[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
                    RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
                                FOR 1999

========================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                                ________

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                             APPROPRIATIONS

                    FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman

TOM DeLAY, Texas             MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
RALPH REGULA, Ohio           ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky      JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
RON PACKARD, California      ED PASTOR, Arizona
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama      ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas          
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama  

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full 
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full 
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

John T. Blazey II, Richard E. Efford, Stephanie K. Gupta, and Linda J. Muir,
                            Subcommittee Staff
                                ________

                                 PART 7

                    TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

                          AND PUBLIC WITNESSES

                              

                                ________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-482                      WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office            
        Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office,        
                          Washington, DC 20402                          














                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS                      

                   BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman                  

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania         DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin            
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida              SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois           
RALPH REGULA, Ohio                     LOUIS STOKES, Ohio                  
JERRY LEWIS, California                JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania        
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois           NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington         
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky                MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota         
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                  JULIAN C. DIXON, California         
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia                VIC FAZIO, California               
TOM DeLAY, Texas                       W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina 
JIM KOLBE, Arizona                     STENY H. HOYER, Maryland            
RON PACKARD, California                ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia     
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama                MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                  
JAMES T. WALSH, New York               DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado           
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina      NANCY PELOSI, California            
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                  PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana         
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma        ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California   
HENRY BONILLA, Texas                   NITA M. LOWEY, New York             
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan              JOSE E. SERRANO, New York           
DAN MILLER, Florida                    ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut        
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                   JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia            
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                 JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts        
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi               ED PASTOR, Arizona                  
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey    CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida             
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi           DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina      
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York            CHET EDWARDS, Texas                 
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington  ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin             
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California  
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                    
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                   
TOM LATHAM, Iowa                       
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky              
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama            

                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director












 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                                  1999

                              ----------                              

                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

 TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND 
                             ORGANIZATIONS

                              ----------                              


REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, CITY OF PHOENIX, AND CITY OF 
                                 TEMPE

                               WITNESSES

HON. NEIL GIULIANO, MAYOR, CITY OF TEMPE, ARIZONA AND CHAIRMAN, 
    REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VALERIE MANNING, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PHOENIX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Wolf. The hearing will come to order.
    We are a few minutes early, but we have a lot of witnesses 
and we just felt we would start now. I would just ask everybody 
that when the red light comes on, if you could just begin to 
summarize and end quickly, I would appreciate it. We have about 
62 witnesses so we're going to be here all day. There will be 
an opportunity, too, for people to come back and ask you 
questions through the mail, to submit questions to you. But out 
of courtesy to the people asking can you guarantee that I won't 
miss my flight here or my flight there, if we can keep on 
schedule, it would be very, very helpful.
    So with that, beginning a little bit early, I want to 
welcome you. You can submit your full statement for the record 
and proceed as you see fit, subject to the fact of the light. 
And I apologize for that. I wish we didn't really have to do 
this. I wish we could stay here and just let you talk. But 
because of where we are and the time limits, we're restricted 
to that.
    So, Mayor, you may proceed.
    Mayor Giuliano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the 
opportunity to be here. My name is Neil Giuliano. I am the 
Chair of the Regional Public Transportation Authority and the 
Mayor of Tempe, Arizona. It is an honor to be here to appear 
before you as you prepare for the fiscal year 1999 
transportation appropriations bill.
    With me today is Valerie Manning, who is the President and 
CEO of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber represents 
3,300 businesses in our Phoenix metropolitan area. The Phoenix 
Chamber, as well as the Tempe Chamber, supports our fiscal year 
1999 appropriation request by the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and 
the RPTA.
    The Phoenix metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing 
regions in the country. Our Maricopa County population exceeds 
2.5 million and is expected to grow by over 70 percent in the 
next 20 years.
    Phoenix is the 7th largest city, the 14th largest urbanized 
area in the country, and our transit system is really lagging 
and is only the 34th largest in terms of passenger trips made. 
In addition, we're among only three of the twenty largest 
metropolitan areas that have not constructed a fixed guideway 
system.
    In September of 1996 residents of my City of Tempe approved 
a one-half cent sales tax dedicated to improving the transit 
system within Tempe. Our significant expansion program is 
currently being implemented and will continue to be connected 
to the region over the next five years. Other cities in the 
Valley are also developing plans to expand their transit 
services.
    Our metropolitan area has expressed a significant interest 
in implementing passenger rail service to help relieve 
congestion in heavily travelled corridors and improve our 
regional mobility. Last January, our Maricopa County 
Association of Governments adopted an 18-mile base-fixed 
guideway corridor into the region's long-range transportation 
plan, a corridor that would connect Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa.
    During the past year, our Central Phoenix East Valley major 
investment study was conducted in an important transportation 
corridor and it is expected to be completed this month. The 
study will recommend a 13-mile light rail transit segment 
between Phoenix and Tempe be implemented. In addition, bus 
service expansion is recommended within the corridor as well.
    Our appropriation request for fiscal year 1999 includes two 
elements. There is a serious need to replace old polluting 
buses in Phoenix, and to expand the bus fleet to coincide with 
major immediate expansions in Tempe as well as some expansions 
in Scottsdale and Glendale. The total fleet request includes 
129 buses and the Federal funding request is $34.4 million. All 
of these buses will be alternatively fueled using liquified 
natural gas as required by State air quality legislation. In 
addition, all the buses will be fully accessible to persons 
with disabilities.
    The second component of our request includes continued 
funding for the 13-mile LRT corridor which I just described. 
Last year's appropriations bill approved $4 million which will 
be used for preliminary engineering/environmental work and 
emergency land acquisition. The Federal fiscal year 1999 
funding request is to complete final design. Our request is for 
$8 million and assumes a 50 percent local match ratio. With 
continued Federal support, we anticipate the first segment of 
the LRT to be ready for operation in the year 2003.
    We believe our Phoenix metropolitan area is long overdue 
with regard to a fair share of Federal transit funding. Last 
year we were fortunate enough to receive $8.5 million 
appropriation from Congress for bus purchases and rail 
planning. We're thankful for those funds which we are over-
matching to provide the maximum leverage of Federal dollars. 
However, as one of the largest metropolitan areas in the 
Nation, we have growing traffic congestion, mobility 
constraints, and air quality concerns that must be addressed 
beginning now. With your help, we can take an important step 
towards solving our region's transportation issues.
    We understand the demands of the committee and understand 
the entire Congress has needs in meeting local and regional 
transportation infrastructure needs. We thank you very much for 
giving us this time to be before you today and for your 
thoughtful consideration for our projects that are taking place 
within the Phoenix metropolitan region.
    Mr. Wolf. I thank you very much. I appreciate your 
testimony, and Mr. Pastor has been very supportive of your 
efforts. We do appreciate the over-match, too. I think that's a 
very significant thing. So I thank you very much. I have no 
questions. We may have some questions for the record.
    Mr. Packard.
    Mr. Packard. I have no questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    Mayor Giuliano. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mayor Giuliano follows:]


[Pages 4 - 5--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

               REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF DENVER

                                WITNESS

HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    COLORADO
    Mr. Wolf. Welcome, Congresswoman DeGette. I appreciate your 
taking the time to come.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Packard. I'm 
glad to be back here again this year testifying before this 
subcommittee about an issue that Congressman Dan Shaefer, my 
colleague to the West, and I have been working very hard on, 
which is the western expansion of our light rail project in 
Colorado. Most of this project is in Mr. Shaefer's district, 
but part of it is in my district as well.
    The Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Colorado is 
seeking an appropriation of $60 million for fiscal year 1999. I 
know that this committee has a hard task ahead of it in 
allocating this money, and I appreciate working cooperatively 
with you on these projects.
    We were very pleased by last year's appropriation which 
enabled us to continue with the planning and construction of 
this southwest light rail expansion. I will say that the 
project is moving along well; we now have the core light rail 
in place. I've been remarkably impressed at how well this light 
rail system is working. Many of us were dubious about it when 
it was first constructed, but it has very high ridership and is 
quite successful.
    The southwestern expansion through Congressman Shaefer's 
district is the next expansion of this light rail. I think once 
we complete that we can move forward to construct a world class 
transit system.
    RTD is continuing its progress in the southwest corridor 
and there will be three major activity centers served by the 
southwest expansion: First of all, the Denver central business 
district because the expansion will connect to the existing 
light rail; secondly, a major retail and commercial facility in 
Englewood which is currently undergoing substantial 
redevelopment; and finally, the Littleton central business 
district. This project will also provide residents of Douglas 
County, which is the fastest growing county in Colorado and one 
of the two or three fastest growing counties in the country, 
with light rail and mass transit to the central Denver area.
    The reason why Congressman Shaefer and I are working so 
hard on this, as well as our colleagues in the RTD and the 
State, is because it will provide major economic benefits for 
the region. In the first year of operation, the southwest light 
rail project is projected to provide its passengers with a 56 
percent travel time-savings as compared to the same trip by 
automobile. By 2015, the light rail project is expected to cut 
auto travel time in half, saving its 22,000 passengers over 25 
minutes per trip. In addition, the southwest corridor light 
rail project allows RTD to operate more efficiently. By the 
year 2015, RTD can provide this light rail service at $2.60 per 
passenger trip compared to a similar trip by bus that would 
cost $3.10.
    And let me add, the way the growth patterns are occurring 
right now in Colorado, so much of the pressure is along two 
central transportation routes. We really need to find some kind 
of alternative like light rail to the current auto trips. We 
simply don't have the resources to expand those highway 
systems.
    Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would say we think this is 
our top priority. There are also two other priorities which we 
have been working on and we talked to the committee about last 
year. One is the Broadway viaduct in Denver which has received 
bridge priority funding over the last number of years, and the 
other one is the multimodal transportation at the former 
Stapleton Airport. I would simply ask your permission to submit 
testimony as to those projects in writing.
    Mr. Wolf. Without objection.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Wolf. If you could just have the RTD submit too the 
ridership so we can see how well it's going, what the 
projections were and how many are riding it.
    Ms. DeGette. Sure.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, Mr. Packard.
    Mr. Packard. Madam, does any of your light rail project go 
underground?
    Ms. DeGette. No, I don't believe any of it is planned to go 
underground.
    Mr. Packard. And does it connect with the new airport?
    Ms. DeGette. These two segments, the existing segment we 
have right now does not; obviously, the southwest segment does 
not. But in the overall plan, we will have a connecting cog to 
the airport. That's down the road a little bit in the plan.
    I will say that the municipalities in the Denver 
metropolitan area have worked extremely well cooperating, 
figuring out which leg of the light rail will be built at which 
time. I believe after we complete the southwest corridor, we're 
then going to complete the southern corridor which goes through 
a portion of Congressman Hefley's district, and then on into my 
district, and then will go up North to the airport after that.
    Mr. Packard. It does intend though to implement the 
multimodal concepts that we've tried to include?
    Ms. DeGette. Absolutely. In fact, this multimodal 
transportation center that I just spoke of will be at the old 
Stapleton airport site and will connect the new airport as well 
as our whole transportation system. I'm very pleased with how 
well we're working in the metro area to connect all of our 
forms of mass transit, and we badly need them.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    I want to welcome Mr. Cramer, a new member of the 
committee. I don't know if you would have any questions?
    Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very pleased to be 
here.
    No, at this point, I don't want to do any grilling. Thank 
you. [Laughter.]
    Ms. DeGette. And I promise that we will not paint all of 
the cars orange and blue, despite our temptation to do so. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Diana DeGette follows:]


[Pages 9 - 31--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

        CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (LYNX)

                               WITNESSES

HON. BILL McCOLLUM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    FLORIDA
HON. JOHN L. MICA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    FLORIDA
LEO AUGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LYNX
JOHN TILLIETSON, DIRECTOR, GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION AUTHORITY
    Mr. Wolf. Next, we have Mr. Mica and Mr. McCollum.
    You can proceed any way you want. If you wish to submit the 
full statement, it will appear in the record.
    Mr. Mica. If I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCollum is far 
senior and much more intelligent than I. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Wolf. Since he's younger than you but he's been here 
longer, I think that's a good idea.
    Mr. Mica. Better looking. More handsome.
    Mr. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We all 
know each other well. John Mica has a great deal of expertise 
in transportation, so I don't know that seniority needs to come 
first in this.
    I'm just really pleased to be before you today to 
introduce, along with John, our two very distinguished members 
from Florida representing the two interests that we have before 
you. Lee Tillietson, on my far right, John's far right, is with 
the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority as its principal party 
here today and main honcho down there, and on my left is Leo 
Auger, the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority's 
chief person, which, as you may know, that's commonly known as 
LYNX.
    We're here in two different ways. They wish to talk to you 
today, and I strongly support, as I'm sure Mr. Mica does, both 
the airport interests at Orlando's International Airport, and 
the major transportation concerns that the area has with regard 
to both highways and rail and buses. I think the LYNX program 
with the bus transportation part of this has been terribly 
important over time. So I strongly support what they have to 
say.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Bill McCollum follows:]


[Pages 33 - 34--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to 
thank you and your staff particularly for your interest in our 
community and for recognizing the problem that we have and the 
problem that so many others have in meeting transportation 
needs. Central Florida is particularly hard hit because of it 
being a primary tourist destination for folks all over the 
world. We are called upon to really be a gateway for America 
with tourism.
    I would like to introduce first Leo Auger. Leo Auger is 
testifying for his first time as our new director of the 
Regional Transit Authority. He replaces Paul Skoutelas, who I 
think you all have known and worked with before. But we are 
proud to have him on board. He's addressing, first of all, the 
overall issue of our Regional Transit Authority.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, if we may?
    Mr. Wolf. Sure. If you can limit the statement, we would 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Mica. I have a statement----
    Mr. Wolf. Your full statement will appear in the record.
    Mr. Mica. It's about 4,000 or 5,000 pages.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. John Mica follows:]


[Pages 36 - 39--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. Welcome, Mr. Auger.
    Mr. Auger. Thank you, Chairman Wolf, members of the 
subcommittee. I am happy to represent the Central Florida 
Regional Transportation Authority, the public transportation 
agency serving the Orlando metropolitan area. LYNX, as it is 
known locally, serves the counties of Orange, Seminole, and 
Osceola with a population of over 1.4 million residents through 
a variety of services which include bus, carpool, vanpool, and 
door-to-door paratransit.
    I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present the 
testimony today to emphasize the importance of the fiscal year 
1999 appropriations, and, in particular, to discuss the high 
priority capital projects in Central Florida.
    We are requesting funds from the Federal Transit 
Administration under Section 3, Discretionary Capital Grant 
funds. We are requesting a total of $104 million from Section 
3, New Start Program; $43.7 million from Bus and Bus 
Facilities; and $24 million from the Intermodal Project. The 
total would be $171.7 million.
    The light rail project along Interstate 4, which extends 
through the entire Orlando metropolitan area, is the major 
transportation facility serving this region. Virtually all of 
the region's major attractions and activity centers, including 
the Orlando central business district, the International Drive 
district which includes Sea World and Universal Studios, Walt 
Disney World, and the suburban residential and mixed use 
centers, are within the Interstate 4 corridor. However, 
construction of many of the segments of this facility date back 
to the late 1960's and to the 1970's prior to the area's 
significant commercial and residential growth. In essence, 
Interstate 4 is functionally obsolete and incapable of 
providing existing and future capacity for the regional 
mobility.
    Understanding the importance of developing multimodal 
transportation solutions, the Florida Department of 
Transportation adopted a statewide policy of constraining the 
Florida urban Interstate to no more than six general purpose 
lanes and four high occupancy vehicle lanes. This FDOT policy 
also indicates that a fixed guideway public transportation mode 
shall be used to compliment the highway facility and serve the 
mobility requirements of the Interstate corridor.
    In September of 1992, the Florida Department of 
Transportation began developing a multimodal master plan to 
identify the improvement of the Interstate 4 corridor from 
Polk, the Osceola County line, to I-94 in Volusia County. An 
initial LRT line would encompass approximately 24 miles. The 
draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates a light rail 
transit line from State Route 434 in Longwood in Seminole 
County to the Orlando, Orange County International Drive 
tourist district.
    The implementing agency, LYNX, is requesting a Federal 
support for additional design, right-of-way acquisition, yard 
and shop land acquisition, utility relocation, vehicle 
requirements, initial construction activities, and construction 
management for the initial LRT segment, or the minimal 
operating segment from Central Florida Parkway near Sea World 
to Livingston Street in downtown Orlando. The estimated cost 
for this segment is $548 million.
    The Florida Department of Transportation has already 
committed 25 percent of the capital funding needed for this 
segment. And with the assistance of Orange County and the City 
of Orlando, LYNX is securing 25 percent, or approximately $137 
million in additional funds from local/private enterprise, from 
the local business community. The increment of funds requested 
for this work for the upcoming fiscal year is $104 million.
    Let me briefly describe our other projects.
    The Transit Bus Project. In order to meet the growing needs 
of the Orlando metropolitan area, LYNX is requesting funds to 
purchase 50 new coaches. The Federal funding request for this 
purchase is $12.5 million to continue to replace the aging 
buses and to expand the bus fleet.
    The new operating facility required. The current LYNX 
operations and maintenance base was designed for approximately 
110 buses. Today it is handling over 195 buses and over 400 
employees. As early as in 1984 the Transportation Authority 
recognized the need for a new operating base. Currently, LYNX 
and the Florida Department of Transportation are in the 
selection process for an operating base site within a two mile 
radius of downtown Orlando with a land acquisition valued at 
approximately $5 million. This purchase will exhaust the funds 
program for this facility. The Federal funds requested at this 
date is approximately $28 million for the construction of that 
facility.
    Lastly, passenger amenities. LYNX has created an awareness 
of fixed route bus service with its improved and expanded 
services along with its nationally recognized marketing 
program. However, in order to increase accessibility and 
mobility, more than vehicles are required. The basic 
infrastructure improvements in the form of signage, lighting, 
streetscape, information shelters are critical to attract new 
ridership as well as to maintain the current ridership. The 
passenger amenity program calls for the installation of 
approximately 85 shelters per year. This Federal funding 
request is $800,000.
    LYNX is currently also pursuing an application for 
intelligent transportation system technology. This includes a 
new communication system, customer information network, travel 
planning centers, automatic vehicle location system, and signal 
preemption system. LYNX will be implementing this ITS system in 
partnership with other public entities as well as the private 
sector. The Federal funding requested for this project is $2.4 
million.
    Specific regional land-use activity centers throughout the 
region have been designated as intermodal sites. There's a need 
to advance intermodal stationary development through the detail 
function design and station area right-of-way purchases. The 
Federal request for this project is $24 million.
    LYNX has achieved many accomplishments over the past five 
years. We're most proud of our ridership growth which has more 
than doubled, making LYNX the fastest growing system of its 
size in the country. Over this period, over 8 million riders 
have been added to the system annually. Transportation is the 
life blood of our community and public transportation, in 
particular, a critical component of our transportation system 
in Central Florida.
    Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today 
and for the consideration of our request. I would be pleased to 
answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Leo Auger follows:]


[Pages 43 - 54--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. We have no questions. I appreciate your taking 
the time. Bill McConum and Mr. Mica have been very strong 
supporters of the LYNX and also with regard to the airport. So 
we appreciate your coming.
    Mr. Mica. If Mr. Tillietson could say a couple of words on 
the airport, we would appreciate it.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes.
    Mr. Tillietson. Thank you, Congressman Mica. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I would just like to make four quick points and we've 
included, of course, the details in our testimony.
    First, Orlando International Airport was the fastest 
growing airport in the world in 1996. In 1997 and as we go into 
1998, we're still experiencing explosive growth, this moving us 
well out in front of our master plan forecast.
    Second, the airlines have agreed to a financing package for 
$1.2 billion to add additional terminal and infrastructure to 
the airport. We have contracts for the additional gates and 
agreements that support that.
    The third point is we're asking for a multi-year support 
for an LOI that would allow us to complete a North cross-field 
taxiway that connects the East part of the airport to the West 
part of our airport. As we complete the North terminal complex 
and a fourth air site for this explosive growth, that 
particular taxiway will be critical. We've completed a cost-
benefit analysis and we show a significant net present savings 
in operating costs with this taxiway. We are committing four 
years of our entitlement money to this project, and we think it 
is critical to our future.
    The fourth point, our airport is what we refer to as a 
``destination origination airport.'' We've had an independent 
economic analysis showing that our airport generates direct and 
indirect economic value to Central Florida of over $14 billion 
and 54,000 jobs. It is a critical economic engine, if you will, 
of Central Florida. This expansion program that has been 
approved by the airlines is going to allow us to keep pace with 
the tremendous investment that's being made by both the 
business community and the entertainment community in Central 
Florida. So we ask for your support for this four-year LOI and 
allow us to complete this very critical project to allow us to 
match the airline expansion.
    I thank you very much for being here today to present this 
information.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Packard.
    Mr. Packard. I have no questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Torres.
    Mr. Torres. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate it.
    [The GOAA prepared statement follows:]


[Pages 56 - 78--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                     MIAMI AND DADE COUNTY PROJECTS

                               WITNESSES

HON. E. CLAY SHAW, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    FLORIDA
HON. WILLIAM LEHMAN, CHAIRMAN, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, 
    DECA BOARD
SONNY HOLTZMAN, CHAIRPERSON, DECA
HON. JOSE SMITH, VICE MAYOR, CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
    Mr. Wolf. Next, Mr. Shaw, with former Congressman and 
Chairman, Mr. Lehman, and also the Vice Mayor Jose Smith of 
Miami Beach can join them at the table.
    Welcome, Clay.
    Mr. Shaw. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate you, 
you're way ahead of schedule, both by the calendar and the 
clock. So I will keep you on that schedule and be brief. You 
have announced who I am, accompanied by Mr. Lehman and Mr. 
Smith.
    Because of the speed with which you're undergoing these 
hearings, there will be some written testimony as to other 
projects that will be submitted to the committee for your 
consideration.
    Mr. Wolf. Without objection. We will keep the record open, 
Clay.
    Mr. Shaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Very briefly, just at the end of last week I had the 
privilege of being on Miami Beach and being a part, a very 
small part I might say, of opening a very innovative system of 
electric vehicles for mass transit that the City of Miami Beach 
has inaugurated called the ElectroWave. I think it is probably 
the wave of the future, which certainly is quite appropriate to 
its name, but I think it is also a very ambitious program which 
is somewhat unique, not totally unique. I think Chattanooga has 
got one of these; they were made in Chattanooga, Tennessee. But 
it is the first in Florida and I think it is something that we 
should be taking a look at in that area.
    I support the City of Miami Beach's $7 million request for 
a discretionary earmark through the Federal Transit 
Administration. The earmark would be used for a Miami Beach 
multimodal transit center project that will support the City's 
existing electric shuttle park-and-ride and provide service 
known as the ElectroWave.
    My statement goes on to give more detail and I will ask 
that that be made a part of the record, and I will yield to 
either Mr. Smith or Mr. Lehman for further comments regarding 
that project.
    Mr. Wolf. Without objection.
    Mr. Shaw. And then I would like to briefly bring up----
    Mr. Wolf. Well, do you want to cover both of them now, 
Clay?
    Mr. Shaw. I'll go ahead. Another project which is in Fort 
Lauderdale, which doesn't have anything to do with this, is a 
project that is not new to this committee, and it is the Ellert 
Drive widening project going into Port Everglades. Port 
Everglades is the second largest cruise ship port in the 
country, second only to the port of Miami.
    This project has not been authorized. It was, however, in 
the 1994 National Highway System designation legislation but, 
unfortunately, it was dropped by the Senate. We are going to be 
working on it again and hopefully we can make that part of 
ISTEA. The price tag on that particular project is $4.5 
million.
    A third project I would like to bring to the attention of 
the committee is one that was born out of this committee, and 
that is the Tri-Rail Project. I know, Mr. Chairman, you and 
perhaps other members of the committee are familiar with it. 
What we're asking for is $26 million in new start funds for the 
construction of the multi-year Southeast Florida Rail Corridor 
Improvement Program which includes adding a second track to the 
corridor.
    With that, I would yield to Mr. Lehman.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. E. Clay Shaw follows:]


[Pages 81 - 82--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. Okay. Mr. Lehman? Bill, welcome back to the 
committee.
    Mr. Lehman. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will 
submit my written testimony for the record.
    Mr. Wolf. Without objection.
    Mr. Lehman. Sonny Holtzman is the chairman of the Dade 
County Expressway Authority and he couldn't make it. I'm the 
vice chairman, so I'll be testifying on his behalf. But first, 
I want to thank you and the committee for the help you gave us 
in fiscal year 1998. We're asking for a continuation of an 
effort on your part to help us install the electronic toll 
facilities. It will try to alleviate traffic congestion in 
metro Dade County and this is a big effort in that respect.
    Before I sign off, I just want to remind you that ten years 
ago you and the subcommittee came down to Miami for the Super 
Bowl.
    Mr. Wolf. I never went to the Super Bowl. I came down after 
the Super Bowl was over, but I did come down. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Lehman. You came down for the working part.
    Mr. Wolf. I came down for the working part. I left after 
watching the Super Bowl from my house and went out to the 
airport.
    Mr. Lehman. May the record show that. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Shaw. Bill, he was in the McLean area at the time, I 
know that for a fact.
    Mr. Lehman. Anyway, I've been in touch with the mayor's 
office in Miami and we would like to invite the subcommittee to 
come down again in January of 1999 for the next Super Bowl. So 
you have an invitation.
    Mr. Wolf. Okay. I may want to watch it up here, but we'll 
talk about that. Thank you.
    Mr. Lehman. Thank you very much. And it is in the written 
testimony.
    Mr. Wolf. Your full statement, Bill, will be in the record.
    Mr. Lehman. I'll be back in touch.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, sir.
    [The DCEA prepared statement follows:]


[Page 84--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. Sir?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my 
name is Jose Smith, and I am the Vice-Mayor of the City of 
Miami Beach. On behalf of the City, I want to thank you for 
giving me the opportunity to speak to you this morning.
    The City respectfully submits a transportation-related 
project for a discretionary earmark through the Federal Transit 
Administration within the fiscal year 1999 transportation 
appropriations bill. The City-proposed earmark of $7 million 
will be used towards a Miami Beach multimodal transit center 
project that will support the City's existing electric shuttle 
park-and-ride service, known as the ElectroWave.
    This innovative and environmentally-friendly park-and-ride 
program is already serving South Beach, a congested urban, 
residential, and commercial historic district of Miami Beach. 
This program was inaugurated last Friday. However, an outlying 
transit center/parking facility to support the park-and-ride 
and other transit services is still very much needed.
    The multimodal center will provide a vital transportation 
hub and terminal for this area, bringing commuters and visitors 
together with parking, an information center, the local and 
regional transit services, as well as the ElectroWave. 
Employees of South Beach businesses will also be able to park-
and-ride from this facility which will be strategically located 
to serve the incoming traffic from a major arterial causeway. 
The transit center will also include a full-scale facility for 
the ElectroWave program and its electric battery-operated 
vehicles. In addition, the multimodal center will serve as the 
terminus of an East-West multimodal corridor, a regional 
transportation project which proposes to interconnect the 
Florida Turnpike, the Palmetto Expressway, the Dolphin 
Expressway, and I-95 with Miami International Airport, 
intermodal center, downtown, the sea port, and the City of 
Miami Beach.
    The ElectroWave program is included in the five-year 
transportation improvement program of Miami-Dade County and has 
the financial support of the City, the Florida Department of 
Transportation, the FTA, Miami-Dade County Transit Agency, the 
Florida Power and Light Company, and other clean air and energy 
organizations.
    A fiscal year 1999 discretionary FTA fund earmark toward a 
Miami Beach multimodal center project is critical to the long-
term effectiveness of the ElectroWave park-and-ride service and 
to our City's interconnection with a 21st century East-West 
multimodal transportation corridor.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the 
subcommittee.
    [The prepared statement of Jose Smith follows:]


[Pages 86 - 88--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony. And I 
appreciate, Clay, your taking the time to appear. You've always 
been a great advocate, taking over from Mr. Lehman who did an 
unbelievable job to help your area.
    Mr. Shaw. Those are tough shoes to fill, I can assure you.
    If I may just very, very briefly.
    Mr. Wolf. Sure.
    Mr. Shaw. The City of Miami Beach, after decades of laying 
dormant, has within the last decade gone through a rebirth 
which is nothing short of spectacular. There is new hotel 
construction going on, South Beach and what it has done, 
Lincoln Road, which used to be a wonderful place and sort of 
fell into disrepair with a lot of vacant buildings, now is a 
very lively place. This is a very important project. The City 
Commission is certainly to be commended for their work in 
contributing to the revitalization of a wonderful, wonderful 
area of our country which is enjoyed by people from all over 
the world.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    Mr. Packard.
    Mr. Packard. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sabo just came in.
    Mr. Sabo. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Again, thank you very much. Your full statements 
will be in the record.
    Mr. Shaw. I thank the committee for your time.
                              ----------                              

                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

   HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (HART), AND CITY OF 
                          GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

                               WITNESSES

HON. JIM DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DAVE MECHANIK, CHAIRMAN, HILLSBOROUGH REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
PERRY MAULL, TRANSIT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM
    Mr. Wolf. Next, Congressman Davis and also Dave Mechanik, 
Chairman of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority. 
And also, if we can get the City of Gainesville, Florida, Perry 
Maull, Transit Director, Regional Transit System, just maybe 
those two together.
    What we're doing is we're asking, if at all possible, that 
the statement be limited to five minutes and any other 
statement we will submit for the record. And there may be 
questions, too.
    Welcome to the hearing, Jim.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me this morning is 
Dave Mechanik, the Chairman of the Hillsborough Area Regional 
Transit Authority. He and I want to briefly highlight to you 
three funding issues, much of which is a continuation of the 
work this committee has already done for which we are very 
grateful.
    One is $3 million for revenue rolling stock purchases for 
buses. The second is $6 million to fund a streetcar station 
which is intended ultimately to be part of an intermodal system 
in the Tampa Bay Area, in downtown Tampa, specifically. The 
third, and I think the most important one, is $10 million for 
preliminary engineering and environmental studies associated 
with the Tampa Bay Regional Rail Project which eventually is 
expected to extend to the East into Congressman Canady's 
district, who has been very supportive of the project, and to 
the West to Congressman Bilirakis' district.
    In the last fiscal year, the subcommittee provided funding 
to help replace the aging bus fleet in Tampa. Compliance with 
ADA has been an issue for our buses, as it has been with many 
around the country. The $3 million additionally we're asking 
for will help to replace some of those aging buses and get into 
compliance with the ADA.
    The Ybor Streetcar Station would be situated in an area 
where economic development is really teeming, much in the ways 
that Congressman Shaw related were happening in South Beach in 
the Miami area. Apart from that, it also is intended to 
ultimately be the hub of an intermodal system within the 
community that will be tied into the rail project I will 
mention lastly. The subcommittee provided $1 million for 
developmental and preliminary engineering with respect to the 
Ybor Rail Project in the last budget.
    The final element is the Tampa Bay Regional Rail Project. 
This project I think is somewhat unique from the others that 
you will consider from the standpoint that we expect roughly 
about 50 percent of the cost ultimately to be handled through 
State and local government sources. This, unlike other rail 
projects, is to be constructed based on existing right-of-way 
owned by CSX, who has been very supportive of the cost of the 
project. Acquiring existing right-of-way, obviously, reduces 
the overall cost of the project.
    The MIS study is due to be completed shortly. We'll be 
working with the authorization committee with respect to at 
least the first phase of this project. Today, we are requesting 
$10 million for preliminary engineering and environmental 
studies associated with this project. The studies would include 
that portion of the project that ultimately will extend into 
Congressman Canady's district, and, as I mentioned earlier, 
this subcommittee has generously provided some early funding 
for preliminary studies with respect to the environmental 
aspects of this project.
    So I think there are some very strong merits here to 
consider, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to turn over the 
remainder of my time to Mr. David Mechanik.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Davis (FL) follows:]


[Pages 91 - 93--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Mechanik. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, subcommittee 
members. I'm David Mechanik, Chairman of the Hillsborough Area 
Regional Transit Authority.
    As Representative Davis described, we have three projects 
we're asking for this committee's support for--$3 million for 
bus replacement purchases, $6 million for Tampa Ybor intermodal 
station, and $10 million for the Tampa Bay Regional Rail 
Project which would be for environmental study and preliminary 
engineering.
    The funds to purchase buses are requested to help HART 
replaces buses which are currently 16 years old. We are 
currently becoming one of the oldest bus fleets in the Nation. 
If this request is approved, it would bring our fleet age to an 
average of nine years, which would be a significant improvement 
for our system.
    We are also requesting funding for an intermodal station 
where the historic electric streetcar and bus routes will meet. 
The station, as Mr. Davis mentioned, would be in the historic 
Ybor City area which would provide many economic development 
opportunities. The station will provide important connections 
for local transit travellers, pedestrians, and intercity 
travellers. It will serve the downtown area, the channel 
district, and Ybor City, as I mentioned. The project also 
enhances a number of new development projects in Tampa; the 
Tampa cruise ship port at Garrison Sea Port, the Convention 
Center Hotel which is just getting underway, the Tampa Bay 
Lightning Hockey Arena, and the Florida Aquarium.
    The Regional Rail Project arises out of the major 
investment study which is just being completed this quarter. 
The study included pedestrian elements, expansion of the bus 
system including a bus emphasis corridor on 40th Street, and an 
extension of the streetcar system in downtown Tampa. The 
completed project would include a rail system that would link 
various points within Hillsborough County, Lakeland, and 
potentially Pinellas County. The Regional Rail Project is 
critically needed as Tampa Bay is experiencing dramatic growth 
both in population and employment and road improvements alone 
will not be sufficient to accommodate that growth.
    Your assistance in these three projects is greatly 
appreciated. Thank you very much for your time.
    [The prepared statement of David Mechanik follows:]


[Pages 95 - 106--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    Sir?
    Mr. Maull. I'm Perry Maull. I'm the Transit Director for 
the City of Gainesville. I would like to thank you, Mr. 
Chairman and members of the committee for this opportunity to 
appear before you to request an earmark of bus discretionary 
funds in the amount of $7 million, for a total appropriation of 
$8.75 million, to allow us to acquire 25 new low-floor buses 
and related equipment. This will enable the City of Gainesville 
and its partners, Alachua County, the Florida Department of 
Transportation, and the University of Florida to dramatically 
enhance our bus service to the University of Florida campus.
    Just by way of a little bit of background, we have more of 
a statement for you in the written record. In December 1996 a 
Presidential Task Force on Parking and Transportation on the 
University of Florida Campus recommended a major change in the 
way transportation and parking was addressed. In the past, most 
of the 42,000 students and another 17,000 faculty and staff 
have relied on their private automobiles. Parking has been 
plentiful and cheap. In the future, as the University grows to 
some 50,000 students and a related number of faculty and staff, 
the amount of parking and its cost is going to be increased--
the cost will be increased, the parking won't be.
    As a result of this, the task force recommended a major 
enhancement to bus service. We've already begun to do that. 
We've added buses to our services and have had record-breaking 
ridership. These 25 buses will allow us to do ten minute 
services on corridors to campus and change the whole way that 
transportation is provided in Gainesville. And I might add that 
in March of 1997, the University of Florida student body voted 
to implement a fee on themselves up to $1 a credit hour which 
next fall will be implemented and give them free unlimited 
access to the bus system. So we will have 42,000 students with 
bus passes next Fall. We need these 25 buses as soon as we can 
get them.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Perry Maull follows:]


[Page 108--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming. I 
have no questions, just one comment. In the rail, the higher 
the match, the better. As you're looking to that, we don't have 
your match yet. I don't know what you've said, but as you've 
listened to the previous witness was talking about 50-50. The 
higher the match, obviously, the better it is. But I appreciate 
your taking the time to come before the committee.
    Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. No questions, thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, to that point, I believe the 
representation is the 50 percent. I'm anxious for you to have 
the benefit of the MIS study, which I'm looking forward to 
reviewing, but our representation last year and this year 
continues to be 50 percent. We're working hard at that.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
                              ----------                              

                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

      THE COALITION FOR AMERICAN TRAUMA CARE AND ComCARE ALLIANCE

                                WITNESS

HOWARD R. CHAMPION, MD, PRESIDENT, COALITION FOR AMERICAN TRAUMA CARE, 
    AND RESEARCH DIRECTOR, PROGRAM IN TRAUMA, AND RESEARCH PROFESSOR OF 
    SURGERY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
    Mr. Wolf. The Coalition for American Trauma Care, Doctor 
Champion. Welcome to the committee. Your full statement will 
appear in the record.
    Dr. Champion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm a 
trauma surgeon. I've been working in the Baltimore-Washington 
area for 25 years. During that time I've established guidelines 
for the type of patients that should be taken from automobile 
crashes into trauma centers, and they've been implemented 
throughout the country as part of the American College of 
Surgeons Guidelines for Trauma Systems.
    Last year, we did some analyses of the NITSA databases to 
look at the automobile trauma problem because--this is the 
common graph that is available showing automobile crash deaths 
in the United States have gone down, generally speaking, since 
the late 1970s, but are now on the upswing over the past three 
or four years. NITSA's own figures will project about 55,000 
deaths per year early next century, which is about a 10 percent 
increase on where we are at the present time.
    What we found when we did these analyses, that graph that 
everybody is aware of disguises or hides an even more troubling 
set of figures, which is that the number of deaths prior to 
receiving emergency care in this country has doubled over a 
period of 20 years; it was around 10,000 in 1976, and last year 
in 1996 it went over 20,000. The prehospital time prior to 
emergency care reaching automobile crash victims in this 
country is about an hour in rural areas, and about 30 minutes 
before they get into hospital in urban areas. We tried to 
revise our guidelines for emergency system response based on 
the NITSA databases and, after about 150 analyses, were unable 
to do so. In other words, the rudimentary system for 
identifying crash victims that need trauma centers and those at 
risk of dying could not be improved with the current analyses.
    We came up, therefore, with an alternative system which is 
basically placing a black box in cars and linking the 
automobiles to the emergency system. With available technology. 
Now, this is not magic, it doesn't need investments in 
technology, it just needs investment in the linkage between the 
automobile crash which will give a crash signature by a 
cellular mechanism to the EMS system and also predict the risk 
of injury and the risk of serious injury, removing that 5 to 10 
to 20 minutes, depending on where you are, between the crash 
and the identification of the crash and the location of the 
crash.
    Now all these bits of technology exist. It's just a 
question of linking them up and reducing the time between 
injury and the receipt of care. The system, the Automatic Crash 
Notification System will provide the crash signature, the risk 
of injury, and provide it promptly and immediately to the EMS 
system together with the location of the crash. That's all 
summarized in this little graph, which I can pass around if you 
want to look at it. This should be in an ambulance dispatch 
center. And it is, as I say, existing technology. It identifies 
the street map, the coordinates of the car crash at the time 
the crash occurred or promptly thereafter using a 911 system 
through triangulated cellular or GPS systems. Technology 
available today.
    On these bars down here, you'll see the information that we 
know predicts the risk of injury. We can say that anything from 
a zero percentage risk of injury to a 30 percent risk of injury 
are serious injuries, and that will prompt EMS systems to come 
quickly and, presumably, hopefully reduce the increasing 
carnage that we see on our roads today.
    So we're asking for an increasing investment in this 
technology. There are putative efforts involved at the present 
time but there are resources that should be mobilized from ITS 
into this. We have spoken with Doctor Johnson. We do believe 
that more can be done. There is a minuscule fraction of 
intelligent transport system budgets moving in this direction 
at the present time. This is a matter of life and death. It's 
not a question of roads and so forth, it's something that could 
relate to saving human lives.
    Mr. Wolf. Good. I appreciate your testimony. The technology 
is available. The committee has funded the ITS. I guess it is 
all a question of putting it in the ITS that's implemented and 
put it in the automobiles.
    What I would suggest is having staff set up a meeting for 
you. I think you ought to go and meet with Doctor Martinez. It 
is not that you're from California, you're from here, so it 
would not pose travel inconveniences. So we're going to set up 
a meeting for you to meet with Dr. Martinez before he comes up 
before the committee, which is on March 11. We can ask him 
about that.
    Dr. Champion. Dr. Martinez is aware of this.
    Mr. Wolf. But I want you to meet with him directly so you 
can talk to him directly.
    Dr. Champion. Very good, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. Okay. Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. Good morning.
    Dr. Champion. Good morning, sir.
    Mr. Pastor. More information on the black box. Recently, I 
rented a car and it was able to tell me where I started and 
gave me directions as I drove to the place I was going to. Is 
this what you referred to as the black box, or is this 
something similar?
    Dr. Champion. No, no, no. That is part of the system, that 
is one technology. The AAA have mapped every centimeter of the 
road system in this country and GPS can tell you where you are. 
If you have the local roadmaps and so forth, you can tell it 
where you want to go and what the appropriate route is, and, if 
you have traffic information, the best way to get there.
    The ACN takes actually information from the airbag which 
gives you the velocity of an impact, whether the airbag was 
released or not, the principal direction of force, whether the 
car was rolled over, whether someone was ejected or not, 
whether seatbelts were used, ultimately whether you're a big 
person or a little person, whether the seatbelt is likely to 
damage you or not, and gives you a prediction of whether you 
have an injury or not because the speed was over 5 miles an 
hour, 10 miles, or over 30 miles an hour which would give you a 
risk of life-threatening injury.
    If it's a life-threatening injury, most people die within 
an hour; we've known that for 30 or 40 years. If we can take 10 
minutes, 15 minutes off this pre-hospital, pre-AMS time, we can 
save lives. That plus there's a lot of improvements in 
emergency care coming around the corner. All these little 
boutique drugmakers in California have gotten drugs which will 
stop the brain dying, stop the heart dying. If we can get there 
quicker, by early next century we're going to be able to 
substantially put a dent in what is the second biggest global 
health problem, which is moving vehicle crash deaths, a growing 
and hugely costly problem in this country.
    Mr. Pastor. You talked about the crash signature. Is this 
the crash signature there?
    Dr. Champion. Some of that is crash signature, yes. I'll 
have to put my glasses on. The crash signature would actually 
give the delta V, that's part of the crashing measure, that's 
the change in velocity, would give the VIN number of the car to 
give you the weight and the model and the year, it would give 
you the principal direction of force, whether the car rolled 
over, the clear weight of the car, that's part of the VIN. So 
this is really basically the crash signature here. We've got a 
mathematical computation which gives risk of injury, risk of 
death from this.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    Staff will set that meeting up for you, Doctor. Thank you 
very much for coming before the committee.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Champion follows:]


[Pages 112 - 118--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

               AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES

   AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL--NORTH AMERICA (ACI--NORTH AMERICA)

                                WITNESS

CHARLES M. BARCLAY, PRESIDENT, AAAE
    Mr. Wolf. Next, to save time, if we can have, at the table 
the American Association of Airport Executives, Mr. Barclay; 
the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, Mr. Fanfalone; 
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Mr. Bolen; and the 
National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment 
(NOISE), Betty Ann Krahnke. If you can all come up together, we 
would appreciate it.
    Mr. Barclay, you may start. Your full statement will appear 
in the record.
    Mr. Barclay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to 
emphasize a couple of points from our testimony. Airports 
appreciate this committee's leadership of last year in 
providing $1.7 billion in AIP, particularly in light of the 
administration's request which was only $1 billion last year. 
That was an essential increase and we appreciate it very much.
    This year we also want to offer our thanks to Secretary 
Slater and Administrator Garvey for their strong and effective 
campaign within the administration to come up with a more 
realistic AIP level, and the administration's budget does 
reflect a following of this committee's leadership in 
recommending a $1.7 billion level for fiscal year 1999. We 
think that's a much more realistic starting point for the 
committee's deliberations.
    Second, airports are requesting that the committee consider 
an obligational ceiling level that would match the authorized 
level of $2.4 billion for this fiscal year. We think that level 
is not only justified by all the studies that have been done on 
airport needs, but considering the added revenue going into the 
Aviation Trust Fund, we think it would be a wise investment. 
When one considers that place as small as Hong Kong is 
investing $25 billion in one new airport, it puts in 
perspective our request for $2.4 billion for 3,400 airports 
nationwide in this country. We think that would be a modest 
investment in our system.
    If the committee's choices won't allow that kind of a 
level, we would appreciate consideration of at least a $2 
billion, which was the minimum recommended by the National 
Civil Aviation Review Commission, and it is also the minimum 
recommended by both airlines and airports who agree on this 
issue.
    Finally, I would like to leave the committee with the 
emphasis that these are requests for investments as opposed to 
consumption spending. If one tries to picture our economy 
without an aviation system in a country as large as ours, it 
quickly becomes apparent that we couldn't run a modern 
competitive economy for the simple fact of geography. It is 
also clear that aviation capacity can quickly then become a 
bottleneck in our economy, to its expansion and growth, if 
we're not meeting demand with capacity in an aviation system. 
So while we appreciate the $1.7 billion level, it is also 
sobering to note that that was below the level AIP was at back 
in 1991 when we had 100 million fewer passengers in the system.
    I would conclude by saying we think an increased AIP level 
would not only be important for aviation, which it is, and for 
our members, but it's a sound investment in a growing and 
competitive economy.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Charles Barclay follows:]


[Pages 121 - 131--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

            PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS SYSTEMS SPECIALISTS (PASS)

                                WITNESS

MICHAEL D. FANFALONE, PRESIDENT, PASS
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fanfalone.
    Mr. Fanfalone. Good morning, Chairman Wolf and members of 
the subcommittee. My name is Michael Fanfalone. I am the 
president of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists 
(PASS). Thank you for inviting PASS to testify today.
    PASS provides exclusive representation for over 10,000 
systems specialists, flight inspection pilots, aviation safety 
inspectors, and safety support staff employed by the FAA. PASS 
has testified in previous years that while we have the safest 
air traffic control system in the world, the system's capacity 
is being stretched to its limits. We already have proof that 
the reliability and efficiency of the system is being 
compromised.
    Today, the time to restore equipment has increased from 
approximately 7 hours in 1983 to about 27.5 hours in 1997. 
Modernization of the NAS is years behind schedule, and with the 
year 2000 fast approaching, the old systems are no longer 
reliable.
    Year after year we testify about the same concerns and not 
only do they remain unresolved, they are getting worse. 
Staffing is a major concern for all the FAA bargaining units we 
represent. For Airway Facilities, the systems specialists 
workforce is staffed at 71 percent of the staffing standard. 
Airway Facilities recognizes that the level needs to be at a 
minimum of 80 percent of the staffing standard, which would 
result in 575 currently vacant positions being filled.
    PASS, however, feels that the FAA should be at 100 percent 
of the staffing standard, especially since aviation activity is 
growing, aviation technology is changing rapidly, and the 
number of facilities will continue to expand. PASS does not 
understand why the FAA is requesting funding for only 150 
system specialists instead of the 575 that Airway Facilities 
believes are needed.
    Unfortunately, staffing shortages and training deficits 
have led the FAA to use contract maintenance. This has proven 
to be a more expensive and dangerously inefficient alternative 
to in-house maintenance. There are countless examples of FAA 
contractors directly causing air traffic control system 
problems or outages. However, if the FAA did the required cost-
benefit analysis for the many systems under contractor 
maintenance, the agency would discover that in-house 
maintenance is more cost-efficient.
    For flight standards aviation safety inspectors, staffing 
shortages in the support areas has resulted in our inspector 
workforce spending much of their time doing paperwork in the 
office instead of being out in the field doing inspections. 
Inspectors need at least 500 additional support staff in the 
form of aviation safety assistance and aviation safety 
technicians. The positions provide support by writing up 
accident investigation reports, enforcement investigation 
reports, answering Freedom of Information Act requests, and 
interfacing with the general public.
    Not only is support staff desperately needed, but more 
inspectors are also needed. In December of 1997, approximately 
3 to 4 percent of the inspector workforce retired. With the 
understanding that a time period of two to three years is 
needed to bring any new inspector up to a level of competence, 
the FAA must address retirements immediately and hire new 
inspectors to bring the staffing levels up to insure the safety 
of the flying public.
    There's also a problem with the year 2000. Getting system 
specialists trained to maintain the new computer system is of 
deep concern. The FAA has chosen only to use the Professional 
Airways Systems Specialists to help with the Y2K problem in a 
few of its many systems. We would like to be part of more of 
the Y2K resolution.
    With that, I conclude my comments and invite your 
questions. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. I have no questions, just one comment though to 
Mr. Fanfalone. I am worried about the Y2K problem. We have sent 
a letter over to Mrs. Garvey. I'm worried they're going to run 
out of time. If you think you can make a constructive 
contribution, Rich Elford will call Mrs. Garvey and suggest 
that they have you or your people meet with them within the 
next week, because this problem will become critical. I think 
the number of people who have the capability to deal with this 
are actually declining because they're being hired in the 
private sector and government can't really afford to bring some 
of these people on. So we would like to have you work with her. 
We have asked that they designate one person at the FAA to be 
responsible for this. So Mr. Elford will work out an 
arrangement for you to meet with their people to make sure that 
every opportunity that you want is available for you to 
participate in solving this very, very difficult problem.
    Mr. Fanfalone. I appreciate the offer. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Michael Fanfalone follows:]


[Pages 134 - 157--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    Mr. Bolen.
    Mr. Bolen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of 
the committee, for the opportunity to testify today. I'll be 
brief and to the point. I've submitted by written testimony.
                              ----------                              

                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

           GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (GAMA)

                                WITNESS

ED BOLEN, PRESIDENT, GAMA
    Mr. Wolf. Your testimony will appear in the record.
    Mr. Bolen. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, as you well 
know, for two years the aviation industry has been embroiled in 
a very bitter battle over FAA funding. The debate over whether 
to fund the FAA through user fees or excise taxes has, frankly, 
brought the aviation community to a standstill. It has taken 
all of our time and all of our effort and very little else has 
been done besides focus on that issue. It was a critical issue 
for us. From a general aviation perspective, user fees would 
have been very damaging for our industry which has begun to 
rebound since passage of the General Aviation Revitalization 
Act. So it was an issue of such seriousness we had to focus on 
it.
    But I believe that last fall, with Congress reinstating the 
aviation excise taxes, and because of this committee's 
particularly strong language in the appropriations bill on user 
fees, I believe that the aviation community has an opportunity 
to put the funding issue behind us and begin to focus on how we 
modernize the system and move forward into the 21st century. 
It's a critical issue and one that we should have been working 
together on for a long time but have not. I think we now have 
that opportunity.
    At GAMA, we are very supportive of moving toward a 
satellite-based navigation system. Because of that, we hope 
that this committee will continue to work on the Wide Area 
Augmentation System (WAAS). Clearly, it is a program that has 
had some problems, but it is our understanding that the new 
contractor is performing under that. We believe the benefits 
make continued support worthwhile. We know it requires tough 
management and close oversight on your perspective, but we hope 
that will continue. We also support a Beta test of these 
technologies.
    I think there is a lot about these issues which need to be 
resolved and we're going to work on those. There are still a 
lot of details that are unknown, but we believe the benefits 
are out there and we pledge our support to working on that.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. I have no questions.
    Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. Simply to say that in mid-January or early 
January the American Association of Airport Executives had 
their annual conference and they asked me to participate along 
with other Members of Congress. I certainly highly recommend 
that if you're ever invited to go and participate in their 
conference that you would accept their invitation. It was very 
well done, Mr. Barclay.
    Mr. Barclay. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Edward Bolen follows:]


[Pages 160 - 165--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

         AMERICAN SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

                                WITNESS

WILLIAM LOFTUS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD 
    ASSOCIATION
    Mr. Wolf. The American Public Transit Association, Mr. 
Millar, and also if the American Short Line and Regional 
Railroad Association, the American Passenger Rail Coalition, 
the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and 
the American Society of Civil Engineers can all approach the 
table together.
    Mr. Millar is driving and that's why he's late. [Laughter.]
    We will begin with Mr. Loftus.
    Mr. Loftus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am William E. 
Loftus, president of the American Short Line and Regional 
Railroad Association. We appreciate the opportunity to appear 
again before you on a familiar subject.
    We urge your support for funding the small railroad pilot 
project program which is authorized in the current version of 
the ISTEA legislation, both in the House and the Senate. The 
authorization in the House provides $25 million a year over the 
next three fiscal years. The authorization has been included in 
the bipartisan managers' bill in both the House and the Senate, 
and we fully expect it to remain in the legislation as it moves 
through the conference committee and to Congress later this 
year.
    Over 40 members cosponsored this effort in the House and 
gave us their active support as we worked to place the 
provision in the ISTEA bill. These members were drawn together 
in the common belief that there is a huge gap in this Nation's 
transportation policy. That gap concerns the role of hundreds 
of short line and regional railroads that are fighting to 
preserve rail service in mostly rural areas. These areas do not 
have traffic volume sufficient to support large Class I rail 
operations and these small railroads are often the only viable 
alternative to rail line abandonment. However, many of these 
rail lines require substantial upgrading if they are able to 
handle the increasingly heavy rail cars being built by the 
Class I railroads for general use in the industry.
    There are many examples where a light density rail line 
project is the most cost-effective use of States' scarce 
transportation dollars. Many State Departments of 
Transportation have indicated that they want this flexibility 
to be able to invest in light density rail line projects at 
local option. I anticipate the committee will hear from the 
States in support of funding for these light density rail line 
projects.
    These projects, for instance, could enhance the ability of 
a rail line to handle the new heavy axle-load rail equipment 
and, thus, stay part of the national rail network for moving 
grain to market, minerals from mines, or unit coal trains into 
utility plants. There are numerous examples where it is most 
cost-effective for the State to make a small investment in a 
light density rail line in order to avoid the much larger 
expenditure that would be required to upgrade and maintain a 
secondary road, bridge, or traffic that would be shifted if the 
rail line did not handle it.
    Mr. Chairman, we know the committee did not provide funding 
for the Local Rail Freight Assistance Program in its most 
recent years. This is not LRFA. We have attempted to fashion a 
pilot program that gives individual States the opportunity to 
decide for themselves how light density rail lines fit into 
their transportation plans. Where the State decides that a 
private railroad does address a public transportation need, we 
envision substantial private financial participation in the 
project.
    Light density rail lines are not typically found in heavy 
populated metropolitan areas that are blessed with four-lane 
highways and Class I railroad main lines. Generally, they are 
in the more rural areas where small shippers depend on small 
railroads to get their products to market in the most cost-
effective way possible. Often it is much cheaper for the State 
to save an existing light density rail line than build a new 
highway for truck transportation.
    In addition to providing the States the flexibility to 
address their specific needs, I believe helping these small 
railroads is a cost-effective way to help achieve a number of 
national goals. These benefits include: reduced highway repair 
costs, highway congestion relief, air quality improvements, and 
enhanced safety. We are confident that the final ISTEA 
legislation will authorize the pilot projects and we urge the 
subcommittee and the committee to move forward with the 
appropriations in support of them.
    Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of William Loftus follows:]


[Pages 168 - 174--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                AMERICAN PASSENGER RAIL COALITION (APRC)

                                WITNESS

HARRIET PARCELLS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, APRC
    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Parcells.
    Ms. Parcells. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my 
name is Harriet Parcells and I am the executive director of the 
American Passenger Rail Coalition (APRC), a national 
association of rail equipment suppliers and rail businesses. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    The investments Amtrak has been making in new equipment and 
facilities, combined with service improvements, a renewed focus 
on customer service, and better marketing are yielding positive 
results. Amtrak ridership in October through December 1997, the 
first quarter of fiscal year 1998, rose nearly 7 percent--the 
largest quarterly increase in 14 years. Passenger revenues for 
the quarter rose 3.4 percent. This ridership increase comes on 
top of a 5.5 percent increase in the prior quarter and a 2.6 
percent Amtrak ridership increase in fiscal year 1997 overall.
    Two crucial bills were passed by Congress and signed into 
law by President Clinton in 1997 that reaffirmed the Nation's 
commitment to an economically strong, healthy national Amtrak 
system. First, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, 
Congress set aside $2.3 billion for Amtrak capital investments; 
and second, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 
was enacted which provides Amtrak with the needed 
reauthorization and includes important labor, liability, and 
other reforms to allow Amtrak to operate more efficiently. 
These bills are essential building blocks to a better future 
for Amtrak. But Amtrak must continue to receive adequate 
capital and operating appropriations from Congress in order to 
continue the success it is experiencing and to achieve the goal 
of being operating subsidy-free by the year 2002.
    When APRC appeared before this subcommittee last year we 
spoke about our strong support for dedicating a half-cent of 
the Federal gasoline tax for Amtrak capital investments. This 
would have generated approximately $4 billion in capital 
funding for Amtrak. Instead, Congress set aside $2.3 billion in 
capital funding. We greatly appreciate this act that was taken 
by Congress and this vital funding will be used by Amtrak for 
high rate of return capital investments. But Congress must 
recognize that the $2.3 billion is substantially less capital 
than would have been generated by the half-cent of the Federal 
gas tax. If Amtrak is to stay on track to operating self-
sufficiency by the year 2002, strong capital and operating 
appropriations are essential to supplement the $2.3 billion.
    The $2.3 billion is for capital investment. APRC strongly 
believes that this funding must be preserved for its intended 
purpose--for capital investment. Amtrak will use this funding 
to modernize equipment and facilities, and Congress should 
prevent the funding from being siphoned off for operating 
expenditures or other non-capital investment expenses.
    Several years ago, Congress and the Administration reached 
a consensus on a plan that would enable Amtrak to reach the 
goal of operating subsidy-free by the year 2002. The success of 
this plan is predicated on Congress providing Amtrak with 
sufficient capital and maintaining Amtrak on a downward glide 
path of Federal operating assistance until the year 2002.
    We believe that Congress crafted a good plan and that it is 
working, but we are here before you as businesses who are in 
the practice of adopting business plans that set a course for 
action. These business plans only work if the assumptions on 
which they are built are met. Yet there's been a significant 
shortfall or underfunding of the glide path for Amtrak. If the 
goal line Congress has set remains the year 2002, Congress 
needs to provide Amtrak with the agreed upon operating funds.
    For fiscal year 1999, APRC urges Congress to appropriate 
Amtrak at least $376 million to meet its operating needs, $329 
million to address its capital needs to be supplemented by 
funds from the Taxpayer Relief Act.
    I would like to just comment very quickly on the 
Administration's budget that was unveiled yesterday. The 
Administration has proposed $621 million for Amtrak in capital 
for fiscal year 1999. While we appreciate the Administration's 
recognition of the importance of capital, they propose taking 
the entire $621 million from the Highway Trust Fund. First of 
all, there is no enabling legislation which would be needed to 
allow this to move forward. My sense also is that at this point 
there isn't a consensus yet reached in Congress on the levels 
of highway funding that there will be and I suspect that this 
proposal will encounter strong opposition.
    We feel Congress crafted a good plan to get Amtrak to being 
operating subsidy-free. We urge you to stick to that plan. Our 
testimony also includes our support for Operation Life Saver, 
the next generation high speed rail R&D program, and for FRA 
safety work. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Harriet Parcells follows:]



[Pages 177 - 182--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

     AMERICAN ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION (ARTBA)

                                WITNESS

MAX R. SPROLES, ARTBA GENERAL CHAIRMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FREDERIC 
    R. HARRIS, INC.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sproles.
    Mr. Sproles. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee. My name is Max Sproles, vice president of 
Frederic R. Harris, Incorporated. I am here today as chairman 
of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. I 
am a long-time resident of Northern Virginia, a Virginia 
native. My company has an office in Fairfax with over 40 people 
working on transportation projects. I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify on fiscal year 1999 transportation 
funding.
    ARTBA was founded in 1902 and is the only national 
association devoted solely to the planning, construction, and 
safe operation of transportation facilities of all types. Our 
nationwide membership of 4,000 companies and organizations is 
composed of contractors, engineers, planners, equipment 
manufacturers, materials suppliers, financial institutions, 
educators, and transportation officials from Federal, State, 
and local government.
    ARTBA commends you and members of the subcommittee for your 
leadership and strong support of the Federal transportation 
program. We particularly commend you for the exemplary efforts 
this subcommittee waged during the fiscal year 1998 
appropriations cycle to increase transportation funding and 
meet our national transportation needs.
    Mr. Chairman, my written testimony has been submitted for 
the record. I would just summarize several points this morning. 
First, Federal transportation investments not only improve 
safety for all Americans, they have a dramatic impact on the 
economy. A new ARTBA research project study to be released 
later this month will show that 1.6 million American jobs are 
directly related to transportation construction activities. 
This represents 1.3 percent of all U.S. jobs. Each additional 
billion dollars invested in the Federal Highway Program creates 
over 42,000. The total value of the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure exceeds $1.5 trillion, and that's more than 6 
percent of the Nation's total tangible wealth in Government and 
privately-owned structures and equipment.
    Even more important, however, transportation infrastructure 
accounts for 12 percent, or $1 out of $8, of the Nation's stock 
of productive assets. One example helps put the value of 
transportation investments in perspective. The total value of 
all the computers and peripherals owned by American businesses 
is about $160 billion. That's one-tenth of the value of the 
Nation's transportation infrastructure.
    The second point I would like to make is that Congress 
should have access to the latest information available on the 
condition and investment requirements for the Nation's 
transportation infrastructure as it makes these key funding 
decisions. The U.S. Department of Transportation's biannual 
Highway Needs Report to Congress, which is required by law, is 
now more than one year late. We believe that this report has 
been held hostage by the White House Office of Management and 
Budget. We also have reason to believe that the report will 
have a new format that will make it difficult to assess whether 
or not progress is being made, and this would be contrary to 
the letter and spirit of the law.
    Two weeks ago, ARTBA filed a Freedom of Information Act 
request with OMB seeking all information related to its 
decisions on the development and delivery, or lack thereof, of 
this report. We urge the committee to help spring this 
important report from the Administration so that it can be used 
in your deliberations and during upcoming ISTEA reauthorization 
and budget debates.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few brief 
comments on the Administration's budget released yesterday. 
Overall, we were pleased that the Federal transportation 
investment would appear to at least keep pace with inflation. 
Attention must be drawn, however, to the fact that the 
Administration's budget would invest about $12 billion less on 
highways and bridges during fiscal year 1999 than the 
Government will collect in highway user fees from the Nation's 
motorists and truckers. In our view, that is highway robbery.
    The fact is the Nation's motorists will be paying for a 
$34.4 billion highway program and under the Administration's 
plan getting a $22.2 billion program. ARTBA urges the committee 
to fully fund the highway program and the Mass Transit Capital 
program at the level that can be accommodated through the trust 
fund revenue stream. We also urge that you fund the user-
financed Airport Improvement Program at least at a $2 billion 
level during fiscal year 1999.
    Mr. Chairman, a moment ago I briefly referred to an ARTBA 
report on the economic benefits of transportation that will be 
released later this month. This report is detailed in my 
written testimony and was prepared by ARTBA's director of 
economics and research, Dr. William Butner, who previously 
spent 22 years as a senior economist for the Joint Economic 
Committee. Mr. Butner is here with me today.
    Mr. Chairman, once again we commend the subcommittee for 
its dedication to America's transportation programs and its 
work to provide needed financial support. ARTBA will continue 
to work with you as we try to aggressively meet these most 
important national needs. Dr. Butner and I would be happy to 
answer any questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Sproles.
    [The prepared statement of Max Sproles follows:]


[Pages 185 - 197--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

               AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (ASCE)

                                WITNESS

JAMES E. DAVIS, P.E., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASCE
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim Davis. I 
am a civil engineer. I am also the executive director and chief 
executive officer of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 
As you know, civil engineers are the designers, builders, 
operators, and maintainers of the world's infrastructure, 
including the transportation systems here in America. On behalf 
of all of our 124,000 members, I would like to thank you and 
the other members of the committee for the opportunity to 
address the fiscal year 1999 budget.
    Regardless of what gets appropriated, civil engineers will 
make do with whatever we have. We've done so in the past, we'll 
do so in the future. However, it is difficult for us to come in 
year after year and look at the budget, and a budget for this 
year that's relatively about the same as last year, that's 
relatively flat. The only glimmer of hope we saw in the budget 
was a potential 10 percent increase in the research and 
development. We would encourage that that activity take place.
    But the strength of America has been and continues to be 
its transportation systems. It must continue to be its 
transportation systems--its highway systems, its railroad 
systems, its air transport systems. But to maintain our 
international competitiveness and to serve our members, we need 
to put more resources into our transportation systems. For 
civil engineers it is very appalling when we see bridges--we're 
sort of the doctors of the transportation field--we can look at 
a bridge, we can determine that it is obsolete, that it needs 
to be repaired or replaced, and we can come down and say this. 
However, as I said earlier, we spend what we get year-in, year-
out. It is time though for us to look at the backlog that is 
currently out there. As we understand the report from Federal 
Highway Administration, over 200,000 of 600,000 bridges are 
obsolete and need to be replaced. That is a need to invest $80 
billion additional in bridges.
    When we look at mass transit, an area that I know well, we 
need to invest an additional $7.9 billion to maintain our 
current mass transit system. We look at the $4.5 billion we 
have today and we say we're doing good. Twenty years ago when I 
worked for then the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, I 
was responsible for the capital and operating assistance budget 
of $4.1 billion. Twenty years later we look at $4.5 billion and 
we pat ourselves on the back. There's something wrong with that 
number. There's something wrong with the way we've been 
managing our systems.
    We talk about our road system in this country. As I 
understand the numbers, there are $23 billion we waste on 
roadways because of ill repair. I was reading a report recently 
that said 50 to 60 percent of our major highway systems in this 
country are in need of repair. Civil engineers, again, can 
design, rebuild the transportation systems in this country. 
We're trained to do that. However, we need your help.
    We come today to offer to partner with you, to reach out 
with you to help build safe, efficient, and cost-effective 
transportation systems. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of James Davis follows:]


[Pages 200 - 211--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

               AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSIT ASSOCIATION (APTA)

                                WITNESS

WILLIAM W. MILLAR, PRESIDENT, APTA
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Millar, we're all wondering if you came by 
Metro or by car?
    Mr. Millar. Well, as a matter of fact, sir, I can report 
Metro is running very well this morning, I just started a 
little later than I should have.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity to appear before the committee. I must start by 
just thanking you and the members of the committee so much for 
your work last year. We really started in a very deep hole with 
the Administration's proposal last year and you and your 
committee members worked very hard to make changes in the 
appropriations as it went through the process. We were very, 
very pleased with the results of the work of this committee 
last year. We thank you for that very much. It is consistent 
with your long career and your long support for public 
transportation, and we really do appreciate that.
    So, really, we're here today to ask that you continue to 
build on that excellent record that was established by the 
committee last year. There's no doubt about it, as some of my 
colleagues have said here, there's a clear need for further 
investment in public transportation and, in fact, in all of 
surface transportation. DOT says it is $13 billion a year, 
AASHTO says it is $14 billion a year, our numbers show $15 
billion; whosever numbers you want to use, it is clear there is 
a need for additional investment in surface transportation and 
public transit, in particular.
    The investments that this committee has approved in the 
past are starting to pay off. I have the great joy really to 
tell you that the customers are rewarding us by using our 
services more. In fact, in 1997 ridership was up on public 
transportation systems across the country, just as it was up in 
1996, and it is up across all modes--bus is up, rail is up, 
commuter rail is up, rapid transit is up. So, again, I think 
we're seeing the results of a lot of things, including 
investment.
    That increase in ridership is coming while we're 
maintaining our efficiency. The farebox recovery ratio of 
transit systems around the country continues to improve. Our 
members at APTA are taking seriously the requirements to be 
good stewards of the public funds, to make sure that they keep 
their expenses under control, and that they work hard to see 
that the passengers pay a fair share of the cost of operating 
our systems. And finally in this regard, we've seen an increase 
in both State and local assistance for public transportation. 
So I'm very, very pleased about that.
    In this past year, we've seen some improvements around the 
country; one of them certainly here in Washington, D.C., the 
opening of the new MCI Arena. We've seen that when people are 
given high quality, convenient public transportation service, 
they will use it. I understand now that MCI is seeing over 50 
percent of the people who go to the arena using public 
transportation. I know around the country, whether it is 
Cleveland with Jacobs Field, or Baltimore with Camden Yards, 
and on and on and on, that's a pattern we are seeing. In fact, 
the benefits of public transportation we have documented in a 
number of reports in the past year--our Dollars and Cents 
Report which shows transit's contribution to the economics of 
the country as well as reduction in traffic congestion, a 
recently released report on the benefits of commuter rail. I 
would be very happy to make those available to the committee. 
So, I think we're beginning to see the pay-off in many of the 
investments that have been made.
    Today I have several points to make to you about the 
specifics of the appropriation, some of which will be of no 
surprise to you, you've heard APTA before. We are, of course, 
advocating the highest possible funding for the Federal Transit 
Program. We believe that, as has been described by the earlier 
witnesses, that the money is there in the Highway Trust Fund 
and the Mass Transit account. We would like to see that money 
spent.
    We believe that the efforts of this committee and others to 
deal with the long-standing issues relating to operating 
assistance, that very good progress was made last year and we 
would again encourage the committee to continue the flexibility 
for those communities of less than 200,000, but allow all 
transit systems flexibility to spend formula money on 
preventative maintenance. I just returned literally at 1:00 
this morning from a meeting out in California of over 130 
transit general managers and I had a chance to talk with them 
about how well that preventative maintenance activity is 
working. With one or two exceptions, it is working very well 
over the country. So we thank you for that and want to continue 
it.
    Next, it was mentioned earlier about research. We too 
believe that research money needs to be spent. We are very 
disappointed that the Administration in the fiscal year 1998 
cycle has been saying to us they are not going to be able to 
fund the Transit Cooperative Research Program which is so 
important to us at the same level in 1997, that it is going to 
be reduced. We would like to see the Transit Cooperative 
Research Program specifically called out in the appropriations 
bill and funded at least at the $8.2 level from 1997.
    We also understand the FTA has critical administrative 
funding needs and we would support that as well.
    Later this week, Mr. Chairman, I am going to be doing 
something that, as far as I know, APTA has never done. I'm 
going to be appearing before Mr. Porter's subcommittee on 
Labor/Health and Human Resources/Education to talk with them 
about the benefits of making sure that public transit is 
thought of as the Nation carries out its efforts in welfare-to-
work and the other very important social programs that our 
Nation sponsors. I'm very much looking forward to that.
    As my colleagues have done, let me close by commenting on 
the Administration's budget proposal, as much as we understand 
of it since it was just released yesterday. As far as public 
transit, I have to tell you we're generally disappointed. 
Overall, the level of funding the Administration is proposing 
for public transit is less for 1999 than was appropriated in 
1998. There's no new money to assist in welfare-to-work. It has 
often been said that transit is the ``to'' in welfare-to-work. 
There's no new money for that.
    There is again the Administration proposal to take the 
discretion away from the Congress with regard to the allocation 
of bus and bus facility funds and fold that into a formula with 
the rail modernization funds. We don't see any good public 
policy purpose to be served by that.
    And finally, we are concerned that in the rural areas they 
would fund the ARTAP program out of the rural formula funds, 
thus effectively reducing the rural formula funds. Certainly, 
rural areas have a great need for public transit. In fact, 
later this year we expect to be able to submit to the committee 
a report that will document the economic benefit of investment 
in rural public transportation.
    On the good news side, yesterday the President did announce 
a new Climate Change Initiative and announced a proposal to 
equalize the tax treatment of parking benefits and public 
transit benefits, something that our Association has advocated 
for years and we would certainly recommend that to the Congress 
if it chooses to take action on the Climate Change Initiative.
    So on balance, Mr. Chairman, first, we're very pleased with 
the work of this committee and especially the work you were 
able to do for us last year. We would ask you to build on that. 
We believe the higher ridership that we're seeing in public 
transit, the increase in the farebox recovery ratio shows that 
we're good stewards of the money and the American people are 
responding to improvements in the system. We would like to see 
the highest possible funding levels, and we would be happy to 
work with you on the details of that as you pull together your 
bill this year.
    Thank you very much. We're very pleased to be with you.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    I appreciate all of you coming today. I think the committee 
is sympathetic to much of what you have said. I think what the 
committee has done over the years in a bipartisan fashion has 
demonstrated our commitment.
    Mr. Millar, I would just ask if you could submit for the 
record how the flexibility has worked. You talked about the 130 
transits; tell us where it worked well and where it didn't work 
so we can take a look at that.
    Mr. Millar. Yes, sir.
    [The prepared statement of William Millar and additional 
information follow:]


[Pages 215 - 228--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. I really have no questions of this panel.
    I just might say to the rail passenger people, my sense 
tells me that Mr. Tom Downs was treated somewhat shoddy; that's 
my sense, my intuition. I'm not going to ask you to comment on 
it, but I think he was working hard and trying. I think that's 
taking somebody who had a relatively good record and treating 
him in a very, very poor way. How that comes out, we just don't 
know. But I just would like to say that for the record.
    Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Packard.
    Mr. Packard. Just a question, Mr. Millar. What is the 
farebox recovery now nationwide?
    Mr. Millar. The last year for which the final numbers are 
in was fiscal year 1995, and at that point I have 37.9 percent 
as the national average. Based on some preliminary numbers from 
1996, we expect when the final numbers are in that will grow to 
over 38 percent.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Is there anything we can do to get that number up 
even higher?
    Mr. Millar. Well, I think you keep reminding us of our 
responsibilities, we'll keep working on it, and together we can 
make it happen.
    Mr. Wolf. What legislative change would enable that to go 
higher?
    Mr. Millar. I'll have to think on that a little bit, but 
I'm sure there are some ideas. I've always been a big believer 
in incentives; if you want people to do things, hold out 
carrots for them to reach. Certainly, we could work with you to 
fashion some ideas on incentives that would encourage higher 
operating ratios. Be happy to work on that with you.
    Mr. Wolf. We would welcome any thoughts you might have.
    Mr. Millar. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Again, I thank all of you for coming. We 
appreciate it very much.
                              ----------                              

                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

 NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUND-CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT (NOISE)

                                WITNESS

BETTY ANN KRAHNKE, MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NOISE, AND COUNCIL 
    MEMBER, MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
BETTY ANN KANE, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, NOISE
    Mr. Wolf. Betty Ann Krahnke.
    Are you two together?
    Ms. Krahnke. Yes.
    Mr. Wolf. We're limited to five minutes, but if you want to 
have someone come up and share the time, you're certainly 
welcome.
    Ms. Krahnke. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Welcome.
    Ms. Krahnke. Chairman Wolf and members of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, my name is Betty 
Ann Krahnke. I am a member of the Montgomery County, Maryland, 
County Council, chairman of the Committee on Noise Abatement of 
the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and the 
treasurer and member of the Executive Committee of the National 
Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment, better 
known as NOISE. Betty Ann Kane is the lobbying coordinator for 
NOISE.
    On behalf of the president of NOISE, Tom Egan, the mayor of 
Eagan, Minnesota, and our members from cities and counties all 
across the country, I am pleased to be here this morning to 
present our comments to the House Committee on Appropriations' 
Subcommittee on Transportation concerning the fiscal year 1999 
budget for the FAA.
    NOISE's primary concerns for the proposed fiscal year 1999 
budget are:
    1. Full funding of the statutory 31 percent set-aside for 
aviation noise mitigation as provided in the Federal Aviation 
Reauthorization Act. Opposition to any attempt to reduce or 
divert noise funds to other purposes, and opposition to any 
attempt to cap noise set-aside funds at a level less than the 
statutory formula would provide.
    2. Adequate funding of the overall Airport Improvement 
Program at least at the current year's level.
    3. Increased funding for FAA research, engineering, and 
development programs in the Office of Environment and Energy, 
which includes the development of quieter aircraft engine 
technology, and support for related programs that are funded by 
NASA.
    4. Adequate funding for the recently established Office of 
Noise Ombudsman and related community advocacy and involvement 
initiatives.
    5. Opposition to proposed changes in the budgetary 
treatment of contract authority which may harm the ability of 
airport operators to fulfill commitments to noise mitigation.
    6. A potential erosion of accountability to local 
communities through the shift from Federal funding to passenger 
facility charges and other user fees as a source of airport 
project funding.
    Most of these concerns are the same as we expressed last 
year in comments submitted for the record. NOISE was very 
pleased that in last year's appropriation Congress rejected the 
Administration's attempt to significantly reduce overall AIP 
funding, and that Congress rejected the Administration's 
proposed drastic reduction in noise set-aside funding to $21 
million and instead set it at $200 million. We urge you to 
continue to recognize airport and aircraft noise as a serious 
environmental problem and to honor the commitment to provide 
adequate resources to address it in the fiscal year 1999 
budget.
    I will briefly touch on each of these issues in more 
detail. But first, let me provide a little bit of background. 
NOISE is a national organization of local governments, citizen 
groups, and others working to reduce the impact of aircraft 
noise on communities. Locally, the metropolitan Washington 
Council of Governments through its Committee on Noise Abatement 
at National and Dulles, CONANDA, is an active member of NOISE. 
Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and Arlington Counties, the 
Cities of Fairfax, Falls Church, and Alexandria in Virginia, as 
well as District of Columbia and Maryland jurisdictions are 
among the local jurisdictions that participate in NOISE through 
CONANDA.
    In following up on these comments, I just want to be sure 
that you are aware that NOISE has appreciated the Federal 
Government having us on various task forces representing 
communities across the country in noise mitigation and noise 
research issues. I gather that my time is up from the light, 
but let me just turn to the specifics of the proposed budget.
    First, in terms of the full funding, we are pleased that 
the Administration's proposed budget does not include language 
proposed last year that would have diverted discretionary funds 
from noise mitigation in order to increase funding to small 
airports. We don't take a position on the funding for small 
airports, per se, but we do point out that as small airports 
grow they will face an increased need for noise abatement. 
There will be little or no designated funds to assist in that, 
and the potential, therefore, exists for a whole new cycle of 
noise compatibility and capacity constraint issues and 
problems. Meanwhile, the cities already with noise plans will 
not have the money to implement them.
    I want to skip to the issue of why you would fund this with 
other funds other than user fees. The concern is that when you 
shift the burden of airport improvement funding from 
appropriated dollars to passenger facility charges and other 
user fees it can lead to further disenfranchisement of noise-
impacted communities. It can also lead to a loss of ability for 
Congress to ensure that national noise objectives are met 
through the appropriations and grant-making process.
    PFC revenue may be used under much less restrictive 
conditions than apply to noise compatibility measures and other 
projects that use Federal AIP grant funds. We are particularly 
concerned that current law allows airports to use PFC revenue 
for noise compatibility measures eligible for assistance under 
the specific site whether or not a program for those measures 
has been approved under Section 47.504. What this allows is 
that airports that have approved Part 150 plans can use these 
funds not to implement that plan, but to implement other 
procedures even though the communities surrounding the airport 
rely on those plans when making their own land-use decisions.
    It also allows airports to avoid requirements for 
consulting public agencies and planning authorities in the area 
surrounding the airport, as part of preparing the project 
application, for notice and an opportunity for public hearing 
on the proposed noise compatibility measure, and for 
demonstrating that a project will reduce existing noncompatible 
uses and preventing introducing additional noncompatible uses. 
The only requirement for general public notice in a PFC project 
application is after submission to the FAA. When airports use 
PFC funds in ways inconsistent with Part 150 plans without 
conducting a Part 150 review, including public involvement, or 
avoid the process entirely, the value of those plans which the 
Federal Government funds is undermined.
    NOISE would support a requirement that FAA hold a public 
hearing in the airport area before approving an application for 
use of a PFC where the proposed project is financed by the PFC 
and is not part of an already approved airport plan. Our 
concern is that the rules that apply to Federal funds don't 
apply to PFCs, and the involvement of the communities and the 
tie-in to the Part 150 are just not there. So we want you to 
look at that issue.
    I'll stop there and try to answer any questions.
    Mr. Wolf. I have no questions. I appreciate your taking the 
time to come. I am very, very sympathetic. At one time, 
National Airport was in my district and I spent a lot of time, 
and still work with Congressman Moran and Congressman Davis and 
members on the other side of the river on that. So I am 
sympathetic. I am all for development of airports, but I think 
they ought to be very good neighbors and people that live under 
them ought to be protected. So I do appreciate your coming. The 
committee is sensitive and sympathetic to it.
    Ms. Krahnke. We appreciate your support. NOISE also 
appreciates the value of the aviation industry in the country 
and in our communities. We just want the impacts in the 
communities to be minimized.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Packard.
    Mr. Packard. Nothing, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Betty Ann Krahnke follows:]


[Pages 233 - 238--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

               NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

                                WITNESS

HON. JACK QUINN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 
    YORK
    Mr. Wolf. If everyone can come forward, Congressman Quinn, 
Congressman Fossella, Congressman Weygand, maybe the three 
together can come up.
    Jack?
    Mr. Quinn. We're going to shorten it as best we can, Mr. 
Chairman. I'm thrilled to be back again. It's very important 
and I just want to discuss three projects under the 
jurisdiction of NFTA, the Niagara Frontier Transportation 
Authority in Buffalo, our multimodal transportation authority 
which services Erie and Niagara County.
    The first initiative I want to describe is one that the 
committee has been supportive of in the past. In fact, for two 
years running the committee has funded this project in Buffalo. 
This is the third year that we're asking for some help with the 
actual start-up, and that's for our HUBLINK project. It is a 
national model that meets the changing transportation needs 
resulting from the movement of jobs and populations to the 
suburbs and out of the city. At the same time, this HUBLINK 
will help NFTA to continue to meet the goal of our welfare-to-
work program, the Clean Air Act, and Americans with 
Disabilities Act, all of course Federal initiatives.
    The shifts in population in Western New York have led to 
increasing urban sprawl in a region that is otherwise not 
growing. As jobs move to the suburbs, the City of Buffalo and 
its share of regional jobs went from 41 percent to 35 percent 
as a result. Two out of three jobs are located outside of 
Buffalo, a phenomenon that's happening in other sections of the 
country.
    Consequently, Metro is faced with entering an area, the 
suburbs, where a significant amount of automobile traffic 
exists and where buses are riding half full. Compounding the 
impact of the problems is a reality of decreasing Federal 
participation in transit. We believe that HUBLINK, so far as 
the committee has seen fit to fund it these last two years, is 
critically important. I might also point out, Mr. Chairman and 
members, that the financial plan that has been put together 
back in Buffalo has already identified new funding sources and 
other partnerships that will include State and local funding as 
well as our Federal participation. So let me make it clear, it 
is not a hand out, that we've got other people contributing 
money. The request is for $6 million from the bus capital 
appropriation for fiscal year 1999.
    The second initiative I submit for the subcommittee's 
consideration today involves improvements to alleviate some of 
the safety limitations at our new Buffalo-Niagara International 
Airport. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you're aware that this past 
November we opened a brand new airport, $157.7 million of the 
Airport Improvement Program. That phase included construction 
of a new terminal, roadway system, and a parking structure. Now 
Phase II, which includes acquisition and demolition of the 
airport center, runway work, as well as safety improvements 
were deferred earlier and now need our attention.
    Now that Phase I is nearly complete, we're seeking $21 
million in the transportation appropriations under the FAA 
Airport Improvement Program for the acquisition and demolition 
of the building and improvement of runway 14-32.
    Finally, the last initiative, just to discuss briefly with 
you, and everything is contained in the written report, is an 
important component of the City of Buffalo's waterfront 
redevelopment plan, including historic projects that consist of 
development in the new harbor waterfront plaza. Phase II 
includes redevelopment of the historic DL&W intermodal station 
connecting the harbor, waterfront, roadways, and our light rail 
transit in Buffalo. Truly an intermodal situation.
    Part III, which we're focusing on today, includes 
development of the outer harbor and a bridge that connects the 
inner and outer harbor with the relocation of the city's Amtrak 
station. This important component in this phase is talking 
about that relocation of the Amtrak Exchange Street station, 
which is specific and will be explained in my written 
testimony. We are suggesting and requesting that the committee 
consider a $6 million transportation appropriation under the 
FTA discretionary grant program for fiscal year 1999 for the 
relocation of the Exchange Street station and construction of 
the new intermodal transportation center in Buffalo's inner 
harbor.
    Mr. Chairman, basically three projects. All the backup 
information of course will be provided. We appreciate your 
hearing our case today and for taking time to talk about 
Buffalo and the NFTA. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Good. Thank you, Jack, for coming before the 
committee. I have no questions.
    Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Packard.
    Mr. Packard. No questions.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Jack Quinn follows:]


[Pages 241 - 244--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                        NEW YORK FERRY PROJECTS

                                WITNESS

HON. VITO FOSSELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 
    YORK
    Mr. Wolf. Going in order, Congressman Fossella. Thank you 
for coming before the committee today.
    Mr. Fossella. Thank you very much, Chairman Wolf, and 
members of the committee. I appreciate your taking the time out 
to allow me to testify before this committee. As you may know, 
Mr. Chairman, this marks my first appearance before this 
committee and, in fact, it represents my first as a Member of 
Congress. I think in many ways it is appropriate that I begin 
my work here.
    Because of your efforts and that of my predecessors, Susan 
Molinari and, before her, her father, we've begun work to 
really work on some critical transportation concerns that we 
have on Staten Island. As many of you may know, we are very 
dependent upon ferry service. The Staten Island ferries provide 
daily commute for more than 60,000 people to and from 
Manhattan. In recent years, we've added service from Staten 
Island to midtown Manhattan, again environmentally safe, 
greatly reducing the congestion on our roads, and also 
providing an alternative for thousands of Staten Islanders.
    Our priorities for this year are short, and I will submit 
the remainder for the record, but essentially they call for 
continued funding to reconstruct the White Hall Ferry Terminal 
in Manhattan, capital improvements to the privately-operated 
Staten Island to midtown ferry, and three new high efficiency 
Staten Island ferry boats to replace an aging fleet.
    Not too long ago, in 1991 there was a devastating fire that 
destroyed the White Hall Terminal facility located in 
Manhattan. As a result, there was a makeshift facility 
constructed. Temporary as it was supposed to be, it still is in 
that deplorable condition. So we, along with the City and State 
of New York, are looking to fund the completion and final 
construction of the White Hall Ferry Terminal. Again, that 
would provide for much needed relief to the 60,000 or so 
commuters.
    Secondly, with respect to the Staten Island-midtown ferry, 
again under my predecessor, funding was begun for much needed 
capital improvements to take a two hour commute for many Staten 
Islanders who live in Staten Island and work in midtown 
Manhattan and reduce that commute to less than forty minutes, 
taking many cars off the road. This committee funded it last 
year; however, it was cut in half to $1 million. We request 
that that funding be increased to accommodate the major capital 
improvements.
    Lastly, we talked about our reliance on ferries. The world 
famous Staten Island Ferry is a growing and aging fleet. 
Currently, the Kennedy Class boats are an average age of 35 
years old, and that's about 10 years older than they should be. 
We are requesting that we receive funding to begin engineering 
and design funds for new ferries in the amount of $1 million.
    All of these transportation projects are looked for to 
bring relief to my constituents in Staten Island and Brooklyn, 
taking cars off the road, providing an alternative, and 
environmentally safe means of transportation. Not only that, 
the new ferries will allow us to comply with the Federal 
mandates, notably the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well 
as the reduction in the hydrocarbon and particulate emissions 
by using more advanced fuel technology.
    Mr. Chairman, the projects that I've just described to you 
are vital to the people of Staten Island and Brooklyn as they 
serve the primary links in our mass transportation network. 
Individually and collectively, these three proposals represent 
a reasonable approach to address the long-term transportation 
needs of commuters in my district. Simply, these projects have 
the ability to dramatically improve the rush hour commute for 
people of Staten Island and Brooklyn.
    Again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me 
thank you for allowing me to testify before you here today. I 
appreciate it. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. I thank you for coming before the committee. 
Congressman Guy Molinari was a freshman in my class and he has 
explained this. I've been up there, not on a Government trip, 
just to visit family and I took the Staten Island Ferry. I know 
how critical it is to your people. And Congresswoman Susan 
Molinari spoke to me as well.
    I think I've sent copies of a letter to the members, I was 
up visiting family in New York over the Christmas break and I 
happened to just jump on a tug boat and went out to Governor's 
Island. Governor's Island, which we fund through this 
committee, is having some very serious problems; the paint is 
peeling, some of the building is beginning to fall down. There 
was a proposal to bring gambling out on the island, which I 
think would be a mistake. If you can get out on the island, and 
I would encourage members, if you get up to New York City, the 
committee would help you or you can do it on your own, to ask 
the Coast Guard to take you out and just walk around the 
island. It looks out on the Statue of Liberty, it looks out on 
Ellis Island. And as an individual whose grandparents came over 
from another country, the thought of having a gambling casino 
looking out on Ellis Island I think is not something that we 
want to have.
    Also, there are some very historic buildings out on the 
island. It is where President Reagan met with Gorbachev, also 
Mitterand was out there, and former President and General 
Ulysses Grant was stationed at the fort out there. The history 
is so great. I would think it would be appropriate for the Park 
Service to expand its jurisdiction and perhaps use the Staten 
Island Ferries to not only connect to the Statue of Liberty and 
Ellis Island from Staten Island, but also to think in terms of 
having a service to Governors Island whereby Governor's Island 
can be turned into a historic center and combination 
educational complex whereby all the many great universities in 
New York City and New York State can come together--Fordham, 
Columbia, NYU, all of them, Hunter College--and develop some 
educational system out there, and also have it open whereby 
moms and dads can just take the kids out to Governor's Island 
for a picnic on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon.
    So I think what you're saying fits into some opportunity of 
even expanding the service whereby it could include Governor's 
Island. I would encourage the members of the committee that 
when you get up to New York City, you can be out and back in 
about two hours, take the opportunity to go out and walk around 
the Island and take a look at the beauty and the history. And I 
think your request, Mr. Fossella, would kind of fit in and the 
service could also be expanded to Governor's Island.
    Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, just a question.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. I don't know whether this was the issue, but 
wasn't there consideration at one time to give the island to 
either New York or New Jersey? I remember reading something 
about that.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes. In the budget agreement which was passed, it 
calls for the sale of Governor's Island for $500 million. 
There's no way that anyone will be able to pay $500 million for 
Governor's Island. And so I think under the Excess Property 
Agreement that we use for base closings, it would be 
appropriate to give it to New York City or New York State or a 
consortium. The problem is if you don't move this until the 
year 2001, buildings are peeling, roofs are beginning to leak, 
and if you don't spend time in a building and nobody is there, 
it begins to go. Also Coast Guard chiefs were raking leaves. 
With the demand at the Coast Guard and the pressure they're 
under both with regard to safety and drug interdiction and all 
these other things, to have a chief petty officer out raking 
leaves just doesn't seem to be very appropriate.
    We will make sure that every member of the committee can 
see the history, also the potential opportunity for education 
out there, and also for visitors to have the opportunity to 
come and share, not only visitors from New York City, but 
visitors from California, Arizona, and Virginia, people that 
have never seen Governor's Island.
    So I think it would be appropriate if New York City and New 
York State can develop a consortium. Frankly, I think it would 
be appropriate to let them have it for $1 a year on a 99-year 
lease or something like that so that the citizens of this 
country can take advantage of it.
    Mr. Fossella. I appreciate your concern, Mr. Chairman. 
There's no question Governor's Island is a national treasure, 
one of a kind in the country. I do appreciate your concern. I 
read some of your comments in last week's paper and I think you 
make some very valid points.
    Mr. Wolf. And your request would fit into that.
    Mr. Fossella. Clearly, I think once we get the three new 
ferry boats we'll be ready to rock-n-roll. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Vito Fosella follows:]


[Pages 248 - 253--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                  RHODE ISLAND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

                                WITNESS

HON. BOB WEYGAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE 
    ISLAND
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Weygand.
    Mr. Weygand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want 
to thank you, Mr. Chairman, particularly, and all the members 
of the committee for your help on many of the projects that I'm 
going to talk about today. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to submit to you some revised testimony on my behalf to 
the committee as well as some other supporting documentation 
that we would hope you would take into consideration.
    I'm going to address two basic project areas, Mr. Chairman. 
Both of them have very similar kinds of goals, goals that you, 
Mr. Chairman, and the committee, as well as the Congress have 
endorsed. The premise for all these projects are simply this. 
We want to make transportational improvements that link other 
modes of transportation. You will see that these are all 
intermodal types of transportational projects. They take 
benefit and they work with other modes of transportation to 
make them better.
    The second is that every single one of them is linked very 
closely, almost inextricably to business and economic 
development that is so sorely needed in my State of Rhode 
Island and in the Northeast. You will see in both projects why 
we're having these transportational improvements is to improve 
economic development in these areas.
    The first one, Mr. Chairman, you are very familiar with. It 
is called Quonset Point. It is in North Kingstown, Rhode 
Island, it sits on the West side of Narragansett Bay. It is a 
former Federal property, a naval station. Quonset huts are the 
name that you got from Quonset Point; they were designed and 
devised here at Quonset Point in North Kingstown. The Federal 
land is about 3,000 acres which has been transferred or is 
about to be transferred over to the State of Rhode Island; 
2,000 was transferred in 1974, the balance is going to be 
transferred this year. It is, as shown in bright yellow, right 
on the mouth of Narragansett Bay.
    It is unusual in that it has four modes of transportation. 
It has an 8,000 foot long runway airport, which is shown right 
here. It has a rail transportation system which, Mr. Chairman, 
you have been helping on a project, goes from here and here to 
the North up through Providence to the Boston and Albany area. 
The third mode of transportation is our deep water berthing, 
anywhere from 32 to 50 feet depending upon dredging, used to do 
a lot of naval ship restoration and repairs in the area. And on 
top of that, we have a freeway system that is just outside of 
this facility. Route 4, which is shown right there in bright 
red, leads immediately up about three miles North of that to 
Interstate Route 95. Four modes of transportation and we have 
an economic opportunity in the State of Rhode Island that 
really is not only a gateway for the Northeast, but also 
provides service to the Mid-West as well as to our European and 
Asian trading partners.
    The first project is the Rhode Island Rail Development 
Project. Mr. Chairman, you've been helping with that in the 
past and this year the Administration has included an 
additional $10 million toward the furtherance of that. The 
voters of Rhode Island put bond money to help support that. We 
hope that $10 million will continue in the budget and be 
supported by this committee because the Third Track Project, 
which is the freight train track, is very necessary. With the 
Northeast corridor being electrified, it would preclude us 
using this for freight and, therefore, we need to have the 
freight line connected.
    The second project which I think is even more important is 
the roadway construction. We call it Route 403 and it connects 
Quonset Point to Route 4. Right now it is secondary or 
neighborhood streets that connect the 3,000 acre facility to 
Route 4. We're asking that as part of ISTEA an $80 million over 
six year appropriation be included for the Route 403 project. 
It will link the entire Northeast system, Route 95 to Quonset 
Point. Invaluable. Without that, trucks, including port 
development, will be transported over neighborhood streets.
    The second project area is T.F. Green Airport, another 
intermodal transportational project, which is the fastest 
growing regional airport in the country. The State of Rhode 
Island over three years has invested $123 million in new 
terminal and related facilities. In just the last 12 months, 
T.F. Green Airport has increased volume in terms of number of 
passengers going through T.F. Green by 77 percent. People are 
coming from the Boston area, Connecticut area, and throughout 
Rhode Island and New England to T.F. Green. We have a wonderful 
link from I-95 right into T.F. Green by way of a freeway we 
constructed many years ago. It is now expanding with Southwest 
Airlines, Air Canada, and a host of others. We are doing 
extremely well in bringing new people in.
    The problem that we have right now is the congestion that 
can and will occur as a result of increased traffic on our 
freeways as well as pollution. We would like to make a 
connection between the Amtrak line, which is right here, and 
the airport terminal, which is right here, with a new Amtrak 
passenger station and people-mover that would connect to the 
airport. Nearly 1200 feet away. It's an ideal location. It 
could be done in a partnership with private developers, the 
State of Rhode Island, the Economic Development Corporation of 
the State of Rhode Island, the City of Warrick, but with help 
from you.
    We're asking for $2 million for a feasibility preliminary 
design of the facility. That would really be the starting or 
the stepping stone to move forward on this project. We 
anticipate it would be about a $15 to $20 million total 
project, some of which would be done by private sector, city, 
State, economic development, as well as transportation. But 
this would kick us off. This would be the start of a program 
that really would link our airport, our freeway, and our Amtrak 
system and provide cleaner and safer highways, and actually 
increase the volume on Amtrak passenger rail in the Northeast 
which would be ideal.
    The second part of this is also something that was 
mentioned just earlier by a previous witness, and that is noise 
abatement. With the growth of this airport, noise abatement is 
a very dear concern to the people that live in the 
neighborhood. We would ask you to continue full funding for 
small States like Rhode Island to the tune of about $3 million 
for purposes of noise abatement. While we grow economically and 
we want this to flourish, we have to respect the people that 
live there in the neighborhoods. It's my district and I know 
they are very concerned about making sure they still have a 
safe, clean, and quiet neighborhood. So we would ask you to 
consider the full funding for noise abatement at this airport.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I note that you have my full 
testimony which includes other programs within the State of 
Rhode Island. I would be happy to answer any questions that you 
or the staff may have.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony.
    Mr. Pastor, any questions?
    Mr. Pastor. No.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Packard.
    Mr. Packard. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Weygand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the 
committee members.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Robert Weygand follows:]


[Pages 257 - 265--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

             SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

                                WITNESS

HON. BOB FILNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    CALIFORNIA
    Mr. Wolf. Congressman Filner, if you want to come up. Also, 
maybe we can bring Mr. Sharpe James up with Congressman Payne 
now. Don, do you want to come up? Also, is Mr. Ankner with the 
Coalition of Northeastern Governors here? Maybe you can all 
come up to the table.
    Mr. Filner.
    Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. Your full statement will appear in the record.
    Mr. Filner. Thank you. I have submitted my full statement 
and I have just a few remarks to underline that. I appreciate 
your attention. I know this is an annual task that gets more 
difficult each year, and we appreciate your expertise and your 
wide knowledge of all the projects that are coming up.
    Mr. Bilbray, my Republican colleague adjacent to me, was 
going to join me in my testimony today.
    Mr. Wolf. Was Mr. Hunter going to go?
    Mr. Filner. Yes, Mr. Hunter will be right behind me. Mr. 
Bilbray joins me in these remarks. I think his plane has not 
arrived yet.
    Mr. Wolf. If he gets here later, we'll be glad to hear him. 
Otherwise, his statement will be submitted for the record.
    Mr. Filner. I know that in the priority that I am speaking 
about today, my Republican colleagues in San Diego County, 
although Mr. Packard is here to speak for himself, I know Mr. 
Cunningham and Mr. Packard agree at least with the concepts 
that I am talking about today. Only Mr. Hunter, as you know 
from a long history, disagrees with the priorities of the 
transportation infrastructure funding.
    As you know, I represent the extreme Southwest corner of 
the Nation, San Diego, California, at least part of it. I have 
most of the border between U.S. and Mexico. I want to mention 
two projects along the border that I think deserve your 
attention. We in San Diego have the potential to have our 
economic growth and prosperity assured if we can transform our 
port, which is one of the most beautiful ports in the world. As 
you know, it's the largest naval base in the world, it's a 
great tourist center, but it has virtually no commerce through 
the port. One of the reasons for that is that we do not have 
direct rail connections to the East. All rail connections from 
San Diego go to Los Angeles. We believe that establishing a 
rail line directly to the East will make our port a working 
port, create decades of future prosperity, tens of thousands of 
jobs in the future, and make San Diego a true maritime center.
    As you well know, we have the accidental ability to revive 
a short line railroad from San Diego to Arizona. In Mr. 
Pastor's State, that train line can join with the Union 
Pacific, Southern Pacific, Transcontinental lines and give San 
Diego complete access to all the eastern markets and make our 
port a working port. That railroad line that is there is an old 
railroad that was built in 1912. It has been on and off of 
service. It is now in service for part of the line into 
Thecate, Mexico. But for a rather small financial investment by 
the private sector, that line can be rehabilitated and put into 
service and begin San Diego's new gain of prosperity.
    Mr. Chairman, that line was built at a time when the U.S.-
Mexico border had no real significance and the railroad was 
built partially through Mexico and partially the United States. 
For some, like my colleague, Mr. Hunter, that presents a great 
difficulty. For most of all the other political and business 
leaders in San Diego, that is an opportunity. Cooperation with 
the Mexicans will produce, in fact, jobs for American citizens. 
I am joined in this, by the way, by all the business groups in 
San Diego, virtually every political figure with the exception 
of Mr. Hunter.
    As you know, we have asked for Section 511 loan guarantees 
in the past. This loan guarantee means that this is not a 
grant, this is not even a loan; this is the private sector 
doing this. But in the special circumstances of short line 
railroads, a Federal loan guarantee will make the bank 
financing possible and a loan guarantee of $1 million, for 
example, will leverage in the private sector a $20 million loan 
for railroads, not just this one, but other short line 
railroads all across the Nation. I would say this is a rather 
small investment with great leveraging ability to change the 
economic context of Southern California and Arizona. My 
colleagues in Arizona, not only Mr. Pastor but his colleagues, 
also see the benefit. It would open up new competitive 
transport lines to the ports on the West Coast and help 
Arizona's economy also.
    So I present that to you once again. I would hope that a 
combination of stimulus through loan guarantees and private 
sector funding will in fact get our railroad started and our 
economy moving upward with great intensity.
    Mr. Wolf. How do you answer the concern that Mr. Hunter has 
on the drug issue?
    Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hunter, as you 
know, has been a foremost advocate of increased border 
protection. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that because of 
Congressman Hunter's efforts we have a border that is now well-
defined with a Border Patrol having gone from a couple hundred 
when I took office to several thousand now. So his concerns are 
well-placed and important. He has asked for a GAO study of 
this. GAO has submitted a study, and we have I think included 
it for the record, that says that with about 35 additional 
personnel they can cover all the possible border problems that 
are foreseen by Mr. Hunter or anybody else.
    Let me remind you that of all forms of transportation, a 
train is the easiest one to deal with. The train crosses the 
border every day now, the raw materials for Thecate beer are 
delivered through train, and there has never been a problem 
according to the INS. You have one track going through a gate. 
Cars can be sealed with modern techniques. The INS or Customs 
can take as long as they want to inspect a train. And unlike 
cars where you have thousands and thousands of them, the train 
must go through a gate on one track and can be rigorously 
inspected. The GAO has prepared a report that said that with 35 
additional agents they can cover the problem.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Hunter, in his testimony, and I don't know 
what this is, it just says a GAO report, says according to 
Border Patrol officials, the lack of roads and trails limit the 
Border Patrol's access to much of the track between Campo and 
Jacumbo where the rail line comes closest to the border. The 
Border Patrol officials said that ``the reopened rail line 
would be a vehicle for illegal immigration and it is likely 
that the illegal immigrants would board the train and move 
through the areas of border control coverage to areas where the 
border patrol has limited resources.''
    Mr. Filner. Excuse me. Are you quoting from Mr. Hunter or 
another GAO report?
    Mr. Wolf. I believe it is a GAO report.
    Mr. Filner. I think it is Mr. Hunter's rendition of the GAO 
report, if I am not mistaken.
    Mr. Wolf. We will also ask the GAO. I suggest that you sit 
down because this is very important.
    Mr. Filner. I understand.
    Mr. Wolf. Also particularly on the----
    Mr. Filner. Let me just make one point briefly. I think the 
GAO had looked into this and recognizes the risks, but feels 
they can deal with the problem. And let me say finally, though, 
we are at the border. This is an ongoing problem. The question 
is, Do we allow a potential problem that we think we can handle 
90 to 95 percent of it with very limited resources versus the 
tremendous potential of economic growth. That is, Are we going 
to allow the problems of the border to prevent us from seeing 
the opportunities for all of Southern California, the southwest 
region, and Mexico? And this is an economic boon for a whole 
region. Just as in the 19th century, the problems of going 
across the Nation did not deter our pioneers and our folks and 
we should not be deterred by certain risks that are there that 
we have to confront squarely, as Mr. Hunter suggests. But I 
think we can deal with them.
    Mr. Pastor. I just want to add to this. In the area I 
represent, Nogales, Arizona, we have a short rail line that 
goes from Nogales, Arizona into Hermosillo. And from Arizona to 
Hermosillo, we take all the raw material to build cars. And 
from Hermosillo back to through Nogales, we bring back 
assembled cars plus other produce and whatnot. There is a gate 
in which the railroad car enters Mexico and exits Mexico. I 
have to tell you that if you look at all the drug busts that 
have occurred in Nogales, Arizona, most of the drug busts have 
come because people have carried it over or they are coming 
over in automobiles or trucks. To my knowledge, we have never 
had a drug bust on the train. We have never had the problem of 
undocumented people crossing from Mexico into Arizona by the 
train.
    And I have to tell you that in my conversations with the 
people that I represent in Yuma, if you go south of Yuma into 
San Luis, Mexico, that is probably the fastest growing area for 
Maquiladoras. And you have Japanese, Korean, American, Canadian 
because most of the goods they are producing there are going to 
the Far East. One of the problems we have is that we don't have 
a rail link. So Congressman Filner is right in assessing that 
it would help the Yuma County area, which is producing all your 
winter produce right now. It would help them economically to 
get that into San Diego and from there to the markets.
    So I agree--and I think all my colleagues in Arizona would 
agree--that we are concerned about the transportation of drugs 
into this country. We are concerned about the transportation of 
undocumented people into this country. But we now have--and 
have had--in Arizona an experience with a rail line that goes 
into Mexico and we have not had those problems. We now have 
increased the enforcement in the border by thousands of agents. 
We now have across the border a 6-foot metal fence. So I think 
we need to look at this more realistically and say that there 
is economic development opportunities not only for Imperial 
County and San Diego County, but there is economic 
opportunities for western Arizona.
    Mr. Chairman, with your assistance, I would look at this 
situation and maybe see what we can do to resolve it.
    Mr. Wolf. Well, I will look at it. I will be honest, as I 
hope I always am. I have been persuaded by Mr. Hunter, but I am 
certainly open to it. I would suggest that you all that are 
interested in this ought to sit down with Congressman Hunter 
early in the process and see. I think we have been successful 
in beating them back. I would suggest that you and Mr. Pastor 
and Mr. Hunter may want to sit down.
    Mr. Filner. I would hope Mr. Packard, who is fully informed 
of this situation, might broker that situation for us and help 
us resolve this.
    Mr. Wolf. I don't really care how you do it.
    Mr. Packard. Mr. Chairman, I have been supportive, of 
course, for some time of the San Diego-Arizona Eastern Railroad 
expansion and opening, as well as the rest of the San Diego 
delegation. Mr. Filner is right. We all have been supportive of 
it.
    The biggest problem that we have in carrying freight across 
the border has been a truck crossing in San Diego. We have 
resolved that problem with high technology and with the proper 
surveillance and good equipment and good agents. That has been 
resolved. And yet that is a far greater problem and poses a 
much greater problem than the rail would. I don't think there 
is any way that the rail would pose problems that couldn't be 
resolved.
    Mr. Wolf. I just think you ought to sit down with Mr. 
Hunter.
    Mr. Packard. One other part of this testimony that he 
didn't mention that I think ought to be mentioned is State 
Route 905. That is absolutely crucial to San Diego and to the 
entire country. All the goods that come across the border come 
across that truck crossing. That new truck crossing dumps onto 
local streets here in the United States. It does not dump onto 
our freeway system and that poses a huge, huge local problem.
    State Route 905 was proposed to connect the truck crossing 
to the freeway system. It is a new freeway that would connect 
to the existing freeways. It is a 5-mile stretch, but it is 
absolutely crucial.
    Mr. Wolf. I would assume you are looking at ISTEA for that?
    Mr. Filner. We are. As you know, there is a section at 
least in the President's previous proposal for a border 
infrastructure loan program. I would hope that this committee 
might look at broadening that program to look at the border as 
a whole--both the Canadian and the Mexican border. These are 
national priorities and not just local projects. I would hope 
you would look at that.
    Mr. Wolf. I understand. For good or wrong or whatever, the 
decision was made--particularly to the States that have lost 
money, that have been donor States--is not to load things up 
and take away. Arizona, California, Florida, and my State have 
really not benefitted by the current highway formula. Those 
battles will really be fought out in ISTEA. That is really 
where they have to. I think the best thing we can do is to 
return as much possible money to the State of California, to 
Virginia, to Arizona, and to others whereby they can make the 
decisions.
    Once you begin to say that you are going to do this for 
one, then everybody else--clearly, in my area I have the 
capacity of spending an unlimited amount of money if I were in 
a position to say that we were going to do it for my area and 
not for all. That has been a good system.
    Now if it were changed, particularly as chairman of this 
committee, the opportunities would be unlimited, if you will. I 
have had some people say that that was a great policy and I 
really agree with it. Do you think maybe you could have done it 
2 years from now rather than now?
    This has been helpful to the donor States. Several years 
ago there was a situation where 47 percent of the money for 
demonstration projects went to one State. ISTEA is the place to 
deal with those demonstration projects--the authorizers--and I 
respect that process. If we were to begin to kind of pick and 
choose here, it would be unfair and it would cut into Coast 
Guard programs, the FAA, and all these other safety programs.
    So we, for better or worse until either I move on and 
somebody else comes in--maybe the next person that comes in to 
be chairman of this committee will reverse this policy. My 
sense is, though, that the Congress has felt that this is the 
best way and the fairest way. I think those decisions are 
really going to be made in ISTEA and also are going to be made 
by the Governors of the States that are going to be able to 
determine it.
    And under this policy, your State has benefitted big, big 
time. If you look at the amount of money your State is 
receiving now versus what it received, and if you remember back 
in those times when you were here, during that year 47 percent 
of the demonstration projects went to one State, California's 
amount of that demonstration money was zero. And that is just 
not right. So I think ISTEA is the place.
    But on this other issue, I think all of you ought to caucus 
and get Mr. Hunter working together. I think that would be 
helpful. Ron, maybe that would be an opportunity for you to 
bring----
    Mr. Packard. I appreciate that advice, Mr. Chairman, and I 
thank you. I know this is deja vu and I appreciate your 
patience.
    Mr. Wolf. That is okay. We are glad to have you. Thank you 
for taking the time to come.
    [Prepared statement of Hon. Bob Filner follows:]


[Pages 271 - 278--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                       CITY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY

                               WITNESSES

HON. DONALD PAYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 
    JERSEY
MAYOR SHARPE JAMES OF NEWARK, NJ
    Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
    You know we have no problems in New Jersey with people 
coming in, so we will take the money if you can't resolve it 
there.
    Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to 
come here on behalf of my home town, Newark, New Jersey. And it 
is certainly an honor to work with the subcommittee because I 
just want to say how responsive the subcommittee has been in 
the past funding requests that we have made. We especially 
appreciate the assistance my colleagues gave us in advancing 
the New Jersey Urban Corps. And transportation is so vital in 
New Jersey, it is critical. It has assisted our local economy 
to draw more people to the city of Newark.
    Mr. Chairman, there has been a remarkable renaissance of 
Newark and we call it the Renaissance City. We are enjoying it. 
We had the opening in October of a world-class performing arts 
center, which everyone is talking about. But it has been 
because we have had some very good leadership--visionary, 
energetic leadership--and that is my colleague who I happened 
to serve on the City Council with before I came to Congress. He 
was then a councilman and is now a mayor.
    But during his administration, Newark has won a number of 
awards, All-American City awards, one of the most outstanding 
environmental protection programs of recycling--way ahead of 
the rest of the country--bond rates have increased, housing 
stock numbers have gone up, the city's revenues have increased, 
and there has not been a tax increase. These are all things 
that don't happen in urban cities. A number of businesses have 
relocated in our area.
    And Mayor James has been the person who has pushed this. He 
serves on the Board of Trustees of the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, vice president of the New Jersey Conference of Mayors, 
and is the past president of the National League of Cities.
    So it is my pleasure to introduce a neighbor of mine, the 
mayor of the largest city in the State of New Jersey, and 
actually the third oldest city in the United States, Mayor 
Sharpe James.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Congressman Payne, for coming from 
your busy schedule to appear with me before the subcommittee.
    My testimony is submitted, so I won't have to read three 
pages, but I would like to talk about four projects with Urban 
Corps funding that has made us pregnant with potential. We are 
really here to salute the subcommittee for their past help and 
hope that they will continue the great work of this committee.
    You have helped us with the 280, which was a major highway 
coming to a dead-end. If you stopped there and caught the 
light, you never knew if you were going to be alive the next 
day from being tailgated. We have lost lives there. You have 
given us the funds to connect to our downtown and also to our 
university area. And also the Newark Science Park where we have 
brought the Research Institute from New York to Newark, New 
Jersey.
    We had the 21 widening program that you helped us with 
whereby we have the Congressman Joseph Menish waterfront 
project. And then of course, by opening the New Jersey Park on 
this waterfront and adjacent to 21, now we know it is not wide 
enough. The question was, If you built it in Newark, would they 
come? We have set a record for 100 days with over 250,000 
persons have attended the New Jersey Performing Arts Center, a 
record for this country.
    And then of course we had the 78 connection funds. You 
started us with that whereby we had a highway, once again, at 
65 miles-per-hour ending right on a city street with loss of 
lives. Now with your help we are going to change that to 
connect it to an artery that feeds downtown. We are going to 
relocate and build a new school. And also, it creates an 
industrial park. And we thank you for that.
    We could talk about the Newark-Elizabeth rail link. We have 
the fastest growing airport in America, Newark International 
Airport. You can see it, but the problem is getting to it for a 
job. The Newark rail link, which will connect Newark and 
Elizabeth to the airport, will be the first city in America 
that has a reality where you can go from the plane to the train 
to the bus to the subway and then to a hotel and conference 
center which we will build, like the contemporary hotel in 
Orlando, because of your help. And it is interesting to note 
that the number one job-producing entity in the city of Newark 
is Continental Airlines at the airport. Transportation--10,000 
people. So because of your help, there is an economic boom in 
the area with jobs being created.
    I would simply testify, Mr. Chairman, that we have the 
fastest-growing airport and the fastest-growing port in 
America. Hyundai looked at Savannah, looked at New York, looked 
at Baltimore, looked at Philadelphia, and we are glad that they 
are bringing all their cars from Korea to Newark, New Jersey 
because of our intermodal structure.
    As indicated, we have a planned $70 million Congressman 
Joseph Menish waterfront, a planned baseball stadium along that 
waterfront. We have opened up--as Congressman Payne spoke of 
earlier--a $186 million New Jersey Performing Arts Center. We 
have a planned hotel and conference center in Wavery Yards. And 
Ray Chambers, one of those millionaires who tries to give away 
$300 million a year, is trying to buy the Mets so we can bring 
them from the Meadowlands to Newark where they have better 
intermodal transportation. If they don't move, we will just buy 
the team and then move them.
    So clearly, with your help--and we would invite this 
committee if you want to testify to the work of intermodal 
transportation and the dollars you have sent to an area--have 
we been accountable with them? Or has it made a difference in 
the quality of life? You need only to make one stop 3 hours by 
Amtrak to Newark or 47 minutes by plane to Newark and you will 
see the fruit of your labors. So truthfully, Newark, New Jersey 
has become the first city in America that in reality you will 
be able to go from the plane to the train to the subway to the 
bus to a hotel to a conference center, and it all connects 
because of your valuable assistance.
    And because of your assistance jobs have been created, 
there is an economic boom that has been echoed by previous 
speakers, and more important your help has made Newark, New 
Jersey the largest city in New Jersey, the third oldest city in 
America behind Boston and New York viable, and has turned a 
city which was once the butt of jokes into a Renaissance City. 
So I am here to thank you for making us pregnant with 
potential, so now let us deliver the baby. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. I appreciate you coming and 
Congressman Payne coming. I was familiar with your performing 
arts center. I was in New York over the Christmas holidays and 
watched one of the stations--I guess it was the Newark 
station--that was talking about the center and how excited 
people were. So I know about it and I appreciate it very much.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Sharpe James follows:]


[Pages 282 - 284--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

              COALITION OF NORTHEASTERN GOVERNORS (CONEG)

                                WITNESS

WILLIAM D. ANKNER, DIRECTOR, RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Ankner.
    Mr. Ankner. Good afternoon.
    Mr. Chairman, I am William Ankner, director of the Rhode 
Island Department of Transportation. With my colleague, John 
Daly, commissioner of the New York Department of 
Transportation, I would like to thank you and the committee for 
the opportunity to appear before you and to testify on behalf 
of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors.
    Governor Alban, who is the chairman of the Coalition for 
Northeastern Governors, extends his thanks for this opportunity 
as well.
    I ask that my complete statement be included in the record.
    Mr. Packard [assuming the chair]. Without objection, your 
prepared statement will appear in the record.
    Mr. Ankner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The governors would like to thank the subcommittee for 
support for funding the broad range of transportation programs 
that make up our vital intermodal system and encourage you to 
continue this support in fiscal year 1999. The governors ask 
the subcommittee to support to the highest possible levels 
funding which maintains and enhances a connected, seamless, 
intermodal national transportation system. More specifically, 
the CONEG governors recognize and call for the subcommittee's 
support for the following investments which have national and 
regional significance. For the most part, I will be talking 
about programs as opposed to individual projects.
    The first issue is to increase the highway obligation 
ceiling. We applaud this subcommittee's efforts to provide 
additional funds by increasing Federal Aid Highway obligation 
ceilings in fiscal year 1998 to $21.5 billion. Continuation of 
these efforts is critical not only to our States but to the 
country as a whole. We recommend a goal of $26 billion for 
highway appropriations, $5 billion for the mass transit 
account. Our goal is the same as your goal, which is to spend 
the transportation dollars efficiently and effectively and keep 
our commitment to the public to use user fees for 
transportation purposes.
    We also would like you to support our second major effort, 
which is transit--transit operating assistance, as well as 
transit capital, and this new concept called transit 
preventative maintenance. The northeast is usually viewed as 
having the major public transportation properties--New York, 
Boston, Philadelphia, to name but a few.
    We are also one of the major sources of rural public 
transportation in the country as well with New England--Maine 
and New Hampshire, parts of my State, Pennsylvania and New York 
with large numbers of rural public transportation providers. We 
need continued strong support for public transportation not 
only for the big systems--which my colleague, Mr. Daly is going 
to be talking about--but also for the rural public 
transportation systems throughout the State.
    We also would like to see support for safety. Safety 
remains one of the critical concerns of the governors. Programs 
such as Operation Life Saver and other efforts to improve 
highway and railroad grade crossings are excellent examples of 
successful programs.
    One of the other critical areas of support for the 
northeast governors is a national interstate passenger railroad 
system, Amtrak. Congress and the Administration came to an 
historic agreement at the end of last session on the financing 
and reauthorization of Amtrak. Within the taxpayer's bill and 
law, $2.3 billion was allocated towards Amtrak rebuilding its 
infrastructure and buying new equipment. To some dismay, I read 
the President's budget request that is going to call for some 
of those dollars to be used for operating assistance. That is 
our future.
    The ITS program is critical to managing our transportation 
system in the future. Transportation has gone from being simply 
a landlord activity that builds something and then just fixes 
it up to management of our system. Our intelligent 
transportation products are the tools that we are going to need 
and will use to manage our transportation system. If we can 
just get our signals better controlled, we can add 10 to 15 
percent more capacity to the existing system without building 
new roadways--simply by just having our traffic signals start 
talking to each other. The technology is there, the will is 
there, we need to start financing these kinds of investments.
    I realize that my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 
much for the opportunity to be here for the Coalition of 
Northeastern Governors.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Ankner. We deeply appreciate 
your attendance here and your testimony.
    Mr. Ankner. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of William Ankner follows:]


[Pages 287 - 291--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Packard. Mr. McKeon, Member of Congress from 
California, will be next, and then Orange County will be ready 
to take the table.
    Please proceed, Mr. McKeon.
                              ----------                              

                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                 SANTA CLARITA TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

                                WITNESS

HON. HOWARD P. McKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    CALIFORNIA
    Mr. McKeon. Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to 
appear before you today, Mr. Chairman, in support of a Federal 
appropriations for a transit maintenance facility for the city 
of Santa Clarita, California.
    The city of Santa Clarita, located in North Los Angeles 
County, is home to 142,000 people with an additional 35,000 
residing in surrounding unincorporated areas. All of these 
people are served by Santa Clarita's transit system. This is 
the city I was the first mayor of, so I am intimately involved 
in the city and understand very much these needs.
    Between 1992 and 1997, Santa Clarita Transit grew 400 
percent from 500,000 riders to 1.8 million riders annually. 
Each week day, Santa Clarita Transit carries approximately 
7,000 riders.
    Santa Clarita's current maintenance facility is woefully 
inadequate and does not come close to meeting the community's 
growing demand for transit. The existing facility is a 
converted industrial warehouse not originally designed for 
vehicle maintenance that was built in 1969 and acquired by the 
city in 1991. The maintenance area is 4,500 square feet and is 
capable of servicing only three busses at any one time. The 
facility also has no formal maintenance bays, inspection pits, 
or permanent vehicle lifts. Portable lift equipment is used, 
minor vehicle repairs are often done in an adjacent outdoor 
parking lot area. Bus fueling is done off-site and busses are 
parked at two off-site facilities that are located one-quarter 
and six miles, respectively, away from maintenance and fueling 
facilities. Because no automated washing equipment can be 
accommodated at the present site, all washing and interior 
cleaning of vehicles is done manually.
    Santa Clarita Transit has initiated a $14 million phase one 
project of which $4 million would be provided locally to 
augment the $10 million Federal appropriation that is being 
requested. These funds, which represent a 71 percent Federal-29 
percent local partnership, will be used to acquire a 12-acre 
site that will be designed and constructed as a 27,000 square 
foot maintenance facility with six service bays to accommodate 
maintenance, service, and storage of 75 busses, an on-site 
fueling station, and automated bus wash station.
    The 9,000 square foot administrative office with a dispatch 
room and customer information center will also be constructed 
as part of phase one.
    A 12-acre site envisioned by Santa Clarita Transit will 
also give the agency the potential to expand to accommodate the 
anticipated 150 vehicles that will be needed by the year 2010. 
This is one of the fastest-growing areas in Los Angeles County.
    I have also provided a more detailed summary of this 
proposal for subcommittee members. Your friend, Mr. Packard, 
will recall that I spoke with him last year about the need for 
this new facility. I look forward to working with members of 
the fiscal year 1999 appropriations as the process moves 
forward.
    I appreciate your time.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you for taking the time to testify before 
us today.
    Mr. McKeon. Thank you for letting me.
    [Prepared statement of the Hon. Buck McKeon follows:]


[Pages 294 - 297--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

             ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA)

                                WITNESS

SARAH L. CATZ, CHAIRMAN, OCTA
    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Catz is the chairman of OCTA.
    Ms. Catz. Good afternoon. I am Sarah Catz, the chairman of 
OCTA. I am particularly pleased to be here this afternoon with 
Congressman Packard. He has been OCTA's staunchest supporter in 
Congress and on the Appropriations Committee. We are just so 
appreciative. Thank you for your friendship and your support.
    Orange County is the fifth largest county in the Nation at 
2.6 million in population, and provides 1.3 million jobs in a 
strong diversified economy. We are also located in the South 
Coast Air Basin, the only extreme non-attainment area for ozone 
in the Nation.
    We are within a few years of completing the Nation's 
preeminent high-occupancy vehicle system, including a barrier-
separated transitway linking three freeways at the system's 
heart. To date, this $2 billion program is more than 95 percent 
State and locally funded.
    How are we helping ourselves? OCTA is using revenue from 
its voter-approved .5 cent $3 billion sales tax to construct 
transitways, improve streets and roads, and expand commuter 
rail service. A portion of the funds, $340 million, is 
available for the development of an urban rail system.
    Recently, OCTA spent more than $4 million in local revenues 
to complete a major investment study for the Central Orange 
County Transitway Corridor. Our locally preferred alternative 
is a 49 percent increase of bus service by 2015 and design 
study of a 28-mile urban rail line linking Fullerton to Irvine. 
We are now in progress with a $6 million detailed conceptual 
engineering study of the rail system. From this study, we 
expect to determine the rail technology alignment and station 
locations.
    Within the study, planning grants are being made available 
to cities in the amount of $1.5 million to coordinate 
compatible land use. OCTA has worked with the FTA to refine its 
Federal Section 5309 funding request. The focus now is 
completing preliminary engineering and final design for the 
urban rail system.
    The FTA includes the Fullerton-Irvine rail project in its 
1998 report on funding levels and allocation of funds for 
transit major capital investments. OCTA is seeking an 
authorization of $61.6 million in Federal Section 5309 funds 
for the urban rail project over the period of the next Surface 
Transportation Act. For fiscal year 1999 OCTA is requesting an 
appropriation of $15 million to continue preliminary 
engineering and final design for the urban rail project.
    The rail study corridor is noteworthy. It includes 737,000 
jobs and 826,000 residents. The employment density exceeds 
Philadelphia, Newark, Los Angeles, and Saint Louis. The 
population density exceeds San Jose, Sacramento, Portland, and 
San Diego. These are cities with high rail patronage or cost-
effective rail service according to the FTA. Projected 
employment growth by 2020 should produce in that corridor more 
jobs per square mile than present-day Boston and San Francisco.
    Within the corridor are Disneyland, Anaheim Stadium, John 
Wayne Airport, South Coast Metro, and the Irvine Business 
Complex. Also in the sector are freeway interchanges that are 
among the 10 busiest in the United States. Moreover, Central 
Orange County has paced our recent growth in bus patronage. 
OCTA is the fastest-growing bus transit system in the Nation 
during this past year, an almost 10 percent increase according 
to the American Public Transit Association.
    All this explains the need for and timeliness of our urban 
rail design study.
    Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you and I 
would be happy to answer any questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Packard.
    Mr. Packard. I would like simply to say that Orange County 
has been a leader in trying to stay paced with the rapid growth 
they have experienced. They have done very, very well in all 
their transportation areas. I certainly commend them.
    The .5 cent sales tax that the Counties of Orange, 
Riverside, and San Diego each passed gives them the ability to 
match their local cost-share. And they do very well at that. 
That has certainly been a great blessing that the people voted 
in a .5 cent sales tax that would be strictly earmarked for 
transportation purposes. It has proven to be a godsend for 
Orange County.
    Thank you very much, Ms. Catz.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Packard has been a good friend of yours and I 
agree with his comment.
    What was the vote on the .5 cent sales tax? What was the 
percentage of the vote?
    Mr. Packard. It required more than two-thirds and it got 
something like 71 or 72 percent.
    Mr. Wolf. When was that referendum?
    Ms. Catz. 1990.
    Mr. Packard. And again, one of the great blessings is that 
it gives them the ability to match Federal funds, thus they can 
access projects that sometimes you couldn't if you didn't have 
your own local match.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, and that is very important.
    Thank you very much.
    Ms. Catz. Thank you for letting us testify today.
    [Prepared statement of Sarah Catz follows:]


[Pages 300 - 322--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                           STATE OF NEW YORK

                                WITNESS

JOHN B. DALY, SENIOR ADVISOR TO GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI
    Mr. Wolf. We will now hear from John B. Daly, senior 
advisor to Governor George Pataki of New York.
    Welcome, Mr. Daly.
    Mr. Daly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today.
    My name is John Daly and I am a senior advisor to Governor 
Pataki of the State of New York. I have submitted a statement 
already to you, Mr. Chairman, and I will summarize the key 
points at this time.
    First, let me support strongly the testimony provided by my 
good friend, Bill Ankner of Rhode Island, on behalf of the 
Council of Northeastern Governors.
    I am here today, really, to thank the subcommittee for its 
past efforts to increase funding for transportation, 
particularly in fiscal year 1998, and to urge the subcommittee 
to continue to provide the maximum resources available to 
finance our Nation's essential transportation system. We must 
take this opportunity to increase our investment in 
transportation, recognizing that past investments in 
transportation generate our current economic growth. There is 
now doubt about that.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciated your comments about visiting 
New York City because when you have within your borders a 28-
square mile island on and off which you have to move 6 million 
people a day, you recognize the importance of a good multimodal 
transportation system. New York City could not exist without 
that multimodal system. We move 70 percent of those people by 
public transportation. You can appreciate how much gasoline 
would burn and how much pollution we would create if we had to 
move them all by automobile.
    New York may be the most intermodal State in the Nation. 
Our extensive highway and transit networks, Amtrak service and 
commuter rail, major airports, and port facilities are all 
important to our State, regional, and national economies. New 
York's transportation infrastructure is older than most and in 
need of modernization.
    Governor Pataki, over 5 years, has made transportation a 
priority by investing over $24 billion in the next 5 years to 
improve our highway and transit system. And in his most recent 
budget, he proposes to increase highway funding by another $200 
million, leaving New York with one of the highest self-help 
levels in the Nation. In fact, FHWA reports that New York's 
level of State and local effort in financing our highways and 
transit systems is the highest in the Nation, equivalent to 96 
cents per gallon of gasoline tax.
    We think we are doing our share and urge this committee to 
continue to assist us--as it has so well in the past--in 
raising transportation spending.
    Increased Federal investment in transit is necessary to 
allow my governor and other governors to successfully move 
citizens off welfare and to work. Without adequate and 
affordable public transportation, we will deny our poorest 
citizens a real opportunity to succeed and we will not achieve 
the goals that this Congress intended when welfare reform was 
enacted.
    In older regions of the country such as New York, our 
greatest need is to maintain the existing transportation 
systems that have served us well for decades. However, we also 
need to reduce congestion on our highway and transit systems. 
And last year, with your help, Mr. Chairman and the members of 
the committee, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New 
York received $20 million to initiate the Long Island Railroad 
East Side Access Project. This important project will benefit 
50,000 daily transit riders, reducing travel time by nearly 40 
minutes a day for each commuter. It is a great example of 
multimodalism at its best.
    Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up. We thank you and the 
members of the committee very much for your assistance and your 
understanding in the past. And we are sure that that 
understanding and assistance will continue.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Daly.
    I appreciate your comments. I think you all do a good job, 
particularly when you think that your system was built long 
before there was Federal assistance.
    I sent a letter to the head of GSA. I shared a copy with 
somebody in Governor Pataki's office.
    Mr. Daly. I have read the letter.
    Mr. Wolf. I am not going to put you on the spot with regard 
to commenting, but I think there is a great opportunity and I 
don't think we should be selling you that island for $500 
million. I think there should be a----
    Mr. Daly. That is the first problem we face right now.
    Mr. Wolf. Well, I don't think it is practical to sell it. I 
don't think you have the money to buy it, nor do I think it 
is--I mean, every other area, when there is a base closing 
concept, the community doesn't buy the base. This is basically 
a base closing concept.
    Secondly, the historic--have you been out on Governor's 
Island?
    Mr. Daly. Yes, I have. I was raised in New York City, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. I have been amazed at the number of people that I 
have spoken to in New York City that have never been out on the 
island.
    So anything we can do--obviously New York State and New 
York City must come together--but I think a consortium of 
universities and perhaps you could expand the Park Service's 
jurisdiction that is currently in Ellis Island and the Statue 
of Liberty to include Governor's Island. I think some Park 
Service interpretation out on the island might make some sense 
and then the opportunity for parents to take their kids out on 
weekends. But I think it is an opportunity with which you all 
have to feel comfortable because we can't tell you. But on the 
other hand, I would hope that there would not be gambling out 
on the island.
    Mr. Daly. In New York State to allow gambling of that sort 
there would need to be a resolution to pass both Houses of the 
Legislature twice and then you would have to have a general 
referendum from the people. So the Governor is certainly not 
going to be that presumptuous as to take for granted that 
gambling will occur. If that does occur, sir, it will be a long 
way off and perhaps after the Governor's Island question has 
been settled.
    But Mr. Chairman, your letter has been brought very much to 
the attention of the Governor. As I said, it has moved around. 
I have received my copy from the Governor's office. We are well 
aware and we do appreciate your interest very much in 
Governor's Island. It means a lot to us.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. And again, thank you for 
coming before the committee. We appreciate it very much.
    [Prepared statement of John Daly follows:]


[Pages 326 - 328--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

  LABOR/COMMUNITY STRATEGY CENTER AND BUS RIDERS UNION (LOS ANGELES, 
                              CALIFORNIA)

                                WITNESS

MARTIN HERNANDEZ, ORGANIZER, STRATEGY CENTER AND BUS RIDERS UNION
    Mr. Wolf. We now have Mr. Martin Hernandez with the Labor/
Community Strategy Center. We can also have come up to the 
table the Ventura County Transportation Commission together.
    Your full statements will appear in the record.
    Mr. Hernandez. Thank you very much. I will try to be brief 
and just highlight my comments.
    My name is Martin Hernandez and I am an organizer with the 
Labor/Community Strategy Center and the Bus Riders Union. On 
behalf of the Labor/Community Strategy Center and the Bus 
Riders Union and the more than 350,000 bus riders of Los 
Angeles County, I would like to thank the committee for giving 
us the opportunity to testify before you today in regards to 
transportation appropriations, specifically asking for no more 
funding for new rail projects in Los Angeles and more money for 
bus expansion in Los Angeles.
    In September of 1994, the Strategy Center and the Bus 
Riders Union filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Los 
Angeles County MTA charging them with racial discrimination by 
violating the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and Title VI 
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act using 70 percent of its budget for 
about 4 percent of the passengers--rail riders--and the other 
30 percent for 94 percent of its passengers--the bus system--80 
percent of which users are people of color.
    The suit was settled on October 28th and right now we are 
asking your help to ensure that local matching funds for bus 
service and federally appropriated funds eligible for bus 
service are both given priority in the forthcoming 
appropriations cycle for the MTA rather than continuing to 
support rail projects that threaten to bankrupt the agency, 
invalidate the provisions of the consent decree, and throw very 
precious Federal dollars into a vast hole.
    The following is a very reasonable needs-based request that 
takes into account the consent decree provisions for increasing 
the bus fleet and reducing overcrowding as well as the basic 
need of replacing obsolete busses. This is a fraction of what 
is needed and is represented as a class of bus riders by virtue 
of the consent decree. We are the negotiating agent, 
practically, of the bus riders right now due to the fact of the 
consent decree. We feel that it is our duty at the very least 
to inform you of what the needs of our constituents are.
    Basically this appropriations request is based on the fact 
that last year's appropriations has been suspended due to the 
FTA's hold on funds on the Los Angeles MTA as well as the 
suspension in Los Angeles over the funding of future rail 
projects at the present time while they reassess the validity 
of these projects.
    This request is to include a retroactive adjustment from 
fiscal year 1998 as well as including fiscal year 1999. By its 
own admission, the MTA currently needs to replace 40 percent of 
its fleet of 200,400 busses due to obsolescence, and we feel 
the MTA is way behind schedule. Based on the needs of Los 
Angeles County, we feel that the MTA should have at least in 
the last 2 fiscal years order 600 new natural gas busses to 
help modernize the dilapidated fleet. The MTA has ordered 223 
of these busses at the end of last year, leaving a deficit of 
377 that should have been purchased for the total of 600. The 
MTA was also mandated by the consent decree to increase the 
fleet of busses by 102, and to create a new service pilot 
project of a minimum of 50 busses.
    The consent decree also mandates that by December 31st the 
MTA would reduce its bus overcrowding in the peak hours to an 
average of 15 persons standing, which is 135 percent of 
capacity, down from the standard of currently 145 percent. The 
MTA has not done that and our estimates show that there were 
100 percent of the most highly used busses are in violation of 
that at the present time. We estimate the number of buses to 
meet this deadline to be 200, but this is December 1997 and 
those buses have yet to be ordered.
    At a cost of approximately $320,000 for a new CNG bus, the 
total is about $233 million, approximately $117 million per 
year. We are asking the Federal appropriation to be 50 percent 
of the request, which will be $116 million for the last two 
years--that is $58 million from last year's appropriations, and 
$58 million for fiscal year 1999. This is over and above the 
formula grant of Section 9 of ISTEA allocations to Los Angeles.
    Briefly, we all know the situation with the MTA's rail 
projects. We feel it is a waste of money for those funding for 
you and from your end as well. The Times in 1993 reported that 
the MTA's contracts average about 388 percent increase after 
they have been awarded. Ridership on MTA's public 
transportation system has declined 23 percent since 1985, 
according to an August 28, 1993 news article in Daily News. And 
the California Transportation Commission outlined several 
increases where the budgets for many of the lines have gone up, 
such as the 1996 budget for the red line for MOS-3 from $3.44 
billion to $4.329 billion. The extension for the East Side has 
gone up from $979 million to $1.1 billion. The mid-city 
extension is $490 million and is expected to cost $682 million. 
These of course are projects that have been suspended so far.
    So we see an agency that is increasingly increasing their 
funding that could be used for bus service and implement the 
consent decree.
    In August of 1997, an independent analysis by Mayor 
Riordan's office found unrealistic financial assumptions and 
flawed funding plans and found a deficit of at least $29 
million that the mayor's staff said could go as high as $50 
million in that year. This was from the L.A. Daily News in 
August 1997.
    Later, just last year in December 1997, high-ranking MTA 
officials found at least $62 million in subway construction 
cost overruns that lower-ranking staff had hidden from MTA's 
Board of Directors for as long as 2 years. The chief executive 
officer feared that the total could reach as high as $100 
million. This was another Daily News article from December of 
1997.
    Mr. Burke moved a few weeks ago to halt the construction of 
the east side and mid-city extensions of the red line and the 
Pasadena blue line indefinitely in order to make a careful 
analysis of the MTA's finances. But the MTA Board has directed 
the staff to continue looking for funding at the same time they 
are kicking people off the busses, cutting service late at 
night, and they are coming back to you asking for more millions 
of dollars in that funding.
    We would respectfully ask that that funding be shifted 
toward bus and to halt the bleeding of the bus system in Los 
Angeles and also halt the bleeding of your own selves to put 
that kind of money into a wise investment.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you for your testimony. I share a number of 
your concerns that you raised. As you know, the committee did 
basically fence the language. We fenced their money in the 
report with regard to the east side and the mid-city. Certainly 
I am not in a position to tell the people of Los Angeles what 
they ought to be doing, but I think a good aggressive bus 
system along the lines of what other regions are doing--there 
is one down in Brazil that is a bus but it is not really a bus. 
It opens up almost like a rail car. There are a lot of creative 
ideas that I think would get the transit to the people quickly 
and I think serve more people.
    But the committee has been concerned with the problems 
there and that is why we put the language in the report that we 
did. But I appreciate you taking the time to come.
    Mr. Hernandez. Thank you very much, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very, very much.
    [Prepared statement of Martin Hernandez follows:]


[Pages 331 - 353--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                VENTURA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

                                WITNESS

BILL DAVIS, VICE CHAIR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY 
    AND CHAIR, VENTURA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND COUNCIL 
    MEMBER, CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
committee. I am Bill Davis, chairman of the Ventura County 
Transportation Commission and vice chairman of the Board of 
Directors of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, 
known as Metrolink. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with 
you today.
    SCRRA is the seventh largest commuter rail system in the 
country. It serves five counties comprising most of the 
Southern California Region. Its ridership, at 27,000 trips per 
day, continues to grow at least 10 percent a year. With 
virtually all its operations performed through private 
contractors, it is one of the largest public-private 
partnerships in transit today.
    The SCRRA system is a major success story. One of SCRRA's 
greatest distinctions is that with the exception of some FEMA 
funding received after the Northridge earthquake, the entire 
system was built without Federal dollars. Of course, we are 
here today and we are asking for some Federal dollars. This 
assistance is proposed for improvement to the Santa Susanna 
rail tunnel number 26 located on the Ventura and Los Angeles 
County line near the city of Simi Valley, California.
    The tunnel was constructed in 1907 and is in need of major 
repair. There are some pictures in your packet which show the 
condition of that.
    The total project costs are estimated at $20 million. We 
are seeking 80 percent Federal participation, or $16 million. 
The State of California will provide the local match of $4 
million.
    As part of the purchase and joint use agreement with the 
Southern Pacific Railroad several years ago, SCRRA became fully 
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the line, 
including the tunnel. Unfortunately, the years of deferred 
maintenance by the Southern Pacific Railroad leaves us with a 
major problem. Mr. Chairman, 20 passenger trains go through the 
tunnel each day in addition to 8 to 10 Union Pacific freight 
trains using the tunnel every day. On our Metrolink trains, 
1,200 Ventura County passengers go through the tunnel every day 
and only sheer luck has prevented a major catastrophe from 
occurring in the tunnel.
    As you will see in this letter, the tunnel is 1.25 miles 
long with no lighting and no ventilation. It is seismically 
unsafe with groundwater seeping through the walls and the 
natural sandstone floor causing flooding on the tracks and a 
great deal of mud, even on dry days. In the material 
accompanying my statement is a photograph depicting the 
tunnel's dangerous state.
    The tunnel lining, which was installed in 1921, is no 
longer connected to the surrounding mountain. At the time of 
construction the lining was braced with wood packing which is 
now decayed. So now we have a freestanding tunnel shell that is 
not connected to the mountain rock and is very vulnerable to 
seismic activity.
    The natural rock floor has turned to mud under the weight 
of the trains and barely supports the train traffic. Traffic 
itself has settled into dips and sways, greatly restricting the 
speed with which a train can travel through the tunnel. The 
proposed repairs will resecure the lining to the rock and 
provide a stable subgrade and track support system, an 
emergency walkway, safety lighting, ventilation, and security 
fencing. Once funded, it will take about a year to complete 
these needed improvements.
    The major benefit of this project is improved passenger 
safety. In its current condition, even a minor problem like a 
train breakdown could have devastating results for passengers 
trying to walk out of a 1.25 mile dark tunnel through the mud 
and uneven floor, breathing in trapped diesel fumes. Even 
without considering the possible safety repercussions, it is 
clear that the economic cost of a major disruption of daily 
passenger service and intermodal goods movement caused by a 
non-functioning tunnel would be enormous.
    As a side benefit to these urgent safety improvements, the 
tunnel would also be reconstructed to provide high and wide 
clearance, an additional cost borne by Union Pacific. I think 
most of the train traffic will be used for out of Port Hueneme, 
which is the fourth most active port in California. Another 
benefit would be the ability to increase train speeds through 
the tunnel from the current 25 miles per hour in good weather 
and 10 miles an hour in bad weather. The result will be shorter 
travel times, making commuter and intercity rail more 
competitive with highway travel.
    I greatly appreciate your consideration of this request and 
thank the committee for permitting me to testify. I would be 
glad to answer any questions that I can.
    Mr. Wolf. I have no questions.
    I thank you very much for your testimony.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, sir.
    [Prepared statement of Bill Davis follows:]


[Pages 356 - 370--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

          CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RTA)

                               WITNESSES

HON. NORM DICKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    WASHINGTON
BOB DREWEL, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, RTA
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Dicks and Mr. Smith and the Central Puget 
Sound Regional Transit Authority and Pierce Transit.
    Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee.
    It is a pleasure to appear before you today in support of 
the fiscal year 1999 appropriations request for the Central 
Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, known as RTA.
    The voters of our region approved RTA's 10-year plan 15 
months ago by an impressive 56.5 percent majority. That margin 
of victory is especially impressive because the voters agreed 
to impose taxes on themselves to pay for most of the plan.
    Since then, RTA has been moving forward aggressively to 
implement the plan to help relieve the worsening congestion 
problems in our region. We need your help to keep the RTA plan 
moving ahead as swiftly and efficiently as possible.
    I also want to express my continued strong support for the 
request of Pierce Transit, which will be introduced by 
Congressman Adam Smith.
    Now, I would like to introduce to you my good friend, Bob 
Drewel, the executive of Snohomish County in Washington State 
and the chairman of RTA's Board, who will describe this year's 
RTA request.
    Mr. Drewel. Thank you, Congressman Dicks.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a 
pleasure to be with you again today on behalf of the Central 
Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. I am joined today by 
Dave Earling, a member of the Edmonds City Council and Chair of 
the RTA Board's Public and Government Affairs Committee; Paul 
Miller, a member of the Tacoma City Council and Vice Chair of 
the RTA Board; and Bob White, the RTA's executive director. I 
would also like to recognize Bob Vilhauer of the Boeing Company 
and Rick Daniels of the Washington State Department of 
Transportation who have joined us today to show their support 
for our efforts.
    I certainly would like to thank Congressman Adam Smith for 
joining us today as well.
    I know you have a long list of witnesses today, so I 
promise to be brief. I will just summarize our testimony, which 
we will submit for the record.
    Mr. Chairman, our region's transportation system is 
frequently ranked as one of the most congested in the Nation. 
Our program, Sound Move, will increase capacity of the system 
through a mix of light rail, commuter rail, and regional 
express bus services. Our citizens agreed to tax themselves to 
pay for 80 percent of the cost of the plan and we need your 
help to finance the final 20 percent.
    We come before you today with a very ambitious but honest 
request. For fiscal year 1999 we are seeking $34.1 million for 
our link light rail project and $72.4 million for our Sounder 
commuter rail project, both from Section 5309 new start funds. 
We are also requesting $18 million in Section 5309 bus funds 
for our regional express program. These funds will enable us to 
complete the preliminary engineering and environmental analysis 
for our link and Sounder projects and to procure $130 million 
worth of commuter rail vehicles. We expect to negotiate a full 
funding grant agreement this year for our Seattle-Tacoma 
commuter rail segment with services beginning by the end of 
1999. We anticipate signing a full funding grant agreement for 
the remaining commuter rail segments in 1999 and for our light 
rail project in the year 2000.
    These funds will also help purchase 175 new busses and make 
our 20 new express bus routes a reality in 1999. I say this is 
an honest request because it is based on how much money we can 
actually spend in fiscal year 1999. It represents a Federal 
match of 50 percent for our light rail, 25 percent for our 
commuter rail, and only 25 percent for our busses, which I 
understand is an unusually low percentage. In some we are 
moving aggressively forward with a cost-effective program and 
strong local financial commitment. And again, we could use your 
help.
    We appreciate your consideration of our request and we look 
forward to working closely with you during the coming years.
    Thank you.
    [Prepared statement of Bob Drewell follows:]


[Pages 373 - 378--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                             PIERCE TRANSIT

                               WITNESSES

HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    WASHINGTON
MAYOR BRIAN EBERSOLE, TACOMA, WASHINGTON; AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF 
    DIRECTORS
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you this afternoon 
to ask, first of all, for help with the Tacoma Dome Station 
project and to thank you for the help you have given us thus 
far. Phase one has been completed. I was pleased to be there 
for the opening ceremony last October and it is working very 
well for our region and we appreciate your past support. We are 
here today to ask for support for phase two, which I will get 
to in a moment.
    Before I do that, I want to echo the remarks of Mr. Drewel 
and Congressman Dicks with regard to the RTA. That is critical 
to our region from one end to the other. Mr. Drewel represents 
Snohomish County, Norms, and Pierce; and I have King, Pierce, 
and Thurston. It is all linked and the RTA is critical to all 
of that. I urge your support for that project.
    I am also pleased to introduce Mayor Brian Ebersole, who is 
the mayor of Tacoma and also chairman of the Board of 
Commissioners for Pierce Transit that oversees the Tacoma Dome 
Station project that I am here to urge support for. Basically 
we need to move on to phase two and phase two is linked to what 
Mr. Drewel talked about, which is light rail and heavy commuter 
rail. Phase one set up express bus service to Seattle and is 
working tremendously. We have had a dramatic increase in 
ridership from Tacoma to Seattle as a result. But as we bring 
in the light rail and the commuter rail projects, there will 
need to be expansion projects to accommodate that--additional 
parking spaces, amongst other things--and that is why we come 
before you today for a $7 million request to keep this project 
going forward, and to thank you for the efforts you have made 
in getting it to this point.
    Phase one is working wonderfully and we would love to see 
phase two come about. We would appreciate your assistance with 
that.
    Now I will turn it over to Mayor Brian Ebersole.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Mayor, your full statement will appear in the 
record.
    Mr. Ebersole. I got that clue. Thank you, sir. I know you 
are under tight time constraints.
    Mr. Chairman, as mayor of Tacoma I appreciate the 
opportunity to come before you to tell you about the successful 
completion of phase one of the Tacoma Dome Station and to 
submit our formal request for an additional $7 million in 
fiscal year 1999 plus discretionary funding for phase two. 
Thanks to the good work of Congressman Dicks, Congressman 
Smith, and yourself, phase one of the Tacoma Dome Station 
opened on time within budget in October 1997. The 1,200 stall 
park-and-ride facility is the new base for the hugely popular 
Seattle express bus service, which runs between Tacoma and 
Seattle.
    As Mr. Drewel mentioned, I-5 is one of the Nation's most 
congested corridors. As predicted, the station and the new bus 
service was added in cooperation with the RTA and is already 
attracting new ridership. Week day ridership on the Seattle 
express is up 10 percent since the station opened.
    With phase one up and running, it is time to complete this 
multimodal transportation hub as planned by proceeding with 
phase two. We think that will be up and running by the year 
2000. To accommodate this service and the additional parking 
needed, we are seeking $7 million in fiscal year 1999. The 
funding will enable us to expand the number and type of 
connections, build 1,000 additional parking stalls, purchase 
the needed busses for expanded connections, and construct 
passenger amenities and public and private space for 
transportation-related services, and perhaps potential public-
private developments.
    With the support and leadership of this subcommittee, we 
anticipate being able to complete phase two with the 
discretionary funding of $7 million.
    Mr. Chairman, this has been a successful Federal, State, 
and local partnership in the public interest and we look 
forward to your continued support.
    Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions 
you may have.
    Mr. Wolf. We have no questions. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Ebersole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Prepared statements of Hon. Adam Smith and Mayor Ebersole 
follow:]


[Pages 381 - 422--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                      WESTSIDE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT

                                WITNESS

HON. ELIZABETH FURSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    OREGON
    Mr. Wolf. Maybe we can jointly have Westside Light Rail 
with Congresswoman Furse and then the South/North Light Rail 
with Congressman Blumenauer and Congresswoman Hooley.
    Welcome to the committee.
    Ms. Furse. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to 
take this opportunity to thank you for your unwavering support 
for this project. My district is very much aware that we owe 
you a great debt of gratitude. You have been so supportive over 
the last 6 years.
    I come before this subcommittee requesting $36.6 million in 
Federal funding to complete the Westside Light Rail project in 
Oregon. The $36.6 million is consistent with the full funding 
agreement and will allow the project to open on time and on 
budget later this year. The Westside project is 85 percent 
completed and the most ambitious segment--this tremendous 3-
mile tunnel that we had to build--is now entirely finished. All 
but two of the 36 low floor cars are delivered. They will be 
the first to operate on a light rail project in North America. 
They are delivered and we are going to run them right away.
    And I am pleased to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the 
President has included in his budget $36.6 million for the 
project. So we are in the budget.
    There is obviously growing excitement about the opening of 
this project, but most importantly from the business community. 
More than 6,000 new housing units and $230 million in new 
office and commercial space is now located along the light rail 
alignment. The first two stations are open and they connect us 
to the Eastside. So that is a very successful project which has 
nearly 10 million rides annually.
    The appropriation of $36.8 million will get the Westside 
project off this subcommittee's plate and allow the grand 
opening to proceed as scheduled on September 12th. I would like 
to give you a personal invitation to the opening, Mr. Chairman, 
and of course every other member is also welcome. It promises 
to be the biggest celebration Portland has seen and you deserve 
to be a part of it.
    May I give you this?
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    Ms. Furse. Mr. Chairman, I also have a letter from the 
director of the project which I would like to have included in 
the record.
    Mr. Wolf. Without objection, the letter will appear in the 
record.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you. It will be nice as you leave Congress 
to see it completed. I know you have been a strong advocate and 
a champion for it, so I appreciate your efforts.
    Ms. Furse. So have you, and I thank you so much for all the 
consideration you have given me and for this project.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. I heard, I believe, that this will be the first 
time for those cars to be in operation in North America. Was 
that correct?
    Ms. Furse. Yes, fully accessible. They are assembled in 
Sacramento. There will be no barriers for people getting in and 
out of these light rail cars. We are really proud that that was 
part of the project.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    [The letter follows:]


[Pages 424A - 424C--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                              ----------                              

                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                     SOUTH/NORTH LIGHT RAIL PROJECT

                               WITNESSES

HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    OREGON
HON. DARLENE HOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    OREGON
    Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Olver.
    I would like to echo the sentiments expressed by my 
colleague, Congresswoman Furse. We are extremely grateful to 
the subcommittee for the assistance we have had over the years 
in the development of the Westside Light Rail project. We are 
confident it is something that will merit your continued 
confidence and we are here today to suggest that there be a 
continuation of a seamless web.
    You have one of the most difficult jobs in America because 
there are a number of communities that are moving forward to 
try and build on this. I was impressed with what has happened 
to it with our neighbors to the north. The Federal Government 
has been an active partner in our community and made possible 
not just the Westside. The Eastside line that runs through the 
heart of my district now has seen a 50 percent increase in 
ridership since it opened, $1.33 billion in private 
development, and has been an opportunity for us to work with 
other communities around the country.
    We are asking respectfully that you consider adding an 
additional appropriation this year for the South/North Line, 
which will ultimately connect Clackamas County with my 
colleague, Ms. Hooley, to the north to Vancouver, Washington. 
We think it will continue that development that the Federal 
Government has been proud of. We want to continue being a 
partner.
    I have some information I have already submitted for the 
record and look forward to working with the subcommittee in any 
way I can.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Earl Blumenauer follows:]


[Page 425--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Hooley, welcome to the committee.
    Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
committee.
    I just want to tell you a little story. I had a visitor 
from Minnesota at our place. She was working for the city of 
Minneapolis. She looked at some newspaper articles and they 
were having a huge fight as we looked at trying to fill in this 
wheel that we have. We have a spoke going to the Eastside and 
now to the Westside, thanks to your help, and now we need to go 
South/North. There was an article in the paper about people 
arguing where this was going to go, not because they didn't 
want it but because they wanted it. They had hired two of the 
best law firms and lobbyists to try to get it to their area.
    She said, as we're talking about this issue, the issue is 
that businesses are very nervous about it. What we have found 
in the Portland region is that people are confident enough in 
the system that the ridership has increased and that people are 
now arguing where they want it to be, and they are building 
their businesses, offices, and their homes along the light 
rail. So thank you very, very much for what you have done in 
our region.
    The thing that makes this project unique is that in our 
region we have really tried to combine land use planning along 
with transportation. The people have said through their votes 
and through their pocketbooks that they want this to happen. 
The other thing that is unique about this area is that people 
have taken a very long-term look at this. So I know people in 
my area and the South/North people that are waiting for this 
mixed spoke have very patiently watches the Eastside be built, 
the Westside be built, and they have waited 20 years and would 
now like this to occur in their area.
    So thank you for your past support and I will reecho what 
Congressman Blumenauer and Congresswoman Furse have talked 
about, and that is that what we need to continue this project 
is an additional $30 million. I respectfully request that and 
would be happy to answer any questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. I was just curious. I am a longstanding 
supporter of these projects. I think you have had the great 
advantage of being able to do this in a coherent way, unlike my 
big city which grew up bit by bit over a long period of time. 
But I am wondering, should I anticipate more spokes or the rim 
of the wheel next?
    Mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Olver, we are 
moving aggressively to finish the system, but it is not with an 
expectation that there will be any continuation in terms of 
what we would be requesting from this committee.
    For instance, we have recently undertaken an extension to 
the airport off the existing line and we are not coming forward 
asking for that. We think because of the help from the Federal 
Government and the rest of the backbone of the system that we 
will be able to finance that without direct Federal 
appropriation. Other works that we are doing with street car 
and with commuter rail we think we have the momentum, with the 
help of the Federal Government through this committee with the 
backbone of this system, that it will reduce our requests on 
ISTEA funds and I don't envision you will be seeing a parade of 
people before this committee because of the help you are giving 
us in putting the system in place.
    Mr. Olver. I don't think we should hold you to that, 
though.
    Mr. Blumenauer. Please, do.
    Ms. Hooley. Congressman, I think if you will also look at 
the geography of the Oregon-Washington area that it fits this 
particular alignment just by the very geography of our area.
    Mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to echo. 
Congresswoman Furse extended an invitation for that second 
weekend in September to come and witness an unparalleled 
community celebration. Concurrent with that light rail opening, 
we will be having a national conference that will draw some 
1,500 to 2,000 people from around the country with communities 
that are working on new starts and some of the existing rail 
lines. We will be in touch with you and committee members 
because we think there is a role where these people from around 
the country could benefit from interacting with you and it is 
really an unprecedented forum for people who are involved with 
the work you are doing and hope that you would consider perhaps 
being a part of that initiative that we will be celebrating.
    Mr. Wolf. We'll take a look at it.
    Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
    [Prepared statement of Hon. Darlene Hooley follows:]


[Page 428--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                 MEMPHIS AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MATA)

                                WITNESS

HON. HAROLD FORD, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TENNESSEE
    Mr. Wolf. Next we have Congressman Ford with the Memphis 
Area Transit Authority and also Congressman Bart Gordon and 
Congressman Clement with the Middle Tennessee Commuter Rail 
System. The full statements will appear in the record.
    Mr. Ford. Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, 
my colleagues from Tennessee and others who are here, I thank 
you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee 
today. I am here to offer my unqualified support of the Memphis 
Area Transit Authority's efforts to secure an $8.2 million new 
start earmark in the fiscal year 1999 Transportation 
Appropriations Bill.
    As a result of your past support MATA has undertaken four 
new public transit projects, Mr. Chairman, since 1993. We are 
now at a critical juncture with the downtown public 
transportation system and the continued support of the 
subcommittee is crucial to its future success. MATA is moving 
forward to complete the Medical Center Rail Extension, the 
final link in the downtown public transit system and the first 
investment in a regional transit system.
    You may recall that the Medical Center Rail Extension 
connects the two largest employment centers in my district. At 
the east end of the rail line, the Medical Center Station will 
serve as a rail and bus transfer point. The Medical Center 
Extension is also a key component of a larger regional rail 
plan that will provide light rail service to three corridors in 
the mid-south region. We will seek authorization of the plan 
during the reauthorization of ISTEA.
    Mr. Chairman, this project is not only important to my 
district, but it is designed to meet the policy objectives of 
both the subcommittee and the United States Department of 
Transportation in four fundamental respects.
    First, it is a sound investment in a modern transportation 
infrastructure system that will increase the mobility of tens 
of thousands of our region's citizens in an environmentally 
sustainable and cost-effective way.
    Second, this project will contribute to the success of 
ongoing welfare to work efforts by providing transportation to 
the area's rapidly growing health services industry.
    Third, when combined with existing projects, namely the 
North End Terminal and Central Station, the Medical Center Rail 
Extension will become part of a multimodal transportation 
system that will provide people with convenient linkages 
between various transportation modes.
    Fourth and lastly, MATA has generated substantial public 
and private support at the local level by using a market-
driven, customer-based approach in the development of its 
downtown transit system.
    Mr. Chairman, I share your commitment to improving 
transportation. Like improving the skills of delivery of 
education at every level, our modern transportation 
infrastructure is an important investment in our Nation's 
future prosperity. Our Nation is reaping substantial dividends 
from decades of investment in transportation technology and 
education. But the money that we spend in this area, Mr. 
Chairman--as I am sure you will agree--must be spent wisely. 
The transit projects in the ninth district meet that standard. 
They are prudent investments that will strengthen the district, 
the region, and ultimately the Nation.
    I strongly urge the continued support of this committee for 
this successful partnership between the Federal Government and 
MATA.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, we thank you. We received our funding 
from the Federal Government to help extend our second runway at 
the airport in Memphis and you played a critical role in making 
that happen.
    Again I thank you and the other members of the committee.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much, Congressman Ford.
    [Prepared statement of Hon. Harold Ford follows:]


[Pages 431 - 434--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                 MIDDLE TENNESSEE COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM

                               WITNESSES

HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TENNESSEE
HON. BOB CLEMENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TENNESSEE
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Clement.
    Mr. Clement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
committee. It is a great honor and pleasure for us to be here 
today. I sure endorse what Congressman Ford said about the 
importance and significance of light rail in Tennessee and 
other respective States as well. I sure endorse his idea of 
what he is trying to do for Memphis.
    Today Congressman Gordon and I are here to request funding 
for a proposed commuter rail system in Middle Tennessee. We 
respectfully request $15 million for the Nashville/Middle 
Tennessee Regional Commuter Rail for fiscal year 1999. This 
initial investment would cover costs for system development 
planning; preliminary and final engineering; capital costs for 
rail stations, grade crossings, track signal and improvements; 
locomotive leases; and train cars. Both city and State 
governments have committed their support to the project and, as 
required under ISTEA, will provide the necessary 20 percent 
funding match.
    Middle Tennessee is one of the fastest growing regions in 
the Nation, both in population and economic prosperity. In 
order to combat the high growth, density, and traffic problems 
being faced by the residents of Nashville and surrounding 
areas, we have been working with local officials to develop a 
plan for a commuter rail project.
    The Nashville/Middle Tennessee Regional Commuter Rail would 
have a significant impact on travel needs in several areas of 
the region's major commuter corridors. Across our Nation, 
commuter railroads carry an estimated 1.2 million passengers 
every business day. Because of commuter rail, commuters on and 
off the road save time, highway congestion decreases, safety 
improves, the air is cleaner, and the overall economy thrives.
    A leading example of commuter rail success is right here in 
Washington, D.C. And Mr. Chairman, I want to brag on you and 
the others in the delegation for what you have meant to 
commuter rail in the Washington, D.C. area. Area commuters have 
the option of using the Virginia Railway Express and the 
Maryland Mass Transit Administration. Both systems are 
extremely efficient and user friendly. Commuter rail is a vital 
component of meeting commuter needs here in Washington, D.C. 
and we hope to emulate the success of VRE and MARC in Middle 
Tennessee.
    Yesterday, we put in operation in the Greater Nashville 
Area our land port. This is the beginnings of a mass transit 
terminal and system for the Middle Tennessee Area. This will be 
for car pools, van pools, shuttle service, bus service, light 
rail, commuter rail, and ultimately Amtrak service. Previous 
studies have identified six corridors generally parallelling 
the six radial interstate highway corridors in which commuter 
rail service might be considered.
    And I might say to you, Mr. Chairman, we have a full 
commitment in the public as well as the private sector when we 
talk about embracing the establishment of commuter rail service 
and making it a top priority.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the 
committee today. We will be pleased to answer any questions you 
may have on this funding request. I have a full, complete 
evaluation of the Regional Transportation Authority, the 
Metropolitan Planning Organization Metropolitan Transit 
Authority, about commuter rail for our area. I would sure like 
to submit that for the record as well, on behalf of Congressman 
Gordon and myself.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    Bart.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee.
    I am here to concur with my friend and neighbor, Bob 
Clement. Bob represents Nashville Proper and I represent the 
suburbs outside Nashville. I know you must get tired of people 
coming in here with their tin cup all the time, so I will try 
to be brief and make my formal testimony a part of the record.
    Mr. Wolf. Without objection, your prepared statement will 
appear in the record.
    Mr. Gordon. Let me just try to quickly explain what is 
going on.
    Three of the 100 top growing counties in the Nation are in 
my district, the suburbs around Nashville. One is in the top 
50. It is virtually paralysis now in trying to get in and out 
of Nashville. Every interstate is either completed to the full 
length of the interstate with additions or in that process. 
They can't add any more lanes. We have gone as far as we can 
go. It is an absolute nightmare.
    Because of that, there has been a Board convened to study 
this project. We are not coming in here just on the fly. There 
has been a great deal of work put together on the feasibility, 
where things should go, and what needs to be done. With Bob's 
help and the ISTEA bill last time, there was a land port that 
is just opening up in Nashville, so that once we get them in on 
the existing rail, we can take them on the rest of the way.
    This is something that is very important and that is 
needed. The $15 million allows the study to be completed and 
all the preliminary things to get started so that the city can 
go ahead and start land banking--whether parking lots or just 
the stations--because it is so fast growing that we just lose 
opportunities every day.
    Again, this is not an initial response. There has been lots 
of work done. I wish you could drive to the airport with me 
sometime and I think we would be in good shape because it is a 
mess.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Bart.
    Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Is this plan intended to be completed on 
existing railroad rights of way that have been sitting there 
but have gone out of usage over a period of time to bring an 
effective commuter rail system?
    Mr. Gordon. I think that is the last of the fine-tuning. 
What we think is the best way to do it--there is a network of 
four rail systems already around Nashville that go exactly 
where they need to go. And quite frankly, the cheapest and 
easiest way to do this is as Amtrak upgrades for us to get the 
old Amtrak type equipment--it is anywhere from a 25- to about a 
35- or 40-mile commute--and put that in use on existing tracks.
    We are not trying to do some super-duper thing here. We are 
trying to make this affordable and reasonable and something 
that works. The rails are right where they need to be.
    Mr. Clement. I agree with what Congressman Gordon said. We 
will need some spurs. There is no doubt about that. We will 
have to build some track, but it will be minimal what we will 
have to build according to what we already have in place in our 
infrastructure.
    Mr. Olver. And does this plan to reach all the contiguous 
surrounding counties to Davidson?
    Mr. Clement. The studies show that many of the counties can 
be reached from Nashville and we could have it running a number 
of different directions. Naturally, we want to make it most 
economical and we also want to serve the most people.
    Mr. Gordon. The four high growth counties are all 
contiguous with Nashville. They all have a rail system right 
smack dab through them to their major communities. And quite 
frankly, by the time this is done, then you can go one more 
ring of counties out. But it all fits. We are not plowing new 
ground. We are not buying up new corridors, which would be 
impossible to do even if we wanted to do it now. It is trying 
to salvage an existing smart system of railroad before we lose 
it.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for taking the time. We 
appreciate it very much.
    [Prepared statements of Hon. Bob Clement and Hon. Bart 
Gordon follow:]


[Pages 438 - 445--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                                  February 3, 1998.

                    DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT (DART)

                               WITNESSES

HON. MARTIN FROST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
HON. PETE SESSIONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TEXAS
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 
    OF TEXAS
HON. RALPH M. HALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TEXAS
    Mr. Wolf. Congressman Frost, Congresswoman Johnson, 
Congressman Sessions, and Congressman Hall, for the Dallas Area 
Rapid Transit.
    Mr. Frost. We'd like to go ahead and begin, if we may.
    Mr. Wolf. Absolutely, Martin. Believe me, we've been here 
since early this morning. Mr. Hall's statement will appear in 
the record at the end if he doesn't come.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 
committee. I will be brief in my remarks today in support of 
Dallas Area Rapid Transit's fiscal year 1999 appropriations 
request. You have written testimony presented by my colleagues 
from the Dallas delegation, and, of course, you have Eddie 
Bernice Johnson and Pete Sessions with me.
    DART is requesting an appropriation of $50 million of new 
starts and $10 million of bus discretionary funding. The new 
start funds will be dedicated to the North Central Extension to 
the 20-mile DART light rail transit starter system. The funds 
will be used for light rail vehicles, real estate, and 
construction.
    DART is replacing 14 to 18 year old buses over the next 
five years. DART has committed all of their FTA formula funds 
to the bus purchase. To supplement these sources, DART requires 
$10 million to complete the funding of approximately 25 of the 
total order of 488 buses, which includes 200 natural gas-
powered vehicles.
    As I think you know, I have been a supporter of DART since 
their beginning in 1993. My colleagues who are with me today 
have been elected in recent years and are also supporters of 
this program. My support has continued despite the ups and 
downs, a bond referendum defeat, new transit system plans, and, 
finally, the opening of the rail systems over the past year and 
a half.
    I am proud to say the citizens of the DART service area 
have responded enthusiastically to the rail openings. Each day 
approximately 35,000 passengers are carried, approximately 10 
percent beyond projections. As a result, the surrounding 
suburban cities and businesses are all climbing on board, so to 
speak, wanting DART to speed up construction of the light rail 
system to their respective cities.
    The subcommittee deserves some of the credit for the DART 
success. Fiscal years 1991 through 1996, the subcommittee 
allocated $160 million for the 20-mile starter system which 
DART matched with $700 million of local funds, a very 
substantial over-match on the local level.
    The rail funding requested today is an integral part of 
DART's future rail plans, which, in fact, will be under 
construction this fall on both the North Central and Northeast 
lines. Congressman Sessions will elaborate on the rail 
extensions during his remarks. Again, the fiscal year 1999 DART 
appropriation request totals $60 million and I respectfully 
request your support.
    Mr. Chairman, I am also fortunate to represent part of the 
City of Fort Worth. I have been asked by the Fort Worth Transit 
Authority to formally submit its proposal request for fiscal 
year 1999 of $12 million for the Rail Tran Intermodal 
Transportation Center project, and $2.7 million for buses. As 
you may know, the Rail Tran project will provide a much needed 
rail service between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. Phase 
I of the service which links Dallas to South Irving has opened 
and ridership is 50 percent higher than anticipated. I 
respectfully request your support for this worthy project.
    I don't think Congressman Hall is joining us, but 
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has been a very 
enthusiastic and effective supporter of the DART system since 
her election to Congress and most of the original lines are in 
her congressional district.
    I yield at this time to my colleague, Congresswoman 
Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other 
distinguished members of the committee. I will submit my formal 
testimony and simply make a statement.
    My support for DART goes back to working in the referenda 
to get it started, going down the first time and winning the 
second time. I worked with it at the State level prior to 
coming to the Congress.
    A substantial amount of the rail system is in my district. 
I can tell you that it has stimulated a great deal of economic 
development. But in addition to that, it is taking people to 
work and getting them home without being on the parking lots 
that we call highways and freeways. We still have those and we 
will have to continue to extend these lines in order to relieve 
that burden.
    We have grown tremendously in the area. Our population is 
nearing 4 million people. It will continue to stimulate a need 
for moving people more rapidly than being in their cars on the 
freeway.
    Construction will generate $2.1 billion in local business 
and revenues and support 39,000 jobs between now and 1999. I 
can tell you that the people who did not like DART are on it. 
They are riding. We have probably somewhere around 45 million 
rides in the DART system in a year. The reality is a lot 
greater than the projection because it is a beautiful system 
that's quiet and safe. I think the rail is in the right places. 
We have a very large Veterans Administration Medical Center and 
there is a rail line that is right there at that center. It has 
caused a great deal of relief for veterans getting back and 
forth. It goes almost to the airport and eventually we hope it 
will go to the airport because we have development around the 
airport that has caused tremendous congestion in traffic. Only 
10 percent of the people who work around that airport in the 
Irving area live in the area; they live outside the area and 
they travel in and out.
    I know that my time has expired. I thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you. You've been fair to us and I 
hope we can continue to expect that. And I hope one day you'll 
get the nerve to come and ride it.
    Mr. Wolf. Nerve? Opportunity.
    Ms. Johnson. Opportunity. We'll give you the opportunity if 
you'll come do it.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sessions.
    Mr. Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 
subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I 
am joining with my colleagues and also Mr. Hall, who is unable 
to be here today, to suggest to this committee that we 
recognize and understand that you are having to take into 
account projects all over the country, people who, much like 
Dallas, have worked within the community, who are trying to 
make those tough decisions about what their community 
intermodal transportation needs are and working on how they are 
going to be accomplished. I would like to give you an argument 
about why Dallas, why now.
    That opportunity perhaps is most effectively told when you 
recognize that just based upon the problems that Dallas has in 
being in compliance with ozone days, that means where we have 
ozone days we not only get in carpools, but we also get in our 
trains and the subways, and we do things. This is becoming a 
matter of importance to Dallas because we are having more and 
more of these days. We are one of the leading cities in the 
Nation on ozone action days and we're having to do something 
about it. This has caused what I believe is a responsibility on 
behalf of not only the taxpayers, but also the way citizens 
react very responsibly. We can see the problems that we have.
    We have given a great deal of money to make sure that I-75, 
which is the major corridor that goes through Dallas, is not 
only completely redone, but we are trying to build in 
opportunities for people and transportation riders through 
light rail. We have funded I-75, we're about four years off 
finishing that, but the responsible citizens are also catching 
on to those opportunities that are there. The ridership of 
light rail is incredible. You've heard for years probably that 
of the whole country Texans would be the last to ride in a 
train. That's probably what we thought was going be true before 
this. I can now tell you ridership is incredible. The numbers 
are there.
    I am asking for this money because it not only comes 
through my district, but it extends well past my district. 
People will now have an opportunity to come and be a part of 
the economic development. There are people who are minorities, 
there are people who are outside the normal economic activity 
of the central business district that now will be allowed to 
participate because of this cost-effective, clean, safe 
environment that we have been able to create.
    Why Dallas, why now? The reason is because we believe in 
it, we are funding it by what I believe is by any stretch of 
the imagination would be a greater portion of what we're doing. 
We believe in it and we're participating and we will fully 
utilize it.
    Lastly, DART was the transportation organization of the 
year. They are effective and good at what they do. We believe 
in it and the entire community supports what we are trying to 
do here today.
    Now that we've ended our presentation, we will be happy to 
make ourselves available to any question that you or the 
committee have, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. I want to thank you. I'm very aware of the system 
over the years. We appreciate your taking the time to come 
before the committee. If maybe somebody could contact Mr. 
Hall's office, we could then put his testimony in for the 
record.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Frost. Mr. Chairman, if I may just make one other final 
point. I don't know if there's another system that has had as 
substantial a local share as the DART system. We basically have 
had an 80 percent local share and 20 percent Federal share, 
funded by local sales tax. I think the citizens of our 
community are to be commended. We are doing our share and we're 
just asking the Federal Government to partner with us but we're 
carrying the majority of the load.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
    [Prepared statements of Hon. Martin Frost, Hon. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson; Hon. Ralph Hall; and joint statement of Hon. 
Martin Frost, Hon. Ralph Hall, Hon. Sam Johnson, Hon. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson, and Hon. Pete Sessions follow:]


[Pages 450 - 462--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                            INDIANA PROJECTS

                                WITNESS

HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    INDIANA
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Visclosky, and 
maybe joining Mr. Visclosky, if you could, would be Mayor 
Luecke of South Bend.
    Your full statements will appear in the record.
    Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, understanding that and 
realizing that there are many witnesses behind me, I simply 
want to suggest to you that I wanted to express my appreciation 
for the serious consideration and assistance you and every 
member of the subcommittee gave to my request last year, I 
deeply appreciate that, and look forward to working with you 
during this Congress relative to the request pending in my 
testimony today.
    Mr. Sabo [assuming chair]. Do you want to cover any points?
    Mr. Visclosky. No, sir.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay. I didn't want to cut you off.
    Mr. Olver, do you have any questions?
    Mr. Olver. No questions.
    Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Peter Visclosky follows:]


[Pages 464 - 466--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

              TRANSPO INTERMODAL FACILITY (SOUTH BEND, IN)

                                WITNESS

MAYOR STEPHEN LUECKE OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
    Mr. Sabo. Mr. Mayor.
    Mr. Luecke. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am Stephen Luecke, 
Mayor of the City of South Bend. I want to thank you for this 
opportunity to come before you today. I'm here with members of 
the TRANSPO board and representing Congressman Tim Roemer to 
seek the final stage of funding for our TRANSPO Intermodal 
facility.
    Mr. Sabo. I thought we'd given you final last time, but it 
didn't quite work out.
    Mr. Luecke. Well, we appreciate that. We certainly 
appreciate the support that this panel has provided to the 
facility over the six or seven years that we've been coming. We 
hope to make this the last presentation on this as we seek to 
complete the project.
    I won't go into great detail because I know you're familiar 
with the project.
    Mr. Sabo. We're very, very familiar with it. Mr. Roemer has 
spoken to me at least 57 times. It has come before the 
committee and I am very, very aware of it. We've had you here 
before the committee time after time. I don't want to cut you 
short here.
    Mr. Luecke. That's quite all right.
    Mr. Sabo. No, go ahead. You've come in from out of town so 
I think you should feel.
    Mr. Luecke. Thank you. We just again want to stress our 
thanks for the support that it has received from you and 
members of the committee here. It has been a great project for 
the downtown South Bend. The electric circulators which will 
reduce pollution and also increase the ease of public 
transportation in downtown. It has also been an anchor for 
other development that we are doing on the South end of 
downtown with some public investment and a lot of private 
investment. The final stage here to bring Amtrak back into 
downtown South Bend where it belongs we believe will increase 
ridership on Amtrak as well as increase usage of the intermodal 
facility downtown is extremely important.
    So we really wanted to take the opportunity to say thank 
you, to note that in 1997 ridership for TRANSPO was up 9 
percent while national ridership was up just 2 percent in 
similar systems, that our passenger and charter revenues are up 
over 1996 and this is without an increase in fares. So we 
believe that the things that we are doing are very supportive 
of public transportation in South Bend, important for our 
community, important for South Bend and Mishawaka. We wanted to 
thank you, again, for your support as we hopefully are able to 
fund the final $2.3 million of this project.
    Mr. Sabo. We'll do everything we can. Thank you for coming. 
And if Mr. Roemer wants to submit a statement, we will keep the 
record open.
    Mr. Luecke. He does have written testimony to submit, thank 
you.
    Mr. Sabo. It will appear in the record as fully read. Thank 
you very, very much.
    Mr. Sabo. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. I am kind of curious here. Roughly, what is the 
total amount of Federal money, State money, and municipal money 
in this whole project? I'm really only interested in maybe plus 
or minus a million or so in each of those.
    Mr. Luecke. Approximately $17 million Federal, and 
approximately $6 million local and State. This is page 11 of 
the booklet there.
    Mr. Olver. Okay. I will look at that page a little bit more 
closely. Thank you.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Olver.
    Congressman Hall, if Mr. Knollenberg and Mr. Stupak can 
hold, we'll let Mr. Hall go first because he was with the other 
group that left.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I'll be brief. I'm 
just in total support of the presentation made by Mr. Frost and 
the Dallas delegation, Mr. Sessions. I'm Ralph Hall, a Member 
of Congress from the 4th District of Texas, supportive of the 
DART request.
    I thank you for your time. I'd like to put a statement into 
the record.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Tim Roemer and Mayor 
Stephen Luecke follows:]


[Pages 469 - 486--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

            CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS

                                WITNESS

HON. JOSEPH K. KNOLLENBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 
    OF MICHIGAN
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Ralph. I appreciate your coming in. 
Your full statement will appear in the record. Thanks.
    Joe.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I would 
like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before your 
subcommittee today. I applaud the efforts you've made to keep a 
tight rein on spending. Your committee has made a significant 
contribution to our efforts to balance the budget, and I look 
forward to working with you and the committee in the 
appropriations process to make the Federal Government less 
costly and more efficient for all of us.
    I am here this afternoon to discuss an issue that is 
critical to Michigan but vitally important also to the American 
economy. The issue is Corporate Average Fuel Economy, better 
known as CAFE standards.
    As a member of the congressional oversight delegation that 
attended the Kyoto conference on climate change, I have 
concerns that the Clinton Administration, lacking the votes to 
win ratification in the Senate, may attempt to accomplish the 
goals of the Kyoto accord through regulatory fiat.
    In his State of the Union speech, President Clinton 
reiterated his commitment to meeting the reduction targets for 
the emissions of greenhouse gases mandated by this treaty. 
These targets, 7 percent below 1990 levels, will require the 
United States to dramatically slash our consumption of energy. 
While even the Administration seems to recognize the 
dislocation caused by this treaty, President Clinton still 
feels it is worth meeting the objectives of this over-reaching 
treaty. However, many Members of Congress, myself included, do 
not believe that fewer jobs in the United States and a lower 
standard of living for American families is a price we should 
expect the people of this country to pay while much of the rest 
of the world, almost 80 percent, contributes nothing to this 
cause.
    Mr. Wolf [resuming chair]. Including China.
    Mr. Knollenberg. Including China, including India, 
including Mexico. Clearly, there are very real problems with 
the proposed Kyoto treaty.
    While the Clinton Administration would propose new taxes to 
achieve the goals of the treaty, I believe the Administration 
will adopt a more stealth approach to achieve their objectives.
    One obvious approach for the Administration would be to 
increase CAFE standards, specifically the mileage standards for 
light trucks. It is worth noting that light trucks, better 
known as sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks, 
now account for 53 percent of new automobile sales sold by U.S. 
auto makers. Increasing CAFE standards for these popular 
vehicles would have a chilling effect on our domestic auto 
industry by severely restricting the ability of U.S. auto 
makers to produce the vehicles that the American people want to 
buy.
    Higher CAFE standards would require U.S. auto makers to 
reduce the size and scale back the amenities of their light 
truck models. This would distort the market and alter the 
appeal of these vehicles. One of the reasons light trucks are 
popular is because their size makes them safer than smaller 
vehicles. In 1997, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration came out with a study entitled ``Relationship of 
Vehicle Weights to Fatality and Injury Risk.'' This report 
found that a 100 pound reduction in the average weight of an 
automobile would result in an additional 302 highway-related 
fatalities annually.
    Let me be very clear on this point. Increasing CAFE 
standards for light trucks would require the U.S. auto makers 
to down-size these vehicles. As a result, more people would be 
involved in auto accidents causing more injury and death on our 
Nation's highways. This is a fact that must not be overlooked 
during consideration of this issue.
    Mr. Chairman, the scientific community is divided on the 
issue of whether or not carbon dioxide emissions are causing 
the Earth's temperature to warm. But study after study shows 
that people driving smaller cars are more at risk of personal 
injury than those driving larger cars. Given the lack of sound 
science on the global warming issue, and the negative impact 
higher CAFE standards would have on the U.S. auto industry and 
vehicle safety, there is no logical justification for 
increasing fuel economy standards for light trucks. We must not 
allow the proponents of the flawed Kyoto treaty to use this 
opportunity as an excuse to impose unreasonable and unwarranted 
new regulation on the American driving public.
    Mr. Chairman, the old saying ``If it ain't broke, don't fix 
it'' has never been more applicable. The Big 3 is in the 
process of developing technology that will make the vehicles of 
the future cleaner and more fuel-efficient. The market is 
working, let's make it work, let's let it work, let's ensure 
the Federal Government doesn't interfere with a system that 
works. Language preventing the Clinton Administration from 
moving forward with an increase in CAFE standards has been 
included in this committee's bill since fiscal year 1996. I am 
requesting that similar language be included in this year's 
bill.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for the 
opportunity to testify and present this case. I look forward to 
working with you.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Joe.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Knollenberg follows:]


[Pages 489 - 490--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                    MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

                                WITNESS

HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    MICHIGAN
    Mr. Wolf. Bart?
    Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have four issues I 
would like to bring to the committee's attention.
    The first issue I would like to bring to the committee's 
attention is I would like to request the committee provide $6 
million for further study of the replacement of the U.S. Coast 
Guard Cutter Mackinaw. Last year you did put some money in to 
begin the study and design. Actually, the Coast Guard would 
like to submit three different bids to different shipyards at 
about $1.5 million apiece, and the remaining $2 million would 
be used actually to keep the Mackinaw moving for this year. I'm 
sure the committee will fund at least keeping the Mackinaw 
available, but I think it is time we start actually putting 
these ideas on paper and get moving. So I would ask the 
committee to consider that.
    Mr. Wolf. If the gentleman would yield. Staff just said 
that the Coast Guard did not request any funds for that area, 
for the study. So you might want to talk to them.
    Mr. Stupak. All right. We will because that's where we got 
the request from.
    Next, Mr. Chairman, let me go to airports, which is always 
a concern in my district being up in Northern Michigan. The 
Cherry Capital Airport in Traverse City, I'm very appreciative 
of the subcommittee's assistance last year in having the GAO 
conduct a study on this matter. I am anxious to see the 
outcome. However, I don't want the issue to fall by the 
wayside. Cherry Capital Airport has the highest traffic growth 
for 1990-95 than any other airport in the United States. That 
region of the State of Michigan is growing at about 20 percent 
a year, traffic growth has been tremendous there. By now, we 
are probably the third busiest airport in Michigan and yet we 
still don't have radar.
    We just don't want a tragedy to happen while we continue 
to----
    Mr. Wolf. When is the GAO report due?
    Mr. Stupak. This fiscal year, I want to say by summer.
    Mr. Wolf. We'll ask when the GAO comes before the 
committee. We're going to ask them what is the status of that 
report so we can alert Mr. Stupak's office.
    Mr. Stupak. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I 
just don't want that falling by the wayside.
    Mr. Chairman, the cross one-way at Chippewa County Airport 
in Kincheloe, Michigan, once again the subcommittee was very 
helpful last year by including language that recommended that 
the Chippewa County Airport receive a grant to build this 
runway. As of this date, we have not yet received it. We're 
going to continue to work with transportation officials to make 
sure it's there, but I just wanted to make you aware of the 
situation. You gave us good report language last year; so far 
it has not yet been fulfilled. It was $1.35 million and that 
was provided in the report. Like I said, we still have not 
received it.
    Last, but not least, and probably the only new request I 
have, Mr. Chairman, is for K.I. Sawyer Airport up in Marquette, 
Michigan. We're asking that the subcommittee provide $2.28 
million to begin the process of relocating Marquette airport. 
It is going to the old Air Force base which was K.I. Sawyer Air 
Force Base. The Air Force closed that base in 1994. Economic 
studies and everything else have indicated that if we could 
relocate the airport from Nagoney down to the old air base, it 
certainly would go a long way in helping out the economic 
conditions of that area. That was my largest employer in my 
district and that area has been pretty much devastated.
    So if the subcommittee could help us, we would be looking 
at appropriating $2.28 million for the relocation of the 
airport from Nagoney to Marquette to the old base.
    That's a quick summary of my written testimony.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Bart.
    Mr. Olver, questions?
    Mr. Olver. Just out of curiosity, where is the third 
largest airport?
    Mr. Stupak. In Michigan, now it would be in Traverse City, 
Cherry Capital Airport.
    Mr. Olver. That's Traverse City?
    Mr. Stupak. Right. Third busiest I should say.
    Mr. Olver. That would be after the tri-city----
    Mr. Stupak. Detroit, of course, is number one. Number two 
is Grand Rapids. And it is always a battle between us and 
probably Bishop Airport in Flint or Capital Airport and 
Lansing.
    Mr. Olver. So Midland Saginaw is not in that category?
    Mr. Stupak. No, but they all have radars. Of the top ten 
airports, I think eight of the ten have them. We're right there 
at about at number three. In the last five years, that area has 
just taken off. We've had tremendous growth. It is now my 
largest county. It used to be about the third largest in my 
district. In the six years that I've been here, it is now the 
largest county in my district. The growth has been tremendous.
    Mr. Olver. Seems pretty telling.
    Mr. Stupak. We also have a flight school there with the 
local college.
    Mr. Olver. Thanks.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Bart. We appreciate your testimony.
    [Prepared statement of Hon. Bart Stupak follows:]


[Pages 493 - 494--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

               NORFOLK-VIRGINIA BEACH LIGHT RAIL PROJECT

                               WITNESSES

HON. OWEN PICKETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 
    OF VIRGINIA
HON. ROBERT C. (BOBBY) SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Pickett, Mr. Scott, and Ms. Morella, if you 
would all come up together.
    Mr. Pickett. Congressman Bobby Scott was supposed to be 
here today but he, unfortunately, is not going to be able to be 
here. He has given me a copy of his testimony and I would ask 
permission for that to be entered in the record.
    Mr. Wolf. His full statement will appear directly after 
yours, Owen.
    Mr. Pickett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the 
opportunity to once again express my support for continuing 
funding for the Norfolk-Virginia Beach light rail project. It 
is a $450 million 18.25 mile line which primarily utilizes a 
lightly used Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way. Last year 
we requested a total of $5 million for the initial funding of 
the preliminary engineering and environmental work for this 
project, and your committee provided $2 million.
    With these funds that you provided and those already 
available at the local level, the Tidewater Transportation 
District was able to award a contract to begin the PE-EIS work 
on the 18.25 mile first segment of the line.
    During the past year, the Tidewater Transportation District 
has worked with the Federal Transit Administration and its 
project management oversight consultant and has requested 
additional matching funds from the Virginia General Assembly 
and the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
    In fiscal year 1999, the Tidewater Transportation District 
is requesting a Federal appropriation of $20 million to 
maintain the schedule of work already underway, and to meet the 
request of the cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach to 
accelerate the selection of the alignment to the Norfolk Naval 
Base and the Norfolk International Airport. These funds will 
permit Tidewater Transportation District to maintain the 
presently schedule PE-EIS work on the first segment line, and 
to advance the PE-EIS work on the naval base alignment as well 
as complete the right-of-way appraisals for both segments of 
the line in 1999.
    With the funding level requested, Tidewater Transportation 
District will maintain its schedule for presenting the FTA the 
information necessary for the issuance of the record of 
decision and permit the beginning of negotiations for a full 
funding grant agreement.
    That completes my remarks on that project, Mr. Chairman. I 
know that you're aware there are several other projects in our 
area that I'll be communicating with you on. I appreciate your 
indulgence and your help in this regard.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Nothing, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. We have no further questions. Thank you very 
much. If you can give us the Bobby Scott statement, we'll 
include that in the record.
    [The prepared statements of Hon. Owen Pickett, Hon. Robert 
Scott, and Kim Kimball follow:]


[Pages 497 - 506--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

  WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY METRORAIL AND OTHER 
                           MARYLAND PROJECTS

                                WITNESS

HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 
    OF MARYLAND
    Mr. Wolf. Connie, welcome to the committee.
    Ms. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. 
Olver, it is a pleasure to be here. Thank you for the 
opportunity for this annual tradition to appear before you in 
support of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's 
funding request for fiscal year 1999.
    I urge the subcommittee to appropriate $50 million in 
fiscal year 1999 for the budget for Metro. This is the last 
remaining funding necessary to complete construction of the 
Metrorail system that we see displayed on the map in all of our 
subway cars.
    Metro's fast track program is, indeed, a success story. The 
program is on schedule, within budget, and for that Metro is to 
be highly commended. We can see the light at the end of the 
tunnel, so to speak, and the planned 103-mile Metrorail system 
is almost complete.
    Metro has already opened the Blue Line to Franconia-
Springfield, almost doubling the number of riders originally 
projected. I know that the Chairman also will be pleased to 
join me this summer in July when Metro extends the Red Line to 
Glenmont in Montgomery County. I recently toured that line with 
Metro officials, and I was impressed that Metro is doing such 
an excellent job of fitting that line into a highly populated 
suburban area. I have seen firsthand how Metro has worked 
closely with the community to address their concerns, and I 
know that Congressman Wynn will be with us too on that day.
    The full 103-mile system will be complete in 2001, several 
years ahead of schedule. This truly remarkable progress has 
been achieved in large part because of the strong support that 
you, Mr. Chairman, and Congress have given to Metro's 
accelerated construction program. It has worked.
    Our regional delegation also deserves recognition for the 
very closely coordinated effort that we have all put forth to 
make this a regional priority and to support Metro through 
difficult budget times.
    I urge the subcommittee to finish the commitment begun more 
than a quarter of a century ago by appropriating the $50 
million left in Metro's authorization.
    We must keep in mind, however, that the Metrorail system is 
now 21 years old, and the Metro bus system is 25 years old. 
Many of the facilities in these systems are in need of repair 
and equipment must be replaced. Metro has one of the oldest bus 
fleets in the country, uses antiquated garages that are 
inherited from private companies to house those buses.
    Metro is facing $130 million annual shortfall in its 
rehabilitation and replacement program. The Federal Government 
has invested $7 billion in a construction partnership, with 
local governments contributing $2.5 billion. This is a 
substantial public investment which we have a responsibility to 
protect.
    Our subway system is a treasure. In 1997, Metro won an 
award from its peers as the number one rail system in the 
Nation. Without its safe, clean, reliable service, the 
horrendous traffic congestion in this region would be much 
worse. We must preserve the Metro system so that it maintains 
the top quality transit service that it currently provides to 
the National Capital Region.
    There are some other projects I'd like to mention for the 
State of Maryland. As you may know, the MARC commuter rail 
operates 79 trains along 187 miles of track that accommodates 5 
million passengers per year. Maryland is in the process of 
upgrading the MARC commuter rail in order to provide an 
alternative transportation mode to commuters that is both cost-
effective and time-efficient.
    The State of Maryland is asking for $30 million in the 
fiscal year 1999 budget for Maryland commuter rail system for 
the purchase of cars and for much needed track improvements. I 
urge the subcommittee to support it.
    Woodrow Wilson Bridge, only federally-owned bridge on the 
Interstate Highway System. As the owner of this bridge, which 
is crumbling and deteriorating at an alarming rate, the Federal 
Government has a responsibility to provide fair and equitable 
funding for the replacement of the bridge that is in line with 
other projects of national importance.
    I believe the Federal Government should provide 100 percent 
of the funding for the project, and Maryland is asking for $60 
million for this project in fiscal year 1998.
    I also urge this subcommittee to support Maryland's request 
for $20 million for their bus program. Traffic congestion in 
this region is the second worst in the country and our public 
transportation systems need your support.
    I would also like to share my support for permitting the 
Department of Transportation to conduct the Sustainable 
Transportation Pilot Initiative through the transportation 
appropriations bill. It establishes a pilot program to fund 
combined planning of transportation and land use. Pioneered in 
Portland, Oregon as a LUTRAQ, making the land use-
transportation-air quality connection, successfully 
demonstrated that transit combined with transit-oriented land 
use and smaller road improvements were effective in reducing 
road congestion while preserving community values.
    Also, noise mitigation. My last point. The Administration 
has asked for funding for the Airport Improvement Program at 
last year's level. As you know, funding for noise mitigation is 
currently authorized for 31 percent of AIP's discretionary 
funds. Airport noise is an undeniably serious problem that 
affects communities nationwide. In the Washington area, 
communities in Northern Virginia, the District of Columbia, 
Montgomery County, Maryland are all negatively impacted by 
over-flights from Washington National and Dulles Airports.
    So in your deliberations regarding funding for the AIP and 
noise mitigation, I urge the subcommittee to consider the 
hundreds of thousands of our citizens who live near the 
airports, have their lives disrupted on a daily basis by 
airport noise.
    I know I took longer than I should have, and I thank you 
very much for your indulgence, and certainly for the kind of 
support you've given to this transportation need throughout the 
years. I thank all the members of the subcommittee and thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Connie.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Constance Morella follows:]


[Pages 510 - 512--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                    MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

                                WITNESS

HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    MARYLAND
    Mr. Wolf. We'll hear Mr. Wynn and then we'll see if there 
are any questions.
    Ms. Morella. Fine. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Wynn, welcome to the committee.
    Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to 
you and the members of the committee. I'd like to thank you for 
this opportunity to appear before you to talk about 
transportation issues of concern to the 4th District of 
Maryland and to Maryland generally.
    First, I'd like to talk about what I consider the most 
critical transportation project, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, a 
project that I know you are very familiar with. It is well 
known that the bridge is the only segment of the 42,000 mile 
Interstate System that is federally owned. Unfortunately, it is 
also one of the worst bottlenecks on the East Coast and 
desperately needs to be replaced. We have had authoritative 
reports indicating that there is only a nine year useful life 
remaining for the bridge.
    In order to proceed with this project, adequate Federal 
funding must be authorized. However, in order to maintain 
progress in the design of the project, an appropriation of 
funds is needed in fiscal year 1999. I am pleased to see the 
President has included a request of $180 million for design 
activities and the right-of-way acquisition, and I certainly 
would support that figure. The State of Maryland has indicated 
that in this year we would need an appropriation of $60 million 
for that purpose so that we can keep this project moving 
forward.
    I want to take this opportunity to emphasize in no 
uncertain terms, Mr. Chairman, that I'm gravely concerned over 
the Administration's continued insistence that the Federal 
Government contribution only be in the neighborhood of $400 
million. I feel very strongly that that is grossly inadequate 
and that we need a much larger appropriation hopefully through 
the ISTEA bill in order for the Federal Government to assume 
its rightful responsibility in replacing the bridge.
    I think timing is of the essence, quite frankly. Even if 
there are no delays in funding approval, the project will last 
through 2004. If the new project is not completed by 
approximately 2005, however, it will probably be necessary to 
institute lane closures and truck prohibitions in order to 
allow the current bridge to be operated safely. Thus, it is 
absolutely essential that we continue the progress and funding 
this project in order to stay on schedule.
    Let me move on and join with my colleague, Ms. Morella, in 
supporting a second project for the State of Maryland regarding 
the MARC commuter rail system. Maryland is currently in the 
midst of a $450 million upgrade of its commuter rail system 
known as the Maryland Rail Commuter Service, we call it MARC.
    I would like to request an earmark of $30 million of new 
starts discretionary funds for the expansion of MARC. These 
funds will be used for the purchase of two new electric 
locomotives to be deployed on the Penn Line, allowing for more 
efficiency with interface with Amtrak's high speed equipment 
operating on the Northeast corridor. The funds will also be 
used for the construction of a major MARC maintenance facility 
and for right-of-way and construction of a direct rail 
connection between the MARC Camden Station and the MARC Penn 
Line Amtrak Northeast corridor station.
    Third, I'd like to join with my colleague in supporting an 
appropriation for WMATA. I, too, am seeking $50 million in 
fiscal year 1999 to continue construction of the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority system, completing funding 
for the entire 103-mile system which I know you're very 
familiar with. It will reduce traffic congestion in one of the 
most congested areas of the region, it will increase Metro 
ridership, which will also reduce congestion, and help with the 
efficient operation of the system.
    Specifically in my district, the Green Line from Anacostia 
to Branch Avenue in Prince Georges County will provide four new 
stations in Southern Prince Georges County, at Southern Avenue, 
Naylor Road, Suitland, and Branch Avenue. In addition, these 
funds will allow completion of the Green Line from U Street-
Cardoza to Fort Totten in the District of Columbia and will 
connect with the existing Green Line in Prince Georges County, 
creating the full completion of the 103-mile system. As I said, 
I know the Chairman is very familiar with this and would ask 
for funds to support those efforts.
    Again, I would like to thank you for your time, Mr. 
Chairman, members of the committee.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Albert Wynn follows:]


[Pages 515 - 517--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. Thank you. No one in Congress will be happier to 
see the completion of the Metro. I appreciate the fact that the 
whole area delegation, both Republican and Democrat, House and 
the Senate, have worked closely together.
    I also agree with your comment on the Woodrow Wilson 
Bridge. I think the Administration's funding proposal, I guess 
they were thinking that Congress is just going to go and do it. 
But they're going to begin shutting down lanes and will 
probably begin limiting the bridge to trucks, which is going to 
put a tremendous amount of burden on the American Legion 
Bridge.
    I just don't understand it. It's their bridge. If it were a 
normal situation, a State bridge, funding would be 90-10. I 
just don't understand what they're doing, particularly with the 
President's proposals for new spending in other areas. I would 
have thought they would have come forward on this. When 
Secretary Slater comes before the committee we're going to talk 
to him about that.
    But I think your points are exactly right on target, both 
of them.
    I have no questions.
    Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Will $50 million really finish WMATA?
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, it does. When WMATA started Mr. Sabo's hair 
was brown. So, yes, it finishes it. It's a good system and it 
is well-run. I think Dick White, the new manager, has really 
brought a new, good style of management. But, yes, this will be 
it.
    Mr. Sabo. I can't believe it.
    Mr. Wolf. We'll have a mortgage burning party.
    Ms. Morella. We'll invite Mr. Sabo out when we complete the 
Red Line and do the same thing with the Green Line when that 
happens.
    Mr. Wolf. I think we should carry him on our backs.
    Mr. Olver, any questions?
    Mr. Olver. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. I thank you both for coming before the committee 
this afternoon.
                              ----------                              

                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                   BALTIMORE ``PEOPLE MOVER'' PROJECT

                               WITNESSES

HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    MARYLAND
MAYOR KURT SCHMOKE, CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
    Mr. Wolf. Congressman Cummings, welcome to the committee, 
and Mayor Schmoke, welcome.
    Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I 
thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today 
together with the Mayor of my city and my schoolmate from high 
school, Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke. We will present our request for 
funding in the fiscal year 1999 Department of Transportation 
appropriations to conduct a major investment study of a 
``people mover'' system for downtown Baltimore. As a member of 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am seeking 
the support of my committee for this project as part of the 
reauthorization of the ISTEA bill.
    I want to emphasize that a people mover system will fill 
the gap in our mass transit system. Our light rail, subway, 
MARC commuter rail, and bus systems efficiently transport 
people into the downtown business core from outlying areas. The 
MARC typically handles about 18,000 commuters daily, and the 
subway and light rail carry more than 43,000 and 22,000 daily 
riders, respectively. These numbers do not account for recent 
extensions of rail service which will show increased ridership.
    We also have a bus system which over 240,000 people board 
everyday. The piece that we are lacking is a mode of transit to 
move people East and West through the city. The people move, 
elevated above the congestion of street traffic, would provide 
that much needed cross-town transportation mode.
    I invite the subcommittee to visit Baltimore to see the 
development and growth of our downtown business district. The 
Inner-Harbor is still a vibrant attraction for residents and 
tourists. A few blocks away our new football stadium will open 
in late summer. Our nearby Powerplant Development houses a Hard 
Rock Cafe, and will be joined by the first ESPN Sports Bar and 
Grill, and a Barnes and Noble bookstore. We just broke ground 
for a Planet Hollywood Restaurant. These new entertainment 
venues compliment and add to the attraction of such well-known 
points of interest as the National Aquarium, Maryland Science 
Center, and the Visionary Arts and Museum. All of this is in 
the path of the proposed people mover.
    Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the Mayor of Baltimore City, 
Kurt L. Schmoke.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Mayor, welcome. Your full statement will 
appear in the record.
    Mayor Schmoke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would 
just like to summarize. I thank Congressman Cummings for his 
strong support of our efforts.
    Just one correction in my statement, I note that the Inner-
Harbor of Baltimore is so active and attractive that every year 
we attract more people than Disney World. That only happened 
one year, I should mention for my friends from Florida. But it 
just points out what Representatives Cummings was talking 
about. We have massive attractions, including a large 
convention center and all these other attractions in the area. 
We have transportation lines moving people North-South, and the 
Congress has been very supportive of many of those. What we 
lack is something to move us East and West.
    But even more important than those connections are some air 
quality issues. We seek to address some of these air quality 
issues through alternative modes of transportation. Our city is 
classified as a nonattainment area for ozone. In order to be 
able to meet interim air quality standards set by EPA and the 
State of Maryland, it is going to be necessary for us to 
promote enhanced use of our mass transit systems.
    So we're hoping to integrate all these systems with the 
downtown people mover, which will be about a three mile people 
mover mode of transportation going East-West from Camden Yards, 
the stadium area, all the way through the Inner-Harbor into 
Fells Point and Canton area, which are very heavily congested 
areas. We believe that this convenience will attract and keep 
people in our city and will be a significant enhancement.
    What we seek is $1.5 million from the Federal Transit 
Administration Section 3 program in fiscal year 1999. We 
project the study is going to take about $3 million. But we 
have been actively involved in putting together our funds also 
so that we can have additional money to meet at least the 
minimum 20 percent match for the total amount of this study.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. I want to congratulate you, 
you really have done an amazing job. I periodically will go up 
to the Inner-Harbor. It's a great place to take your family.
    I wanted to take this opportunity just to raise something 
with you. You don't really have to comment on it, it's not 
necessary, but I've seen the request by some in the Maryland 
Legislature to bring gambling to the State of Maryland. I 
happen to agree with Governor Parris Glendenning's position.
    You've really got to be careful because, if you look at 
areas where gambling has come in, particularly with the job 
that you have done in the Inner-Harbor, the number of 
restaurants that go out of business is unbelievable. In 
Atlantic City, if you look at the number of restaurants that go 
out of business, there's only so much money that people in this 
region have and they're either going to spend it on slots or 
they're going to spend it in the restaurants or they're going 
to spend it at the stadium. You have a great stadium. I don't 
know what your new stadium is going to be like, but if it is 
anything like your current stadium, it's a great stadium.
    Gambling really has a major impact. We've been looking at 
studies, and I was the one who put in the language to the bill 
to set up a national commission to study the impact on gambling 
in the country. The attendance at the Iowa State Fair was down 
last year by 12 to 14 percent. They believe these people 
weren't going to the State Fair, they were going into the 
gambling halls. The impact on crime, the impact on addiction. 
Once it comes in, you almost never see a story saying gambling 
casino shuts down.
    I think it is one of the bright lights actually up and down 
the East Coast of what you have done. People come not only from 
Northern Virginia, but they come from far away, from 
Philadelphia. I just think it would be almost such a negative 
with regard to what you've done. Obviously, I have no right to 
tell the people of Maryland what they should do, and I know how 
you're thought of in the State, and I don't know where you are, 
and it is not necessary for you to answer, I'm not trying to 
get you to come on the record with regard to your Governor's 
position, but I really think if you look at the studies, and 
I'll send you some material, of where it has come in, what the 
impact has been. Obviously, Atlantic City is not exactly the 
model city for the Nation. I just think it is something you 
ought to be very, very careful about.
    Mayor Schmoke. Sure. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. I thank you both for appearing today.
    [Prepared Statements of Hon. Elijah Cummings and Mayor Kurt 
Schmoke follows:]


[Pages 522 - 528--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                       WILKES-BARRE, PA, PROJECTS

                                WITNESS

HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Kanjorski, welcome.
    Mr. Kanjorski. Mr. Chairman, I'll make an observation as a 
back-bencher in the minority. I was looking at last year's 
appropriations and I became aware of very strong support for 
the State of California, the State of Louisiana, the State of 
Maryland, the State of Minnesota, and the State of Wisconsin, 
and the State of Pennsylvania in certain areas of Pennsylvania. 
I only make that point because having served in the Congress 
now for 13 years, I have never come before this committee and 
asked for support because I always thought that ISTEA and 
appropriation fundings would occur on a need basis. But 
apparently I misjudged the approach that should be taken, and 
that's why I'm here today.
    I represent a district that is Wilkes-Barre City and we're 
making an application for the support of a downtown intermodal 
system. To say I represent a city of 44,000 people, because if 
you look at Wilkes-Barre City that's all it would appear, it 
actually is the third largest city of Pennsylvania because it 
is surrounded by contiguous 30 communities. It really 
constitutes a population of 150,000 people. Over these 13 
years, we've never had the support of any major transportation 
facility in the third largest city of Pennsylvania even though 
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the district to my North which 
encompasses several little towns have had significant 
contributions.
    I'm not adverse to those contributions, but I think there's 
a fairness here that this committee really has to pay attention 
to. We have other major population centers in Pennsylvania and 
in the United States that require Federal assistance of some 
sort. In Wilkes-Barre now we're trying to put together a 
reversal of a great deal of exodus of the working population in 
downtown as a result of lack of transportation and as a result 
of the Agnes flood that occurred some 25 years ago.
    One of the areas that the city administration thinks they 
will have a major impact on the downtown of Wilkes-Barre, which 
is really the center city of the third largest city of 
Pennsylvania, is this transportation facility. It is only a $29 
million facility. As I said, I've had no good fortunate in 
having it funded in prior years, although Senator Specter was 
fortunate enough in the Senate and he did receive $1.5 million 
last year in the conference on the appropriations. This 
facility is going to cost $29 million. What we're asking for is 
an addition $8 million so that we can accomplish something that 
will help save the center city of the third largest populated 
city of Pennsylvania.
    If we come in, however, and make an application, or if the 
committee addresses this saying, oh, Wilkes-Barre, 
Pennsylvania, it has a population of 44,000, we really don't 
warrant an intermodal transportation system. Well, it isn't 
just 44,000; it's 150,000 to 180,000 people. Anybody that has 
driven up I-81 through Pennsylvania looks off over into this 
tremendous valley, it's a huge valley that suffered a loss 
itself of $2 billion in the flood Agnes. This is an attempt to 
continue to bring us back. What I'm asking the committee to do 
when they go into deliberations is to really support the city 
administration of Wilkes-Barre with the idea that they are 
supporting a transportation facility to serve 180,000 people 
and to help bring back the economic resurgence of that center 
city and that entire area.
    I would really appreciate it if some evaluation were made 
by the committee of over-looking what appropriations have been 
made in past years. I understand the prerequisites of 
appropriation seats and political clout and ability to attain 
that. But there are some of us that are out there in the 
hinterlands that represent some very large populations that 
have really been disadvantaged because of the process. So I'm 
here really to ask you to consider levelling the playing field 
here. I know you don't like to support highways, but we don't 
get highways either and we don't get public transportation 
facilities. We're at a decided disadvantage. You have to 
remember, my district and Wilkes-Barre City is the equivalent 
of Washington, D.C. You've never seen me getting $100 million 
bridge or a $200 million subway system financed by the Federal 
Government. We just don't get it. I think fairness now dictates 
that this committee start looking at the negative impact this 
is having on some of the rural and less identified population 
centers in the United States, and particularly Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Wolf. I'm not going to get in a debate with you, Mr. 
Kanjorski. I need to go back and look at the record. But 
Pennsylvania in this committee has done exceptionally well, 
probably one of the top actually in the country. It is the 
responsibility of the people from Pennsylvania to come in. 
We're not the wizards to say where it ought to go in 
Pennsylvania; people come before the committee. But if you look 
at Pennsylvania as a State, whether it be from ISTEA, whether 
it be from this appropriation committee, or, frankly, whether 
it be from the full appropriations committee, there could even 
be members coming in saying they felt that Pennsylvania got 
more. But we'll be glad to review the record.
    Mr. Kanjorski. What I would like the committee to pay 
attention to is there are four or five districts of 
Pennsylvania that get the lion's share of the funds and the 
others get none. I'm in Congress 13 years and I've never had a 
project funded by the House of Representatives Appropriations 
Committee for any transportation facility in my district. When 
I look through the list and I pay attention to it, I recognize 
the power of a seat on the appropriations committee but there 
has to be something that's left over for some of us.
    Mr. Wolf. I think the committee has been very, very fair. 
In fact, if you look, it has probably been as fair in the last 
several years as it has ever been in history. We have not just 
made these determinations based on who serves on the committee. 
That's why we did away with the Highway Demonstration Projects, 
to turn the money back to your State whereby the people of the 
State of Pennsylvania can make the decision. But we will take a 
look at whatever projects you're requesting funds for. But I 
think if you go back and look at the raw numbers for 
Pennsylvania compared to other States, you will find that 
Pennsylvania has done very, very well.
    Mr. Kanjorski. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabor it, 
but two members on appropriations committee and out of about 
$25 million, two districts. Only those two districts. Maybe we 
would argue the Pennsylvania delegation doesn't represent----
    Mr. Wolf. You had more than two; you had Mr. Foglietta----
    Mr. Kanjorski. Yes, $15 million for SEPTA, which is 
Philadelphia.
    Mr. Wolf. And you had----
    Mr. Kanjorski. Mr. McDade has one, two, three, four, five, 
six projects.
    Mr. Wolf. And Mr. Murtha, too. There were a number also out 
in the Pittsburgh area.
    Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Minnesota would trade 
with Pennsylvania on a per capita basis.
    Mr. Kanjorski. I agree with you. You would trade with 
perhaps Altoona, Pennsylvania, but you wouldn't trade with the 
second or third largest city of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. No questions.
    Mr. Kanjorski. You won't engage? Well, I would appreciate 
your looking at it. I just wanted to make the committee aware 
that we really could use the $8 million to get this project 
going. There's little chance that we get it in ISTEA, there's 
no chance we can get it anywhere else, so what it means is this 
city has been there for 200 years, it is never going to have 
the facilities necessary to support itself.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, I will engage for a moment. I have 
the experience having been from Pennsylvania, I once lost a 
spelling bee because I misspelled Wilkes-Barre. Having been a 
old farm boy, I thought we were talking about wheelbarrows or 
something like that. But Wilkes-Barre as you have defined it, 
that's not all of Luzerne County then is it?
    Mr. Kanjorski. No, no. Luzerne County is about 340,000 
people.
    Mr. Olver. You're counting 180,000 which is the close-in 
suburbs to this core community.
    Mr. Kanjorski. Wilkes-Barre center, that's right. It is the 
Wyoming Valley. If we call it the city of Wyoming, it would be 
150,000 to 180,000 people which would be the third largest city 
of Pennsylvania. The problem is it has got 30 little 
communities, none of which can ever put a project together to 
ask me to help them fund it. So it is only the City of Wilkes-
Barre, which is the center of the spoke, if you will.
    Mr. Olver. They've organized themselves in a way most 
detrimental to getting Federal grants, haven't they?
    Mr. Kanjorski. Yes, 176 communities in my congressional 
district, 1,700 elected officials, the largest city of 44,000, 
the next largest below 15,000, the average below 2,500. They 
will never be able to put a project together. Unless we get 
some support from the committee, we'll never have any project 
like this funded. And it will have to go to Wilkes-Barre, which 
statistically would look very bad, would look like 44,000 
people, why do they want a $29 million intermodal center. It is 
not 44,000 people; it's 180,000 people. It is just that they're 
not smart enough to call themselves all by one name.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    [Prepared statement of Hon. Paul Kanjorski follows:]


[Pages 533 - 535--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                    FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

                                WITNESS

HON. TILLIE K. FOWLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    FLORIDA
    Mr. Wolf. We will take Congresswoman Fowler.
    Ms. Fowler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 
taking me out of order today. I came in to a wonderful new 
airport out in Virginia. It's raining in Florida just like it 
is up here except worse.
    Mr. Wolf. I didn't think it rained in Florida.
    Ms. Fowler. We don't like for it to, it ruins our image, 
but it does. I want to thank you very much for giving me the 
opportunity to testify before you today. I believe you all have 
copies of the testimony. This is regarding several projects of 
importance to the 4th District of Florida.
    My first funding request is for $12 million for mass 
transit studies and right-of-way acquisition in Jacksonville, 
Florida. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority has 
developed and short-and long-range plans for the development of 
a new mode of mass transportation, their light rail system. 
Toward that effort, the JTA has identified four potential major 
transit corridors. Consultant studies that have been performed 
for the JTA indicate that three of the four corridors can 
definitely support light rail, while the fourth would at least 
support express bus service and likely light rail. These 
corridors have also been identified in the Metropolitan 
Planning Organization's long-range transportation plan for the 
region.
    Currently, I am seeking authorization for this through 
ISTEA. Should the project receive authorization, then it would 
require an appropriation under the FTA discretionary grants for 
new starts. The initial funding would be used for right-of-way 
acquisition and necessary studies, including an Environmental 
Impact Statement on each of the four corridors identified. This 
is an extremely important project for the City of Jacksonville. 
We are facing tremendous growth and increasing traffic 
congestion and are trying to come to grips with that.
    My second request is for $3 million under the FTA bus and 
bus-related facilities program for the FTA. These funds would 
be used for the purchase of eight new buses and for the 
development of a mini-transit center. The new coaches would 
allow the JTA to expand express services for our growing 
commuter market as well as the welfare-to-work initiative. The 
$1.5 million request would be matched with a local share of 
$500,000, which would be 25 percent. The Regency Transit Hub 
Station is part of the long rang plan for development of mini 
transit centers to be located in our fast growing suburban 
communities. This request would be matched with a local share 
of $3.6 million, so the local share would be 70 percent of what 
we're requesting on that one.
    My third request is $12 million for the Daytona Intermodal 
Facility in Volusia County, Florida. The intermodal facility 
will provide working residents and over 8 million annual 
visitors with a centrally located hub that integrates both 
public and private transportation services. The facilities will 
be located in the core of the Daytona Beach redevelopment 
district and will be the nucleus for a number of private 
redevelopment projects totalling over $150 million. It also 
contributes to the resolution of key environmental and safety 
matters.
    Last year the Volusia County MPO adopted a resolution in 
support of the intermodal facility, also the Florida Department 
of Transportation has elected it as an intermodal development 
project, and it has been incorporated into the State's five 
year work plan. I appreciate last year, Mr. Chairman, the 
committee gave $2 million towards the start up of this facility 
and we're now coming back to ask for money to complete it.
    I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to 
testify today and to let me come this afternoon. If I can 
answer any questions, I'd be glad to do so.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Your full statement will 
appear in the record.
    Ms. Fowler. Thanks so much.
    [Prepared statement of Hon. Tillie Fowler follows:]


[Pages 538 - 539--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                                         Tuesday, February 3, 1998.

                              COAST GUARD

                               WITNESSES

SGT. MAJOR MICHAEL F. OUELLETTE, USA (RET), NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS 
    ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DENNIS DUGGAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN LEGION
CAPTAIN S. PETER HUHN, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, THE NAVY LEAGUE 
    OF THE UNITED STATES
    Mr. Wolf. Next, if we could have the Non Commissioned 
Officers Association of the United States, the American Legion, 
and also the Navy League of the United States.
    Welcome. Your full statement will appear in the record, but 
take whatever time you feel appropriate.
    Sgt. Major Ouellette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
I'll try to make these remarks very brief.
    Mr. Chairman, the Non Commissioned Officers Association of 
the United States of America appreciates the opportunity to 
appear before the subcommittee on behalf of the members of the 
United States Coast Guard. The Association has prepared and 
submitted a detailed statement in which the primary quality of 
life legislative issues particularly of enlisted Coast Guard 
men and women have been discussed. NCOA understands the 
difficult deficit reduction climate in which the Congress and 
the Coast Guard must operate. The efforts of this subcommittee 
have been, and will continue to be vitally important to the 
well-being of the enlisted force.
    Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard is at a critical personnel 
juncture. The average ship that goes to sea today will be 
manned at 80 percent of its normal complement. Recruiting is 
down substantially. In an effort to meet recruiting goals, the 
services had to implement two and three year contracts, offer 
bonuses of up to $12,000, and GI Bill kickers of up to $30,000. 
Still, the average recruiter must interview more than 100 
potential candidates to find one acceptable recruit, and the 
Coast Guard has had to expand the recruiting substantially to 
meet its recruiting goals.
    The major point the Association wishes to make to this 
subcommittee is that the decision to maintain a credible Coast 
Guard automatically carries with it a responsibility to take 
care of those who comprise the force, regardless. This 
subcommittee has done just that in the past. Yet much more must 
be done to avert a manpower crisis.
    NCOA has offered a number of pay, personnel medical care 
and quality of life improvement recommendations intended to 
address a number of areas which can significantly improve the 
overall well-being of Coast Guard members, retires, their 
families and survivors. As a matter of parity, the same 
recommendations will be made to those committees and 
subcommittees maintaining responsibility for the other DOD 
military services.
    Mr. Chairman, perhaps the single most valuable effort this 
subcommittee could make to the well-being of the Coast Guard 
enlisted community and the armed force in general is to send a 
signal that Congress will provide some stability in pay and 
benefits. Any effort this subcommittee can make to increase 
military pay, reduce the current estimated pay disparity with 
the civilian workforce, and provide the necessary funding to 
support the pay improvements passed by Congress last year will 
make a difference in the Coast Guard's ability to recruit and 
retain the people needed to meet their wide range of mission 
responsibilities. The Coast Guard relies on the funding 
decisions made by this subcommittee to maintain equal footing 
or parity with the other DOD services in terms of quality of 
life program availability.
    Mr. Chairman, NCOA appreciates the opportunity to present a 
number of enlisted views in testimony today, and looks forward 
to addressing further details and any other issues with you and 
your subcommittee staff. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Michael Ouellette follows:]


[Pages 542 - 561--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    Mr. Huhn. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and members of this 
committee, I am S. Peter Huhn, Director of Legislative Affairs, 
Navy League of the U.S. On behalf of our national president 
Jack Kennedy who could not be here today, I am honored to 
testify before this subcommittee.
    The Navy League of the U.S. is a non-profit educational 
associated dedicated to supporting the Navy, Marine Corps, 
Coast Guard, and U.S.-flag merchant marine. We are unique from 
other associations in that we do not have any active duty 
military members. As such, our membership is comprised of 
American citizens throughout the country who support a strong 
maritime defense.
    The Navy League believes it is vital that we consider the 
collective benefit of our Government expenditures. In that 
vein, I would like to address the value of the United States 
Coast Guard to this Nation's well-being. The Navy League has 
long held that when our tax dollars are sent to Washington, and 
Congress appropriates to the Coast Guard, this country receives 
a good value for its investment.
    I want to tell you that the Coast Guard is a real bargain. 
We have all heard the widely circulated number that for every 
dollar invested in the Coast Guard, they return a value of $4 
to the American taxpayer. That is a good investment. But a 
closer examination of the data behind the numbers reveals an 
interesting fact. The 4-to-1 return is based solely on the 
value of lives and property saved in an average year, compared 
to the total Coast Guard operating expense. It does not take 
into account the value of many other Coast Guard missions. The 
4-to-1 ratio does not consider the benefit of the Coast Guard's 
seizure of over 51 tons of cocaine and over 25 tons of 
marijuana last year. The 4-to-1 ratio does not consider the 
benefit of 10,000 illegal migrants that were intercepted last 
year at sea. The ratio does not consider the 12,400 oil and 
other hazardous spills responded to by the Coast Guard, the 
23,000 safety inspections, or the 55,000 aids to navigation 
maintained by the Coast Guard. The Navy League believes the 4-
to-1 return on investment is a significant under valuation of 
the benefit to the Nation of the U.S. Coast Guard.
    Mr. Chairman, as a father and husband, I know you are 
concerned about the availability of illegal drugs in our 
neighborhoods and schools. Therefore, I hope you will share my 
sincere appreciation of the Coast Guard's efforts in 1997 in 
stopping 500 million hits of cocaine from reaching our cities 
and playgrounds. That's a contribution worth talking about. 
Furthermore, that 500 million hits of cocaine that my police 
department or yours didn't have to respond to saves them for 
other tasks. Certainly the Coast Guard's day-to-day performance 
saving lives, protecting property, guarding our shores requires 
no demands that they be properly equipped. In the words of 
Admiral Kramek, Commandant of the Coast Guard, ``One life saved 
is a triumph, 500,000 lives a year is truly magnificent.''
    Mr. Chairman, the Navy League is concerned with the aging 
of the Coast Guard's cutters and aircraft, resources that are 
being operated day in, day out at a far greater rate than 
expected. For example, in terms of size, the Coast Guard is the 
seventh largest naval service in the world. Unfortunately, in 
terms of age, the Coast Guard's cutters rank 37th out of 41, 
and by the year 2000 the turbine engines used in the 12 
Hamilton Class Cutters will have been out of production for 
many years and becoming increasingly difficult to cost-
effectively support and maintain.
    We ask for your support for the Coast Guard's plan to 
modernize its aging fleet of cutters, aircraft, and equipment 
used to communicate and manage information. This is referred to 
as the Deep Water Program. The Coast Guard should be commended 
for their approach that is committed to optimizing operational 
readiness while minimizing overall life cycle costs. We hope 
that the Deep Water Project meets with your approval and can 
move full speed ahead to modernize our force.
    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, those who would illegally 
enter our land, those who would profit by the spread of drugs 
to our Nation's children, those who pollute our waterways and 
oceans, those who strip the natural resources from our oceans 
will surely not benefit. In fact, it is time to recognize the 
tremendous job the Coast Guard does on a routine basis whether 
this Nation is at war or peace. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Peter Huhn follows:]


[Pages 564 - 568--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Wolf. I want to thank you both. I agree the Coast Guard 
does an outstanding job. What is that figure with regard to the 
Army and the Navy and the Air Force; do you know what that is?
    Sgt. Major Ouellette. I don't have that number right off 
hand, Mr. Chairman, but I'll be more than happy to provide you 
with that.
    Mr. Wolf. If you could get that.
    Mr. Wolf. The committee has always been in support of 
parity with regard to whatever the Defense Department does with 
regard to the best pay and benefits. The other thing, would it 
be better, it's not going to happen, if the Coast Guard were in 
the Department of Defense rather than in the Department of 
Transportation?
    Sgt. Major Ouellette. I don't know if I'm qualified to 
answer that.
    Mr. Wolf. What do you think though?
    Sgt. Major Ouellette. During time of war it is under the 
Defense Department.
    Mr. Wolf. We're hopefully not going to be at war for the 
next many, many years. So now, would it be better if it were in 
Defense Department versus being in Department of 
Transportation?
    Sgt. Major Ouellette. If you look at the whole picture, 
just to look at it as sort of one-stop shopping. We've got the 
Coast Guard that really comes under the jurisdiction of this 
committee. It probably would be better if it was under the DOD 
and then everything would be lumped in. For instance, one of 
the problems they had was last year Congress passed legislation 
in the authorization bill that said to the services we want 
everybody across the board to standardize their tuition 
assistance program, to do it the same. And they are attempting 
to do it.
    The problem is this year the Coast Guard fell about $4 
million short of providing a consistent range of benefits. In 
other words, what they will pay per hour and the percentile is 
the same across the board, what happened was that the other 
services will allow members that go on tuition assistance a 
maximum annual benefit of about $3,500. The Coast Guard, 
because of the limited budget, the lack of money to put towards 
that program, only has an annual cap or maximum benefit of 
$1,000. I think the Coast Guard was asking for about $4 million 
to try and square that away and to level the playing field on 
tuition assistance because it is something they use as a 
recruiting tool. But I don't think you'll see that $4 million 
reflected in the Coast Guard request because I think it was 
popped by OMB.
    But it would be of benefit. Those are the kind of problems 
that you have. But in that same light, Mr. Chairman, from what 
I hear from the other services, they are having a tough time 
coming up with the dollars to fund the tuition assistance 
programs at the levels that they are consistently funding it 
at.
    To get back to your question, I think so if you had a one-
stop shopping kind of thing. Remember the Coast Guard though, 
if the Coast Guard came under anybody for control, I think I 
heard one time that they see themselves as probably better 
operating under the Committee on the Judiciary because of their 
missions and the kinds of things that they do in that area.
    Mr. Wolf. Do you have anything to add?
    Captain Huhn. In my opinion, they would do better under 
DOD. Although an unpopular word, BRAC, I think with possible 
need to consolidate and better utilize the bases we have, they 
could gain a lot from it. Industry has done a lot of 
consolidation, and I think probably it would work to the Coast 
Guard's benefit in consolidation.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sabo?
    Mr. Sabo. Is basic pay the same between the Coast Guard and 
Navy?
    Sgt. Major Ouellette. Yes, sir. And also basic allowances 
and those types of things. Virtually everything is the same. 
The annual COLAs that re approved by Defense, of course you 
match that because this subcommittee funds the retiree portion. 
But they are all equal. For instance, a good example, this goes 
back to your days as chairman of the Budget Committee, remember 
when the DOD services passed the Voluntary Transition programs, 
the SSB and those to try and encourage people to get out. They 
put those into effect, yet that first year there were no 
programs put in place for the Coast Guard. So the Coast Guard 
operated one year on a down-sizing mode without any voluntary 
separation programs, then they were put in the following year. 
That's the kind of thing.
    That's a challenge. It's very difficult I would think 
trying to operate money to go to the Coast Guard not really 
knowing sometimes what is going on on the other side because of 
conferences and everything and things drop out. I think you've 
done an extremely fine job, and I'm just looking forward to 
continuing to work with you on the Coast Guard.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. No questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you both for coming before the committee. 
We appreciate your appearance very much.
    Is the American Legion here, Dennis Duggan? He's not here 
to testify.
    Does anybody else for the good of the order? If not, the 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Prepared statement of Dennis Duggan and other prepared 
statements from Members of Congress and other individuals and 
organizations follow:]




[Pages 571 - 1334--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
















                           W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Allen, W.R.......................................................   924
Anderson, Mike...................................................  1131
Anderson, Rev. V.G...............................................  1143
Anfang, Dick.....................................................  1119
Ankner, W.D......................................................   285
Atkirs, Joseph...................................................  1166
Auger, Leo.......................................................    32
Austin, J.M......................................................   861
Barclay, C.M.....................................................   119
Barnard, Marjorie................................................  1140
Barnes, Master Chief Joe.........................................   757
Bartosiewicz, J.P................................................   625
Baumann, B.G.....................................................  1142
Becker, Captain F.R., Jr.........................................   734
Bennett, Patricia................................................   684
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl............................................   424
Bohlinger, Linda.................................................  1002
Bolen, Ed........................................................   158
Bostrom, D.B.....................................................  1114
Brengman, Rick...................................................  1134
Brown, C.L.......................................................   727
Brown, Kirk......................................................   912
Budzius, Chris...................................................  1135
Burke, Julian....................................................  1026
Burke, Y.B.......................................................  1022
Burton, Hon. Dan.................................................   620
Campbell, Hon. Tom...............................................   636
Canady, Hon. C.T.................................................   637
Capon, R.B.......................................................   940
Carney, Michael..................................................   917
Catz, S.L........................................................   298
Champion, H.R....................................................   109
Christiansen, Dr. D.L............................................  1074
Clark, Les.......................................................   872
Clement, Hon. Bob................................................   435
Coleman, Norm....................................................  1100
Collins, Father T.B..............................................   785
Costello, Hon. J.F...............................................   642
Couzzo, M.R., Jr.................................................   691
Cummings, Hon. E.E...............................................   518
Cunha, Manuel, Jr................................................   872
Daly, J.B........................................................   323
Davidson, Jim....................................................  1136
Davis, Bill......................................................   354
Davis, Hon. Jim..................................................    89
Davis, J.E.......................................................   198
DeGette, Hon. Diana..............................................     6
Denzer, J.D......................................................  1171
Dettmann, C.E....................................................  1087
Deutsch, Hon. Peter..............................................  1004
Diaz-Balart, Hon. Lincoln........................................  1004
Dicks, Hon. Norm.................................................   371
Dietz, Robert....................................................  1031
Dinsmore, Alan...................................................  1061
Drewel, Bob......................................................   371
Duggan, Dennis...................................................   540
Ebersole, Brian..................................................   379
Ensign, J.E......................................................   609
Erchul, Jim......................................................  1124
Fanfalone, M.D...................................................   132
Fang, James......................................................  1329
Farrell, Jim.....................................................  1116
Feldman, L.R.....................................................   685
Figg, Rank.......................................................  1222
Filner, Hon. Bob.................................................   266
Foley, Hon. Mark.................................................  1004
Foote, Stephanie.................................................  1080
Ford, Hon. Harold, Jr............................................   429
Forst, B.P.......................................................  1078
Fossella, Hon. Vito..............................................   245
Fowler, Hon. T.K.................................................   536
Fox, Hon. J.D....................................................   644
Francis, M.N., Jr................................................   990
Frank, Hon. Barney...............................................   649
Frost, Hon. Martin.............................................446, 623
Furse, Hon. Elizabeth............................................   423
Gekas, Hon. G.W..................................................   653
George, Father W.L...............................................   785
Geraghty, T.M....................................................  1172
Giuliano, Neil...................................................     1
Gordon, Hon. Bart................................................   435
Gossman, G.W.....................................................  1162
Granger, Hon. Kay................................................   623
Guardino, Carl...................................................  1007
Guerin, Dino.....................................................  1139
Haley, J.J., Jr................................................720, 844
Hall, Hon. R.M...................................................   446
Hallman, Roger...................................................  1130
Hansen, E.D......................................................  1219
Hargis, W.J......................................................  1168
Harris, Harry....................................................   848
Harris, J.A......................................................  1167
Hastings, Hon. Alcee.............................................  1004
Hefley, Hon. Joel................................................   655
Hencier, Jody....................................................  1164
Hernandez, Martin................................................   329
Holtzman, Sonny..................................................    79
Hooley, Hon. Darlene.............................................   424
Howe, W.J........................................................   936
Huhn, Captain S.P................................................   540
Hunter, Hon. Duncan..............................................   575
Ivory, Francis...................................................  1144
James, Sharpe....................................................   279
Jantzen, Jean....................................................  1160
Johnson, Hon. E.B................................................   446
Johnson, K.R.....................................................  1145
Jones, Beverly...................................................   797
Jones, P.G.......................................................  1163
Judge, P.R.......................................................   963
Kampmeier, D.G...................................................  1161
Kane, B.A........................................................   229
Kanjorski, Hon. P.E..............................................   529
Katri, Dave......................................................  1226
Kellejian, Joe...................................................   787
Kelly, R.C.......................................................  1115
Kempe, John......................................................  1112
Kennedy, Hon. J.P., II...........................................   657
Kenny, M.P.......................................................   872
Kimball, Hin.....................................................   501
King, Hon. P.T...................................................   660
Kingston, Tom....................................................  1120
Kirkwold, P.L....................................................  1165
Knollenberg, Hon. J.K............................................   487
Krahnke, B.A.....................................................   229
Lansing, Scott...................................................   994
Lantry, Kathy....................................................  1126
Larsen, Peg......................................................  1177
Lehman, Hon. William.............................................    79
Loftus, William..................................................   166
Luecke, Stephen..................................................   467
Maher, D.J.......................................................  1147
Manning, Valerie.................................................     1
Marko, Sharon....................................................  1177
Matthews, R.A....................................................   900
Maull, Perry.....................................................    89
Maurer, Tom......................................................  1141
McAnaw, M.F......................................................  1063
McCollum, Hon. Bill..............................................    32
McGovern, Hon. J.P...............................................   649
McKeon, Hon. H.P.................................................   292
Mechanik, Dave...................................................    89
Meek, Hon. Carrie................................................  1004
Mendelson, Glenn.................................................   894
Mendez, Michael..................................................   673
Mica, Hon. J.L...................................................    32
Milbert, Bob.....................................................  1177
Millar, W.M......................................................   212
Miller, Robert...................................................   996
Morella, Hon. C.A................................................   507
Morgan, J.E......................................................  1125
Mullen, R.E......................................................  1169
Nowlin, Dick.....................................................  1122
Odum, E.O........................................................  1224
Olcott, J.W......................................................   751
Ortega, Rafael...................................................  1128
Otis, Rick.......................................................   783
Ouellette, SGT. Maj. M.F.........................................   540
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr..........................................   664
Parcells, Harriet................................................   175
Patrick, Barbara.................................................   872
Payne, Hon. Donald...............................................   279
Penelas, Alex....................................................   693
Pesquera, C.I....................................................  1207
Peterson, Myra...............................................1154, 1175
Pickett, Hon. Owen...............................................   495
Powers, Charlotte................................................  1009
Printon, R.J.....................................................  1133
Pugh, Thomas.....................................................  1177
Quinn, Hon. Jack.................................................   239
Reheis, C.H......................................................   872
Renstrom, S.J....................................................  1132
RePass, J.P......................................................   870
Riordan, R.J.....................................................  1019
Robinson, Pilka..................................................   676
Roemer, Hon. Tim.................................................   469
Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana........................................  1004
Roth, G.L........................................................   827
Ryan, Jack.......................................................  1038
Scantlin, L.W....................................................   896
Schaefer, Hon. Dan...............................................   669
Schmid, M.J......................................................  1138
Schmoke, Kurt....................................................   518
Scott, Hon. R.C. (Bobby).........................................   495
Serna, Joe.......................................................   679
Sessions, Hon. Pete..............................................   446
Shackelford, Wayne...............................................   767
Shaw, Hon. E.C., Jr............................................79, 1004
Siegel, J.H......................................................   936
Sittlow, Barry...................................................  1170
Skoutelas, P.P...................................................   977
Slawik, Nora.....................................................  1177
Smith, Hon. Adam.................................................   379
Smith, J.R.......................................................   870
Smith, Jose......................................................    79
Sproles, M.R.....................................................   183
Stabler, K.E.....................................................  1121
Steenburg, J.V...................................................   907
Stehr, R.A.......................................................  1146
Stupak, Hon. Bart................................................   491
Sulzer, K.E......................................................  1056
Tillietson, John.................................................    32
Townes, M.S......................................................   985
Trimble, Steve...................................................  1177
Trudeau, J.F.....................................................  1127
Tucker, R.H., Jr.................................................   949
Vasko, Roger.....................................................  1129
Visclosky, Hon. P.J..............................................   463
Wexler, Hon. R.I.................................................  1004
Weygand, Hon. Bob................................................   254
Wheelock, Pamela.................................................  1137
Williams, Leon...................................................   723
Woolley, Ted.....................................................   728
Wynn, Hon. A.R...................................................   513
Yang, K.Y........................................................  1117
Yang, W.H........................................................  1118
Yolitz, Craig................................................1176, 1182



















                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

 Testimony of Members of Congress and Other Interested Individuals and 
                             Organizations

                                                                   Page
Federal Aviation Administration:
    Air Traffic Management.......................................  1038
    American Assoc. of Airport Executives........................   119
    Barclay, Charles M., President, American Assoc. of Airport 
      Executives.................................................   119
    Boat/US......................................................   843
    Bolen, Ed, President, General Aviation Manufacturers Assoc. 
      (GAMA).....................................................   158
    Brogdon, William J., Jr, President, International Loran Assoc   827
    Brown, Kirk, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation   912
    Colorado.....................................................6, 655
    Comm. on a Balanced Radionavigation..........................   832
    Costello, Hon. Jerry F., Representative from Illinois........   642
    DeGette, Hon. Diana, Representative from Colorado............     6
    Denver, Colorado.............................................  1080
    Dickinson, Elaine, Asst. Vice President, Boat/U.S............   843
    Fanfalone, Michael D., President, Professional Airways 
      Systems Spec...............................................   132
    Florida.....................................................32, 693
    Foote, Stephanie, Chief of Staff of the Mayor, Denver 
      Colorado...................................................  1080
    General Aviation Manufacturers Assoc. (GAMA).................   158
    Greater Orlando Aviation Authority...........................    32
    Helicopter Association Int'l.................................   836
    Hefley, Hon. Joel, Representative from Colorado..............   655
    Hickory Regional Airport, NC.................................   896
    Illinois.....................................................   642
    Illinois Department of Transportation........................   912
    International Loran Assoc....................................   827
    IOAPA News...................................................   833
    James, Hon. Sharpe, Mayor, Newark, NJ........................   279
    Jensen, Frank L., Jr, President, Helicopter Association Int'l   836
    Kane, Betty Ann, Exec. Committee, Noise, and Council Member..   229
    Krahnke, Betty Ann, Exec. Committee, Noise, and Council 
      Member.....................................................   229
    Maryland.....................................................   507
    McAnaw, Michael F., President, National Assoc. of Air Traffic 
      Specialist.................................................  1063
    McCollum, Hon. Bill, Representative from Florida.............    32
    Miami-Dade County, Florida...................................   693
    Michigan.....................................................   491
    Morella, Hon. Constance A., Representative from Maryland.....   507
    Morningstar, Warren, IAOPA NEWS..............................   833
    National Assoc. of Air Traffic Specialists...................  1063
    National Assoc. of State Aviation Officials..................   837
    National Business Aviation Assoc., Inc.......................   751
    Newark, NJ...................................................   279
    New Jersey...................................................   279
    Noise........................................................   229
    Ogrodzinski, Henry M., Pres. and CEO, Nat. Assoc. of State 
      Aviation Off...............................................   837
    Olcott, John W., President, National Business Aviation 
      Assoc., Inc................................................   751
    Payne, Hon. Donald, Representative from New Jersey...........   279
    Penelas, Hon. Alex, Mayor, Miami-Dade County, Florida........   693
    Pickett, Hon. Owen, Representative from Virginia.............   495
    Professional Airways Systems Spec............................   132
    Rhode Island.................................................   254
    Shaw, Hon. E. Clay, Jr, Representative from Florida..........    79
    Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group...........................  1007
    Skoutelas, Paul P., Executive Director, Port Authority of 
      Allegheny Co...............................................   977
    Smith, Hon. Adam, Representative from Washington.............   379
    Smith, Hon. Jose, Vice Mayor, City of Miami Beach, Florida...    79
    Smith, Hon. Robert, Chairman, The National Corridors 
      Initiative.................................................   871
    Roth, G. Linh, PH.D, Chairman, Comm on a Balanced 
      Radionavigation............................................   832
    Ryan, Jack, Vice President Air Traffic Management............  1038
    Scantlin, Larry W., Airport Manager, Hickory Regional 
      Airport, NC................................................   896
    Stupak, Hon. Bart, Representative from Michigan..............   491
    Tillietson, John, Director, Greater Orlando Aviation 
      Authority..................................................    32
    Virginia.....................................................   495
    Weygand, Hon. Bob, Representative from Rhode Island..........   254
Federal Highway Administration:
    Administrator, St. Paul, Minnesota...........................  1170
    Allen, W. Ron, President, National Congress of American 
      Indians....................................................   924
    American Society of Civil Engineers..........................   198
    Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.................................  1120
    Anderson, Mike, Exec. Dir., East Side Neighborhood Develop 
      Co., Inc...................................................  1131
    Anderson, Rev. Vernal G., Arlington Hills Lutheran Church....  1143
    Anfang, Dick, Exec. Sec. St. Paul Building and Const. Trades 
      Council....................................................  1119
    Ankner, William D., Dir. Rhode Island Department of 
      Transportation.............................................   285
    Arlington Hills Lutheran Church..............................  1143
    Arlington Hills Presbyterian Church, Minnesota...............  1125
    Association of Waste Hazardous Materials Transportation......   917
    Atkirs, Joseph, Mayor, City of Inver Grove Heights, MN.......  1166
    Auger, Lea, Exec Dir, Central Florida Regional Transp. 
      Authority..................................................    32
    Barnard, Marjorie, Phalen Village Business Association.......  1140
    Baumann, Bernard G., President, East Side Area Business 
      Association................................................  1142
    Bennett, Patrica, Mayor, Village of Biscayne Park, FL........   684
    Board of Ramsey County Commissioners.........................  1139
    Board of Supervisors of Kern County..........................   872
    Brengman, Rick, President, District Five Planning Council, MN  1134
    Brown, Kirk, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation   912
    Budzius, Chris, District Five Planning Council Representative  1135
    California...................................................   266
    California Resources Board...................................   872
    Carney, Michael, Chairman, Assoc of Waste Hazardous Materials 
      Transp.....................................................   917
    CENEX, Incorporated..........................................  1160
    Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority............    32
    Central Livestock Association, Inc...........................  1161
    Chafee, Lincoln D., Exec Dir, The National Corridors 
      Initiative.................................................   870
    Christiansen, Dr. Dennis L., Dep Dir, Texas Transportation 
      Institute..................................................  1074
    City of Baltimore, Maryland..................................   518
    City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota.............................   171
    City of Everett, Washington..................................  1220
    City of Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.......................  1166
    City of Newport, Minnesota...................................  1173
    City of North Miami, Florida.................................   685
    City of Saint Paul, Minnesota................................  1100
    City of Woodbury, Minnesota..................................  1168
    Clark, Les, Vice President, Independent Oil Producer's 
      Association................................................   872
    Coleman, Hon. Norm, Mayor, City of Saint Paul, Minnesota......1100, 
                                                                   1098
    Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance...........................   907
    Commissioner of Transportation, NJ Transit...................   844
    Connecticut Department of Transportation.....................   848
    Council member, Ward 7, City of St. Paul, Minnesota..........  1126
    County Engineer of St. Paul, Minnesota.......................  1165
    Couzzo, Michael R. Jr., Village Manager, Miami Shores 
      Village, FL................................................   691
    Crescent Electric Supply Company.............................  1138
    Cunha, Manuel Jr., President, NISEI Farmers League...........   872
    Dakota County Board of Commissioners.........................  1167
    Daly, John B, Senior Advisor to Governor George Pataki, New 
      York.......................................................   323
    Davidson, Jim, President, Larand International, Inc..........  1136
    Davis, James P.E., CEO, Amerian Society of Civil Engineers...   198
    DECA. Board..................................................    79
    Denzer, John D., Mayor, City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota.....   171
    Department of Planning & Economic Development................  1137
    District 5 Community Council.................................  1130
    District Five Planning Council Representative, Minnesota.....  1135
    District 17 of Pennsylvania..................................   653
    Division Engineer, Minnesota Department of Transportation....  1180
    Dougherty, Rumble & Butler, P.A..............................  1123
    East Side Area Business Association..........................  1142
    East Side Neighborhood Development Company, Inc..............  1131
    Economic Development, Northern Power.........................  1121
    Farrell, James P., Minnesota House of Representatives........  1116
    Feldman, Lee R., City Manager, City of North Miami, FL.......   685
    Filner, Hon. Bob, Representative from California.............   266
    Fossella, Hon. Vito, Representative from New York............   245
    Fredric R. Harris, Inc.......................................   183
    Gekas, Hon. George W., 17th District of Pennsylvania.........   653
    Georgia Department of Transportation.........................   767
    Geraghy, Hon. Timothy M., Mayor, City of Newport, Minnesota..  1172
    Gordon, Hon. Bart, Representative from Tennessee.............   435
    Gossman, George W., Citizen..................................  1162
    Grey Cloud Island Township, St. Paul, Minnesota..............  1169
    Guerin, Dino, Board of Ramsey County Commissioners...........  1139
    Haley, John J., Jr, Commissioner of Transportation NJ Transit
                                                               720, 844
    Hallman, Roger, District 5 Community Council.................  1130
    Hansen, Edward D., Mayor, City of Everett, WA................  1220
    Hargis, William J., Mayor, City of Woodbury, Minnesota.......  1168
    Harris, Harry, Connecticut Department of Transportation......   848
    Harris, Joseph A., Chair, Dakota County Board of 
      Commissioners..............................................  1167
    Hencier, Jody, President, Wakota Bridge Coalition............  1164
    Hmong American Partnership...................................  1118
    Holtzman, Sonny, Chairman, DECA..............................    79
    Howe, Wesley J., Professor of Trauma Surgery, UMD, of New 
      Jersey.....................................................   936
    Indiana......................................................   463
    Illinois Department of Transportation........................   912
    Independent Oil Producer's Association.......................   872
    Instate 5 Consortium.........................................   673
    Ivory, Francis, Exec Dir, Merrick Community Services.........  1144
    James, Hon. Sharpe, Mayor, Newark, NJ........................   279
    Jantzen, Jean, Vice President, CENEX, Inc....................  1160
    Johnson, Kenneth R, President, Port Authority, City of Saint 
      Paul.......................................................  1145
    Jones, Phyllis G., Private Citizen, St Paul, MN..............  1163
    Kampmeier, Donald G., President, Central Livestock Assoc., 
      Inc........................................................  1161
    Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E., Representative from Pennsylvania....   529
    Kelly, Randy C., State Senator from Minnesota................  1115
    Knollenberg, Hon. Joseph K., Representative from Michigan....   487
    Kenny, Michael P., Executive Officer, California Resources 
      Board......................................................   872
    Kingston, Tom, President, Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.......  1120
    Kirkwold, Paul L., Director and County Engineer, St. Paul, MN  1165
    Lantry, Kathy, Council member, Ward 7, City of St. Paul, MN..  1126
    Larand International, Inc....................................  1136
    Larsen, Peg, Chairman, Wakota Bridge Coalition, St. Paul, MN.  1176
    Lehman, Hon. William, Chairman, DECA Board...................    79
    Maher, Donald J., Chair, Dakota County Board of 
      Commissioners, MN..........................................  1147
    Marko Sharon, Minnesota State House of Representatives.......  1177
    Maryland.....................................................   513
    Maurer, Tom, Owner Parkside Lounge, St. Paul, MN.............  1141
    Mayor, Newark, New Jersey....................................   279
    Mendez, Michael, Chairman, Board of Directors, Interstate 5 
      Consort....................................................   673
    Merrick Community Services...................................  1144
    Metro Division Engineer, Minnesota Dept. of Transportation...  1146
    Miami Shores Village, Florida................................   691
    Michigan.....................................................   487
    Milbert, Bob, State Representative from Minnesota............  1178
    Minnesota....................................................  1177
    Minnesota House of Representatives...........................  1116
    Morgan, John E., Pastor, Arlington Hill Presbyterian Church, 
      MN.........................................................  1125
    Mullen-Clerk, Richard E., Grey Cloud Island Township, St. 
      Paul, MN...................................................  1169
    National Congress of American Indians........................   924
    National Laboratories Transportation Research Initiative.....   629
    New Jersey...................................................   664
    New York.....................................................   245
    NISEI Farmers League.........................................   872
    Nowlin, Dick, DOHERTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER, P.A..................  1123
    Ortega, Rafael, Commissioner, District 5, St. Paul, MN.......  1128
    Pallone, Hon. Frank, Representative from New Jersey..........   664
    Parkside Lounge, St. Paul, Minnesota.........................  1141
    Patrick, Barbara, Member, Board Supervisors of Kern County...   872
    Payne, Hon. Donald, Representative from New Jersey...........   279
    Pennsylvania.................................................   529
    Peterson, Myra, Washington County Board of Commissioners......1153, 
                                                                   1174
    Phalen Village Business Association..........................  1140
    Port Authority, City of Saint Paul, Minnesota................  1145
    Private Citizen..............................................  1162
    Private Citizen, St. Paul, Minnesota.........................  1163
    Pugh, Thomas, State Representative Minnesota.................  1178
    Reheis, Catherine H., Managing Coor. Western States Petroleum 
      Assoc......................................................   872
    Renstrom, Scott J., Private Citizen of Minnesota.............  1132
    Rhode Island Department of Transportation....................   285
    San Diego Association of Governors...........................  1056
    Schmid, Michael J., Area Manager, Crescent Electric Supply 
      Company....................................................  1138
    Schmoke, Hon. Kurt, Mayor, City of Baltimore, Maryland.......   518
    Senior Advisor to Governor George Pataski, New York..........   323
    Shackelford, Hon. Wayne, Commissioner Georgia DOT............   767
    Siggerud, Charles A., Division Engineer, Minnesota DOT.......  1180
    Sittlow, Barry, City Administrator, St. Paul, MN.............  1170
    Slawik, Nora, State Representative of Minnesota..............  1178
    Sproles, Max R., Chairman, Sr. Vice Pres., Fredric R. Harris, 
      Inc........................................................   183
    Stabler, Kenneth E., Manager, Economic Development, Northern 
      Power......................................................  1121
    Steenburg, Jack V., President, Commercial Vehicle Safety 
      Alliance...................................................   907
    Stehr, Richard A., Metro Division Engineer, Minnesota DOT....  1146
    St. Paul Building and Construction Trades Council............  1119
    Sulzer, Kenneth E., Executive Director, San Diego Assoc. of 
      Governors..................................................  1056
    Tennessee....................................................   435
    Texas Transportation Institute...............................  1074
    The National Corridors Initiative............................   870
    Trauma Surgery Department of New Jersey......................   936
    Trimble, Steve, State Representative from Minnesota..........  1178
    Trudeau, John F., Private Citizen............................  1127
    Vasko, Roger, Vasko Rubbish Removal and Recycling Systems....  1129
    Vasko Rubbish Removal and Recycling Systems..................  1129
    Village of Biscayne Park, Florida............................   684
    Visclosky, Hon. Peter J., Representative from Indiana........   463
    Wakota Bridge Coalition, St. Paul, Minnesota.................  1164
    Washington County Board of Commissioners.....................  1174
    Western States Petroleum Association.........................   872
    Wheelock, Pamela, Director, Dept. of Planning & Economic 
      Development................................................  1137
    Women Association of Hmong and Lao...........................  1117
    Wynn, Hon. Albert R., Representative from Maryland...........   513
    Yang, Ka Ying, Executive Director, Women Assoc. of Hmong and 
      Lao........................................................  1117
    Yang, William H., Executive Director, Hmong American 
      Partnership................................................  1118
    Yolitz, Craig, Chairman, Wakota Bridge Coalition.........1176, 1181
Federal Railroad Administration:
    American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association........   166
    Ankner, William D., Dir. Rhode Island Department of 
      Transportation.............................................   285
    Association of American Railroads............................  1087
    California...................................................   266
    Chafee, Lincoln D., Exec. Dir., The National Corridors 
      Initiative.................................................   870
    Christiansen, Dr. Dennis L., Dep. Dir., Texas Transportation 
      Institute..................................................  1074
    Dettmann, Charles E., Exec. Vice President, Assoc. of 
      American Railroads.........................................  1087
    Dietz, Robert, Chairman, High Speed Ground Transportation 
      Assoc......................................................  1031
    District 17 of Pennsylvania..................................   653
    Filner, Hon. Bob, Representative from California.............   266
    Forst, Bradley P., Vice President & General Counsel, Simula, 
      Inc........................................................  1078
    Frank, Hon. Barney, Representative of Congress...............   649
    Gekas, Hon. George W., 17th District of Pennsylvania.........   653
    High Speed Ground Transportation Association.................  1031
    Hunter, Hon. Duncan, Representative from California..........   575
    Loftus, William, President, American Short Line and Regional 
      R/R Assoc..................................................   166
    Matthews, Robert A., President, Railway Progress, Institute, 
      Inc........................................................   903
    Mayor of Sacramento, California..............................   679
    McGovern, Hon. James P., Representative from Massachusetts...   649
    New Jersey...................................................   279
    Payne, Hon. Donald, Representative from New Jersey...........   279
    RePass, James P., President and CEO, The National Corridors 
      Initiative.................................................   871
    Rhode Island Department of Transportation....................   285
    Serna, Hon. Joe, Mayor of Sacramento, California.............   679
    Simula, Incorporated.........................................  1078
    Smith, Hon. Robert, Chairman, The National Corridors 
      Initiative.................................................   871
    Texas Transportation Institute...............................  1074
    The National Corridors Initiative............................   870
Federal Transit Administration:
    American Public Transit Assoc. (APTA)........................   212
    American Society of Civil Engineers..........................   198
    Ankner, William D., Dir. Rhode Island Department of 
      Transportation.............................................   285
    APRC.........................................................   175
    Arizona......................................................     1
    Auger, Leo, Exec. Dir., Central Florida Regional Transp. 
      Authority..................................................    32
    Austin, Julie M., Exec. Dir., Foothill Transit, West Covina, 
      CA.........................................................   861
    Baltimore, MD................................................   518
    Bartosiewicz, John P., Gen. Manager, Ft. Worth Transportation 
      Authority..................................................   625
    Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, Representative from Oregon............   424
    Brown, Kirk, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation   912
    Burke, Julian, CEO, Los Angeles County Metro Transportation 
      Authority..................................................  1026
    Burke, Yvonne B., Vice Chair, MTA Board of Dir., Los Angeles 
      County.....................................................  1022
    Burton, Hon. Dan, Representative from Indiana................   620
    California.................................................266, 292
    Campbell, Hon. Tom, Representative from California...........   636
    Canady, Hon. Charles T., Representative from Florida.......637, 640
    Catz, Sarah L., Chairman, Orange County Transportation 
      Authority..................................................   296
    Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority............    32
    Chatham Area Transit Authority...............................   994
    Christiansen, Dr. Dennis L., Dep. Dir., Texas Transportation 
      Institute..................................................  1074
    City of Saint Paul, Minnesota................................  1098
    Clark, Les, Vice President, Independent Oil Producer's 
      Association................................................   872
    Coalition for a One Stop Terminal............................   894
    Coleman, Hon. Norm, Mayor, City of Saint Paul, Minnesota.....  1098
    Colorado.....................................................   669
    Connecticut Department of Transportation.....................   848
    Costello, Hon. Jerry F., Representative from Illinois........   642
    Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., Representative from Maryland.......   518
    Daly, John B., Senior Advisor to Governor George Pataki, New 
      York.......................................................   323
    Davis, Bill, Vice Chair, Southern California Regional Rail 
      Authority..................................................   354
    Davis, James P.E., CEO, American Society of Civil Engineers..   198
    Davis, Hon. Jim, Representative from Florida.................    89
    DECA.........................................................    79
    DeGette, Hon. Diana, Representative from Colorado............     6
    Dicks, Hon. Norm, Representative from Washington State.......   371
    Dietz, Robert, Chairman, High Speed Ground Transportation 
      Assoc......................................................  1031
    Drewel, Bob, Chairman of the Board, Puget Sound Regional 
      Transit....................................................   371
    Ebersole, Hon. Brian, Chairman of the Board of Directors, 
      Tacoma, WA.................................................   379
    Ensign, Hon. John E., Representative from Nevada.............   609
    Everett, WA..................................................  1220
    Fang, James, BART Board President............................  1329
    Filner, Hon. Bob, Representative from California.............   266
    Florida.................................................32, 79, 536
    Foothill Transit, West Covina, CA............................   861
    Ford, Hon. Harold, Jr., Representative from Tennessee........   429
    Ft. Worth Transportation Authority...........................   625
    Fowler, Hon. Tillie K., Representative from Florida..........   536
    Fox, Hon. Jon D., Representative from Pennsylvania...........   644
    Francis, Miles N. Jr., Exec Dir, Jacksonville Transportation 
      Auth.......................................................   990
    Frost, Hon. Martin, Representative from Texas..............466, 623
    Furse, Hon. Elizabeth, Representative from Oregon............   423
    Giuliano, Hon. Neil, Mayor, City of Tempe, Arizona...........     1
    Gordon, Hon. Bart, Representative from Tennessee.............   435
    Granger, Hon. Kay, Representative from Texas.................   623
    Greater Orlando Aviation Authority...........................    32
    GTE Northwest................................................  1224
    Guardino, Carl, President, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group  1007
    Haley, John J., Jr., Commissioner of Transportation, NJ 
      Transit..................................................720, 844
    Hall, Hon. Ralph M., Representative from Texas...............   446
    Hansen, Edward D., Mayor, City of Everett, WA................  1220
    Harris, Harry, Connecticut Department of Transportation......   848
    Hernandez, Martin, Organizer, Strategy Center and Bus Riders 
      Union......................................................   329
    High Speed Ground Transportation Assoc.......................  1031
    Hillsborough Regional Transit Authority......................    89
    Holtzman, Sonny, Chairman, DECA..............................    79
    Hooley, Hon. Darlene, Representative from Oregon.............   424
    Illinois Department of Transportation........................   912
    Independent Oil Producer's Association.......................   872
    Irwin, Thomas, Bi-State Development Agency...................  1333
    Jacksonville, FL.............................................   990
    James, Hon. Sharpe, Mayor, Newark, NJ........................   279
    Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, Representative from Texas.......   446
    Jones, Beverly, National Easter Seal Society.................   797
    Judge, Patrick R., President, Louisiana Public Transit Assoc.   963
    Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E., Representative from Pennsylvania....   529
    Kellejian, Joe, Chairman, N. San Diego County Transit Develop 
      Board......................................................   787
    Kennedy, Hon. Joseph P. II, Representative from Massachusetts   657
    Kimball, Kim, Executive Director, Tidewater Transportation 
      District Com...............................................   501
    King, Hon. Peter T., Representative from New York............   660
    Lansing, Scott, Executive Director, Chatham Area Transit 
      Authority..................................................   994
    Lehman, Hon. William, Chairman, DECA Board...................    79
    Los Angeles County Metro Transportation Authority........1019, 1026
    Louisiana Public Transit Assoc...............................   963
    Luecke, Hon. Stephen, Mayor of South Bend, Indiana...........   467
    Manning, Valerie, President and CEO, Phoenix Chamber of 
      Commerce...................................................     1
    Maryland...................................................507, 513
    Massachusetts................................................   657
    Maull, Perry, Transit Director, Regional Transit System......    89
    McCollum, Hon. Bill, Representative from Florida.............    32
    McKeon, Hon. Howard P., Representative from California.......   292
    Mechanik, Dave, Chairman, Hillsborough Regional Transit 
      Authority..................................................    89
    Mendelson, Glenn P., Treasurer, Coalition for a One Stop 
      Terminal...................................................   894
    Metro Transit Authority of Harris County.....................   996
    Miami Beach, FL..............................................    79
    Miami-Dade County, FL........................................   693
    Mica, Hon. John L., Representative from Florida..............    32
    Millar, Robert, Chairman, Metro Transit Authority of Harris 
      County.....................................................   996
    Millar, William W., President, American Public Transit Assoc. 
      (APTA).....................................................   212
    Missouri/Illinois Light Rail Project.........................  1333
    Morella, Hon. Constance A., Representative from Maryland.....   507
    MTA Board of Directors, Los Angeles County...................  1022
    National Easter Seal Society.................................   797
    Nevada.....................................................609, 623
    Newark, NJ...................................................   279
    New Jersey.................................................664, 279
    New Jersey Transit.........................................720, 844
    New York.....................................................   239
    Odum, Eileen O'Neill, Regional President GTE Northwest.......  1224
    Oregon.....................................................423, 424
    Orange County Transportation Authority.......................   296
    Pennsylvania.................................................   644
    Pallone, Hon. Frank, Representative from New Jersey..........   664
    Parcells, Harriet, Executive Director, APRC..................   175
    Payne, Hon. Donald, Representative from New Jersey...........   279
    Penelas, Hon. Alex, Mayor, Miami-Dade County, Florida........   693
    Pennsylvania.................................................   529
    Pesquera Carlos L., Secretary, Puerto Rico DOT...............  1208
    Phoenix Chamber of Commerce..................................     1
    Pickett, Hon. Owen, Representative from Virginia.............   495
    Port Authority of Allegheny Co...............................   977
    Powers, Charlotte, Santa Clara Valley Transportation 
      Authority..................................................  1009
    Puerto Rico DOT..............................................  1208
    Puget Sound Regional Transit.................................   371
    Quinn, Hon. Jack, Representative from New York...............   239
    Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nevada...   611
    Regional Transit System......................................    89
    Regional Transit Authority, New Orleans......................   949
    Representative from California...............................   636
    Representative from Colorado.................................     6
    Representative from Florida..................................   637
    Representative from Illinois.................................   642
    Representative from Indiana..................................   620
    Representative from Maryland.................................   518
    Representative from Oregon...................................   424
    Representative from Washington State.........................   371
    Rhode Island.................................................   254
    Rhode Island Department of Transportation....................   285
    Riordan, Hon. Richard J., Los Angeles County Metro 
      Transportation Authority...................................  1019
    Robinson, Pilka, Sacramento Regional Transit District........   676
    Roemer, Hon. Tim, Representative from Indiana................   469
    Sacramento, CA...............................................   679
    Sacramento Regional Transit District.........................   676
    San Diego County Transit Development Board...................   787
    San Diego Metro Transit Devel. Board.........................   723
    San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District................  1329
    Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority..................  1009
    Schaefer, Hon. Dan, Representative from Colorado.............   669
    Schmoke, Hon. Kurt, Mayor, City of Baltimore Maryland........   518
    Scott, Hon. Robert C. (Bobby) Representative from Virginia...   495
    Senior Advisory to Governor George Pataki, New York..........   323
    Serna, Hon. Joe, Mayor of Sacramento, California.............   679
    Sessions, Hon. Pete, Representative from Texas...............   446
    Shaw, Hon. E. Clay, Jr., Representative from Florida.........    79
    Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group...........................  1007
    Skoutelas, Paul P., Executive Director, Port Authority of 
      Allegheny Co...............................................   977
    Smith, Hon. Adam, Representative from Washington.............   379
    Smith, Hon. Jose, Vice Mayor, City of Miami Beach, Florida...    79
    Smith, Hon. Robert, Chairman, The National Corridors 
      Initiative.................................................   871
    South Bend, IN...............................................   467
    Southern California Regional Rail Authority..................   354
    Strategy Center and Bus Riders Union.........................   329
    Takoma, WA...................................................   379
    Tennessee..................................................429, 435
    Texas........................................................   446
    Texas Transportation Institute...............................  1074
    The National Corridors Initiative............................   871
    Tidewater Transportation District Commission.................   501
    Tillietson, John, Director, Greater Orlando Aviation 
      Authority..................................................    32
    Townes, Michael S., Chairman, Transit Development Commission.   985
    Transit Development Commission...............................   985
    Tucker, Robert H., Chairman, Regional Transit Authority, New 
      Orleans....................................................   949
    Virginia.....................................................   495
    Washington...................................................   379
    Weygand, Hon. Bob, Representative from Rhode Island..........   254
    Williams, Leon, Chairman, San Diego Metro Transit Develop 
      Board......................................................   723
    Wynn, Hon, Albert R., Representative from Maryland...........   513
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
    Chamion, Dr. Howard R., MD, Pres. Coalition for American 
      Trauma Care................................................   109
    Coalition for American Trauma Care...........................   109
    Howe, Wesley J., Professor of Trauma Surgery, UMD, of New 
      Jersey.....................................................   936
    Knollenberg, Hon. Joseph, Representative from Michigan.......   487
    Siegel, John H., M.D., University of Medicine & Dentistry of 
      NJ.........................................................   936
    Trauma Surgery Department, UMD, of New Jersey................   936
    University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.............   936
United States Coast Guard:
    American Shipbuilding Assoc..................................   727
    Barnes, Joe, MCPO (Ret.), Fleet Reserve Association..........   757
    Becker, Fred R., Jr., USN (Ret.), Dir Nav Affairs, Reserve 
      Off Assoc..................................................   734
    Boat/U.S.....................................................   843
    Brogdon, William J., Jr., President, International Loran 
      Assoc......................................................   827
    Brown, Cynthia L., President, American Shipbuilding Assoc....   727
    Dickinson, Elaine, Asst Vice President, Boat/U.S.............   843
    Duggan, Dennis, Asst Director, The American Legion.........540, 571
    Fleet Reserve Association....................................   757
    Fossell, Hon. Vito, Representative from New York.............   245
    Georgia DOT..................................................   767
    Huhn, S. Peter, Director of Legislative Affairs, The Navy 
      League.....................................................   540
    International Loran Assoc....................................   827
    Michigan.....................................................   491
    Navy League, The.............................................   540
    New York.....................................................   245
    Non Commissioned Officers Association........................   540
    Ouellette, Michael F., Non Commissioned Officers Association.   540
    Reserve Officers Assocition..................................   734
    Shackelford, Hon. Wayne, Commissioner Georgia DOT............   767
    Stupak, Hon. Bart, Representative from Michigan..............   491
    Utah.........................................................   728
    Woolley, Ted, Boating Law Administrator Utah.................   728
Research and Special Programs Administration:
    Christiansen, Dr. Dennis L., Dep Dir, Texas Transportation 
      Institute..................................................  1074
    Texas Transportation Institute...............................  1074
AMTRAK:
    Ankner, William D., Dir. Rhode Island Department of 
      Transportation.............................................   285
    APRC.........................................................   175
    Brown, Kirk, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation   912
    Capon, Ross B., Exec Dir, National Assoc of Railroad 
      Passengers.................................................   940
    Chafee, Lincoln D., Exec Dir, The National Corridors 
      Initiative.................................................   870
    Daly, John B., Senior Advisor to Governor George Pataki, New 
      York.......................................................   323
    City of Everett, WA..........................................  1220
    Frank, Hon. Barney, Representative from Massachusetts........   649
    Hansen, Edward D., Mayor, City of Everett, WA................  1220
    Illinois Department of Transportation........................   912
    James, Hon. Sharpe, Mayor, Newark, NJ........................   279
    Kennedy, Hon. Joseph P. II, Senator from Mass................   657
    Luecke, Hon. Stephen, Mayor of South Bend, Indiana...........   467
    Massachusetts................................................   657
    Matthews, Robert A., President, Railway Progress, Institute, 
      Inc........................................................   903
    McGovern, Hon. James P., Representative from Massachusetts...   649
    National Assoc of Railroad Passengers........................   940
    The National Corridors Initiative............................   870
    New York.....................................................   323
    Parcells, Harriet, Executive Director, APRC..................   175
    Payne Hon. Donald, Representative from New Jersey............   279
    Railway Progress, Institute, Inc.............................   903
    RePass, James P., President and CEO, The National Corridors 
      Initiative.................................................   871
    Rhode Island Department of Transportation....................   285
    Sacramento, California.......................................   679
    Serna, Hon. Joe, Mayor of Sacramento, California.............   679
    Smith, Hon. Robert, Chairman, The National Corridors 
      Initiative.................................................   871
    South Bend, Indiana..........................................   467
Transportation Issues:
    American Foundation for the Blind............................  1061
    Dinsmore, Alan, Senior Rep. American Foundation for the Blind  1061