nuclear power produces zero carbon and 70 per-
12 

cent of our pollution-free carbon-free electricity, why would we not 

build 100 new plants? 

Now we are talking about transportation. I think that is about 

as easy. I mean, transportation is about 30 percent carbon and 

greenhouse gases. Well, why do we not put a low-carbon fuel standard on our vehicles? And gradually ratchet it down. We could do 

that in such a way that we actually lowered fuel prices, instead of 

raised them, because we have an alternative. We have electric cars. 

We have had testimony that we could electrify half our cars and 

trucks in the next 20 years without building one new power plant 

if we plug them in at night. 

It is much more difficult over on the electricity side because we 

have not built a new nuclear plant in 30 years, so something is 

stopping it, even though France is 80 percent, and Japan and India 

and China and everybody else is going ahead. 

But back to transportation. Why would we construct this big contraption of payoffs and allowances and taxes and mandates and interference in the free market that is in the Waxman-Markey bill 

when all we have to do is simply say, let us start with carbon. 

People say we want an economy-wide climate change bill. We do 

not, really. I mean the Waxman-Markey bill is 83 percent of the 

economy and all of the economy-wide bills, so-called, that have 

come up here are 75, 80 or 83. Coal plants are 40 percent, transportation is 30 percent, so why not take the 70 percent and the 

cheap, easy way instead of going the hard way with all of these 

taxes? 

As to the fact that it does not cost anything, well somebody is going to be paying up to $100 billion a year. Somebody is. And that 

is about $1,000 per family. 

Dr. David Greene at the Oakridge National Laboratory, one of 

the most effective persons on transportation fuels, testified several 

times before this Congress, before this committee, on behalf of 

higher CAFE standards. When he did that on November 13, 2007, 

he also said that an economy-wide cap-and-trade is inefficient in 

reducing carbon in transportation because it would not raise the 

price of gasoline enough to change human behavior. 

Why would we deliberately go out and raise everybody’s gas tax? 

You know how much people really like that. Why would we do that 

if it does not reduce carbon? I mean, that is doing it the hard way 

and inviting opposition. 

So, what started out to be an effort to reduce carbon to deal with 

global warming has turned out to be a byzantine construction of a 

contraption of taxes and mandates that may not do anything, 

when, instead, we could be building nuclear power plants for electricity and using a low-carbon fuel standard for carbon, and nothing else, leaving alone the cow tax, all of these cement companies, 

auto companies, leave them all alone. Let us take 70 percent of the 

economy and do something that actually works. 

I will be interested in talking more about the low carbon fuel 

standard and why that is not sufficient and more efficient. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Udall, you arrived at the moment of your opening statement. It is perfect timing. 
13 

Senator UDALL. I defer. I want to hear from these brilliant witnesses here. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. All right. No pressure, though. 

Senator UDALL. I will put my opening statement in the record. 

Senator BOXER. We will do that, without objection. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Exactly 1 year ago today, a barrel of oil was $146.95, about the time that American cars, trucks and airplanes came to a screeching halt. Over the last month 

prices have been ‘‘only’’ $60 or $70, about where they were after Hurricane Katrina 

caused a huge price spike. 

I think that most drivers and truckers in America believe we are going to see 

$150 oil and $4–$5 gasoline and diesel sometime again in the not-too-distant future. 

The era of cheap oil is over, and fossil fuels are unsustainable. Seventy percent of 

what is left of the world’s oil is in the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela. We consume 25 percent of the world’s oil and only have 3 percent of the supply—a figure 

that includes areas that we are not currently producing. 

Every time you fill your tank, 40 percent of your gasoline bill goes to foreign oil— 

an oil dependence tax on consumers that it is likely to go up in the future as oil 

supplies diminish. 

• In 2008, OPEC projected a dip in supply over the next 5 years. 

• In 2007, the Government Accountability Office, the non-partisan investigative 

arm of Congress, said the U.S. should prepare for the decline of global oil supplies. 

• In November 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported ‘‘the world is approaching 

a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every 

day.’’ 

We could follow to the naysayers who argue that tackling clean energy and climate change is too expensive, but if we do, we will still be stuck with three terrible 

costs. 

(1) We will still continue to pay a 40 percent oil dependence tax on each gallon 

of gasoline. 

(2) We will lose the economic race for leadership in clean energy jobs. 

(3) We will hand down a Nation to our children whose farms, forests, cities, mountains, and coastlines are irrevocably changed for the worse. 

Or we can follow the President and the House of Representatives and realize that 

our window to act is now. The House bill is not perfect, but we should work to improve it, not to kill it. 

We need to put a market price on carbon and greenhouse gas emissions to reflect 

their true cost on our national security, our economy, and our environment. 

That price will become a huge market incentive for a sustainable portfolio of efficiency, biofuels, batteries, natural gas, and fuel cells that will transform our energy 

economy away from oil dependence. 

Senator BOXER. Well, it is our great honor to turn to our distinguished panel. First will be Hon. Ray LaHood, Secretary of the 

United States Department of Transportation. 

Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RAY LaHOOD, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Inhofe and members of the committee for inviting me to discuss 

transportation’s role in reducing the impact of climate change and 

cutting greenhouse gas emissions and in lessening our dependence 

on foreign oil. 

These are very high priorities for President Obama’s administration. We are committed to taking aggressive action to move the 

United States toward a clean energy environment that will create 
14 

jobs, spur innovation and help make our communities more livable 

and sustainable. 

The Department of Transportation plays a key role in meeting 

these goals. The transportation sector accounts for nearly one-third 

of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., and nearly two-thirds 

of that total is generated by passenger cars and light duty trucks. 

Clearly, we must take action to make all forms of transportation 

more fuel efficient while stepping up efforts to introduce low-carbon 

fuels and alternative power sources for all types of vehicles from 

cars and trucks to buses and rail systems. 

We are coordinating with the Environmental Protection Agency 

to develop new, coordinating tailpipe emissions and fuel-economy 

standards for 2012 through 2016. And we are leveraging technology 

to better manage traffic congestion and other factors that directly 

affect fuel consumption and emissions. 

However, while these actions are important, they are not sufficient to take us where we need to go. If we were to achieve a 55 

mile per gallon fuel efficiency standard in the coming years, carbon 

emission levels from the transportation sector would still only decline modestly. 

In order to achieve our goals, we must implement policies and 

programs that will reduce total vehicle miles traveled. This means 

providing communities with additional transportation choices such 

as light rail, fuel-efficient buses, and paths for pedestrians and bicycles that intersect with transit centers. These efforts would also 

reduce household transportation costs, strengthen local economies, 

lower traffic congestion and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. 

Our strategy also calls for investing transportation dollars in coordination with housing investments and economic development 

policies. By doing so, we can promote strong communities with 

mixed income housing located close to transit in walkable neighborhoods. Last month, we took an important first step toward this 

goal. HUD Secretary Donovan, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson 

and I announced a new partnership to coordinate planning for, and 

Federal investments in, housing, transportation and water infrastructure so that we may create more sustainable communities. 

This approach is enormously important to ensure that citizens in 

urban, suburban and rural communities have access to jobs, central 

business districts and other services without relying solely on private automobiles. In addition to supporting our environmental 

goals, this approach also helps preserve mobility for older citizens 

as well as those who are transit dependent. 

We strongly believe that America needs a transportation program that seeks to bring down total vehicle miles traveled by redefining what livable, sustainable communities are all about. Our livable community partnership is a climate strategy, and it is an essential part of bringing down greenhouse gas emissions from the 

transportation sector. 

Multi-modal transportation options, small community planning, 

smart community planning and efficient alternative fuel consumption are the hallmark of this approach. And we look forward to 

working with Congress to achieve these important goals in both an 

overall climate change strategy and a surface transportation reauthorization bill. 
15 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary LaHood follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 

Senator BOXER. It is my pleasure to introduce Hon. Regina 

McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

Administrator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. REGINA McCARTHY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the 

committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

on transportation’s role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 

moving our country toward a clean energy economy. I am pleased 

to offer this testimony together with Secretary LaHood. 

Let me start with some important facts that underscore the challenge we face in developing a low-carbon transportation sector. 

Today, transportation accounts for 29 percent of all U.S. greenhouse emissions, and that percentage keeps increasing. From 1990 

to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions in this sector rose by 29 percent, 

while vehicle miles traveled increased by 40 percent. And this large 

and growing sector is almost wholly dependent on a single fuel. 

Transportation alone accounts for over 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption. 

Transportation sits at the convergence of the climate change and 

energy security debate, and effective policies here can make tremendous progress toward a healthier planet and a more secure Nation. Congress clearly recognizes the opportunities. Recently, the 

House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and 

Security Act. In addition to covering transportation through an upstream cap, the bill includes engine standards, measures to help 

address greenhouse gas emissions from existing fleet vehicles, and 

tools to help States and cities account for greenhouse gas impacts 

in their transportation planning. 

This kind of comprehensive approach is necessary if we are to 

make progress toward a low-carbon transportation future. 

Let me describe a few of the steps the Administration has already taken. In May, President Obama announced a new national 

policy to establish, for the first time, uniform Federal standards to 

regulate both fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions from cars 

and light duty trucks. This historic policy reflects unprecedented 

collaboration and consensus between the Federal Government, 

States, and private industry. EPA and the DOT are working together to develop this program. The benefits of these standards will 

be significant, bringing about cumulative greenhouse gas reductions of approximately 900 million metric tons and fuel savings of 

approximately 1.8 billion barrels. 

Progress has also been made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

from heavy duty and non-road vehicle engines. But more needs to 

be done. Together, these sources comprise 42 percent of all transportation greenhouse gas emissions, and that percentage keeps 

growing. 

When addressing this sector, we also need to consider opportunities to reduce black carbon. Scientists are learning more about 

black carbon every day. However, we do know that it significantly 
33 

contributes to warming and diesel engines are the single, largest 

source of black carbon in the United States. 

Because of the link between particulate matter and black carbon, 

EPA has already been able to bring about large reductions in black 

carbon through our heavy duty and non-road emission rules. Our 

voluntary diesel retrofit is achieving additional reductions from the 

existing fleet. But again, more needs to be done. 

EPA is also making progress on another major policy that will 

impact greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, 

our expanded Renewable Fuel Standard. The Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 mandates that transportation fuels include 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. 

In May, the Administrator signed a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement these new standards. We are now using this 

comment period for the rule to conduct a further scientific and public review of EPA’s work, including our comprehensive methodology 

to evaluate the greenhouse gas impacts of these biofuels. 

In an effort to address emissions for our existing fleets, EPA has 

been implementing our SmartWay Transport Program, where we 

have joined more than 1,500 industry partners to reduce fuel consumption in the freight sector. 

Providing incentives to reduce the number of miles we drive 

must also be part of the solutions. Investments in public transportation and making communities more walkable results in less driving, less petroleum use and fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Fewer 

vehicle miles traveled also reduces criteria pollutants and can provide greater protections from the debilitating health impacts of air 

pollution. 

EPA is pleased to have joined DOT and HUD in the Partnership 

for Sustainable Communities. We congratulate Secretary LaHood 

for his leadership in this partnership, and we pledge our continued 

efforts together. 

I would like, in closing, to just thank the committee for keeping 

transportation a strong component part of our clean energy solution. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

We are about to start questioning. But, before we do, Senator 

Specter left the Judiciary Committee’s very urgent hearing, so, if 

there is no objection, I would like to ask him if he would like to 

have 5 minutes for an opening statement. And we are very glad to 

see you, Senator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am at the Judiciary Committee Supreme Court nomination, but 

I wanted to stop by, first of all, to thank you for convening the 

hearing, and to thank the witnesses, Secretary LaHood and Ms. 

McCarthy. 

The legislation to provide transportation which would reduce 

greenhouse gases is enormously important, and there is no better 

time to focus on a matter of this importance than on this legislation. 

There are many ways that this can be done and many benefits 

which we all know about: dependence on foreign oil undercut, noxious fumes, we are trying to deal with the environment, the political implications of how Chavez and Iranian authorities are so powerful because of all the money they derive from oil. So, it is a winwin-win-win situation. 

I want to thank my colleague, Senator Carper, for his leadership 

on this important issue. 

I want to give special thanks to Secretary LaHood for setting a 

date to come to Pennsylvania to take a look at some of our projects. 

We have a rail line which has been in the making for a long time 

leading from Center City, Philadelphia to Reading. It goes alongside an expressway known as the Schuylkill Expressway. I know 

we will have Senator Barrasso’s backing on this because Senator 

Barrasso is from Reading, and I know he has had a great deal of 

time spent on the Schuylkill Expressway and that is why he moved 

to Wyoming. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. The roads are less cluttered there. 

But it is a virtual parking lot for much of the day. 

Then we are going to go into the Lehigh Valley where there are 

some important projects. And we are going to go into Scranton, 

where we will try to get a rail line to service New Jersey. Senator 

Lautenberg and I, and Senator Schumer, would like to extend it up 

to Binghamton to create a Wall Street West in the Pocono area, 

which is a beautiful area and really in need to diversify Wall Street 

for its important function and what we know can happen in the big 

city situs. 

So, those are all in furtherance of this proposal. We had a great 

bike area along the Schuylkill, and this is really a very, very important item. 

I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for what you are doing to promote these important issues. As much as I would like to stay here, 

Judge Sotomayor requires some attention, too. 

Thank you. 
45 

Senator BOXER. Senator Specter, we thank you so much. We 

know how much transportation means to you and to your State. 

Your Governor Rendell has been here many times talking about 

the need to turn to transit as we battle global warming. We appreciate your being here today. Thank you. 

We are going to start the questions. Let me say, some of my Republican friends, and they are my friends even though we get kind 

of heated, we are friends. Here is the thing. They said that the 

Waxman-Markey bill was, and I am quoting them verbatim, ‘‘designed to make fossil fuel more expensive.’’ 

Now, that is not the purpose of the Waxman-Markey bill. The 

purpose of the Waxman-Markey bill is to get us off foreign oil so 

that we are energy independent, to create millions of jobs as we 

move toward other technologies, and to protect our children from 

harmful pollution. Those are the three goals. 

When pressed this morning, it is true that the EPA modeling, 

and there is some argument about the modeling and we will model 

it every way to Sunday, shows that, indeed, there might well be a 

2 cent per gallon increase per year as a result of the Waxman-Markey bill. 

I would say to my friends, rhetorically, where were you when the price of gas per gallon was going up $2 in 1 year in my State? No 

global warming legislation here, nothing to do with it here. But yet, 

the price of gasoline to fill a car went up to almost $5 a gallon. 

Why? Because we are too dependent on people who do not like us, 

and we need to move away from this dependence. There is $700 billion a year leaving from the pockets of our citizens to go to countries that do not like us. 

So, let us not say that the purpose of the Waxman-Markey bill 

was to make fossil fuel more expensive. That is ridiculous on its 

face. And the least you can do is allow the proponents of the bill 

to tell them why they designed the bill the way they do, and not 

say why they designed the bill. That is No. 1. 

No. 2. We had a similar debate this morning and the predictions 

of gloom and doom, gloom and doom, the likes of which you hear 

from my dear friend the Ranking Member, my friend from Ohio, 

my friend from Wyoming, my friend from Tennessee, exactly the 

same kind of predictions that were made in the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendment fight when we set up the first cap-and-trade system to 

deal with acid rain. 

For example, the Edison Electric Institute said that the Clean 

Air Act updates will cost consumers $120 billion in higher electricity rates. In fact, the reality is that the opposite happened: consumer electricity rates declined by an average of 19 percent. 

Then you had the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say that the 1990 

Clean Air Act amendments would cost America’s businesses $50 

billion a year. Actually what happened is the benefits exceeded the 

costs 40 to 1. Forty to one, according to the OMB. 

And last, the same naysayers, except different people said it, but 

the same naysayers said the Clean Air Act amendments may cost 

Americans 4 million jobs. In reality, we created 20 million jobs. 

From 1993 to 2000, the economy grew by 64 percent. 

There is something good about being a little bit older, and that 

is that I have seen all of this come and go. From the days I was 
46 

a County Supervisor, people were trying to pit cutting pollution 

against a strong economy. It is the opposite. If you cannot breathe, 

you cannot work. That is clear. So, let us start from there. 

This debate is going to get heated, you know, but it is about global warming, and it is going to be hot. I know that. But what I want 

to say is, under the Waxman bill, which we are starting off with 

as our marker before we introduce a new bill, we are going to see 

solar energy, wind energy, natural gas, geothermal, cellulosic, and 

nuclear energy all become competitive with fossil fuels. That is 

what we are going to see. 

And we are going to see more nuclear plants built under Waxman-Markey than Senator Alexander proposed. I am not the biggest proponent of nuclear energy. I worry about the waste. But the 

fact is that, when you put a price on carbon, all of these other energy sources become more competitive. We do not pick a winner or 

a loser. 

So, I have just one question, I would like to ask more, for the 

two you. I love this idea of your getting together to talk about sustainable communities. Because at the end of the day, so many people say to me, you know, I do not want to use my car, but I do not 

have any options. I want a better, safer way to get on a bike path. 

I want a better way to have the industry closer to where I live. So, 

I wonder if each of you could discuss this, because it is exciting and 

I have not heard that much about it. 

What have you discussed, if you can tell us, as some of the landmarks that you hope to reach in this new idea of the sustainable 

communities? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, let me begin, Madam Chair, by saying that 

when I was in West Los Angeles with Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, we toured West Los Angeles, and we toured it on a light rail 

system that went through several neighborhoods. 

It went through an Asian neighborhood, a Hispanic neighborhood, an African-American neighborhood and tied them all together. These neighborhoods were run down with run down housing. They all now have very nice housing stock, some apartments 

and some town homes. 

This would have never happened, tying all of these neighborhoods together, from downtown L.A. out to west L.A., giving people 

an opportunity that cannot afford a car to ride on a light rail system so that they can go to work, go to the grocery store, and go 

to the drugstore. And at these metro stops where the light rails 

stop, there were grocery stores, there were restaurants, and all 

along the way there were different housing stocks. 

Now, this contributes to cleaning up CO2 in the air because you 

do not have people in automobiles. You have people on very clean 

burning forms of transportation. This is the vision that we have for 

communities that want to do this. This is a vision that we have for 

communities that want to use some of the HUD money and also 

use some opportunities from the EPA and some transportation dollars to have neighborhoods available to people that cannot afford 

automobiles, that may want to get onto a bike path or a light rail 

system, or transit buses that burn natural gas or diesel that are 

clean burning. 
47 

I saw it in west L.A. I saw it in Houston. When people get on 

a light rail system in downtown Houston, go out to M.D. Anderson, 

the Children’s Hospital, the Women’s Hospital where their doctors 

are, and all along the way, different housing stocks. Those are the 

kinds of neighborhoods that people in America want to live in 

today, particularly in areas where they can little afford two or 

three automobiles. 

In neighborhoods in cities where the city leaders want to do 

those kinds of things, we are going to be there to be helpful with 

our dollars and innovative approaches to doing it. 

Senator BOXER. Administrator, do you want to add anything to 

that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Madam Chairman, I would just say that as an 

old environmental commissioner, I feel like I died and went to 

heaven listening to a Secretary of Transportation talking like this. 

I would say that I know that the Administrator is excited about 

entering into this partnership. We understand the need not just to 

reduce vehicle miles traveled but to try to reduce single individuals 

driving in cars. 

We know that it is extremely important to look at investments 

in public transportation. It is opportunities, not just for greenhouse 

gas reductions, but for reductions of criteria pollutants that really 

cause deaths, lung disease, heart problems, and asthma in our children. These are the kinds of things that we want to avoid. 

And a good transportation strategy that considers these environmental issues and considers them during the planning process is 

a unique opportunity, and it is an opportunity not just for more livable communities, but ones that are healthier as well. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you both. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Well, you know, we can go into this and re-debate everything, 

but it does not really serve any useful purpose, I guess. 

On the costs of cap-and-trade, we know what it is going to be. 

We can kid ourselves, we can use false criteria and come up with 

analysis, but we know that for the last 11 years, since the first 

analysis came out by the Wharton School of Economics, and after 

that MIT and CRA, the range is going to be, and has been, and no 

one even argued it, actually, certainly Senator Lieberman agreed 

with this during the debate on the Warner-Lieberman bill, and 

that is that it is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It is 

going to be the largest tax increase in history. 

We can act like it is not, but I have a feeling that it is not going 

to pass anyway, so it does not make that much difference. The vast 

majority of the people know how expensive it would be. 

I always felt, and this is probably a good place to say it, if you 

really believe that CO2 is causing global warming, why not just tax 

CO2? I mean, that is the honest way. But there is a reason that 

we do not do that. And that reason is that you cannot masquerade 

it. I mean, everyone knows that it is a tax. 

In this rare case I agree with James Hansen, who is the father 

of global warming, and he said just 2 days ago that the fact is that 

the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. 

Their bill is an astonishingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction 
48 

of emissions. It is less than worthless because it would delay, by 

at least a decade, starting on a path that is fundamentally sound 

from the standpoints of both economics and climate preservation. 

But anyway, that is not what we are supposed to be talking 

about in this thing. 

Ms. McCarthy, let me ask you this question, because I think it 

makes some sense to ask it at this point. The 2007 Energy Bill contained a requirement for the EPA to measure the indirect greenhouse gas effects caused by the massive mandates of the Renewable Fuel Standard. If a farmer plants an additional acre of corn 

in Iowa, EPA must measure the effects that action has on land use 

changes and greenhouse gas emissions in places like Brazil and 

Malaysia. EPA must somehow measure the immeasurable. 

Now, Senator Bingaman wrote an op-ed piece, I think it was yesterday or the day before, and in that, and I am quoting, he says 

many scientists have argued that there is insufficient modeling capability to accurately assign a numeric value to international indirect land use change at this time. With the science still evolving, 

it seems that the legislative requirement to assess indirect effects 

might have gotten ahead of our ability to understand those indirect 

effects. 

Do you agree with Senator Bingaman? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, as you know, the Administrator has, in 

May, put out a proposal to actually implement the Renewable Fuel 

Standard. One of the requirements by the Energy Independence 

and Security Act was for us to take a look at the greenhouse gas 

impacts associated with different types of renewable fuels. That 

does mean, and it specifically says, that we have to look at the significant greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated, including those that come from indirect land use. 

And that is a challenge. There is no question about it. We believe 

that the agency did a good job in looking at how you would measure those challenges. We use the best science available. We think 

that it is sufficient and will meet the test of time. We are, right 

now, accepting comment on that proposal. 

In addition, we have also started a peer review process, which is 

an independent assessment using OMB and EPA’s process for peer 

review to take a look at the underlying premises that we used and 

the tools that we used to make those judgments on how to measure 

indirect land use impacts. And we will have that report ready quite 

shortly, within the comment period, so that we can consider that, 

as well as all the comments, in making the final decision. 

Senator INHOFE. It is a tough problem though. We understand 

that. 

Secretary LaHood, you and President have been very adamant 

that we should not increase Federal gas taxes. Frankly, I agree 

with you. During this turndown, by design a cap-and-trade scheme 

will increase the cost of energy, including gasoline. The Union of 

Concerned Scientists estimates that it will translate to 20 cents per 

gallon, which is about double our current tax. Others have looked 

at it, like the EIA and I think CRA and said it is going to be more 

than that. 

Now, either way, do you see a contradiction here in that while 

you and I both agree we should not be increasing gas tax, his 
49 

would have the effect of increasing the cost of that energy by an 

amount about equal to what our gas tax is today? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, Senator, I will say what I have said on a couple of different occasions at this committee and also at other committees, both in the House and Senate. With these hard economic 

times, President Obama and his Administration does not believe 

that raising the gasoline tax is good for Americans who are out of 

work and can least afford to have gasoline raised. 

We will stand by that. We are going to work with Congress on 

other alternatives to help with the Trust Fund, which is obviously 

inadequate, we know that it is, and we have suggested some other 

funding ideas. But we are not for raising the gas tax. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, but if you are not for raising the gas tax, 

which I agree with you, and you stated that it would impose a cost 

on people during an economic downturn, would not this same increase cost per gallon of gas due to the increase costs of energy 

under cap-and-trade, if that were the case, impose the same hardship on these people? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, Senator, I have not really looked at that the 

way that you have. I have not analyzed it the way that you have. 

But I, you know, as the Senate moves ahead with its bill, I am certain that the Administration will have to weigh in on these matters. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Just a quick comment, if I can, for those of us who question 

whether or not we need to do anything about global warming. I 

come from a State where, well, the highest point of land in Delaware is a bridge. If we do not do anything, we will continue to see 

the kind of ice melts up in the North Pole and other places where 

we have glaciers. Parts of my State are going to be underwater. 

Not just my State, but States along the East Coast from Maine to 

Florida. Large parts of Florida could well be underwater by this 

time in the next century. I just think we have to do something 

about it while we have time. 

For those who would seek to demonize cap-and-trade, the first 

time I ever hard cap-and-trade was I think 1990. Our President 

was a guy named George Herbert Walker Bush, and as I recall, he 

proposed harnessing market forces to try to address the problems 

that we had with acid rain destroying forests and water and lakes 

and so forth in New England. He said, why do we not create a market-based system, called a cap-and-trade, and see if that might 

work. 

And it worked. It worked. People were saying at the time, we 

ought to put a tax, if you will, on socks, and they estimated what 

that might be. By putting in place a market-based system, we actually ended up, the costs of removing a ton of sulfur dioxide was I 

think less than half of what most experts had thought. 

As for those who want to demonize cap-and-trade, their numbered States are part of the energy program already, including 

Delaware. We have in place a cap-and-trade system. I do not think 
50 

anybody in my State has noticed that with respect to their energy 

costs. So I just would put that out there for the record. 

Questions. The Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House allows 1 percent of allowances to be used for some individual transportation projects that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

However, it does not fund a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions across various modes of transportation. 

Is the 1 percent in Waxman-Markey sufficient investment to reduce emissions for the transportation sector commensurate with 

the overall cap? Would you like to respond to that? I think it is 

probably for both of you. Thanks. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I think you raise an excellent point concerning the need for investments in sound transportation planning 

that really considers environmental consequences like greenhouse 

gases, as well as the need for investments in public transportation. 

I agree with you that Congress really needs to look at the allocation issue and consider the needs of States who are struggling in 

these areas. But certainly it is up to Congress to determine the allocation process and we will be there to help in any way that we 

can to provide technical assistance. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Secretary LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, Senator, we testified before Congressman 

Waxman’s committee, and I testified with Secretary Chu and EPA 

Administrator Jackson, and we will consult with the Senate as 

they move ahead on your bill. We will be happy to consult with you 

on this. As soon as we know what direction you want to take, we 

will be there with whatever technical assistance we can provide to 

you. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks so much. 

Second question. Unfortunately, some people say that transportation efficiency improvements and smarter development can only 

apply to urban areas. They say that residents of suburban and 

rural areas do not want to reduce the amount that they drive. Let 

me just ask: do you all agree with those views, and how can transportation efficiencies and smarter development bring increased mobility to rural areas and to suburban areas and cut greenhouse gas 

emission as the same time? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, we have a program at the department, Senator, which allows for funding of, in some instances, transit districts to purchase vehicles in order to go out to rural areas to deliver people into communities where they want to go to a doctor’s 

appointment or a grocery store. It allows them to stay in the rural 

communities where they raise their children and they want to live 

out their lives. For whatever reasons, they cannot get into the socalled urbanized areas. 

We think that program has worked well, and we think it has delivered people to areas where they have wanted to go. We are going 

to continue to pursue that kind of program and opportunity for 

rural America. In some instances, it will be in cooperation with 

transit districts, in others it will be with community organizations 

that provide these kinds of transportation services. Rural America 

will not be left out in their transportation needs. They will not. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, let me just add that—— 
51 

Senator CARPER. Could you be just very brief in your response 

please? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m sorry? 

Senator CARPER. Would you just be very brief in your response, 

please? We are out of time. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I will. 

Senator, I am excited about the opportunities for smart transportation to actually continue to preserve and restore New England 

villages. I think they are under threat. I think we have seen that. 

And I want my children, and their children, to be able to walk to 

school, to be able to bike along the streets, and to be able to feel 

that sense of community that we all felt when we were growing up. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks so much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, on February 19 in the National Journal there was 

an article entitled LaHood Predicts More High Speed Rail Funds. 

The article delved into the role that the Transportation Department is going to play in climate change. 

The article said that ‘‘Addressing the role that the Department 

will play as Congress and the Administration move forward on climate change legislation this year, LaHood said he would take his 

cues from Obama and White House Energy and Climate Advisor 

Carol Browner.’’ You were quoted as saying ‘‘I am going to take my 

leads from Carol Browner. I will be a good faithful soldier on this.’’ 

And then on April 13th an article appeared in 

SustainableBusiness.Com entitled Carol Browner’s White House 

Role. The article stated that you had been to six meetings chaired 

by Carol Browner already and that you gave her very high marks. 

That was back in April. That was 3 months ago. 

I am curious as to what you meant when you said you were going 

to take your leads from Carol Browner? I mean, you are a Senateconfirmed Cabinet Secretary in charge of climate change policy for 

the Department of Transportation. I want to know what that 

meant, and at any point has Carol Browner made policy decisions 

for the Department of Transportation with regard to climate 

change? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, Senator, when you get sworn into a job like 

I have, you are a part of a team. I am a part of President Obama’s 

team. And I am very proud of that. I think it is a great opportunity 

for me to continue my 30 years of public service and, when I assumed this job, I assumed it with the idea that I am a part of the 

President’s team. And the President has assigned certain responsibilities to certain people on his team to lead certain of these opportunities. 

Carol Browner was asked, by the President, to coordinate opportunities for moving ahead with the President’s initiative on climate 

change. And so what she did, she convened meetings on any number of occasions of Cabinet members and other officials that work 

for the President to try and coordinate and collaborate so that 

there could be an opportunity for the President to move his initiative for climate change. And I participated in those meetings. 
52 

Senator BARRASSO. You mentioned six meetings before April 

13th. So there are ongoing meetings since that time? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Senator, we meet once a month. 

Senator BARRASSO. Are there other Cabinet members there? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. So, could you just describe then what you see 

as Ms. Browner’s role? You know, there have been significant discussions in the Senate, as well as in the press, about the role of 

all of these czars that the President has appointed who are not confirmed by the Senate and who do not come in front of the Senate. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, I mean, Senator, I would tell you this. I believe that Ms. Browner has been asked by the President to help put 

forth his initiatives for climate change. She has done it very well. 

She has done it in a very collaborative way. She has asked for advice from every Cabinet member that has attended those meetings, 

and they have been well attended. It is no different, Senator, than 

a Senator or a House member having staff people and you assign 

them certain responsibilities to carry out your initiatives. That is 

what Ms. Browner is doing. 

Senator BARRASSO. So then at these monthly meetings, there are 

a number of Cabinet members—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. In terms of Secretary of Transportation, Energy, Interior—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. LaHood, I thank you for your testimony 

and again for being here. 

In a hearing we held earlier this year in response to my question 

about increasing the gas tax, you said, this is just a repetition of 

what you just said, but I will do it again, this Administration in 

these hard economic times with so many people out of work can ill 

afford to tell people that we are going to raise the gasoline tax. 

Well, you would not have to raise the gasoline tax. We would have 

to do that. 

However, this is essentially what, and this follows up on Senator 

Inhofe, what a cap-and-trade program aims to do. And you testified 

in favor of this policy before the Energy and Commerce Committee. 

So, on the one hand, you say oh no, no gas tax or user fee, and 

on the other, you say it is OK to raise the energy costs of the American people. 

In testimony about the cost of cap-and-trade at a House hearing 

last September, Director Orszag stated much of those costs will be 

passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices for energy 

and energy-intensive goods. 

How do you rectify these two opposing viewpoints from the Administration? Do you agree with your earlier statement about how 

people cannot afford to pay a higher user fee or gas tax or with 

your new position that raising consumer energy prices through capand-trade is OK? 
53 

Now let me just say this to you. One of them, and it is really interesting, you are talking about more rail and more transit and all 

of these others things. The question you have got to ask yourself 

is how are you going to pay for them? 

There is a group out there right now that is talking about a new 

stimulus bill. How are we going to pay for it? By borrowing more 

money? 

I contend that increasing the gas tax and higher use tax, whatever you call it, is going to result in thousands of jobs, a real stimulus bill that we would pay for and not borrow the money, and it 

will help reduce greenhouse gases. We have got testimony coming 

up about that. It would provide the infrastructure that would enhance our competitive position in the global market. It will make 

rail and transit more available because we will have a lot more 

money to put into it and, if you look at Jim Oberstar’s bill, he has 

got a lot of money in there for rail and transit. 

And last, but not least, it is going to make our highways and our 

transit a lot more safe. For example, we are going to let the Metro 

system use some of their money so they can do the maintenance 

that is necessary. Back in Illinois, the transit system there has $6 

billion worth of deferred maintenance that needs to be made. 

So, are we in the real world or are we not? I mean, where is the 

money going to come from? If you are opposed to this, and you say, 

well, how are you going to do it? How are you going to do it? And 

how do you reconcile that you are for higher energy costs for people, which we hope will reduce greenhouse emissions, and not in 

favor of raising the money that we need to do lots of the things 

that you have been talking about? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, the way we are doing it right now, Senator, 

is with the money that the Congress gave us in the Economic Recovery Plan which was $48 billion. We already have $4 billion out 

the door for transit. Many of the transit districts will use that 

money to buy buses, to build buildings. One billion is out the door 

to repave runways all over America. So $1 billion, that is what the 

Congress has provided, and we have spent it. It is out the door. 

People are working repaving runways. 

And we were also provided $28 billion for roads and bridges—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. But that is going to end, just like the $24 

billion that we put in for highways in that bill, and it should have 

been something like $57 billion. It is going to be gone. It is going 

to be gone. What are you going to do after it is gone? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, Senator, some of it is being spent now, but 

the lion’s share of it will be spent over the next 18 months. And 

we are going to work with Congress over the 18 months on an authorization bill that will be very robust, will have the money to pay 

for it, and we are committed to doing that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, we will have the money to pay for it. 

You still have not told me how you are going to pay for it, Mr. 

LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. You know, Senator, I have been here before and I 

have talked about a number of different things, in addition to the 

Highway Trust Fund, including infrastructure bank, including tolling. I just met with the Governors of Washington and Oregon out 
54 

in Seattle. And at that meeting we talked about the Columbia 

River Crossing Bridge. That bridge will be paid for by tolling. 

You can build bridges and roads by tolling. That is one alternative that I hope the Senate will look at. You can also create an 

infrastructure bank, which can create a lot of money to help pay 

for the infrastructure that I know that all of you want to do. 

So, there are a lot of good ideas floating around, Senator, including the use of the Highway Trust Fund. But we need to build on 

that, thinking outside of the box. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I think it will take that and a lot more. 

Senator BOXER. OK. We are going to move on to the next panel. 

I just want to say, before Secretary LaHood, you leave, and the 

Assistant Administrator, we are going to have this debate on 

Thursday because I am going to propose, I am sorry, tomorrow, I 

am going to propose an 18-month clean extension. Just before you 

leave, I wanted to make two points. 

First of all, because I know Senator Inhofe is right, this is not 

the place and time to debate Waxman-Markey, but unfortunately 

that is what some of my colleagues started to attack. The record 

has to show there is not any tax increase in Waxman-Markey. 

There is a tax credit to defray any increase in costs, and the modeling shows a 2 cent per gallon increase in gasoline over each year. 

I wanted to also point out that under the Oberstar bill over in 

the House, it would take a doubling of the gas tax, which I do not 

support. I identify with the President on that point. 

I am willing to look at an indexing to inflation of the gas tax, 

which I have publicly said, but I think we do have to look at these 

many other ways to pay-go. 

So, here is where we are. We have now spent a very long time 

with you and we have several others. But my question to you is, 

and I understand, Senator Alexander, do you have questions for 

this panel? 

Senator ALEXANDER. I would like to. 

Senator BOXER. OK, then we will do that. I ask the patience of 

this next panel. 

But before I do, would you answer the question on why it is that 

you support an 18-month extension, not a 12-month extension? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, first of all, we believe that over the next 18 

months we can work with Congress on a bill, and that times out 

the use of the stimulus money. And the timing is pretty good on 

that. We believe over the next 18 months, which is the timeframe 

Congress gave us when they passed the bill for highways and airports and transit and high speed rail and our discretionary money, 

and during that 18-month period, while we are using that money, 

we will work with Congress on a bill, and the timing will be pretty 

good, almost match up with when we are finished with our stimulus. That is the reason. 

We also believe, and our willing to work with you, Madam Chair- man, on the idea that it will take $20 billion. We are working with 

the OMB to find the money and pay for it. So, we appreciate your 

leadership in holding a mark up tomorrow on this important extension. 

We do not want to see Congress leave town around the first of 

August and have our Trust Fund run out of money in mid-August. 
55 

That would be completely unfair to the States, particularly as the 

Economic Stimulus Program is really taking off. It is really jettisoning. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Mr. Secretary, if I could just say, I so appreciate your leadership on this. You make common sense. Trust 

Fund is running out of money, we want to take care of it, and we 

want to do it in a way that we send a strong signal that there will 

be no disruption. The stimulus money piggy-backing on what we already are going to do to keep things at an even keel will give us 

a bit of an increase here and get us through and give us the time. 

I want to just pledge to my committee again, which I said before, 

we intend to work with all colleagues on both sides of the aisle and 

with the Administration on reforms and make the necessary 

changes and look at this wide array of funding that we need to seriously look at because, at the end of the day, the Gas Tax Fund 

is just not going to be there for us. 

It is a bad news-good news story. The bad news is that it is not 

going to be there for us. The good news is that people are moving 

to more fuel efficient vehicles, we are going to have more sustainable communities, and the cars are going to be electric and hybrid 

and all the rest. 

So, we really have an issue on our hands that we cannot resolve 

under the threat of the Trust Fund going broke. So, I just want to 

thank you. 

I just want to note the importance of these particular witnesses 

who come to us, you know, as Republicans, in a spirit of bipartisanship, and how important I think it is to note that. 

Senator Alexander, you have the final word for 5 minutes, and 

then we are going to move on. All right? 

Senator ALEXANDER. It is a rare opportunity, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Which I know you will take. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I thank you for your courtesy. 

Ms. McCarthy, I would like to explore, and this is a question I 

asked you at an earlier testimony, a little about the idea of a lowcarbon fuel standard as a way to deal with carbon in fuel. I mean, 

we have established that fuel is about one-third of the greenhouse 

gases or of carbon. The question is, if we think that reducing that 

carbon is a good idea, what is the most sensible way to do it? 

A low-carbon fuel standard would be a simple standard that 

would, say, over time you would gradually reduce the amount of 

carbon in your fuel, that is the way I understand it, and that people who sold fuel would know that in advance and begin to look for 

alternatives in whatever way the market permitted. 

If we had an effective low-carbon fuel standard, why would we 

need to apply an economy-wide cap-and-trade, such as that in the 

Waxman-Markey bill, to fuel? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, you challenged me to come here 

a little bit more informed, and hopefully you will find that I am on 

this issue. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I did not say it that way. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I pledged to you that I would come here 

more informed. 

You challenge the thinking concerning whether or not transportation should remain part of, and within, the cap-and-trade system, 
56 

and clearly we did model those issues. There is some price signal 

that keeping transportation sends in, that sends to the market in 

terms of reducing greenhouse gases. It is a modest signal that will 

not really transform the transportation sector that we all would be 

looking forward to. 

So, there is the need for these other complimentary measures. 

Many of them are in the bill—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. But my question is, if you have an effective 

low-carbon fuel standard, why do you even need an economy-wide 

cap-and-trade on fuel? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. What I was going to say, Senator, is that I do 

know that a low-carbon fuel standard is a performance-based technology-neutral market-based tool. We have not modeled the effectiveness of a low-carbon fuel standard. I am happy, if you are interested in looking at that, to provide you opportunities to look at the 

market associated with that and what impact that may have. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I would appreciate that. May I ask you also, 

I mean, Dr. David Greene from Oakridge, who testified here, said 

that a carbon price, he evaluated the Climate Change Act of 2007. 

He said a carbon price of $30 to $50 per ton transcends to roughly 

25 to 50 cents per gallon of gasoline. That is a pretty big gasoline 

tax increase. 

He basically said that would not make much difference. Even at 

that rate, and I am paraphrasing a little bit, his testimony is for 

the record, that while it would be constructive, he said, it would 

be very inefficient, not make much difference. In plain English, it 

would not change behavior enough to cause people to drive less and 

reduce carbon. 

In the rest of his testimony, which is generally in favor of higher 

CAFE standards, which he greatly supports, he suggests, especially 

in the early years, that a low-carbon fuel standard is more effective. 

So, my question would be, and it is fine with me if you want to 

respond at a later time, is what difference would it make, a lowcarbon fuel standard, as compared with an economy-wide cap-andtrade, and as long as the so-called economy-wide cap-and-trade 

does affect the whole economy anyway, I mean, it is about 83 percent, and so we could take fuel out of it and that would take it 

down to 53 percent and say, why should we not just put a low-carbon fuel standard on fuel? 

I have a second question. Maybe you know the answer now, 

maybe you would rather think about it and get back to me. It 

seems to me that since, in 1990–91, Senator Boxer went over this 

this morning, when the Government put on the cap-and-trade for 

acid rain, we had a clear way to deal with it. It had scrubbers. So, 

you could say to the coal plants, so here is the mandate but you 

have got an alternative over here, scrubbers. 

The problem right now with coal is that we have not built a nuclear power plant in 30 years, and we do not have a commercially 

viable way to deal with carbon capture. That is not the case with 

transportation. We have electric cars about to be made by everybody. We have Brookings saying we can plug them in at night and 

not even need to build one new power plant. We have some 

biofuels. 
57 

So my question is, if EPA were to regulate fuel, carbon coming 

from fuel, would the current law permit you to calibrate that and 

align that with costs so that you did it such a way that it did not 

increase the costs of fuel to the American consumer? Or, do you 

need for us to pass a law giving you the authority to do that or 

requiring you to do it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Just very briefly—— 

Senator BOXER. Go ahead. He has gone over his time, but why 

do you not give the Senator an answer to his question. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me answer your last question. We do have 

general authorities to set standards for transportation fuels. But 

we do believe, again, that it should be a part of a comprehensive 

strategy, and we do think that there are elements in the WaxmanMarkey bill, like tougher standards on heavy duty motor vehicles 

and non-road engines, investments in clean vehicles and energy infrastructure, that are critically important and that should go along 

with a comprehensive strategy. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Alexander. And to 

our panel, we appreciate your candor. I hope we have some good 

news for you tomorrow, Mr. Secretary, and that we can get this 

going. Thank you. 

Now, I would ask, as our panelists leave from the first panel, for 

Ralph Becker, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah; David Bragdon, 

President, Portland Metro Council; Steve Winkelman, Director of 

Adaptation and Transportation Programs, Center for Clean Air 

Policy; and Ray Kuntz, Chief Executive Officer, Watkins and 

Shepard Trucking. 

To those who are leaving, if they could do so quietly, because of 

time. We need to start. 

So, Mayor Becker, we are very pleased and honored that you are 

here. We appreciate all of our panelists waiting for so long a time. 

We really want to hear from you. So why do you not proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH BECKER, MAYOR, SALT LAKE 

CITY, UTAH 

Mr. BECKER. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer. 

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, and members of the committee. I 

appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss this most important topic to my city and, I know, to so 

many communities across the country. 

Just by way of background, by training I am an environmental 

lawyer and planner. I have worked in government in the private 

sector for over 30 years in this general arena. Currently, I have the 

great privilege—and joy, really—of serving as the Mayor of the 

wonderful city of Salt Lake. 

We have been focused, as many, many cities have across the 

country, on transportation and climate change and what we can do 

to contribute to solutions to the growing global warming crisis that 

we face. 

Salt Lake City is unique and really gives us, I think, a chance 

to have a unique view of the effects of climate change. We are a 

valley, a beautiful valley that is surrounded by peaks that rise over 

7,000 feet above our valley floor. We see the changes as they relate 
58 

to climate change today, I think, to the surprise of me and many 

people, and we find ourselves preparing to adapt as best we can 

long term to the effects of climate change. 

The climate change issue for us is one that requires a comprehensive approach, one that is accomplished at all levels of government, and one that looks at all sectors of the economy in our 

society. 

The American Clean Energy and Security Act as passed by the 

House, which certainly I commend and I know many others do, recognizing the challenges you face, really misses a key component 

from our perspective in the transportation sector. 

I want to talk just briefly a bit in terms of some things that we 

are doing in Salt Lake City. We have taken a multi-modal approach. We are building, as near as I can tell, faster than about 

anywhere in this country, a rail system that includes two light rail 

lines in place, a commuter rail line that opened earlier this year, 

and we have 70 miles of rail under construction as we speak. 

We have also, since I have been in office, multiplied times 10 the 

amount of money we are putting into bikeways. And we are looking 

comprehensively at land use and other efforts in a sustainability 

ordinance that, as near as I can tell again, is the first in this country as a comprehensive sustainability ordinance. 

We are also looking at the next step for us, which is a major investment in streetcars. We are looking at three streetcar lines, different lines that really, in a way, serve slightly different purposes 

in our city, and some of them, we hope—and we hope, of course, 

that the Federal Government can help us here—that we are really 

within a year of initiating. 

We also, as I mentioned, have done work with bikes and bikeways. We have a bike sharing program that is about to start. We 

have a car sharing program, a zip car-type program, which is really 

just getting underway as well. 

We have also looked beyond that in a community-based effort to 

look at what we can do beyond the governmental arena by bringing 

together the community of stakeholders, whether it is the Chamber 

of Commerce, the faith organizations, the different non-profit organizations, and asked them what can we do that will make a difference. 

What they have come up with as the No. 1 goal is to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and the No. 1 approach is through education. 

And we have just finished a Clear the Air Challenge where we 

have reduced, in 6 weeks, 1 million VMTs. And we are encouraged 

to keep moving further in that regard. 

As a leader in climate change policy, we really believe that it is 

important that all levels of government work together. There are 

examples around the world where transportation has been done 

wonderfully well. I was in Vienna in the last 2 months where onethird of the transportation is by transit, one-third by vehicles, and 

one-third by biking and walking. It is a wonderful city to get 

around in and a very livable community. 

We look forward to the Federal action that will help us achieve 

what we want to accomplish as a community for improvements and 

for future generations. We invite you to look at what the U.S. Con-
59 

ference of Mayors has been doing, and working with you to accomplish what we need to do. 

Thank you for allowing me to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Becker follows:] 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. 

Now, David Bragdon, President of the Portland Metro Council. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BRAGDON, PRESIDENT, METRO 

COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OREGON REGION 

Mr. BRAGDON. Thank you. 

Madam Chair and members of the committee, I am David 

Bragdon. I am President of the popularly elected Council in Portland, Oregon, the metropolitan planning organization. 

You might think, like most Americans might think, that there 

are no two cities more different than Salt Lake City and Portland, 

Oregon, and in fact you would be right in many respects. Demographics are different. Our history is different. I suspect our politics are different. So, it is very revealing that our approach on this 

issue is nearly identical. I am sitting here next to the Mayor of Salt 

Lake City and am ready to tell a similar story, despite the difference in our two communities. 

Our 1.4 million residents are, in many respects, just typical 

Americans. Like most Americans, most Oregonians get around by 

car. Yet, there is a lot of evidence that, unlike the rest of the country, our greenhouse gas emissions are stable or being reduced. So, 

if in many respects we are typical Americans, then how is it that 

in this one way, in this very important way, we are trending in a 

different direction than the rest of the country? 

Well, there are two key reasons. First, although most people do 

get around the Portland area by car, we are not forced to do so, 

because enough of us can take advantage of the other choices that 

have been provided: a very good transit system and the ability to 

bike and walk. 

The second difference is that, although we do drive, we simply 

drive a little bit less than people in other parts of the country, because of the way our community is laid out. We can take care of 

more of our needs close at hand, rather than having to drive, as 

people do in regions where jobs and housing are dispersed further 

apart. 

We have a regional strategy with three simple elements. First, 

an urban growth boundary prevents wasteful suburban sprawl. 

Rather than spending tax dollars extending new roads and other 

services further out, we encourage more efficient use of land and 

infrastructure. 

Second, we encourage more concentrated development around 

transit lines. 

Third, we have constructed more than 60 miles of light rail and 

operate an extensive bus network. And we have invested in lanes 

and trails to accommodate thousands of commuters who are on 

bikes. 

The results of this strategy are starting to show. We are growing 

more compact. The Portland area is consuming new land at a rate 

equal to or less than the rate of population growth. Our transit ridership and the uses of bicycles are growing far, far faster than the 

growth in population. And the Portland region’s per capita private 

vehicle miles traveled has been trending downward and our average trip length is shrinking. 
74 

We think our experience offers two lessons for our fellow Americans. First, our Nation cannot successfully address climate change 

without reforming our transportation system. And second, we cannot successfully reform our transportation system without also improving the way our communities are designed and reducing the 

need for people to drive. We cannot just focus on the supply side. 

We have to address demand as well. 

The Senate and this body can help in many different ways. Since 

Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton first proposed that 

the Nation build national canals, the Federal role in transportation 

has been hotly debated. Whether it was President Lincoln signing 

the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 or President Eisenhower signing 

the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, the Federal influence on 

transportation reaches into every community in this country. 

Even though zoning is a local matter, the mid-20th century policies of the Federal Government funding new road infrastructure 

shaped auto-oriented patterns throughout the country. This committee is uniquely situated to change those patterns. You are 

uniquely situated to address climate change through transportation 

reform. And you can use the climate change legislation to set goals 

which can be addressed in the upcoming transportation authorization. 

I praise Representative Oberstar and Representative DeFazio of 

the House for their approach and the draft transportation legislation, and I would urge you to embrace many of their concepts. 

Among the important ones that I would promote are linking the 

planning requirements of the climate change bill that you are talking about now to the planning requirements of the upcoming transportation bill. 

I would add that many of these things can be done administratively as well during this extension period that you are talking 

about tomorrow. They do not have to wait for the final bill. You can 

work on them in the meantime. 

In our region, we are already researching and working on ways 

to model greenhouse gas impacts, not only of transportation 

projects but of competing strategies, different approaches being as 

important as the projects themselves. 

Second, you can link the highway bill to the transit bill, the transit bill that will emerge from the Senate Banking, Housing and 

Urban Affairs Committee. Use the transit bill to create carbon offsets for the highway bill. 

Third, you can reduce administrative obstacles that prevent localities from using Surface Transportation Program funds for nonauto uses, and overhaul some of the federally mandated design 

standards which often force localities and taxpayers into the most 

expensively engineered solutions. 

And fourth, include an aggressive program to address metropolitan mobility in the upcoming transportation bill. 

The Americans in the Portland region will do our part for the 

country, but we need the Senate’s leadership on these issues. 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bragdon follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

I just want to say to the other members of the panel that I have 

been called away for a very urgent meeting right now on the issue 

of global climate change. So I am going to be going to that meeting. 

I am going to be handing the gavel over to Senator Carper, and 

Senator Carper, once we finish, we will give you the list of the arrival and we will let you keep this going as long as you wish to 

and members wish to. 

I thank the panel, really, for your participation. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. We will break for 

dinner around 6:30 p.m. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER [presiding]. Please proceed. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE WINKELMAN, DIRECTOR, ADAPTATION 

AND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS, CENTER FOR CLEAN 

AIR POLICY 

Mr. WINKELMAN. Chairman Boxer, members of the committee, 

good afternoon. 

My name is Steve Winkelman. I am the Director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy, also called 

CCAP, an environmental think tank with offices in Washington, 

DC, California, New York, Brussels and Paris. 

CCAP helps governments at all levels design and implement climate policies that balance economic and environmental concerns. 

We conduct technical analysis and facilitate dialog among government, industry, and environmental stakeholders to craft practical 

and effective solutions. Our international dialog engages climate 

negotiators from 30 countries in developing post-2012 solutions. 

CCAP’s transportation and climate dialog brings together high 

level officials from State, local and Federal agencies, as well as experts from advocacy groups, car companies and oil companies. 

I encourage you today to consider travel efficiency in crafting climate legislation. Travel efficiency measures include smart growth, 

transit, walking, biking, telecommuting, system efficiency and 

freight improvements. They benefit cities, suburbs and rural towns, 

and are just as important for fast-growing and long-established 

communities. The key is to provide communities with the tools and 

incentives they need to determine and implement their own solutions. 

My top points today are: reducing vehicle miles traveled (or 

VMT) is critical for climate protection; travel efficiency can reduce 

VMT and save money while cutting CO2; there are many shortterm savings opportunities; and CCAP and our dialog partners recommend that Congress dedicate a meaningful share of climate allowance value to fund travel efficiency. 

Transportation CO2 emissions are nearly one-third of the U.S. 

total and result from three factors that we call a three-legged stool: 

vehicle efficiency, fuel carbon, and how much people drive as measured in VMT. While the 2007 Energy Bill addressed the first two 

legs, it did not address the third leg of the stool, VMT. 

Between 1977 and 2007, driving grew three times faster than 

population growth. And the Department of Energy projects that per 

capita VMT will grow 15 percent through 2030. If driving grows 
101 

anywhere near this pace, the increased emissions will overwhelm 

the reductions from low-carbon fuels in vehicles, even at 55 miles 

per gallon. 

Without reducing VMT, we will be off path to reaching 2050 climate goals and will increase the burden on other sectors of the 

economy. 

While the price signal from cap-and-trade will reduce point 

source emissions, it will not slow VMT growth, as most Americans 

lack convenient alternatives to driving long distances. Yet, real estate studies and demographic trends indicate robust and growing 

market demand for compact, walkable communities. And empirical 

studies show that people drive one-third fewer miles in places with 

rich transportation choices and spend less money on fuel. That is 

as good as driving a Toyota Prius and shows that ‘‘sidewalks are 

as sexy as hybrids!’’ 

Since more than half of the 2030 built environment does not yet 

exist, we have an unprecedented opportunity to reshape the landscape. While cars last 10 to 15 years, transportation and land use 

decisions can last for centuries. 

In a recent study on the cost effectiveness of travel efficiency, 

CCAP estimated that best practices could reduce VMT per capita 

by 10 percent, a level already achieved in Portland. I would like to 

submit that report for the record. 

Senator CARPER. Without objection. 

[The referenced report was not received at time of print.] 

Mr. WINKELMAN. A 10 percent decline in per capita VMT would 

cut annual emissions by 145 million metric tons CO2 in 2030, the 

equivalent to 30 million cars and 5 percent of the 2030 goal in the 

House climate bill. 

Travel efficiency measures can bring tremendous economic benefits. In the Sacramento region, smart growth planning is projected 

to save $9 billion in infrastructure costs, yielding a net cost savings 

of $200 per ton CO2. In Tampa, $60 million of public spending for 

a streetcar line helped attract $1 billion in private investment. 

While typically seen as long-term strategies, transit and pedestrian improvements can reduce CO2 in the short-term as well. And 

other strategies can also produce rapid results. An International 

Energy Agency study found that the United States could cut oil use 

14 percent within 1 year at less than $3 per ton CO2 through car 

pooling, telecommuting, compressed work week and eco-driving. 

CCAP and our dialog partners propose a transportation greenhouse gas reduction incentive program that calls for dedicating 10 

percent of climate allowance value to travel efficiency, funding bottom-up goal setting and planning processes, competitive grants to 

reward early adopters and higher achievement, and funding to improve travel data and measure performance. 

Dedicating a meaningful share of cap-and-trade allowance value 

to travel efficiency would provide immediate and long-term benefits, strengthen our communities, and help build a foundation for 

a healthy, vibrant and equitable future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Winkelman follows:] 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Winkelman. 

Last, but not least, Ray Kuntz. Welcome, Mr. Kuntz, we are glad 

to see you. 

STATEMENT OF RAY KUNTZ, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

WATKINS AND SHEPARD TRUCKING 

Mr. KUNTZ. Thank you. 

Chairman Carper and other members of the committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to testify before you today. I will summarize my written statement and ask that the full statement be submitted for the record. 

Senator CARPER. Without objection. In fact, all of your entire full 

statements will be submitted for the record. 

Mr. KUNTZ. ATA strongly supports efforts to reduce greenhouse 

gases and to make our country more energy independent. 

Trucking employs nearly 9 million people and moves approximately 11 billion tons of freight annually. Trucking delivers nearly 

70 percent of all tonnage in America. Eighty percent of our Nation’s communities receive all of their goods exclusively by truck. 

And in my State of Montana, 87 percent of manufactured tonnage 

is moved by truck. Roughly 96 percent of motor carriers have 20 

or fewer trucks and are considered small businesses. 

The trucking industry is aggressively working to reduce fuel consumption and our carbon output. In 2008, my own company was 

one of 27 companies, nationwide companies, which received EPA’s 

SmartWay Excellence Award for the reduction of fuel consumption 

and greenhouse gases. We have reduced our fuel consumption 14 

percent in the last 2 years. 

How did we do it? We control our speed below 65 miles an hour, 

we employed idling reduction technology, we purchased fuel efficient tires, and we started a driver education system that made our 

drivers more fuel efficient. 

Our company certainly shares the goal of further reducing our 

greenhouse gas emissions. It is very simple. If we reduce our fuel 

consumption, we reduce our costs. We reduce our carbon output. 

But here is our challenge. We do not build engines. We do not refine fuel. But we do pay the price of any increased fuel costs due 

to climate change legislation. 

Studies show that climate change legislation could dramatically 

increase our fuel costs. Our company burns approximately 10 million gallons of fuel per year. A 50 cent per gallon increase would 

cost our company $5 million a year. A $1 per gallon increase would 

cost our company $10 million per year, much more than we have 

made in the last 5 years. And in spite of my company meeting our 

environmental goals, our company will still be penalized under 

some climate laws. 

This committee has the unique position in that you will consider 

both climate change legislation as well as highway reauthorization. 

As you know, the American Trucking Association has indicated its 

willingness to support an increase in fuel taxes to pay for the 

much-needed infrastructure improvements. However, if climate 

change legislation results in significant increases in our fuel costs, 

this could very well jeopardize our ability to absorb additional fuel 

cost increases to fund infrastructure improvements. 
125 

Another area that I would quickly like to address is the notion 

that we can address the transport sector’s carbon footprint by simply diverting large amounts of freight to other modes. The reality 

is that if inter-modal rail tonnage were to double by the year 2020, 

the market share of inter-modal would be 1.8 percent. Trucking 

would still be 71 percent. 

And in rural States like Montana, where I come from, that is not 

even an option. We are served by one railroad, and that railroad 

will not even stop in Montana to deliver inter-modal freight and 

pick it up, and it has no plans of doing so in the future. 

ATA has come up with a very aggressive sustainability plan. No. 

1 on the list is a national 65 mile per hour speed limit. Over a 10- 

year period, we would save nearly 12 billion gallons of fuel and reduce our carbon by over 116 million tons. It would cost our consumers nothing. In fact, it would save them money. 

We also want increased participation in the EPA’s SmartWay 

Program. We want to spend more money on anti-idling technology 

and get tax incentives to help do that. We support national fuel 

economy standards for trucks, and, most importantly, we would 

like to reduce highway congestion. 

The other area that we are promoting is the use of more productive trucks. Montana is very fortunate to be one of the States that 

is allowed to use more efficient trucks. My own company uses 

them. But other States have been prohibited from experiencing fuel 

savings and carbon reductions for almost 20 years due to a Federal 

freeze in size and weights. 

In conclusion, I would hope that this committee would recognize 

the inherent differences between stationary and mobile sources like 

trucking and pursue strategies that efficiently reduce fuel consumption without penalizing the consumer. 

Thank you for your time. I would be glad to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kuntz follows:] 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much for your testimony. It was 

good of you to join us today. 

I am going to ask, for about the next 5 minutes, some questions 

of our panel, and then yield to Senator Voinovich and then Senator 

Merkley. 

This will be a question, really, for Mayor Becker and for Mr. 

Bragdon. Do people call you President Bragdon? 

Mr. BRAGDON. Councilor is fine. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I am impressed that two very different States, Utah and Oregon, and I have been privileged to visit 

them both, but two very different States are at the forefront of efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. 

Could you describe the public participation that went into the development of your plans? And second, in the upcoming climate bill, 

how could the Federal Government further assist the efforts that 

you have already made and incentivize other regions of our Nation 

to maybe take similar actions? 

Mr. BRAGDON. Senator Carper, there is a high degree of public 

participation in the public planning in the State of Oregon and in 

our region. 

I should add that, what effectively constitutes a climate change 

strategy did not start as that. It started in the 1990s as a multifaceted strategy about conserving infrastructure, conserving tax 

dollars, preserving agriculture and forest land that surrounds our 

area, and making the best use of the urban neighborhoods. So, in 

seeking to achieve those objectives, we are also, fortunately, addressing issues of climate change. 

And those efforts have been very popular in our region in terms 

of—as I mentioned, my agency is a popularly elected body, and so 

the policies that are adopted by our body are to some extent reflective of the voters who put us in office to adopt those policies. So, 

I would say there has been a high degree of public participation 

going back to the 1990s in terms of our region, as well as in the 

political marketplace, but also in the demographic and economic 

marketplace as well in terms of household size, in terms of people 

wanting to live the type of live style that we are talking about. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Mr. BRAGDON. In answer to your question, in terms of the Federal involvement, I think the Federal Government needs to be a 

better partner in terms of the multi-modal transportation. We need 

to do a better job of judging the costs and benefits of different approaches and strategies in transportation. There has not been an 

even playing field since the 1950s. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

Mr. BECKER. In Utah, we have had an experience that may be 

similar to that of many other communities that have looked toward 

rail, not having a rail history for some time. When our first bond 

election went forward, our first election went forward to raise taxes 

for rail, it failed. 

At about that same time, an organization called the Coalition for 

Utah’s Future started something called Envision Utah and engaged 

the community in a massive way in looking at the trends we are 

on with our existing transportation infrastructure and land use and 
147 

land consumption and how those trends would play out in the future, and then provided the community with alternatives. 

We had, for example, 20,000 respond to a newspaper insert, this 

was pre-major-Internet opportunities, 20,000 people responded on 

the type of future they prefer. This was done as a visioning exercise. But by the time the next bond election came along, people 

were beginning to gather around the concept that the present trend 

we were on was not a desirable trend, that they favored the idea 

of some increased density, they favored the idea of more transit 

and other modes of transportation as preferable. 

And by the time the next bond election came, it passed overwhelmingly. And every bond election for an increase in taxes for 

rail and transit improvements since has passed up and down the 

Wasatch front, which is our urban core. It has been done through 

value-based work, through visioning exercise, transportation-specific and otherwise, but along the model of this Envision Utah effort. 

I think that underlying concept of really engaging the community 

and having the community look toward its future, and then how 

that future would play out with the different modal mix, has happened. 

We have seen the same thing happen quite recently in an area 

that, I think, was to the great surprise of the people in Southwestern Utah, which is most rural but is the fastest growing county in the United States until just recently, where people said they 

wanted more transit in their future. 

So, I think engaging the community in a thoughtful way that 

looks at the values they want, which now is much more toward 

walkable communities than it was 10 or 15 years ago, makes a 

very large difference. And I think providing assistance in that kind 

of collaborative public engagement can make a big difference in 

helping the people who live in our communities look toward the future they want, and then how to realize it. 

Senator CARPER. We have been joined by Senator Merkley. Senator Merkley, I want to not only welcome you but thank you for 

joining Senators Specter, Lautenberg, Cardin and myself as cosponsors of the CLEAN-TEA legislation. Thank you for joining us, 

and you are recognized for the next 2 hours. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MERKLEY. Only 2 hours? And there is so much to say 

and so much to ask. 

Thank you, very much, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank very 

much David Bragdon, President of the Metro Council in Portland, 

for coming and testifying on the work that is being done in the 

Portland metropolitan area, and again draw attention a couple of 

statistics that he mentioned, or some close version of them. 

One is that, where in the United States, between 1990 and 2007, 

the total emission of greenhouse gases increased 17 percent, in the 

Portland metropolitan area during that same period emissions 

dropped, they dropped about .7 percent. So, it is really counter to 

every trend we are seeing in the country, and if you want to frame 

it in per capita greenhouse emissions, it is even more dramatic because there is, unfortunately the number is the same so it might 
148 

be a bit confusion, a 17 percent reduction in per capita greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

In your testimony, President Bragdon, you noted some of the features in the metropolitan area. I am sorry I missed your testimony. 

I am rushing here from the Healthcare Committee. But, I was wondering if you could talk about this new concept, the Intertwine, if 

you have not already addressed it, and how that incorporates the 

vision of parks, walking trails and biking trails, and what it means. 

Mr. BRAGDON. Senator Merkley, thank you. 

In terms of our results, yes, we are proud of that. But there are 

other communities, Boulder, Colorado, I think has also had significant results, and it shows that this is not necessarily all that complicated. But if we stick to some of the fundamentals that we have 

talked about in terms of walkable communities and alternative 

ways of getting around other communities, Portland is—we like to 

think that it is unique, but in fact, in many ways, there are things 

than can be emulated. 

With regard to the Intertwine, our approach on the environmental front is multifaceted. It is not just a matter of transit, it 

is not just a matter of land use, it is also a matter of parks, recreation and preserving natural areas. And many other parts of the 

country are characterized by a very fragmented system of parks 

and natural areas. So, we have been working very diligently to 

bring all the different partners together. 

The voters in our region—just as Mayor Becker talked about that 

supported the ballot box in the Salt Lake City area for light rail— 

our voters have been very generous. In addition to having voted for 

light rail at various points in the past, they have also voted twice 

for natural area protection. And we use those funds to purchase 

natural areas. 

The Intertwine is sort of our brand name for working with our 

partners in the non-profit sector and the local government and, 

ideally, with the Federal Government given that one of the aspects 

of our region, we are somewhat distinct in that we are surrounded, 

well not totally surrounded, but we have a lot of U.S. Forest Service, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife holdings all around us. The Intertwine is a voluntary association of government, non-profit and all 

levels of government to work together to manage those lands and 

allow our citizens the best possible use of them. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I wanted to give you a chance to 

address that because that is a newly coined term and, in addition 

to kind of creating the interconnectedness of officials at various levels working together, I think it also captures to some extent the 

interconnectedness of the dimensions of the different components, 

the walking trails, the biking trails, the green spaces and so forth 

that have grown into a system that enables citizens to have very 

significant choices whether it be in recreation or commuting. 

I wanted to ask you what the stages are as the metropolitan area 

in Portland thinks about how it could proceed, should proceed and 

the things that we should really be looking at to assist communities like Boulder, like Portland, as they take the next step in trying to tackle this challenge. 

Mr. BRAGDON. Senator Merkley, I think, in many respects, there 

are some of the things that we have been doing in the Portland 
149 

area where we feel we have been almost pushing against Federal 

policies, many of them dating from the 1950s. And so, we like to 

imagine a world in which we are still trying to do the same things 

that are doing, but we are doing them with Federal policy. 

It dates back to the 1970s in our case. We are the first locality 

to trade in interstate funds and use those—instead of for one large 

highway which would have destroyed 1 percent of the houses in the 

city, we used them on a multitude of road and street projects 

throughout the region and a light rail system. That was an example of the Federal Government starting to provide some flexibility 

for us to have some local choice around that. 

I think Federal legislation needs to encourage more of that, give 

localities the tools to evaluate different choices, different strategies, 

measure among modes and among strategies. Quite often, the Federal surface transportation funds on the road side is distributed 

formulaically with certain assumptions that tend to bias toward 

new things rather than maintenance and good repair of existing 

things, that would an example, whereas transit programs are discretionary, and, quite rightly, have to meet a cost-benefit type of 

analysis that highways projects have not been subjected to. So, I 

think that leveling that playing field would be another example. 

Finally, I think metropolitan areas, in terms of the economic impacts, in terms of the potential for climate change, that is where 

the action is going to be. That is where the freight is. That is where 

the people are. So there needs to be a title in the new bill that really does address the unique needs of metropolitan areas in a multimodal sense. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. I think that one area 

where the Portland metropolitan area has been pushing in kind of 

opposition, or at least not getting a lot of cooperation, was in 

streetcars. That has changed with Secretary LaHood providing a 

significant reevaluation of the role of streetcars and support, recently, for the expansion of the Portland Streetcar System. 

Mayor Becker, I think you are considering streetcars in your city, 

and I would like you to just share a little bit of what it is you see 

in that particular feature that could be of value. 

Mr. BECKER. First, I should tell you, we have really appreciated 

the leadership from the Portland metro area on streetcars and light 

rail, kind of showing the way, providing the tracks to the future, 

really, in many respects, for a western city like ours. 

We are looking right now, and are moving as quickly as possible, 

to develop three streetcar systems in Salt Lake City, one using an 

existing abandoned, or actually acquired, railroad corridor that will 

serve a commercial and residential area in the south part of our 

city and with an adjacent city, South Salt Lake, with the Utah 

Transit Authority. 

A second one in the downtown area that could be a circulator 

system, but we are looking more as a way to reach out into a 

neighborhood that is really prime for redevelopment and providing 

better transportation options as well as development-oriented transit there. And a third to connect us with a neighboring suburban 

community that has realized that roads really do not provide all of 

the options that they need and has made their highest priority a 

rail connection into Downtown Salt Lake. 
150 

We are hoping, and I think with Federal assistance it would 

make a difference in how quickly that we can undertake the initiation and development of those, within the next 5 years, which is 

very ambitious but we have been ambitious with our rail programs 

and have seen great success. We want to keep building on that. 

As was mentioned, multi-modal approaches are the real key. 

Transit has to be convenient and accessible and safe and reliable. 

To do that, we need service that is frequent and is accessible for 

people. We need bikeway systems in a valley like ours, and big 

wide streets like ours should be so bike-able, but people are afraid 

to get out on the streets to commute. 

So, we are looking to alter our own allocation of resources so we 

invest much more heavily in transit to try to rebalance the equation a little bit as Portland has does and as we hope happens in 

future Federal legislation. 

Senator MERKLEY. Mr. Chair, I see my 2 hours has evaporated 

rather quickly. I will just note that, as you proceed, Oregon Iron 

Works is now building streetcars, the first streetcar built in America in a generation, and we certainly invite you to come out and 

have a ride on our streetcar system and talk to Oregon Iron Works 

as well. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Those 2 hours went by quickly, did they not? 

Senator MERKLEY. They certainly did. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks for those questions. 

I have a question for Mr. Winkelman next, and the maybe one 

for Mr. Kuntz, and we will bounce around a little bit. If Senator 

Merkley is still around, we will go back to him for another 2 hours. 

Senator MERKLEY. Mr. Chair, I do apologize but I have to return 

to the healthcare markup. My regrets. 

Senator CARPER. I understand. God bless you. 

For Mr. Winkelman, if you would. In your opening statement, I 

think you stated that comprehensive travel efficiency strategies can 

reduce vehicles miles traveled by, I think you said 10 percent, the 

equivalent of taking maybe 30 million cars off the road. The environmental and economic advantages of building new transit systems with freight rail capacity and smarter development are, I 

think, pretty well established. 

These types of projects will provide greenhouse reduction over a 

long period of time. What can we do in the short term, though, 

maybe in the next couple of years, 2 or 3 years, to reduce emissions 

from the transportation sector? And can dedicating resources to the 

transportation sector in the upcoming climate bill reduce emissions 

in the short term? 

Mr. WINKELMAN. Thank you, Senator. Those long-term strategies 

also deliver in the short term. If you remember—— 

Senator CARPER. Would you talk about that? 

Mr. WINKELMAN. Say again? 

Senator CARPER. Would you talk about that, please? 

Mr. WINKELMAN. Thank you. The fuel prices, if you remember 

from last year, and the record transit ridership we saw when people responded to that by getting on the bus, getting on the train, 

actually that ridership maintained in spite of the declined economy. 

So, certainly investments in transit, improving operation and ex-
151 

panding the system, can reduce short-term greenhouse gas emissions. 

Look at a place like Arlington, Virginia, which has had continuous investment in transit and sidewalks. The people there drive 

60 percent less than the regional average here. So they are spending that much less money. So they have those options right now 

in the real time to respond to. New York City increased bicycle 

commuting by 70 percent in just 5 years. Places like Las Cruces, 

New Mexico had a Safe Walk to School Program that reduced CO2

in 1 year. 

Interestingly, telecommuting right now saves on the order of 60 

million metric tons of CO2 per year. That is cheap and easy to do, 

and it is something that also can apply in rural areas, especially 

if you improve broadband coverage, for example. 

So, there are a number of examples that can deliver in the short 

term, and I list more in my written testimony. Certainly, investment from the climate bill in terms of climate allowances can reduce emissions in the short term cost effectively, and as I lay out, 

also leading to long-term economic benefits. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. I would really like to just ask a 

follow up question of you, if I could. In terms of cost effectiveness, 

how do strategies to reduce emissions from the transportation sector compare to reductions in other sectors, for example with respect 

to utilities? If designed correctly, is designating a significant portion of funds to transportation accompanying a climate bill cost effective? 

Mr. WINKELMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I think we have all seen the McKinsey Curves, and if you look at carbon capture and storage, that can be on the order of $60 per 

tons of CO2, solar on the order of $30 per ton. As we lay out in our report on Travel Efficiency, Sacramento is saving $200 per ton 

of CO2. Calculations show that Portland is saving $1,000 per ton 

CO2 on bicycle infrastructure. And a McKinsey analysis for the State of Georgia shows in the area of $20,000 per ton of CO2 savings. 

But of course looking at a broader economic perspective of avoided infrastructure costs, fuel cost savings, increased tax revenues, 

and leveraged private investment, certainly those cost-effective 

strategies on travel efficiency compare nicely to those more expensive options in other sectors. We are going to need them all, but 

certainly you want to do the efficient stuff and the stuff that pays 

back. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Kuntz, a question for you. I was really struck and impressed 

by some of the strategies that you have employed in your company 

to reduce fuel consumption, energy consumption. I think you mentioned tires, I think you mentioned anti-idling strategy, and I think 

you mentioned—I will paraphrase this—driving habits, the way 

that your drivers are driving the vehicles. Talk about the latter for 

us, if you would. 

Mr. KUNTZ. Yes, there are several things that drivers, both in 

cars and commercial vehicles, do and can do that make their fuel 

consumption a lot worse or a lot better. And a lot of this, in trucking, is their energy to speed up and slow down a truck. That costs 
152 

a lot. So, if you can drive more consistently and not be speeding 

up and braking, speeding up and braking, and things like that, it 

drastically reduces energy. 

Unfortunately, the congestion that we are being asked to drive 

in gets worse and worse. It is harder for us to not do that type of 

behavior. So, it is more of a consistent driving pattern that does 

not burn energy that we try to teach our drivers. 

Senator CARPER. I am always struck by drivers, when I see people at a street with traffic lights or stop signs, or even out on the 

more open highways, how people will accelerate only to have to 

stop in like 100 or 200 yards, or slow down and come to a stop. 

It never made much sense to me. 

I drive my wife crazy because I do not do that. And like you suggested, I try to keep at a fairly even speed so that I do not burn 

out my brakes, and I actually level out my fuel consumption as 

well. 

I just want to be able to give my wife your phone number so the 

next time she starts really carping at me, I will say, call Ray Kuntz 

and he will straighten this out. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KUNTZ. Thank you. And we might have you talk to our driver’s class, too. 

Senator CARPER. Well, good, maybe we can do a tag team here. 

I think that it is very clear that you are very knowledgeable of 

the role of the trucking industry and freight movement. Let me just 

ask you, in order to reduce transportation emissions and improve 

product delivery, does the U.S. need more inter-modal centers to 

transfer freight between, say, air and rail and trucks? 

Mr. KUNTZ. We put our trailers on rail, and I think the reality 

is that we need infrastructure investment in the rail as well as we 

do our highways. As I told you earlier, even if double the amount 

of the trailers that we put on the rail, we would still be only looking at 1.8 percent. The other reality is that it is going to take a 

lot of money for the railroads to be able to double their amount of 

infrastructure to handle doubling of capacity. 

So, I think you have to look at an entire transportation package 

when you are looking at transportation, rail, truck, you know, 

inter-modal, steamship lines, everything. But what I referred to 

earlier is that the idea that we can just randomly pull 10 percent 

off trucks and say that this is going to fix our problem is a little 

ludicrous because there is no way to do that with our existing infrastructure. 

That is what we have to be careful of. I think it is very important 

that this committee stays on the realities and looks at opportunities to reduce costs of freight and not increase our costs of operations. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

My last question is probably for Mr. Winkelman, but maybe also 

be for Mr. Bragdon and Mayor Becker. If you want to take a shot 

at this, Mr. Winkelman, you can lead off. 

Do you believe that reducing emissions from the transportation 

sector through smarter development forces Americans into behavior 

that they do not want, they do not want, or are these strategies 

about providing increased mobility involuntary alternatives to driv-
153 

ing? In Utah and Oregon, have residents embraced these concepts? 

So, those are my questions. Mr. Winkelman, if you want to take 

the first shot at that. 

Mr. WINKELMAN. Thank you, Senator. In my written testimony, 

I cite some of the real estate market studies, economic studies, demographic studies that show that actually maybe one-third to onehalf of the country wants a more walkable community, wants a 

more compact development where they can drive shorter distances, 

where they can walk to the park. So, let us just meet that 40 percent of the market, say, before we worry about forcing something 

on anyone else. 

The point is that a lot of people want this, as my colleagues to 

my right have pointed out, an experience that they have seen in 

their communities. The National Association of Realtors, in a 2007 

study, shows that 83 percent of Americans want to live in communities where they can drive less. And a leading developer, Chris 

Weinberger, shows there is really this pent-up demand for more 

compact development. In fact, we may have plenty of housing stock 

of the large lot detached, but we are going to need to have more 

of the townhouses, more of the infill, whether it is in city center 

or rural village. 

There is also evidence that sort of more transit-oriented places 

with rich transportation choices have held up better in terms of 

real estate values under the latest downturn in places like Boston, 

L.A., and Denver. So, the economic, the environmental, the convenience and household cost issues all come together. So, there is a 

significant chunk of the market that wants this and can help reduce greenhouse gases if we provide it. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Bragdon. 

Mr. BRAGDON. Senator Carper, I would agree. As I said before, 

Portlanders, we like to think we are unique. But in many ways we 

are typical Americans, and we want the things that typical people 

want, which is safe and stable neighborhoods, the ability to walk 

around and satisfy your needs in terms of shopping and getting 

work and having a park nearby. Those are very traditional things. 

So, what we are talking about here in terms of community design 

really is very typically American. I would say that there is a mythology that the development patterns of the last 30 or 40 years 

are somehow the product of a market, or the invisible hand, but 

in fact the development patterns that we have experienced in this 

country over the last 30 to 40 years are not the product of a market 

or invisible hand. They are the result of very explicit, as well as 

implicit, Federal policies, as well as State and local policies. 

I think the demographics that Mr. Winkelman mentions are 

spot-on in terms of family size changing and the work force changing. So, I would agree that this is a direction that has been embraced by people and will be borne out by them. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mayor. 

Mr. BECKER. Thank you, Senator. In Utah, I think we have seen 

the same kind of experience and results that we are hearing in Oregon and in studies around the country. I mentioned Envision 

Utah. They have done a series of studies that are value-based stud-
154 

ies, looking at what people value and what they want. Then they 

have gone out and had major public involvement, public engagement efforts. 

It has all led to the same conclusion, that people want walkable 

and livable communities. They want other modes of transportation. 

They do not like being caught in congestion. It is what has been 

available to them. As we can offer good choices and alternative 

modes, I think we are finding in Salt Lake that we are exceeding 

the projections for transit use. We are finding that as we improve 

our bikeways, we are getting many, many more people using bikeways. 

When I ran for Mayor—I am a cyclist, I did not, before I became 

Mayor, cycle that much as a commuter because I was scared to. 

But what I found when I was walking door-to-door running for 

Mayor, I was so surprised at the number of people whose doorstep 

I went to and said well, what do you want for Salt Lake City, and 

they said, you know something, I like to bike, but I do not dare 

bike in my community. 

Well, as we improve the biking infrastructure, we are providing 

that option for people. And as more and more cyclists get on the 

road, we feel more secure on the road. That kind of providing that 

sort of access for people in terms of transportation mode is what 

I think is going to make the difference. It is not that people do not 

want to use transit or do not want to bike or have more walkable 

communities. On the contrary, I think people do. At least we certainly find that in our community. 

But we have to provide it. And that means a shift in what we 

invest in so that we provide that as a good alternative. And we 

have certainly seen, as I mentioned and as I am sure you know 

around the world, where the transportation investment has been 

more balanced in terms of modes that people will use more transit 

rather than less over time. Obviously, that has great benefits for 

us in the long term. 

We have also found, if I might add for a minute. I mentioned this 

Clear the Air Challenge that I did with Governor Huntsman and 

County Mayor Caroon. When we put something in front of people 

where there is a little bit of a challenge, there is an education component but there is a little bit of a challenge, and people begin to 

compete and say, you know something, I am going to use transit 

1 day a week, or I am going to combine and link my trips together, 

or I am going to bike with my kids to the store, and we have all 

of these anecdotal stories that came out of our Clear the Air Challenge, that people jumped on it. Not everyone. But the people who 

wanted to got involved, got excited and found there were great alternatives. 

I think we need to give people opportunities and a little encouragement and some rewards for changing what has become their behavior. And we’re hoping that will lead to reductions from a citizen-based effort, not just a government-based imposition. 

Senator CARPER. What is the population of Salt Lake now? 

Mr. BECKER. The population of the metropolitan area is about 1.5 

million. The city itself is about 180,000. 

Senator CARPER. And how about Portland? 
155 

Mr. BRAGDON. The city of Portland is about 580,000 and our metropolitan region on the Oregon side of the river is about 1.4 million. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Kuntz, where are you from? 

Mr. KUNTZ. Helena, Montana. 

Senator CARPER. Do you know—— 

Mr. KUNTZ. Home of Senator Baucus. 

Senator CARPER. Home of Senator Baucus. You went to high 

school there. Is there a high school there? What is it called? 

Mr. KUNTZ. Yes. Helena High School. 

Senator CARPER. Ironically, he is a graduate of Helena High 

School, and he is President of the Senate Finance Committee, and 

the previous chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Bill Roth 

from Delaware, is also a graduate of Helena High School. Imagine 

that, that within a span of like a couple of years, two graduates 

of Helena High School end up being chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, one from either party. And although Senator 

Roth is about 30 years older than Senator Baucus, I always accused him of being in the same graduating class. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. We are grateful to each of you for being with 

us here today. Thank you for bearing with us as we waded through 

that first panel. You were worth the wait, worth the wait, and we 

are grateful for your input. 

We are going to leave the record open for questions for a while. 

I do not know if it is a week or two, but it will be open for a while. 

Some of our colleagues were unable to join us because of other commitments but may want to submit some questions. If you receive 

those, we just ask that you respond to them promptly. 

Again, thank you very, very much. 

And with that having been said, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the transportation piece 

of the greenhouse gas emissions puzzle and what we can do to address this issue. 

In last week’s hearing I raised this issue with Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, but we only scratched the surface of this specific 

issue area. 

It is no coincidence that both our transportation and energy infrastructure systems are simultaneously at a crossroads. They are connected to each other by what 

drives them both—fossil fuels. Fortunately, this committee has a tremendous opportunity to act on this issue. 

It is on the matter of fuel consumption where our Federal policies toward these 

intersecting policies diverge from one another. 

Americans are encouraged to conserve energy, which reduces our reliance on foreign oil, reduces carbon emissions, and during these trying economic times saves 

consumers’ money. To many, this means driving less, purchasing fuel efficient vehicles and using public transportation to get around—all of which I support. Unfortunately, funding for our surface transportation systems is reliant upon sustained, if 

not increased, fuel consumption in the form of the gas tax. 

Because of this divergence in policy, along with the greenhouse gas emissions that 

come from burning fossil fuels, we need to rethink fuels and transportation planning 

and explore better, cleaner, more efficient options. 

FUELS

Be it coal fired power plants or internal combustion engines, the burning of fossil 

fuels is the greatest source of greenhouse gases from human activities. The trans-
156 

portation sector is responsible for 30 percent of the United States’ greenhouse gas 

emissions. That is why it is imperative we shift away from fossil fuels to power vehicles. 

The proposed method for capturing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector is by accounting for fuels ‘‘upstream’’ where we import oil or at the 

point of production at the refinery. Ultimately, the cost is passed down to consumers. These costs would be reduced significantly over time as we move toward 

the production of clean fuels. 

We must diversify our transportation power sources to include ethanol refined 

from algae, switch grass and other sources of biomass—sources that do not have a 

direct effect on consumer food prices. Plug-in electric vehicles powered by renewable 

energy and hydrogen fuel cells will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce 

our carbon emissions, and spur commercial and job growth and marketplace competition. 

TRANSIT AND SMART GROWTH

While burning fossil fuels is the source of transportation carbon emissions, the 

amount of carbon emissions is a factor of how much time people spend in their cars 

and trucks, especially the extraordinary waste of fuel and time spent when motorists are stuck in traffic. Secretary Chu’s and Administrator Jackson’s answers to my 

question last week noted that increased availability and accessibility of public transportation would lead to significant carbon emission reductions. 

Last week, the Texas Transportation Institute released its 2009 Mobility Report, 

which notes that public transportation saved travelers 646 million hours in travel 

time in 2007. This same report had troubling news that the DC Metropolitan Area, 

including Maryland, now has the second worst traffic in the Nation. The report goes 

on to note that each motorist in the Maryland-DC-Virginia metro area loses an average of 62 hours and wastes an average of 42 gallons of fuel a year because they 

are stuck in traffic. This is despite Metro ridership being the second highest in the 

country beyond New York City. 

According to the American Public Transportation Association, public transit currently saves 37 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. These carbon savings become even greater as more and more energy is generated from renewable sources. 

To increase the efficiency of our transportation infrastructure and improve accessibility to transit, transportation plans’ carbon footprint must be taken into consideration prior to approval or receipt of Federal transportation funds. Building livable 

communities that promote multi-modal transportation options is essential to reducing the transportation sector’s carbon emissions. 

And we do not need to reinvent the wheel to achieve these goals. The framework 

established under the Clean Air Act is a fine model for also achieving greenhouse 

gas reductions from a region’s transportation sector. 

Sweeping improvements in efficiency and pollution reduction to our Nation’s 

transportation systems are just as visionary as President Eisenhower’s concept of 

a national infrastructure system and is equally attainable. 

The opportunity for economic expansion and job growth in these sectors is nearly 

limitless, but we must act now to make sure these innovations are domestically developed and produced by hardworking Americans. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues to promote a more efficient transportation system and secure investments in transit from revenues generated by the 

legislation we construct. Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and 

I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
157 
158 

Æ