Page 1       TOP OF DOC
PLEASE NOTE: The following transcript is a portion of the official hearing record of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Additional material pertinent to this transcript may be found on the web site of the Committee at [http://www.house.gov/transportation]. Complete hearing records are available for review at the Committee offices and also may be purchased at the U.S. Government Printing Office.



U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Bud Shuster (chairman of the committee) presiding.

    The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will come to order.

    We meet today to hear about streamlining and improving the efficiency of transportation and infrastructure programs.

 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Welcome to all of you that have come here today. I'm not going to take a lot of time with comments because I want to allow all of you ample time to give your input on these issues.

    I am pleased today to welcome Governor Edward T. Schafer of North Dakota on behalf of the National Governors Association; Governor E. Benjamin Nelson of Nebraska on behalf of the National Governors Association. We also have with us Terry Branstad of Iowa.

    Congressman Latham, since he is one of your constituents I understand you wanted to particularly welcome him.

    Mr. LATHAM. I just want to take the opportunity to welcome you here, Governor, and congratulate you on your recent fourth election—the longest-serving governor in the United States. We are very proud to have you.

    He is from my district. I am very proud to have him here.

    Mr. BRANSTAD. I voted for him, too.

    Mr. LATHAM. Thank you.

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We are very pleased to have you here today. This is an extraordinarily important hearing in terms of getting our committee off on the right foot in addressing these important issues.

 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Rather than my going through a long opening statement, we are really here to listen to what you have to say, and so I will dispense with my statement and recognize my good friend, the ranking Member from California, Congressman Norm Mineta.

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

    My understanding is that this is planned to be the shortest committee hearing in history, and so, in that spirit, I will be brief, as well.

    While there is a lot of discussion about unfunded mandates, the fact is that our committee's programs generally do not impose unfunded mandates. In areas of shared responsibilities, we sometimes have partially-funded mandates, but in the larger programs—most notably the highway programs—we provide large amounts of unmandated funding. Sometimes we have attached conditions to the use of that funding, and occasionally those conditions are considered by some to be burdensome, although others consider them to be necessary and important. Sometimes we up here do not agree with all the requirements that are attached to our programs by the Executive Branch.

    But the most important point is that we do provide many times in funding what we impose in mandates or requirements. While we can always have disagreements about a specific feature of any program, I think that, in general, we would all agree that the most important issue for State and local governments in our programs is the level of funding for those programs.

    There are more than a few in this town—none on this committee so far as I am aware of—who would like to use all this talk of doing something to limit unfunded mandates as a pretext for what they really want to do, which is to drastically cut the funding for these programs. That would be a very bad bargain and a very real tragedy for State and local governments.
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So I would suggest to my friends in the State capitals that they follow the oldest advice in baseball, which is: keep your eye on the ball. The ball, in this case, is Federal funding levels.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Congressman Mineta.

    Now I'll turn it over to the governors. Please proceed as you see fit.


    Governor NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

    I am Ben Nelson, governor of Nebraska. I'm here today, as you have indicated, representing the National Governors Association.

    It is good to see Congressman Brewster here. Let me tell you, for the record, he is an outstanding marksman. He came to Nebraska this fall for the one-box pheasant shot, won it, and took away a lot of our birds back to Oklahoma. Of course, we took the football game this year so I thought it was a fair trade.
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We appreciate this opportunity today to provide input on opportunities for mandate relief, State flexibility, priority setting, and block grants for environmental statutes within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure before the committee takes action on any specific bills.

    For nearly 2 years, I have been working hard on behalf of the National Governors Association and have been an advocate for developing strategies to provide relief from unfunded mandates passed down from the Federal Government to State and local governments. I have also been an advocate to stop the proliferation of mandates from the State governments to local governments.

    But the crux of the debate on unfunded mandates, State flexibility, and block grants is the imbalance of power that has somehow developed between the Federal Government and the State governments.

    Let me state up front that the governors' primary concern is a clean environment. Our purpose is not to weaken Federal statutes and regulations, but to promote changes that create a safer, healthier environment in a more cost-effective manner.

    To demonstrate the governors' objectives, I'd like to bring to your attention specific examples within the Clean Water Act and the Superfund program.

    The existing Clean Water Act is generally considered an effective environmental law that has resulted in significant improvements to water quality across the country. I believe there is little disagreement about clean water objectives.
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The route that we have chosen to reach the objectives, however, will determine how fast we get there, and at what cost, or whether we will get there at all.

    The governors believe that reauthorization should increase the effectiveness of the law and provide for improvements to water quality comparable to the investment of new resources. We have learned a great deal since the landmark Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.

    In 1994, we attempted to achieve, and in 1995, we must achieve a more effective clean water partnership that builds upon the experience of the last 22 years and takes advantage of the capability and commitment that developed over that time.

    To date, we have been working on what, in some respects, are the easiest problems. Now we have to work not only harder but smarter and, most likely, with less money.

    A successful partnership must acknowledge the limited resources available today for water resource management and demand improved intergovernmental cooperation in order to maximize existing resources. Additionally, the Federal/State/local relationship must be refined to streamline requirements in a way that removes unnecessary and unproductive burdens on State and local governments in the implementation of Clean Water Act requirements.

    I would like to identify some clean water programs that present opportunities to provide for mandate relief, State flexibility, risk-based priority setting, and more cost effectiveness through block grants and other reforms.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Clean Water Act contains many mandates that are worthy or reevaluation by the committee. One specific example pertains to requirements to reduce storm water contamination. Congress should authorize States to prioritize storm water control activities based on public health and environmental risk, water quality needs, and cost effectiveness. Additionally, the law must recognize the differences between storm water and typical point source discharges.

    The governors believe that Congress should provide immediate relief to municipalities required to obtain storm water permits until we can identify site-specific best management practices and nonpermit approaches that effectively control storm water.

    Regarding nonpoint source pollution caused by runoff from agricultural, commercial, and residential sites, the governors are committed to developing effective strategies that will reduce pollution. We believe that State and local governments can demonstrate nonpoint source success under current Federal and State program framework provided that we are given a reasonable time frame to do so.

    The best way to ensure a productive nonpoint source program is to base it on an educational approach, not an enforcement approach. In Nebraska, we have approximately 40,000 farms of more than 50 acres in size. Our experience convinces us that addressing this type of problem at the local level through an educational-based process works.

    In terms of risk assessment, the governors recommend that Congress pass legislation to ensure that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency utilizes a risk-based approach that is consistent and accessible to interested citizens when developing clean water regulations. A risk-based approach makes public health sense, while ensuring that requirements can be implemented in a cost-effective manner at the Federal, State, and local levels.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The governors believe, as well, that the Federal Government should fully incorporate cost-effective risk reduction principles into the development of legislation and regulations. Sound science and risk reduction principles, including the appropriate use of cost-benefit analysis that considers both quantitative and qualitative measures, will provide greater assurance that States will get a good return on resources invested in a particular environmental activity.

    In turn, investments on priority needs will optimize the amount of environmental protection bought with the finite resources available by promoting adoption of regulatory alternatives that effectively reduce risks at the least cost.

    Priority-setting mechanisms must be implemented to put environmental problems into perspective rather than considering each one in isolation, as is now the case. For example, when Congress considers legislation on clean water, it should recognize that the risks and benefits associated with the problems Congress is addressing may be greater or smaller than the risks and benefits associated with drinking water, air quality, or other environmental problems that EPA and States must address under existing law.

    In recognizing these relationships, Congress should provide EPA and the States with the opportunity to evaluate such relationships and to take responsibility for prioritizing the use of available resources in order to promote the greatest public good.

    The governors are committed to engaging in a dialogue to identify ways of reinventing environmental protection in a manner that supports prioritization of problems for all environmental media.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Regarding block grants, the governors generally support consideration of such proposals to provide substantial State flexibility with administrative savings; however, block grant proposals should not be used to shift the cost of Federal programs to State and local governments. Block grant proposals should be designed to encourage and reward State and local efforts to develop more innovative and cost-effective programs.

    In the Superfund program there are clearly a number of things that can be done to improve the efficiency of the Federal Superfund program. The governors recommend that the site assessment and cleanup aspects of the program be streamlined through greater use of standardized processes, generic remedies, and a single risk standard.

    The governors also recommend that the resources and capabilities of willing and qualified States be harnessed to address a greater number of contaminated sites. Collectively, the States have conducted 17 times more cleanups than the Federal Government. In addition, the data show that we have done this significantly faster and at less expense than under the Federal Superfund program.

    We believe a voluntary State authorization program under Superfund would maximize public resources and reduce the current duplication of effort at the Federal and State levels. Although States are prepared to be fully accountable for the use of public resources and for the effectiveness of their cleanups, flexibility is needed in how these responsibilities are carried out.

    The law also needs to recognize the primary role of State governments in overseeing voluntary cleanups. One of the largest impediments for State voluntary cleanup programs is that States are unable to determine the finality of cleanup under the Federal law.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    A congressionally-determined risk exposure standard would be very helpful in this case to allow States to determine whether a site has been cleaned up sufficiently to relieve the responsible parties of CERCLA liability.

    We understand that Congress will be debating whether Superfund's retroactive liability should be retained. The governors have supported the current strict, joint, and several liability structure, and 40 States have enacted legislation based on this model. Obviously, a weakening of this standard would mean that more sites would require public funds. This money will be difficult to obtain in the current budgetary climate—and I might say both here and there.

    We urge Congress to consider the consequences not just for the 1,300 sites on the national priority list, but also for the 30,000 other sites that have been identified across the country.

    The governors remain committed to passage of a more effective Clean Water Act and Superfund program that will provide new opportunities to satisfy Federal requirements based on State and local priorities.

    We look forward to continuing to work together on these important issues.

    That concludes my oral testimony.

    Mr. Chairman and Members, I really appreciate this opportunity to testify today. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time or after my colleagues have had the occasion to address this esteemed body.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. PETRI [assuming Chair]. Thank you very much, Governor Nelson.

    I see we have been joined by two leaders of the National Governors Association: Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, welcome; and my own constituent, and the presence of whom I am very grateful for, our three-term governor—which is unprecedented in our State—Tommy Thompson. Welcome to both of you.

    Mr. PETRI. We look forward now to hearing from Governor Edward T. Schafer of North Dakota. Governor.


    Governor SCHAFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

    The Nation's governors appreciate the opportunity to testify before your committee today. Governors have a number of concerns in regards to transportation which I would like to summarize before describing specific concerns from my State of North Dakota.

 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    This morning the National Governors Association adopted a policy resolution on surface transportation that I would like to summarize for you now. We will forward that policy to you as soon as it is available.

    The first issue is full funding of ISTEA. Governors have long been united in the conviction that the single most important ingredient for effective implementation is full and adequate funding of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. However, the Federal Government has not followed through on its part of the bargain. Since its inception, ISTEA has not been funded at authorized levels. As a result, States are handicapped with uncertainty about whether ISTEA's potential will be realized without sufficient funding.

    Full funding is not simply more money; it is the money necessary to make the programs contained in the ISTEA work in the manner in which they are intended.

    We see a return of the Federal gas tax revenues to the Highway Trust Fund as an issue. One of the ways that the Federal Government could better fund ISTEA would be to return the diverted Federal gas tax from the general revenue fund to the Highway Trust Fund. The Nation's longstanding policy of dedicating Federal transportation-related motor fuel taxes and excise taxes exclusively to transportation purposes should be reinstated.

    We do have a section on mandates. I bring to you an example of an unfunded mandate. The Grant Marsh Bridge on Interstate 94 in Bismark, North Dakota, was opened in 1965. The Federal Highway Administration mandates upgrading to revised criteria whenever there is a project on or adjacent to that bridge. The bridge rail was changed in 1985 and again in 1994 due to mandated changes in rail design. Since 1977, guard rail criteria has been changed six times. This mandates replacement long before the life cycle of the materials.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    There are currently 19 Federal aid highway sanctions in place for States that do not meet a variety of requirements. Governors believe that the best course for Congress is not to impose highway sanctions, but rather offer incentives to encourage States to adopt such laws.

    Let me emphasize that these concerns are nationwide and that there is a remarkable degree of unanimity in the need to deregulate these programs, both by reducing mandates and through streamlining.

    My State Transportation Department has, the following concerns among others, that I think are quite representative of all States' concerns. North Dakota, by the way, has more road miles per capita than any other State, so we do speak from some experience there.

    The crumb rubber utilization requirement should be repealed as both costly and an infringement on a State's ability to choose suitable materials for their conditions. Repeal would still leave States free to use this material if they so choose. In fact, a crumb rubber plant is being constructed in North Dakota as we testify here today.

    Management plans under ISTEA in some instances require us to analyze issues and prepare documents that are not needed.

    Pavement management systems apply to all public roads. This includes dirt roads and minor roads.

 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Similarly, we don't need to prepare congestion management plans in North Dakota.

    Transportation enhancement projects require regulatory reviews out of all proportion with project size or value. There needs to be exemption from review for these projects.

    The U.S. Department of Transportation seems to be getting into the engineering review business for smaller projects for reasons we don't understand. DOT is considering requiring life cycle cost analysis and value engineering analysis of routine overlays and other small projects that are already adequately engineered.

    There are also other troublesome rules, but time does not allow us to mention them all here today. The main point is that Congress should act aggressively to remove unnecessary rules including, where appropriate, removing an agency's authority to impose rules.

    The National Highway System—the governors applaud your efforts to finalize the NHS by the September 30th deadline. Even before the NHS was created, governors had endorsed the principle of establishing a highway system of national significance as critical to the Nation's economic vitality. Stable funding would be essential for the effective operation and management of the NHS.

    There are many ways that Federal regulations impede surface transportation progress. Many of the governors' primary concerns involve the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). Governors strongly support the goals of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, but have found that the Act contains many provisions that have created serious challenges for States seeking to meet those goals. Governors, both individually and collectively, have been urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to provide much administrative flexibility, as the law allows, to help States meet the goals of the CAAA. We appreciate any assistance that you might offer in our efforts.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Innovative financing—although it is a fairly recent phenomenon, the concept of public/private partnerships to develop, operate, and maintain highways gained more credence with the passage of ISTEA. We appreciate these opportunities in ISTEA, and States will continue to pursue these options.

    We look forward to working with you in the future on these and other issues, and certainly under the jurisdiction of your committee.

    Thank you.

    Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much for your testimony, Governor.

    Welcome, Governor Whitman. We are honored by your presence. I understand that you and Governors Dean and Thompson have to leave by 3:00 for a 3:15 appointment so, with the indulgence of your colleague, Governor Branstad, we'd like to ask the three of you to proceed in whichever order you might decide among the three of you.


    Governor THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Petri. It is a pleasure to appear in front of you when you are the chairman, and it is fun to be your constituent to address you.

 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    For the membership of this committee, Congressman Petri is the only person that has ever defeated me in an election, so I am always—I always defer to him and his skills. We ran for Congress, and look where he is and look where I am. He is up there on top and I am down here. But it is a pleasure to appear in front of your committee.

    I have prepared remarks, but I specifically just want to hit you about three or four quick statements so that we might have some time for questions.

    It is a pleasure to appear in front of your committee. I bet you can guess what governors want. We want more flexibility. We want some block grants. We want the opportunity to have a good partnership with all of you. We would like to be able to count on the amount of money that comes in the appropriation bills in ISTEA that we are going to receive that amount.

    The State of Wisconsin—I think every State down here has got less money than what we were indicated that we were supposed to receive. What that causes, of course, is highway contracts that have been left that we have to rescind or we have to backfill with State dollars. It causes problems as far as employment and infrastructure improvement and repairs.

    It would be so nice if we would really be able to count on the amount of money that ISTEA said each one of the States were to receive.

    The second thing is that $0.025 has been set aside to help fund the general purpose revenues. It would certainly be nice if Congress would be able to return that to the transportation fund on October 1st. It is a position that the governors' organization has always taken—that the transportation fund is somewhat sacred, sort of a sacred trust between the Congress and the governors and the people of this great country. We hope that you would see fit to return that.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Clean Air Act—there are so many things in the Clean Air Act we just can't comply with. The transport issue was one for us in Wisconsin. If we closed down all the businesses, we wouldn't let people have any more children, we wouldn't allow any cars to be driven, we wouldn't be able to meet the transport issues. I don't think you want us to close down the southeast corridor of Wisconsin in order to meet the dictates of the transport issue in the Clean Air Act.

    You have to realize that some of the standards that have been set we just can't comply with. It would be nice if we could, but it is impossible because of the fact that the dirty air is coming in from all over this country, and just to penalize certain areas of a particular State is not fair or equitable and causes tremendous restructuring overwheling economic problems for individual States that have nonattainment areas.

    In regards to penalizing States, I have to agree with my colleagues. It would be much better if you would offer some incentives.

    I know, Congressman Petri, you have a bill in on motorcycle helmets. The motorcycle helmet mandate does not make much sense to me, as governor of a State where we have the Harley Davidson Motorcycles—the last remaining motorcycle company in the country. We don't have that requirement and yet the number of fatalities and number of injuries in Wisconsin is much less than States that have a mandated helmet bill. And we get penalized in Wisconsin several millions of dollars because we haven't passed that bill. The Legislature is not going to pass it in Wisconsin so we get penalized, even though our safety is much better than other States that have the mandatory helmet law.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I compliment you, Congressman Petri, on introducing legislation to repeal that.

    Overall, we want flexibility, the opportunity to work with you and be your partners and be able to offer you suggestions on what works and what doesn't work.

    ISTEA—I think there are just too many rules and restrictions and too many little items that we have to comply with.

    Number five, there is a portion of the transportation law that doesn't allow us to use Federal transportation dollars to subsidize or use for Amtrak services. We have Amtrak service going from Chicago to Milwaukee, and Amtrak has decided, because of their financial conditions, to curtail that bit of service. Wisconsin would like to be able to use some of the Federal highway transportation dollars to be able to supplant. Subsidize the rail service. That also help put our State into compliance with the Clean Air Act. The law that says we are in a nonattainment area and yet our State can't use the transportation dollars for Amtrak.

    It doesn't make too much sense to me that you can't do one thing or you'll get penalized but you can't do the other because you have got rules and regulations.

    I'm not going to go on. I would just like to take this opportunity to thank you for your attention and the opportunity to come in front of your committee, Mr. Shuster. Please take good care of my Congressman, Congressman Tom Petri. Whatever he wants, please give it to him. He's a great guy.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Thank you so very much.

    The CHAIRMAN [resuming Chair]. Thank you very much, Governor, but you really have that turned around the wrong way. It is Congressman Petri that has to take care of me.

    I understand, Governor Dean, that you are next up. We are certainly pleased to have you here.

    Please proceed as you wish.


    Governor DEAN. Mr. Chairman, we are extremely grateful that you would take the time to hear from governors. We obviously are all trying to attain the same objectives in a different way.

    Not surprisingly, there are some areas where I disagree with Governor Thompson, but there are also some areas I agree with. Let me run through the ones that we strongly agree with first.

    I first want to say I thank you very much for ISTEA. I remember before ISTEA it was even more inflexible and more difficult and more categorical. We really leapt ahead a tremendous amount in Vermont as a result of ISTEA because we can now use Federal money to help to pave our secondary roads. That has meant a great deal to us in a rural State where we have only essentially one and one half interstates, and that was a tremendous help.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We, of course, would like more flexibility. I completely concur with Governor Thompson on the issue of Amtrak. We are going to lose one of our Amtrak runs. I applaud Amtrak for getting its financial house in order. I think it is about time. But we have got to maintain rail service in our State, as Governor Whitman does, Governor Thompson, and others. Vermont would like some flexibility to be able to use the transportation monies in ways which we believe would best benefit our States, and losing rail service is not a good benefit to our State, so we would like some flexibility in that area.

    As a physician, I don't agree with Governor Thompson on the mandated helmet bill, and we have one in our State, but I am sympathetic. I want to make a point in support of what Governor Thompson said, even though I would—I don't want you to repeal his ability to have the bill, but I fully admit I'm being a hypocrite, and I'll tell you why. We believe, in general—the National Governors Association—that you ought to give us standards and we ought to comply with them, but that you ought not to tell us how to meet those standards and give us too much rigmarole.

    For example, we believe we ought to maintain our Interstates in a certain way, but what we experience in our State is that we have to put tons and tons of money in our Interstate, and therefore we have the Interstate with probably the least potholes of any Interstate in the country because it is not used as much as they are in the big States, but we don't have enough for our secondary roads and bridges, and we'd like more in that area.

    The same is true of the Clean Air Act. Governor Whitman and I—I suspect, though I don't want to speak for her. If you lower the Clean Air Act standards in the midwest, we are going to end up with the problem on our doorstep, so I disagree with Governor Thompson. We do not want you to lower the standards for the Clean Air Act one bit, but I would hope that you would give Governor Thompson and myself and Governor Whitman the full ability to comply with that act in a way that is good for our State. For example, we do not want to be prescribed I/M standards as we were by EPA before they started to back off.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Again, Vermont appreciates as much flexibility as you can give us in this area of Amtrak and the area of how to meet the clean air standards, and we deeply appreciate—at least I certainly do—the flexibility that was in ISTEA, and we hope that the Congress will continue to go in that direction.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

    While we have a vote, I think we can proceed with Governor Whitman. When the bells ring again and you see us starting to disappear, it is because we must get to the floor for a vote.

    Governor WHITMAN. I won't take it personally.

    The CHAIRMAN. Good. But we are delighted you are here, Governor. Thank you very much.


    Governor WHITMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Again, I would like to echo the fact that we, as governors, are very pleased to be here and have this opportunity. I am particularly pleased because I know how well served New Jersey is on this committee, and seeing Congressmen Menendez, Franks, and Martini here just gives me assurances that what I say is obviously going to be enacted into law immediately. But I do want to thank them for being here.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I'd like to reiterate what you have heard from the other governors on the importance of the flexibility issue. We in New Jersey, in fact, as in Vermont, have benefited from the flexibility in ISTEA. We appreciate that. It has given us the ability to put some of our dollars toward light rail and mass transit, which is as important to us as the continued support of the existing highway infrastructure, and we really appreciate that.

    I also want to reiterate while we, as governors, are willing to take hits and see Federal funding either flat funded or reduced, we need to know ahead of time what the dollars are going to be and work with that, and we need flexibility then, if that's what the alternative is going to be. We understand that you need to balance the Federal budget. That benefits us, as well as everybody in this country.

    We support that. But we also want to say that there has got to be another side to that, which is we need to know what we are going to have to deal with and the flexibility to be able to use those dollars in the ways that allow us to find savings but meet the needs of our constituents, because they are very real.

    I would just like to put in a last pitch, which is that I would like to urge the designation of the National Highway System by September. That's something that is very important to the State of New Jersey, as well.

    I want to thank you for this opportunity and turn it back to my fellow governors.

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

    Governor Branstad, please proceed.


    Governor BRANSTAD. Thank you. I didn't think I was going to get to be the cleanup hitter. I really appreciate that opportunity.

    First of all, I want to say that in our State we've got something called the ''road use tax fund,'' which is a separate fund from the general fund. We believe that the trust fund here nationally should be the same way. In other words, it should be off budget. It should be a separate budget so that the money goes for transportation.

    We look at it as a user fee. It is a user fee paid by the cars and the motorists—people that have cars and trucks—so that all that money should go into the transportation system. However, with the Federal user fee there is one-third of the money being siphoned off. That's point number one.

    Point number two, we want to expand the certification acceptance procedure. We eliminate the micromanagement so that the States would be allowed to use a certification process whereby the governor or designee certifies the State as following all Federal guidelines, rules, and requirements, and the Federal Government would not need to spend all this time and all this money and all this staff of unnecessary oversight and bureaucratic overkill.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mandates, sanctions, and penalties—I, like Governor Thompson—although we don't have a motorcycle manufacturing plant in Iowa, we do have a lot of Harley Davidson motorcycle riders, and we, too, are being sanctioned. We think this is an example of an unwarranted, unfair mandate that ought to be eliminated.

    Davis Bacon—it ought to be repealed. It drives up the cost. We could have—if we got rid of Davis Bacon, the equivalent of one-half cent per gallon of fuel tax that would go for road construction in our State instead of additional labor costs.

    I want to point out another example—the dual design requirements. I'm a State that has got—the Mississippi River is my eastern border, the Missouri River is our western border, and we've got all kinds of rivers going through the State. We've got a tremendous bridge cost. Dual design is required for bridges estimated to have construction cost of more than $10 million, which means they have to design it for both steel and concrete.

    In Iowa, on our major rivers these are concrete examples. On recent bridges—that dual design cost added, on the U.S. 34 bridge at Burlington, $950,000; the U.S. 30 bridge going to Blair, Nebraska—it added $340,000; the U.S. 61 bridge in Dubuque going to Illinois, $860,000. Those are some areas where you could save us some money and where, if we eliminated those kind of cost mandates, that money could go for road construction and help us meet the transportation needs of our States.

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Governor.

 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We'll take a very short recess to vote and we'll be right back here for questions for those of you who can stay.

    Thank you very much.


    The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

    Governors, we certainly appreciate your being here. I'm very much interested—and I understand a couple of you are going to have to leave momentarily—I'm very much interested in your position on taking the transportation trust funds off budget. I saw—I think in Governor Schafer's written testimony—the emphasis on full funding ISTEA and the importance of that to the governors.

    If we are able to take the transportation trust funds out of the general fund budget, then it will follow that we will be able to fund ISTEA—fully fund ISTEA, as well as do several other good things.

    I wonder if you would care to comment on how important you think it is, in terms of priorities, that we take the transportation trust funds off budget.

    Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Yes, I would like to say that in Nebraska we have attempted—and we are going to this year, through legislation—to completely wall off the highway trust funds. We like to joke back and forth between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch that we call them ''trust funds'' because we don't always trust one another.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But the key is, if you take them off the budget and the dollars that are generated from the user fees—taxes, gasoline taxes and so forth—flow into that and they remain there in isolation and they are not available for other sources, no matter how valuable other policy decisions are, that's the only way you can do it.

    We have fought off all comers in Nebraska since I have been governor, and we always will.

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

    Do any of the others want to comment on that?

    Governor BRANSTAD. I would comment a little on—we feel real strongly about this. In the State of Iowa, a Constitutional amendment was passed in the 1920s to establish the road use tax fund as a separate and dedicated fund, and into that goes the motor fuel user fees, gas tax, and diesel fuel tax, and also vehicle registration money. We also designate the use tax or the sales tax on vehicles that are purchased to go into that fund.

    Like a lot of other States in the midwest and the west, we have a tremendous amount of miles per capita, and so this is very important to us to have adequate transportation. And to be able to compete in the world economy, we need to have a good transportation system.

    We believe this would do more for rural development to help in the rural parts of our country if, indeed, you could take the trust fund off budget and it could be a separate, dedicated fund. And that's the whole idea of it. It is supposed to be a user fee in which the people that are using the highways are actually paying for it. But now they are subsidizing other things in the budget that are not going to the transportation——
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The CHAIRMAN. Has the National Governors Association taken a formal position on this issue?

    Governor SCHAFER. The National Governors Association has remained neutral on this issue. Our first focus, of course, is to get the gas tax back into the Highway Trust Fund. Second is full funding for ISTEA. Down the list further is having a——

    The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest there is a window of opportunity of perhaps 30 to 60 days, and if you don't take a forceful position on this, it may jeopardize the possibility of our succeeding in this effort.

    I would yield to my good friend from California, the ranking member, Congressman Mineta.

    Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

    Because our colleague from Pennsylvania has a Superfund question, I'd like to yield to Mr. Borski.

    Mr. BORSKI. Thank you.

    Governor Nelson, if I could I'd like to address my question to you on the Superfund. I'd like to focus on the issue of retroactive liability, and specifically on a proposal by some to repeal Superfund's retroactive liability.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    As you are well aware, in the last Congress we had a broad bipartisan approach to Superfund, supported by some in business, labor, the environmental community, and the Administration. Unfortunately, that didn't become law for a number of reasons, and that issue will be back before us this year. There is also a point out today in the ''Congress Daily'' that taxes may be out for Superfund.

    I'm curious as to the governors' position on the Superfund measure, specifically on the proposal to repeal Superfund's retroactive liability.

    We have heard repeatedly about how a repeal of retroactive liability under the Federal Superfund would adversely impact States. Among the impacts that have been cited are that lost funding would result in cleanup of fewer hazardous waste cites that threaten the health of our citizens; second, that there would be a domino effect in the 40 States that have enacted their own Superfund laws; there would be enormous pressure to follow the Federal lead and repeal retroactive liability at the State level—then neither the Federal nor the State governments would have the funding necessary to clean up these sites.

    Third, I have heard that some who favor repeal of retroactive liability have advanced freezing the national priority list as a solution to lost funding—that is, not adding any more sites to the NPL. That could only result in increasing the number of sites that are the responsibility of the States to clean up, without Federal funding.

    My question is this: in view of the consequences of repealing retroactive liability, do you favor its repeal? If so, would you fund the program through alternative sources? If so, please identify the sources. Or would you support not cleaning up existing hazardous waste sites?
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. NELSON. Well, first of all, Congressman, the position of the National Governors Association is not to encourage repeal, but if you do repeal, then the funding for that loss of liability needs to be taken care of.

    As you have indicated, I think 40 States have laws that track along, so if you were to repeal it at the Federal level and didn't adequately fund it you would subject the States to liability.

    Mr. BRANSTAD. I think, if anything, the governors would like to see changes so that, indeed, the money is not just being spent in all kinds of litigation costs. I understand the litigation costs—the share that is going for litigation costs is phenomenal, and the amount that is actually going to clean up is relatively small.

    Mr. BORSKI. I think that might be the amount of money that businesses are paying, not the fund, itself. The question is: do you favor repeal of Superfund's retroactive strict and several joint liability, and do you think that would cause more or less litigation?

    Governor BRANSTAD. I don't know. What you've got now isn't working. We're just saying we'd better fix it.

    Mr. NELSON. Excuse me. I think we are perfectly prepared to work with you to find a solution to it, because we recognize it is not fair for us to come in and say, ''Here is your problem,'' and give it back to you without working with you to find solutions, so we are very much interested in doing that.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We recognize how difficult it is. We don't think that unbridled litigation—which is expensive litigation that also costs a tremendous amount from businesses—is necessarily the answer, and so we do have to sort this out.

    We are very committed to working with you and would be delighted to do that, Mr. Chairman.

    The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, is recognized for five minutes.

    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I first would like to say to all three governors it is certainly an honor to have you with us today.

    A few months ago the front page of the New York Times had a story in which they said many scientists, economists, and government officials have reached the dismaying conclusion that much of America's environmental program has gone seriously awry. These experts say that in the last 15 years environmental policy has too often evolved largely in reaction to popular opinions—and I might add scare headlines—not in response to sound scientific analysis. As a result, the Times said, many scientist and public health specialists say billions of dollars are wasted each year in battling problems that are no longer considered dangerous.

 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I am wondering, Governor Nelson, in light of your testimony that many of these regulations are not being enforced in a cost-effective manner, do you agree with that statement from the front page of the New York Times?

    Mr. NELSON. I do. I don't know the rest of the story, as they say, but I do believe that in many instances money is spent, either by the Federal Government or by local governments or the State government, without regard to cost-benefit, without figuring out what the risk of something is continuing.

    There is, for example, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the requirement that you test for a list of contaminants whether or not any of those contaminants have ever been identified in your water supply, or without regard to the risk level that any contaminant may present in your water supply, this drives up the cost of local government, State government, Federal Government, and you don't get the benefit that you are looking for from it.

    There isn't any desire on the part of the States to have unsafe or unclean water. I guarantee you. We live there. We have the responsibility, as governors elected to protect the citizens. But when you see regulations that are not based on cost-effective risk reduction, without regard to both qualitative and quantitative measures, and it is just on the basis of you do it because it is the requirement, then everybody, I think, is harmed in the process and money is taken from them as taxpayers that could be better spent on all kinds of other ventures—maybe for the Superfund, maybe for education, maybe for economic development.

    Mr. DUNCAN. Let me ask you this. I know that all three of you have to leave very quickly, and I'll be brief, but do any of you have specific estimates as to how much these particular programs are costing your State governments, or how much your State is spending each year on unfunded mandates, in general?
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. NELSON. Let me just give you one that will stagger you a little bit. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, because of the inflexible testing requirements and the requirements to take care of the municipal water supply programs, it is costing Nebraska communities about a quarter of a billion dollars per year to comply in a way that could otherwise be avoided, and that's on the tax base of about 1.3 billion annually, so you can see what that requirement, alone, is doing to communities in the State of Nebraska.

    Mr. DUNCAN. Governor Branstad, in your testimony you requested that we repeal Davis Bacon. How much do you think your State would save if we did that?

    Governor BRANSTAD. Our Department of Transportation estimates that it adds about 2 to 5 percent, and it would be the equivalent of $0.005 gas tax that we would save by getting rid of Davis Bacon. That's significant money in my State—probably somewhere between $5 million and $10 million a year.

    I also pointed out the dual design requirements that on three bridges added nearly $1 million to one bridge, $340,000 to another, and $860,000 to a third bridge.

    There is example after example like this where Federal mandates—be it Davis Bacon, be it the dual design requirement—are adding additional cost and reducing the dollars that could be used cost effectively for transportation needs of my State and other States.

    Our Department of Transportation director, Darrel Rensink, is with me. It was his staff that helped put those figures together. He would be willing to follow up with you to get you additional information from the State of Iowa.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Also, we had a number of directors from AASHTO that were at our midwest governors' breakfast this morning from many of the other States in the midwest, and they, too, would be ready to supply members of this committee with additional information.

    We think there can be significant savings if we were given more flexibility in not having to live by Davis Bacon and dual design requirements, and also just if you give us the certification acceptance that can save a substantial amount of administrative costs, as well.

    I understand the Administration is planning a major reorganization of DOT. It seems to me this is just logical. You reorganize, downsize DOT, maybe even consider eliminating all these regional offices and whatever and all this oversight, and save that administrative cost and have that money go for transportation.

    The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

    It is my understanding that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is yielding his five minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Mineta.

    Mr. BORSKI. I so do, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much.

    Let me first of all thank you for your support of programs that are within the jurisdiction of this committee, and especially and particularly your advocacy for full funding of ISTEA. As you know, funding comes from the Appropriations Committees, but in terms of full funding we feel strongly that ISTEA should be fully funded, as well as increased funding for the Clean Water Act, and so, to that extent, your views and mine are very much alike and we track.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But let me, just as a background, explain that my own background was from local government. I was on the city council in San Jose, California. I was elected mayor for one term. I took that city from 400,000 to 560,000 in population. But, by the same token, cities are creatures or creations of State government. I think when I was in local government I thought that States treated us like illegitimate children after we were created. So I think we need to sort of step back and think a little more carefully about the relationship between Federal and State governments.

    The Federal Government raises in taxes and then sends out to State and local governments about $200 billion per year. That's just the cash that is transferred to State and local governments. It doesn't count the value of tax expenditures or services provided by the Federal Government such as flood control.

    Compared to that $200 billion in cash per year in Federal funding to State and local governments, local governments have estimated the total cost of all Federal mandates on them as about $11 billion per year, although others consider that estimate to be inflated. State costs due to Federal mandates are not estimated but are probably a bit higher than for local governments.

    But the fact remains that in this relationship State and local governments are getting about $200 billion per year from the Federal Government and are facing maybe somewhere around $50 billion in mandates per year, although that is probably a bit inflated and maybe not as accurate a figure as I would like it to be.

 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Under these circumstances, it takes a peculiar kind of bookkeeping to be talking about unfunded mandates at all. It seems to me, looking at those, that you are coming out ahead on this deal.

    Your basic position is, ''Just send money. Don't tell us what to do.'' Isn't there a very real risk that the result will be Congress saying, ''Okay. We won't tell you what to do so often, but that makes these programs less Federal in nature so we will stop the Federal funding, as well''?

    I was wondering if you might respond.

    Mr. NELSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Mineta. That's an excellent question.

    I don't think that the debate and the discussion should always center around whether or not a mandate is funded or unfunded, although I think that is a significant concern. But let's take fully-funded mandates that are overly-prescriptive or that are ''one-size-fits-all'' in nature as opposed to the flexible approach that the governors are seeking, the same way that I know mayors ask for flexibility from State government, and hopefully we are going to be as compliant there as Congress will be for us.

    The key is that it is that flexibility, the less-prescriptive approach. We don't object to having broad guidelines as to what the money should be spent for. What we do object to is when we are told specifically how to spend it, whether it is coming from Congress or whether it is coming from State budgets.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Safe Drinking Water Act, for example, is not funded. Yet, we are told specifically how to spend our money on things in a way that simply doesn't make sense.

    Consequently, it is a double whammy in that situation, but in either case it is the overly-prescriptive approach that is objectionable even when we get money.

    Mr. MINETA. But safe drinking water is the responsibility of the Commerce Committee, but let me, as an example, ask: what about ISTEA? ISTEA is something that we did in this committee in 1991. I authored it, as did Mr. Shuster. Would you say that there are flexible provisions in ISTEA that you think were improvements of where it had been prior to ISTEA in 1991?

    Mr. NELSON. According to our Department of Roads, I think there have been improvements. There is more flexibility.

    I think what we are really looking for is to establish the State's priorities without having any significant prescription coming with the money.

    As the governor elected from the State of Nebraska, I have a pretty good idea, through my Highway Commission and through my Department of Roads, to figure out what our roads needs are. I think we, with all due respect, regret that at times those decisions are made for us in statute by Members of Congress—well intentioned, but perhaps not as fully informed about what the needs are as we are. That's the objection.

 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MINETA. What about mayors and county boards?

    Mr. NELSON. Our county boards, for that portion that goes to county boards I think they have a legitimate concern when they raise those questions to the Highway Commission or to the governor or to the legislature.

    I think what we really need to do is spend more time working with one another and have trust and accountability—trust that we are going to work through it, and accountability that we spent the money in accordance with the broad, general guidelines.

    The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

    Governor Nelson, I understand you have to leave for another appointment.

    Mr. NELSON. I do.

    The CHAIRMAN. So, Governor Branstad, you're going to be in the hot seat, if that's okay with you.

    Governor BRANSTAD. I'm used to it.

    Mr. NELSON. Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, he is used to it and he is good at it. He is my neighbor to the east.

    Thank you very much, everybody.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent to insert the statement of Congressman Bob Clement?

    The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The prepared statements of Mr. Clement and Mr. Costello follow:]
    [Insert folios 1–3 here.]

    The CHAIRMAN. The distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Baker, is recognized.

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

    Let me just suggest that there has been a new election and that Washington doesn't know the best all over the world. I think we have to begin working in concert with State governors and local officials, not over them.

    I would like to point to ISTEA requiring that you use ground-up tires in the road, or otherwise we'll withhold Federal funding. You've got to have diamond lanes or we'll withhold Federal funding. You've got to mitigate sound—and in my area, the bay area that I share with former Chairman Mineta, we have created now a group of tunnels because the answer to mitigation, of course, is concrete sound walls bouncing the sound all over valleys.

    Washington doesn't always know best, and I think we have to have more of a partnership with local governments when we create these bills.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Of course you come here for money. That's because we take 40 to 46 percent of the gross personal income in America. Where else could you go? And so we've got to reduce that burden, allowing you to have more say and more programmatic say in your areas.

    I commend you for coming here, and I'd like to repeat what our chairman said: if you see something wrong, mention it in the next few days; otherwise, we'll be accused of playing just from a Republican song book and not working in concert with you, and we want you to carry to the other governors—Democrat and Republicans—if you want increased liberty, not just money, mention it so that we can put more flexibility into the laws as we go on the first 100 days.

    Thank you for coming. We appreciate all of the governors being here today.

    The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Because we have a vote coming up and because I know the governors are pressed, I will cut the time to two minutes each and recognize the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota. If we have any more time, obviously I'd be happy to extend that time.

    Mr. OBERSTAR. Governor Branstad, I'll have to hold you accountable to some degree for a statement of Governor Schafer's testimony about sanctions in the highway program. In his testimony he refers to the minimum drinking age law and standards that States are required to meet.

 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I chaired hearings on the outcome of that legislation, along with my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, who is not here today. We found that provision saved up to 5,000 lives a year.

    Some laws, such as minimum drinking age, provide great benefits. I don't think that costs the States anything. I don't think there was an outlay of money required by States. And our former chairman, now deceased, Mr. Howard, at the time included that language in the highway bill. He said, ''There are few opportunities you have in public service to save lives. This is one of them. I'm going to take criticism for it, but it is worth it. I'll never have that opportunity again.''

    Do you think States, left to their own, would have established uniform laws on that subject?

    Governor BRANSTAD. Mr. Oberstar, I think you make a good point. In terms of raising the drinking age to age 21, and also the speed limit at 55, I think those were actions that did save lives. There is no question about it.

    I think our concern is that it is not something we want to see as—because you might find a couple of instances where something like that may have made an impact, we don't think that should be an invitation for a whole host of additional mandates.

    Mr. OBERSTAR. That's not my point. My point is that there are some that are good——

 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Governor BRANSTAD. There are some.

    Mr. OBERSTAR.——and that don't cost the States anything.

    Governor BRANSTAD. As a public policy matter—and the one that you pointed out on the drinking age, I would also say, in my State, tough drunk driving laws that we have passed have made a difference, and so it is a combination of things that have made a difference there.

    The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has, unfortunately, expired.

    The distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Horn, is recognized for two minutes.

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

    I have two questions, and you can file the answers for the record if you would like.

    I think most of us on this side and the governors, regardless of party, agree on the flexibility aspect. I would simply like to know if the staff at the National Governors Association has made some specific suggestions as to the grouping of categories you would like. For example, do we take the operating money, the capital money, by various categories, put it in one budget noted as transportation, give you the flexibility at the State level to make those decisions within your State between largely urban populations, rural populations, and the different modes of transportation? That's one question. If you'd like to briefly answer, fine.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Governor BRANSTAD. The NGA staff person has informed me that we are working on policy recommendations in those areas and we may support the idea of bundling them together and block granting.If we do, we will forward the proposal to you.

    Mr. HORN. Good.

    Last question—and you can file this for the record—are there examples that the Governors Association could furnish, or you, as governor of Iowa, are familiar with, of privatization of various traditionally government-funded facilities such as sewage systems, etc.?

    Governor BRANSTAD. I can cite a couple of things we have done in the State of Iowa. Although we privatized the State liquor system——

    The CHAIRMAN. We're working with a 2-minute time limit. We'd appreciate it very much if you could provide that for the record.

    Governor BRANSTAD. Okay. We'll do that.

    The CHAIRMAN. We'd appreciate that very much if you could submit that for the record. It is an important question, and the answer is very important.

    [The information received follows:]

 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [Insert folios 4–5 here.]

    The CHAIRMAN. I'd recognize the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Wise.

    Mr. WISE. Thank you.

    Governor, as I understand it, the issue here isn't—well, let me ask you. There is a lot of controversy about mandates and how you get to a set goal such as a Safe Water Drinking Act, but the issue isn't whether or not the Federal Government actually can even set the standards, is it? Is the issue more about flexibility in reaching those standards?

    Governor BRANSTAD. The concern is—that's right. Without the flexibility it drives up costs and it takes money that could be used for transportation or other purposes away.

    Mr. WISE. But I guess I get concerned because I know that in our State we worry about what is coming downstream. Other States worry about what we are sending out. There is a need for a Federal standard at some point, is there not?

    Governor BRANSTAD. Yes. Our concern is that there needs to be flexibility in establishing those standards and not rigid guidelines that don't make any sense. We don't think that we ought to be having to test for a pesticide that has never been used in the upper midwest, for instance.

 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. WISE. Is there a petition, incidentally, for getting EPA to release you from that? I thought that you could petition to be excused from monitoring for those types of things.

    Governor BRANSTAD. L.D. McMullen—and he made international reputation as the ''flood study'' during the flood of Des Moines—was in charge of the Des Moines water works. As you know, we were wiped out by the flood of 1993. He tells me there are horrendous requirements not only on the city of Des Moines, but 900 municipalities in the State of Iowa. Many of them are very small communities. The costs are very burdensome. I think there is a 3-year requirement, too, that is also a real problem.

    The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has, unfortunately, expired.

    I recognize the gentleman from Iowa for two minutes.

    Mr. LATHAM. Governor, I would ask maybe you submit your answer for the record. What would be the effect on Iowa of the Army Corps of Engineers preferred alternative for altering the flow of the Missouri River? It is a major concern that I have and I know you share.

    The CHAIRMAN. And I would ask you to submit that for the record.

    [The information received follows:]
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [Insert folios 6–7 here.]

    The CHAIRMAN. I would recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

    Ms. NORTON. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

    If there are no further questions——

    Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to congratulate you on running a heck of a 2-minute drill.

    The CHAIRMAN. Indeed, I would thank the NGA staff for helping us put this together. The record will be held open for 30 days for any persons who want to submit a written statement for the record.

    The distinguished ranking member.

    Mr. MINETA. If I could ask unanimous consent, the record will be kept open for questions to be directed to the witnesses.

    The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, absolutely.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    This hearing stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m. the committee was adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

    [Insert 8–48 here.]

87–827 CC








 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC




JANUARY 31, 1995

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure


BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, Jr., Pennsylvania
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jr., New Hampshire
BILL BAKER, California
JAY KIM, California
STEPHEN HORN, California
BOB FRANKS, New Jersey
PETER I. BLUTE, Massachusetts
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
RANDY TATE, Washington
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

NORMAN Y. MINETA, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
PAT DANNER, Missouri
JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
BOB FILNER, California



JANUARY 31, 1995


    Branstad, Hon. Terry V., Governor, Iowa

    Dean, Hon. Howard, Governor, Vermont

    Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin, Governor, Nebraska, on behalf of the National Governors' Association

    Schafer, Hon. Edward T., Governor, North Dakota, on behalf of the National Governors' Association

    Thompson, Hon. Tommy G., Governor, Wisconsin

 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Whitman, Hon. Christine Todd, Governor, New Jersey


    Clement, Hon. Bob, of Tennessee

    Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois


    Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin

    Schafer, Hon. Edward T

    Thompson, Hon. Tommy G

    Whitman, Hon. Christine Todd


Branstad, Hon. Terry V., Governor, Iowa:
Response to question from Rep. Horn, Privatization of Government services in Iowa
Response to question from Rep. Latham, Effect on Iowa of the Army Corps of Engineers preferred alternative for altering the flow of the Missouri River
    Schafer, Hon. Edward T., Governor, North Dakota, National Governors' Association Policy, ''EDC–20. Surface Transportation''
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    Bletsch, Hon. Iris, Mayor, Boulder City, NV, statement

    Dailey, Hon. Jim, Mayor, Little Rock, AR, statement

    Edgar, Hon. Jim, Governor, Illinois, statement

    Hays, Hon. Patrick Henry, Mayor, North Little Rock, AR, statement