Segment 1 Of 2 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
Tuesday, March 3, 1998.
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
WITNESS
HON. RODNEY E. SLATER, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
Opening Remarks
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Secretary, it is 10 o'clock. I think we can begin in the interest of time. I won't have an opening statement.
We welcome you. We look forward to hearing from you. You can submit your prepared statement or summarize, whichever you believe is appropriate. Your full statement will appear in the record as read, and I recognize Mr. Sabo.
Mr. SABO. I have got to be shorter. Welcome. Good to have you here again and keep up the good work. I look forward to hearing from you.
Secretary SLATER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Sabo, and other members of the committee who will definitely join us over the course of the hearing, I want to say at the outset that I am very thankful for this opportunity to testify in support of President Clinton's fiscal year 1999 transportation budget proposal.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I would like to submit my written statement for the record——
Mr. WOLF. Without objection.
Secretary SLATER [continuing]. And make some summary remarks concerning that statement.
BUDGET REQUEST
Our $43.3 billion transportation budget, part of the first balanced budget in 30 years, continues the President's commitment to creating a balanced, integrated transportation system that is international in its reach, intermodal in its form, intelligent in its character and inclusive in its service.
When I took office a year ago, I reflected on what we need to meet the transportation challenges now and into the 21st century. Today our transportation system is the best in the world. Why? Because of technological innovations, infrastructure innovations and institutional innovations. We have, over the course of the year, developed a strategic plan that will continue such innovation, a plan that has been called the best in government. It sets goals for us to achieve as we prepare to meet the transportation challenges of the 21st century.
In order to continue the progress we have made in partnership with the Congress, we will focus our resources on five major areas: First, enhancing safety; second, improving mobility; third, promoting economic growth and trade; fourth, protecting the environment; and fifth, supporting our national security. To make real progress towards these goals, we have submitted tough performance measures. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the Subcommittee, as we implement this performance plan.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
SAFETY PROGRAMS
Now, to summarize our proposal and to lift up some of our funding recommendations—as I have said before, safety is our top priority. Our goal for 1999 is to reduce the number of transportation-related deaths to below 1995 levels, despite increased travel. To do this, our budget proposes $3.1 billion for safety programs, an 11 percent increase over this year and a record 7.3 percent of our total budget. This includes funding for tough laws dealing with measures against drunk driving, expanding the use of seat belts, targeting unsafe motor carriers while reducing regulatory burdens on safe ones, and hiring additional aviation and rail safety personnel. Last year the subcommittee supported our proposal for increased safety funding. We appreciate that and look forward to your support of this year's proposal.
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
As relates to mobility, clearly mobility means getting Americans to the places they wish to go, through a balanced and integrated transportation system. We propose a record $30 billion in infrastructure investment. This is 42 percent above the 1990–1993 average.
One year ago today, Mr. Chairman, you spoke on the House floor about America's transportation needs; and you stated, ''Clearly the transportation community is at an important crossroads. However, highway programs must continue to be only one component of a balanced transportation system, one that meets the needs of highway users, as well as those that depend on public transportation.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, we could not agree with you more.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
TRANSIT CAPITAL FUNDING
We want to increase transit capital funding to $4.6 billion. This includes $100 million for our Access to Jobs program, and this effort will help those individuals move from welfare rolls to payrolls and get to where the jobs are.
AMTRAK AND AIP
We also want to ensure a balanced inner city transportation system by raising Amtrak investment to $621 million, helping Amtrak to achieve operating self-sufficiency. And we want to increase FAA funding, paying for additional air traffic controllers and maintenance technicians. Also, we hope to maintain $1.7 billion for the airport improvement program.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
In the area of economic growth and trade, maintaining America's competitive edge requires we improve efficiency. We propose a record $1.1 billion for technology, including $250 million for intelligent transportation systems, which can cut by a third the cost of the new highway capacity that is needed. We propose $90 million for the Flight 2000 program, to demonstrate technologies and operating procedures which will lead to more efficient free flight, and we also propose $100 million for an innovative infrastructure credit program and $150 million for our State infrastructure banks program.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our budget has a record $1.9 billion to protect the environment, to help communities clean their air. We have budgeted $1.3 billion for our Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program. We also seek to reduce emissions associated with global climate change and we want to fund the Advanced Vehicles program, a partnership to cut pollution and energy consumption by trucks and other large vehicles.
On the national security front, we know that we live in a world with risk, and to support our national security programs, to protect Americans from deliberate harm, we propose significant investments in infrastructure as well. The Coast Guard's drug and interdiction effort is vital to America's security, and we want to increase its budget to $437 million. We also propose $100 million to provide airports with machines to detect explosives and to help airlines test jet cargo containers.
REAUTHORIZATION OF AVIATION AND SURFACE PROGRAMS
In closing, Mr. Chairman, much of the progress that I have described today depends on aviation and surface transportation programs which need to be reauthorized. We are currently developing our proposal for aviation reauthorization, drawing upon the recommendations of the National Civil Aviation Review Commission.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) reauthorization plan is pending before Congress. As Congress takes up the 1999 budget, timely reauthorization must be a top priority. I am pleased the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is acting today to mark up the reauthorization bill in the Senate; however, I must note that I am disappointed that no additional funding was added for transit. I plan to work with the Congress to correct this situation.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As we work with Congress on these bills, the President's proposal for a Transportation Fund for America can help us overcome obstacles that have cropped up in past efforts. This fund could assure users that new resources continue to be associated with targeted spending. All of this can be described as common-sense government—government delivering what people need as efficiently as possible.
Mr. Chairman, the budget I have described helps us to achieve our strategic goals, it helps us to respond to the transportation challenges of a new century, and helps us to ensure more and more that transportation is the tie that binds.
The President and I stand ready to work with you and members of the Committee and the entire Congress to pass a transportation budget that gives us the tools to do as the President says: strengthen our nation for the 21st century. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to responding to any questions that you or members of the Committee might have.
[The prepared statement and biography of Rodney Slater follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I understand you have to be at the White House at 1:45 for an appointment, is that correct?
Secretary SLATER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, but this is a very important meeting, and we want to take care of our business before this committee as well.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. WOLF. We will go straight through the lunch hour and we will try to accommodate your schedule. I have a whole series of questions which we will go through as the day goes on, but in deference to the other members who have other appointments or are chairing other hearings, I will recognize them first.
FAA MANAGEMENT AND YEAR 2000 PROGRAM
I just have two opening comments and questions.
Secretary SLATER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WOLF. I personally am very, very worried about the FAA. You saw the editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. It is called the Air Traffic Wreck, it says, ''It won't seem quaint when the Year 2000 befalls us,'' talking about the Year 2000 program. ''Congress was informed this month by various experts, including the Transportation Department's own Inspector General, that the FAA lags woefully behind schedule in repairing date-related computer glitches and almost certainly won't have the necessary fixes completed by the millennium. We are not talking about expanding capacity to catch up with the growing economy and growing air travel; we are talking only about preventing the system from collapsing in a heap in 21 months.''
It went on to say, ''Scarier still is a revelation that the FAA gave itself a deadline of November of 1999, leaving itself only 2 months' slack. Whom is it kidding? The FAA is an agency that fell 15 years behind in its major computer upgrade, a job that still remains unfinished.''
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I am sure you saw the article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
''Even when it is done, it will consist of a technology that in any other part of the economy would be on its way to the junkyard; instead, it is just being installed. Yet the FAA continues to fumble in the dark. We use the expression advisedly. Several times in the past 3 years, the screens and communications have indeed gone dark at vital traffic control centers. Radio and radar contact with 300 flights was lost when the Kansas City control center went down a week before Christmas, then again in Florida a few days later.
The FAA failures have become an authentic crisis, a word much overworked in Washington, but one that really applies this time. Meanwhile, the airlines are stuck rationing the systems' inadequate capacity the only way they can, higher fares.''
We sent a letter, we met with the IG, we have met with the FAA with regard to the Year 2000 program. I am really concerned. I think you have to do more than is being done today.
Secondly, I believe that it is very difficult to measure the progress or lack of progress at the FAA. We need to establish an office within the FAA, working with external people, to monitor the progress on the Year 2000, the progress on WAAS, the progress on STARS. We have asked Jim Hall, who has agreed to provide a person from the National Transportation Safety Board; Ken Mead the IG has also done the same; as well as John Anderson from GAO. I think NASA and several other groups should be involved. There really is a credibility problem, certainly a perception, that the FAA isn't measuring up.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
So the one question I will have before I recognize other members of the Committee, is why are you confident that you have a handle on the Year 2000, the WAAS, and please comment on the article in the Journal yesterday. Would you tell us a little bit about that and about your thoughts with regard to how we can monitor the FAA to make sure they are keeping on track both in procurement and particularly in the safety areas.
Secretary SLATER. First of all, let me say, I think these articles that are beginning to appear in publications across the country are sobering reminders of the challenge that we have before us. But I can tell you that we have new leadership at the FAA—Administrator Garvey, who is on board, who is a proven manager, who will work with the entire FAA but also the entire Department staff, to ensure that we meet our obligations when it comes to ensuring our air traffic control system is Y2K-compliant, not only on that important day of January 1st, but long before that. We actually hope to have all of our work done by January of 1999 so we can use the full year of 1999 to test and continue to assess our compliance.
We have recently completed a review of what we call our critical FAA missions systems, and we have found that 125 of some 200 systems are already Y2K-compliant. We have a program in place to test the remainder of the systems over a time certain. We will continue to monitor that effort and continue to be vigilant as we ensure that the equipment is compliant.
We have made a request to the Congress for additional resources, I think about $30 million or so, to give us the dollars we need to take these actions over the course of the year. We have also completed a review of our host computer system, and we have determined that we need to move forward to replace that equipment. We have also established within the Department a Department-wide Y2K initiative, headed by the Deputy Secretary. I designated him to oversee that effort, to put in place a schedule where senior officials within all of the modal administrations will report directly to him on a regular basis. We then will monitor their efforts.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We will work with the Congress to continue to monitor our progress in this regard, but we intend to meet our obligations when it comes to ensuring that our system is compliant, a year before we actually have to test it in a real-life situation. You have that commitment from me, and I look forward to working with you and the other members of the committee and the Congress in that regard.
As relates to the idea of putting together the committee that would include not only leadership from the Department, but also, as you mentioned, the NTSB and NASA and others—Mr. Chairman, I think that is a good idea. I should say that we are actually working with many of these stakeholders currently, but setting up a monitoring committee, I think would be a good idea, and I look forward to working with you and other members of the Committee who would have an interest in that.
Mr. WOLF. We are going to put something in the bill to do that, because I think the Congress and the public have to have some measuring device. The slippage in so many of these programs over the years has been so dramatic. It is hard to believe why the FAA did not move on this a year ago or a year-and-a-half ago; perhaps it was because Mr. Hinson had left and there was a vacancy.
Also, I might say—and then I will end and recognize Mr. Sabo—I don't think Ms. Garvey has moved fast enough; she does not have enough of her own people around her. She has been on the job for over 6 months. You are losing Mr. Donohue, and I worry she has not brought in top-flight, knowledgeable people.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
She should have been getting the very best from the DOD, the very best from the private sector, the very best from Mitre Corporation, the very best from NASA and others; and I don't believe you have brought in enough of your own people to really get a handle on the FAA, and I think you have to be bold and innovative and imaginative because this is a very important issue.
Secretary SLATER. Yes.
COAST GUARD HEARING MOTION
Mr. SABO. Do you want to deal with the motion first?
Mr. WOLF. Yes. Mr. Rogers, the Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Subcommittee has asked the Commandant of the Coast Guard to provide testimony to the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard's drug interdiction activities. Since a disclosure of these specific activities would endanger the national security and compromise sensitive law enforcement activities, it is necessary that a portion of the Coast Guard hearings scheduled for March 5 be closed to the public. This closed session will be brief, but it will be the first order of business when the subcommittee reconvenes on March 5, and will be followed immediately by the Commandant's testimony in support of the President's budget request for 1999 open to the public; and pursuant to Mr. Rogers' request, we are doing this.
So I move a portion of the Coast Guard hearing related to classified matters scheduled for Thursday, March 5, at 10:00 be closed in conformance with clause (2)(g), Rule 11 of the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the roll.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The CLERK. Mr. Livingston.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. DeLay.
Mr. DELAY. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. DeLay votes aye.
Mr. Regula.
[No response.]
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Rogers votes aye.
Mr. Packard.
Mr. PACKARD. Aye.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The CLERK. Mr. Packard votes aye.
Mr. Callahan.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Tiahrt.
Mr. TIARHT. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Tiahrt votes aye.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Aye.
Mr. Aderholt votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Sabo.
Mr. SABO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Sabo votes aye.
Mr. Torres.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Olver.
Mr. OLVER. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Olver votes aye.
Mr. Pastor.
Mr. PASTOR. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Pastor votes aye.
Mr. Cramer.
Mr. CRAMER. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Cramer votes aye.
Mr. Obey.
[No response.]
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The CLERK. Mr. Wolf.
Mr. WOLF. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Wolf votes aye.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Sabo.
ACQUISITION PROCESS
Mr. SABO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I share the concerns expressed by the Chairman as they relate to the problem for the year 2000. Let me, however, also express a broader concern as it relates to acquisition. This is not a question; I will move to the question later.
My observation over a good number of years is that we just have a terrible time on any major procurements at the Federal level and, not unique to this administration, it goes—whatever the administration and regardless of agency it just seems that in agency after agency, when we move to major procurements, we have major problems; and at some point, my own judgment is, we ask operational agencies to handle a major procurement they are somehow not equipped to do, then we run into problems. Then we try to make villains of people for doing what they probably aren't equipped to do, and we go on making the same mistakes from agency to agency.
I just think it is a very fundamental issue that at some point has to be addressed beyond individual departments.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Normally, then, we decide we want to do some independent structure, and I am not sure that solves anything. It puts the same culture, the same framework off by itself, whether it is FAA or IRS or whatever agency.
I just think at some point there needs to be a real centralized task force in the administration, looking at how we go through the process of planning major new acquisitions, and—because I know I had this conversation with Mr. Rogers some time ago about an agency he funds, the same experience; and it just seems to—you know, it goes on all the time. And I don't know the answer, but I think it would—we have wasted billions of dollars throughout the government in faulty procurement that just never gets off the ground, never accomplishes goals. I don't know if we tried to do too much to start with or some place, somehow, the planning process just breaks down, system-wide.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION
Let me—I would like to hear from you where we are in relationship to the reauthorization bill. What is our time frame when we really start running into problems this year? And I have to say that I also appreciate your comment that if we are going to add dollars, it should not just be for additional dollars for highways.
As I understand what is happening in the Senate, they are adding dollars. They don't know where they are coming from in relationship to trade-offs, but as I understand it, they are all highway monies, no transit money, no enhancement money. I am not sure if they are increasing some of the things to increase the capacity use, like intelligent vehicle systems or not, I just read brief descriptions of it, but it seems to me that if we are going to make the decision, we are going to take money away from other programs to spend within ISTEA, that there has to be some balance in how those dollars are spent; and clearly, the additions I see in the Senate don't achieve those goals.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. First of all, Congressman Sabo, let me say that we are encouraged by the action that we are beginning to see in the Congress dealing with ISTEA reauthorization.
Let me also say, before getting into the details of that response, I do think it important to say thanks to the Congress for at least giving the FAA the acquisition reform legislation, and also the personnel reform legislation that was passed recently, that really gives us an opportunity to try to deal with these very thorny and difficult acquisition questions that you reference and that are a part of our reauthorization and our modernization initiative.
So I want to begin my remarks by thanking the Congress for giving us at least the ability to be much more aggressive, much more forthright and timely in dealing with acquisition questions. We look forward to staying in touch with you to keep you informed of our progress in that regard because we are learning as we go and we do intend to seek the best professional advice in this regard available.
Back to the issue of reauthorization, it is true that we are beginning to see some progress. The good thing is that both major bills in the House and in the Senate reflect the key principles that were identified in our National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act (NEXTEA) proposal that was introduced a year ago this month. We talked about the need for maintaining flexibility within the program that allows State and local officials to make determinations about how those resources should best be spent to respond to the transportation needs that they know exist.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We also sought maximum investment with our program, with a focus on safety, a focus on the environment, a focus on helping people move from welfare to work. All of those principles are retained within the two bills that are moving forward—one in the House, one in the Senate.
I did mention that the concern we have about the action taken by the Senate yesterday doesn't relate to the question of additional resources. It does relate, though, to the issue of whether there will be a balanced approach to the granting of those resources—will we take care of transit needs as well as highway needs, and will we continue to focus on questions like the environment and safety and the like? And we will continue to work with the Congress as we move forward.
We are very concerned that we move forth as expeditiously as possible because, as you know, ISTEA actually expired last year, but Congress then passed an extension for 6 months. The extension expires May 1st of this year, and that is less than 60 days away, and so it is incumbent upon us to continue to act in a forthright and timely fashion in reauthorizing this most important piece of legislation.
The areas that will be hurt most severely, if we fail to act and fail to pass some kind of extension, would be the safety programs—motor carrier safety; also our ability to work with States to deal with questions like drunk driving laws; and rail safety, to a degree. So it is very important that we move on the program for that purpose.
Also, if many States are unable to move forward with the awarding of contracts early in the year, then we stand the chance of losing an entire construction season, and that is a matter of major concern for States in the Northeast and the Upper Midwest. So that is also a matter of great concern to us.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We also have two particular agencies within the Department of Transportation that depend on administrative funds being taken down from these resources. Those are the Federal Highway Administration and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. As you know, both of those agencies are very important to States and local governments when it comes to moving through the performance chain as it relates to designing and moving a contract to actual construction.
So those are the major areas of concern. But again, we are seeing activity and we are going to continue to work with the Congress to ensure that the bill is passed in a timely fashion.
Mr. PACKARD. Would the gentleman yield for a moment on that point?
Do you have a contingency plan if we go beyond the May 1st deadline?
Secretary SLATER. We put most of our contingency thinking on the table before the Congress when this matter came up in September of last year. We have stretched the resources about as far as they can go.
We don't think we will be able to minimize the adverse impacts that could result if this bill is not passed in a timely fashion. We will do whatever we can; we will continue to think creatively with the Congress as we move forward, but it is really imperative that we deal with this most important piece of domestic legislation before the Congress—before that May 1st deadline.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. PACKARD. Thank you.
Mr. SABO. Just one follow-up question. And I don't understand all the technicalities on how States can proceed with bids and what they can bid today and what they have to hold back, but I represent a northern State and we have had a mild winter, which would lead one to believe El Niño has had some good effects in our State—mild winter, not much snow on the ground, and a construction season that could likely start earlier than normal.
They are limited by whatever proportion you can commit from the 6-month extension. Anything beyond that, they have to wait for actual contract-letting until further action on ISTEA occurs; is that right?
Secretary SLATER. That is correct. I would assume, Congressman Sabo, that in Minnesota in particular, they probably let contracts to take advantage of the mild construction season that they now enjoy, so you probably have work under way, but they have not been able to do what they would normally have done in a situation like this, and that is to actually front-end load many of the contracts that they would have let because of their assurance that the resources would be forthcoming, so as to really pack into this construction season as many projects as possible.
So without knowing the particulars of the case in Minnesota, that is an assumption I would make, based on my experience as a transportation official in years past.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SABO. Thank you.
HOUSTON METRO
Mr. WOLF. Mr. DeLay.
Mr. DELAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you, and welcome to the committee again. During my questioning, I would like to bring up a couple of parochial things, and I will come back during a second round to national issues.
As you may know, Houston Metro serves the fourth largest city and third most populous county in the Nation, yet for some 18 months, your department has denied Metro Federal funding for all construction projects because Metro, through no fault of its own, was prohibited by a Federal court order from implementing its federally approved DBE program. Throughout that period, the Department exhibited, in my view, a very inflexible and excessively bureaucratic posture in responding to Metro's dilemma of having to comply with the court order while at the same time facing a contradictory requirement in the law.
Fortunately, however, the FTA finally granted Metro a temporary waiver from the DBE regulations which allowed Metro to proceed with its construction program, using a race- and gender-neutral small business development program. As you know, Mr. Secretary, that exemption is due to expire at the end of this month. In the meantime, Metro continues to operate under the constraints of the Federal court order and is unlikely to be released from those constraints for months, if not years, while Metro appeals the district court ruling that invalidated its DBE program as unconstitutional.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Can you give me any reason why your Department wouldn't, as a matter of course, grant an extension of that waiver?
Secretary SLATER. Yes. First of all, let me say, Congressman DeLay, we appreciate the opportunity we have had to work with you to address this matter; and we appreciate your vigilance in continuing to press us on the issue, so as to provide maximum leeway for the City of Houston. Let me just say that in response to that, we want to continue to be mindful; and for that reason, we have already extended, once again, that date from April to October of this year, and we will continue to work with you in that regard.
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) REGULATIONS
Mr. DELAY. That is great to hear. I understand that Houston is not the only Federal grant recipient, though, to be sued for trying to satisfy the Department's DBE requirement. How does the DOT plan to deal with these cases where Federal grant recipients are judicially precluded from meeting your DBE requirements?
Secretary SLATER. Well, we will continue to address them on a case-by-case basis, depending on what restriction might be applied by virtue of court order or some other kind of official action, but I can tell you that in all of the instances, we will be as flexible and as forthcoming as we have been in the case involving Houston Metro.
Mr. DELAY. Are you looking at this situation within your own Department as you develop recommendations for reforming the program, especially in light of the Adarand decision.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. We are. As you know, the President has challenged all of the administration to work on projects and programs of this nature so as to mend them and to ensure that they are compliant with Adarand. We are in the process of working across the administration and, clearly, within the department to do just that. We will soon, actually, have actions that we will announce that will go to the heart of that particular matter.
But our objective is, again, to mend the programs, to make them compliant with Adarand and to continue the benefits that we derive from the program, allowing women, minority-owned businesses, and small businesses to participate in this dynamic industry and to help in the rebuilding of America.
Mr. DELAY. Well, do you have any plans for considering approaches such as Houston's, which could very well be acceptable to the courts?
Secretary SLATER. Oh, yes, yes, we do.
Mr. DELAY. Are you going to let us see them?
Secretary SLATER. We will continue to work with the Committee and with members who have expressed an interest. We will do that, and look forward to doing that. As a matter of fact, it is situations like the Houston Metro case that have continued to give us insight as to how we might be able to modify our program so as to preserve the benefits of the program, but ensure that they are in compliance with the Supreme Court's Adarand decision, which, as you know, raises the standard by which these programs are to be measured.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I–69 DESIGNATION
Mr. DELAY. I want to switch gears a little bit.
I–69 is very important to Houston and actually, to every State from Indiana through Texas. As you know, the NHS Designation Act of 1995 designated these high-priority corridors—18 and 20, I–69—as future parts of the interstate system. The Corridor 20 feasibility study released in August of 1996 and the special issue study released in July of 1997, together identify most of that route. At this point, the route of I–69 is now mostly known; there remain a couple of disagreements, but they are fairly small.
In spite of all this, the States along the corridor have had a great deal of difficulty in getting future Interstate–69 signs erected. In fact, in Texas, we have had to put up blank future Interstate signs without the numerical designation. I am working with Chairman Shuster to correct this in BESTEA.
Could you work with us to ensure that future I–69 signs are placed along the route that everybody knows is the future site for I–69?
Secretary SLATER. Definitely. I look forward to doing so.
Mr. DELAY. Since the corridors were first identified in the 1991 ISTEA, there have been a number of federally and State-funded feasibility and location studies. Those studies started by identifying 93 possible route locations, which have been narrowed down to a known highly cost-effective route. Corridor 18 has a cost-benefit ratio of $1.57 in return for every dollar invested, and Corridor 20 has a return ranging from $1.49 to $1.72; in the course of picking the most effective route, a lot of the segments were considered and rejected.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There is interest among some Members of Congress in legislatively adding back sections that were eliminated in the engineering studies, or never even considered at all. Could you discuss the possible impact of those legislatively designated route additions; and would they not reduce the overall cost-benefit of I–69 and slow down that project and reduce its competitiveness with other corridors?
Secretary SLATER. Well, let me say as it relates to I–69, we have done a considerable amount of work, as you know, funding various studies, that have determined that the route is economically feasible, which is quite a significant feat, when you consider that the route would go through, frankly, one of the most economically depressed areas of the country; but it was determined that this kind of investment effort would actually serve to revitalize those areas. So I think that all of that is commendable.
I can tell you that from the vantage point of the Department of Transportation, we wish to work with the parties that are interested in these corridors and to do so in a way that will move us to actual design and construction as soon as possible.
And as we are talking about additional resources for infrastructure investment, this is an ideal time and opportunity to do just that, so I would be concerned about doing too many things that would continue to add to the length of the time that would be required before we can move to actual design and construction.
[The information follows:]
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In general, adding segments would increase both the area served by the Corridor as well as the construction, operating and maintenance costs. The specific effect would depend on the nature of the segment. For example, adding an additional major river crossing or an urban link with numerous interchanges might substantially increase both mobility and cost. Adding an existing segment which has already been improved to freeway standards would probably result in minimal improvement in mobility, but also only a small increase in cost.
Mr. DELAY. Is that a commitment for I–69 that I just heard?
Secretary SLATER. That is a commitment to working with you and the individual States to move forward in this process. I want to qualify my response just a bit because we still have to deal with the issue of how it is paid for and that is going to require everyone coming to the table, but I can assure you that the Department of Transportation will be there, and this Secretary will be there to work with you and others who, I know, are very, very interested in this project.
Mr. DELAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will wait for another round.
FAA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Olver.
Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I am not quite sure how I got so completely in between these microphones, but Mr. Secretary, it is good to have you here again.
Secretary SLATER. Thank you, Congressman Olver.
Mr. OLVER. You were here—in place roughly a year, and I must say it must be one of the most exciting jobs in government that you have. My sense is that after Education, I think after education and maybe our commitment to research and development, there is probably nothing that is more critical than the investments in infrastructure and transportation infrastructure for keeping an economy going and really growing over time.
So I am very interested, and am very pleased with the high level of investment that you put forward in rail and transit for the urban areas, and the airport improvement and things all up and down the line. I would like to just sort of piggyback on what the Chairman and the Ranking Member have said about FAA.
Secretary SLATER. Yes.
Mr. OLVER. And I hesitate a little because the Administrator is an old friend, and I have very high respect for her administrative abilities. She has only been there half a year, and you have given rather brave talk, I think, about how we are going to deal with the host computer and Y2K along the way.
Beyond those, we have even the process of how to replace and rebuild an air traffic control system. Personnel, as part of the computer issue—is, clearly, also very critical.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I hope you are on target on the brave talk, and I suppose I am playing to what my Ranking Member said about we need to be—to build a process to do these things, because perhaps more than anywhere else in transportation, the computerization of the whole system is critical to the operation. It probably in subtle ways is critical in a lot of other places, but it is more obviously critical in air transportation in the whole FAA operation. And yet, here we are with a host computer which—I keep being told by reputable people that it is generations behind—generations in computerization are sometimes less than 3 years, often less than 3 years, but generations behind.
We just haven't been doing it. One doesn't get to that situation in a year. This has taken us a long time. We had to work to get ourselves into this situation, where our computerization is that far behind. We are trying to deal with that matter.
And then the Y2K thing, which you are saying we are in control of, but I am hearing and reading there are several airlines that have said they won't fly on January 1st of the year 2000 if we have not resolved the issues here that are so serious for the whole program. And I guess I am not convinced that we are going to be there by the year 2000, by January 1st of 2000.
I know you are putting forward a very brave front, but I am wondering whether it is a brave front or whether we have the systems in place to deal with that. This computerization thing is big, it is expensive. This one is running into problems.
We had one in dealing with the IRS computerization over there, which has been just fits and starts in computerization there; it is at least as far behind. With a country as completely committed to modernization and to technology, that the major government computing systems are in such shambles—I really am not convinced that you are going to be out of this woods by January 1st of the year 2000.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Can you help me?
Secretary SLATER. Well, let me just say, Congressman Olver, that clearly this is a matter that requires our best effort, and I think it is important to note at the outset, as we deal with these issues, that our aviation system is the safest in the world and that what we are seeking to do is to make a safe system safer, and that we do have to make some decisions that—frankly—it would have been good had we made them earlier, but nonetheless, we are challenged and have the responsibility to make those decisions now.
I noted at the outset of my earlier response that clearly all of the articles and all of the discussions are very sobering in that they challenge us to question every assumption and every assessment that we made up to this point, and they require that we be eternally vigilant as we check and double-check all of our assessments. And we are doing that, but I can assure you and the members of this committee that when it is all said and done, we will have put forth the very best effort possible. We will have worked with members of this committee, we will have challenged and energized all of the individuals who are responsible within our individual modes, and here we are talking about especially the FAA.
We will have sought the input from the private sector, we will have touched all of the bases to make the very best effort possible. I believe that that effort will be sufficient; I am confident in that regard. But I can tell you that every day, as we read about the challenges and come to a greater understanding of the challenges we face, that we are required to continue to question, reassess, recheck, and then move forward; and that is the spirit in which we accept the responsibility we have.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And I just want to make sure that we continue to have the opportunity to confer with this Committee, to respond to your comments and questions in this regard as we move forward. We clearly don't have a day or an opportunity to waste; I recognize that, and I come before the Committee with that understanding. We are going to give this our very best effort.
Mr. OLVER. You know, it is very easy for all of us, as members, to understand and be advocates and really push for the big transit projects—the Amtrak modernizations and lines for those of us who really are concerned about the corridors that are involved there, for the airport improvements, the construction improvements and so forth—it is obvious and it is very clear, very easy to follow where those investments go and what those investments buy.
When you have got a core investment in infrastructure, in the technology infrastructure here of the computer systems, I don't understand it. There are probably a fair number of others that don't either, but it is—nothing is going to float here unless that stuff, at least in relation to the FAA, is there. And I can't even judge whether you are asking for enough money or whether you have got the systems that are going to do it in place, but it grinds to a halt if that isn't done.
Whether we improve and build more airports or name them or whatever we do with them, this computerization thing is really horrendous. It is neglect and it is—you know, you don't get there without a degree of neglect over a considerable period of time with this sort of situation. We really do need to make this system right and with a big, correct expenditure.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. Well, Congressman, your point is well taken, and that is why in the R&D area, we requested a 10 percent increase in investment. Also, I mentioned earlier we have requested an additional $30 some-odd-million to invest in our modernization effort. This is on top of the increase that we request in our budget.
So we are trying to put the resources on the table, but we are also trying to put in place a process that will ensure that those resources are expended for the appropriate purposes. It is a very daunting challenge, but it is one that we are stepping up to the plate to address. And I appreciate your concerns in this regard. I am sure that we may have, over time, hearings that will be devoted solely to a discussion of this issue; and at that time, clearly we will be able to get into more detail.
Also—I think we may have mentioned this, Mr. Chairman, either in the meeting the other day or afterwards, but—after our meeting, we talked a lot about the whole question of our team that we put in place at the FAA. And we discussed internally that one thing we might do is to invite you and other members of the committee who were interested in this matter to our site where we have our senior leadership in place to review the plan that we are putting in place, and frankly, to get the benefit of your thinking and response to that. We plan to do that with key leaders in the private sector, the aviation industry and others, and I think that it would be good to do with the members of the Committee.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you. We will come out and visit.
I am very skeptical as to whether or not you are going to make it. If you look at the record of the past, since 1982, the FAA has failed on all of these target dates. Also, the ability to attract the people who have the necessary skills, it is so difficult because they are hiring in the private sector. There was an article the other day. They are trying to get the people to come up here and get the computers here on Capitol Hill in order.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Rogers.
ANNOUNCEMENTS WITHOUT INFORMING MEMBERS
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you again.
Secretary SLATER. Thank you, Congressman Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS. It is certainly good to visit with you. Mr. Secretary. A member has informed us that sometimes that member reads about an important announcement from your department in the local newspaper, not having known about it before. What do you say about that?
Secretary SLATER. Congressman, I think that if that happens as an exception, it is an oversight that is probably explainable, but if it happens as a matter of course, then that is unacceptable; and where we find that to be the case, I can assure you that we will rectify the situation.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, certainly a Member of Congress that represents that district is pertinent and key to the information; is that correct?
Secretary SLATER. That is correct.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROGERS. And should learn about it without reading it in the newspaper?
Secretary SLATER. That is correct.
Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
What is your policy with regard to that? Because there was a problem last year with a member of the committee. What is your policy with regard to the notification?
Secretary SLATER. Our effort is to identify clearly all key members—if it is in a congressional district, then clearly that Member of Congress, but also, the Senators of the State—and to do all of that before there is a public announcement, giving them the opportunity to make the announcement locally. That is generally the way we handle it. We also, from time to time, will be in touch with governors or mayors, especially if they have expressed an interest in a given project. But that is the procedure.
Mr. ROGERS. I thank you.
Secretary SLATER. A Member should not have to read about a project in the paper.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. Yes, sir.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. ROGERS. I want to ask you about the national highway traffic safety, part of your budget request.
Secretary SLATER. Yes.
Mr. ROGERS. You gave that the largest percent increase, 22 percent, the largest budget proposal increase in your whole budget; and as I understand, those monies are spent through the award of block grants and incentive grants to States to improve driver behavior and also to increase law enforcement measures.
That is a very attractive request, to improve safety on our Nation's highways. I would like to talk to you about improving the safety of our Nation's highways.
In 1996, almost 42,000 people died in accidents on our highways. That is increasing; it is up 2,500 just since 1992. FHWA maintains that road design contributed to 30 percent of those fatalities, that is, 12,000 people who died because of defective road design. I rode in my district, if you want to be parochial on the subject, the Daniel Boone Parkway. This past year, 44 people have died on that single, 40-mile stretch of road, by most people's accounts, because it is defectively designed.
Can the monies that are in your budget for traffic safety administration, can they be used for highways like the Daniel Boone Parkway, to improve the design and correct deficiencies in design that are causing people's lives to be lost?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. Well, first of all, let me just say that you are correct in noting that NHTSA, our highway safety program, is where we are providing the largest increase. Second is aviation. Aviation is about 18 percent; for NHTSA, the funding increase is 22 percent.
That program is, as you noted, Congressman, primarily designed to benefit law enforcement officials and to aid States and local governments in promoting education programs. The total amount of that budget under our proposed 1999 budget is about $406 million. We are requesting, frankly, a much larger investment increase on the infrastructure investment side, which goes to the heart of your question.
If you look at what we, through the assistance of the Congress, are able to provide to States in 1998, we maintain that in 1999, and those numbers are actually 42 percent higher than the average for the first 4 years of the decade.
Mr. ROGERS. How can the country deal with problems like the Daniel Boone Parkway in my district that are defectively designed?
Secretary SLATER. Sure.
Mr. ROGERS. You are saying that these NHTSA monies could not be used for that purpose?
Secretary SLATER. That is correct.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROGERS. What could be used for that purpose?
Secretary SLATER. All of the monies that would fall into your funding categories dealing with the National Highway System (NHS), dealing with the surface transportation programs, basically your infrastructure investment programs. There may be a way of using enhancement funds if it is a parkway, as you mentioned—I made a note of the 42 or so lives lost, if I am not mistaken.
Mr. ROGERS. Forty-four.
Secretary SLATER. And this is a project that, frankly, we would like to—and welcome an opportunity to—look at in partnership with the Kentucky Department of Transportation, to see if there are other funding sources that might be leveraged to address this particular issue.
Mr. ROGERS. I would appreciate that very much, so we can count on——
Secretary SLATER. You can count on our response in that regard.
Mr. ROGERS. That would be great if you could work with the State to see if there is a way we can remedy the problem. It is a massacre that is ongoing.
Secretary SLATER. Yes.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
DOT REQUEST FOR HIGHWAY SPENDING
Mr. ROGERS. Now, what did you request of OMB for highway spending this year.
Secretary SLATER. You mean, before we got——
Mr. ROGERS. Cut by the OMB.
Secretary SLATER. Well, Congressman, you know, I am supportive of——
Mr. ROGERS. I understand.
Secretary SLATER. Yes, sir. You——
Mr. ROGERS. You don't need to say all that speech. You are supportive of the President's budget request and you are a loyal troop and soldier and you are going to go all the way with him, I know.
How much did you ask for before you got cut?
Secretary SLATER. As much as possible. Let me just say that we requested that we maintain our record level of investment, and that is what we have done with this budget.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I should also add that last week at a meeting with the governors—I had a meeting with the governors—it was stressed that along with education, as has been mentioned earlier in other important investment initiatives, that transportation would be high on the list.
The President indicated his support for the speedy reauthorization of ISTEA, as well as a willingness to consider an increase in transportation infrastructure and investment, so long as we maintained our fiscal responsibility and maintained our commitment to a balanced budget, which is historic. And so there is clearly a willingness on the part of the administration to entertain recommendations for additional resources for transportation, but we want to do it in a way that is consistent with the balanced budget agreement that was entered between the administration and the Congress just last year.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, you requested $21.850, right, billion, $21,850,000,000?
Secretary SLATER. That is what we got with highways.
Mr. ROGERS. Oh, for fiscal 1999?
Secretary SLATER. Yes.
Mr. ROGERS. That is what you asked of OMB?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. That is what we got.
Mr. ROGERS. How much did you ask is what I am trying to get at. It is a simple question.
Secretary SLATER. As much as possible, seriously.
Mr. ROGERS. What did you ask of—a specific figure of the OMB?
Secretary SLATER. I am pretty sure that it was basically this number. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. ROGERS. You got all you asked for?
Secretary SLATER. We got all we asked for.
Mr. ROGERS. Why didn't you ask for more?
Secretary SLATER. We asked for a lot. That is quite significant. That brings the budget to record level totals.
Mr. ROGERS. As I understand it, it is $34 million less than the current level.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. No.
Mr. ROGERS. It is not a decrease from the 1998 enacted level?
Secretary SLATER. No. I understand that only as it relates to demos—and that is because we have moved considerably on our investment in demos over the life of ISTEA—that it is a reduction in the outlays as it relates to demos.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, as I am sure you are aware, the Senate—the Senate, apparently, last night, voted to increase funding levels for highways. As I understand it, that proposal in the Senate would yield $28 billion in contract authority for fiscal 1999.
Secretary SLATER. Right.
Mr. ROGERS. Now, that is obviously more than you have requested and OMB has granted in your budget request.
Secretary SLATER. That is correct.
Mr. ROGERS. Can you live with that? Would you be supportive of that if the Congress came to an agreement on a higher figure.
Secretary SLATER. Clearly, I believe that the President would be receptive to that kind of increase, especially given the fact that it was a proposal by the Chair of the Budget Committee, and that suggests a recognition that it is all a part of the overall commitment of the Congress and the administration to do this, in keeping with the balanced budget agreement.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We could definitely use the additional resources to invest in infrastructure and safety programs, and the environment and transit, as well as highways; but I do believe—and I feel it is incumbent upon me to say this—that there are other matters of importance on the table as well. Congressman Olver mentioned education and R&D investment. Those are important issues, and there is the issue of the balanced budget agreement that was historic. I think we gained a lot of trust on the part of the American people by putting our fiscal house in order and, yet, making tough investment and strategic investment decisions; and I am just hopeful that as we review the overall budget, in the final analysis, we will be able to retain that good that we have gained because of some of these tough decisions we have made in the past.
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND ACCOUNT
Mr. ROGERS. Well, as you well know, there is a debate going on here and across the country on whether or not we should take the highway trust fund account off budget, so as to be able to spend more for highway construction and not use the balance in the trust fund for the purpose of balancing the budget for everything else.
Have you a position on that?
Secretary SLATER. I do.
Mr. ROGERS. What is it?
Secretary SLATER. I don't think we should take the trust fund off budget. We have a number of trust funds that are a part of a unified budget, and because of our ability to operate with that reality, we, working with the Congress, have been able to reduce the deficit to almost zero, when it was anticipated in 1993 that this year the deficit would be more than $350 billion.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Because of the fact that these trust funds—not only the highway and the aviation trust fund, but the many, many trust funds, including Social Security—are a part of a unified budget, this Congress, working with the administration, has been able to exercise fiscal discipline, which has our books pretty much in order now. We have also been able to invest in those things that prepare us for the 21st century. I think that is good.
Mr. ROGERS. What do you say to those people who argue that the trust funds were collected for a specific purpose and are not being spent for that purpose, and that there is a real problem with not enough money for highway spending or airport spending, and yet those trust funds, collected for that purpose, are being held hostage to be balanced off against a purpose for which they were not designed or collected.
Secretary SLATER. I would say that, first of all, faced with an extraordinary situation, extraordinary measures were taken. But then if you look at the action over time, you can see where monies that were once placed into the general fund have now come back into the trust fund. We are actually now in discussions about how we spend down more of those resources to put the money to the use for which the resources were raised. We are working together in a collaborative fashion, putting trust into the trust fund. And I do believe that when our work is done on this issue, reauthorization, that we are going to find that we are spending an amount that is much closer to the resources going into the trust fund than is currently the case, and that we have been making ground on that commitment over the last 5 years.
Again, if you look at our proposed budget for 1999, we will be spending an amount that is a 42 percent increase over the amount that was being spent on infrastructure investment during the first 4 years of this decade.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROGERS. Would you be satisfied or happy or unhappy if we spent this coming year, on highway construction, the same amount of money that is going into the trust fund this year?
Secretary SLATER. That is one of the issues on the table, and clearly Congress is looking at a number of options. I think it is best for me just to repeat what the President has said.
He submitted a budget that will be balanced 3 years ahead of schedule. Within that context, we have record-level investment in infrastructure, which is a 42 percent increase over the investment levels for the first 4 years of the decade. The President has also acknowledged a willingness to work with the Congress, as we have over the past 5 years, to get to a record level of investment, where we currently find ourselves; to add additional resources, but to do so within the context of the commitment to a balanced budget that is historic and that this Congress and the administration agreed to just last year.
Mr. ROGERS. I have no further questions.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
Mr. Pastor.
BORDER CROSSINGS
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary SLATER. Good morning, Congressman Pastor.
Mr. PASTOR. Approximately a year ago at our hearing with you, you recognized the needs that we have along the border as NAFTA and other free trade agreements have increased the transfer of goods and people across the border. We have now found that many of the facilities we do have are now allowing this free trade to move fairly quickly—one, the location of the gates themselves; secondly, the need to protect our borders due to undocumented people wanting to cross over and also the need to enforce—and to make sure that drugs aren't crossing our border. So all of those factors have really caused our border crossings to back up and goods not to move as quickly as we would like.
Last year you said you were going to do a pilot program and had requested, I don't know how many millions of dollars, and I don't think the committee gave you as much as you wanted.
Secretary SLATER. Right.
Mr. PASTOR. Let me ask you, during this last year, what were you able to accomplish with the few bucks we gave you, and how did you meet the needs of the border communities?
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. Well, Congressman Pastor, thank you, especially for your interest regarding the border. And it is true that as a result of NAFTA, we have seen a significant increase in traffic, both on the southern border that we share with Mexico and the northern border that we share with Canada.
We have actually achieved some significant results as we have tested the benefits of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies along the border. What we want to do as we go forward is to have a program in the neighborhood of about $250 million for ITS investments—I am sure that a number of those investments will find their way to the border—but also to concentrate with about $90 million, an effort along the border dealing with the border itself and major trade corridors where we would actually deploy the technology that we have tested over the last few years. We look forward to working with you and your colleagues who have a particular interest in this matter.
Mr. PASTOR. In NEXTEA, the administration has proposed a special border program—I think it is $540 million—which amounts to about $90 million a year.
Secretary SLATER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PASTOR. From what I read, you are proposing $45 million be used for enhancement and development of the actual roads themselves, the development of the corridors. If that money is given to you, how will the community be able to succeed in obtaining some of those monies? The reason I ask that is because sometimes the border communities, as a high priority, want to develop that corridor—an example of this is Yuma. Yuma County knows that more goods are going to be coming from Mexico because of the maquiladora program increasing the investment down there, more agricultural products coming across the border from Mexico. So they know they are going to need a new site, a new gate, to develop the corridor from that gate into the freeway system that takes it on west to either San Diego or Los Angeles.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
But in many cases, the State may have higher priorities in terms of where the monies ought to be invested, so how could a community like Yuma, Arizona, who knows of the great need for the development of that border infrastructure, be able to ensure those monies are going to be made available for that purpose, rather than what the State transportation department may decide is more important.
Secretary SLATER. Well, clearly, Congressman Pastor, in those situations we would have to work with the States and the local communities; and hopefully, we would have instances where they are in agreement or general agreement. Those are always the best situations. These would be discretionary funds, and so we at the Federal level would have some say about how those resources would be expended. But we would like to get recommendations from those at the State and local levels, so we would be supporting a partnership effort.
Even if we are using, say, $90 million annually for this kind of an investment, when it comes to some of the kinds of investments we are talking about, they still require significant investment from the State level and possibly the local level. So it is important that all of the interested parties are in agreement, or near agreement, as we work on investing in the projects of this type.
Also, the monies will be limited and so we will have to make those investments strategically, and that too would require that the parties find some common ground based on common understanding, dealing with issues that we find to be of common interest.
Mr. PASTOR. You also propose $45 million, I think, to deal with the development of gates, and it has been my experience that at the border usually it is GSA that goes out and finds the location and then finds the money to build the particular gate, and then INS and Customs basically occupy it?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
With this $45 million, how are you going to work with GSA and the other agencies that will occupy it?
Secretary SLATER. We have a very good partnership with GSA and Customs along the border, because frankly many of our interests and responsibilities actually converge at those locations. What we are proposing is that we have resources that we can also bring to the table, working with GSA and with Customs to bring about the kinds of efficiency improvements that we would want to see along the border.
To underscore the issue of efficiency, it has been determined that if we could increase the efficiency of our system by 1 percent across the board, over a decade we could save in excess of $100 billion. That really speaks to the essence of why it is important for us to enhance the movement of people and goods along the border. If we can bring some of the technology to bear that we have used in the aviation sphere, in years past, as people are moving through metal detectors and the like—if we can bring that kind of technology to bear along the border where trucks can move across with that kind of sensory and X-ray material or capability, then that is just going to enhance the flow of people and goods, making for a much more efficient transportation system, and adding to the bottom line. But we think that we have a role to play at the point where these interests converge with GSA and with Customs, and that is why we are asking for resources in this particular category.
Mr. PASTOR. About 2 years ago, on the border, I saw the technology that was being developed, or had been developed, in which the manifest, which would start in Mexico with the goods that would be occupying the carrier would basically be traced to the border. At the border, the truck would cross fairly quickly because law enforcement—Customs, the FDA or—excuse me, the Ag Department already cleared this truck at the point of origin.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
At that time, 2 years ago, they were saying this was going to be implemented throughout the border and every carrier would be able to secure this type of technology. Where are we on that particular technology?
Secretary SLATER. Well, we are moving forward. I can tell you that having in place that kind of safety regime and having in place that kind of technology is essential to the process, and that is why we are working with our counterparts in Mexico. Secretary Ruiz and I have met a number of times on this issue, which deals with the establishment of a safety regime south of the U.S. border so that all of these issues are not addressed right at the border. The use of this kind of technology, putting in place a comprehensive safety regime, will allow us to make this hope, this dream that we have addressed in the past, a reality. But we have tested the equipment, and now it is a matter of deployment, and we need resources to do that.
Mr. PASTOR. I hope you continue working on the border situation.
If the Chairman will allow me one more question——
Mr. WOLF. Yes.
FAA MANAGEMENT
Mr. PASTOR. Let me add to the frustration I guess you sense from some of the members about how we may not be as confident in the computers being brought in on time or some of the problems that the National Transportation Safety Board has brought forth. I will just give two examples and then you can take them, not as criticism, but at least my two examples.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
When we had the National Transportation Safety Board a year ago, we talked about the problem with the 737 and the rudders——
Secretary SLATER. Yes.
Mr. PASTOR [continuing]. And how we needed to replace them, number one; and secondly, that the pilots would need new training.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Hall was here, and again, much to our frustration, the agency who has responsibility to ensure that those rudders were replaced and the pilots were trained, at least I had the impression that we weren't moving as quickly as we should.
And this is a safety problem that has been identified; this is a problem that has a solution, but yet it seems that the agency who had the oversight and the enforcement responsibility just was, for whatever reason, not moving quickly enough. And Mr. Secretary, at that point, I was concerned personally, because, you know, I travel every weekend a few miles, as well as a lot of these members. And you travel more than I do, so I want to make sure that this airline system is safe.
The other dealt with the computers. I remember a year ago we were talking about the computer system, the modernization, and late last year in this room we sat with people from the agency and the vendor. And we were discussing screens, I was talking about the big picture, and here we are talking about the screen and what color it should be, whether or not we should have a keyboard or have a wheel or have a mouse. I was frustrated because here I am worried about safety and I am micromanaging, because the issue was brought to us because the people who had responsibility couldn't come to a resolution.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And so if you sense some frustration, it is because we have seen situations in which maybe you have been told that the modernization is going forth, that these problems are being addressed, but yet, before the committee, we are being advised that we can't move forward because the people who are viewing the screen, the people who have the responsibility to bring us a screen and the people who are managing this whole system can't agree on the screen.
And so that is why I bring that to you, so that—to add some examples of our frustration so you might get a better sense of why we may be complaining.
Secretary SLATER. Let me say, Congressman, I appreciate that, and I know that Administrator Garvey appreciates it. I am sure that we are going to have a lot more hearings on these matters as we go forward, as we should, because I think that that is a way for us to stay focused, really, on these critical matters.
I also think that our putting in place a performance plan where we actually state what our goals and objectives are in specific, results-oriented terms—something that is new for government, and new for the department—is going to be one of the great benefits of our strategic planning and performance planning efforts.
And we look forward to working with you, and the members of the Committee and the Congress, in ensuring that our transportation system remains the safest in the world and that we meet these obligations that we have—as relates to Y2K, as relates to the modernization of our air traffic control system and as relates to the appropriate stewardship and expenditure of the record-level resources you are now considering, providing us in like manner as you have provided us with acquisition reform legislation.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I want to underscore that again, because I think it is our obligation to follow through on the freedoms, the capabilities you have given us—acquisition reform, personnel reform—and this speaks to the need of getting the team together, going out and getting the best and the brightest. We have, in many respects, the ability to do that, and we should be held accountable. I respect that and appreciate it.
Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We have a common goal to make the transportation system safer, and you have my commitment to work with you to get to that goal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WOLF. Before I recognize Mr. Packard, I want to follow up to what Mr. Pastor was talking about. We had a hearing on STARS and that still has not been resolved. I know there has been a lot of progress made, but really it shouldn't have been necessary at all for the Committee to have had to call upon the FAA and air traffic controllers and Mitre to testify; that is something that shouldn't have had to occur.
Secretary SLATER. I agree.
Mr. WOLF. And you have new procurement ability. You also have similar flexibility on personnel. This gives the FAA an opportunity to go out and bring the talented people in quickly, and to date, that authority has not really been used.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Packard.
EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM
Mr. PACKARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome back to the Committee again.
Secretary SLATER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PACKARD. Your first time last year was a pleasure for me to hear you, and we appreciate your testimony this year.
Secretary SLATER. Thank you, sir.
Mr. PACKARD. As you know and everyone else knows, El Niño has changed the weather patterns and created a lot of damage in some States and perhaps created some good things in other States. Certainly in my State and several other States, a significant amount of damage has been done to our transportation system. The floods have wiped out complete sections of freeways and highways.
The FHWA has an authorized cap of $100 million to address these kinds of problems, emergency relief programs. California alone, and I am sure Florida and Oregon and many of the other coastal States, particularly in the West, have had far more damage done already than the hundred million dollars. California alone is now probably in excess of that amount.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PACKARD. What are your plans to meet the needs of all of the States, my State as well as the others, that have had significant transportation damage done, in light of the FHWA's shortage of funds?
Secretary SLATER. Congressman Packard, let me just say that there is not one person within the DOT family that does not feel the sense of loss that many of your constituents have felt, whether it is property damage or the loss of loved ones, and we have tried to be responsive. It is true that our being responsive has put a strain on our resources, and we have actually prepared a request for supplemental appropriations that will come to the Congress for additional funds. The President was just in California and released an additional $20 million. He was joined by our Federal Highway Administrator, General Wykle; and the week before, the Vice President was there, I think providing the first $20 million, and he was joined by our FHWA Deputy Administrator, Gloria Jeff.
We want to continue to be responsive, but as you have noted, there is really the strain on the resources as currently available, so we would hope that the Congress would respond to our supplemental request. We have outstanding requests for the northeast, and we have not made a determination about the degree of damage throughout Florida, although we expect to receive a request from Florida soon. We are really being challenged at this point in time, but, as you have noted, we have to be responsive to Americans in need; and that is what we are trying to do.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. PACKARD. To add to that challenge, we don't know how much longer the season will go, and it may be that your supplemental request will be premature, or at least before we are finished with the damage that could come from El Niño and other storms. Also in the fall, we know that at least in California, there is almost a natural follow-up; and that is, we will probably have wildfires and other problems that could also add to the emergency need.
It is a problem, and I don't know how you are going to manage, but certainly the supplemental, when it comes, we will give it the kind of consideration we always have.
Secretary SLATER. Thank you, sir.
Mr. PACKARD. I appreciate your responsiveness in this area of emergency response.
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
Secondly, as we continue to grapple with the reauthorization process of ISTEA and the Federal surface transportation program, it would be very helpful for the information that will come or should be available through the long overdue Transportation Conditions and Performance Report. I understand that is nearly ready for release.
Secretary SLATER. It is.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. PACKARD. Some of the information available in that report should be very helpful in the reauthorization process to determine the conditions of our highways, bridges and general transit facilities. It would seem that that report would be extremely important before we move forward on the reauthorization, and yet the reauthorization is, of course, critically time sensitive.
Could you give us a brief preview of what that report might show?
Secretary SLATER. I can, and let me just say that I think Congressman Rogers, in his questions a few minutes ago, actually touched indirectly on this issue.
In putting together the report, as you know, we have combined more than just highways into the report, which is a change from years past. Also, we are changing to more of an economic basis for analysis, rather than an engineering model for analysis; and I think that is consistent with some of the actions of the Congress and some executive orders that we have responded to. But the good thing that we have discovered is that we are seeing improvements in the condition of the system as it is, in particular the surface of the roadways.
Also, we are seeing improvements in the condition of the bridges. We are finding fewer and fewer of those bridges being declared as either functionally obsolete or deficient in some other way. We are also finding a significant, 3.5 percent increase in transit usage, and improvements in the conditions of our transit properties.
I think that that, frankly, reflects positively on the increase in investment that we have seen over the last 5 years that has been brought about by a partnership between the Congress and the administration. And I do believe that our proposed budget for 1999, which will continue that increase at about 42 percent above the investment levels of the first 4 years of the decade, will continue to bring about improvements to the system as a whole. So I am very pleased with those kinds of findings in the Conditions and Performance Report.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
With that said, let me just say that we are in the final drafting, if you will, of the report. We have recently gotten back comments from OMB, and we should have that report to the Congress very soon.
Mr. PACKARD. Do you have a date specific as to when it will be released?
Secretary SLATER. Why don't we say within 10 to 14 days, and if sooner, then clearly we will have it for you sooner.
Mr. PACKARD. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Tiahrt.
STARS AND YEAR 2000 PROGRAMS
Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome Secretary Slater, and I want to tell you it has been a pleasure to work with your office. You have been very responsive.
It was kind of you to call last night at 6:30 in the evening when most people are worried about getting home, and you were worried about the needs of Kansans, and I appreciate that very much.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. Thanks, Congressman.
Mr. TIAHRT. I also recently spoke with Kansas Department of Transportation Secretary Carlson. Dean Carlson and you, I know, have a long-term relationship. He sends his regards. He incidentally is doing a great job, and he sends his compliments.
There are a couple areas of concern I would like to reiterate. One is, we have talked about the FAA and I was recently at the control tower at Midcontinent Airport and saw again—once again, the need for a STARS program. And I am pleased with the progress that Raytheon is making.
My concern is more along the way of the Y2K—and I know others have expressed that—that when the year 2000 rolls around, we will have some problems. The last schedule I heard from the FAA is they thought they would be on line in November of 1999.
In a previous life, I was a proposal manager at the Boeing Company. I managed several software projects, some with millions of lines of code, and unless you have an extensive testing program, your milestones are not going to be achieved, and with that short amount of time between November and January 1st, I have a great deal of concern and would hope that you also track that progress and make sure we get on line in time.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS
Another thing I would like to bring to your attention is the airports in Kansas. We have small and midsize airports. I was recently at a small airport in Kingman, Kansas, and the runway was so rough it would be difficult to ride a motorcycle down the runway because of all the ruts. It would cause it to be difficult to keep your balance, let alone land a small airplane.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
It is not only the small airlines that have a difficult time handling those airports, but also business jets. Many communities like Pratt, Kansas; Kingman, Kansas; Wichita, Kansas; Struther Field, between Ark City and Winfield, Kansas, are the homes of international companies. And they need to bring suppliers in, and CEOs and executives from other companies that are from big cities. And they often use business jets, and it is difficult to get them in and out of there, and it restricts the growth of rural America. So I have a great deal of concern for our small and midsize airports, and I hope you will take that into consideration and, of course, support our airport improvement program.
Secretary SLATER. Okay.
UNION PACIFIC—SOUTHERN PACIFIC MERGER
Mr. TIAHRT. But my main concern is related to the merger of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific. It will double the train traffic, and that will be a problem in several areas. It is also complicated by a previous merger with the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe that was not included in the recent study done by the Surface Transportation Board, the STB.
There are 27 grade-separations in Sedgwick County, which has a half a million Americans living there. Those 27 intersections include one near a hospital, several close to fire stations and police stations. It creates a problem because these trains are a mile-and-a-half long and they cause delays.
In the area of the environment, it is hard to believe, but in Wichita, Kansas, there are several days when the wind does not blow, and on those days, we do not reach air quality standards—clean air standards. As you know, if you do not meet those clean air standards, there is a problem with Federal funding. So on those days, we have a risk; with increased train traffic, we will certainly not achieve the existing clean air standards, let alone the proposed clean air standards, which would immediately put three-fourths of the State of Kansas out of compliance. So there is a big problem with the environment created by this merger.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Also, there is a health-and-safety problem. I told you about police; there are also fire departments, hospitals and ambulances. If they are restricted from getting to their destinations, it could cause a problem. Also in the area of safety, within the last month, a friend of my daughter from a high school she attended last year was killed at a railroad intersection. Within the last year I lost a personal friend and a fellow employee at the Boeing Company at a railroad intersection, and we have a need for grade separations to keep the traffic from colliding.
There is also the discomfort factor. You have probably seen the bumper sticker that says, ''If mama ain't happy, nobody is happy.'' Well, I am here to tell you, there are a lot of mothers in Wichita, Kansas, that aren't happy by the train delays. In my personal opinion, the Surface Transportation Board flunked the course on the Wichita mitigation study.
Now, I know that from your book you handed out here that the Surface Transportation Board is fully financed by user fees. They did not slap the hand that feeds them, and that concerns me. It also says they are to provide an effective and efficient forum for resolution of disputes. It was efficient.
So those three things are my concerns, the Y2K, improvements for our airports, and the critical needs that have risen from the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger.
Secretary SLATER. If I may, Congressman, let me just respond in summary fashion to the points that you raised.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
First of all, some of these issues are issues that we discussed last evening; and I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you again on them and assure you that we will respond to all of them.
YEAR 2000 PROBLEM
Regarding the Y2K problem, clearly, you know, based on your experience in the private sector, as you noted, and also as a Member of Congress, that November of 1999 is not acceptable, and we are not going to be in November of 1999 testing this system. We actually hope to start validating our compliance in January of 1999, so we will have the full year to test the capability of the system.
SMALL- AND MEDIUM-SIZED AIRPORTS
When it comes to small- and medium-sized airports, we feel that we are going to be able to respond to needs like the ones that you have mentioned with the increased investment, $1.7 billion in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), and look forward to working with you in that regard.
Also, our Essential Air Service program may be a source of resources to address some of these needs.
RAIL MERGERS
When it comes to the issue of the rail mergers, you should know that we are learning a lot from this process. I do believe that the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Board will give us an opportunity to actually consider how some of these issues are addressed by the Board with its powers as we go forward. But the Department of Transportation is performing its role in an aggressive fashion, where we note questions regarding safety as paramount matters of consideration during these mergers.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We recently submitted a very comprehensive brief dealing with the Conrail merger; and, as you know, we have worked rather aggressively and proactively with Union Pacific (UP), when it comes to dealing with the UP merger. We look forward to working with you on the particular matters that you have addressed.
Unfortunately, a lot of times, with the railroad crossings, you do have situations where communities are separated from some of the major health and emergency response services that are critical to life and limb. It is true that your grade overpasses and the like are a way of addressing those concerns. But also bringing the best technology to those crossings is very, very important as well.
I can tell you that one of the things I am most pleased with as relates to our performance last year, is the fact that we saw a reduction in collisions, injuries and fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings. I think that is the result of a more comprehensive and aggressive approach on the part of the Federal Railroad Administration, led by Jolene Molitoris, working together with the Federal Highway Administration, led by General Wykle. We are going to see continued improvements in that regard, and I appreciate your mention of it during our discussion today.
Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Tiahrt.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Secretary, let me cover a couple subjects and then we will go back to other members.
BUDGET REQUEST FOR AMTRAK
Please describe how your budget request for Amtrak does not violate the agreement that you and Amtrak's Board of Directors negotiated with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
Secretary SLATER. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, last year at this time we were, as you know, very much concerned about the potential of a strike and a shutdown of Amtrak. The President responded with the establishment of the emergency board, they came forth with recommendations, and the parties still weren't engaging one another.
I am pleased that, because of some more proactive steps taken by the Department, we were able to get the parties together. They did come forth with a historic agreement, with work rule changes, productivity changes and an increase in salaries for the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.
As a result of that agreement, we were then able to come to the Congress and pass reauthorization legislation for Amtrak—the first time in some 3 or 4 years. Then, as a part of the Taxpayer Relief Act, about $2.2 billion were made available to Amtrak for capital investment.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As a part of our 1999 budget, we are proposing a $621 million investment in Amtrak. When you couple the action taken by the Congress as a result of the Taxpayer Relief Act and also the record-level resources that we are providing, along with corporate revenues, we believe that Amtrak will have the resources that they need to move toward self-sufficiency in the near future.
As a part of their budget plan that was submitted to us, they had said that, over the 5-year period or so, they would need about $5 billion. Under the proposed budget, along with the actions taken by the Congress, they are actually going to have in excess of $5 billion, so we believe they will be able to meet all their obligations, and become the only inter city rail passenger train operation anywhere in the world that is self-sufficient within a reasonable period of time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Secretary, I am so skeptical that I don't believe that. I have been told by people who are very, very knowledgeable that they believe under the current—if the books are honest, that Amtrak will go bankrupt in the year 1999 or 2000.
Also, the labor agreement included $150 million for operating assistance in 1999. That is not in your budget. There was an additional $84 million for operating assistance—another item agreement not in your budget. The agreement also called for $199 million to replenish the capital appropriation, which is not in your budget. Should the Committee adopt the administration's budget request for Amtrak, how likely is it Amtrak will not go bankrupt in fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year 2000?
Secretary SLATER. Well, again, based on the financial plan that was offered by Amtrak, where they requested in the neighborhood of $5 billion over the next 5 years, this is a budget that will give them in excess of $5 billion over this period, and we believe that they will be able to meet their financial obligations in that regard.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. WOLF. Should the Committee adopt the administration's budget request for Amtrak, what assurances can you provide the Committee that capital funds will not be used to provide wage increases to Amtrak's employees, wage increases Amtrak says it can ill afford?
Secretary SLATER. Again, if you look at corporate revenues and then the $621 million we are providing, along with the $1.1 billion each year over a 2-year period that is being provided under the Taxpayer Relief Act, Amtrak should be able to meet all of its requirements.
We have taken into account now, as we look at the resources that they have available, their ability, under the definition of capital within the Taxpayer Relief Act, to use some of those resources for maintenance. They have shared with us that that could total $400 million or so. Those were expenditures that, in the past, they probably would have taken care of out of the operating account. Having the ability to do so under the capital account should give them, again, the kind of flexibility and resources needed to meet both their operating expenditures as well as capital investment expenditures.
CAPITAL DEFINITION FOR AMTRAK
Mr. WOLF. That was the next question.
You were requesting $621 million in capital appropriations for Amtrak, to be available using the same preventive maintenance definition used by the Federal Transit Administration. Adopting this capital definition is really almost like a shell game, because Amtrak plans to spend up to $520 million of its capital—and I stress capital—funds on maintenance of equipment, infrastructure and facilities, which in prior years has been paid for by the operating grant.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Isn't this definition just moving operating funds into capital funds, thus allowing the administration to say Amtrak is not dependent on operating subsidies before the year 2002? Isn't the administration moving it around and calling it something different?
Secretary SLATER. Well, within the Taxpayer Relief Act, capital is given a broader definition which would allow for an investment in maintenance. We are, in our proposal, seeking to make capital within Amtrak budgetary considerations comparable to the definition of capital that the Congress has agreed to as it relates to transit. So we are trying to bring consistency there.
Mr. WOLF. For years Amtrak has stated that its greatest need is for capital funds, particularly if it is to be self-sufficient after the year 2002. However, if we adopt this proposal, we will be using capital funds for previous operating expenses. This is really an operating subsidy; and the capital needs of Amtrak are very, very great.
I know we will get down on the floor and there will be a number of people who want to zero out Amtrak. I speak as a friend of Amtrak. I really think it is kind of a shell game.
If the Committee were to include bill language that would prohibit the use of the TRA funds or any capital appropriation for wage increases, would you support that?
There will be a new chairman here in the year 2001 or maybe I can get Sonny Callahan to trade Foreign Ops. Maybe there will be a new chairman even next year if I could do that; but, who knows? Then the next group comes in. Maybe the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky would want to be chairman, and then all of a sudden we go through the same issue again. Aren't we really misleading the people?
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And for those of us who really want to see Amtrak survive—so would you support that if the Committee were to add bill language? This is a real test.
Secretary SLATER. Well, clearly, if the Committee were to say that no capital funds could be used for——
Mr. WOLF. Wage increases.
Secretary SLATER. Oh, I thought you were saying no capital funds could be used for maintenance.
Mr. WOLF. No. The question is, if the Committee were to include bill language that would prohibit the use of TRA funds or any capital appropriation for wage increases, would you support that proposal?
Secretary SLATER. Well, I think if the Committee and Congress were also to approve our recommendation that capital resources for Amtrak be considered in the same way that we consider capital resources for transit—if you couple the two—then that might work.
Because we are providing, again, $621 million for capital this year—that is what we are proposing—with about $571 million for the year 2000 and about $521 million for the year 2001.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Those resources, coupled with corporate resources and revenues, then might allow Amtrak, looking at all of the resources available, to have enough money to take care of capital needs as well as the salary questions that would fit in a broader definition of capital.
Mr. WOLF. Well, I am not unsympathetic to that, but I believe the definition moves operating funds into capital funds. We are then allowing Amtrak to come back and say they are not dependent on Federal operating subsidies. We tried get a base closing commission concept put in effect the last year. That got involved in some controversy, and the Committee didn't do that. GAO was looking at it.
I really think, potentially, what you are recommending is really going to bring about the downfall or the bankruptcy of Amtrak. I don't want to see that happen. I am very supportive of the Northeast Corridor. I am very supportive of the national Amtrak system. There are Members of Congress, perhaps some on this Committee, I am not sure, but certainly in the full House and Senate that would like to see Amtrak fold, but I am not one of them.
The other question is, do you believe Amtrak will need a capital appropriation beyond the year 2002? And, if so, how much——
Secretary SLATER. They will.
Mr. WOLF [continuing]. For 2003 or 2004 or 2005?
Because if they are going to need it, why would we be using capital funds for operating expenses now? So how long past the year 2002 do you think they are going to need capital?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. I would say for a reasonable period beyond. There are certain legs of Amtrak that are self-sufficient, but what we wish to have——
Mr. WOLF. Not many.
Secretary SLATER. Not many. But what we wish to have is a national intercity rail system; and to the degree we provide for high speed rail along the Northeast Corridor all the way from Washington to Boston, that will bring additional revenues into the system. To the degree we replace aging rail cars, that will improve the efficiency of the system. We are going to see significant improvements over the next 5 years.
I think the key thing to stay focused on, if we can, is that, based on the financial plan that was submitted by Amtrak and their business plan, they ask for about $5 billion over a time certain. We are going to provide in excess of $5 billion over that period. This should be able to accommodate their investment and operating needs.
Mr. WOLF. But isn't it accurate that the agreement that was reached included the requirement that the OMB and the President seek: (1) $150 million in operating subsidies in 1999, that is not in your budget, (2) seek to make up $84 million in previous operating shortfalls, that is not in your budget, and, (3) to make up the 1998 appropriation for Amtrak capital above the 1998 TRA funds. Were these conditions not part of the agreement?
Secretary SLATER. They were part of the agreement.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. WOLF. But are they in the budget?
Secretary SLATER. Let me just say that the budget proposal is modified to some degree. We did make a request for the resources that are reflected in the agreement but that were not provided in years past.
Mr. WOLF. But if you had an agreement and the people involved thought they were going to be in the agreement, why isn't this in the budget?
Secretary SLATER. It is reflected in the total dollar amounts. We just ask for the money in a different form.
But as far as the dollar amounts being there, we have actually asked for more than we proposed that we would ask for when NEXTEA was introduced last year. We are actually seeking more dollars, but the dollars are coming in a different form. We have made that request based on the dynamics, as we understand them currently—meaning under the Taxpayer Relief Act—having the ability to invest in maintenance as a part of capital investment and also as a part of our proposal for $621 million to get a broader definition for capital that would be consistent with capital as defined in our transit activities. If Congress changes those dynamics, then, clearly, we have to come together and go forward with an arrangement that would continue to meet the financial needs of Amtrak.
RENEGOTIATION OF AMTRAK AGREEMENT
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. WOLF. Two other questions on Amtrak.
Since the agreement has been broken by the administration, is Amtrak or the BMWE free to renegotiate the agreement? That was part of the agreement.
Secretary SLATER. That is true, but the responsibility primarily rests with Amtrak to make a judgment as to whether they will have the resources available to meet, first, the conditions of their financial plan and business plan and then, second, to meet the obligations resulting from the management-labor agreement.
Again, they asked for a particular amount in their financial plan that was less than $5 billion. If you look at what we are providing over the next 5 years, it is in excess of $5 billion. We believe they will be able to meet their financial obligations with these funding proposals that we have put on the table.
Mr. WOLF. Knowledgeable people that I have spoken to do not believe that is the case. They actually believe, if this proposal is intellectually honest, Amtrak will go bankrupt in the year 1999 or 2000.
AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL LANGUAGE
One additional question.
What is your understanding of the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC) language? Does it say that if it looks like they are financially in trouble that they have to recommend that they go out of business? How is that actually structured? What is your understanding?
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. That is how the language is structured.
Mr. WOLF. And then, if they make a recommendation, the Senate has to take a positive action to overrule that, is that right?
Secretary SLATER. I am not sure on that part of it.
Steve, do you want to respond?
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I believe, without the language in front of me, that ARC makes a recommendation to the Congress on either the ways in which Amtrak has to reform itself to get into compliance with its overall budget plans or make a report to the Congress on how it would liquidate itself. Congress, both the House and Senate, have to vote up or down as to whether or not that would happen. It does not happen without an affirmative vote by the Congress.
Mr. WOLF. How long do they have to act?
Mr. PALMER. I do not know.
Mr. WOLF. Maybe you can supply that for the record.
Secretary SLATER. We can supply that.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The information follows:]
Section 203 of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 established the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC). Under the provisions of the Act, if at any time after December 2, 1999 the ARC finds that Amtrak's business performance will prevent it from meeting the financial goals established in the Act, or that Amtrak will require a Federal operating grant after December 2, 2002, the ARC will notify the President and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Within 90 days of making such a finding, the ARC must develop and submit to the Congress an action plan for a restructured and rationalized national intercity rail passenger service.
Secretary SLATER. And, Mr. Chairman, if I may—and this is clearly with all due respect for the position that you have articulated—let me say that the agreement that was entered into by all of the parties we consider to be in existence still. We do not share the opinion that the agreement has been broken.
We continue to provide the resources that have been noted as being necessary by Amtrak; and, as a matter of fact, we provide more over time than was originally requested. It is in a different form and there is some disagreement about that, but the agreement has not been broken, and we do believe that Amtrak ca