Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Wednesday, March 8, 2000
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Ground Transportation, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:45 p.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. I apologize for the delay and any inconvenience it might have engendered.
We are meeting this afternoon to examine how the Department of Transportation is implementing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. We are now in the third budget year of this landmark six-year surface transportation bill, far enough along to get a good sense of what is working well, yet early enough to determine if and how we need to make improvements in the act.
TEA-21 is truly historic, because, for the first time since the highway trust fund was established back in 1956, gas taxes paid by motorists are dedicated exclusively to the intended purpose of enabling States to build and maintain their highways and transit systems and improve highway and motor carrier safety.
After guaranteeing that trust fund revenues were spent exclusively for transportation purposes, the committee's next priority in TEA-21 was to address the concerns raised by States and local governments. With the numerous Federal environmental approvals needed to build a highway or transit system, projects were cumbersome, inefficient, and overly time consuming.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
TEA-21's environmental streamlining provision is designed to cut through bureaucratic red tape and move highway and transit projects along more quickly.
Concerns have arisen involving implementation of environmental streamlining and other provisions of TEA-21, and I hope that the witnesses will address that.
One of the key components of TEA-21 is the rail infrastructure loan program, which provides $3.5 billion in loans or loan guarantees to fund much-needed infrastructure improvements to our Nation's rail system.
As a key sponsor of this program, I am dismayed that the Federal Rail Administration has failed to issue regulations to implement the program, meaning that no applications can be processed. This delay is very troubling, and I am eager to hear from Administrator Molitoris on when we can expect the program to be up and running.
In the transit area, TEA-21 increased annual transit funding by 50 percent and maximized flexibility to transit operators, for example, such as by allowing operators to use transit funds for a wider range of maintenance activities.
There are concerns about the Administration's proposal to sign 12 new full funding grant agreements for transit new start projects by the end of 2001. This means that the Department of Transportation is planning to exhaust all the commitment authority provided by TEA-21 for new start projects two years before the program expires.
Last session, this subcommittee focused considerable effort on improving truck and bus safety. Today we will learn how the States and the Department of Transportation are using the new tools and funding we provided in the Motor Carriers Safety Act last year to reduce truck-related fatalities on our Nation's roadways.
This afternoon, we will hear from an impressive panel, the heads of six modal administrations of the Department of Transportation. They will report on DOT's implementation of TEA-21 and hopefully share their insights on how to ensure that the full benefits of the legislation are realized.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At this time, I would like to yield to our colleague, Bob Clement, who is sitting in for Mr. Rahall.
Please make what statement you would wish.
Mr. CLEMENT. Chairman Petri, it is great to be with you today. This is a very important hearing. I am looking forward to hearing from the panelists. I am going to have to excuse myself for a very brief period of time, but I assure you I will be back.
This hearing about transportation's implementation of TEA-21 is timely. TEA-21 was the product of hard work, compromise, and tremendous innovation, and we must ensure that the statutory provisions of the bill are being adequately implemented.
Whether we are looking at the progress in environmental streamlining by the Federal Highway Administration, the delay in processing railroad infrastructure loans, the failure to disperse funds for light density rail line pilot projects, or the lack of an agency administrator for the newly-created Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, there are quite a few areas that this committee needs to explore and many answers that the USDOT needs to provide.
I was a strong proponent for the inclusion of language to expand the railroad infrastructure loan program in TEA-21, but so far no final regulations have been issued so that loans can be processed for much-needed railroad infrastructure improvements.
I also worked on the authorization for $17.5 million in grants to be used for light-density or short-line rail pilot projects. So far, to my knowledge, no program funds have been administered through FRA. Why is this?
By and large, I know my home State of Tennessee and States across the country are reaping the rewards of TEA-21, but I, for one, want to make sure that the bill in its entirety is being implemented as intended.
I look forward to our panelists' remarks on these and other issues.
Thank you.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
A statement by the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Shuster, will be made a part of the record.
Mr. Oberstar?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
These are very timely hearings, and I very much appreciate your holding the hearings and Chairman Shuster's strong support for a thorough, in-depth look at sort of mid-course on TEA-21. We really have to see how the programs are working. Are the provisions that we enacted, as Mr. Clement already said, that were hammered out with great care and deliberation and compromises on all side, now being carried out as we intended? Certainly, gas taxes are generating revenues at a higher rate than we anticipated. On average, there is a highway construction zone every 30 miles across America. One out of every nine jobs in our economy is tied to transportation. From that standpoint, TEA-21 is working. We are seeing projects underway, jobs created, communities benefiting, safety projects being implemented. That part is working.
But are all the funds being spent in a timely fashion? Are regulations being promulgated in a timely manner? This is one of the issues that we were concerned about and we gave authority to expedite the rule-making process. And are the safety benefits being fully realized?
We had the ribbon cutting this morning of the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and many good thoughts were said about that new initiative. But it does not have an administrator full time, although the superstructure has been created and a lot has been done. We need to have a leader in place. Julie Cirillo is doing a terrific job as the acting administrator, but whoever is going to be the full-time administrator needs to be in place.
The Federal Transit Administration got much more funding in TEA-21 than ever before in the history of the program. We have a new and very energetic and enthusiastic administrator, and we want to see all of the good things that we have provided for capital investments and implementation of previous programs, as well as new starts, get underway and move ahead vigorously, notwithstanding the predations by the Appropriations Committee on this program. They have come in with earmarks and designations above and beyond what we intended in the legislation. This makes it very difficult to administer this program in the way that was intended in the legislation.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I particularly want to hear about the job access and reverse commute program. Again, the earmarks by the Appropriations Committee, have they resulted in deflecting investments from where the need is greatest? Are statutory factors that we set in law being followed in the appropriation and funding? Or is earmarking frustrating the provisions of the law?
Likewise, the rehabilitation of short-line railroads, I am disappointed that we have not seen as much funding come forward as we intended to be done for this program. The rules came out last May, but we do not have the final rule-making. We want to see whether the Administration is going to comply with the intent of Congress by dropping the lender of last resort language that was included in the proposed rules.
There is much to be done, much for us to learn, and through these hearings I have come with an open mind, and open spirit, and know we have got a great team before us.
Ken Wykle, I must say I wish I were in your shoes right now with that bevy of very bright, attractive, and energetic women administrators. I think this is a first in the history of the Department of Transportation. Women in transportation are represented, if there be any question or any doubt. It is about time.
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Are there any other opening statements?
Mr. Borski?
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I just want to commend you for holding this hearing. I think it is very timely and I am very anxious to hear from all our administrators on how this great piece of legislation is being enacted. But I also wanted to welcome all our witnesses, but a special welcome to the Acting Administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The Honorable Rosalyn Millman, who for so many years worked on this side of the ledger and was a great asset to our committee for five-and-a-half or six years.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We are delighted to see you and have you with us today and we look forward to hearing your testimony.
Mr. PETRI. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson from Dallas.
Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join the group in thanking you for holding this hearing on such an important topic.
The passage of TEA-21 was a watershed moment for highway, rail, transit, and safety funding; however, TEA-21 implementation has proven to be a challenge, and that is why it is important that this committee maintain vigilant oversight of the implementation of the act.
I am particularly interested in grants under the national corridor planning and development program and the coordinated border infrastructure program.
My home State of Texas, and particularly my home town of Dallas, has been significantly impacted by the increase in NAFTA-related traffic. The border areas are in dire need of funding to handle this traffic. However, I am concerned that the focus has remained on those areas that directly touch the border.
I-35, a designated NAFTA corridor, has seen an almost doubling of traffic since the passage of NAFTA, yet I-35 stands behind some 30 projects in Texas for funding.
Many more interior cities are going to be affected as trade increases between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.
I am interested in hearing when these funds will be made available and what the plans are to deal with these areas.
I am also interested to hear the state of transit funding.
I am also concerned that, with the number of transit full funding grant agreements proposed for signature in the next two years, that funding for existing full-funding grant agreement projects already under construction will be adversely affected.
I hope that we will get these answers today, and I thank all the witnesses for coming.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Are there other opening statements?
Yes, sir, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, too, for calling this hearing today.
As a member of this committee and the Liveable Communities Task Force and the representative of Baltimore City, I want to discuss what the Department is doing to assist our urban centers in achieving urban livability. As it relates to this committee's responsibility, urban livability means ensuring accessible, safe, reliable, and efficient transportation for our families and commuters. I know that people in these communities work hard, and they deserve the very, very best.
As such, I hope that today's witnesses can provide the committee with information in several areas that may not be the concrete and steel of transportation issues, as Secretary Slater likes to say, but are important to the quality of life of our urban areas.
For example, the access to jobs and reverse commute programs in the Federal Transit Administration are critical to the development and viability of under-served communities in my District. I do hope that the importance of this program to Districts like mine is acknowledged and funded accordingly.
Study after study has shown that access to a job is one of the most important factors in keeping a person off drugs and away from crime. In Baltimore City, this is a critical issue. These programs assist people who need help in making the step from welfare to work.
I would ask that the Federal Transit Administrator describe the President's request for next year and explain the expansion which is so desperately needed.
I was disturbed to learn that the Department has not awarded the fiscal year 2000 discretionary grants under the transportation and community and system preservation pilot program.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The State of Maryland was a 1999 recipient of this important grant funding. A part of our program was to assist an urban community in combatting challenges to improving the efficiency of its existing transportation system and in conserving the community by prompting redevelopment. The delay in providing this grant funding prevents our communities from working to solve their problems and supporting livability.
Further, the Baltimore/Washington region is one of the seven grantees under the MagLev program. I am interested in hearing the status of the program and the next steps. I believe that MagLev is crucial to advancing our transportation technology, providing an efficient and environmentally-friendly alternative to road use, and improving commuter access in the Baltimore/Washington region and eventually the northeast corridor.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and I yield back.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Any other statements?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. If not, we will turn to the distinguished panel.
We are honored to be joined by six senior administrators from the Federal Department of Transportation who are responsible for major aspects of transportation policy here in the United States. The panel will be led off by Ken Wykle, Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration; and then by Jolene Molitoris, Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration; Kelley Coyner, Administrator of the Research and Special Programs Administration; Nuria Fernandez, Acting Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration; Rosalyn Millman, the Acting Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and Julie Cirillo, Acting Deputy Administrator and Acting Chief Safety Officer of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We welcome you all and look forward to your testimony. We will begin with General Wykle.
TESTIMONY OF HON. KENNETH R. WYKLE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; HON. JOLENE M. MOLITORIS, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; HON. KELLEY S. COYNER, ADMINISTRATOR, RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION; HON. NURIA FERNANDEZ, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; HON. ROSALYN G. MILLMAN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. JULIE A. CIRILLO, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR AND ACTING CHIEF SAFETY OFFICER, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. WYKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to testify about the implementation of TEA-21. We commend this committee for its vision in writing TEA-21 and the identification of the new programs that are so desired by all of the States.
We have submitted our comprehensive statement for the record. I would like to highlight FHWA's TEA-21 implementation efforts, and my colleagues would each like to advise you on their progress.
For fiscal year 2000, $28.8 billion were made available for highways and highway safety. Transportation safety continues to be our number one priority. Increased TEA-21 funding has enabled States to make needed safety improvements. States may use their surface transportation program, interstate maintenance, and national highway system funds for safety infrastructure improvements.
In fiscal year 2000, about $700 million was available for States to use for rail grade crossing improvements and hazard elimination.
The Administration awarded grants of nearly $124 million for 55 corridors and border projects in 32 States to improve transportation along critical trade routes. This is a key part of the President's goal to support the North American Free Trade Agreement by providing safe highways for moving people and goods between the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Through implementation of TEA-21, States and communities across America have been given additional opportunities to enhance the quality of life for their residents. Under the transportation and community and systems preservation pilot program, 35 communities and areas received grants totaling $13 million to help preserve green space, ease traffic congestion, and employ smart growth strategies.
The congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program, national scenic byways program, and transportation enhancements program helped States and communities improve the natural and human environment. More than $1 billion in CMAQ funding per year is used by our State and local partners for projects that reduce congestion and emissions.
TEA-21 directed us to streamline environmental reviews. We are working with other Federal agencies and States to identify appropriate national, regional, and local streamlining opportunities. We are encouraging the expanded use of partnership agreements and concurrent review to speed project approvals.
Technology offers promise for transportation to improve the performance of our system and increase capacity, especially in our major cities where new construction may be too expensive or environmentally unsound. Innovations such as advanced collision avoidance systems have the potential to save hundreds of lives. Intelligent transportation systems will enable us to reduce congestion, find those in distress, and help provide the added capacity we will need in the future without harming our environment.
We have established a goal of integrated ITS deployment in 75 of the largest metropolitan areas by 2006. To date, 48 cities have made significant deployments. Our goal for 2001 is to have 56 metropolitan areas using intelligent transportation systems.
Under TEA-21, RABA adjusts fund levels for the Federal aid highway and motor carrier programs to reflect increased receipts to the highway trust fund. The 2001 RABA adjustment is about $3 billion. This increase in revenue presents us with an opportunity to address unmet needs. Early in February, President Clinton sent to Congress a budget for fiscal year 2001 with a record $54.9 billion in transportation investments. This budget reflects a total obligation level of about $30 billion for the Federal aid highway program. It proposes that $2.3 billion of the $3.058 billion of RABA be allocated to the States by the TEA-21 formulas. We propose to return a large portion of the additional funds to the States through those desired programs identified by Congress in TEA-21—for example, the Indian Reservation Roads Program and Highway Use Tax Evasion Projects.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The budget also meets the needs of the States by requesting additional contract authority of $398 million per year for fiscal years 2001-2003 for the creation of a new emergency relief fund. Emergency relief reserves would fund emergency needs and eliminate the backlog of current emergency needs over the next three years.
TEA-21 cut research and technology funding. To address this shortfall, the budget also proposes additional funding in the amount of $221 million for FHWA for transportation research and technology programs in support of the States. This includes $50 million to support FHWA's core R&T programs.
Mr. Chairman, again we thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We look forward to continuing to work with this committee to address the full implementation of TEA-21, and we look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
Mr. HORN [ASSUMING CHAIR]. We thank you for that very helpful testimony and thank you very much for coming, Mr. Administrator.
We now go to The Honorable Jolene Molitoris, administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.
Ms. MOLITORIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here to speak before you and all the honorable members of this committee.
TEA-21 includes several very important rail-related provisions, investing in highway-rail crossing safety, high-speed rail, the RRIF program—railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program—next-generation high-speed rail, and MagLev.
I wish to use my time today just to highlight some of the extraordinary developments in high-speed rail in the inter-city corridors.
Just yesterday, Secretary Slater testified before the Surface Transportation Board about the importance of both passenger and freight railroads to meet the demands of the 21st century. It is in this context that the Administration believes that high-speed rail must be a part of a 21st century competitive national transportation system. The citizens' transportation demands of today and tomorrow demand it, and high-speed rail is a cost-effective way to provide inter-city mobility—mobility in corridors where additional airport capacity is difficult or impossible to build, mobility in corridors where urban highway congestion can create interstate parking lots, and mobility with a high degree of safety. Indeed, high-speed rail development includes investments to address the most pressing rail-related safety issue—highway-rail grade crossing investments, which benefit both motorists and those traveling by rail.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
High-speed rail can accomplish this, and that is why this technology is so important for AMTRAK in terms of its viability in the future.
The chairman of AMTRAK's bipartisan board, Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, repeatedly reminds us that the American people are rediscovering the excitement of passenger railroads and demanding high-speed rail like they see in Europe and that Europe has had for decades. In fact, many States are partnering with AMTRAK. For example, in Pennsylvania, the Keystone Corridor between Harrisburg and Philadelphia is a partnership investing $140 million with the State of Pennsylvania and AMTRAK. New York's Empire Corridor is investing $175 million over five years through a State/AMTRAK partnership. The midwest regional rail initiative involves nine States and 3,000 miles of high-speed corridors connecting all parts of the region.
In fact, last Friday in the ''Wall Street Journal'' there was a notice of a joint proposal by three States to procure 20 train sets for this service.
You can find this going on all over the country. In fact, four-fifths of the country's metropolitan area population are included in the designated high-speed corridors.
Nationwide, States have invested $1.7 billion in high-speed rail development over the last ten years, and in the next five years States will invest $1.1 billion. In the last two years since TEA-21 was enacted, the landscape for high-speed rail has really improved, and that is why the Administration, the National Governor's Conference, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors all have signed letters that I think you have all seen promoting the investment in high-speed rail that is so important now.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration's budget has proposed a modest investment in high-speed rail that will yield substantial benefits. The President has requested $468 million in the 2001 budget for expanded inter-city rail passenger investments. Legislation enabling this expanded Federal role was transmitted to Congress by Secretary Slater on February 28th. We look forward to early and favorable consideration of this legislation by the committee.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I appreciate the opportunity to be before you and also to answer questions on these and other subjects that you have raised in your statements.
Thank you.
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.
We will now move to The Honorable Kelley S. Coyner, who is the Administrator of Research and Special Programs Administration.
Ms. COYNER. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to speak before you today.
The Transportation Equity Act provided the Department with key innovative approaches to financing research and technology. TEA-21 planted the seeds for some important changes in the way we encourage technological innovations to meet our safety, mobility, and environmental challenges and to achieve the Nation's transportation goal.
TEA-21 encouraged partnerships among government, both at the State and Federal level, business, and universities, eliminated barriers such as procurement issues, and helped build the capacity of the transportation workforce for the 21st century.
Let me highlight a couple of notable examples.
Human factor is, by far, the number one cause of transportation fatalities and injuries across all modes of transportation. Under the TEA-21 authorization, we have identified two key research projects under a new program on human-centered systems research that had the potential to reduce by one-third over ten years the incidents that result in transportation fatalities and injuries. These projects focus on fatigue and applying modern instructional, computer, and simulator technologies to improve driver performance.
TEA-21 created the Advanced Vehicle Technology Program, an effort that is overseen by the Research and Special Programs Administration. This program represents a collaborative partnership with seven regional consortia in the private sector that is leading the development of a new generation of U.S.-manufactured, energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly medium-and heavy-duty vehicles.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
RSPA has also introduced, with the help of TEA-21's authorizing legislation, an innovative approach to protecting underground pipelines and fiber optic cables that transportation systems rely on. This approach was the result of a successful collaborative study to identify best practices in damage prevention.
TEA-21 also expanded the University Transportation Centers program, which connects research performed at our universities with the communities who benefit from it, and at the same time helps build the professional capacity of our future workforce.
TEA-21 provides the Department of Transportation the opportunity to build collaborative partnerships among Government, business, and academia. It is allowing us to pursue research and development programs we believe have the potential for making dramatic improvements in all of the Department's key areas, but particularly in the safety area.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and would welcome any questions that you have.
Mr. HORN. Thank you.
Our next witness from the Administration is The Honorable Nuria Fernandez, Acting Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration.
Ms. FERNANDEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you about FTA's implementation of TEA-21. I am also pleased to report that TEA-21 has provided us with a record level of funding that has changed the landscape of mass transportation in America. It has begun to have a very positive effect on transit ridership and on the condition of transit infrastructure.
Transit ridership has increased 3 percent every year since 1993. This means that transit ridership has grown faster than urban highway passenger miles through the same period.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Funding levels provided by TEA-21, if matched by commensurate increases in State and local funds, as we expect, should meet our estimates for the capital cost to maintain current conditions and performance of the Nation's mass transportation infrastructure by the end of 2003.
Two TEA-21 initiatives that I would like to highlight here also promise to increase ridership and improve the condition of transit infrastructure. Those initiatives are the commuter choice program and the innovative financing techniques, especially those under the TIFIA program.
Commuter choice is a product of TEA-21. It has measurably increased transit ridership. Under this program, an employer can provide employees with a tax-free benefit of $65 per month for transit or van pools. That amount will be increased to $100 per month in 2002.
Across the Nation, more and more employers are offering their employees a commuter choice program to encourage employees to commute to work using public transportation instead of single-occupant vehicles.
At the Department of Transportation headquarters, alone, over 1,300 employees have switched from driving to using public transportation.
We recently unveiled our commuter choice tool kit. This tool kit really provides the guidance to employers in setting up a commuter choice program.
The other program I would like to quickly mention is the innovative financing techniques, which promises to improve the condition of the transit infrastructure, and transit agencies are using these techniques more and more.
The New Jersey Transit Authority just recently used the grant anticipation notes to save over $42 million on the cost of $160 million bus purchase. New Orleans RTA entered into a lease for 175 buses with a private leasing company. Under that lease, the RTA will save at least $2 million a year for the first three years on maintenance costs that are currently $9 million a year.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
On January 28, the Department executed its first loan guarantee under the TIFIA program for $600 million. That loan guarantee, costing just $8.9 million in obligation authority, will help the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to accelerate several contracts in its $2.3 billion capital improvement program over the next ten years.
Immediate savings to WMATA would exceed $50 million, and the accelerated contracts will reduce the cost of rail car and station refurbishments by at least an additional $50 million over the next five years.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss these programs. I will be happy to answer any questions relative to the programs that were mentioned in the opening statements and any questions you may have on these things.
Mr. PETRI [RESUMING CHAIR]. Thank you.
Administrator Millman?
Ms. MILLMAN. Thank you, Chairman Petri and members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to make my first appearance before you to discuss NHTSA's implementation of critical highway safety programs and initiatives in TEA-21.
I look forward to working with the subcommittee and receiving your support and ideas.
NHTSA's mission is to reduce deaths and injuries from motor vehicle crashes. We pursue this mission through programs to make vehicles safer and programs that help States and communities solve their unique traffic safety problems.
Innovation is the cornerstone of both programs.
To assist the States and communities, NHTSA provides safety grants, together with supporting research, development, demonstration, and technical assistance programs. Since 1992, these programs have saved over 90,000 people.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Despite these savings, the status quo is not satisfactory. In 1998, motor vehicle crashes killed more than 41,000 people and injured over three million others. Our preliminary estimates for 1999 show a similar level. These crashes cost our nation over $150 billion a year.
NHTSA's fiscal year 2001 budget estimate provides the resources, more than $499 million, an increase of $133 million, for an ambitious program that reflects President Clinton's and Secretary Slater's priorities and intention to pursue innovation aggressively in the drive for safer roads.
The $133 million increase over fiscal year 2000 will support new initiatives that rely on non-traditional approaches to foster a climate of safety innovation, new ways of doing business, and support for research and development.
The Administration's proposed legislation, the Emergency Relief Reserve Act of 2000, dedicates $70 million of the $3 billion in revenue aligned budget authority to support NHTSA's critically-important operations and research needs.
In addition to the $70 million of RABA funds, we have proposed increased authorizations for motor vehicle safety programs and the section 403 highway safety research and development programs.
I want to stress the critical importance of the section 403 program, the scientific underpinning for highway safety programs that States and local communities tailor to their unique needs.
When motor vehicle crashes cause more than 41,000 deaths every year, ongoing programs must be strengthened and new programs initiated to attack this public health problem. Innovation is our most promising strategy. The Administration's proposed legislation and our fiscal year 2001 budget proposal are designed to support the strategy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Administrator Cirillo?
Ms. CIRILLO. Good afternoon, Chairman Petri and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee on behalf of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
There are 696 Motor Carrier employees nationwide who are extremely proud of our status as an operating administration of the Department of Transportation, and totally dedicated to our mission of preventing bus and truck injuries and fatalities.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud you and this subcommittee for your tireless efforts to promote strong motor carrier safety programs in TEA-21 and the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.
Due in large part to your efforts, funding levels for motor carrier safety have increased significantly. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a record level of investment in motor carrier safety, $279 million, a 54 percent increase over the enacted fiscal year 2000 amount.
With Congress' commitment to steady funding, we can improve commercial driver licensing programs, increase enforcement, and invest in information and safety technologies. With TEA-21 provisions, States are making longer-term commitments to bus and truck safety programs.
Last May, Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater challenged the Department to reduce bus and truck fatalities by 50 percent in a decade. Preliminary estimates from the fatality analysis reporting system indicate that fatalities and crashes involving large trucks declined 3 percent in 1999, down to 5,203 from 5,374 in 1998.
I believe the work of the employees of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration contributed significantly to this reduction.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In April, I issued guidance to our field staff to increase compliance reviews, increase penalties, and reduce the backlog of enforcement cases. From May, 1999, through January, 2000, FMCSA safety investigators conducted 6,791 compliance reviews, a 96 percent increase over the similar time period the year before. In that same time frame, we brought 37 percent more enforcement cases, and, with higher penalties set by Congress in TEA-21, we increased fines by 52 percent, reduced the backlog of enforcement cases by 88 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will become the performance benchmark for Federal agencies. I am personally committed to making that happen and ask for your support in meeting our objectives.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Thank you all for your statements.
We will now provide the committee members opportunity to ask questions for five minutes. Committee staff will faciliate any Member who wishes to submit additional questions in writing. I hope you will respond, as well, so that they can be made a part of the record. It gets too cumbersome otherwise to go through all the questions that we do have orally at this time.
I will start with Administrator Wykle. We have been very concerned with the implementation of the project streamlining provisions in TEA-21. Of course, building roads is not done in a vacuum. Building roads is done in order to improve safety and mobility for our society, and these are important human and environmental objectives.
Why should the Department of Transportation's statutory duties to ensure the safety and mobility of all Americans take a back seat to the regulatory agency's environmental responsibilities? What can we do to ensure that, in fact, we do streamline and coordinate Federal and State approvals so that we can get on with the job of providing a safe and efficient transportation system?
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WYKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since the signing of TEA-21, we have had a very aggressive program to work to streamline the environmental approval process. We have drafted two particular regulations, one on planning and one on the NEPA process, and they are in the final stages of review at this time. We initiated a memorandum of understanding with all the Federal agencies in July of 1999. We have held a series of regional summits across the United States. We have been very flexible with the States in terms of trying various pilot programs to learn first-hand the issues that may come up and work to resolve those. We have established a website. We have done many, many additional things to work to streamline the process, and I think we are making very good progress on that, but we have 40 different statutes we must work through in terms of meeting those requirements, so it is a very complex and challenging task, but I think the States have been very receptive to the initiatives we are taking, and we are confident we will continue to make good progress on that.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
I am informed that the Department's website notes that, because the word ''environmental'' precedes the word ''streamlining'' in TEA-21, ''streamlining will occur only if transportation agencies have first demonstrated that they will truly honor environmental laws and values.'' Does this mean that there is going to be or that there is an effort to impose additional environmental hurdles on States before the Department will implement the law requiring it to streamline the project review and approval process?
Mr. WYKLE. There is no effort on our part, Mr. Chairman, to change the law in any way or to raise the bar. We are working to enforce, comply with the current environmental laws and requirements, and at the same time make that process easier and more timely.
So we want to speed up the process, make it quicker, but maintain the current standards.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. Could you enumerate, either here today or later in writing, specific actions that the Department is taking to secure commitments from Federal agencies to meet specific timelines for completing their reviews and to conduct these reviews concurrently rather than consecutively?
Mr. WYKLE. I will be glad to provide that for the record. We do have some data on timelines and project approvals, and so I will provide that to you.
Mr. PETRI. Okay. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[insert here]
Mr. PETRI. Administrator Molitoris, good to see you here again. We appreciate your testimony. We are concerned and our committee leadership has written a number of times about the loan guarantee program. Of course, the program was created by statute and it did not provide that it be a program of last resort. The statue just set the program up.
Eighteen months have passed, and yet no loans have been made. When are the final regulations coming out? Could you tell us?
Ms. MOLITORIS. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I personally am very enthusiastic about this program, because the data which supports the need for this program is so evident. The $6 billion that short-line and regional railroads need is certainly a basis for the importance of this loan program.
As you know, last May the notice of proposed rule-making was out, and I think, if your staff looks at the website from the Office of Management and Budget, you will see that it is considering the final rule now. So it is in the final stages of clearance. We are prepared to expedite the program as soon as it comes back to us, and we will expedite getting it to the ''Federal Register.'' Once it is published, 30 days later we are open for business.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. Could you give us any estimate as to when these final stages will be concluded?
Ms. MOLITORIS. Well, of course, that is the purview of the Office of Management and Budget, and I think everybody realizes how important it is.
We certainly are prepared. We have our staff prepared. We have done a great deal of work on the program—we had Ernst & Young come and help us get all of our strategies and methodologies in place, just like the TIFIA program, so I think we have a very good methodology. We are waiting, I think, as anxiously as the committee members.
Also, I should mention I brought with me and would like to submit for the record the fact that Secretary Slater very much supports this. In fact, in the rural America initiative the RRIF program is mentioned as a very important financing program, plus we have the brochures all ready to go.
So I cannot emphasize too strongly how important it is, how much we support it, how ready we are, and we look forward to the clearance process being completed so that we can get it in the ''Federal Register'' and moved.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Borski?
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Fernandez, I would like to address questions to you, if I may. It is something that our ranking member, Mr. Oberstar, raised in his opening remarks about the welfare-to-work provisions.
Many of us who represent urban areas were very concerned about this provision. It was a change of heart, if you will, for me, one in which—in the past, I always thought we would be better off keeping and promoting and bringing jobs into the city, where people are who need the work. That has not been happening as well as we would like, and it seems only reasonable and right to then look at the reverse commute and how we can get the people who need to get out to the jobs out where they are.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
My question is, on the process of earmarking these projects in the appropriation bill, when we were putting these provisions together, the idea was to get communities to come together to apply for these grants. If they were to receive them or not, they would be looking at the picture and finding again new ways to get people to where the jobs are.
Has the earmarking hurt that process? Could it hurt it in the future? Will people stop coming together and looking for ways to make sure job access works and only look to make sure they can get somebody an appropriation bill to take care of their particular project?
We are not talking about a large amount of money, and I am really concerned that the earmarks could stop what we intended to do.
Could you comment on that for me, please?
Ms. FERNANDEZ. Certainly. I would love to comment on that.
You have asked a question on an area that is very important to all of us in the Administration, particularly the Federal Transit Administration, because we have been entrusted with the management of the access to jobs programs.
Yes, the earmarking in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations did give us a moment of pause because of the criteria that we had developed for the selection of projects, that would bring meaningful transportation opportunities for those who currently do not have those opportunities in the times that they need them, which is usually the third shift.
In the ''Federal Register'' notice, in which we announce our next round of applications, we have a provision to request that projects that were earmarked provide data to satisfy all of the requirements of the criteria which are the criteria for selecting those projects from among those competing to be funded. And we have indicated a 60-day time limit for those earmarked projects to provide that information.
This is the same time limit that we have asked those who are submitting new proposals to comply with. So it is our expectation that we will receive sufficient data to confirm that the earmarked projects, in fact, have been coordinated with local metropolitan planning, that there is no duplication in service, that they are providing the benefits, and that they meet the intent of the access to jobs program.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think it is a little too early for us to comment, since we have not received more information other than what was in the appropriations bill to determine whether or not those projects are, in fact, eligible.
But what we are doing with the ''Federal Register'' notice is asking for the project sponsors to submit information similar to that that would be submitted by those properties or organizations that are competing.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, if I can follow up quickly?
Mr. PETRI. Sure.
Mr. BORSKI. Again, my concern is—and perhaps it is something you could look at for me and keep me appraised of, but my concern is that communities will stop this process and stop looking, because the pot of money is really small, and if getting a program earmarked in appropriations is the only way to get things done, perhaps we are going to lose a very important benefit that we certainly intended.
Ms. FERNANDEZ. And that clearly is a possibility. We have been talking to a number of organizations and communities that were very excited about the first go-around and the opportunities that they saw to either expand proposals that were selected by augmenting those transportation services, in addition to exploring other areas that had been untapped.
What we have done in the fiscal year 2001 budget proposal is to request an increase in the funding level to meet the full authorized level. That would then give us the opportunity to have the resources to address the myriad of proposals that we are receiving, which exceed the dollars that are available.
That is our expectation in 2001. For 2000, once the ''Federal Register'' notice is posted and we get applications, we'll get a better sense.
I do hope that communities that have, in fact, worked long and hard to develop meaningful proposals are not going to give up and still submit, and that will give us a sense as to what the real magnitude of proposals versus funds is going to be this coming year.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Sweeney?
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you, as well, for conducting this hearing, which is extremely important to each of us Members.
I only have a couple of questions, and I will ask them as expeditiously as I can.
My first is to Mr. Wykle. I recently wrote you a letter, with a couple of my colleagues from the State of New York. Thank you for your prompt response to it. As we said in that letter, there is an initiative, a Montreal-to-New-York Corridor initiative that we are undertaking in my State which we think is important for the Nation—important for the Nation because we are going to connect two of the largest cities in North America, and there is great need because there is a substandard transportation route between them.
Your agency, as one of its responsibilities, promotes these kinds of initiatives. Trade corridors such as this one are important for the local economy, but also the national economy.
My question is: in your response to us in that letter, you simply said that competition for the NCPD dollars and CDI funds were appropriators' issues and we should take it up with the appropriators, which we certainly will. But, knowing the importance of this corridor initiative to the eastern seaboard and to the Nation, is it at all a priority for the FHA? Where does it fit in terms of your earmarkings?
Mr. WYKLE. Well, the borders and corridors program is an extremely popular program. That is one of the reasons in our budget we ask for a 100 percent increase.
I think TEA-21 and this committee was very visionary in recognizing the need for that program, so you provided $140 million a year. This particular year, more than half of that money was earmarked. We had over $2 billion in requests for the remaining approximately $60 million. So it will be very competitive to get dollars this year.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But, having said that, the borders and corridors program is a high priority for us. We recognize the importance of it, and we are doing our best to endeavor to fund the projects with the most merit out of that limited amount of money. And we think it is extremely important to increase the size of that pot because you and so many other States want that money, and so that is why we ask for additional in this year's budget.
Mr. SWEENEY. Sure. If I could, I would like to schedule some time with you to go over the initiative so that maybe we could emphasize how valid that project is and how important it might be.
Mr. WYKLE. I would be more than happy to do that, sir.
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you.
Mr. WYKLE. And the sooner the better.
Mr. SWEENEY. And my final question is to Ms. Millman. First, let me congratulate you on your interim appointment and wish you well.
So you understand, as part of my background, in the 1980s I ran a traffic safety program. I worked with NHTSA an awful lot on an initiative in New York called ''Stop DWI'' that had incredible results. It lowered fatalities by huge numbers. It was a general deterrence model. I think it was a great symbol of what we can do if we put our minds to it, and our hearts and soul in it.
But I am concerned with—I know last year other members raised the issue that NHTSA might be violating section 7104 of TEA-21, the section that prohibits you from actively lobbying State or local organizations. And the issue has been raised with me from a number of constituents and others. And they recognize, I think, that I have been a fan and have some background.
You sent a packet of information—I have it here—to each of the offices in the House. The information promotes the .08 BAC limits. I am concerned that not accompanying that information is maybe other information you could put in it. For example, there is a North Carolina study that seems to refute the notion that 08 is as effective as NHTSA has promoted it to be.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would like to just ask your comment on that and whether you are concerned, as well, that there may be 7104 violation in those efforts.
Ms. MILLMAN. Well, there are several parts to that question. Let me try to break it down.
The packet that you are referring to contains several pieces of information based on what we know about .08 BAC laws, such as how the police can detect drivers who have blood alcohol levels above .08. There is a report on the States' experiences with .08 laws and other information about the science.
That package that we provided is typical of the information packets that we put together. We see one of our primary roles as making information available. So we have similar resource kits on other issues besides alcohol.
Mr. SWEENEY. If I can reclaim my time, I understand that. My point is, I think, in order to not appear to be lobbying or using or being in violation of 7104, let me suggest that NHTSA provide a more-comprehensive packet of information, including studies from other jurisdictions that maybe refute the notion that 08 is as effective.
Ms. MILLMAN. I would be happy to.
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Representative Cummings?
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.
Ms. Millman, just a real quick question. I had an opportunity about two weeks ago just to spend some time in our shock trauma unit. I just wanted to see how it worked. I went in on a Friday night and watched two people die and saw two or three people—we have one of the best in the country in Baltimore—and watched three people literally be diagnosed within 45 seconds of getting into the hospital of being paralyzed. It is just amazing what they do.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It was clear, based upon what the doctors told me, that these people would have not been paralyzed if they had used a seatbelt.
I am just wondering, where are we with regard to seatbelts? I mean, I guess all States have it as a requirement now; is that right?
Ms. MILLMAN. All but one.
Mr. CUMMINGS. All but one?
Ms. MILLMAN. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Which one is that?
Ms. MILLMAN. New Hampshire.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. Do you all get involved in that kind of thing much at all? I am just curious.
Ms. MILLMAN. Again, with respect to Congressman Sweeney, we do not lobby on specific legislation. What we do is—
Mr. CUMMINGS. You put out information, though?
Ms. MILLMAN.—provide information. And, in fact, we have on request provided testimony to the Maryland Legislature on safety issues.
Right now the national average seatbelt use rate is about 70 percent, so that is tremendous progress in the last 10 or 15 years.
The President has a goal of 85 percent by the end of 2000 and 90 percent by the end of 2005, so we think that we can continue to make progress on increasing the usage.
Unfortunately, sometimes what it takes are high-profile crashes. For example, with Derrick Thomas, the football player for the Kansas City Chiefs, he was in a crash with two other people. One person was wearing a seatbelt walked away from that crash. The two other people who were not wearing seatbelts died.
Sometimes it is examples like that that galvanize people's interest in an issue.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Molitoris, talk about MagLev. Where are we with that? I have worked real hard in Maryland on that and I want to know where we are. MagLev would to so much for our State and the Washington, D.C. corridor in tourism and getting people to work. I mean, it is such a big deal for us. I just want to know where it is.
A lot of people almost believe when I am talking about it I am talking about Mars or something. They just do not believe it would ever happen.
I know we are looking at seven jurisdictions, but I want to know where it is, generally.
Ms. MOLITORIS. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cummings, I would tell you that the seven corridors that are vying for the designation to build the MagLev system are extremely enthusiastic. They are very deliberate as they pursue the development of their projects. They have developed wonderful teams with public and private partnerships. And all of them have unique characteristics which make them very competitive.
So when we receive all of the information in June, we expect, by September, to reduce the number to a smaller number, and then by March of next year to actually make a decision and start construction in one of the corridors.
I would tell you that your observations are ones that are shared by leaders around the country. This is not Mars. This is the 21st century, and it would be a new technology for the first time in many years. It is a viable technology. It is one that is very responsive to environmental needs.
For example, in California, one of the reasons that they chose MagLev in the corridor in Los Angeles is because they could not find anything else which could respond to their air quality needs.
The Secretary, in fact, has been to New Orleans. I have been to Georgia and to Pittsburgh. We are making individual visits to the teams to encourage and learn from them about what they are doing. We are very enthusiastic, and the Secretary, as you know, is very focused on future technology and innovation, and he has been very supportive of this process.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CUMMINGS. While you are running all around the country, do not forget about us right here.
Ms. MOLITORIS. I certainly will not. I have to tell you that the people involved with the Maryland project invited me to come, and I will be there.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. You could almost ride a bike to where we are.
Ms. MOLITORIS. We could run there, I am sure.
Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
We have a vote on the floor, but we have about ten minutes, so I will call on Representative Metcalf.
Mr. METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I understand that the DOT and the regulatory agencies are developing new NEPA rules to be consistent with the streamlining provisions of TEA-21. What steps has DOT taken to ensure that the new rules do not create additional delays or burdens for the State?
Mr. WYKLE. We are holding outreach sessions. We have had regional meetings with the States. We have been very flexible, in terms of working with the States, to do individual pilot programs to test new ideas and procedures, if you will. We have also signed a memorandum of understanding with the various Federal agencies to work to streamline and improve the process.
So there is a series of actions that we are taking and have taken to shorten the time and improve the overall process.
Mr. METCALF. I have one other quick question.
Some groups have called for a measurement system to objectively evaluate Federal agencies' progress in implementing environmental streamlining. Would you support a system that would benchmark current practices and measure progress in improving these practices?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WYKLE. Certainly we are interested in benchmarking and measurements. That is an area that we are championing throughout the Federal Highway Administration to try to better measure what we do and benchmark with world class organizations.
In the area of environmental streamlining, we do already have some measurements. For example, I can tell you that 97 percent of all the projects representing 87 percent of the dollars go through the process within two years. It is only about 2.5 percent of the projects, roughly 13 percent of the dollars, that really run into these multi-year type approval processes. So we are making great progress on the majority of the projects. We are now trying to focus on those large, complex projects and find a way to shorten that time.
We support measurements.
Mr. METCALF. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Clement?
Mr. CLEMENT. I do have some questions, but I am going to submit them for the record in various areas.
I am pleased that all of you are here today. As you all know, we have votes, and we do not want to hold people indefinitely here, but thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Thank you all for your testimony.
A number of Members do have questions in addition to Representative Clement, and we will be submitting those for your response.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[insert here]