[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND

                    RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

                                FOR 2002

_______________________________________________________________________

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
                              FIRST SESSION
                                ________
 SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                             APPROPRIATIONS

                    HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
 FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia        MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
 TOM DeLAY, Texas               JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama        ED PASTOR, Arizona
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas            CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama    JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 KAY GRANGER, Texas             JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
 JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York          
                                    

 NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, 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.
 Richard E. Efford, Stephanie K. Gupta, Cheryle R. Tucker, and Linda J. 
                        Muir, Subcommittee Staff
                                ________
                                 PART 4

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
                                                                   Page

   Federal Highway Administration................................. 1041
   Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration....................  873
   Federal Transit Administration.................................    1
   National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.................  597
 Federal Transit Capital Projects.................................   35

                              

                                ________
         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 77-260                     WASHINGTON : 2002

                                  COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

 RALPH REGULA, Ohio                   DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
 JERRY LEWIS, California              JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky              NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
 JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
 FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia              STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
 TOM DeLAY, Texas                     ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
 JIM KOLBE, Arizona                   MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama              NANCY PELOSI, California
 JAMES T. WALSH, New York             PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina    NITA M. LOWEY, New York
 DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma      ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
 HENRY BONILLA, Texas                 JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan            JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 DAN MILLER, Florida                  ED PASTOR, Arizona
 JACK KINGSTON, Georgia               CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,           ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
Washington                             Alabama
 RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,           PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
California                            JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                  MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
 ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                 LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa                     SAM FARR, California
 ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky            JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama          CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri             ALLEN BOYD, Florida
 JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire        CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
 KAY GRANGER, Texas                   STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
 JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
 JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
 RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
 JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York
 DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
 DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
   
 VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia     
                                    
                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                  (ii)


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                                  2002

                              ----------                              --
--------

                                          Thursday, March 29, 2001.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                                WITNESS

HIRAM WALKER, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT 
    ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Rogers. Good morning. I apologize for being tardy. The 
other Subcommittee I am on which appropriates the funds for the 
Supreme Court, held a hearing this morning, and the Supreme 
Court wanted to chat a little while about their budget.
    Our witness this morning is Hiram Walker, the acting deputy 
administrator for the Federal Transit Administration. This 
hearing is its first of two we will hold today on transit 
funding, oversight and special light rail projects. This 
morning the Committee will hear from the administration. This 
afternoon, we will hear from two transit projects that have 
unusually high per mile rider costs and have experienced 
significant challenges recently.
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, TEA-21, 
placed transit programs in an enviable position. TEA-21 amended 
the Budget Act to create a new category for transit spending 
which is guaranteed. Besides Social Security and highways, no 
other program within the Federal budget receives this kind of 
special treatment.
    TEA-21 also provided FTA with a significant increase in 
funding. For example, in 1997, transit programs received $4.8 
billion. In fiscal year 2001, these programs received $6.2 
billion, a 30 percent increase in just 4 years.
    The capital programs, those that fund light rail and bus 
projects, did even better over this 4-year period, receiving a 
37 percent increase.
    Last year the Inspector General's office testified that in 
the past, the FTA acted like a religious institution. It gave 
out money and prayed that it was used as intended. 
Unfortunately, as the Committee has observed over the years, 
there was little, if any, divine intervention. At that time, 
the GAO noted that the transit programs had a propensity for 
fraud, waste and abuse, and placed the FTA on the government's 
high risk list because of the agency lacking effective internal 
controls on its investments.
    To the FTA's credit, it implemented limited projected and 
financial management activities and improved its oversight and 
the GAO removed FTA from its high risk list, but that should 
not have been a signal to the FTA to let its guard down, to 
rest on its laurels. Recent actions by the Administration 
concern me a great deal and suggest to me that the FTA is not 
performing its fiduciary responsibilities on behalf of the 
American taxpayers.
    I wonder aloud today if FTA has reverted to its former 
self, hoping and praying that nothing goes wrong on these 
transit projects, and doing little on the front end to analyze 
and review, for that matter, scrutinize with a critical eye, 
the distance, financial documents, ridership estimates and 
other data that underpin these large transportation investments 
before committing billions in taxpayer dollars.
    Case in point: I am deeply troubled and disturbed by 
actions the Federal Transit Administration took in January of 
this year when it hurriedly signed, before the previous 
administration left office, four full funding grant agreements 
in the waning days, waning hours even, of the last 
administration. One particular project, sound transit in 
Seattle, which I believe is the largest and most costly transit 
project underway today, experienced a $1 billion cost increase 
and a 3-year schedule delay just since September 2000 when FTA 
initially proposed a full funding grant agreement for the 
project. Yet in January, FTA still advocated, and the previous 
Secretary signed a full funding grant agreement, just hours 
after the project's new financial plan was approved by the 
local governing board.
    Clearly, little or no FTA review of the material changes in 
this project could have occurred in the intermittent hours 
before the FTA committed $500 million in Federal funds to this 
projects.
    Moreover, career officials of the FTA told this Committee 
in January that it was not obligated nor had felt compelled to 
inform the Committee in January that it was not obligated, nor 
felt compelled to inform the Committee on these cost increases, 
the schedule slippages, or transmit to the Committee the new 
transit plan, and it did not. Rather, the Committee learned of 
these significant issues by just happening to read the 
newspapers.
    The same FTA career official also stated that the questions 
asked and directives made by the Committee were micromanaging 
this agency. It goes without saying, there was absolutely no 
congressional review, as required, of the modified costs and 
schedule for this project before the full funding grant 
agreement was executed, and there was little, if any, critical 
oversight performed by the FTA. That action is unconscionable 
and will not be tolerated.
    If there is no one at the Federal Transit Administration 
able to manage properly the portfolio of billions of dollars of 
transit projects, and if there is no one to do that, then I 
guess we will have to.
    While sound transit is the most troubling project, there 
are other major projects that are over budget and behind 
schedule. We will hear from another project that fits that 
description this afternoon, Tren Urbano, but there are others. 
Even though transit funding is guaranteed, I will insure it is 
spent wisely on those projects that best address this country's 
transportation problems, have the most riders, and are the most 
cost effective. In fact, I spent an hour with the Secretary 
yesterday afternoon in my office talking about this very 
subject, and we will talk further.
    Just because this program gets what I call a ``free ride'' 
in the budget process, guaranteed monies, it will not get a 
``freeride'' from this Committee's oversight. This Committee 
will not watch the FTA pour taxpayer funds down the drain without 
checking it first. It is up to you, Mr. Walker, to assure us that 
taxpayers' funds are being spent on the most meritorious transit 
investments and to alert us to problems that these projects are 
experiencing.
    When your office fails to do this, we will make the 
difficult decisions for you, and that will not be a pleasant 
experience for you.
    Mr. Sabo?

                 FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR MINNESOTA PROJECTS

    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just make a 
couple of comments. All of us have different experiences, and 
mine, Mr. Chairman, is a little bit more positive for the 
agency.
    I watched the agency over the last several years since we 
have gone through the process in Minnesota, much smaller than 
some others, in a project being done for the first time, and 
what one discovers is transit projects are different from other 
projects in terms of relationship with the Federal Government.
    My experience was that the FTA was encouraging, helpful, 
but still firm, and it is not an easy combination to do both at 
the same time, to try to be helpful and to move a project 
along, but still to insert one's self in a very firm fashion at 
times to say to the local governments, now, here are things you 
have to do.
    My observation over the last several years is that process 
moved along. I thought the agency did a good job in combining 
being of assistance and still firm as to how things should be 
done.
    I have to say that as I look to the future, I continue to 
have concerns about the incredible pipeline that we have of 
transit projects. I am one who thinks that we need to readjust 
the Federal share on projects if we are going to meet the 
demands, unless there is some huge infusion of new money, which 
I don't see coming in any budget scenario.
    So I will be concerned, I know the Chair is concerned about 
that pipeline, and I share that concern, because I see us 
having many good projects out waiting, and if we continue to 
put very high amounts of money into some, there is simply not 
going to be money left for other projects. I am not sure that 
is a question that you can respond to. It probably is dependent 
on the new administrator to take a look at. But I think it is a 
serious problem that we have before us.
    If we are not careful, we are going to have simply a few 
projects get funded, and lots of other projects that are also 
very good left on the sidelines with no Federal participation, 
and in my judgment, that is not fair.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                          FTA Opening Remarks

    Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you. Now, Mr. Walker, we are 
anxious to hear your summary of your written statement. We will 
enter your written statement in the record. You are welcome to 
summarize for us.
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 
be here today to talk about the Federal Transit 
Administration's programs, and particularly about our major 
capital investment program, focusing on commitment authority 
and oversight. I would like to summarize my statement, and have 
the entire statement placed in the record.
    Mr. Rogers. Without objection.

                        TRANSIT RIDERSHIP GROWTH

    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, this is a time of unprecedented 
strength in the transit industry. Transit passengers traveled 
over 45 billion miles in calendar year 2000, up from 43 billion 
in 1999, the highest since the start of the Federal Transit 
Assistance Program in 1964. Utilization has grown steadily 
since 1993, at a rate of about 3 percent per year, and is 
growing a little faster than urban highway passenger miles, so 
transit continues to increase its market share, even though it 
is a very small part of the total.
    Transit New Start projects around the country support the 
growing demand for transit service. Thirty-one light, heavy and 
commuter rail systems, nationwide, have been constructed or 
extended with Federal transit assistance since the Federal 
program began. As Mr. Sabo said, there are 26 New Start 
projects currently being built with Federal funding and two 
pending. We are now tracking 40 projects in either preliminary 
engineering or final design, and are aware of over 100 corridor 
studies around the country in which New Start investments are 
being considered.

                       MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

    Now let me turn to the primary focus of today's hearings, 
our major capital investment program. Under TEA-21, we were 
required for the first time to assign a summary rating to each 
New Start. In December 2000, we issued a final rule 
implementing these provisions. This rule was originally 
scheduled to go into effect on February 5, 2001. Together with 
all pending rules, the effective date was stayed for 60 days, 
in this case until April 6, 2001. The rule should go into 
effect on that date, as published in December.
    Ratings in our upcoming New Starts report will form the 
basis for our recommendations for funding for fiscal year 2002. 
In addition, we have further tightened our readiness criteria, 
looking only at projects that were already in final design.
    Now let me take a few moments to describe the current 
status of the commitment authority. Based on TEA-21 and the 
actions included in last year's Appropriations Act, we have 
nearly $10 billion available for commitment. As outlined in 
more detail in my written statement, once we take account of 
existing commitments and the FY 2001 Appropriations Act, and 
before we make our proposals in the FY 2002 budget, we have 
$677 million in commitment authority remaining.
    Now let me turn to the process of projects management 
oversight. We have put significant resources into our oversight 
function. Nearly 2 years ago we reorganized our program 
management office, creating a new office of engineering within 
it to highlight the importance we believe this function should 
have. Also, we have strengthened our financial management 
oversight efforts.
    Our proactive approach to project management oversight 
seeks to have projects proceed in a problem-avoidance mode, 
rather than in an after-the-fact problem resolution mode. When 
those inevitable problems do arise, however, I believe we have 
been prompt in identifying them, and requiring action by the 
project sponsors to deal with them. For example, we identified 
issues of cost increases and time delays in the projects in 
Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Juan. We required 
recovery plans and have required local agencies to commit 
additional resources from other than the New Starts programs to 
cover cost increases.
    Obviously, we do not like to see such increases in costs, 
and, in fact, I believe that we have a very good track record 
in bringing projects in on time and on, or under, budget in 
most cases. Other than the examples I mentioned, projects on 
average have come in within 2 percent of the cost estimatedwhen 
the FFGA was signed, and on average 2 months early.
    While I believe our oversight program is working well, 
clearly there is always room for improvement in any program. 
Indeed, the DOT Inspector General cited the increase in the 
number of active FFGA's in recent years. They highlighted the 
fact that because FTA's oversight is funded by a fixed 
percentage of New Starts appropriations, the increased number 
of projects has the effect of decreasing the oversight on each 
individual project.
    The OIG concluded that this situation has resulted in 
oversight funding being severely stretched to cover all the 
approved, pending and proposed grant agreements. The General 
Accounting Office has made similar observations about FTA's 
oversight activities.
    We agree with the observations of the IG and GAO. In our 
forthcoming FY 2002 budget justifications, we will be 
responding to these concerns and to the request included in the 
FY 2001 appropriations report for a plan on how to deal with 
the need for additional oversight resources.
    Again, I would like to thank the committee for the 
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our program, 
and particularly major capital projects. We will continue to 
make improvements in the process to select project for 
recommended funding and in the management of them once 
underway.
    That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 
questions you may have on these projects.
    [The prepared statement and biography of Hiram Walker 
follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Rogers. Thank you for your statement. When do you 
anticipate, or do you have any idea about when a permanent 
director will be named?
    Mr. Walker. We are so far down on the list that I have no 
hope for the immediate future.
    Mr. Rogers. That is pretty bleak.
    Mr. Walker. It is.

                       SEATTLE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT

    Mr. Rogers. Well, let me turn to Seattle. According to the 
FTA's grant agreement, no outstanding issues should remain at 
the time when a full funding grant agreement is executed, is 
that correct?
    Mr. Walker. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, that certainly was not the case in 
Seattle. Do you agree?
    Mr. Walker. I agree. Some issues did crop up after we sent 
the 60-day letter to the Congress.
    Mr. Rogers. Why was there this God-awful pressure to sign 
Seattle in the last hours of Secretary Slater's administration, 
knowing that there was split community support for it, that the 
cost overrun was $1 billion, at least, and 3 years behind 
schedule, and yet they insisted upon signing this agreement? 
Why was that so?
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, the sound transit board acted on 
the new baseline cost estimate on January 11, and that is the 
same day that we received a letter from you asking us to delay 
for 30 days before executing that full funding grant agreement.
    As a career official, I felt that I should abide by your 
concerns. However, if the Department wanted to go ahead and 
execute that full funding grant agreement, they had the full 
right to do so. So my feeling was that we should not have done 
it, we should have allowed the 30 days to review the project. 
However, the political leadership decided that they would go 
ahead and execute that full funding grant agreement.
    Mr. Rogers. In the full face of opposition from you, the 
career official, and from the Chairman of the Subcommittee that 
funds the projects, they insisted on going ahead.
    Mr. Walker. They went ahead.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, you tried to convince them not to, didn't 
you?
    Mr. Walker. Well, I told them I was a reluctant participant 
in the process.
    Mr. Rogers. You didn't even sign the paper, did you?
    Mr. Walker. I did not.

    Mr. Rogers. Who made the decision not to inform Congress of 
the new cost information prior to Secretary Slater signing this 
FFGA?
    [The information follows:]
    Former Secretary Slater made the decision to execute the 
FFGA for the Seattle MOS-1 project, fully aware of the new cost 
information, and he executed the FFGA on January 19, 2001.
    Prior to former Secretary Slater's execution of the FFGA, 
FTA staff briefed staff of the House and Senate Transportation 
Appropriations subcommittees, the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Senate Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs regarding the increased 
costs of the project. Although the costs of the project had 
increased, there was no change in the scope of work under the 
FFGA from that set forth in the draft FFGA submitted to the 
congressional committees in September 2000; nor was there any 
change in the alignment or number or location of stations, the 
number of rail cars to be produced, or the Federal commitment 
of $500 million in Section 5309 new starts funds for the 
project. Thus, the essential terms and conditions of the FFGA 
executed on January 19, 2001, were identical to those set forth 
in the draft FFGA submitted to the congressional committees in 
September 2000.

    Mr. Rogers. Now, the Secretary signed this agreement, did 
he not?
    Mr. Walker. Yes, he did.
    Mr. Rogers. Is that routine?
    Mr. Walker. That is not routine, but the Secretary in the 
past has signed the full funding grant agreements.
    Mr. Rogers. But it is very rare?
    Mr. Walker. It is very rare.
    Mr. Rogers. Why did he sign it instead of somebody else?
    Mr. Walker. Well, there weren't too many of the political 
leadership still remaining.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, why didn't you sign it?
    Mr. Walker. I didn't think that I as a career official 
should sign that document in the light of having the January 
11th letter from you. However, had the Secretary instructed me 
to sign it, I would have signed it.
    Mr. Rogers. Did you put your objections into writing at any 
time?
    Mr. Walker. No, I did not.
    Mr. Rogers. Why not?
    Mr. Walker. Well, I am not going to object to what the 
Secretary wants to do.
    Mr. Rogers. Oh? I thought we paid you to guard the 
taxpayers' funds.
    Mr. Walker. I did make clear verbally that I did not think 
we should go forward with the full funding agreement.
    Mr. Rogers. But you didn't write that down?
    Mr. Walker. No, I did not.
    Mr. Rogers. And you stood by while they signed an agreement 
that you knew to be premature, correct?
    Mr. Walker. They signed the agreement, and I had no 
authority to stop that.

                        SEATTLE LIGHT RAIL COSTS

    Mr. Rogers. Yes. Recent press reports tell us that the 
total cost of this project has grown from $3.6 billion to $4.16 
billion, excluding costs associated with hazardous materials 
mitigation, debt payments related to the busway, potential 
lawsuits, utility relocation and further alignment changes.
    What do you guess the cost of this project is today?
    Mr. Walker. The project that we are focusing on is what we 
call MOS-1, minimum operable segments, that runs from the 
University of Seattle south of downtown. That is the project 
that the cost went from $1.6 billion to $2.6 billion. That is 
the project we focused on and the project that is the subject 
of the full funding grant agreement.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, some of these are in MOS-1.
    Mr. Walker. Some of them probably are. I have not heard of 
any hazardous materials mitigation. I am not aware of that.
    Mr. Rogers. The busway is in MOS-1, some of the lawsuits, 
the utilities.
    Mr. Walker. The tunnel is in MOS-1.
    Mr. Rogers. And you can't tell us what the estimated cost 
is now?
    Mr. Walker. The estimated cost now is $2.6 billion.
    Mr. Rogers. $2.6 billion.
    Mr. Walker. Right, for the MOS.
    Mr. Rogers. And what about the whole project?
    Mr. Walker. The entire project was $3.6 at one time, but 
our concern is the MOS, which we have signed the full funding 
grant agreement for.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, my concern is the whole project. How much 
is the whole project?
    Mr. Walker. The locally preferred alternative, which is 
about 23 miles, which runs from the university to Sea-Tac 
Airport, was last estimated at about $3.6 billion. We have not 
checked into those costs.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, some of the local transit people there 
tell us, and the newspapers out there tell us, that the cost 
has grown to $4.16 billion. Are you familiar with that?
    Mr. Walker. I am not.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, you know we are not going to do another 
``Big Dig,'' don't you?
    Mr. Walker. I do know that, Mr. Chairman. I do not intend 
to participate in a ``Big Dig'' in Seattle.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we are wondering. Does awarding the full 
funding grant agreement for the first segment imply that they 
will receive an agreement for the subsequent segments?
    Mr. Walker. No, it does not, and we have been very clear to 
sound transit that we are not committed to anything beyond MOS-
1, and if they are to get any further commitment, they will 
have to go through the process like everybody else, get it 
included in the next authorization, get in line for a rating, 
just as all other New Starts will have to do. We have not 
committed to the $931 million that they say they would like to 
get for the remaining part of the project.

                        FULL FUNDING COMMITMENT

    Mr. Rogers. Now, when communities and/or States sign full 
funding grant agreements with the FTA, the Federal Government, 
the States and localities are bound by that document to 
complete that project, regardless of what the Federal 
Government later does; is that correct?
    Mr. Walker. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. And, of course, the Federal funding agreement 
does not bind the Congress to come up with the monies to 
fulfill the agreement that you signed, is that correct?
    Mr. Walker. That is correct. The full funding grant 
agreements clearly state that it is subject to appropriations 
by Congress.
    Mr. Rogers. And in this case the appropriations would have 
to come over several years in installments, one year at a time, 
correct?
    Mr. Walker. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. But do the communities realize when they sign 
that agreement with the FTA that they are hooked, but that you 
are not?
    Mr. Walker. They should understand that, because it is very 
clear in the agreement.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, in the case of Seattle and these others 
that were signed in a hurry just before Secretary Slater turned 
out the lights in his office, these four cities are now 
obligated, including Seattle, regardless of what we do, to 
spend their dollars to finish this project, and we are not. Is 
that a fair situation?
    Mr. Walker. That is, but the Congress has generally honored 
commitments that the Federal Government has made. Something 
that concerns me is that Congress generally honors about 85 
percent of what we recommend in our New Starts report, but they 
do not appropriate all of what we recommend. What has happened 
in recent years, we have experienced a shortfalls. Through 2001 
a total of $429 million has not been appropriated by Congress 
for these projects under existing FFGAs. That is a concern of 
mine.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Sabo?
    Mr. Sabo. Just so I understand, the increased costs in 
Seattle on the project that a full funding agreement was signed 
on, of the increased cost, is any of that Federal obligation?
    Mr. Walker. No, it is not. We are committed to only $500 
million.

                      FEDERAL SHARE FOR NEW STARTS

    Mr. Sabo. Back to your evaluation of New Starts, has the 
agency ever told a local community, ``we think you have a good 
application, but we think your requested share of Federal 
funding is too high, please go back?''.
    Mr. Walker. We have done that, and if you look at the 
average Federal-local share amount for all FFGA's we are 
dealing with now, it is about 50 percent.
    Mr. Sabo. I know. But some are substantially higher.
    Mr. Walker. Some project sponsors have more influence than 
others.
    Mr. Sabo. It has nothing to do with the fiscal capacity, 
does it?
    Mr. Walker. It does, to some extent, because if they have 
done their finance plan and they are dependent upon that amount 
of money to get it done, we will consider a higher than a 50 
percent share. But we try to keep all of them as close to 50 
percent as we can.
    As I said, the average is actually 49 percent.
    Mr. Sabo. The average doesn't tell one much. Many of those 
are extensions of existing projects. How do you measure fiscal 
capacity? My observation is that the local share people end up 
with is primarily determined by what they ask for, not by any 
measurement of fiscal capacity. The braver someone is, the more 
they get.
    Mr. Walker. I am not sure that is true. I really don't want 
to get into why they get what they get, but we have tried to 
work to achieve the lowest federal share possible.
    Mr. Sabo. This is something that the administrator has to 
deal with.
    Mr. Walker. That is correct. He or she will have to deal 
with it.
    Mr. Sabo. That I understand. But I am often told that part 
of the problem of reducing the share is it will hurt poor 
communities. I might be sympathetic if I saw any evidence that 
that was the case, but my observation is that it is rarely 
related to the fiscal capacity of the State or the local 
community.
    Mr. Chairman, there are other folks waiting, and I will 
yield.
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Sabo, before you do, I was just looking at 
the Hiawatha Corridor, and it is 49 percent.
    Mr. Sabo. I think we are hopefully up to 55 now.
    Mr. Walker. That is including other sources of Federal 
funding.
    Mr. Sabo. But, frankly, I had been urging them to stay 
around 50, and I looked at lots of other folks come in 
substantially higher that I thought had equal or greater 
capacity than we had, and that why we pursued increasing the 
Federal share by apportion last year and were successful. But I 
still watch other communities come in with much higher Federal 
share, and I have no sense that they have less capacity to pay 
more locally.
    I will leave it at that.

                     REPROGRAMMING NEW STARTS FUNDS

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Sweeney.
    Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walker, welcome. 
I want to try to circle around and gain some perspective.
    Given the Seattle experience and the cost overruns, and I 
am sure Seattle is not unique or alone anyway in that, I have a 
simple question, and it is basically how quickly can you 
reprogram those dollars, and I am not saying Seattle 
specifically, I am saying in any project you are experiencing 
cost overruns or there is poor community support, how quickly 
can you reprogram those dollars and redirect them to projects 
that are more worthy, and have you ever done that?
    Mr. Walker. Congress has actually reprogrammed money for 
projects that did not go forward. Orlando is a case in point, 
where the local officials decided not to go forward with the 
project.
    Mr. Sweeney. Okay. Tell me that process.
    Mr. Walker. In the case of Orlando, there were unobligated 
funds and there were also obligated funds that had not been 
expended, we deobligated the obligated funds and then put all 
the funds together and then Congress reprogrammed the funds.
    Mr. Sweeney. That was done administratively and then 
Congress acted?
    Mr. Walker. Right.

                     NEW YORK RIDERSHIP VS DOLLARS

    Mr. Sweeney. Kind of switching gears a little bit, you 
mentioned the increase in ridership. As I understand it, of 
that increase half of it--and I represent upstate New York so 
this is not a parochial question per se, but it will help me 
understand what is happening a little bit--of that increase, 
about half of it occurs in New York City, is that correct?
    Mr. Walker. Governor Pataki told the Secretary that a quite 
a bit of it occurred in New York City.
    Mr. Sweeney. You dispute those numbers?
    Mr. Walker. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Sweeney. 33 percent of subway ridership in the country 
occurs in New York City, I am told, as well?
    Mr. Walker. The ridership in New York City has gone up from 
5.2 million to 7.8 million a day in the past 6 years. It is an 
incredible growth in New York City.
    Mr. Sweeney. And while it is only reflected in about 14 
percent of the Federal dollars, is that correct, as well?
    Mr. Walker. I am sure you are right on that. I don't know 
the exact amount, but New York City does not get the proportion 
to the proportion of ridership that they have.

                           NEW YORK PROJECTS

    Mr. Sweeney. The State received guaranteed authorizations 
under TEA-21 for a number of New Start projects, and I am told 
the largest was $353 million for the Long Island Railroad's 
side access projects. To date, the State has only received $54 
million for this project.
    I am also told that this project will carry more passengers 
in its first hour of operation than most New Starts projects 
will carry in a year. So I would assume it ought to be 
something of a priority.
    What do we do about that?
    Mr. Walker. I think the project has to progress through its 
development phases. They are in preliminary engineering right 
now. They are getting ready to go into final design. That 
project is estimated at $4.3 billion. It is probably going to 
be more than that. If you add in the Second Avenue subway, 
which is estimated to cost $13 billion, you have some really 
big projects in New York City.
    Now, those would overwhelm the New Starts program.
    Mr. Sweeney. But they do, given the participation, given 
the ridership, do warrant, I think, something, some priority 
status, wouldn't you agree?
    Mr. Walker. I think in terms of New Starts funding, New 
York gets less than anyone else.
    Mr. Sweeney. Why is that?
    Mr. Walker. Well, there haven't been any projects in recent 
years. The last New Starts projects we funded, was the Queens 
Connector, which is just about finished, and which came in on 
time and on budget and which was managed very well.

                         AMTRAK INSPECTION RULE

    Mr. Sweeney. All right. I probably--I know I am going to 
follow up with you on a couple of New York-specific questions. 
Let me just ask this last question. Last week George Warrington 
from Amtrak was here and he testified that CFR 238 requires a 
120-day inspection cycle of all equipment and the cycle is non-
negotiable.
    He inferred, and others have said, that not every single 
piece of equipment needs to be inspected every 3 months, and 
there ought to be some sort of flexibility in the processor, 
some sort of alternative process to that, because it is costing 
Amtrak money, and, as you know, we have some really serious 
decisions to make about Amtrak.
    Have you heard any complaints about rule 238?
    Mr. Walker. No, I have had no dealings with that rule at 
all.
    Mr. Sweeney. In your opinion, is that a solid rule?
    Mr. Walker. I don't know. I am not familiar with the rule. 
It is probably an FRA rule.
    Mr. Sweeney. Thank you. I will follow up.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                     NEW STARTS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a 
suspicion that there is no understandable, at least to me, 
pattern of how these things evolve in different places, the New 
York case that my friend from upstate New York is talking 
about. This are big fixed systems, subway systems, that get 
monies, which is a totally almost, to me, from a rural area, a 
limitless pot or something like that, I am not sure how to put 
it. It seems to be large. When we get into the New Starts, what 
I have in my State, at least a couple of these projects which 
the Chairman, I am sure, is going to have some other time when 
we may take those up, I suspect, but at least a couple of those 
that might be in the same category as those where there has 
been an upward movement, and I have a feeling, I get this 
impression that the estimates grow on these projects anywhere 
from a sort of the back of the envelope to a 100 percent 
design, and I don't know whether there is affixed point here in 
all of these New Starts where the baseline cost is at some 
identifiable spot in design, preliminary design, 20 percent of 
design, or something you could compare one to the other.
    It just doesn't seem to me that that is a fixed point that 
you would compare a long design level to really begin to say 
well, this one is going way out of line compared to where it 
ought to be. I think one of ours you talked about, the big dig, 
that everybody smiles, while we are not crying about it, but 
that must have been fairly far down the way in terms of what 
its original proposed projected cost was going to be compared 
with anything that got to what it was by the time you really 
had got even into the design.

                         SEATTLE COST ESTIMATES

    Can you tell me in the case of Seattle, where we were on 
the point of design, what stage of design? I think if I heard 
you correctly, $2.6 billion is now the MOS-1?
    Mr. Walker. Yes, that's correct.
    Mr. Olver. Of which only $500 million is the Federal 
commitment to it?
    Mr. Walker. Right.
    Mr. Olver. So that is a little less than 20 percent, 19 
percent or thereabouts, and there is no obligation on the part 
of the Federal Government to up the $500, even if that $2.6 
billion, by the time they get into it goes to a higher number.
    Mr. Walker. That is correct.
    Mr. Olver. At what stage was the $2.6--does the $2.6 
billion stand? Did we have an earlier MOS-1 number on a 
different stage that you could give us here on the committee?
    Mr. Walker. Yes, we did. In July the baseline cost estimate 
was at $1.6. That is what we were going with at the time.
    Mr. Olver. Just for MOS-1?
    Mr. Walker. MOS-1. And back in May----
    Mr. Olver. We are going to get $500 million on the $1.6 
billion. Now it is $500 million on $2.6 billion?
    Mr. Walker. That is correct.
    Mr. Olver. You are saying the overall cost of the whole 
project, which is more than twice as long as MOS-1, it is 
almost 3 times as long, as I read the maps, the cost on the 
total project is now going from $3.6 billion to $4.16 billion?
    Mr. Walker. I am not saying that. That is what the chairman 
said had been included in a newspaper article. I have no idea 
what the costs are.
    Mr. Olver. The January cost was $2.6 billion for the MOS-1?
    Mr. Walker. That is correct.

                         PROJECT FEDERAL SHARE

    Mr. Olver. And that still has only a $500 million local 
commitment. The rest of it has to be made up. Could that ever 
result in an amended revised full funding granted agreement?
    Mr. Walker. To add more Federal New Starts funds? No, it 
would not.
    Mr. Olver. Those never do?
    Mr. Walker. There are only three cases where we have 
increased the Federal share, and those were directed by 
Congress.
    Mr. Olver. What were they?
    Mr. Walker. St. Louis, Portland, and Atlanta.
    Mr. Olver. And could you remember what the shares ended up 
being in the case of St. Louis, Portland and Atlanta?
    Mr. Walker. I could look it up. I don't know what the 
shares were.
    Mr. Olver. I would be curious in terms of what it was 
before the congressional direction and what it is after the 
congressional direction.
    Mr. Walker. I don't have that here. We would have to 
provide that for the record.
    Mr. Olver. I would like to have it, if the chairman would 
find such information interesting, for the record.
    Mr. Rogers. If you would submit that for the record then.
    Mr. Walker. I certainly will.
    [The information follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Olver. I guess I do think I understand that the $500 
million is fixed, and that the State of Washington and the City 
of Seattle or the series of cities, I think this is all within 
the city of Seattle, isn't it?
    Mr. Walker. Yes, it is.

                         SEATTLE COST INCREASE

    Mr. Olver. So it would be the city of Seattle and State of 
Washington that would have responsibility for whatever increase 
there is by the time you get there.
    Mr. Walker. Actually it is Sound Transit that has the 
responsibility, and it depends on the agreements they have with 
the city and the surrounding communities.
    Mr. Olver. And the July level of design and the January 
level of design, were those substantially different?
    Mr. Walker. Well, it is $1 billion difference.
    Mr. Olver. I know it is $1 billion.
    Mr. Walker. The scope of the project did not change. The 
big cost driver was the tunnel north of downtown, which came in 
at over $800 million, and it was about $557 million estimated 
in the July estimate. So you had about a $330 million increase 
just in that contract. Now, that is less than one-third of the 
$1 billion. I mean, the rest of it is made up by increased 
contract costs, other contracts, real estate, and one thing 
that Sound Transit had not done, they had not allocated all of 
their overhead and salary costs to the projects. That was also 
a big cost driver.
    Another big cost driver overall is the extension of the 3 
years. When you extend the project from 2006 to 2009, you are 
adding a lot of costs.
    Mr. Olver. I can't judge whether it is egregious or only 
severe without knowing what the level of design or what 
happened that resulted. There has to be some point at which an 
extended design or estimation that occurred that got us to the 
$2.6 billion. But I don't think I can really expect you to 
clarify that for me. If there is something you can follow up 
with----
    Mr. Walker. I think I can clarify some of it for you.
    Mr. Olver. Let me ask one other thing.
    Mr. Rogers. I think he was ready to answer the question for 
you.
    Mr. Olver. Okay.
    Mr. Walker. The design-build contract, which was north of 
downtown running to the University of Washington, was the real 
critical path issue on the MOS, and Sound Transit did a two-
step procurement. It was a design-build, not a design-bid-
build, but a design-build. In May of 2000, they received 
technical proposals from contractors, and they began to 
evaluate those proposals. In July, they received the final 
technical and cost proposals, and all of this was done in 
confidentiality. Everybody who was involved in it had to sign a 
confidentiality statement.
    We as the Federal Government are not involved in those 
procurement processes, so we did not know what the costs were 
at that time. We only found out about that after they stopped 
negotiations with the contractor. Then they advised us in late 
November or early December of what those costs were, and it was 
an increase of about $330 million.

                       SEATTLE EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE

    Mr. Olver. Let me just ask one other question here. Does 
this new cost take into account any changes in design that 
might come--were there any damages from the Seattle earthquake?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Mr. Olver. To the rail systems? Would this lead to any 
changes since they are tunnels and a fair amount of this is 
underground?
    Mr. Walker. No, the earthquake would not affect this in any 
way. In fact, on the red line in L.A., on North Hollywood when 
we tunneled under the Santa Monica mountains, we went through a 
fault, and they provide an offset for that area in case the 
earth shifts. So I don't think there are any faults right 
through the area where this is going. But it would not create a 
problem. The engineers can handle these sort of things.
    Mr. Olver. Were there any damages to rail or road systems 
that were significant in Seattle?
    Mr. Walker. In terms of transit, not so much to rail but 
some of the access ramp to the ferries were damaged. That was 
about $1 million in damage to the docks, and access ramps to 
the ferry boats that go across Puget Sound.

                         TREN URBANO LIGHT RAIL

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Let me switch gears. Why has FTA 
withheld fiscal year 2000 and 2001 appropriations for the Tren 
Urbano project in Puerto Rico?
    Mr. Walker. About 2 years ago, we discovered some quality 
control issues with the project, and we began working through 
our project management contractor in our regional office to try 
to get the Tren Urbano project to address the quality control 
issues. We had little success, so finally we said if you don't 
take this seriously and get these resolved and come toa date 
certain when you are going to mitigate these quality issues, we are not 
going to release the 2000 funding. In addition we are currently holding 
the 2001 funding. That is a total of $105 million.
    Mr. Rogers. And where does this stand right now?
    Mr. Walker. They have been working on a plan to mitigate 
the problems, and we think in May that all of the contractors 
will sign on, as well as the Tren Urbano project, and we will 
have a commitment from all of them to mitigate those quality 
issues.
    Once we get that and get date certain commitments, we are 
willing to release the $105 million.

    Mr. Rogers. What is the status of actions taken by the 
Puerto Rican Highway and Transportation Authority to resolve 
outstanding construction quality problems?
    [The information follows:]
    FTA has instructed the Puerto Rico Highway and 
Transportation Authority (PRHTA) to develop procedures to 
address the Non Conformance Reports (NCRs). The Quality 
Assurance/Quality Control department of the PRHTA, Tren Urbano, 
and the Alignment Segment Contractors (ASCs) must all agree 
with these procedures. Then the construction contractors must 
develop a process and schedule for resolving these outstanding 
NCRs. The Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) will 
review the agreements for FTA. Once the FTA Regional Office 
receives the PMOC concurrence that the PRHTA has adequately 
addressed these issues, the Regional Office will recommend 
release of the funds withheld by FTA Headquarters.
    The Authority is in the process of developing their 
procedures for correcting the construction quality issues. FTA 
has an earlier reply from the PRHTA, but we concluded that the 
actions taken thus far were not sufficient to release the 
funds. PRHTA is expected to have an adequate plan by May 15, 
2001.
    Mr. Rogers. Will these actions be sufficient for FTA to 
release prior year appropriation to the Authority?
    [The information follows:]
    The corrective procedures as developed and submitted will 
be reviewed by the Project Management Oversight Contractor 
(PMOC). The PMOC's analysis will confirm to the FTA whether the 
procedures are sufficient, appropriate, and complete. The FTA 
Regional Office will only recommend release of the funding if 
the PMOC report confirms the procedures are appropriate, 
adequate and complete.

    Mr. Rogers. Well, you have estimated an additional $113 
million cost increase for the project over and above the $426 
million increase, right?
    Mr. Walker. That is true.
    Mr. Rogers. You had this one under the microscope all the 
while, and it is three-quarters done. Yet we still have these 
enormous increases. Why is that?
    Mr. Walker. In that case the project is also delayed. The 
project may be delayed a year and a half, and some of those 
costs are increased costs because of the time delay. Some of 
them are just actual cost growth on the contracts.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, why should we put money in the 2002 year 
bill when the previous 2 years' appropriations have not been 
released? Or should we?
    Mr. Walker. I think we should put funding in the 2002 bill. 
We are going to release the 2000 and 2001 funding as soon as we 
get the plan for mitigating those quality issues. That should 
be May.

    Mr. Rogers. Why should Congress appropriate additional 
funds in fiscal year 2002, when the prior two appropriations 
have not been released to this project?
    [The information follows:]
    Over the past two years, FTA has asked for the Puerto Rico 
Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) to address quality 
issues, most recently in a letter dated November 7, 2000. On 
November 21, 2000, FTA wrote to PRHTA notifying them that FTA 
would withhold award of the section 5309 grant for FY 2000 
until the quality issues were resolved. In January 2001, PRHTA 
representatives provided FTA and the Project Management 
Oversight Contractor (PMOC) a presentation on the status of the 
quality issues. Based on the presentation the PMOC has 
developed an analysis and a course of action. On February 5, 
2001, FTA Region IV forwarded the PMOC analysis to PRHTA and 
asked for signed documentation between them and the Contractors 
agreeing to corrective actions and associated timeframes. The 
Action Plan to address the Quality issues is expected in May 
2001. FTA hopes that the quality issues are addressed 
satisfactorily in this plan and that withheld funds can be 
released. FY 2002 funding is important to keep funding for the 
project on schedule. Tren Urbano already has a funding 
shortfall of $153.4 million based on funding through FY 2001.

                        UTAH LIGHT RAIL PROJECT

    Mr. Rogers. Now let me ask you about Utah. What is your 
opinion about their ability to complete that project by 
November this year?
    Mr. Walker. The reports I am getting are that they can do 
it. Now, the State of Utah and the Transit Authority and the 
Olympic committee have been discussing this, and they met this 
month to work out the procedures that they will use to make a 
decision come August 15th. At that time, they will all review 
the project and determine if it can be completed by November.
    If not, the project will have to be buttoned up in the next 
couple of months.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, if they can't complete that project in 
time for the Olympics, which is the reason for it, and you got 
to button it up, won't they have to repay the Federal funds?
    Mr. Walker. No, after the Olympics they will complete the 
project.
    Mr. Rogers. I am sorry?
    Mr. Walker. After the Olympics, they will open it back up 
and complete the project. We have made it clear that we do not 
intend to pay for any of those costs to reopen the project.
    Mr. Rogers. Utah DOT tells us that it simply can't be done 
by November. Do you disagree?
    Mr. Walker. I actually don't know. We have to wait until 
August 15th and make that determination. I think it is 
premature to make that determination right now.
    Mr. Rogers. Secret Service has notified Utah that trains 
can't run during the opening and closing ceremonies because of 
terrorism concerns. Yet we are spending $100 million on a 
project that won't be operational, assuming it can be done in 
time, when it is most necessary, and that is the big opening 
and closing ceremonies at the Olympics. Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Walker. It is very disturbing that those trains will 
not be able to proceed to the opening ceremonies and to the 
Delta Center. But the Secret Service has to make their 
determination, and with the President being there, you know, 
that is an overriding concern.

                  LOS ANGELES RED LINE SUBWAY PROJECT

    Mr. Rogers. Why should we continue to reserve $600 million 
in contingent commitment authority for the Mid-City and 
Eastside projects in L.A., when they have withdrawn their 
approval of those arms of the project and are looking for 
alternatives and there is no agreement apparently within the 
community about how to proceed. Yet we are holding $600 million 
in contingent commitment. Should we continue to do that?
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, that is really a question that 
political leadership should answer.
    Mr. Rogers. But you would see no problem in finding another 
use for that money for the moment?
    Mr. Walker. They have selected on the Eastside a light rail 
alternative and are proceeding in preliminary engineering and 
should be going into final design very soon, so that is one 
possibility for using that commitment authority.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, why should these projects get first dibs 
on these monies when there are many worthy projects around the 
country, as you are well aware, currently further along in the 
full funding grant agreement process?
    Mr. Walker. Los Angeles is aware that they may lose those 
funds at some point. We just have not withdrawn that commitment 
authority yet.

    Mr. Rogers: Why should these projects get ``first dibs'' on 
these funds when there are many worthy projects currently 
further along in the full funding grant agreement process?
    [The information follows:]
    In June 1999, the MTA initiated a re-evaluation/major 
investment study on the Eastside corridor, and in June 2000, 
the MTA board formally selected a light rail transit technology 
in the Eastside corridor as the locally preferred alternative. 
FTA approved the initiation of preliminary engineering in 
August 2000. The overall project rating is Recommended. At this 
point, the total estimated project cost is $759.5 million, with 
a proposed New Starts share of $402.3 million.
    This project is one of a number of projects that are 
authorized for final design and construction in TEA-21, and are 
currently in the preliminary engineering stage of project 
development. As part of the FY 2003 budget process, FTA will 
carefully evaluate the project, including whether it has been 
approved for entry into final design, its overall project 
rating, and determine whether the projects meets the readiness 
and other criteria to recommend it for a Full Funding Grant 
Agreement. If the project is recommended for an FFGA, the FFGA 
would use some or all of the remaining commitment authority 
that was previously committed to the original Eastside and Mid-
City projects under MOS-3. Otherwise, the commitment authority 
would be available for other projects.

                        ST. LOUIS RAIL EXTENSION

    Mr. Rogers. Last year FTA was told not to execute a full 
funding grant agreement for the St. Louis extension----
    Mr. Walker. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Because of concerns expressed by 
the Inspector General about lower ridership projections. Do you 
still support that project?
    Mr. Walker. FTA has put it in the not-recommended category.

    Mr. Rogers. Have any facts changed to warrant a full 
funding grant agreement for this project?
    [The information follows:]
    FTA's most recent application of the New Starts criteria 
assessing project justification and financial commitment rated 
the 3.6-mile St. Clair Corridor Phase IIB project ``Not 
Recommended.'' FTA is working with local project sponsors to 
revise ridership forecasts for the project. The current 
schedule calls for these to be completed in Spring of 2002.

    Mr. Rogers. You still are reserving $60 million in 
contingent authority?
    Mr. Walker. No, we are not.
    Mr. Rogers. What happened to that?
    Mr. Walker. That is part of the $677 million contingent 
authority. We added it back into the remaining commitment 
authority.

                    CONTINGENT COMMITMENT AUTHORITY

    Mr. Rogers. Now, in February, your staff told us that there 
was $435.8 million in contingent commitment authority for new 
projects. You now say $621 million?
    Mr. Walker. $677.
    Mr. Rogers. $677 million?
    Mr. Walker. That's correct.
    Mr. Rogers. Instead of the $435.8 million that we were told 
a month ago.
    Mr. Walker. That is right. That includes the $60 million. 
We have an answer here.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we are waiting.
    Mr. Walker. The 8 percent for engineering was not included 
in the earlier figure, and we are now including the 8 percent 
in the commitment authority total. That is a difference. The 8 
percent is about $90 million.
    Mr. Rogers. That still doesn't get us there.
    Mr. Walker. Staff tells me that it includes the 8 percent 
for two years, 2002 and 2003, which we are now including in 
there. We had included the engineering as part of the take-down 
off the total commitment authority. Now we are including it as 
part of the remaining commitment for 2002 and 2003.
    Mr. Rogers. At any rate, you are now at 677?
    Mr. Walker. Yes, we are.

                      2002 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

    Mr. Rogers. Do you anticipate that changing?
    Mr. Walker. We will probably commit about $200 million of 
that with our 2002 recommendations.
    Mr. Rogers. What will that be committed to?
    Mr. Walker. I am not permitted to talk about specifics the 
2002 budget until the President submits it.
    Mr. Rogers. Hello?
    Mr. Walker. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. Did I hear that right? You are not allowed to 
talk about your budget request?
    Mr. Walker. We have not made the request public yet.
    Mr. Rogers. Oh. Well, that----
    Mr. Walker. The President's budget included the $6.7 
billion for the guaranteed level for 2002. However, we were not 
specific about the New Starts projects we are going to 
recommend for 2002, and that will be part of the Department's 
submittal sometime in early April.

                 STATUS OF SPECIFIC NEW START PROJECTS

    Mr. Rogers. Well, okay. We will get at it this way. What 
about Baltimore Central LRT, double tracking?
    Mr. Walker. I signed a letter to the Congress last Friday 
starting the 60-day period on that.
    Mr. Rogers. And Chicago Metro Southwest Corridor Commuter 
Rail?
    Mr. Walker. We haven't sent a letter to the Hill yet on 
that.
    Mr. Rogers. Chicago UP west line extension?
    Mr. Walker. We haven't done anything on that either.
    Mr. Rogers. Chicago North Central?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Mr. Rogers. New Orleans Canal Street?
    Mr. Walker. We haven't done anything on that yet either.
    Mr. Rogers. San Diego Oceanside?
    Mr. Walker. That as well.
    Mr. Rogers. Miami South Busway extension?
    Mr. Walker. That as well. The list you have, it was an 
internal list. Those discussions are going on right now as we 
sit here. That is not the final list.
    Mr. Rogers. Why was it that Baltimore popped out and 
theothers didn't?
    Mr. Walker. It was ready to go. They had finished their 
environmental work and it is just a double tracking of the 
light rail line. It is not a very complicated project.
    Mr. Rogers. It was $120 million, right?
    Mr. Walker. That is right, but it is not complicated. I 
hope it is not complicated.

                   FUNDING TO MEET NEW STARTS DEMANDS

    Mr. Rogers. Is the $677 million that you mentioned, is that 
figure sufficient to meet the demands in terms of projects with 
signed full funding grant agreements and projects in final 
design and projects in preliminary engineering? Have we got the 
money to fund all of those?
    Mr. Walker. No, we do not. To give you an idea of what 
those costs are, the existing FFGAs are about $10.6 billion in 
New Starts funds, and we have got about $10 billion more in 
final design and preliminary engineering that would like that 
amount of Federal money for those projects. So, it is an 
enormous case load.
    Mr. Rogers. How did we get that far ahead of ourselves?
    Mr. Walker. Well, Mr. Chairman, we do not initiate these 
projects. These projects are initiated at the local level and 
determined by the citizens at the city and county and State 
level, and they come to us for requests to do alternatives 
analysis, and we work with them on that, and then we work with 
them and then approve preliminary engineering and final design. 
But there are no commitments of Federal funding at that time. 
That is just the process that TEA-21 has laid out that we 
follow.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, is there such a thing as telling a 
community, look, it is a good-looking project; we simply don't 
have the monies with which to commit to this agreement with you 
yet. Come back 6 months from now. Come back a year from now. 
Does the word ``no'' exist in your vocabulary?
    Mr. Walker. Oh, it does. But if a good project has gotten 
into final design and we have commitment authority to do that 
and it is rated, we will consider funding it.
    Mr. Rogers. You don't have any money.
    Mr. Walker. As I said, we have $677 million of commitment 
authority available.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Rogers. But you have zillions wanting it.
    Mr. Walker. Some of those are not going to get funding.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, in fiscal 2002, if we were to fully fund 
all the signed grant agreements and fund the mandatory 
drawdowns, how much money would remain for those projects in 
preliminary and final design?
    Mr. Walker. Could you restate that?
    Mr. Rogers. In 2002, if you fund all the signed grant 
agreements and you fund the mandatory drawdowns, how much money 
have you got left for projects that are in preliminary or final 
design?
    Mr. Walker. The ones that are in existing FFGAs, we would 
probably utilize about $991 million. The two pending ones you 
mentioned would use $30 million. So we would have about $94 
million left to fund ones in preliminary engineering or final 
design.
    [The information follows:]

    The existing full funding grant agreements fiscal year 2002 
attachment 6 amounts total $976.43 million. Taking into account 
the PMO set aside of $11.36 million and the Alaska/Hawaii set 
aside of $10.30 million, the remaining amount of budget 
authority available for projects in preliminary and final 
design would be $138.32 million.

    Mr. Rogers. Have you thought about reducing the maximum 
amount of Federal contributions to a New Starts project to less 
than 80 percent?
    Mr. Walker. As I said earlier, the average of the funding 
ratios is about 50 percent now.
    Mr. Rogers. I know that. But I am saying have you thought 
about putting a cap on what the Feds would furnish to no more 
than 80 percent in any project?
    Mr. Walker. We do not provide more than 80 percent, but we 
have discussed a different ratio when we start the 
reauthorization process. We haven't arrived at any firm opinion 
on that yet, but it will be something that we will be 
discussing during reauthorization.
    Mr. Rogers. We will have further questions we will ask for 
the record. Thank you for being here this morning. I am sorry 
again that we were late in beginning the hearing. We will stay 
in touch with you, and I am sure you with us. We will work 
together with you.
    As I said, we had a very good meeting yesterday with the 
Secretary, and most of the conversation that we had dealt with 
these types of projects and the uncertainty, confusion, non-
standard ways that we deal with these projects. It needs some 
work. I am not blaming you for that. As you say, TEA-21 is the 
authorizing law we are dealing with here, and I am not sure it 
was properly done.
    So, nevertheless, it needs some work, and we want your 
expert advice on some better ways to do business here. As we 
increase oversight on these projects we will have some better 
and more advanced knowledge to see how these projects are 
going, and how the funds are distributed.
    Mr. Walker. We will be happy to work with the Committee on 
that.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you very much.
    Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned.
                                          Thursday, March 29, 2001.

                    FEDERAL TRANSIT CAPITAL PROJECTS

                               WITNESSES

HON. NORM DICKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    WASHINGTON
JONI EARL, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUND TRANSIT (SEATTLE, 
    WASHINGTON)
JOSE IZQUIERDO, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 
    RICO.
JOSE F. LLUCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUERTO RICO HIGHWAY AND 
    TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Rogers. The Committee will be in order.
    Welcome, Dr. Jose Francisco Lluch, Executive Director of 
the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority, and Ms. 
Earl from the Seattle Sound Transit, the Acting Executive 
Director. We will take her a second after we deal with the 
Puerto Rico question. We appreciate your being here before the 
Committee to discuss the status of our light rail projects, 
both in Seattle and Puerto Rico, both of which the Committee is 
well aware of because of their cost overruns and schedule 
delays.

                       TREN URBANO PROJECT COSTS

    In the case of Tren Urbano costs for this light rail system 
have grown from $1.25 billion in 1996, when the Full Funding 
Grant Agreement was signed, to $1.7 billion, a 36 percent 
increase. The project has experienced at least a one-year 
schedule delay, and it is possible that the opening date may 
slip further into 2003. The main reasons for the delay we are 
told in cost overruns are continuing construction problems, 
shoddy workmanship and some Buy America problems.
    In total, the Federal Transit Administration has identified 
five major construction quality issues and over 500 
nonconformance problems with this project. As a result, FTA has 
withheld fiscal years 2000 and 2001 appropriations to $105.7 
million and does not plan on releasing these monies until Tren 
Urbano has an FTA-approved program to resolve allof these 
problems.
    Mr. Lluch, I hope you can bring the Committee up to date on 
when and how you will resolve all of these problems and whether 
or not they will delay your project further.

                  SEATTLE SOUND TRANSIT PROJECT COSTS

    In the case of Sound Transit, the project has not even 
begun construction, yet it has experienced at least a $1 
billion cost increase and a 3-year schedule delay. Recently the 
Seattle Post Intelligence reported an additional $560 million 
cost increase, this just 2 months after a Full Funding Grant 
Agreement was signed by FTA. This begs the question what will 
happen to costs when construction actually begins. It is during 
this phase that the project costs are most prone to increases.
    The Inspector General has noted that Sound Transit's 
initial 7.2-mile scale of rail segment will be the most 
expensive in the Nation, $2.6 billion, ahead of other unusually 
costly segments in Puerto Rico, $1.7 billion for 10.3 miles and 
the Bay Area Rapid Transit System expansion, which is $1.4 
billion for 8.7 miles. This cost coupled, with a myriad of 
construction changes, low ball estimates for a right-of-way 
acquisition and local opposition to the project, led me to ask 
the Secretary of Transportation to delay entering into a $500 
million full funding grant on this project. This agreement was 
signed on January 19 over my objections.
    It requires the local community to fund any cost increases, 
schedule delays and problems with the project from their own 
resources, regardless of whether or not the Federal Government 
actually provides its share of the project. As you may know, I 
asked the Inspector General to review the merits of the Sound 
Transit project. We are awaiting his analysis even yet. In the 
meantime, I am waiting for what the folks from Seattle have to 
say about the project.

                     FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENTS

    This year the committee has an extremely difficult job to 
do. The previous administration entered into 13 Full Funding 
Grant Agreements over the past year and a half, committing the 
Federal Government to about $3.5 billion in new Federal 
funding. This year under the transit grant money will be 
extremely tight because of the magnitude of FTA's recent 
commitment. From a total New Start Program of $1.136 billion, 
there is about another $135 million allocated to projects in 
preliminary design, final design or with pending FFGAs. With 
these type dollars it is imperative that we make the best 
funding decisions possible.
    One of those will be whether your projects should receive 
the level agreed to under the FFGA for fiscal year 2002. For 
Tren Urbano that is $50.16 million. For Seattle that is $75 
million. I can imagine your opinions on that question, but we 
eagerly await the cases that you two will present to the merits 
of these projects. Before getting to you I will yield to Mr. 
Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Let's proceed.

                      Puerto Rico Opening Remarks

    Mr. Rogers. I understand that the Secretary in Puerto Rico, 
Secretary Izquierdo is in the audience. Welcome, we are 
delighted to have you here, and at the appropriate time we 
would welcome any remarks you might like to make. Now, Dr. 
Lluch, would you please begin? We will enter your written 
statement in the record and when you finish your oral statement 
we might have some questions.
    Ms. Earl, are you here? I would appreciate it if your 
statement would wait until after we finish with the Puerto Rico 
project and at that time we will turn to you and listen to your 
statement as well.
    Dr. Lluch.
    Mr. Lluch. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am 
delighted to be here. Thank you for this opportunity to address 
the House Subcommittee on Transportation concerning the Tren 
Urbano New Starts Rail Project in San Juan, Puerto Rico. My 
name is Jose F. Lluch, and I am the Executive Director of the 
Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority. The Authority 
is the entity within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico that is 
responsible for financing development and operation of Tren 
Urbano.
    I am very proud to appear before you here today. This is my 
first opportunity to represent my government and the Island of 
Puerto Rico before the U.S. Congress. Governor Calderon was 
elected to office this past November and her administration 
assumed its duties in January. As such, our transportation 
team, led by Secretary Jose Izquierdo, who is here in the 
audience, has been in place for less than 3 months. I have been 
in my job for less than 2 months.
    Governor Calderon and Secretary Izquierdo have made clear 
their commitment to Tren Urbano. They fully intend to complete 
Phase I of Tren Urbano, honoring all contractual commitments 
and financial obligations. They have further indicated support 
for advancing Tren Urbano with extensions of the system to 
other parts of the San Juan Metropolitan Area.
    I want to emphasize my intention in this hearing to provide 
the subcommittee with all the information that it needs to 
carry out its job. If I don't have it with me today, I will 
have it sent to you immediately.
    Tren Urbano is by far our largest undertaking. We have 
inherited a project well underway. Tunnel work is completed, 
the guideway is substantially complete, and station 
construction has been initiated. During the transition process, 
we have worked closely with the outgoing transportation team 
and have made an intensive effort since assuming office to 
understand the project's many facets and complexities.
    Just recently, the Federal Transit Administration and its 
Project Management Oversight contractor provided reports to us 
outlining their view as to the project's schedule, cost and 
quality. This input is very helpful. In our follow-up meetings 
with the FTA and the PMO, we expressed our appreciation and 
indicated our concurrence with their observations and findings.
    At this time last year, our predecessors appeared before 
this subcommittee and addressed concerns that had been raised 
over project costs and the Authority's capacity to meet its 
financial obligations. In offering their testimony, they had 
the benefit of a recently completed Financial Capacity 
Assessment authored by the FTA's Financial Management Oversight 
contractor, as well as review findings from both the Government 
Accounting Office and the U.S. DOT of the Inspector General. 
These analyses concluded that project cost increases to that 
time were largely a function of enhancements to the project's 
scope.
    They further agreed that even at a higher cost to complete 
Phase I of Tren Urbano, and assuming implementation of a 
subsequent extension, the Authority had ample financial 
capacity to meet its obligation to the Federal Government, to 
bond holders and to the traveling public in Puerto Rico.
    At this time, it is clear that the status of the project is 
significantly different than it was 1 year ago. We havean 
effort under way to thoroughly scrutinize the project's cost, schedule 
and quality.
    In the interim, we have a revised cost estimate, put 
forward by the PMO, indicating an increase of roughly 7 
percent, or $113 million. In this case the increase results 
from claims filed by or anticipated from the project's various 
Design/Build contractors. Our new team has engaged the 
contractors in an effort to resolve these claims. We have also 
undertaken a review to formally reforecast the project's cost 
to complete. At present, we accept the PMO estimate as 
reasonable, although the cost estimate may increase when a more 
comprehensive review is finalized. I will welcome the 
opportunity to meet with you, Mr. Chairman, and with members of 
committee when we have completed the review.
    I want to make clear that we will not seek additional New 
Starts funding for Phase I of Tren Urbano beyond that included 
in our Full Funding Grant Agreement. Any additional costs will 
be borne by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico from its various 
transportation funding sources.
    My request to the House of Representatives is to 
appropriate the amounts to complete the Full Funding Grant 
Agreement for Phase I of Tren Urbano, totaling approximately 
$307 million. At the end of fiscal 2001 the total 
appropriations to be made for Tren Urbano project will be 
approximately $153 million, with a balance of approximately 
$153 million being requested at this time.
    With regards to the schedule, the PMO has suggested that 
the project completion date may extend some 16 months beyond 
the current Revenue Operating Date in our Full Funding Grant 
Agreement. Again, we accept this forecast as reasonable as a 
potential Revenue Operating Date. However, we are presently 
examining the merits of a sequenced opening, allowing us to 
begin realizing the project's benefits while construction of 
selected stations is completed. Final completion may require 
additional time, 9 to 12 months. We have engaged the Design/
Build contractors to finalize a revised Master Schedule for the 
project.
    Finally, FTA and the PMO provided us with input on project 
quality. A list of quality issues, mostly associated with the 
guideway, has been of concern to the FTA for some time. We have 
closed most of these issues and have agreed upon measures to 
resolve those that remain. Further, we have committed to an 
expanded Quality Assurance/Quality Control capability within 
our management team to avoid a recurrence of quality problems.
    I will end my remarks here to take your questions. In 
closing, let me reiterate my appreciation for this opportunity 
to discuss the Tren Urbano project with you. This project is 
extremely important to the economy, environment and future of 
Puerto Rico. As new stewards for the project and for the 
Island's transportation system we are committed to stable 
management and the successful completion of Tren Urbano.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement and biography of Jose Lluch 
follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                 TREN URBANO ESTIMATED COST COMPLETION

    Mr. Rogers. Now the project is about three-fourths done, 
right, 76 percent completed and your costs are continuing to 
rise up $113 million from the $1.65 billion in the agreement, 
and the completion date has slipped apparently to late 2003. 
With a project three-quarters done, I don't understand why we 
are this far off on both the cost and the completion date. Can 
you help me with that?
    Mr. Lluch. In terms of the cost there are many unresolved 
claims that are pending to be resolved and we are working on 
that, and that is where the independent project oversight 
contractor estimated that the result of those claims would be 
close to $113 million. But those are long-time pending claims.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, FTA estimates that project costs will 
increase by $113 million. Who is responsible for those costs?
    Mr. Lluch. Well, the Puerto Rico Highway Authority will 
cover those costs if they realize those claims.
    Mr. Rogers. Why wouldn't the contractor be obligated to pay 
for those? Most of these problems were faulty construction, 
were they not?
    Mr. Lluch. Well, the thing is that we have got claims for 
more than that amount. We have claims for close to $250 
million, and the results of those claims are estimated by the 
PMO at $113 million.
    Mr. Rogers. 113.
    Mr. Lluch. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. But is the contractor going to pay any of the 
increased costs?
    Mr. Lluch. We have also claims against some of the 
contractors and we are negotiating with them at this time.
    Mr. Rogers. Are those claims subject to the lawsuit or just 
merely negotiation?
    Mr. Lluch. We may have to take them to court to have them 
pay.
    Mr. Rogers. How much would you expect them to pay?
    Mr. Lluch. Well, it all depends. There have been 
settlements made with some of the contractors, and there are 
talks going on now for the rest of them. So the estimate of the 
complete resolution made by the PMO is close to $113 million.

                     TREN URBANO ESTIMATED OPENING

    Mr. Rogers. What is the present expected opening date?
    Mr. Lluch. Well, the only independent estimate that we have 
is from the PMO, and they stated that the opening day would be 
in September 2003. We are doing a review. As you know, we just 
came into the administration less than 2 months ago. We are 
previewing the schedule, and we will be in a position to give 
you better information later on.
    Mr. Rogers. Your predecessor says it will be December 2002.
    Mr. Lluch. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. You say at least September 2003.
    Mr. Lluch. That is what the PMO said, the Project 
Management Oversight consultant, an independent group that came 
and made a study for the Federal Government, for the FTA. They 
came in with this date, and we are doing further studies to 
establish what will be the probable revenue date.
    Mr. Rogers. So the September 2003 date is not really a hard 
date, is it; it could slip even past that?
    Mr. Lluch. Well, at this time we believe we can deliver the 
project by that time or, as I said, we are further studying 
this schedule.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, will that be a partial opening or a full 
opening?
    Mr. Lluch. We believe we can have full opening by that 
date.
    Mr. Rogers. Full opening.
    Mr. Lluch. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Is it possible to expedite work in some areas 
so you can have a partially open system before that?
    Mr. Lluch. That is another possibility that we are 
analyzing. We could have a partial opening, with trains going 
where the stations would be completed by that time, and then 
the new stations opening up afterward.
    Mr. Rogers. When do you expect that you will have some 
resolution of your disagreements with the contractor on paying 
some of the extra costs?
    Mr. Lluch. We are working with them, starting to work with 
them, and that is our agenda for the coming month.
    Mr. Rogers. For the coming month.
    Mr. Lluch. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. So when would you expect to have an answer from 
that?
    Mr. Lluch. We hope that by this summer we will be able to 
have settled all the claims with the contractors and have a 
better statement.
    Mr. Rogers. Will these claims needs to be concluded before 
the project is open?
    Mr. Lluch. It would create a better atmosphere for the 
project if we can settle those claims, leave those problems 
behind and keep working forward.
    Mr. Rogers. So will you conclude them before opening the 
project?
    Mr. Lluch. Yes, that is our plan.
    Mr. Rogers. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Lluch. That is our plan.

                TREN URBANO CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ISSUES

    Mr. Rogers. Have the construction quality issues been 
resolved?
    Mr. Lluch. Many of them have been resolved. I even have 
with me one more letter that states that we have resolved one 
more of the issues, and we are working closely with the Project 
Management Oversight consultant and the FTA on those issues. 
They have visited us on February 26, and we have a course of 
action for the pending issues.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, there is a lot of problems. You had some 
tunneling misalignments and deviations. Has that been resolved?
    Mr. Lluch. Partially. The misalignment problem was solved 
by moving the rails, and it doesn't affect having to dig and to 
do additional tunneling. And what is left is the analysis that 
they are doing, the contractor of the rail system, on the 
effects of the trains going through a revised route, and we 
estimate that it will decrease the travel time by just a bit. 
Less than a minute, something like that.
    Mr. Rogers. And some track floors were not built level, and 
as a result contractors had to hand grind the floors to make 
them level before beginning any track installation work. Has 
that been resolved?
    Mr. Lluch. Yeah, that was part of one of the stations and 
the contractor had to fix that up. It is one of the things that 
the contractor had to do.
    Mr. Rogers. So it has been fixed?
    Mr. Lluch. It will--okay, the contractor has not started 
yet to fix that problem.
    Mr. Rogers. He has not started?
    Mr. Lluch. But he has agreed to start fixing the problem.
    Mr. Rogers. Cracking found in the guideways.
    Mr. Lluch. Well, the cracking had to do with one of the 
columns. During construction one of the equipment touched a 
column and there were some cracks and there was an agreement on 
the course of action to solve that problem.
    Mr. Rogers. I am just listing some of the points that were 
made. Insufficient concrete was poured to cover and protect 
steel reinforcements of a pier. Has that been fixed?
    Mr. Lluch. Okay, we have just submitted a letter indicating 
the procedure that will be used to repair, to put the 
additional cover to the columns. It is another issue that we 
have a course of action for.
    Mr. Rogers. And another one was you had to lower a highway 
bridge about two feet so as not to interfere with the guideway.
    Mr. Lluch. That is true. That happened in--we are talking 
about a problem in Pinero. We had to lower the slab to be able 
to obtain the clearance necessary for the highway.
    Mr. Rogers. Has that been done?
    Mr. Lluch. It was eight inches and that will be done-- it 
is under construction right now.
    Mr. Rogers. And there are various other things. But as I 
understand it, FTA has agreed not to provide the further 
funding until they have an agreement with you on fixing these 
problems and I would hope holding the contractor liable as 
well. Is that your understanding?
    Mr. Lluch. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Is it your understanding that the FTA will not 
release the fiscal years 2000 and 2001 appropriations, totaling 
$105.7 million, until you have resolved these problems----
    Mr. Lluch. We are working very closely with FTA on those 
issues, and we believe that probably some time in May they may 
be resolved. We already have a course----
    Mr. Rogers. Does that include the contractor settlement, 
settlement of a contractor?
    Mr. Lluch. Well, the contractor said it may take longer. It 
depends on the negotiation. The negotiation process may-- it 
depends on how things go.
    [The information follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Rogers. Well, you say you want $153 million and yet the 
Full Funding Agreement only calls for $50 million, Mr. Lluch, 
in fiscal 2002. That is $103 million above the agreement level, 
is it not?
    Mr. Lluch. Well, we are requesting the balance of the money 
for the Full Funding Agreement. I may be optimistic, but that 
is where I got the number. The balance of the amount that 
originally was included in the Full Funding Grant Agreement 
less the amounts already appropriated is the amountthat we are 
requesting.
    Mr. Rogers. Can you assure us that there will not be any 
more cost increases associated with the project?
    Mr. Lluch. Well, one thing I can assure you is that we are 
getting into this project after it is close--60 to 75 percent 
complete. We are getting a project that has all the contracts 
out, all the cards are out, and the best thing we can do at 
this time is to assert strong management in the project and try 
to avoid excess costs and delays. That is what we are committed 
to.

                   TREN URBANO RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS

    Mr. Rogers. Now, Puerto Ricans are the most automobile 
dependent people on Earth. They have more cars per square mile 
than anywhere on Earth.
    Mr. Lluch. That will guarantee a good ridership when the 
train opens. By 2003 we hope at least 80,000 people will ride 
the train.
    Mr. Rogers. If we can't get people in Los Angeles to do it, 
how do you plan to do it?
    Mr. Lluch. Well, the problem is Puerto Rico is very bad, 
congestion is terrible. Recently there was even a survey in the 
paper that asked about ridership and there was a big majority 
of the people that will ride a train. We are convinced because 
of the great need it will be a success story.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, you are estimating 100,000 people will 
give up their cars each day to ride the system. Most transit 
projects don't even estimate 50,000 riders per day. Do you 
fully expect 100,000 people will give up their cars to ride the 
system each day?
    Mr. Lluch. We expect close to 80,000 by opening day in 
2003. And I think that due to the unique situation in Puerto 
Rico, where we import cars, thousands of cars every year, 
150,000, something like that, it is a very big problem, and we 
have to start looking at transit-related solutions, and Tren 
Urbano I am sure will be a big success because of the auto 
congestion in Puerto Rico.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, if your estimates aren't correct and you 
don't have that many riders, what are the ramifications of not 
getting as much revenue off the system as you anticipate?
    Mr. Lluch. Well, there may be decreases in the income 
generated from the operations.
    Mr. Rogers. No, I mean, if you don't make enough money off 
of the system when you get it finished because not enough 
people are riding it, what does that mean, what is going to 
happen then?
    Mr. Lluch. The train will continue. I don't think that will 
be the case. I think that all indications are that the train 
will be heavily used by people in the metro area, and we are 
pretty confident with the estimate.

                       TREN URBANO FUNDING SOURCE

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you and welcome. I gather you are new in 
your job in the last several months and whatever the problems 
are it is something you inherited?
    Mr. Lluch. That is true.
    Mr. Sabo. And your agency is a state agency rather than a 
local agency?
    Mr. Lluch. It is a state agency. It is a public 
corporation.
    Mr. Sabo. And were the additional costs that Puerto Rico is 
liable for, what will be the source of funding for those 
additional funds?
    Mr. Lluch. Well, we already started to prepare for that. 
There was a new building planned by the previous administration 
that cost close to $98 million that we have just cut from the 
budget and we are looking at other projects to see where we can 
cut the FTA out and do more with less. That is our objective.
    Mr. Sabo. So it will come out of your general state budget?
    Mr. Lluch. It will come out of our budget, yes. We do not 
plan to request additional funding from the Federal Government.
    Mr. Sabo. No, I understand that. Ours does not go up, but I 
am just curious what the source of your funding would be.
    Mr. Lluch. Yeah, the sources of our funding comes from 
gasoline, diesel and petroleum taxes mainly. We have other 
sources of funding.
    Mr. Sabo. So you can use your gas receipts for transit 
projects in Puerto Rico?
    Mr. Lluch. Yeah.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                PUERTO RICO SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, would you like to add your 
comments to us or do you want to rest?
    Mr. Izquierdo. Good evening.
    Mr. Rogers. Good afternoon.
    Mr. Izquierdo. It is a pleasure being here.
    Mr. Rogers. If you don't mind, will you state your name?
    Mr. Izquierdo. My name is Jose Izquierdo. I am Secretary of 
Transportation and Public Works for the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico.
    Mr. Rogers. Spell your name, please.
    Mr. Izquierdo. My first name is Jose, J-O-S-E. Last name is 
Izquierdo, I-Z-Q-U-I-E-R-D-O.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Mr. Izquierdo. In terms of--we are very confident. Of the 
seven contracts that Tren Urbano has, four of them have been 
renegotiated and an agreements has been made with the 
contractors, and the additional money added to the contracts 
were tied together with milestones and the only way the 
contractor will get the additional funding is if they complete 
particular portions through the milestone system. It has worked 
extremely well with those four contracts, and on the Hato Rey 
and Rio Piedras contracts that are the ones that are being 
negotiated at this point. The Hato Rey contract, which is the 
last five stations and the area in between should be finished 
in the next couple of weeks and hopefully the Rio Piedras, 
which is the tunneling part, will be finished by the end of 
April. As soon as we have those agreements signed, we will have 
a construction completion date more reliable because it is tied 
up to the milestone system, and then we can finish the 
negotiations with Siemens Transportation Systems, which is the 
operational part, and because of the success of the four 
contracts in terms of the completion with the milestone system, 
we are very optimistic that as we settle those contracts we can 
report that to your committee. As we finish settling those, we 
will have a completion date that we can expect to be a real 
one.
    Second, in terms of the ridership there is one very 
important issue that this committee must understand. Close to 
60 percent of the population in Puerto Rico is under the 
Federal poverty level. That means that the transportation 
through car is a very expensive way for families to go back and 
forth from school to work. If you take the MetropolitanArea of 
San Juan, which is close to 1.4 million persons, people living in the 
area, and you apply that 60 percent of the poverty level in terms of 
the Federal standard, that means that the potential ridership is huge, 
and it is in our hands at this point. And we are replanning a system 
from Dorado to Rio Grande, which covers most of what is called the 
greater Metropolitan Area, that we provide a full transportation system 
as a real alternative to the people of San Juan and Puerto Rico.
    We as a government in the past, for the last 30 years, we 
have relied for transportation on what is called the Publico 
System on the Island, which is privately operated and owned by 
the operator system, which is not confident, it is quite 
unreliable. We have been already meeting with these persons to 
integrate them to the filler system of Tren Urbano, so that by 
opening date they will be part of the Transportation Department 
and they will fully provide an excellent filler system. And 
because of the potential figures of ridership we are very 
optimistic that we will achieve that goal, too.
    Mr. Rogers. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Lluch. Thank you.

                          Seattle Introduction

    Mr. Rogers. We are pleased to welcome to our Subcommittee 
one of the full Committee Members that we work with on a daily 
basis, Norm Dicks. Would you like to join us and bring with you 
Ms. Earl? Norm Dicks, as all of you know, is a member of full 
Committee on Appropriations in the House and a colleague of 
ours, one of the hardest workers I know.
    Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. It 
is good to see Marty Sabo here, too, who is a friend of mine 
for many years.
    Joni Earl is our Executive Director of the Central Puget 
Sound Regional Transit Authority, known as Sound Transit. Mr. 
Chairman, I promised you on the floor I will make this 
exceedingly brief, and I will keep my word.
    I want you to know that the Puget Sound area, particularly 
the Seattle corridor between Everett and Tacoma, is one of the 
most congested in the entire country. I think we are ranked 
second in congestion. This is an effort where the local 
governments went out and got the people to vote in favor of a 
new transit system, and 80 percent of the funding for the first 
segment comes from the local people of our State and 20 percent 
comes from the Federal Government. And I think this is a 
project that we should have done many, many years ago. We are 
suffering out there economically, it takes our people hours to 
get to work. It has affected every company, including the 
Boeing Company. So it is a very serious problem, and I 
appreciate your interest as the new chairman in these issues, 
and I know you have got some questions to ask Joni today, but I 
just wanted you to know that our delegation, this is one of the 
things that we are most concerned about. Transportation in our 
area is absolutely critical, and so I would like to introduce 
Joni Earl, the Acting Executive Director.
    Mr. Rogers. You are welcome, and thank you, Norm.

                     Sound Transit Opening Remarks

    Ms. Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Sabo and 
thank you, Congressman Dicks, for your introduction to the 
committee.
    As Congressman Dicks said, I am Joni Earl, and I am Sound 
Transit's Acting Executive Director and Chief Operating 
Officer. I will be brief because it is clear to me from this 
morning in your conversations with FTA that you have a number 
of questions for me and for Sound Transit.
    This hearing today in this subcommittee is very important 
because of our Federal partnership, and it is vital to the 
success of our project not only because of the Link light rail 
project, but our Federal partnership includes our Sounder 
commuter rail system and our regional express bus. We have 
worked very hard as a new agency to develop positive and 
sustainable relationships with our Federal partners, and I 
recognize that that partnership has been tested over the past 
few months and we want to answer your questions, and I accept 
responsibility for the mistakes of the agency at this point in 
time.
    I joined the agency in October as the Chief Operating 
Officer because of the very issues that Congressman Dicks just 
mentioned. We have tremendous transportation problems. Our 
whole three-county region, which is what Sound Transit 
represent, is choking in congestion and it has significant 
consequences. We house in our three-county region half of the 
State of Washington's population, or 3 million people. And we 
need solutions now and our project has been in the planning 
stages for decades, frankly, even though the vote was in 1996.
    Clearly, Sound Transit has made some significant mistakes 
and hurt our credibility. It is accurate to say our Board of 
Directors, our Congressional delegation, this subcommittee, 
impacted neighborhoods and the media are frustrated and 
disappointed by the recent events, and I recognize this will 
take time, decisive actions and performance to regain 
credibility and your confidence.
    At the same time we need to move forward. In January our 
Board of Directors, made up of local elected officials, voted 
decisively, 14 to 1, to move ahead with this project. They live 
in these communities and they understand the public's 
frustration with our traffic congestion. In mid-November the 
Board and former Executive Director, who left in January, 
tasked me, as I was new, tasked me with the efforts to look at 
our cost estimate and take a hard look at our financial plan, 
the project in total, and make recommendations to the Board. 
Joining me in that intensive effort was Tuck Wilson, who is the 
former Project Director for the Portland Westside Light Rail 
Project. He is now our Acting Director of this project. He has 
actually built a light rail system, and in Portland they have 
the deepest station in North America. Sothe issues that we have 
dealt with about our alignment, Tuck Wilson has a lot of experience in.
    Frankly, as we looked through the project we found that 
there were a number of early warning signs that should have 
been paid attention to, including media reports that should 
have been taken more seriously during the fall. However, the 
agency was involved in multiple efforts that were running 
concurrently while cost numbers were evolving and contract 
negotiations with our tunnel contractor elect were underway. 
Because of the tremendous need for the project, there was a 
strong culture within the agency that as costs evolved, we were 
going to find a way to manage it. We were going to find a way 
to bring the cost down. That was a mantra that was consistent 
in the agency when I arrived in October.
    Looking back, decisions that seemed reasonable at the time 
proved to be wrong, and in being wrong, we have damaged 
relationships and put at risk a project so very critical to the 
region. This is a very complicated and controversial project, 
without the recent confidence issues and without the cost and 
schedule issues.
    I would like to make a couple of key points, and I will 
close and take your questions. First, alternatives have been 
studied for over 30 years and all have ultimately led to light 
rail being an essential part of our overall transportation 
solutions for the region. Our ridership projections just for 
the MOS before you demonstrate the pent-up demand for service, 
we were a highly rated project. Our cost per new rider under 
TEA-21 criteria is below the national median, even with the 
increased cost.
    Second, there are no easy or inexpensive solutions in our 
region. The need for a dedicated, congestion-free right-of-way 
is critical because we cannot expand the I-5 corridor through 
Seattle. It is not physically or financially possible and is on 
no one's radar screen to do. This is not an easy project to 
build for the very same reasons we need it. Link light rail 
runs through, over and under a very dense urban environment 
with steep hills, bounded by Lake Washington and the Puget 
Sound. So we have water on all sides of us as we try to build 
this project.
    Third, we have clearly made mistakes and are correcting 
them. We have assistance and increased oversight on many 
fronts, including this committee, including a new leadership 
team, the Inspector General, our Independent Citizen Oversight 
Panel and the newly appointed Project Review Committee, chaired 
by former three-term Seattle Mayor Charles Royer and including 
former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton and former Governor and 
project critic Booth Gardner. The Board of Directors has just 
created an Audit and Reporting Subcommittee to increase their 
oversight of the agency and the project.
    Fourth, the people of our region and our Board of Directors 
support our light rail. Surveys, including those run by the 
very organized opposition campaign, called Sane Transit, 
indicate that while the public is frustrated by our cost and 
schedule issues, they still support moving forward with light 
rail.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Sabo, this project 
is vital to the Puget Sound and to our economy. The changes I 
have identified to the Board for this project to be successful 
include first strengthening our project budget schedule and 
forecasting systems, and we have that effort underway; 
reorganization of the agency, including the Light Rail 
Department to ensure accountability, accurate reporting, 
oversight, and timely communication of information; 
implementation of recommendations from the Inspector General, 
the Federal Transit Administration and the Project Management 
Oversight consultant, along with our Citizen Oversight Panel; 
and finally, and probably most importantly, adopting a no 
surprise culture and communication policy inside the agency.
    The key to this project moving forward is management and 
relentless oversight and monitoring of the project, and we have 
those efforts under way. That is the commitment that I 
personally made to the Board, that I have personally made to 
Congressman Dicks and other members of our delegation, and the 
FTA.
    I know you have a number of questions on the schedule and 
the budget, so I will close my comments there and try to answer 
your questions as candidly as I can. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement and biography of Joni Earl 
follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                  SEATTLE FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENT

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much for the statement and your 
commitment. This is a huge undertaking that you are engaged in 
here. First, let me say that the communities that you represent 
have had a couple of hard knocks in the last bit and we wish 
you well in recovering from the earthquake and the other knocks 
that you have had. It is such a lovely place with a lot of 
lovely people, and I guess I have got to include Norm Dicks in 
that. Probably the first time he has ever been called lovely 
and the last no doubt. But this project, among three others 
that the outgoing Secretary Slater called us about, out of the 
blue almost late in his term, caused us to quickly review the 
four, and the other three seemed to be in order and are 
proceeding. The Seattle one had a number of red flags flying 
beside it at the time: Cost overruns, delay in the project, 
some degree of confusion back home about the plans. And so we 
asked the Secretary to delay that full funding grant agreement 
until we had a chance to try to resolve things and get it in 
our own minds at least that it was a project that needed to go 
forward. I thought it was premature, to be frank, one at that 
time, and we asked him to hold up on that because it commits 
you and it frankly does not commit the Congress because we have 
to annually appropriate the funds and we weren't quite at that 
point yet. But nevertheless he went ahead and so we have asked 
the Inspector General to analyze the project and give us his 
analysis, and he has not of course, if I understand, done that 
review as of yet.

                       SEATTLE TOTAL PROJECT COST

    But let me ask you a few questions and I will yield to my 
colleague. Just last week the newspaper out there, the Seattle 
Post Intelligence reported that the total project cost now has 
grown to $4.16 billion and quotes you as saying that ``There 
are substantial known and anticipated additional costs not yet 
included in the budget.'' is that an accurate quote from the 
paper?
    Ms. Earl. No, not the statement from me. I am not sure of 
the context of that quote.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, are there substantial known and 
anticipated additional costs not yet included in the budget?
    Ms. Earl. No, I believe the budget that we have now does 
cover our known costs, and if I could explain the 3.6 to the 
4.1. I know you have asked that question a couple times today. 
When the Board, when we took the revised Full Funding Grant 
Agreement to the Board with the new project budget and 
schedule, we established the project capital budget at $3.6 
billion, the total alignment with University Link, the MOS-1, 
being $2.25 billion in terms of a capital project budget, and 
then over and above that we have added financing costs and a 
project reserve, which brought the MOS-1 for the FFGA to $2.6 
billion. If you take the $3.6 billion and then add the 
financing costs and the project reserve for the whole 
alignment, that gets you to the 4.166 number. So we have that 
in our financial plan and it has really been more how you 
characterize the funding in terms of the project cost or the 
nonproject costs. So on January 11, when our Board voted 14 to 
1, we discussed this 4.166. So that is not a new number.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, in less than 3 months it appears your 
costs have again risen by half a billion dollars and that is 
the second budgetary surprise that we have seen. And to be 
frank with you, I am having difficulty getting a handle on the 
total cost of the project.
    Ms. Earl. The total capital side is $3.6 billion. All costs 
related to adding the financing costs and the project reserve, 
which is the category that we call the known unknowns, the 
extra contingency equals 4.166. So the additional $500 million 
that I think you are referencing is really how you categorize 
the costs. But the Full Funding Grant Agreement for MOS-1 is 
$2.6 billion, and that has not changed and we do not anticipate 
that number changing.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, you say that at that point there are 
contingencies, a fund for contingencies, $156 million, and debt 
service financing, which is $195 million, and you conclude that 
they should not be counted in the total cost of the project. 
But it is standard accounting practice to include that charge 
during construction in the capital costs, is it not?
    Ms. Earl. The $2.6 billion for the MOS-1 does include the 
financing costs and the project reserve. It is really more a 
categorization--for the Federal grant agreement we have it all 
captured according to the rules that you have for new starts. 
In our financial plan for the agency, we have the full costs 
also allocated in the financial plan. When the Board adopted 
the $3.6 billion, they did it in terms of the total capital 
costs and that is an accounting factor in how our financial 
plan is built back at the agency. We can provide--I have some 
additional information that maybe I haven't been clear with--
staff and we can provide the sheets here if we have not 
answered that accurately so far.
    [The information follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Rogers. Will the recent earthquake have any impact on 
the cost estimates?
    Ms. Earl. No.

                        SEATTLE BUS TUNNEL COSTS

    Mr. Rogers. If you don't acquire the bus tunnel in 2004 as 
the transfer agreements require, who would be responsible for 
the $60 million in costs associated with debt service on the 
tunnel and the bus maintenance?
    Ms. Earl. We have talked with County Executive Ron Simms, 
who also serves as a member of the Sound Transit Board, and we 
have started those discussions to look at the cost sharing 
factor. We do not believe that while some County Council 
members believe that we should be picking up that additional 
cost for those 3 years that the county would still own the bus 
tunnel, they are also getting the value of the bus tunnel. So 
there is not unanimity on the issue that it would be a cost 
borne by Sound Transit, and that is not the position of County 
Executive Ron Simms. We believe that King County Metro is going 
to have that added value of these 3 years and that is not an 
additional cost. We will need to reopen the interlocal 
agreement with King County because of the date changes, but we 
do not anticipate that that is an additional cost.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, what is the risk that light rail opponents 
on the King County Council will use the tunnel transfer 
renegotiation to block your use of that criticaltunnel right-
of-way in order to retain its function as a terminus for regional 
express bus service?
    Ms. Earl. I don't have an assessment, specifically, of the 
risk. I do believe that with the leadership of County Executive 
Simms and other members of the County Council that are strong 
supporters of our project, that we will be able to work out 
this issue. And one of the strong opponents, two of them, on 
the King County Council, one has just left the Council and 
another is not running for reelection. So we don't know the mix 
on the King County Council before going forward.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, if the cost for the first phase goes up 
from the current estimate and we do not provide more than the 
$500 million on the Federal level, how would you pay for the 
increases?
    Ms. Earl. Well, the way we are trying to effectively manage 
the project is to keep alignment with project scope, budget and 
schedules. We need to keep those three things in balance, and 
if we have increased costs, then we are going to have to look 
at the impact of that on scope and schedule. We have additional 
taxing authority, although there is no appetite for that by our 
Board. But we are going to continue to manage this.
    One of the things that led to the increase of the billion 
dollars is that we have added back contingencies into the 
budget that had been used for other purposes inaccurately and 
incorrectly before we dealt with the tunnel contract 
negotiations. We have now got significant increased 
contingencies in that budget in addition to the $157 million 
project reserve. For instance, we have $80 million in 
contingency for the tunnel alone. We have right-of-way 
contingencies. So we believe we have got excess money in the 
project right now, and we would hope that we are not going to 
receive any additional increased costs. If so, we recognize it 
is Sound Transit's responsibility to pay for those increases 
and not the Federal Government.

                    SEATTLE BUSWAY TUNNEL AGREEMENT

    Mr. Rogers. I have sort of asked this before, but let me 
ask it more bluntly. Can you guarantee us that the total cost 
is not going to exceed $4.16 billion?
    Ms. Earl. I cannot guarantee that. I do believe they are 
not going to up because of the way we have built the budget 
this time, but I cannot guarantee that.
    Mr. Rogers. The busway tunnel agreement says that MOS-1 
must be open by January 1, 2009. Sound Transit has a start date 
of November 1, 2009. Is the county or the city still obligated 
to transfer the tunnel?
    Ms. Earl. The transfer date I believe is 2007 in the 
agreement. I am sorry, the transfer date is 2004 in the 
existing agreement.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, there is a contingency extension, January 
1, 2009.
    Ms. Earl. I don't recall what that date is. I do know that 
I sat down with Kent County about 4 weeks ago and we outlined 
all the various issues that we need to look at in the local 
agreement and have set up a negotiating team on that date. But 
we have not started the renegotiation.

                        SEATTLE PROJECT PROPOSAL

    Mr. Rogers. Senator Gorton, who in the past was your 
biggest supporter and is now, as you say, on a newly formed 
panel that is probing light rail plans for the Seattle area, 
was quoted as saying in the last few days, ``We ought to design 
something we can actually build, and I am very much afraid that 
you are on a dead end street right now.'' I assume he was 
addressing that to the panel?
    Ms. Earl. Yes. There was a meeting yesterday.
    Mr. Rogers. That was yesterday.
    Ms. Earl. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. What do you say about that?
    Ms. Earl. The committee that was formed, if I can just take 
a minute to describe that. Initially, the purpose of the 
Project Review Committee was for technical oversight of the 
project, and then as the last 3 months have unfolded, we 
decided to add to the committee a mix of both technical and 
community leaders because we feel very strongly to build back 
the support within the region for the project because of the 
damage that we have done with the additional cost and schedule 
increases.
    The committee is currently--this was their second meeting, 
but it was Senator Gorton's first meeting with the committee. 
The way that Chair Royer has decided to run the committee is to 
start with the recognition that everybody has a different level 
of knowledge about the project. So the first two meetings have 
been focused on put all your questions and ideas, everything on 
the table, and then the agency and our consultants are going 
back through to answer all of their questions and to try to 
bring the committee to an understanding of how we got to the 
decisions that we got to today. That is the process that they 
are in, and that is the context of the meeting that took place 
yesterday afternoon, including comments that Senator Gorton 
made, and there are actually three or four other members that 
made additional comments and requests for information.
    I think this committee is going to be going through a 
process of trying to understand all of the decisions and 
studies that have happened, that have led to the decisions 
where the board adopted an alignment in November 1999, and we 
believe that they will end up with a broader understanding of 
why we got to where we got to today.
    The suggestions that Senator Gorton has made in 
thatarticle, to go with an on-grade alignment, for example, versus 
tunnel, were studied extensively, and the Board made a decision to go 
with the tunnel because of the community impacts and the costs. We need 
to bring that information back to the committee and we will be doing 
that over the next few weeks.
    Mr. Rogers. He, in effect, and I am perusing the story from 
the news Tribune newspaper, the story goes on to say that, 
after he had said the quote that I mentioned, that he urged 
Sound Transit to jettison some of the over budget plans. He 
said forget the deep expensive tunnel, the meandering route 
that makes tunneling necessary in the first place, and he says 
build a straight line, build it above ground and build it so 
trains can run as far north and south as possible, and that in 
doing so, it would be affordable to lay track all the way from 
Federal Way to Seattle's Northgate transit hub.
    Is he all wet in that suggestion?
    Ms. Earl. There has been historical debate over the 
alignment issues. The reason that we have taken the jog up to 
first Hill and Capitol Hill is because of ridership. We have 
the alignment going to, I don't know if Stephanie has a map 
there for you, but we have the alignment going to our most 
dense neighborhoods and highest job centers, which was a 
conscious decision that the Board made from a ridership 
standpoint, and we need to bring all of that information to the 
committee so they understand the importance of having the 
ridership.
    If you run the alignment along I-5 and you are missing your 
high ridership areas, we are not convinced that we are going to 
get the type of ridership we need to justify the cost of the 
projects. But we have agreed to look at that information and 
bring it back forward to the committee so they understand that.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, I have more questions, but I will yield 
for the moment to Mr. Sabo.

                         SEATTLE FINANCING PLAN

    Mr. Sabo. As I understand it, for part one your initial 
application was for $1.67 billion, $500 million which was 
Federal funds over a period of years.
    Ms. Earl. Correct.
    Mr. Sabo. Our funding has stayed the same. It is yours that 
is going up.
    Ms. Earl. Yes.
    Mr. Sabo. Help me understand. I am reading here often how 
you are going to get the additional cost. What is the financing 
plan? Is it a dedicated sales or property tax?
    Ms. Earl. We have three local tax sources; four-tenths of a 
percent sales tax, three-tenths motor vehicle excise tax, and 
then a car rental tax.
    Mr. Sabo. And you have bonding capacity?
    Ms. Earl. Yes, we have bonding capacity.
    Mr. Sabo. How much bonding capacity?
    Ms. Earl. I believe it is 50 percent. I am looking at our 
Finance Director. $2.8 billion bonding capacity.
    Mr. Sabo. So you were originally planning to bond for 
roughly $1.2 billion. Now you are going to have to use $2.1 
billion of the bonding capacity on segment one. Is that 
accurate?
    Ms. Earl. No. We have increased our bonding capacity to 
$1.1 billion.
    Mr. Sabo. The other is being paid from other sources. What 
was the original bonding capacity?
    Ms. Earl. Do you know that off the top of your head? I 
could provide that for the record.
    [The information follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Sabo. Okay. Then we are told that some savings will 
come because you are not going to start operations until 2009. 
I assume operations will be subsidized, and that means that 
some monies that were going to go in that 3 year period for 
subsidizing operations instead will go directly to 
construction.
    Ms. Earl. Yes.
    Mr. Sabo. Then it says financial plan, such as lowering the 
agency's borrowing rate for sales of excess real estate. Are 
you assuming the borrowing rate is lower than what you 
originally thought?
    Ms. Earl. Yes. Our original interest rate assumption was 6 
percent. We have done one bond measure so far and we ended up 
at 4.97 percent. We lowered the 6 percent to 5.85 percent, and 
we had that reviewed by our financial consultant and a peer 
review panel of 4 other chief financial officers in our region 
to test our assumptions against the type of assumptions that 
they are using, and we feel that is a very reasonable 
assumption.
    Mr. Sabo. Then I notice additional Federal funds for 
Airport Link. I assume that means at this point you are 
expecting to ask for more Federal funds for that part of the 
project than you originally planned on.
    Ms. Earl. Yes. We had originally planned to ask for around 
$430 million of Federal funds in a second MOS, and we increased 
that to $931 million and identified it as no guarantee and one 
of our higher risk assumptions in the financial plan. So we 
were very candid that we knew that that was somewhat aggressive 
and that we would need to break that possibly into two funding 
cycles.
    Mr. Sabo. That is in part because you are using more of 
your bonding capacity early?
    Ms. Earl. Is that accurate, that we are using more of our 
bonding capacity earlier? Is that one of the reasons?
    Yes, that is one of the reasons.
    Mr. Sabo. Let me ask a question about how much 
othertunneling are you planning in the future. Is 4.5 miles the extent 
of your tunneling?
    Ms. Earl. We have one other tunnel in Beacon Hill which is 
a very short tunnel, eight-tenths of a mile tunnel.
    Mr. Sabo. I recall years ago that we approved the funding 
for the tunnel under Seattle.
    Mr. Dicks. In downtown Seattle.
    Mr. Sabo. The busway.
    Ms. Earl. The busway, right.
    Mr. Sabo. That was unique, as I recall. The buses came in 
as buses, and then they went on tracks or something 
underground. How long is that tunnel?
    Ms. Earl. That tunnel is 1.3 miles.
    Mr. Sabo. Is that part of the 4.5?
    Ms. Earl. No, the 4.5 is additional tunnel. We are going to 
convert the existing 1.3 tunnel to rail, and then we build a 
new tunnel as we come out of the north end of the existing bus 
tunnel.
    Mr. Sabo. It will disappear as a bus tunnel?
    Ms. Earl. Yes.
    Mr. Sabo. One of the big uncertainties in all of these 
projects is tunneling.
    Ms. Earl. Right.
    Mr. Sabo. It is very hard to estimate. I don't know what 
kind of consultants you had. I assume you had consultants early 
on in the planning process?
    Ms. Earl. Yes. We had consultants very early on before the 
vote and an expert review panel that looked at our assumptions 
when our engineering was just barely beyond conceptual, and 
then after the vote we brought on consultant teams. We have a 
team that is Puget Sound Transit Consultants, a consortium of 
Parsons, Brinkenhoff, Kaiser, and I forget the third member of 
the team, that helped us build our cost estimates. Then we had 
an independent expert tunneling panel that also looked at our 
cost estimates.
    What we found when we went out for the design build 
contract procurement that Hiram Walker talked about earlier 
this morning is that, as we went through the planning, we ran 
into soils problems under Portage Bay which forced our stations 
to go deeper under the University of Washington.
    So we had a series of events. We had the Endangered Species 
Act that came into play from the early-on estimates. Now what 
we know about the tunnel is because we have gone through the 
procurement for design-build. We have two hard-dollar cost 
proposals that we have been able to have reviewed independently 
and by our consultant team for the technical and cost elements.
    So we now know the contractor that we selected, the 
contractor elect is Modern Transit Conductors, and they 
established a number of $780 million. What we included in our 
budget in January was an increase to $806 million, and we added 
a $81 million contingency on top of that because we are not 
through those negotiations. We suspended negotiations when we 
saw those higher numbers in November.
    So we still need to complete those negotiations. But we 
feel very confident in those numbers, because we have two 
different proposals that we have looked at in depth.
    Mr. Sabo. I am curious both as to whether FTA and following 
on what you are doing, did they give you any warnings, watch 
out for tunneling costs, or the consultants? These consultants 
don't come cheaply. Any reason they missed?
    Ms. Earl. Well, my understanding----
    Mr. Sabo. What excuses are they giving you now why they 
were wrong?
    Ms. Earl. Well, my understanding is that PMOC for the FTA 
looked at the cost estimates that had been done by our team and 
did not raise any concerns about those at the time, and the 
original budget for that was $557 million. So we were off close 
to $300 million.
    During the procurement process and when we were in 
negotiations, the numbers were not shared with FTA. They did 
not want to know the numbers because of the confidentiality of 
the negotiations. So during the fall we did notify FTA that the 
cost proposals came in high, but we did not--they did not want 
numbers. And we did not give them numbers during that time. So 
they were not privy to the negotiations on those higher numbers 
during the fall.
    Mr. Sabo. You had two contractors?
    Ms. Earl. We had two proposals that came in.
    Mr. Sabo. It was not simply that they gave you a bid 
number, but you started negotiating?
    Ms. Earl. Right. It was a design-build procurement, so we 
had a technical proposal and a cost proposal. We were analyzing 
both. And then when we--we had two different teams, a technical 
team looking at the technical analysis, another team looking at 
the cost. Then in early August, those came in the end of July, 
and early August the two committees that looked at them came 
together and recommended one of the two consultants. Then we 
started negotiations, which effectively started around the 
first part of September.
    Mr. Sabo. I gather you negotiated down their bid?
    Ms. Earl. We tried to negotiate down their bid and worked 
on that for about 2 months, and it became clear to us that the 
type--they had told us, let me back up for a second.
    They had told us in early September when we said that those 
proposals were so far over budget, they gave us some 
suggestions of ways to bring it down by as much as $250 
million. So we went into the negotiation believing that we 
could get it back within budget or very close to budget.
    When we started to look at those and negotiate, it became 
clear to us that some of those were about risk sharing and 
other pieces that we were not comfortable with and that it 
would also affect where the station locations were above 
ground. And if it changed the station locations, that impacts 
in the communities from what we had negotiated with our 
communities. It had impacts potentially on the EIS, on the 
record of decision. So in November we said, time out. We don't 
think that we can achieve these kinds of savings because we are 
not sure we can make the changes above ground, both in terms of 
our FFGA proposal, in terms of the record of decision, and in 
terms of the communities.
    So we said, time out, went to the Board. Let's suspend 
negotiations. We contacted FTA and said, even though this has 
gone through congressional review, we are not ready to sign it, 
don't send it to us, we need to get a handle on our problem. 
That is the effort that started in November, an extensive 
effort in November-December that led up to the January vote by 
the Board.
    Mr. Sabo. At this point, if you signed a bill contract, any 
additional complications in tunneling is at the contractor's 
risk?
    Ms. Earl. The negotiations have been set up so far that the 
contractor owns the method and means, Sound Transit owns the 
ground. So it would depend upon what went wrong, whetherit is 
Sound Transit's risk or the contractor's risk.
    Mr. Sabo. I don't understand what that means.
    Ms. Earl. For instance, if we own the ground and we have 
missed and there is a big--the one that we always talk about is 
the bigness of boulders and we can't get the machine through 
the ground, that is our risk. But we have done geotech borings 
every 300 feet along the alignment and through the tunnel, 
which is how we found the soil problems that we ran into, so we 
have done a tremendous amount of geotechnical work on that 
tunnel.
    So that part is our risk. If there are other problems--and 
our chief engineer is here so if you have a more technical 
question on this, he would be a better one to answer it. But 
the risk--the contract is not negotiated at this point because 
we need to understand all those risk issues. So we do not 
have--our target is to have a contract negotiated by this fall.
    Mr. Sabo. If your Board had known originally of the total 
cost of tunneling, would they still have decided to tunnel? I 
guess this comes back to Senator Gorton's question.
    Ms. Earl. Right. I don't know how to answer that, other 
than at grade in a very dense urban environment is very 
difficult. It is extensive right-of-way cost, extensive 
community impacts. The Board listens very carefully to the 
communities, and I think we don't know how much cheaper that 
would be at this point when you add the community impacts and 
the additional right of way.
    Mr. Sabo. The alternative would be to go through fully 
developed neighborhoods?
    Ms. Earl. Yes.
    Mr. Dicks. This is fully developed.
    Mr. Sabo. So the trackage would have to run on existing 
streets, or else you would have to clear housing?
    Ms. Earl. Yes. And on the South Line, the non-MOS, most of 
that is at grade. Even that is controversial down there. They 
are bigger streets and more right of way.
    Mr. Sabo. Everybody loves it in that area, except next to 
their own place.
    Ms. Earl. Right.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                   SEATTLE SITE ACQUISITION PROBLEMS

    Mr. Rogers. Following up on what Mr. Sabo had asked about, 
and that is the extra expenses that could possibly be 
encountered here, from what I am reading about the area, your 
plan would take the line through, I am told, 130 sites where 
hazardous materials are a serious concern. I am quoting from--
--
    Ms. Earl. The Seattle PI.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. The Seattle paper, including at 
least 16 with groundwater contamination, which they say are 
often the hardest to evaluate and clean up. And apparently some 
of these hazardous waste sites are fairly serious, including 
one that has been declared by the EPA as a Superfund site back 
in January, and further that those cleanup costs could be very 
expensive. But at best at this point in time they are difficult 
to estimate. Is that a correct statement, do you think?
    Ms. Earl. We were not able to reconcile with the reporter 
from the PI on the 130 sites and all of the information that 
was in that article. We have built into our budget where we 
know we have contaminated areas--for instance, we ran into some 
contamination around the Beacon Hill tunnel, and we have 
identified funding within our budget for the cleanup, about--
approximately $20 million, which is only for the properties 
that we are aware of.
    We have contingencies within our construction dollars. We 
have a strategy for where we know we are going to have to do 
additional due diligence. We don't have a final number on all 
of the potential contamination, but we also don't reconcile 
with the information in that article that there is that level 
of sites.
    For instance, we have been able to engineer in some cases 
in our design work around a site so that we are not actually 
going through a contaminated site. So we don't anticipate the 
type of problems that are expected through that, as you read 
that article.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, they say that your route requires buying 
16 sites with known groundwater contamination, and that 15 
other sites near the route have groundwater contamination that 
could affect construction. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Earl. I am going to look at our chief engineer.
    We believe those are at the maintenance base, those 
parcels, and those are included in our estimate. The 
maintenance base that we purchased or are in the process of 
purchasing is a former Rainier Brewery site in an industrial 
zone. That part is covered--known and covered in our costs.
    Mr. Rogers. According to this story, that is a separate 
question from the 16 sites that I earlier mentioned.
    Ms. Earl. I think the best thing I could do, Mr. Chairman, 
is to provide you with some additional information for the 
record, because I don't have the specifics here.
    Mr. Rogers. That will be fine.
    [The information follows:]

     Of the sites scheduled for full or partial 
acquisition along the Link light rail alignment, Sound Transit 
has identified 37 that have known soil or ground water 
contamination. There are an additional 68 potentially-
contaminated properties currently scheduled for acquisition, 
for a total of 105 sites where contamination issues may have to 
be addressed during construction and ownership.
     Of the 105 properties, 11 have known ground water 
contamination.
     In addition to the 105 known--and/or potentially--
contaminated properties, another 12 have been identified with 
known ground water contamination that has the potential to 
impact construction activities and costs. These properties are 
not projected for acquisition.
     The current Link light rail alignment is over a 
half-mile away from the southern boundary of the Lower Duwamish 
Waterway EPA Superfund site at its closest point. No impacts 
from the Duwamish Superfund site are expected to the alignment, 
as it lies hydraulically upgradient with respect to the site.
     The Link alignment does not cross over or pass 
adjacent to any EPA Superfund sites.

    Mr. Rogers. Then there is the question of tunneling in soil 
that is soaked with oil and gas, contaminated soil; and I am 
again referring to this story in the newspaper. This story says 
that Sound Transit's planned tunneling includes six sites with 
groundwater contamination; and when you attempt to tunnel 
through that kind of soil, the flume is spread far and wide 
because of that and that the costs could be very high to deal 
with that.
    Ms. Earl. That is one of the reasons that our tunnel costs 
came in higher as we worked with the design-build contractor. 
So we believe we have that taken care of in the additional 
tunnel costs.

                  SEATTLE PROJECT COMPLETION SCHEDULE

    Mr. Rogers. Now, let me deal with the completion schedule 
questions.
    Less than 6 months ago, you planned to complete the first 
phase by 2006, but in January of this year that was revised to 
2009 because of the complexities of the project, particularly 
with the deeper tunnel under the Bay and deeper station 
placements.
    You say in your testimony that that date, 2009, was much 
more realistic and would decrease the likelihood that we would 
be required to compensate construction contractors for 
construction delay claims. However, last week the newspaper 
quoted you as saying that that 2009 date is already in doubt. I 
think the--sorry, let me quote it more accurately--``chances 
for survival of the project are good, but I don't know if we 
can do all this by 2009.''
    What makes you say that?
    Ms. Earl. The context of that statement, the question that 
was asked of me during an editorial board with the Post 
Intelligencer was, do you think you are going to be able to get 
this project done? Is it going to happen?
    My comment was, yes, I think it is going to happen. I think 
the greatest risk in the project is the schedule from the 
standpoint of we have the Project Review Committee, we have a 
lot of issues still to resolve, we are not through our design-
build negotiation. So if anything is going to give in the 
project, it could potentially be the schedule.
    But we still believe--the 2009 schedule, Mr. Chair, is 
built starting with the fact that our original schedule had us 
having a contract with the design builder this past October. We 
are going to be minimally a year behind there at that point. So 
we are a year behind because of the contract negotiations.
    We went through--and when Tuck Wilson joined us in the 
fall, in November, we went through in great detail each segment 
of the project and realized the schedule we were on was too 
aggressive; and one of the cost issues we were going to be 
dealing with is the delay claims, as you mentioned in the first 
part of your question.
    So we built that schedule based upon a design bid-build 
procurement, which is not what we anticipate doing. But if we 
are unsuccessful for some reason with our contract 
negotiations, we wanted enough time in our schedule to do final 
design bid-build.
    So we are confident in the 2009 schedule, especially for 
MOS-1. We recognize for the non-MOS that the Federal funding 
and the other issues that we have to go through are still 
unresolved, and we have aligned our schedule so that we are not 
starting construction on the south part of the line until we 
know where we stand on our Federal funding.
    So we have really pulled our schedule apart between MOS-1 
and the non-MOS.
    Mr. Rogers. There is a story also that quotes you as saying 
you expect this hearing to be one of my less pleasant growth 
experiences.
    Ms. Earl. I was really sorry that that quote came in, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. We are hurt.
    Ms. Earl. It was really nothing personal.
    Mr. Rogers. Now----
    Mr. Dicks. Your reputation precedes you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Earl. I watched the FAA hearing.
    Mr. Dicks. I see that is behind you there.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, you see, we are not quite as bad.
    Ms. Earl. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Rogers. Not quite as bad as we seem. Like Mark Twain's 
comment about Wagner's music, it is not really as bad as it 
sounds.
    Now the agreement shows that you will be seeking a second 
agreement in 2004 on the connection between Seattle and the 
airport. The current amount of that MOS-2 is $1.35 billion, 
which the Federal share would be $931 million, which is 69 
percent.
    That proposal begins work on MOS-2 5 years before MOS-1 is 
currently scheduled to be completed. That approach would place 
both segments of the project in jeopardy if there should be 
cost overruns and schedule delays, which would subject the 
community to a much higher local share than I think they might 
expect to spend.
    Then, beginning in 2007, you will be requesting $100 
million per year until 2016. During the past decade, only a 
handful of agencies have received appropriations equalling $100 
million or more in any given year. No one has ever consistently 
gotten that much money year after year.
    Now I don't want to underestimate Norm Dicks' abilities, 
but I wonder if he realizes the chore he has ahead of him 
coming up on this. Why do you plan beginning phase 2 before you 
get to the halfway point of phase 1?
    Ms. Earl. Well, our target is to be able to open the entire 
alignment in 2009, and the critical path for that is clearly 
the tunnel itself. We believe that by the time that we would be 
starting construction on the airport, we would be through most 
of the risk, the higher risk parts of our construction schedule 
at that point.
    So the commitment to the voters in 1996 was that we would 
be able to open light rail from just south of SeaTac Airport to 
the University of Washington, so we have built the schedule to 
try to achieve that commitment so that we can open the entire 
alignment at that point.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, FTA, the federal transit administration, 
has been quoted as saying Sound Transit would achieve, by 
getting $100 million a year, would achieve what no one else has 
if it gets that much money.
    If you should be unable to obtain those record-setting 
Federal fund amounts year in and year out to request for the 
Airport Link, how would you propose to raise your local funds 
to construct that segment if you can't get the $100 million a 
year for 9 years?
    Ms. Earl. Our Board is looking at that question right now. 
They are going through our financial plan. We have looked at it 
as three or four options, one being a longer--having to go out 
and do actually two MOSs, so it would take us out longer, and 
not try to do it all in one MOS for $931 million. So we would 
possibly be looking at schedulechanges.
    We do have other taxing authority. We are looking at other 
funding sources that might help us out.
    So the Board has just made a decision about 3 weeks ago to 
slow down the work according to the schedule for Airport Link, 
so that we are not spending a bunch of money ahead of when we 
can actually use it. So they have only authorized the 
expenditure of $100 million over 3 years for some design work 
and hardship acquisitions or kind of preemptive acquisitions of 
property. Then during the next few months we will be bringing 
back to the Board additional strategies for how to buy down the 
reliance on the Federal funding, one of which is that in the 
FFGA, we have language in there to try to find ways through the 
6-month work program that we have developed to lower the cost 
schedule risk and community impacts. That is language right in 
the FFGA.
    One of the policy issues that the Board will have before 
them this month is, if savings can be achieved in the first 
MOS, how will that be applied. So far, there is quite a bit of 
support on the Board that that would be applied to the South 
Line to bring down the reliance on the Federal share at this 
point.
    So we have a number of strategies we are pursuing at this 
time. But that policy decision has not been made by the Board 
yet.
    Mr. Rogers. We mentioned Senator Gorton earlier, and he is 
apparently a part of some sort of panel or committee.
    Ms. Earl. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. What is that?
    Ms. Earl. It is the Project Review Committee that is a mix 
of community leaders and technical people in the community that 
are looking at the project. We developed in January a 6-month 
work program using some of the work that was done with the 
design-build contractor elect on ways to lower the cost of the 
tunnel. We have one change, as an example, a small alignment 
change that moves it in the Capitol Hill 1 block that could 
save us some substantial money.
    So the 6-month work program that we have developed on the 
technical side is being reviewed by this Project Review 
Committee independent of the staff work. It is part of our 
effort to bring the community back on board and to help to 
start to rebuild confidence on the project and with our staff.
    The committee is about 11 people. I think in the material 
that I sent to Stephanie is a listing of the committee members 
and who they represent and what expertise they bring to the 
table.
    The goal long-term is after this 6-month work program that 
the committee would come up with a recommendation on how to 
have independent project oversight going forward through the 
life of the project.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, this News Tribune story about his 
comments at that meeting describe the panel as probing whether 
plans for Seattle area light rail are doomed. Is that an 
inaccurate description of what that panel is looking at?
    Ms. Earl. Well, I wasn't there yesterday for the meeting. 
The report that I had is that they were continuing their 
discussion from their first meeting which was what are all the 
questions that we have about the project to get them all on the 
table so we can come back and respond to their issues. I think 
that is part of it.
    You know, there has clearly been an opposition campaign to 
the light rail project that has been led by the group called 
Sane Transit. That is part of what folks are responding to, is 
some of the information that has come from the opposition 
group, who has been opposing this project for over 10 years.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we don't want to get involved in local 
politics. We don't want to try to insert our judgment on what 
the community wants to do or not do. That is entirely the 
community's decision. What we are here to try to do is oversee 
expenditures of Federal dollars, which is what this 
subcommittee and the full committee that Norm Dicks sits on 
does. We are oversight. So I don't want anyone to get the idea 
we are attempting to change or modify or torpedo or promote or 
anything else. We like to look out for the expenditure of 
taxpayer dollars.
    I hope you appreciate that on practically every project 
that gets this far along we hear nothing but good things about 
the project, and I hope you appreciate that we are getting a 
lot of mixed signals from Seattle about whether to proceed and, 
if so, how.
    So, we are a little bit confused about all of that, and 
this is an attempt to try to find if there is unanimity or near 
unanimity about the project. Because it is terribly expensive 
and will not only obligate the Federal tax dollars but will 
also obligate Seattle taxpayers' dollars as well for a long 
time to come. So, whatever we do, we want to do it right and do 
it on a basis where it can be sustained over the years so that 
some future taxpayers are not picking up a huge load over a 
failed project.
    So I hope you appreciate where we are coming from, from our 
perspective.
    Ms. Earl. Absolutely.
    Mr. Rogers. We will be doing this type of review, as you 
have seen today on Puerto Rico and others, where we see some 
problems. That is our job as we take it.
    Mr. Sabo, anything you would like to add as we continue 
here and try to close?
    Mr. Sabo. I am just curious, in the tunneling, what kind of 
geology do you tunnel through?
    Ms. Earl. Soft ground tunneling.
    Mr. Sabo. I guess I am curious, what kind of rock formation 
or what do you have to go through? Sandstone?
    Mr. Houppermans. It is a soft clay tunneling, and you use 
what is called an earth pressure balance machine to pressurize 
the chamber to keep water and the soft ground from 
infiltrating, as opposed to rock tunneling. That is a very, 
very common kind of tunneling.
    Mr. Rogers. Tell the reporter your name and title, please?
    Mr. Houppermans. My name is William Houppermans. I am the 
chief engineer for Sound Transit.
    Mr. Sabo. What is your schedule of funding if you proceed 
on Link 1? What would be the cash flow on that?
    Ms. Earl. As far as the Federal share or----
    Mr. Sabo. Whatever you are spending.
    Ms. Earl. Let me see if I have that with me. Do you have 
that with you, Hugh?
    In fiscal year '01, both Federal and local would be $275 
million; '02, $415 million; '03, $442 million; '04, $525 
million; '05, $525 million; and '06, $353 million for MOS-1.
    Mr. Sabo. When will we know whether you can proceed onthose 
assumptions?
    Ms. Earl. Well, the local money that we have we are okay 
with. So part of it is our Federal appropriation. And then also 
being able to finalize the design-build contract this fall.
    Mr. Sabo. I guess that is what I am curious about. When is 
the decision time to proceed with the design-build contract?
    Ms. Earl. Our target is to have completed those 
negotiations this summer and take the contract to the Board in 
the fall. We have restarted those discussions with the 
contractor-elect.
    Mr. Sabo. So by fall that decision should be made?
    Ms. Earl. Yes.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much for your appearance here 
and your testimony and that of your staff.
    Mr. Dicks, do you care to say anything?
    Mr. Dicks. No, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your taking all 
this time, and you have been a gentleman through this entire 
process, and we appreciate that.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Earl. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                          Thursday, April 26, 2001.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                                WITNESS

L. ROBERT SHELTON III, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 
    SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Rogers. Good afternoon. Our witness this afternoon is 
Bob Shelton, the executive director of the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. Today we will discuss NHTSA's 
fiscal year 2002 budget request. This is the Department's key 
administration focusing on highway safety.
    The President's budget requests $419 million, a four 
percent increase over the current year, basically a current 
services budget. Of that total, $196 million is for operations 
and research; and $223 million is given to the states in the 
form of highway safety grants.
    Motor vehicle crashes account for 94 percent of all 
transportation related deaths and 99 percent of all injuries. 
Over the past several years, we have witnessed substantial 
progress in reducing highway fatalities, injuries and 
accidents. However, in the last year there has been a reversal 
in that trend.
    Your preliminary motor vehicle injury and fatality 
estimates show that approximately 41,800 people lost their 
lives in motor vehicle traffic accidents in 2000. That is a one 
percent increase over the previous year. Similarly, the 
fatality rate per vehicle mile traveled also increased 
slightly. Within that total, motorcycles, light trucks and vans 
and alcohol-related fatalities experienced the most significant 
increases.
    The previous Administration developed a number of long-term 
safety goals, including increasing seatbelt usage rates to 85 
percent in the year 2000 and reducing alcohol related 
fatalities to 11,000 by 2005. Given where they are today, I 
wonder if NHTSA will be able to meet either of those goals.
    As we know, the agency missed the 2000 seatbelt goal by at 
least 15 percent. Seatbelt use has remained fairly constant for 
the past several years, now hovering around 70 percent. The 
Administration faces a steep challenge to meet a 90 percent 
seatbelt usage rate by 2005. You will have to impose creative 
and forceful measures if you plan to come close to or meet that 
goal.
    Based on an increase in alcohol-related fatalities in 2000 
and little reduction in past years, it appears that NHTSA may 
also miss the second goal unless recent changes in federal 
legislation take hold and more aggressive measures by this 
agency are undertaken.
    At the same time that fatalities are rising and the agency 
is unable to meet its safety goals, NHTSA has come under close 
scrutiny by Congress and the general public over its ability to 
identify safety problems quickly. For example, last year NHTSA 
was unable to recognize the early warning signals posed by some 
Firestone tires. Only after almost 100 fatalities and 400 
injuries related to Firestone ATX and Wilderness tires did the 
Administration begin to play an aggressive role in the 
Firestone tire issue.
    Similarly, in 1996, NHTSA failed to identify the dangers 
airbags posed to small stature women and children as these 
fatalities were first occurring. In both of these cases, 
Congress had to step in to get the agency to focus on the 
immediate problem and identify long-term measures to reduce the 
dangers these pieces of equipment posed to the American public.
    I want to raise the fatality increases, failure in 
achieving goals and inability to identify emerging safety-
related problems as red flags to the Administration. Without 
close scrutiny of potential problems, diligent oversight of 
safety data and innovative programs, improvements in highway 
safety may stagnate. This is not something I or the Committee 
will tolerate.
    Mr. Shelton, welcome to your first hearing before this 
Committee. Without objection, your written testimony will be 
entered into the record. We will appreciate hearing whatever 
you would like to say in the way of an oral statement, but 
first let me yield to my colleague Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Shelton, welcome to the Committee. I look forward to 
hearing your testimony. My apologies also. I have another 
commitment that I have to be at, so I will be here for a little 
while and then have to leave. My apologies. Thank you.
    Mr. Shelton. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. You may proceed.

                         NHTSA Opening Remarks

    Mr. Shelton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to 
appear on behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration as we present our budget request for fiscal year 
2002.
    Before I highlight the major areas of our program, I want 
to congratulate you on assuming leadership of the subcommittee. 
We look forward to working closely with the subcommittee and 
its staff.
    The Secretary's number one goal is to improve safety in all 
modes of private and commercial transportation. NHTSA's 
contribution to this mission is a balanced program addressing 
both human and vehicular safety issues on our roadways. Our 
fiscal year 2002 budget request of $419 million will permit us 
to continue this balanced approach.
    The public health issues facing NHTSA and its partners 
around the nation are significant, as you pointed out. Despite 
major progress in traffic safety since the federal program was 
enacted in the mid 1960s, more than 41,000 people still die on 
our roads each year, and over 3,000,000 people are injured. The 
human loss of this tragedy is staggering. The economic cost 
exceeds $150 billion annually.
    As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, we are witnessing a 
reversal in some of the safety trends that had been improving 
in recent years. Fatalities have gone up. The fatality rate 
increased slightly last year, and drunk driving, while 
maintaining its record level of 38 percent of fatalities, has 
not improved.
    I would like to now give the committee a brief overview of 
NHTSA's plans and activities supported by the 2002 budget 
request. One of the most demanding tasks facing us is 
implementing the Transportation Recall Enhancement, 
Accountability and Documentation Act, the TREAD Act, which 
Congress enacted last fall in the wake of the Firestone tire 
investigation.
    The TREAD Act requires issuance of several rule making 
actions to update the tire standards, develop dynamic rollover 
tests and improve the safety of child restraints. It also 
provides stronger penalties for safety defects, longer safety 
recall periods and enhanced enforcement. It grants us a new 
authority to learn more about safety problems in foreign 
countries before they occur in the United States.
    NHTSA will continue its work to improve crash worthiness of 
passenger cars in commercial vehicles and support better crash 
avoidance capabilities. Included are initiatives on improved 
roof crush, vehicle crash compatibility, advanced braking, 
child restraints and head protection. Our program supports 
international harmonization in vehicle research and safety 
regulations.
    We will also continue the new car assessment program, which 
provides the car buying public with frontal and side impact 
crash test results, as well as new ratings to give consumers 
information on a vehicle's resistance to rolling over during a 
single vehicle crash.
    One of our major goals is to incorporate successful 
strategies to address the human factors dimension of traffic 
safety. Chief among our concerns are how to deter impaired 
driving, increase seatbelt usage and educate parents and other 
caregivers on correct placement of children and infants in 
appropriate safety restraints.
    Working with our state and local partners, we will develop 
new strategies for police traffic enforcement and deterrence of 
aggressive driving and speeding. Other key initiatives include 
emergency medical services, safe operation around school buses 
and distracted driving.
    Our budget request for research will enhance the 
effectiveness of both behavioral and vehicular safety measures. 
Research will address vehicle crash worthiness and crash 
avoidance and help us further our understanding about how crash 
injury occurs and actions we can take to reduce it. Funding for 
our National Center for Statistics and Analysis will allow 
NHTSA to continue a world class crash and injury information 
system that supports both private and public sector safety 
efforts.
    Our 2002 program also includes performance based highway 
safety grants for every state and territory in the Indian 
nations. These grants include state and local work on leading 
national problems such as alcohol impaired driving and safety 
belt and child restraint usage. We also offer incentive grants 
to states who encourage better occupant protection, child 
passenger safety, impaired driving programs and improvements in 
safety data systems.
    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be 
pleased to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement and biography of L. Robert Shelton 
follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much for that statement, Mr. 
Shelton.
    Mr. Sabo, I know you have another committee meeting.
    Mr. Sabo. Go ahead.

                        FIRESTONE INVESTIGATION

    Mr. Rogers. Tell us where you are with the Firestone 
investigation.
    Mr. Shelton. Sir, right now we are completing tests on the 
Firestone tires and comparable tires. We have been collecting 
data from other tire manufacturers offering comparable tires to 
get the experience of those tires versus the relevant Firestone 
tires.
    We have been visiting Firestone plants, as well as other 
manufacturers' plants, to understand the tire manufacturing 
process and the designs of their tires. We are hoping to wrap 
up the investigation by this summer.
    Mr. Rogers. Any preliminary findings that you could tell us 
about now?
    Mr. Shelton. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that 
we are still completing our work, and we do not have 
preliminary findings that we can discuss.
    Mr. Rogers. And you will be finished with it when?
    Mr. Shelton. We expect to finish it up this summer.

         OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES

    Mr. Rogers. Have you made any specific changes in the 
Office of Defects Investigation to be sure that we do not have 
another Firestone occurrence?
    Mr. Shelton. We have made organizational changes, staffing 
changes, and we are changing the computer system. We have 
reorganized the office to, we think, better emphasize detecting 
trends earlier.
    We are hiring. Under TREAD, the agency was given authority 
to hire 30 people. This will increase the size of the agency by 
about five percent. Almost 20 of those positions are actually 
in the Office of Defects Investigation. We have substantial, 
additional human resources going into that office.
    In addition, we are spending approximately $2 million to 
totally renovate the data collection system for that office. 
This will make it more current and enable it to better handle 
data on early warning complaints for possible defects when they 
occur.

                            Firestone Recall

    Mr. Rogers. What actions has NHTSA taken to expedite its 
ongoing investigation into other Firestone tires to ensure that 
the motoring public is protected?
    [The information follows:]
    Currently, there are two separate Firestone investigations, 
the first involving ATX and Wilderness tires and a second 
involving Steeltex light truck tires.
    The ATX/Wilderness investigation was opened on May 2, 2000. 
As a result of the investigation, on August 9, 2000, Firestone 
announced that it was recalling 14.4 million of the tires under 
investigation. These include all Firestone ATX and ATX II tires 
of the P235/75R15 size manufactured since 1991 and all 
Wilderness AT tires of that same size manufactured at 
Firestone's Decatur, Illinois plant. Immediately thereafter, 
NHTSA performed a quick data analysis to determine whether 
additional ATX/Wilderness tires should be recalled and based on 
the results, requested that Firestone recall additional tires 
whose failure rates were as high as or higher than those of the 
tires already recalled. Firestone refused and on September 1, 
2000, NHTSA issued a Consumer Advisory listing the 24 tire 
lines that had the highest failure rates based on claims data. 
Although Firestone did not admit there was a safety defect in 
those tires, it agreed to provide free replacements to owners 
who requested it. Since that time, NHTSA has continued its 
inquiry with respect to the other tires covered by the 
investigation, with primary focus on the non-recalled 
Wilderness AT tires. In order to expedite the investigation, 
NHTSA assigned six engineers/investigators and hired 15 outside 
administrative personnel to handle the voluminous amount of 
material received from Firestone, Ford, and peer tire 
manufacturers. Furthermore, NHTSA hired outside experts, 
conducted technical meetings with Ford, Firestone and other 
tire manufacturers, visited tire test laboratories and 
conducted technical discussions with personnel at those 
laboratories, and tested a wide variety of tires in order to 
obtain a full understanding of the factors that can lead to 
tire belt separation failures. NHTSA's test programs are 
ongoing. We anticipate reaching conclusions by early summer.
    Firestone Steeltex tires are radial light truck tires, as 
opposed to the ATX/Wilderness tires, which are known as ``P-
metric'' tires. These tires were used as original equipment on 
various makes of pickups, vans, and SUVs, as well as on motor 
homes, ambulances, and other special use commercial vehicles. 
Additionally, these tires were sold as aftermarket 
replacements. This investigation covers over 25 million tires 
produced since 1992. For the Steeltex investigation, NHTSA 
assigned one of its most senior engineers. The investigation is 
a high priority and other issues have been delegated or 
postponed. A variety of issues are being examined, including 
the number of claims by tire model, size, production year, 
vehicle application, tire pressure maintenance, geographical 
distributions of failures, plant failure rates, time in service 
failure rates, and vehicle overload. The investigation is 
continuing, and NHTSA expects to resolve it by early summer.

                           RULEMAKING PROCESS

    Mr. Rogers. According to the IG, except for the Office of 
the Secretary and the Research and Special Programs 
Administration, NHTSA takes the longest time to complete 
significant rules, 3.7 years average. Why is that the case?
    Mr. Shelton. The average is sometimes skewed by the way the 
data turns out. Some rules have taken a very long period of 
time, and some are done much shorter.
    As far as the TREAD rules are concerned, we are meeting all 
the dates established by the TREAD Act. It is a very ambitious 
schedule, which demands around ten or 12 rulemakings in a very 
short period of time. We are committed to meeting those dates. 
We have regular meetings with the staff in each of the areas 
that is responsible for those rules to make sure they are on 
track.
    In addition, on the general issue of rulemaking speed, we 
have a new task force underway within the agency to look at 
that very issue--to try to streamline rulemaking processes 
within the agency to get rules out quicker.

                            TREAD RULEMAKING

    Mr. Rogers. On average, DOT takes 3.8 years to complete a 
rule. TREAD requires NHTSA to complete nine rule makings, some 
of which are controversial, within the next year and a half, 
through November, 2002.
    What actions are you taking to be sure that these rules are 
issued in a timely manner?
    Mr. Shelton. We have a plan to implement all the 
requirements of TREAD. It is a very detailed plan. Each rule 
has a lead office that is responsible for it. We have regular 
meetings, usually a couple of times a week, to discuss these 
rules, where they are, what progress is being made on them, to 
make decisions early, to make sure nothing is languishing, and 
to make sure that we meet the requirements of TREAD.
    To date, while we have not had a lot of dates pass that 
TREAD has required us to meet, we have met all the ones that we 
have been required to meet, and we anticipate continuing to do 
that.
    Mr. Rogers. Where do you believe problems may arise?
    Mr. Shelton. I think the problems may arise as the more 
controversial and complex rules get out there as proposals. We 
have, right now, the early warning proposal, which was issued 
in January. That was an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. 
Turning that into a workable rule that will give NHTSA 
necessary information without putting undue burdens on the 
industry is going to be a challenge.
    This spring, we will be issuing a proposal to upgrade the 
tire standard. Again, that will be a very controversial and 
probably complex upgrade in the standards, depending on the 
issues that arise and the comments on that proposal. That will 
be a challenge to get done in time.
    This fall we are going to have a proposal to 
comprehensively upgrade our child restraint standards. That is 
a challenge even to get the proposal out on time because it is 
a very comprehensive upgrade which takes a lot of research to 
accomplish.
    Those are probably the main issues where we are going to 
see challenges to our meeting those dates, but we are committed 
to meeting them.

              USEFULNESS OF DATA RESULTING FROM RULEMAKING

    Mr. Rogers. As you say, one of the controversial areas is 
recalls. The mandate is so encompassing. I wonder whether that 
work will bury you in data so that you will not be able to 
respond and identify safety problems faster. Do you think that 
is a problem.
    Mr. Shelton. Yes. Actually, I agree with you 
wholeheartedly, Mr. Chairman. One of our big concerns is 
crafting a rule that gives us the data we need to identify 
problems early, without drowning us in data where we cannot 
find the problems.
    Mr. Rogers. How will you do that?
    Mr. Shelton. We are looking into approaches such as, for 
example, starting with particular subsystems of the vehicle and 
maybe having more requirements, for instance, on fuel systems 
for early warning, than on other parts of the vehicle which 
historically have not had defect problems.
    We may take an incremental approach to doing this, but we 
are very cognizant of the risk of proposing burdens and 
requirements which end up being very burdensome on the industry 
plus, ultimately, not useful to the agency because we are 
getting more information than we can process.
    Mr. Rogers. Last year it seemed that NHTSA struggled with a 
huge quantity of data that you received following the Firestone 
debacle; that was just from one component and one manufacturer.
    How can you handle this flood of data that will be sent to 
you following passage of the final early warning rule by mid 
2002?
    Mr. Shelton. Well, part of our job is to try to minimize 
that flood to make sure that we only get information that is 
useful to us.
    I will say with regard to the Firestone investigation that 
we received more documents on that by far than any 
investigation we have ever had in the entire history of the 
agency. That one stands out as an order of magnitude larger 
than any one that we have done in the past.
    Certainly the resources that were provided last year for 
the agency to put new computer systems and put new staff in the 
Office of Defects Investigation will go a long way in helping 
us manage that process.

                     TREAD-RELATED FUNDING INCREASE

    Mr. Rogers. How are you using that $9.1 million increase 
that we gave you last year for TREAD related----
    Mr. Shelton. We have it spread across many of our offices. 
Number one, for 2002 we have about $13.5 million allocated for 
TREAD-related activities. About $4 million of that is for 
staffing. Again, we have 30 more people under TREAD.
    Within Defects, the Enforcement Office is allocating almost 
$5 million, to increase the number of investigations, increase 
the amount of testing we do, and to install new computer 
systems.
    We have allocated about $3 million in our FY 2002 Research 
Office budget for testing in support of TREAD and a little over 
$1 million in our Rulemaking Office for testing in support of 
TREAD. We spread the resources across the agency, but mainly 
the Defects Investigation Office and our Research Office.
    Mr. Rogers. The budget request does not provide any 
increase for TREAD related activities except to annualize the 
30 new employees. Can you do what you need to do with a flat 
line budget?
    Mr. Shelton. Yes, sir. We have reallocated some money in 
our FY 2002 budget proposal. For example, in the Rulemaking 
Office, we are moving about $300,000 out of the New Car 
Assessment Program and putting that into TREAD support. We do 
believe we have adequate resources in our FY 2002 budget 
request to complete the TREAD rule makings.

           KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATIC AND DYNAMIC TESTING

    Mr. Rogers. Let me switch to rollovers quickly. Last year 
NHTSA, repeatedly said that dynamic rollover testing was not 
reflective of most real world crashes, yet Congress required 
you to develop and finalize a dynamic rollover test by 
November, 2002.
    Tell us what the key differences are between static and 
dynamic testing.
    Mr. Shelton. As you are probably aware, Mr. Chairman, we 
started a new static rating program in January which looks at 
the basic stability of the vehicle as far as its ``top 
heaviness,'' so to speak.
    We looked at a number of metrics before we came out with 
that proposal. We found that this approach was the best overall 
metric to correlate with real world crash experience in all 
types of rollover crashes.
    In general, rollover crashes can be divided into two 
categories, tripped and untripped. Tripped rollover crashes 
occur when a vehicle goes off the road, it hits a curb and 
flips over, or it may go into a culvert and flip over. It just 
goes off the road and hits something, which literally trips the 
vehicle and knocks it over. That occurs in more than 95 percent 
of rollover crashes.
    On the other hand, a small minority of crashes are 
untripped crashes where you may swerve, for example, to avoid a 
deer, a dog, something on the highway, and the vehicle rolls 
over without hitting anything.
    We found that the static approach did the best job overall 
correlating with the whole universe of rollover crashes. With 
dynamic approaches, which we are investigating in response to 
the TREAD direction, our concern has been that which correlates 
best with untripped rollover, which is a very small minority of 
the total rollover problem.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you still believe that static testing is a 
better predictor of rollover propensity?
    Mr. Shelton. What we are doing right now is starting a new 
dynamic rollover program to try to reassess dynamic rollover 
tools. We will be putting out a request for comment in the next 
couple of months outlining our plans and asking for other 
people's views on it.
    We will make a final decision on what the best combination 
of approaches is for rollover metrics to provide information to 
consumers at the end of that research program. Right now it is 
a little early for us to be drawing conclusions.

                  CHALLENGES TO DYNAMIC ROLLOVER TEST

    Mr. Rogers. What challenges do you face in implementing the 
dynamic rollover test?
    Mr. Shelton. It is a big challenge correlating the results 
of dynamic rollover tests with real world rollover rates, so a 
lot of dynamic tests that we have looked at are great handling 
tests. They do not necessarily correlate with rollovers.
    In addition, with some of the dynamic tests we are 
concerned that the way a manufacturer might improve its 
performance might translate into, maybe, a negative safety 
experience in the real world. However, we are relooking at the 
dynamic rollover test issue, and we are going to be asking for 
public comment.
    We have been meeting with manufacturers. We have met with 
other groups, such as consumer's unions, to understand their 
testing approaches.
    Mr. Rogers. Tell us what you mean by a negative----
    Mr. Shelton. Safety? For example, proposals have come up 
which would look at the difference between how a vehicle does 
on a skid pad versus some other metric, and one way of 
improving performance would be to basically make the vehicle 
not handle as well. It will not roll over, but it would be more 
likely to ``plow out'' during a severe steering maneuver.
    If you lower your ultimate handling capability, if you 
lower the maximum speed that you go around a turn, one of the 
ways of lowering that speed is to put skinnier tires on the 
vehicle. The vehicle would be less likely to roll over, but 
more likely to plow out and go off the road, for example.
    Mr. Rogers. Can you meet the TREAD schedule?
    Mr. Shelton. We plan to meet the TREAD schedule, sir.

                   PASSENGER VAN ROLLOVER PROPENSITY

    Mr. Rogers. Now let me ask you about 15 passenger vans. You 
recently issued a warning about the propensity of these types 
of vans to roll over when they are fully loaded.
    Other than that warning, what specifically are you doing to 
reduce that risk?
    Mr. Shelton. I think that warning is the main thing we are 
pursuing right now. We have been talking a lot to the groups 
that use those vans, and we are seeing that people are changing 
the policies that they have for using those vehicles. Schools 
are now going away from allowing students to drive. They are 
getting more trained drivers. They are restricting the use of 
those vehicles.
    Right now we are not doing anything else to really address 
that issue, per se.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we have had some bad experiences with 
them; the A&M University track team in Texas, four people 
killed, seven others serious injured, Wisconsin-Oshkosh swim 
team, DePaul women's track team, all of them in these 15 
passenger vans.
    Do you believe that drivers of these vans should be 
required to have some sort of special license or experience 
before being allowed to drive that kind of a vehicle?
    Mr. Shelton. We believe the driver should be experienced 
because, in most cases, they are driven by students who do not 
understand how the characteristics of that vehicle change when 
you load it. When the vehicle is loaded, it becomes much more 
top heavy. Also, the weight shifts towards the rear, and the 
handling characteristics are quite different. In addition, they 
are often driven by students late at night after games. They 
are too tired.
    Another thing we are pushing very hard, and this actually 
goes back to your opening statement, sir, is increasing belt 
use to make sure that people wear the belts in those vehicles. 
Typically the reason that people are killed in those vehicles 
is because they are not wearing belts, and they are ejected 
after the rollover.
    Belts are approximately 75 to 80 percent effective in 
rollovers in eliminating fatalities, so improved belt use will 
address that problem also.
    Mr. Rogers. Are all those vans equipped with seatbelts?
    Mr. Shelton. Yes, they are.
    Mr. Rogers. I will come back to that later for another 
round.
    Mr. Olver?

               EFFECTIVENESS OF CAMERA USE AT STOPLIGHTS

    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Shelton, within the last 24 hours I have seen a long 
section on CNN about a process of putting cameras at stoplights 
in some 30 cities--I think it was, if I remember correctly, 30 
cities around the country--for law enforcement purposes. They 
seemed to believe that there is a certain amount of reduction 
in accidents.
    Is that one that NHTSA is involved in?
    Mr. Shelton. We have been following the research on 
redlight cameras, assessing their effectiveness. Ultimately, 
the decision to use these devices is a local decision. We do 
not tell people they should use them or should not use them.
    Mr. Olver. How would that end up? There was no real 
discussion about where these 30 were. How would one get a 
cooperation among 30 cities around the country--I do not know 
whether those are in ten different states or 15 or 30 different 
states or what--unless it was somehow coordinated from a 
central location? Do you have any idea how that was done?
    Mr. Shelton. I heard about this study this morning on the 
radio, so I am not familiar with the details of it.
    Both NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 
which I believe did the study, are aware of localities that 
have put these systems in place and have been working with the 
police departments and the local traffic authorities to collect 
data to understand how well they are working.
    Mr. Olver. Okay. I guess since it is not under your 
initiative then other questions I might have asked, which was 
when will this study be done and when will results be available 
and things of that sort, you would not know anything about.
    Mr. Shelton. No.
    Mr. Olver. I will have to look to----
    Mr. Shelton. I am sure we are doing some study of it, 
Congressman. I honestly am not familiar with what the status is 
of that work.
    Mr. Olver. That is no problem.
    Mr. Shelton. We will be glad to look into that and provide 
that for the record.
    Mr. Olver. At some time I would guess that it will come to 
your attention if you are not presently involved in it. Maybe 
that is the right answer.
    If you would be kind enough to look into it? I would sort 
of like to know where this is coming from and at what point you 
get involved in it if it proves efficacious, I guess, or 
something like that.
    Mr. Shelton. Yes.
    [The information follows:]

    The program you were referring to was created by the 
Federal Highway Administration in 1995. It was called Stop Red 
Light Running and was designed as a community-based safety 
program. The campaign provided a total of $529,500 in seed 
money to 31 communities (these grants ranged from $7,500 to 
$40,000 per site).
    In 1998 DOT (FHWA and NHTSA), Chrysler, and the American 
Trauma Society launched a second phase of the campaign to Stop 
Red Light Running with a national public education campaign. 
The campaign was designed to raise awareness of the danger of 
running red lights.
    Several studies have been conducted on these red light 
camera systems. The most recent, announced in April, 2001 was 
conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It 
looked at crash reductions in one of the first communities to 
employ red light cameras--Oxnard, California. They concluded 
that crashes at signalized intersections were reduced by 7 
percent and injury crashes by 29 percent as a result of the red 
light camera enforcement.
    Previous studies have reported reductions in red light 
running violations after installation of these camera systems. 
For example, both Oxnard, California, and Fairfax, Virginia, 
found red light running violations dropped by about 40 percent 
during the first year of camera enforcement.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                       safety versus fuel economy

    Mr. Olver. Sort of on the same vein, I wanted to just ask. 
Back in the early 1980s when I was a state legislator in 
Massachusetts, there came a point when partly to save fuel 
there was adopted the process of having right turn on red at 
red lights, which has to have a safety component related to a 
fuel component.
    In my state, Massachusetts, my recollection was that when 
that was adopted, and I do not know what the history was in 
other states, which is I guess what I am looking for. What is 
the safety versus fuel component there, and what have we really 
learned from it?
    My impression was that in Massachusetts signs mushroomed at 
every intersection saying no turn on red at every intersection 
it seemed. Over a longer period of time a few of those 
disappeared, but there are an enormous number of them still 
around, which clearly thwarts the purpose of saving energy, 
which was done. The energy purpose was to allow for vehicles 
not to be sitting there idling for substantial periods of time 
when there was no traffic.
    Of course, it might perfectly well serve the safety aspect. 
You must know a good deal about that one.
    Mr. Shelton. I wish I did. Most of that program is in the 
purview of the Federal Highway Administration, but I will be 
glad to collect the research and provide the committee with the 
conclusions on what came out of that.
    We have been doing that since I believe around the mid 
1970s actually. I know there have been studies done looking at 
the safety effect versus the fuel consumption effect, but I am 
not familiar with those conclusions. I will be glad to provide 
those to the committee.
    Mr. Olver. Well, if you can point them our way or my way. 
Maybe everybody else on the committee knows exactly what they 
are, but I would----
    Mr. Shelton. We will be glad to provide them.
    [The information follows:]

    Research conducted in the 1970's found an estimated 23 
percent increase in right-turn crashes at intersections where 
right turn on red was adopted. Right-turn crashes involving 
pedestrians and bicyclists were estimated to have increased by 
60 percent and 100 percent, respectively. It should be noted 
that, while these are large percentage increases, the absolute 
numbers of increased crashes were, in most cases, quite small.
    A relatively small number of deaths and injuries each year 
are caused by right-turn-on-red (RTOR) crashes. An analysis of 
crash data from 1982-1992, showed approximately 84 fatal 
crashes per year involving a right-turning vehicle. Overall, 
the study found that, during this period, fewer than 0.2 
percent of all fatalities involved a right-turning vehicle at a 
RTOR intersection.
    A study for the Transportation Research Board estimated 
that allowing RTOR can improve fuel consumption by 
approximately 4 percent and reduce emissions by approximately 6 
percent. By comparison, it is estimated that improving signal 
timing patterns would produce as much as a 25 percent 
improvement in fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. Thus, 
similar to its impact on overall traffic safety, the impact of 
RTOR on fuel savings appears to be relatively small.

    Mr. Olver. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Olver.
    I have just been handed a report, which I think is a status 
report on the red light cameras that you asked about issued by 
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which I will be 
happy to file as a part of the record and that maybe you can 
peruse for a few minutes.
    Mr. Shelton. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. Ms. Kilpatrick.

                            seat belt usage

    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good afternoon, Mr. Shelton. I want to go back to some of 
your safety. You mentioned the seat belt as being one of them, 
and I know we are looking for child passenger safety, as well 
as airbags and others.
    In 1998 or so, we were hoping to get seat belt usage up to 
85 percent, 90 percent by 2000. I understand today and since 
1993 it has been around 70 percent. Is there a reason why we 
cannot seem to increase that with the promotions that we do, 
safety and otherwise? Why is that?
    Mr. Shelton. It has been very tough. The goals of the last 
Administration were to get to 85 percent seat belt use by 2000, 
which we did not achieve, as you note. The goal for 2005 is 90 
percent.
    For 2000, our estimate is that we met a rate of 71 percent, 
which is a long way from 85 percent.

                           seat belt programs

    Ms. Kilpatrick. It has been flat for several years.
    Mr. Shelton. Well, it has not really been flat. It is 
growing. It is going up slowly. It goes up maybe two percentage 
points a year on average. That is not the rate that we want to 
get to, so we have to do a lot more on that.
    We are doing things at both the national, state, and local 
levels, and also providing educational programs to achieve 
that. At the national level we have two mobilizations each year 
with law enforcement officers, over 10,000 law enforcement 
organizations, and many other public safety groups. One 
mobilization is around Memorial Day and the other is around 
Thanksgiving.
    We tell people about belt use and say that belt laws are 
going to be very heavily enforced during those periods of time. 
We also tell people that child restraint laws are going to be 
enforced very heavily during those time periods. Those programs 
work. They help move the rate up.
    We also support funding programs. We have a Section 157 
program. The money is not in our budget, but is transferred 
from the Federal Highway Administration program. That amount is 
$112 million which goes to states to improve belt use.
    We have another program, which is included in our budget, 
the Section 405 program. It provides $15 million to help states 
enforce belt laws and implement better belt laws.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. And is that a total education, as well as 
advertising program that both FWA and yourself kind of----
    Mr. Shelton. No. The first one, the Section 157 program, 
which is the $112 million for FY 2002, is funded through the 
Federal Highway Administration. It is partly education, but a 
lot of it is enforcement. Education was effective when you had 
ten percent or 15 percent belt use----
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay.
    Mr. Shelton [continuing]. Because people just did not know 
that belts were really effective. Once you get to 70 percent 
belt use, people know that they are supposed to wear their 
belts.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. When you say enforcement is $100 plus 
million, that is used to assist local police departments and 
otherwise to support the belt laws?
    Mr. Shelton. Right. Help enforce belt laws.

              media projects and public service campaigns

    Ms. Kilpatrick. I see. Do you have an advertising budget 
within the Federal Highway Administration?
    Mr. Shelton. No, we do not. As a matter of fact, we do 
media projects through the Ad Council.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. That is good.
    Mr. Shelton. We do public service campaigns, but we do not 
pay for those. We help pay for the cost of producing those, but 
those are public service commercials that are run by TV and 
radio stations for free. We do not pay for media.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay.
    Mr. Shelton. Now, some of the money that we give to states 
can be used to pay for media.
    South Carolina just did a big project a few months ago, a 
very coordinated media and enforcement campaign. It raised belt 
use significantly in the state. I believe it went from 66 
percent to 75 percent in a very short period of time.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I think that is what is needed. I would 
like to see more of that.
    The Ad Council. Where are they funded? Where is the Ad 
Council funded?
    Mr. Shelton. It is a private organization. It is basically 
advertisers doing public service ads.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Doing public service?
    Mr. Shelton. Yes. We help fund the development of the ads, 
but not the placement and running of those ads. Our funding 
resources for that are very small.

               safety education for minority populations

    Ms. Kilpatrick. I note from your testimony that you do have 
an emphasis on your safety education programs and particularly 
in minority populations across America----
    Mr. Shelton. Yes.
    Ms. Kilpatrick [continuing]. Which I think is surely 
needed.
    Mr. Shelton. Yes.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. That is really how you increase the usage 
of seatbelts, child restraints and the like, really.
    Mr. Shelton. Right. We actually did a program last year, a 
blue ribbon panel on increasing African-American seatbelt use. 
That was released at the end of last year, and we are pushing 
forward with developing educational materials that are targeted 
at minority populations, and are culturally appropriate, and 
use mechanisms like churches and other local organizations.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. It works.
    Mr. Shelton. To get to these people.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. They do work.
    Mr. Shelton. Right.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. That is why when I read your testimony I 
was happy to see that. They do work.
    Mr. Shelton. Yes, they do.

                    effectiveness of media programs

    Ms. Kilpatrick. When you say you produce them and then the 
Ad Council does the placement, I have seen a few, They are 
effective. The more people see them over and over, by the tenth 
time they see them they say oh, yes. I need to buckle my 
seatbelt----
    Mr. Shelton. Right.
    Ms. Kilpatrick [continuing]. Or put my kid in properly 
orsomething like that.
    I appreciate the work that you do.
    Mr. Shelton. Thank you. We are continuing to work on it 
very hard.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         SEAT BELT INITIATIVES

    Mr. Rogers. On seatbelts, in 1998 the Administration began 
a new seatbelt initiative to increase seatbelt use to 85 
percent by the current year----
    Mr. Shelton. Yes. Right.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. And 90 percent by the year 2005. 
Since 1993, the seatbelt usage rate has been fairly flat, 
between 68 and 70 percent. In fact, in 1999 it declined to 63 
percent.
    I do not know whether you have covered this or not, but why 
did we slide back?
    Mr. Shelton. I believe there is some variability from year 
to year, Mr. Chairman. I believe the 1999 number was 67 
percent, not 63 percent. For 2000, the number is 71 percent. It 
is improving, but not at the rate that we would like.
    If you draw a trend line through the data for the last few 
years, it is going up about two percentage points a year. It is 
definitely not moving as fast as we want it to, so we are 
putting increased resources into this area.
    Mr. Rogers. The Associate Administrators of the two 
offices, that were tasked with achieving the seatbelt goals in 
the year 2000, which came up 15 percent short, both received 
executive bonuses. Specifically, the associate administrator 
for State and Community Services and the associate 
administrator for Traffic Safety Programs, both received 
executive bonuses of $14,000 and $13,500 respectively.
    Should we not be tying these bonuses to achievement of 
Presidential initiatives and items in your performance plans?
    Mr. Shelton. Yes, we do, sir, but it is not limited solely 
to the belt numbers. We are also trying to achieve alcohol 
goals, which, as you noted in our opening statement, is a very 
challenging goal to meet. We have made progress.
    There are a number of goals that ultimately the associate 
administrators get judged by in determining their performance 
awards.
    Mr. Rogers. But they were not rewarded for seatbelt usage 
increase, were they?
    Mr. Shelton. That was part of it. It is not that it is tied 
to any particular activity. It is tied to their total 
activities and achieving the goals, or trying to achieve their 
goals.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, they actually declined, did they not?
    Mr. Shelton. For belt use, it actually went up between 1999 
and 2000. I believe you are asking about the awards that were 
received for 2000. There was an increase in belt use between 
1999 and 2000 of, I believe, four percentage points at the 
national level.
    Mr. Rogers. It is still 15 points below the goal.
    Mr. Shelton. Yes. We are definitely short of the goal.
    Mr. Rogers. Yet they were rewarded.
    Mr. Shelton. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, you are going to review, are you not, the 
giving of bonuses where goals are not met?
    Mr. Shelton. Yes, sir. Absolutely.

                  APPROACHES TO INCREASE SEAT BELT USE

    Mr. Rogers. Now, in reviewing your 2002 request it looks to 
me like you are still relying on the same old approaches for 
seatbelt use increase, but we are seeing little change. Have 
you got anything new you are going to try?
    Mr. Shelton. I think our approaches that we started in the 
last couple of years, particularly the Section 157 program 
which gives grants to states to put innovative belt programs in 
place, are starting to bear fruit.
    As I said earlier, we had very good experience recently 
with the ``Click It or Ticket'' programs in South Carolina. We 
expect a lot of other southern states to agree to implement 
that program this summer, and we expect significant progress 
out of that. We are still trying to get states to pass primary 
belt laws. That picks up 13 to 15 percentage points in belt 
usage.
    We are very heavily pushing enforcement programs, as 
opposed to education programs. I think, historically, the 
agency has pushed more education programs, but as belt use has 
risen to this point where, as you have mentioned, improvement 
is very stubborn, we believe that our resources should focus 
more on enforcement.
    Mr. Rogers. Do we need any additional federal legislation?
    Mr. Shelton. At this point, we are not proposing any, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Do we need it?
    Mr. Shelton. We have not tried to come up with a 
legislative package on that. We are really trying to assess the 
progress that we are getting out of the recent programs like 
the Section 157 program.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                       CELLULAR PHONE LEGISLATION

    Mr. Rogers. Now, 38 states and D.C. are considering some 
type of cellular phone legislation, so-called distractive 
driving legislation, perhaps some type of ban on handheld 
cellular phones while driving.
    Your research I believe indicates that the increased use of 
cellular phones has resulted in an increase in automotive 
accidents. Is that so?
    Mr. Shelton. I think our research has shown that 
distraction is a really tough problem. We believe it causes 
about 20 to 30 percent of crashes, and cellular phones are a 
subset of that.
    We did a study in 1997 on wireless phones, and we concluded 
that cell phone use could increase the risk of a crash. 
However, we did not quantify that risk. We did point out in 
that study, however, that most crashes involving cellular 
phones related to the conversation, not dialing or holding the 
phone.
    Some of these proposals, when they restrict handheld 
phones, but do not restrict phones which are built into the 
vehicle or dial themselves when you talk to them, imply that 
those phones are a lot safer. We found in our study that it is 
the conversation that results in the increase in crash risk, 
not really dialing the phone or holding the phone.
    Mr. Rogers. What do you think of state legislation that 
perhaps would ban the use of cellular phones?
    Mr. Shelton. We have not taken a position on that, sir. As 
a matter of fact, we have one of our regional administrators 
testifying before the New York legislature this morning on that 
very subject. We are still at a point in the research where we 
cannot make that recommendation.
    We are actually doing a study this year of different types 
of cell phones, manual cell phones versus hands free, versus 
voice-actuated, cell phones to assess the workload and 
distraction potential. That study will be done this fall. Until 
that is done, we think it is premature for us to be taking a 
position on such legislation.

                RISKS OF BUILT-IN CELLULAR PHONE SYSTEMS

    Mr. Rogers. So as I hear you say, if the person were using 
a built-in phone system in the car that did not require the 
person to hold a telephone in his or her hand that the chances 
of causing an accident are greatly diminished?
    Mr. Shelton. No. We think the risks still remain.
    Mr. Rogers. It is the content?
    Mr. Shelton. It is your brain. It is what your brain is 
doing. You are thinking about the phone call. You are not 
thinking about looking down the road. You are talking to the 
person. The way we phrase it is, ``hands free is not risk 
free.''
    It really is the mental processes of having the 
conversation that cause the distraction and cause the increase 
in risk, rather than the process of dialing the phone. We 
certainly do have crashes. I am sure you have seen them or read 
about people who have reached to pick up a ringing cell phone 
and looked down and crashed into someone. However, in general, 
we found the real risk is just the fact that you are having a 
conversation, rather than thinking about your driving.
    Mr. Rogers. And those are causing about 20 percent of the 
accidents?
    Mr. Shelton. Distraction, in general, is 20 to 30 percent 
of crashes. It is tough to quantify the exact number, because 
you do not really see that on police accident reports, for 
example, why someone went off the road and hit something. They 
are never going to admit that they were on their cell phone. 
They will say well, my brakes went out or something. It is very 
difficult to quantify. Cell phones would be a subset of that.

                           Distracted Driving

    Mr. Rogers. How do you plan to tackle the distracted 
driving problem in 2002?
    [The information follows:]
    NHTSA plans to continue its research efforts to better 
understand the distraction problem from in-vehicle technologies 
and other sources and ways to minimize its adverse safety 
consequences. Our research will continue to address four basic 
areas: (1) Understanding the dimensions of the distraction 
safety problem and trends in technologies; (2) Developing and 
applying experimental protocols to assess the effects of 
technology features and driver characteristics on driver 
performance; (3) Developing research to support equipment 
guidelines and on-board technologies to manage driver workload/
distraction; (4) Developing social and behavioral change 
programs. Much of the research to support these goals will seek 
to understand the factors affecting drivers' willingness to 
engage in distracting tasks and the attentional demands that 
distractors impose on drivers. The research will involve driver 
surveys as well as experimental testing of drivers on public 
roads, test tracks, and on our new National Advanced Driving 
Simulator.

                       DRIVER DISTRACTION STUDIES

    Mr. Rogers. So what do you plan to do about this in 2002?
    Mr. Shelton. Well, we are doing this study of the different 
cell phones, the manual, hands free, and voice actuated, on 
their distraction potential. That will be done this fall.
    We are doing some work at our vehicle research and test 
center in Ohio where we have a closed track, and we are putting 
people through a course to see how they respond to different 
distractions. Not just cell phones, but things like changing 
CDs in a CD player or using a navigation system.
    We are also going to have our national advanced driving 
simulator come on line in the next month or so, and we will be 
using that. That too gives us the opportunity to do some very 
good research on distraction potential and consequences of 
various devices.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, it is just beginning. Manufacturers now 
are installing things like e-mail, fax machines, items that 
help navigate the car, GPS locators, even GPS locators that 
flash the signal on the windshield so that you are looking at 
the sign on your windshield and supposedly through that to the 
highway.
    Do you see a potential for harm here?
    Mr. Shelton. Yes. We are very concerned about that. A 
couple of years ago we sent letters to manufacturers pointing 
out our view that these manufacturers should be fully testing 
these devices before putting them into vehicles to ensure that 
they are safe and do not pose an undue distraction risk.
    We are trying to work with them to assess these devices, to 
assess approaches that will make them less distracting. It is a 
really tough challenge. One good thing, though, I think is that 
the public has become aware of this issue. I think the public 
has latched onto this, and people, I think, are more sensitive 
to this issue than they were say two or three years ago. I see 
a lot more people not using their cell phones in their car that 
used to use them all the time.

                     DRIVER DISTRACTION REGULATIONS

    Mr. Rogers. Well, on some of these other items that we 
mentioned do you think some sort of regulations that would 
prohibit the use of some of these technologies by drivers is 
advisable?
    Mr. Shelton. Ultimately I am not sure whether we are going 
to be proposing regulations or whether we will be coming up 
with best practices, or maybe it will be recommendations to the 
states for legislation that will deal with the use of the 
devices, rather than regulating the devices themselves.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you believe that these systems (devices to 
check emails, send faxes, or help navigate) are safe to use 
while operating a vehicle? If not, will you be proposing some 
type of regulations that limits or prohibits the use of these 
technologies?
    [The information follows:]

    Our research has shown that some types of navigation 
systems that require the driver to manually input the address 
of a desired destination can be distracting and can cause 
drivers to drift out of lane. Similarly, any other technologies 
which take drivers' attention away from the driving task can 
have adverse safety consequences. However, we do not have any 
information to show whether or not the technology is 
contributing to crashes because of the lack of data e.g. not 
reported routine or police crash report. We have not yet looked 
at emailing or faxing but plan to do so in the near future. We 
are conducting research, some of which is in cooperation and 
coordination with industry, with the goal of understanding 
which design features may be needed such as locking out 
operation while the vehicle is in motion. Currently, we do not 
have plans to propose regulations on in-vehicle technologies. 
However, we will continue to assess the findings from research 
and monitor the trends in the design and use of advanced 
technologies as a basis for any possible future regulations.

    Mr. Rogers. Well, unless we have some national standard 
here I might find myself in the State of Maryland perhaps where 
it is legal to use some of this equipment and drive across the 
river into Virginia where it is not and find myself in deep 
doo-doo.
    Do we not need some sort of a national standard on----
    Mr. Shelton. That is what we may ultimately end up with. We 
may end up with a model law that we recommend states to pass to 
address this issue.
    It is a little premature to say where that might go, but if 
that does not work we may come back to Congress and ask for an 
approach to impose a national standard, but right now we are 
still in the research phase. It is a little early to speculate 
as to what would come out of it.

               NATIONAL ADVANCED DRIVING SIMULATOR (NADS)

    Mr. Rogers. In 1992, NHTSA signed a contract with the 
University of Iowa to develop the National Advanced Driving 
Simulator, NADS. They have had some significant problems, most 
notably with motion and visual systems.
    The estimated cost has grown to $80.5 million, two and a 
half times the preliminary estimate of $34 million. What 
actions, if any, have you taken to limit that cost growth?
    Mr. Shelton. You are right, Mr. Chairman. The cost did grow 
a lot more than was anticipated. Maybe it was the fact that 
this is new technology being invented that makes it very 
difficult to estimate cost and control cost growth.
    At this point, the simulator is essentially complete. We 
are not putting any more money into it as far as construction. 
We expect to have it officially launched in the next month or 
so. We are not looking at any additional cost growth in that 
program at all.
    We are not putting any more resources into that program for 
construction. We will be putting some resources into it for 
operational support, and we will be using it to investigate 
problems such as driver distraction in the upcoming year.

                        NADS CONSTRUCTION COSTS

    Mr. Rogers. I am puzzled. There has been $17 million in 
construction change orders, a 50 percent increase from the 
original contract amount.
    Was the awarding of that contract flawed at the outset, do 
you think?
    Mr. Shelton. The contract was awarded as a cost plus 
contract rather than fixed cost contract. My understanding, 
while I was not involved in the program at the time, was that a 
fixed cost contract was looked into, but the fixed cost that 
anyone could agree to was much higher than what you would end 
up with under the cost plus contract. Also, I think the 
capabilities of the system were expanded beyond the original 
thought for the program.
    You are right. The program took much longer to be completed 
than we originally thought and cost a lot more. At this point, 
though, the simulator is essentially complete. They are doing 
the final minor debugging, and we think it will be the best 
system in the world for assessing these sorts of problems.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, it is cost overrun by 50 percent, and it 
is five years behind schedule, and yet the people in charge of 
it got bonuses.
    Mr. Shelton. Actually, I believe the person in charge of it 
did not get a bonus last year.
    Mr. Rogers. The executives in the Research and Analysis 
Office overseeing the contract got bonuses, did they not?
    Mr. Shelton. I am trying to remember the bonuses for last 
year.
    Mr. Rogers. 1998.
    Mr. Shelton. 1998? I am thinking 2000.
    Mr. Rogers. In 1999, $10,000, and two in 2000 for $14,000 
and $13,500 respectively. Do you want the names?
    The associate administrator for Research and Development, 
Raymond Owings. Why should they get bonuses when they are five 
years beyond and 50 percent cost overrun?
    Mr. Shelton. Again, sir, this is not their only program. 
These people run the research program for the entire agency, 
which includes the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 
the crash worthiness research program, and the crash avoidance 
research program. The National Advanced Driving Stimulator is 
not their sole job out there.
    Number one, ultimately bonus decisions are made by the 
administrator, not by me, but it is a balancing of their total 
responsibilities, their performance.
    Mr. Rogers. Let us get one thing straight here. I am a new 
Chairman of this subcommittee, but I will find things like 
this.
    Anybody who is in charge effectively overseeing a program 
that is five years behind schedule and 50 percent overrun 
should not get a bonus. I just want to let you know we are 
going to keep an eye on that type of thing.
    Mr. Shelton. Okay.
    Mr. Rogers. I want you to reward people that do a good job, 
but where there is a significant flaw that is under their 
jurisdiction, we are going to step in. Is that fair?
    Mr. Shelton. Yes, sir.

                  National Advanced Driving Simulator

    Mr. Rogers. Will the simulator be operational in May 2001, 
as currently estimated? If not, what is the reason for the 
latest delay?
    [The information follows:]
    The simulator will be operational in May 2001.
    Mr. Rogers. Given the significant cost increases and 
schedule delays, do you believe that NHTSA has the ability to 
effectively administer this contract and to effectively provide 
oversight on this project?
    [The information follows:]
    The cost increases and schedule delays are not a reflection 
of the ability of NHTSA to effectively provide oversight and 
administer the contract. The cost increase and schedule delays 
were due primarily to unanticipated technical complexity which 
added schedule slippage and eventual rate increases.

                        FEDERAL SHARE OF FUNDING

    Mr. Rogers. Now, according to that original agreement DOT 
would provide two-thirds of the simulator's funding; one-third 
from other sources, Iowa University, the state and so on. DOT 
has not been able to obtain a one-third match from these 
outside sources.
    Currently, the federal government has paid $65.3 million, 
which is 80 percent of the total cost. Non-federal 
contributions totaled only $15.5 million, which is 20 percent 
of the total cost. According to the agreement, the non-federal 
share should be $23 million. Consequently, NHTSA has used $7.6 
million in federal funds to pay for that shortfall.
    Why did NHTSA not comply with this committee's requirement 
that federal funds only be used for two-thirds of the project's 
costs?
    Mr. Shelton. I may have to go back and check the numbers, 
Mr. Chairman, but to my knowledge the total cost was just under 
$65 million, the federal share was $50 million, and the non-
federal share was $15 million for the build cost.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, the figures I gave you are from an IG 
investigation that is just being completed. Can you dispute 
that?
    Mr. Shelton. I just do not know, sir. We will have to get 
back to the committee on that. The data that is before me says 
the total cost of the system was $65 million for the build 
cost, of which the non-federal share was $15 million and the 
federal share was $50 million.
    Mr. Rogers. IG says that the cost has grown to $80.5 
million from the preliminary estimate of $34 million and that 
$7.6 million in federal funds over our commitment of two-thirds 
of the cost have been paid. Even if you used your figures, we 
are still over.
    Mr. Shelton. Yes. It would be over two-thirds. I will have 
to get back to you, sir, on that one. I do not have the 
details.
    [The information follows:]

    NHTSA informed the Committee of its inability to secure 
further cost sharing to cover the growth in the NADS program 
costs in the appropriations hearings for FY 1998, FY 1999, and 
FY 2000. Notwithstanding this, NHTSA was not directed to 
terminate the NADS project.

        National Advanced Driving Simulator Cost Sharing Issues

    Mr. Rogers. Why did NHTSA decide to use $7.6 million in 
federal funds to pay for the non-federal share rather than 
reduce costs?
    [The information follows:]
    On several occasions NHTSA notified the Congress about its 
efforts to secure cost sharing from non-federal sources. 
Subsequently, the agency informed Congress of its inability to 
secure further cost sharing to cover the cost growth in the 
NADS program. Furthermore, this information was conveyed at 
briefings with subcommittee staff as well as record responses 
provided as part of the House Hearing Records for FY 1998, 1999 
and FY 2000. NHTSA was never directed to stop work on the NADS 
project.
    The NADS is a world-class state of the art driving 
simulator. Therefore, it was not surprising that cost growth 
would occur because of the sophisticated technology. Over the 
past ten years advances in this technology took place at a 
rapid rate which required state of the art improvements. Any 
reductions in NADS performance would have exposed it to 
competition from existing mid-level simulators and compromised 
its ability to perform high fidelity driving simulator 
research. In addition, this would have jeopardized the 
University of Iowa's ability to operate the NADS on a self-
sustaining basis.
    The NADS project is now complete and will be operational by 
the end of May 2001.

    Mr. Rogers. We will need to know why you went beyond what 
we provided for.
    Mr. Shelton. Yes, sir. We will be glad to answer that for 
the record.
    [The information follows:]

    The Non-DOT cost sharing requirement for the NADS is based 
on the Phase II development costs, i.e., the cost to actually 
build the simulator. This cost is currently $66.475 million, 
which is the sum of the TRW Phase II build contract ($50.975 
million) and the secured cost sharing ($15.5 million). The 
required cost sharing is one third of this amount, or $22.158 
million, and the cost sharing shortfall is $6.658 million.

                             COST RECOVERY

    Mr. Rogers. Do you plan to recover? If you have overpaid, 
do you plan to recover it?
    Mr. Shelton. I will have to find out what the exact 
situation is, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. I will tell you what your plan is. If you have 
overpaid, you are going to recover it. That is our plan, is it 
not?
    Mr. Shelton. Again, sir, I am not familiar with the details 
of that. We will get back to the committee.
    [The information follows:]

    In December 1995, NHTSA's political leadership made the 
decision to limit the University of Iowa's role in securing 
additional cost sharing contributions to cover the NADS cost 
growth to the university's existing commitment of $11.53 
million. NHTSA also informed the university that the agency 
would henceforth assume the ``leadership role'' in securing the 
additional cost sharing requirement. In NHTSA's submission to 
the Transportation System Acquisition Review Council (TSARC) in 
July 1997, requesting approval to continue with the program, 
the agency informed the Department that it had a shortfall in 
cost sharing contributions.
    In the appropriations hearings for FY 1998, FY 1999, and FY 
2000, NHTSA subsequently informed the Congress of the agency's 
inability to secure further cost sharing to cover the cost 
growth in the NADS program

    Mr. Rogers. Will you seek a reduced rate to conduct your 
ongoing research beyond the first year from the University of 
Iowa to pay for the higher than anticipated federal share?
    Mr. Shelton. I believe we are not anticipating doing that. 
We expect to be charged the same rate as anyone else.
    Mr. Rogers. That is one way to recover the money we are 
talking about here.
    Mr. Shelton. Yes, sir, if we are in a situation where we 
are trying to recover money.
    Mr. Rogers. You are in that situation. You get the money 
back, or we will have to withhold it some other way because you 
have exceeded the committee's mandate. We will not tolerate 
that.
    Thank you very much for your testimony. We have some other 
questions for you to answer for the record. We thank you for 
your appearance.
    Mr. Shelton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                            Wednesday, May 9, 2001.

              FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                                WITNESS

JULIE ANNA CIRILLO, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR AND ASSISTANT 
    ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Rogers. We have the Acting Deputy Administrator, Ms. 
Julie Cirillo, here today to present the budget request for the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Ms. Cirillo, this 
is not your first time in front of the subcommittee. We welcome 
you back here.
    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is 
the regulatory agency charged with ensuring safety of 
commercial vehicle operations on the nation's highways. To do 
this, FMCSA's budget request for 2002 totals $344 million. That 
is an increase of 28 percent from the enacted level this year 
of $269 million. It is the largest agency increase in the 
Department of Transportation's request.

                         Border-Related Safety

    This administration has announced its intention to honor 
the North American Free Trade Agreement by opening the border 
in January of 2002. In fact the department's budget increases 
spending associated with border-related safety and facilities 
by $88 million. That is an increase of 733 percent over last 
year's $12 million spent for those same purposes.
    FMCSA has made some progress in its overall management as a 
result of this subcommittee's prodding under Chairman Wolf and 
others. FMCSA has strong safety goals and has increased the 
number of compliance reviews to four to five per month per 
inspector. It has also increased the number of roadside 
inspections. Perhaps more importantly, the agency has stepped 
up to the plate and is enforcing some of its own safety 
regulations. More work, of course, needs to be done.
    In the first four months of 2001, 35 motor carriers have 
been put out of service. That compares to the five put out of 
service for all of last year. In addition, the amount of fines 
for non-compliance has increased.
    FMCSA has advanced the issue of border safety and the 
request provides funds for that purpose.
    Just this past week FMCSA proposed safety rules for Mexican 
trucks and published modified forms to better assess the 
carrier safety program and ability to comply with U.S. 
standards.
    Despite these positive trends, we have some concerns. 
Although your budget significantly increases funds for motor 
safety, much of the increase comes from revenue aligned budget 
authority--RABA. As you know, the House has not approved any 
previous budget requests to divert RABA. Given this precedent, 
I will be asking is the request a serious proposal or just a 
budget gimmick?

                       Truck-Related Safety Goals

    FMCSA has a goal to reduce large truck-related deaths by 50 
percent by the end of 2009. However, no significant progress 
has been made since the goal was set a year and a half ago.
    Ms. Cirillo, you have your work cut out for you. No one 
disputes that.
    We do not have data on the exact causes and contributing 
factors associated with truck crashes, and therefore it is 
difficult to be sure that the programs in place are targeted 
correctly to achieve such a goal.
    Given this and the fact that little progress has been made 
in reducing deaths, I question whether or not that goal is 
realistic.
    As you know, we have seen significant fraud and enforcement 
problems with the commercial drivers license program. The 
Inspector General reported that federal oversight of state CDL 
programs are not adequate to reasonably ensure that unsafe 
commercial drivers were disqualified. We want to know what 
FMCSA will do to strengthen the program to ensure the 
provisions are enforced.
    In April of 2000 FMCSA proposed new hours of service 
regulations which alters the time commercial drivers can 
operate their vehicles in 24 hours. It is a very controversial 
proposal. Last year the bill prohibited the department from 
issuing the final rule in 2001. We are interested in discussing 
the administration's plan of action on this contentious issue.
    While we are pleased with the progress FMCSA has made, it 
is this subcommittee's job to perform oversight. We will focus 
on issues that have yet to be resolved. We want to ensure FMCSA 
is doing the most effective job possible.
    Without objection we will enter your written statement into 
the record, and we will be happy to hear your oral summary of 
your testimony.
    First, though, let me yield to my colleague from Minnesota, 
Mr. Sabo.

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the Acting 
Deputy Administrator to our meeting again. Thank you for your 
previous work for the department.
    I look forward to hearing your testimony. You have lots of 
important duties that you deal with. I suppose the one that 
comes to the forefront is the potential change in Mexican 
trucks coming into this country.
    I have to say I am very, very skeptical that the proposed 
system that has been developed is one that will assure the 
safety of American travelers as many, many more trucks from 
Mexico come into this country. But we look forward to hearing 
your testimony.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. You may be recognized.

                         FMCSA Opening Remarks

    Ms. Cirillo. Thank you.
    Good afternoon, Chairman Rogers, and Members of the 
Subcommittee. I am honored to be invited to testify on behalf 
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
    It has been just 16 months since FMCSA became an 
independent agency within the Department of Transportation. In 
this short time we have made significant strides toward 
improving motor carrier safety. We have deployed more safety 
personnel to the field and implemented a new organization.
    With our state safety partners we have increased 
enforcement on motor carriers with poor safety performance. We 
set an ambitious goal for conducting compliance reviews and we 
exceeded it. In February of this year we averaged 4.7 reviews 
per investigator.
    Since 1999 federal compliance reviews have increased 130 
percent, and enforcement cases have increased 75 percent. Since 
January 1 we have placed 64 carriers out of service when they 
refused to comply with safety regulations.
    Eighteen states are now participating in the Performance 
and Registration Information Systems Management--the PRISM 
program. We expect 23 states to join by the end of fiscal year 
2002.
    The 2002 budget proposed by President Bush increases 
resources for state and federal enforcement, expands our long 
term research and technology program, enhances safety 
information and analysis systems, improves commercial driver 
licensing, and expands safety education programs.

                         Mexican Border Safety

    FMCSA is aggressively preparing for opening the Mexican 
border. I have just returned from my second visit to the 
southern border and Mexico where I met with state and Mexican 
enforcement representatives and Mexican carriers. Our primary 
focus is to ensure Mexican vehicles, drivers and carriers 
comply with our safety regulations.
    On May 3rd we published proposed rules to establish the 
application process for operating authority that would assess 
Mexican carrier safety compliance. Each Mexican carrier wishing 
to operate within or beyond the commercial zone must apply and 
receive authority substantiating their knowledge of U.S. safety 
regulations and their intent to comply with our requirements.
    Each application will be carefully reviewed and verified by 
FMCSA and the safety performance of each carrier will be 
closely monitored.
    Within the first 18 months of operation each carrier will 
be subjected to a safety review. Working with our state 
partners we will increase safety enforcement resources along 
the border. Currently, 60 full time federal inspectors and 178 
full time state personnel conduct inspections of commercial 
motor vehicles and drivers entering the U.S. from Mexico.
    Our budget request includes $9.9 million to support the 
deployment of 80 additional federal staff to the border, and 
$18 million to fund state personnel for an estimated combined 
enforcement staff of 496.
    To provide for the safe opening of the U.S.-Mexican border, 
a total of $31.9 million in increased program funds is 
requested for both federal and state activities.
    In addition, FHWA has requested that $56.3 million be 
available in fiscal year 2002 to build, improve, or upgrade 
state inspection facilities at the ports of entry.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants

    FMCSA is requesting $160 million for MCSAP funding for the 
states in fiscal year 2002. This includes more than $130 
million for basic grants to the states and more than $11 
million in incentive funds for states that show progress in 
reducing crashes and fatalities.
    Driver error and driver related factors are major 
contributors to commercial vehicle crashes.
    Improving commercial driver licensing and recordkeeping are 
some of the best ways to influence driver safety and 
performance.
    This year FMCSA will award special grants to states to 
address specific CDL risks or challenges.
    In fiscal year 2002 a total of $10 million in dedicated 
funding is requested to maintain the state CDL improvement 
program.
    Last Friday FMCSA issued the first of two notices of 
proposed rulemaking to implement changes in commercial drivers 
licensing required by MCSIA. The proposed rules will disqualify 
commercial drivers with drug, alcohol and other serious offense 
committed while driving a passenger car or other non commercial 
motor vehicle.

                      HOURS OF SERVICE RULEMAKING

    As you mentioned, last May we published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking to revise the limitations on commercial 
motor vehicle operators' hours of service. The proposed rule 
would put drivers on a 24 hour work/rest cycle and provide 
greater opportunity for drivers to obtain rest and restorative 
sleep.
    During the comment period we held eight public hearings and 
three two-day roundtables. We received 53,100 comments on this 
rule and are currently reviewing the comments and soon will 
decide the next step to take.
    Recent tragedies in transporting students to special events 
are a great concern to FMCSA. We are initiating a new program 
of safety outreach to school districts and parent/teacher 
organizations to share the information that we have that they 
can use when selecting a bus company that has a good safety 
record for their school trips.
    We will provide them access to our data systems so they can 
identify the best safety records.

                         MOTOR CARRIER RESEARCH

    To reach our ambitious goal for reducing fatalities and 
injuries, we need to develop and implement a strong research, 
development, and technology program. For 2002 we have asked for 
an increase of $4 million for motor carrier safety research 
over the 2001 level of $10 million.
    FMCSA manages the commercial motor vehicle platform of the 
intelligent vehicle initiative. We are currently developing 
technologies and testing their effectiveness for adoption by 
carriers across the country. Operational tests of warning 
systems for collisions, rollovers, hazardous rotations, and 
lane departures are already underway.
    In 2002 we will begin tests of electronically controlled 
braking systems to reduce stopping distances and enhance 
stability, and tests of drowsy driver detection and warning 
devices.
    FMCSA strives to be the performance benchmark for 
government agencies and we are proud of our achievements in our 
first year.
    I am proud of FMCSA employees and their dedication to 
safety. They have worked hard to meet congressional directives 
in enforcement, standards, technology, and safety education.
    Knowing we still have a long way to go, we have asked for 
the resources we need to make progress in the year ahead.
    I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the 
subcommittee, and would be happy to answer any questions you 
may have.
    [The prepared statement and biography of Julie Anna Cirillo 
follow:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                          NAFTA BORDER OPENING

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Ms. Cirillo, for your statement. We 
do have questions.
    What I think we may do since we have a number of members 
here, is we will try to abide by a five minute rule so that 
everyone has a first chance to ask questions, and then we will 
have a second round, perhaps.
    The IG's report pointed to several options in relation to 
the NAFTA border opening and truck safety goals, including 
opening all of the 28 crossings at once, or phasing them in.
    Do you know what the plans are at this moment?
    Ms. Cirillo. As I understand the plans, all of the current 
crossings that accept commercial traffic will be opened all at 
once. And basically the reason for that is that the larger 
crossings where it would seem that you might be able to divert 
traffic are already overly congested. So the anticipation, as I 
understand it, from the Trade Representatives, is all of the 
crossings that currently accept commercial traffic will open at 
the same time.
    Mr. Rogers. And that date is?
    Ms. Cirillo. We are targeting to open the border before the 
end of this calendar year.
    Mr. Rogers. Tell me again your specific goals associated 
with truck safety and the border opening. And how do you know 
your plan will accomplish those goals?
    Ms. Cirillo. Our specific goal, as it relates to opening 
the border, is to ensure that the carriers who want to enter 
the U.S., to do business in the U.S., pick up and to deliver to 
the U.S.--both in the commercial zone and outside the 
commercial zone--are familiar with and abide by our regulations 
for the carrier itself, for their vehicles, and for their 
drivers.
    So we have a plan that essentially does several things. We 
want to deploy the large majority of our resources to the 
border to enhance the actual vehicle inspections that occur as 
vehicles pass through Customs. That is the first criteria.
    The second criteria is, as people, as carriers apply for 
authority, and they have to apply even if they are already 
operating within the commercial zone, they have to reapply 
under the new regulations. All of those carriers would be 
subject to a comprehensive review of the information they 
provide. We would do random checks on their vehicle 
registration and the driver registration. We would ask for 
substantiation of things like drug testing, and we would give 
them conditional authority.
    Within the first 18 months of their operation in the U.S., 
we would then conduct a safety audit to ensure that they are 
abiding by the regulations and have those systems in place to 
be able to maintain a positive safety posture.
    Mr. Rogers. How many trucks will cross that border?
    Ms. Cirillo. Initially, I think when the border opens, 
initially I am not sure there will be a significant number of 
increased crossings. There would be some increased crossings, 
particularly along the California border, for carriers who want 
access with their goods to the Port of Los Angeles, and 
therefore to international markets.
    The California Trucking Association estimates that they 
will probably have on their border about 3,000 carriers who 
apply for authority to operate in the interior. Essentially, to 
move goods to the Port of Los Angeles.
    Along the Texas border we would anticipate a relatively few 
number of carriers are going to apply for authority to operate 
in the interior, basically because they have some concerns 
about competing with U.S. carriers. They have no relationships 
established with suppliers and shippers that allow them to 
bring loads back into Mexico, so it is an economic 
disadvantage. Of the carriers who will apply, we estimate less 
than 500 to operate in the interior, will be private carriers 
moving steel and oil from Mexico to the Port of Houston or to 
the Port of New Orleans.
    There may be a few carriers who apply on the border of 
Arizona, but most of those carriers are moving produce, so we 
do not expect they will be moving it beyond the commercial 
zone.
    So with those 3,500, plus the 9,500 carriers who have to 
reapply, we figure that we are going to get applications close 
to 12,000, 13,000 carriers to operate either within or outside 
the commercial zone.

                           NAFTA INSPECTIONS

    Mr. Rogers. Do you agree with the estimate that only about 
one percent of the motor traffic is inspected?
    Ms. Cirillo. Mr. Chairman, it really depends on how you 
count the numbers.
    In the commercial zone right now essentially the same 
people operate back and forth across the border. So you will 
have in a year maybe several million crossings that are really 
being done by the same body of trucks. There are approximately, 
we estimate, 80,000 trucks that are doing these crossings, 
because they will do four or five crossings a day. But it is 
the same group of trucks.
    Of those 80,000 trucks, we and the states inspect about 
46,000. So a good number of individual specific trucks are 
being inspected, but if you relate to the number of crossings, 
each truck is making four to five crossings a day.
    Mr. Rogers. I will have other questions, but I will yield 
to Mr. Sabo.

                         NAFTA COMMERCIAL ZONE

    Mr. Sabo. Just so I can get a little better picture, of the 
trucks who have come into what we call the commercial zone, is 
the commercial zone today the destination for their load?
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes. They drop off their load in a warehouse 
or they leave it in a truck and it is either picked up by an 
American carrier on a drop and pull type operation or----
    Mr. Sabo. I guess that is what I was----
    Ms. Cirillo. Right.
    Mr. Sabo. Those trailers may be pulled elsewhere in the 
country.
    Ms. Cirillo. Right. But most of them are not. Most of them 
are moving back and forth across the border, the tractor and 
the trailer.
    There are some, particularly where an American carrier has 
a close relationship with a Mexican carrier, where they are in 
fact dropping the trailer. So you will have Schneider Trailers 
coming into the U.S. because they either have financial 
interest in the Mexican carrier and/or they have a relationship 
where they are swapping trailers back and forth.

                      MEXICAN CARRIERS--DEFINITION

    Mr. Sabo. When you talk about 12,000 additional carriers, 
what do you mean by carrier? Is that a company so it represents 
may more trucks than 12,000?
    Ms. Cirillo. In Mexico, the distribution of their carrier 
population is very similar to ours. The vast majority of their 
carrier population have relatively few trucks.
    A carrier could be somebody who is running one truck or 
somebody who is running 500 trucks. So that is the definition 
of a carrier.

                      MEXICAN DRIVERS--REGULATIONS

    Mr. Sabo. What is the status of the Mexican regulation of 
both truckers and drivers today in comparison to ours?
    Ms. Cirillo. The Mexicans----
    Mr. Sabo. And I mean in reality, not what the law says.
    Ms. Cirillo. I understand.
    As you know, once the border was closed we undertook work 
with the Mexican government to enhance their systems that were 
in place to register and monitor the quality of their trucks, 
to ensure that the trucks were manufactured in accordance with 
American standards, and to encourage them to do work on their 
driver qualifications.
    They are in the process of populating those information 
systems for vehicles to be registered and for drivers to be 
registered.
    Mr. Sabo. If I understand right, that is only now existing 
so that while we have several years' prior requirement to look 
at a record, an American driver in Mexico, some have no record, 
and some are a year or less?
    Ms. Cirillo. I am not sure I understand your question.
    The database is currently being populated, that is correct. 
The database is being populated but at a reasonably good rate.
    Our regulations require that we would not give anybody 
operating authority if we cannot find their drivers registered 
with the Government in Mexico. So this will be an impetus for 
Mexican carriers to in fact get their drivers registered.
    The database is becoming more and more populated all the 
time. Currently we actually access that database when a driver 
comes in and we stop the vehicle for an inspection. We access 
the database to make sure the driver is registered.
    We do have difficulty sometimes because their power systems 
are not as good as they should be and their system sometimes is 
not available to us. But I would say most of the time, 75 
percent of the time, we can directly access their system and 
pull up the driver. If the driver is not registered with the 
Government of Mexico, we do not let them into the country 
today. That would follow through. If they are not registered, 
we would not even give them authority to come into the country 
under the new regulations.
    Mr. Sabo. What do we know about their driving background?
    Ms. Cirillo. In terms of the particular driver? We would 
know all of the information that the Mexican government knows. 
We would know that they were drug tested, that they had taken a 
performance test, they actually had operated a vehicle, they 
had passed the test that Mexican governments give to their 
drivers. And a lot of that information is reasonably compatible 
with our CDL requirements. Not exactly compatible. But they 
have relatively stringent standards for their drivers.
    The key is that our actions will force more drivers to meet 
the standards, more drivers to be registered, because they do 
not even get authority any more if they do not have their 
drivers registered.
    Mr. Sabo. But that record is their record of driving for 
the last year or less.
    Ms. Cirillo. This would be their record of driving for 
however long they have been entered into the system. It could 
be their record of driving for 30 days, 60 days, whenever they 
applied to be registered and were registered.
    The same thing with a CDL. Somebody applies for a CDL, the 
information that is available for the CDL is a function of how 
long that person has applied and had a CDL. So it could be a 
relatively new CDL. It could be an old CDL and you still do not 
have the information because the states are not exchanging it. 
But it is an item that is registered, they have registered with 
the national government, and that is the criteria for 
acceptance and giving them operating authority,also for the 
test at the road side.

                  MEXICAN CARRIERS--PRE-CERTIFICATION

    Mr. Sabo. Why do we not pre-certify rather than wait 18 
months?
    Ms. Cirillo. I guess we could pre-certify. I think the 
issue with pre-certifying is we are requiring the 9,000 
carriers who currently have authority to operate in the 
commercial zone to reapply. If we had to pre-certify them and 
the carriers who are coming into the interior, the timeframe 
before anybody could continue their border operations would 
become very, very long.
    The other thing is, as carriers get authority and get 
registered with the Mexican government and we include that in 
our databases, over the 18 months we will be able to accumulate 
safety performance information on the carrier.
    So it gives us a much more substantial basis for reneging 
or denying their authority if they do not meet the safety 
standards.
    Mr. Sabo. Mr. Chairman, I also have some additional 
questions for the record.
    [The information follows:]



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                   MEXICAN CARRIERS HOURS-OF-SERVICE

    Mr. Rogers. Chairman Wolf.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome to the committee.
    I think it is a mistake to allow the trucks in now. Does 
Mexico have an hours of service?
    Ms. Cirillo. I do not know.
    [Asides from audience.]
    They have just recently enacted an hours of service 
regulation.
    Mr. Wolf. Well we know if you go out on a truck inspection, 
and you have been out on many, 20 percent of our trucks are out 
of----
    Ms. Cirillo. Out of hours, right.
    Mr. Wolf. You know the degree of difficulty we have had for 
hours of service.
    You also, and I mean no offense, but there is no way of 
validating whether somebody is really or not. We are not going 
to be able to check.
    Secondly, how aggressive is the truck inspection program 
currently in operation for the average truck in Mexico today?
    Ms. Cirillo. Within Mexico?
    Mr. Wolf. Yes.
    Ms. Cirillo. On a scale of one to ten I would say it is 
probably a five.
    Mr. Wolf. And that would vary, of course, according to 
locations.
    Ms. Cirillo. Their truck inspections are all done 
nationally. It is not like they are done by states like they 
are in the U.S.

                      MEXICAN CARRIERS--LEADED GAS

    Mr. Wolf. Do they use leaded gas or unleaded gas?
    Ms. Cirillo. I have no idea. I would assume unleaded, but I 
do not really know.
    Mr. Wolf. I was told that they use leaded gas.
    Ms. Cirillo. I meant leaded, I'm sorry. But I do not really 
know. I would assume that, but I do not know.
    Mr. Wolf. If you have leaded gas coming in, how does that 
work with regard to the clean air requirement?
    Ms. Cirillo. I am sure it has a negative impact, 
particularly in those localities which are in the business of 
controlling the air quality in the border towns. That is an 
instant issue for border towns.
    Mr. Wolf. And if you use leaded gas and switch to unleaded 
gas, what does that do to your automobile or your truck?
    Ms. Cirillo. It does not work very well. Well, it is okay. 
I mean----
    Mr. Wolf. It ruins it though for the clean air later on.
    Ms. Cirillo. I do not know, Mr. Wolf. I am really not an 
expert on air quality, and----
    Mr. Wolf. Is anybody----
    Ms. Cirillo [continuing]. And it is not something that we 
are----
    Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Is the administration looking at 
this?
    Ms. Cirillo. I think the EPA is looking at this issue and 
has expressed some concern about this issue. But I do not know 
if they are taking any action on the issue.

                      Mexican Carriers--Death Rate

    Mr. Wolf. How many truck deaths were there last year in 
Mexico?
    Ms. Cirillo. In the country of Mexico? I do not know. I can 
find out and let you know.
    Mr. Wolf. Would we have not wanted to find that out if we 
are going to say they can come in and go anywhere they want to 
in the country? Do we not want to know what the death rate is 
in Mexico?
    Ms. Cirillo. Well their death rate----
    Mr. Wolf. Is this----
    Ms. Cirillo. I know their overall death rate is higher than 
our death rate. Their roads are not as good as our roads. Their 
overall death rate--I mean we have the lowest death rate in the 
world, so their death rate is higher. But I do not know 
specifically what their truck death rate is. But we will be 
glad to find out and get back to the committee on the trucks, 
deaths, and the truck death rate.
    [The information follows:]

    The following table is based on data from the Mexican 
transportation ministry, the Secretaria de Communicaciones y 
Transportes (SCT). We should be careful comparing this data to 
US results, since definitions of both crashes and commercial 
motor vehicles may differ. The data do not indicate whether the 
carriers involved in crashes are Mexican or not. While some 
foreign-based carriers may be included, presumably the vast 
majority are Mexican carriers.

                         TRUCK CRASHES IN MEXICO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Year                  Crashes     Fatalities    Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.............................       12,334          606        2,947
1997.............................       13,976          607        2,705
1998.............................       14,256          630        2,662
1999.............................       14,195          664        2,856
Average..........................       13,690          627        2,793
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          BUS CRASHES IN MEXICO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Year                  Crahses     Fatalities    Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.............................        3,300          411        3,407
1997.............................        3,359          409        3,291
1998.............................        3,103          377        3,158
1999.............................        3,184          452        3,261
Average..........................        3,237          412        3,279
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several things stand out. First, buses account for a much 
larger percentage of Mexican crashes, fatalities and injuries 
than they do in the US. In the United States, buses account for 
12 percent of all commercial motor vehicle crashes, 6 percent 
of all CMV fatalities, and 14 percent of all CMV injuries. The 
comparable figures for Mexico are 19 percent of CMV crashes, 40 
percent of CMV fatalities, and 54 percent of CMV injuries.
    We were unable to locate an estimate of Mexican truck and 
bus vehicle miles of travel (VMT), which are needed to generate 
a crash rate. We did generate a per capita crash rate, which 
reveals that the U.S. has a significantly higher crash rate 
than Mexico. The US total CMV crash rate of 1,733 crashes per 
1,000,000 people is 100 times larger than the Mexican rate of 
175 crashes per million people. The US rate of 21 fatalities in 
CMV crashes per million people is double the Mexican rate of 11 
per million population.
    Some of this discrepancy is probably due to the better 
reporting in the US, while different definitions may also play 
a role.

                       U.S. CARRIERS--DEATH RATE

    Mr. Wolf. How many deaths were there in the United States 
last year?
    Ms. Cirillo. 5,308. Something like that. I do have that 
information.
    Total, or just trucks?
    Mr. Wolf. Just trucks.
    Ms. Cirillo. I think it is 5,308 is the preliminary number. 
I know Terry is here. We have a preliminary number for 2000--
truck fatalities, 5,307. I was off by one.
    Mr. Wolf. Can you submit that to us and break it down by 
state also?
    Ms. Cirillo. Sure, we will be glad to.
    [The information follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                        Mexican Truck Insurance

    Mr. Wolf. Back to the Mexican trucks, what insurance will 
they carry? With an American company or----
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes, Mexican carriers now do one of two 
things. They either carry trip insurance, so it is insurance 
for the trip they are taking, or they have policy type 
insurance.
    Mr. Wolf. And who is that with?
    Ms. Cirillo. Almost all of it, with the exception of one 
carrier, is with American companies. Many of the carriers who 
are working in the border have converted from trip insurance to 
policy type insurance. The predominant amount of it is being 
written by American companies. There is only one Mexican 
company that is writing insurance for border operations.
    Mr. Wolf. Would there be a difficulty for an American 
citizen to collect if there were an accident----
    Ms. Cirillo. From an American company? I do not think so.
    Mr. Wolf. How about----
    Ms. Cirillo. From the Mexican company, I do not think so. 
But I have no way of telling you whether that will be more or 
less burdensome than collecting from an American carrier, an 
accident with an American carrier.
    Mr. Wolf. Okay.
    Ms. Cirillo. The insurance industry assures us that that is 
not the case, that they in fact, in order to do business in 
this country, meet their requirements. But when I was in Mexico 
two weeks ago, the carriers said that by and large they are all 
insured with American insurance companies.

                      Truck Size and Weight Study

    Mr. Wolf. Last year in the subcommittee, in the report, we 
put a prohibition on doing studies on weight and size. We were 
told that you were now doing a study, but you were doing 
reprogrammed funds----
    Ms. Cirillo. We are not responsible for size and weight. 
That is Federal Highway. We are not doing anything with size 
and weight.
    Mr. Wolf. So you are not----
    Ms. Cirillo. No.
    Mr. Wolf. Can we check and see if they are doing something 
with regard to trucks?
    Ms. Cirillo. Sure.
    Mr. Wolf. And what money they are using?
    Ms. Cirillo. Sure.
    [The information follows:]



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Wolf. I have no further questions.
    Just for the record, I do believe with every fiber in my 
body, and I hope that I am proven wrong, and I think if I am 
wrong I am going to say I am wrong, and I hope I am wrong. I 
think there are going to be a lot of people killed. Having been 
out on a truck inspection team, also having driven through 
Mexico, I know the degree of difficulty it is for us to get 
trucks here, and we now have 5,300-some, like an airplane 
crashing in the country every other week, that is 14 to 15 
people a day.
    I think we are rushing into this.
    Inevitably, I think with NAFTA you have to do these things, 
but we are just rushing. We do not know about the leaded gas, 
we are not sure completely about hours of service, we do not 
know what inspections there are, we do not know what the record 
is of a guy who's 50 years old, what his record was when he was 
30, 35.
    I understand their drug testing is not nearly to the degree 
that ours, and I think you really open this up whereby some mom 
in a Windstar somewhere is going to be out with the kids--I 
think it is just going to be a terrible, terrible thing. And 
there are a lot of people going to feel, if I am right--and I 
hope that I am not--when the first accident comes I think it 
really will be a major political issue in the country.
    I would hope the administration would not move ahead.
    I guess the last question, when would there be a permanent 
administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration? It has been a year and a half now, and I 
thought, Julie--you are still there. You are going to outlast 
everybody. [Laughter.]
    You have outlasted Slater, you have outlasted everybody. 
When will the new person come aboard?
    Ms. Cirillo. I think that says something about my staying 
power, right?
    Mr. Wolf. Yes.
    Ms. Cirillo. I think, Congressman, I understand that the 
Secretary has made a recommendation to the White House. We are 
looking forward to the President nominating someone and to 
quick approval in the Senate, but I have no idea exactly where 
it is. But I do understand the Secretary has made a 
recommendation to the White House.
    Mr. Wolf. I hope to get somebody running.
    And lastly, let me just say for the record, I hope he--and 
obviously he or she will be--a good, honest, decent ethical 
person who is not connected with any particular industry group, 
who is just going to come in here and call them the way they 
see them and do the job. Because if they do not do the job, a 
lot of people--people will die anyway.
    I appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you are known 
around the business as Mr. Truck Safety, and we appreciate your 
record in that respect.
    Mr. Olver, we are trying to on the first round do five 
minutes. You are recognized.

                        FATALITY-REDUCTION GOAL

    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Julie, Mr. Wolf has already sort of examined I think 
questions around one of your comments in your testimony which 
is that you are preparing with all aggression steps necessary 
to begin commercial vehicle traffic through Mexico by the end 
of the year. I have some of the same concerns, but I will not 
dwell on those.
    When did you actually take over as the Acting 
Administrator? Did you take over after signature or at some 
later point?
    Ms. Cirillo. Actually prior. I was part of the Federal 
Highway Administration when Motor Carriers moved out of Federal 
Highway. So I was with the Office of Motor Carriers prior to 
the enactment of MCSIA which created the agency. So I have been 
here for the duration.
    Mr. Olver. I see.
    The number that you gave us, 5,307 truck deaths----
    Ms. Cirillo. Right.
    Mr. Olver. That is the one that refers to your goal, the 
stated goal of reducing by 50 percent the truck-related 
fatalities by the year----
    Ms. Cirillo. Actually----
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. Or is it some other?
    Ms. Cirillo. It is actually a number prior to that. It is 
the calendar year 1998 number. It is slightly higher.
    Mr. Olver. Is that what the 5,307 is?
    Ms. Cirillo. No. 5,307 is the 2000 number. The number that 
we are using is our base for our 50 percent reduction, is the 
1998 number which is slightly higher than the 5,307. It is 
5,374.
    Mr. Olver. So you are somewhere hoping to be in the 2,500--
--
    Ms. Cirillo. That----
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. Level by that time.

                          FMCSA--AGENCY BUDGET

    What was the budget for the agency in the present fiscal 
year? Which started October 1st. What is your budget in this 
fiscal year?
    Ms. Cirillo. $269 million.
    Mr. Olver. $269 million?
    Ms. Cirillo. Right.
    Mr. Olver. And what is the requested budget for fiscal year 
2002?
    Ms. Cirillo. $344 million.
    Mr. Olver. So it is a 28 percent increase, or very close to 
a 28 percent increase.
    Ms. Cirillo. Right.
    Mr. Olver. In creating this agency as a separate agency 
within Transportation, did that represent moving a whole series 
of people in from other places? Into the, who were already on 
board? Or did you have to do a lot of hiring in that process?
    Ms. Cirillo. It was really a combination of both. When we 
initially moved out of Federal Highway Administration in 
October of 1999, we took with us everybody who was in Federal 
Highway who was assigned a Motor Carrier billet. That was about 
650 people.

                         FMCSA--AGENCY CREATION

    Mr. Olver. But the actual agency was not created until----
    Ms. Cirillo. No.
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. January of 2000?
    Ms. Cirillo. Right. We formed an office within the Office 
of the Secretary. It was called the Office of Motor Carriers.
    Mr. Olver. In anticipation of the separation?
    Ms. Cirillo. That was the separation.
    There was a provision of the FY 2000 Appropriations Bill 
that resulted in Motor Carriers being pulled out of Federal 
Highway, and we became for a short period of time an office in 
the Office of the Secretary. The Office of Motor Carrier 
Safety.
    So from October until December 30, 1999 we were an office, 
and we took with us at that point in time our, essentially our 
budget line items and the people who were in Motor Carrier 
billets, and those are the people who formed the basis of the 
new Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
    Mr. Olver. What then would be the total number of employees 
now with the agency?
    Ms. Cirillo. We will probably be about, right now we are 
probably about 750 employees.
    Mr. Olver. And was I hearing 610 that were moved or 
something close to that?
    Ms. Cirillo. About 650.
    Mr. Olver. 650. So the actual total new hirings is only 15 
percent or----
    Ms. Cirillo. I think we got authorization for 150-some 
additional people.
    Mr. Olver. Additional people.
    Ms. Cirillo. Right.
    Mr. Olver. So in large measure you were able to move an 
agency that was at full speed into a different track still 
running at full speed almost, nearly, something close to it.
    Ms. Cirillo. Right.
    Mr. Olver. And did you already have staff in each of the 50 
states?
    Ms. Cirillo. We had staff in each of the 50 states.
    Mr. Olver. So that is nothing new.
    Ms. Cirillo. No.

                           VEHICLE DEFINITION

    Mr. Olver. One can more or less expect a full level of 
performance here as you have moved over.
    Mr. Chairman, I have one other thought, one other question 
here really, other than these sort of demographics.
    You mentioned that motor carriers could be multiple 
ownerships of buses or trucks. I am referring to your statement 
that with the state safety partners we have targeted 
enforcement on motor carriers, vehicles and drivers with poor 
safety performance.
    When you say vehicles, what do you mean by vehicles? Is 
that by type? Is that----
    Ms. Cirillo. It is a truck
    Mr. Olver. A particular truck.
    Ms. Cirillo. Exactly.
    Mr. Olver. With an identification number, with a bad 
record.
    Ms. Cirillo. Service----
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. Driver, or can they be independent?
    Ms. Cirillo. They are independent.
    Mr. Olver. They are?
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes. They carry the information, if a vehicle 
is pulled over for a vehicle inspection, and they do what is 
called a level one inspection. It means the vehicle is 
inspected and the driver is ``inspected.''
    The vehicle can be put out of service or the driver can be 
put out of service, or both. Whichever is put out of service, 
that information by vehicle and by driver is maintained in our 
database. We accumulate that for carriers so that we know that 
Carrier A has an out of service rate of 40 percent where the 
national average is 25 percent. The driver has had an out of 
service rate of 15 percent when the national average is eight 
percent or six percent.
    We use that information to target the carriers that we will 
do federal compliance reviews on.
    If they do not perform well in the road inspections and in 
their accident experience, they are the ones that we target for 
federal compliance review.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. We will come back to you.
    Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. I think the last time we talked you were having 
a hard time recruiting anybody for this job.
    Ms. Cirillo. That is right, but I managed to fill all the 
jobs, Mr. Pastor.

                           border inspectors

    Mr. Pastor. Well good. Welcome again.
    Several questions.
    Let me start with the 80 inspectors. The Secretary was here 
a couple of weeks ago and there was some concern that the 80 
inspectors were not going to be committed to the border.
    Ms. Cirillo. Uh huh.
    Mr. Pastor. That they were going to be brought into the 
states and then used maybe away from the border. And the 
Secretary started with unequivocally saying no, they are going 
to be at the border. Then he backed up, backed off saying well, 
they may be a few miles away from the border.
    Are the 80 inspectors going to be at the border or close to 
the border?
    Ms. Cirillo. Of the 80 people that we are going to hire to 
do safety investigations for opening the border, all 80 will be 
able to do a vehicle inspection at the border. They will be 
trained to do the safety reviews as carriers come into the 
system and apply for authority, and a subset of them will also 
be able to do the safety review of the application.
    Initially virtually all of those 80 folks will be located 
either directly at the border, or in some instances they will 
be in what we call the border area, which is outside the border 
but very close to the border where the state has an inspection 
station. Like in California.
    In California there are no federal inspectors at the 
border. Only state inspectors. But upstream from the entrance 
at OTAY Mesa there is a rest area border--I think they call it 
a port of entry--where we do have people deployed to help the 
state, looking at who has operating authority and are they in 
the right place. And to, enhance our ability to catch or 
inspect trucks that have not been inspected at the border.
    Because of the physical limitations at a lot of the border 
crossings, particularly in Texas, it is almost impossible for 
us to deploy all of those people right at the border, because 
we only have limited inspection bays, we have limited places 
where they can place vehicles out of service. So we are going 
to use those to the maximum extent possible. We are going to 
cover those border crossings for the time that the border is 
open for commercial traffic. And then we will deploy some 
people slightly upstream, within maybe 10 or 15 miles at the 
first available weigh station in concert with the state. 
Continue to do inspections and also check for authority.
    Right now, other than California, we are the only entity 
that can check for authority. So that is basically our plan.
    But if we have to deploy people, more people at the border 
and more people upstream, everybody will be trained to do all 
of the tasks, so it will give us flexibility to move people to 
where the need is.

                     U.S.-MEXICO BORDER FACILITIES

    Mr. Pastor. As I recall, the Inspector General, his report 
said that California was adequate and Texas and Arizona and New 
Mexico needed more assistance in terms that we did have the 
facilities and we did not have the required number of 
inspectors.
    Ms. Cirillo. Right.
    Mr. Pastor. So California, at least, was meeting their 
obligations, but with the increased traffic it may--I do not 
know what the pattern will be. But at least in Arizona and in 
Texas, we still have problems with facilities and with 
inspectors.
    My problem, and I will ask you, sometimes in delegating the 
personnel, are we going to look at it fairly or are we going to 
be weighted more to the east, or east of Arizona anyway?
    Ms. Cirillo. In the last budget request that we made we did 
ask for 20 additional border inspectors, which we have hired 
and deployed. Of those 20, I believe four or five were actually 
deployed to Arizona. And we would deploy more to Nogales than 
we would some of the other states.
    I will add that both Arizona and New Mexico have steppedup 
to the plate. They are both constructing inspection facilities and they 
have hired inspectors that will be located at the border.
    Texas has also proposed eight facilities that the state 
would construct at their eight major border crossings, and they 
have also proposed the allocation of personnel slots for the 
purpose of staffing those inspection stations.
    Mr. Pastor. I know that in Arizona we are probably, I think 
beyond the design stage and we may even be beginning 
construction.
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Pastor. Do you think they will be ready by January 1st 
of next year? The facilities.
    Ms. Cirillo. I do not really know, but I am actually going 
to Arizona later this month and we can find out where they 
anticipate being ready to open.
    I do not really know in Arizona.
    Mr. Pastor. I know that last year about this time they were 
applying for the grant.
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes.
    Mr. Pastor. And they were hoping to get it and they did get 
it. And I have not been to the commercial station. The design 
was where they were at about six months ago, so the facility 
itself may not be ready for January.
    But I was under the impression, and this was from a 
statement I read from President Fox. He just stated that 25 
percent of the Mexican trucking industry would be prepared to 
meet the requirements. And he felt that initially, and I think 
you had the same assessment, that there would be a slow stream. 
And knowing that there would be requirements and inspections, 
that maybe less than 25 percent would be coming over.
    It is my contention, Mr. Chairman, that you are going to 
have more American companies like Swift going down there and 
buying into the Mexican companies, and you are going to have 
probably the most modern trucks crossing the border with maybe 
a Mexican name on them. Have you seen much of that?
    Ms. Cirillo. We actually have observed that most of the 
major players, Mexican companies--Swift, Schneider, JB Hunt----
    Mr. Pastor. One night.
    Ms. Cirillo. They have all actually made investments in 
Mexican companies, so the Mexican company like Jaguar is in 
fact co-owned by an American company and by a Mexican company.

                      driver database information

    Mr. Pastor. I think that is where you are going to end up 
resolving this problem of safety. Many of the American 
companies now are going to be investing more and more in there, 
and their trucks and rigs are probably going to be state of the 
art.
    Last year as I recall, and as you were responding to 
Congressman Olver, you were having problems in getting data 
from the states in terms of moving violations, and sometimes 
maybe even of inspections they had. Has that gotten better?
    I know that one of the problems we had last year, even our 
own American trucks as they were being inspected or the drivers 
were having moving violations, there was not a database at the 
national level--I think you or other people told us is not 
adequate enough.
    Ms. Cirillo. We have made improvements. The states have 
really made improvements in the timeliness of uploading the 
data to our national system.
    Their accident data is now being uploaded, where it used to 
be 163 days, now in 99 days. We continue to work with the 
states to get these uploads done quickly.
    Mr. Pastor. I think one of the issues we had last year was 
not getting it to you on a timely basis, but that the states 
themselves as they collected the information, were not even 
providing it to you. There was a moving violation and the 
driver went to court in Arizona, that sometimes that 
information never got into your database.
    Ms. Cirillo. Right.
    Ms. Pastor. So when he was stopped or she was stopped, that 
information was lacking. And you may have had a driver who 
should have been put out of service.
    Ms. Cirillo. We just issued the first of two notices of 
proposed rulemaking, the first one which will address that 
issue, requires the states to carry on the commercial drivers 
license all of the violations that the driver commits on his 
license, all the convictions, plus all the convictions he has 
on his private vehicle license.
    So that when we call these people up, we will have that 
information.
    In accordance with the MCSIA, the convictions have to be on 
the records of the driver within 10 days. So we're getting the 
judiciary involved. They have to send that information to the 
DMV within 10 days.
    So in a relatively short period of time people should know 
that a driver has been convicted of a serious violation.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                             strategic plan

    Mr. Rogers. Ms. Kilpatrick.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good afternoon again. Good to see you.
    When you said 16 months ago we did the new configuration 
for the Motor Carrier Division, you set out and I think 
testified in this committee that you have put together a 10 
year strategic plan.
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Are you working on it? Or are we waiting 
for a new Director? Can we see it?
    Ms. Cirillo. We are working on a strategic plan. In fact 
yesterday I just signed off on it.
    We, under the direction of the Congress, worked last year 
to develop a strategic plan for the agency. It is a seven year 
plan. We used a fairly unique way of developing it and turning 
it in terms of getting outreach from our stakeholders, we went 
on the Internet and allowed people to comment on our strategic 
plan electronically.
    We have finalized the strategic plan. The strategic plan 
essentially has two goals--one is a safety goal and one is an 
organizational excellence goal. We are in the process of 
packaging that document to transmit it to the Secretary for 
transmission to the Congress. It lays out the strategies that 
we hope to implement to be successful in meeting our safety 
goal of a reduction of 50 percent in injuries and fatalities.
    One of the important things about the strategy is that with 
trucks, because of the physics of the situation, once you try 
to address injuries and fatalities in terms of reductions, you 
almost have to go to addressing having the accident avoided in 
the first place because there is almost always an injury when 
you have an accident.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I am happy to see that you are working on 
it. More happy to see that you have signed off on it. It is in 
the process to get from you guys to the Secretary----
    Ms. Cirillo. Right. For transmission to the Congress.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. And when do we anticipate the transmission?
    Ms. Cirillo. As soon as possible.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. All right. That is what I hoped you would 
say. [Laughter.]

                      fatal motor vehicle crashes

    But I guess it is coming forward, and that is a good thing. 
I am glad to see that you are working on it.
    You mentioned the 5,300 fatalities. What states do they 
occur most likely in? Most commonly.
    [The information follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Ms. Cirillo. Well, as you could anticipate, the states that 
have the largest numbers of fatalities are states that are the 
largest population states. We're counting a number. There is no 
measure to calculate that per 100 million or per 100,000 
population.
    But in terms of rate, the southeastern states actually have 
a much higher fatality rate than almost any place else in the 
country. The poorer the economy in a state the morelikely it is 
that their safety rates will be high. Because a lot of things come to 
bear on why that happens.
    Generally, their emergency medical service is not as good 
as other places. Their medical system is not. Their highways 
are not. Their vehicles are generally older. So all of those 
things come to bear, and if you look at a distribution of 
rates, the southeastern states have a much higher rate, and New 
Mexico and West Virginia are the other two, than the other 
states in the country.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. And you mentioned population, the economy, 
the highways themselves, the vehicles that they drive----
    Ms. Cirillo. Right. Emergency medical service is a big one.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. That is after the accident, though.
    Ms. Cirillo. I know. But when you are counting fatalities 
it is very important.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I see.
    Ms. Cirillo. Someone is much more likely to die if they 
have an accident in Mississippi, for example--compared to the 
same accident occuring in California. The person is more likely 
to die in Mississippi because they don't have the medical 
services and the helicopters to transport people, et cetera.
    So it is not just one thing. It is all of these things 
together.

                      additional border inspectors

    Ms. Kilpatrick. I see.
    The IG in his report said that you needed 80 additional 
inspectors.
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. The budget that we have before us talks 
about 80 additional enforcement staff.
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Is that semantics, or are those different?
    Ms. Cirillo. As I mentioned, the 80 individuals that we 
will hire will be able to do inspections. They will also be 
responsible for doing the safety review of the carriers who 
apply for authority.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. So they are inspectors and safety----
    Ms. Cirillo. Exactly.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. And you also have inspectors who just do 
inspecting.
    Ms. Cirillo. Right now we have 60 inspectors and that is 
all they do. They will not be trained to do anything else.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. And the 80 enforcement staff will do 
inspections plus the safety----
    Ms. Cirillo. Right. But the majority of them will be doing 
inspections. But so that we have flexibility we are going to 
train them to do the safety audits as well.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Do you need more inspectors?
    Ms. Cirillo. We think that as the border states begin to 
step up and staff the border crossings, and they have, as Mr. 
Pastor has acknowledged. So as the border states take on that 
responsibility, as California has, we would anticipate that the 
level of staffing that we have as we move thru this transition 
would be sufficient.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. And finally, how is California able to do 
it with their state personnel, where some borders do better, 
more than states. How is that----
    Ms. Cirillo. Well----
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Priority of the state, or----
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes. Yes. The priority of the state.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. And resources that state may or may not 
have.
    Is there any----
    Ms. Cirillo. It is mostly the priority of the state.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. So then your agency does not put pressure 
either way.
    Ms. Cirillo. We do. We have spent a lot of time and energy 
working with the states. We have special MCSAP grants to help 
them build border crossings, and we have given them additional 
MCSAP money. Border crossings are and have been eligible for 
MCSAP money. So we have worked with the states and encouraged 
them to move towards a significant presence at the border. And 
all of the states have really done that.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Incentives for them to do such----
    Ms. Cirillo. The incentives for border crossing are 
essentially grants. Right.

                  michigan/canadian border fatalities

    Ms. Kilpatrick. And Mr. Chairman, if I might, I live on the 
Michigan/Canadian border, and we always say it is not nearly as 
bad as edge border, that we do not have nearly--Well, we 
actually have traffic, maybe not the fatalities.
    I would like to see if you have such a chart how our border 
fares.
    Ms. Cirillo. Sure.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you. I appreciate your work.
    Ms. Cirillo. Thank you.



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.
    Mr. Serrano. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

                             SAFETY AUDITS

    Mr. Rogers. I have never heard you speechless before.
    Thank you.
    How many safety audits will the $4 million that you 
requested cover?
    Ms. Cirillo. We anticipate that a safety audit will take 
between, on the average, between four hours to ten hours, 
depending on the safety requirements of the carrier.
    The carriers that I visited two weeks ago and the people 
who participated in the meeting that we had, I would say all 
fall in the four to six hour category.
    Now I would anticipate that I actually saw the very best 
carriers and they did not take me to see any of the carriers 
that could be really in trouble. But given that we are going to 
do the preliminary investigation when they apply for authority, 
I cannot imagine that an audit at the carrier's place of 
business or the records that they bring to us for the audit 
would take longer than ten hours. That would be the outside.
    Mr. Rogers. What will that safety audit involve? As I 
understand it, all carriers under the Act has to have a safety 
audit review within the first 18 months after operations begin 
as a carrier.
    Ms. Cirillo. Correct.
    Mr. Rogers. What will that safety audit involve?
    Ms. Cirillo. We anticipate that the safety audit will be a 
review of the carrier's records, the carrier's processes, their 
maintenance records, their driver records. We will validate 
that the drivers are all registered with the state. That they 
in fact have drug testing. We will validate the drug testing 
company and we will make sure they understand the breadth of 
our regulations so that if there is something that they are not 
clear on in terms of maintenance, a maintenance criteria or 
driver training activities, that they would understand the full 
breadth of our regulations.
    We would use that opportunity to bring them up to speed on 
new regulations. They would understand, for example, the 
conspicuity rule which will be in effect by the time the border 
opens.
    So it is an attempt to reach out to the carriers, make sure 
they understand, give them information, help them to perform 
better, and identify things that are not correct or that they 
are not doing well enough on. The review especially looks to 
driver qualifications, to drug testing, and to maintenance 
records.

                    Safety Audits for Mexican Trucks

    Mr. Rogers. How many safety audits will the $4 million that 
your budget requests cover?
    We anticipate that the $4 million requested in the 
Department's budget will support the cost of conducting up to 
4,000 safety audits in fiscal year 2002.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you have a feel for how many safety audits 
may be necessary given the level of interest among Mexican 
Motor Carriers that may or will apply for operating authority?
    [The information follows:]
    Currently, we have 9,600 commercial zone carriers who have 
up to 1 year after the final rules are issued to apply for 
continuance of their commercial zone operating authority. We 
believe that the majority of these carriers will wait until the 
end of the first year to apply. Therefore, most of the safety 
audits will be conducted in FY 2003.
    For carriers wishing to operate beyond the commercial 
zones, we expect the majority of safety audits to be conducted 
during FY 2002. We estimate that up to 4,000 new carriers will 
apply for authority during FY 2002.

    Mr. Rogers. Where will those be performed? Those audits.
    Ms. Cirillo. We have actually opened it to be performed 
either at the carrier's place of business in Mexico or at the 
border. Currently in California we are doing something similar 
and we do it actually at the border. The carrier brings their 
records to the border. We do this in concert with CHP. But we 
have left it open. So we can go to the carrier's place or they 
can come to the border.
    Mr. Rogers. They have 18 months----
    Ms. Cirillo. Right.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Before you are required by law to 
do an audit.
    Ms. Cirillo. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. Should we be concerned that we have a lot of 
Mexican trucks up here during that period of time, that first 
18 months, without a safety audit?
    Ms. Cirillo. No. The requirement is not that after 18 
months we will do it. It is within their first 18 months of 
operation we will do it.
    So for the very good carriers that have good safety 
performance--and we are already collecting information on these 
carriers--as they apply for authority, we would probably do 
those audits in the near term. But we anticipate having 13,000 
or 14,000 carriers apply for authority over a period of time.
    The companies that are operating in the commercial zone 
have a year to apply. They are grandfathered for the first 
year, operating in the commercial zone. That is our proposal.
    So we would anticipate that the carriers who are applying 
for entry to the U.S. and the carriers who are good operators 
within the commercial zone will apply early. We will do those 
assessments as they apply.

                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ENTRY

    Mr. Rogers. When you do safety audits first on the trucks 
that might carry more dangerous materials, hazardous materials, 
does that play into your----
    Ms. Cirillo. Hazardous materials entrance into the U.S. is 
really very, very restricted already. Obviously we will have 
gasoline, fuel carrying vehicles coming in, but we always 
prioritize the reviews, depending on types of cargos where the 
consequences of an accident would be severe. So it would be 
both hazardous materials carriers as well as bus operators.

                         PRIORITY SAFETY AUDITS

    Mr. Rogers. It would seem to me that Mexican trucks that 
have been operating in the U.S. commercial zones would already 
have a fairly good handle on safety requirements. And since the 
audits comprise a significant amount of education and outreach, 
will you place a priority on performing safety audits on the 
Mexican trucks and companies that previously have not been 
operating in the U.S.? As opposed to the ones who have been.
    Ms. Cirillo. I am not sure that we really thought about 
that. A carrier that has never operated in the U.S. and applies 
for authority, well we have no information on the carrier. That 
is a really good point.
    There are not many more carriers that are going to operate 
than are already operating. There are 9,000 that already have 
authority, and of those, 3,000 are going to apply for dual 
authority. I am not sure how many more carriers we are going to 
find that are just going to show up. But that is a good point 
we ought to consider as we move forward on that. That if we 
have no experience with them, that we ought to identify them as 
a potential accelerated safety review candidate.

                     U.S.-MEXICO BORDER INSPECTORS

    Mr. Rogers. Are you asking for enough personnel to do these 
audits as well as the increased inspections at the border?
    Ms. Cirillo. Well, as I mentioned before, we are hoping, 
Mr. Chairman, that the states and several of the states have 
already started to staff the border crossing. States will use 
the monies proposed for construction of facilities and the 
monies available for additional resources, and the border and 
corridor grant money, and will continue to increase their 
staffing at the border so that ultimately you would have 
situations very similar to California.
    I would expect in Texas that they will not be fully 
operational for maybe two to three years. So as they continue 
to add people, I think with that timeframe, plus the year that 
people are grandfathered, plus the 18 months, we are probably 
just about at the right level for both inspectors and for audit 
reviews.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                           BORDER FACILITIES

    Mr. Rogers. Currently there are 23 border crossings--three 
in California, six in Arizona, two in New Mexico, and 11 in 
Texas--but only two permanent inspection facilities I 
understand exist at the border, both of which are in 
California. And you are proposing $54 million in RABA money to 
construct border construction facilities in 2003.
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. How will you judge how to get that money out to 
states to help build those facilities?
    Ms. Cirillo. To help them build the facilities?
    Mr. Rogers. Yes.
    Ms. Cirillo. I am sure what we will do is a grant 
application process. Texas has also proposed money for six 
facilities at their borders, and so I am sure there will be a 
grant approval process. The monies will be there, and the 
states will be able to apply and give an indication as to what 
they are going to do.
    For some of the states that already have the physical 
facilities or will have it by that time, their application 
might include monies for innovative technology like some of the 
vehicle X-ray devices that are in use in California and in 
other places.
    Mr. Rogers. I said 2003 and should have said 2002.
    Ms. Cirillo. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. Time flies when you are having fun.
    Ms. Cirillo. Right. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rogers. Now what kind of criteria will you use to judge 
where those monies go?
    Ms. Cirillo. I think the criteria that we will use will be 
a combination of priority in terms of the number of crossings, 
the number of applications that we have for authority, the 
information that the state has already put together in terms of 
their commitment, to the crossings. Also the willingness of the 
state to really advance the technological applications at the 
border crossing which will help the states and us to minimize 
the human resource applications.
    There are lots of new technologies coming on board that 
ease the time it takes to do a truck inspection, that ease the 
truck through the process and ease traffic. So those will be 
some of the criteria that we will use to judge the applications 
or grants.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



     MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND THE MEXICAN BORDER

    Mr. Rogers. Your budget requests using $18 million in RABA 
money to bolster state border programs.
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you anticipate that would be, would help 
them hire more state inspectors?
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. How many would that buy, do you think?
    Ms. Cirillo. 180 to 200 state inspectors. It depends on how 
much they pay the state inspectors.
    Mr. Rogers. How long do you think it will take them to----
    Ms. Cirillo. To hire them? The biggest issue with the 
states, and we are talking with them in a continuing basis, 
first at my level, the associate administrators and our folks 
in the field.
    The biggest issue that the states have with hiring people 
is the view that the funding is only good for one year or two 
years, we're at the end of reauthorization period. This is the 
same type of problem we had with the MCSAP program until we got 
contract authority in 221. So that is one of the issues.
    The other more important issue is that the legislatures in 
some of these state is very, very stingy when it comes to 
allocating personnel slots. Even if the states have the money 
to pay for it, they don't want to increase the number of 
personnel working in the state. So that is an issue that is 
constantly being worked by the enforcement agencies in the 
states, by the highway departments, and by a variety of people 
with the legislatures.
    So it is an issue we continue to work on. We have been 
successful in Arizona and in New Mexico, to a lesser extent in 
Texas, but the legislature there seems to be finally coming 
around to the issue that the border is going to open, they need 
to, for the interest of the state of Texas they need to hire 
and deploy people to the border, and here is an opportunity to 
have some support for that activity from the federal 
government.
    It is a matching grant. They still have to come up with the 
match, but the other three states have been able to do that 
with not much trouble. I assume Texas will also be able to do 
it.

    Mr. Rogers. What are the priorities for deciding which 
border crossing receives funding for inspectors?
    [The information follows:]
    The primary intent of the State grants is to establish a 
permanent and consistent enforcement presence along the border 
and increase the number of commercial vehicle safety 
inspections of trucks, buses, and drivers that enter the U.S. 
from Mexico. Consistent with this goal, State proposals that 
include provisions to hire and assign additional permanent 
inspectors at border crossings that currently lack adequate 
resources will receive primary consideration in the allocation 
of the available funds. The amount of funds allocated to a 
State will also be determined by: (1) the magnitude of the 
safety problems relative to the safety problems of the other 
States; (2) the volume of commercial motor vehicle cross-border 
traffic; (3) the use of performance-based concepts to define 
safety problems and strategies for resolving the problems, and 
(4) whether the activities proposed by the States will improve 
coverage at the border crossings.

                 UNFULFILLED CONGRESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS

    Mr. Rogers. Tell me why FMCSA has such a significant list 
of unfulfilled congressional requirements. And what are you 
doing to reduce that list?
    Ms. Cirillo. In total for the history of our rulemaking, 
for the time period that we have been focusing on which is 
essentially the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Act and TEA-21, 
we have made progress in getting our regulations out and in 
meeting requirements that the Congress has put on.
    We are still late with rulemakings. We missed the December 
9th deadline on a significant number of our rulemakings. But 
most of those are on their way topublication in the next couple 
of weeks and couple of months.
    For the reports that we have, we do have several reports 
that are outstanding. Several of those reports, the one on the 
inspection sticker, for example, are in process with the 
department. Some of the other reports are being finalized. For 
the issue on covert operations, which I know is another 
outstanding issue that we have, we are in the process of 
gathering the information and find that many states already 
have maintained covert operations, even though we have not put 
an emphasis on it.
    What we try to do, Mr. Chairman, to try to focus the 
staff's attention on the things that are in the pipeline. We 
have developed a tracking system so now we know where the rules 
are and how long they have been there so we can push and nudge 
if they are somewhere outside of the agency but within 
government. We have reassigned staff to make sure that the 
items that are of utmost importance get the attention first. 
Our Regulatory Ombudsman, whom we hired about a year ago has 
been very active and aggressive with the other modes and with 
the department and with OMB to make sure that our rules get 
moved pretty quickly.
    We actually finished the Mexican rules on March 1st and 
they were published on May 5th, so we are really trying to work 
hard on those things that have priority and attention.

                 Unfulfilled Congressional Requirements

    Mr. Rogers. What efforts are you taking to reduce this list 
of unfulfilled requirements?
    [The information follows:]
    I have set up an internal organization designed to produce 
rules that are of the highest quality and timeliness. The 
Regulatory Development Division is the center of FMCSA 
regulatory activity. This unit, which concentrates solely on 
writing rules and moving them through the process, has improved 
timeliness. In addition, FMCSA staff have been directed to 
complete pending and overdue reports and transmit them to 
Congress.
    The commitment of FMCSA leadership to completing 
requirements is essential. I have established rulemaking as a 
critical performance element of FMCSA officials and those 
working directly on regulations. I am monitoring progress 
through regular reports and will shortly have a database 
tracking system in place.

                         HOURS-OF-SERVICE RULE

    Mr. Rogers. We have talked a bit today about the motor 
carrier hours of service rule. Your testimony presented four 
possible paths that the department could take on the issue.
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Can you tell us which way you ran?
    Ms. Cirillo. Well, if I knew I would tell you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    It is important to know that the four paths are not 
mutually exclusive. We have some issues. For example, should we 
separate commercial buses from trucks and have a separate 
rulemaking for buses?
    Some of those issues will require that we in fact do 
additional study, additional outreach.
    Some things that have come into play in terms of 
suggestions that we consider fatigue management systems. Those 
types of things might require us to do a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking.
    Specifically, on the issue of an on-board recorder, should 
we decide to specify what it should look like, this might 
require us to do either additional work and/or issue a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
    I have put together a senior oversight group to gather the 
information from all the main HDS issues that we have before us 
and to develop a recommendation for the Secretary by the end of 
this month as to how we should proceed with the hours of 
service rulemaking.
    We have committed to everybody, our stakeholders, that once 
we make the decision as to what we are going to do, we are 
going to inform everybody of what that decision is.
    But right now, I would be hard pressed to say we are going 
to move one way or the other.

    Mr. Rogers. Given the widespread negative reaction to the 
Department's April 2000 proposed rules, what is the 
Department's strategy for successful adoption of whatever rules 
it will propose?
    [The information follows:]
    The FMCSA held eight public hearings and three public 
roundtables on the proposal. We are nearing completion of the 
analysis of over 50,000 comments. The best strategy for 
successful adoption of a final rule will be to issue a rule 
that takes advantage of all the knowledge, information, and 
data that we have accumulated.

             REDUCING FATALITIES FROM TRUCK-RELATED CRASHES

    Mr. Rogers. Is your goal to reduce the number of truck-
related fatalities by 50 percent in ten years, is that a 
realistic goal?
    Ms. Cirillo. I think so. I think that the goal is going to 
be difficult to achieve, but I think it is a realistic goal.
    When I set the goal of four to five compliance reviews per 
investigator per month, everybody told me it was not realistic 
goal. Really, my target was to get four. If I had set the goal 
at four, I would have gotten three and a half. I set the goal 
at four to five and I have 4.7.
    It will be very difficult to reach that goal, but I think a 
combination of enforcement, outreach, education, and most 
importantly technology, will help us to reach that goal.
    The technologies that trucking companies are putting on 
their vehicles will have an enormous impact on accidents. They 
are doing collision avoidance systems, they are doing rollover 
alert systems, they are doing lane departure systems. The state 
of Pennsylvania is doing center line rumble strips. So there 
are lots of technologies that are out there that we are going 
to push hard and research and develop and deploy. I think if we 
focus on those major activities that we will in fact have a 
good chance of being successful.

                         CRASH CAUSATION STUDY

    Mr. Rogers. As you say, the department has not been able to 
obtain sizeable reductions in the past, and you have not 
completed your crash causation study yet.
    Ms. Cirillo. Correct.
    Mr. Rogers. When do you figure that will be in?
    Ms. Cirillo. We started data collection on the crash 
causation study January 1 of this year. I believe we have two 
years of data collection. After the data collection we will do 
the analysis which will target the areas that we need to 
concentrate on to look for solutions.
    Mr. Rogers. It seems to me it would be awfully tough to try 
to reduce fatalities if you do not know what is causing them.
    Ms. Cirillo. I do not think it is as big as that. I think 
we know some of the things that are causing them. For example, 
we know that the large majority of head-on collisions on non 
freeways, two lane non freeways, occur because the passenger 
car driver goes across the center line. We have solutions to 
that: we have lane incursion technology and we have median 
rumble strips which we are pushing the states and the carriers 
to implement.
    So we do know some things. We just do not know everything. 
We are looking to identify those areas where we have an 
opportunity for big payoff as a result of studying the specific 
number of accidents in which a fatality has occurred.

    Mr. Rogers. Since FMCSA has no data on what leads to large 
truck crashes, it currently has no way of knowing whether its 
truck safety initiatives will likely get at the root of the 
problem behind crashes. When will the crash causation study you 
are conducting be completed?
    [The information follows:]
    Data collection for the Large Truck Crash Causation Study 
should be completed in April 2003. Analysis will begin on 
preliminary files as early as December 2001.
    Mr. Rogers. Will FMCSA use preliminary statistically 
significant results from this study to ensure that your safety 
strategies are on-target to reduce truck crashes and deaths?
    [The information follows:]
    Yes. Some adjustments in the safety objectives and 
strategies may be needed as the study results become available 
and new information on the nature of the crash problem is 
obtained. This will enable the Agency to focus its resources 
where the greatest reduction in crashes can be achieved.

                           COMPLIANCE REVIEWS

    Mr. Rogers. Talking about compliance reviews, I received a 
copy of a letter that referred to your new goal for compliance 
reviews as a quota.
    The letter indicated that your goal is leading to less 
thorough reviews and says that investigators are ignoring 
violations. I want to give you a chance to respond to that.
    Ms. Cirillo. Is this a copy of the letter sent to the 
Secretary? Is that the letter you are referring to?
    Mr. Rogers. Yes.
    Ms. Cirillo. We have in place a series of processes to 
ensure that we have quality compliance reviews. And as I 
mentioned, our enforcement cases are up 75 percent.
    For every compliance review that is done, in addition to 
the person who does the compliance review, at least one other 
person in the division, which is our state office, reviews the 
compliance review, and it is then reviewed again by the 
enforcement team. Those reviews check a variety of interacting 
data elements to ensure that (a) we haveidentified the 
appropriate violations; and (b), we have taken the appropriate actions.
    In addition to that we have a system that we have made 
available to the state directors that allows them to take the 
data from their SI and to look at what those SI's have done in 
terms of compliance reviews and to violations and the 
enforcement cases.
    In addition, most of the state directors and a person whom 
we call the ``Federal Program Specialist,'' will go with an SI 
on a compliance review, usually during each quarter, to ensure 
that the IS is producing quality compliance reviews.
    In our strategic planning evaluation unit, I have 
identified compliance reviews as a top priority. We have 
already been in touch with other agencies who do audits, 
including the Inspector General, to work with them to make sure 
that the compliance review that we are doing is efficient, 
effective, and that we produce quality compliance reviews.
    Mr. Rogers. Are you certain that all compliance reviews are 
legitimate and meet all the criteria?
    Ms. Cirillo. You mean is somebody sitting in a hotel room 
and making one out?
    I am 99.99 percent certain people are not sitting in hotel 
rooms making them up. And the reason----
    Mr. Rogers. Expand it a bit beyond the hotel room making it 
up.
    Are you certain that these reviews are legitimate and meet 
all the criteria?
    Ms. Cirillo. I am comfortable and certain that the safety 
investigators are identifying significant violations and are 
citing the carrier for those violations.
    They might not cite the carrier for every single violation. 
But I am comfortable that they are citing them for significant 
violations.
    We have had several instances in the agency where we were 
not comfortable with a particular SI, and we have taken action 
with those particular individuals to have them removed.
    So we spend a lot of time making sure that we are 
investigating the carriers we are supposed to, that we are 
looking at the regulations that are critical, and that where 
there are violations, that we are citing the violations 
appropriately.



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                   COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE PROGRAM

    Mr. Smith. We had significant fraud and clutter in Illinois 
in the commercial drivers license program. You did a panel 
review of the program. Can you tell us what you discovered?
    Ms. Cirillo. We found, particularly in Illinois, that there 
were some issues associated with some of the politics 
associated with people who are giving out drivers licenses and 
the requirements to participate in the political activity 
within the state. This is something that has been in existence 
for some time.
    In one of our recommendations, we recommended that the 
state disassociate this particular group from political 
activity, a Hatch-like type of piece of legislation. Governor 
Ryan has sent that type of legislation to the legislature.
    I do not know what the status of that is, but we would be 
glad to follow up and see where that recommendation is with the 
legislature.
    We also made several other recommendations for the states 
including, and for ourselves actually, including a beefing up 
of our CDL reviews that we do with the state to make sure that 
they are adhering to the legislation. We have completed 13 of 
those reviews last year and have scheduled 20 more reviews for 
2001.
    We also recommended the convening of a group to look at the 
English proficiency provision which was the root cause of some 
of the fraud cases. People were giving applicants the answers 
to questions that were being given in their native tongue. We 
are in the process of establishing that group to look at the 
whole issue of English proficiency.
    Mr. Rogers. The Inspector General stated that federal 
oversight of the program is lacking. How will it be 
strengthened in 2002?
    Ms. Cirillo. As I mentioned,one of the things that we are 
doing in addition to the rulemakings on CDL, we have undertaken the 
state by state compliance reviews of the CDL program.
    We have also, in partnership with AAMVA and with CVSA, 
convened a group last February and March to look at the CDL 
issues in some type of a systematic fashion, so that together 
we will be able to make improvements at the state level as well 
as at the federal level.
    We have started a process of making available to the states 
best practices. For example, Pennsylvania which also had a 
fraud issue several years ago has an extensive program to 
address a similar type of fraud including undercover 
operations, et cetera. So we started to share that information 
among the states so that they can be more judicious in 
monitoring the CDL process within the state.
    Mr. Rogers. You are asking for $4 million less next year 
than you got this year for that purpose. Why is that so?
    Ms. Cirillo. Actually, I think we are asking--for the CDL 
improvement program? I think we are asking for the same amount. 
We are just funding it out of two different pots, if I am not 
mistaken. I think we are asking for $10 million. I think we 
have asked for it to come out of two different line items.
    Am I correct there?
    [Asides from audience.]
    It is split about five and five between the GOE and the 
other initiatives. And RABA. $5 million from RABA and $5 
million from our operating--No. $5 million from our program 
line item, $5,163,000 and the balance out of RABA. So the 
proposal is for $10 million.
    Mr. Rogers. Last amount was that you received $15 million 
for the current year, last year.
    Ms. Cirillo. In 2001?
    Mr. Rogers. Yes. You received $10 million in RABA funds and 
$5 million in MCSAP and Information Systems Funds for a total 
of $15.
    Ms. Cirillo. Okay. The $10 million that I talk about does 
not address the MCSAP money. We have in fact informed all the 
states in letters to the governors that MCSAP money is eligible 
across the board for CDL improvements.
    I was focusing on the special CDL grants where a state 
would come in and ask for a particular grant to do a particular 
type of project.
    We currently have four states that have done that, and 
three more states that are going to, request grants. Our state 
directors are working closely with their states to ensure that 
we get additional requested grants to improve the process. 
Their systems really need a lot of work under our CDL rules.
    The money that we used last year is really part of the 
MCSAP takedown for a high priority. We identified CDL as a high 
priority and we will continue to do that.
    Mr. Rogers. What are the next steps that you will take to 
ensure an effective CDL program?
    [The information follows:]

    The FMCSA will implement the 16 CDL related provisions in 
the MCSIA through rulemaking. The first in a series of three 
notices of proposed rulemaking was published on May 4, 2001, 
proposing the implementation of disqualifying offenses 
committed by CDL holders in a personal vehicle. The other CDL 
related provisions will be published for public comment later 
this year.
    The FMCSA will continue to conduct extensive State 
compliance reviews in each State every three years, or sooner 
if a problem is identified with any aspect of the State's CDL 
program.
    As mandated by Congress [Section 4019 of TEA-21 (Public Law 
105-178)], the FMCSA in cooperation with the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the 
NHTSA is conducting a review to determine if the current 
process established and implemented by the States for testing 
CDL applicants is an accurate measure and reflection of an 
individual's knowledge and skills as an operator of a CMV. The 
FMCSA will initiate rulemaking needed to modify the current CDL 
testing program requirements to reflect the changes made to the 
testing program as a result of the review.
    The FMCSA in cooperation with the AAMVA has formed a joint 
Federal-State working group to address computer systems design 
and development issues related to the implementation of 
recommendations made in the CDL Effectiveness Study final 
report that was sent to Congress in January 1998 and the 
implementation of the CDL provisions of the MCSIA.
    The FMCSA is making $15 million in FY 2001 funds available 
to States to fund improvements and enhancements to State CDL 
operating systems. This funding consists of $10 million of 
Motor Carrier Safety Grant funds under MCSIA, $1 million of 
Driver History Initiative grant funds under TEA-21 and $4 
million of High Priority Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
Program funds.
    The FMCSA FY 2002 budget request includes $10 million for 
CDL program grants to continue assistance to the States in 
implementing corrective measures and program enhancements. The 
$10 million is to be funded out the FMCSA limitation on 
administrative expenses ($5.163 million) and from the FMCSA 
revenue aligned budget authority ($4.837 million).

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano. Questions?

                          LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

    Mr. Serrano. Yes, one question.
    A couple of years ago in Yonkers, New York there was an 
issue that shocked me because I did not know anything about it. 
A gentleman was stopped driving a truck, and I think there was 
supposed to be some violations with the truck, but eventually 
he was charged by the local police with a very obscure federal 
regulation or law that said that you could not drive a truck 
and not be fluent or speak the language and he did not speak 
English.
    So now I really, the local judge dismissed it and so on, 
but that is still somewhere, and I am not clear if it is a law 
or whatever.
    My question is now, as I am hearing you talk about this 
whole new thing with NAFTA and the Mexican trucks and so on. 
How does that apply? If it applied to that gentleman in 
Yonkers.
    Ms. Cirillo. Right now, and I think for the foreseeable 
future, it will apply the same way. We do require that people 
who hold CDLs and operate in interstate commerce have enough 
knowledge of English that they can communicate with enforcement 
personnel, that they can read signs, and that they can take 
directions. So that is really what the criteria is.
    I think when we say proficient in English, it is the 
terminology that we use, but it is really important that they 
are able to take instructions that are given in English, 
particularly for people who are traveling beyond the commercial 
zone. Many of the enforcement personnel will not speak Spanish 
and they will be providing directions as it relates to the 
inspection of the vehicle. They want the driver to get out. 
They want the driver to do something so they can check the 
various aspects of the vehicle. So that is still a requirement.
    Right now we have no plans to remove that requirement.
    Mr. Serrano. So how do you expect to apply that? If I 
understand it eventually, or in the near future someone will be 
able to drive through the border and then disburse, if you 
will, throughout our nation.
    How do you guarantee that the folks speak English? And----
    Ms. Cirillo. Well for the record----
    Mr. Serrano. For the record, so the Chairman does not fall 
off his chair in shock, I am not suggesting that they have to. 
But since that--and by the way, is it a law or a rule?
    Ms. Cirillo. It is in the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 
CFR 391.11. It requires that the drivers be able to communicate 
with enforcement personnel.
    The Mexican license holder who comes to the U.S., and is 
going to operate in the U.S., they need to be able to 
understand English.
    Mr. Serrano. Right.
    Ms. Cirillo. We will, and we do right now, actually 
communicate with them in English, even though our inspectors 
are bilingual, when they come to the border and we do an 
inspection.
    Mr. Serrano. But my question to you is--you do not need any 
more work than you have, so who is making these arrangements to 
make sure that we can avoid this problem before it happens?
    Is it in the arrangements with trucking companies and in 
the trade field, if you will? People are saying make sure that 
the people who are holding license and traveling to our country 
speak English? How is that being handled?
    Ms. Cirillo. Actually, it is a responsibility of the 
carrier. Just like it is the responsibility of the carrier in 
this country.
    They are responsible for ensuring that their drivers know, 
understand, and comply with the regulations.
    Mr. Serrano. Okay. That was my question. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                      HOURS-OF-SERVICE RULEMAKING

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Tiahrt.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good afternoon.
    In the FMCSA's hours of service rules, I assume it was 
based on some study and then there were some proposed rules. 
Did you go out for comments in industry for these rules related 
to hours of service?
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes, we did.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Why is it then that so many people in the 
industry, I mean I have had a flood of people that have come to 
my office and called my office and written my office and e-
mailed my office protesting the hours of service rule. I think 
it was going to put more trucks on the road during rush hour 
times. I just do not see how that contributes to safety. Can 
you tell me what the comments were and were they heated and how 
come we ended up with the situation the way it is now, which is 
unacceptable?
    Ms. Cirillo. As I mentioned, we had eight public hearings 
and we had three roundtables. We received 53,000 comments on 
the hours of service proposal. Many of the comments expressed 
exactly what you are expressing.
    The amount of data to support the contention that more 
trucks would be on the road during rush hour was not 
overwhelming.
    We are looking at all of the comments that we got, and we 
are proposing to the Secretary what approach he should take in 
terms of moving the process along. We have four alternatives.
    We can proceed with finalizing all or part of the rule, 
which we could not do until after October 1, but that is an 
alternative.
    We can decide that we need to collect additional data, do 
studies, have outreach.
    We can do a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking if 
there is something that has been suggested that significantly 
changes what our proposal is.
    And those are not all mutually exclusive. They overlap.
    We are right now in the process. We have four or five 
working groups that are looking at the specific issues and the 
regulatory analysis which deals with the issue that you raised 
about more trucks on the road and how does that enhance safety.
    They are going to look at their particular issues and make 
a recommendation to me that I can forward to the Secretary that 
says here is where we are, here is what the issues are, and in 
order to resolve these issues, here is what we suggest that we 
do, which could be any of those items that I just mentioned, or 
a combination thereof. We could decide to do additional work 
and a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. We could 
decide to take one piece that is not controversial, I am not 
sure we could find that but maybe there would be one, and then 
go to final rule on that after October 1.
    But it is obviously an enormous task, it has big 
implications.
    We have, on the positive side, we have received from 
industry, particularly from the very small carriers, specific 
information on how this will affect their bottom line and that 
will, of course, help us in our regulatory analysis. So we are 
in the process of just working through all of this. We will 
make a recommendation.
    Once we make a recommendation and the Secretary accepts it, 
we will make it public to all of our stakeholders that this is 
the path we have chosen and here is how all the pieces fit 
together and here is when we anticipate things will be coming 
out of the pipeline.
    Mr. Tiahrt. But you do not propose doing anything before 
October 1 of this year?
    Ms. Cirillo. In terms of issuing the final rule, we are 
legislatively prohibited from doing something before October 1, 
2001.
    We could issue a supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking, but the timing to do that, which requires all of 
the regulatory analysis, is really such that that is not going 
to happen before October 1, either.
    Mr. Tiahrt. I am not sure what drove this hours of service 
rule. Was this a study that was funded by your organization? Or 
was there a complaint filed? Or was there a lawsuit? What is it 
that drove this----
    Ms. Cirillo. Actually in the ICC Termination Act, Congress 
required that we look at changing the hours of service 
regulation and issue a new hours of service regulation.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Congress required that?
    Ms. Cirillo. Yes, in the legislation.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Through legislation?
    Ms. Cirillo. The ICC Termination Act.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Okay.
    So we are a victim of unintended circumstances.
    Ms. Cirillo. I think Congressman, most everybody agrees 
that the hours of service regulations need to be revised. They 
were put in place in 1937. Lots of thing have changed. I think 
that is what Congress was reacting to when they did the ICC 
Termination. And I think everybody agrees they need to be 
changed, they need to be improved. As usual, the devil is in 
the details.
    Mr. Tiahrt. So we had a legislative reason for you to look 
at this, but I am still not clear what drove the change.
    I have not gone through the rule completely, just what 
people tell me mostly--my staff and people that have come to my 
office, and not just contacted me but taken the time and 
expense to come all the way from Wichita, Kansas to Washington, 
D.C. to tell me how devastating this rule is going to be.
    I have listened to them quietly and tried not to take a 
position and tried to understand it. But as I look at it more 
and more, it seems like this is going to be rather onerous and 
expensive and not help public safety but actually deter from 
public safety because of the increased traffic and because of 
the hours they will be driving.
    Ms. Cirillo. I think the issue that you raised about more 
vehicles during congestion, thus deteriorating safety, is 
certainly an issue that we heard. As we move forward with the 
rules, there is a need to be more flexible in the way that we 
have laid out the rules in terms of the hours that groups work 
in a week or in a two week period.
    But I have to tell you that the fatigue research is really 
pretty clear. That after 12 hours of work, everybody's ability 
to perform functions that require alertness and decisionmaking 
deteriorates dramatically. It starts deteriorating after eight 
hours, but after 12 hours itdeteriorates dramatically--no 
matter what kind of work you are doing. It just deteriorates.
    Fatigued drivers of passenger cars and motor carriers are a 
significant problem in terms of safety. Drivers drive more, 
congestion is more, they have more onerous risks to take, their 
ability to be alert and to react to everything that is going on 
around them once they have worked eight, 10, 12 hours 
significantly deteriorates.
    Today a driver could actually drive 16 hours in 24.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Just to wrap up, Mr. Chairman, I think that you 
have the same goal as the majority of motor carriers. They do 
not want truck wrecks, they do not want the liability 
insurance. The idea of safety on our public highways, and I 
think that is a goal that we must all strive for.
    I would like to suggest that you work closely with the 
comments from the carriers because they have a very common 
goal. They are not against you, they are with you. I think 
together you can get something that is going to be easy for 
them to handle and keep our highways safe. But from what I have 
seen from the current rule, I think it needs some modification 
in order to achieve that goal.
    So I would hope that you would be open to their comments 
and arrive at something that we can all live with.
    Ms. Cirillo. We certainly are open to their comments. I 
mean we have committed to evaluating all the comments that have 
any suggestions in them at all and see how they relate to other 
comments.
    We are systematically going through these comments. We will 
evaluate them. We will make our judgment on which way to go, 
and the ultimate things that end up in the final rule based on 
the comments that we receive.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                CLOSING

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    I think the hours of service rule is beginning to affect us 
here----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Because I sense that some are 
growing fatigued.
    But thank you for your long testimony and your willingness 
to answer these questions. We will certainly be in touch with 
you and have discussions along the way.
    We wish you well.
    Ms. Cirillo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. The meeting is adjourned.



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                          Thursday, March 22, 2001.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                                WITNESS

VINCENT F. SCHIMMOLLER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY 
    ADMINISTRATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Rogers. Good morning to the Members and to all of you.
    We would like to thank Vince Schimmoller, the Acting 
Federal Highway Administrator for appearing here today. This is 
the Subcommittee's fourth hearing this year and one in a series 
that we will hold focusing on management and oversight of the 
generous resources that we have given the Department of 
Transportation.
    FHWA has not been ignored by the Congress. In fact, you 
have been treated quite well. The Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century, or TEA-21, amended the Budget Act to create a 
new category for highway spending and constructed a firewall to 
guarantee funding levels. Besides transit, no other program 
receives this special treatment.
    TEA-21 provided FHWA with a significant increase in 
funding. For example, in 1997, the highway obligation 
limitation was $18 billion. For fiscal year 2001, funding for 
federal aid highways totals $32.4 billion. The last comparable 
funding jump was during the Eisenhower and Kennedy 
Administrations.
    Mr. Schimmoller, we are particularly interested in 
discussing how FHWA is responding to specific recommendations 
made by the IG, the GAO, and others pertaining to management 
and use of these resources. In short, we intend to hold FHWA 
accountable for how it uses and manages these huge resources.

                     BOSTON CENTRAL ARTERY PROJECT

    We are deeply troubled with FHWA's record on managing the 
so-called major projects, projects that cost over $1 billion. 
For example, costs on the central artery third harbor tunnel 
project have increased by a staggering 464 percent from $2.5 
billion in 1985 to $14.1 billion. When did the Federal Highway 
Administration figure out there was a problem? When the project 
cost doubled? When it tripled? You know, somebody was asleep, 
and we are going to find Rip Van Winkle and wake him up.
    Just two days ago, we received more disturbing information 
about that project. A Massachusetts Inspector General report 
indicates the Federal Highway Administration was aware in 1994 
that the cost of the project was $14 billion and that FHWA 
employees participated in a coverup to suppress costs for 
public relations purposes.
    Mr. Schimmoller, I hope and you hope that this information 
is not accurate.
    The report also states that the real cost of the project 
will exceed $18 billion. Last year, this committee capped the 
federal contribution on the project, at $8.5 billion. That, I 
think, was a very wise decision, and one that we will uphold.
    There are other major projects that are over budget and 
behind in schedule. These projects have come to our attention 
because they are so large, but I am sure mismanagement problems 
exist on smaller projects--and these add up fast. We do not 
want to see this money poured down the drain and wasted. We 
want to know what is being done to improve on the oversight of 
these projects and all projects.

                       ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING

    We are also interested in FHWA's status on implementing the 
TEA-21 environmental streamlining provisions. The purpose of 
these provisions was not to change or weaken environmental 
standards, but to encourage agencies to improve the review 
process through better coordination on projects.
    Worthy projects are being delayed while the nation remains 
mired in congestion. We recently found out that it can take 25 
years to build an airport runway. We understand it can take an 
average of 15 years from planning to construction for an 
average federal highway project. That is not efficient. That is 
not acceptable, and we look forward to hearing what you 
accomplished in the area of streamlining--the process of 
getting roads underway.
    It is imperative that federal dollars are effectively and 
efficiently managed and spent. It is your job to do that. While 
I am Chairman of this subcommittee, we would like FHWA to know 
that we are watching how well you spend the taxpayers' dollars 
and how efficiently it is done as well.
    Mr. Sabo, any opening remarks?
    Mr. Sabo. No.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Schimmoller, if you would like toproceed 
with your opening statement? We will put your written statement in the 
record and invite you to summarize it verbally. We understand this is 
your first appearance before the subcommittee. Welcome to the crowd. We 
will make you feel warmly welcome.

                          FHWA Opening Remarks

    Mr. Schimmoller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative 
Sabo and Members of the subcommittee.
    I thank you for the opportunity this morning to testify in 
support of the Federal Highway Administration's programs and 
budget. We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, as 
well as the rest of the subcommittee, in making transportation, 
as you indicated, safer and more efficient.
    Other key members of my staff are here with me this morning 
to elaborate on various aspects if appropriate, and I ask that 
the written statement be put into the record, please.
    Mr. Rogers. It will be.

                    FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET REQUEST

    Mr. Schimmoller. Last month, the President submitted to 
Congress his fiscal year 2002 budget proposal entitled A 
Blueprint for New Beginnings: A Responsible Budget for 
America's Priorities. The fiscal year 2002 budget request 
provides full funding, as you indicated, at the guaranteed 
level of $32.4 billion to support the state and local highway 
and bridge improvements.

                                 SAFETY

    The highway system serves as a backbone to the nation's 
intermodal transportation infrastructure. Over the years, 
significant investments have been made in this infrastructure. 
We are committed, along with our partners at the state and 
local levels, to maintain, operate and improve the highway 
system to increase safety and guarantee continued mobility 
across the nation.
    Ensuring safe travel on our nation's highways continues to 
be our first priority and a guiding principle throughout all of 
our programs and activities. We are committed to continuing to 
increase safety, recognizing that this requires a strong effort 
in the face of rapid growth in travel, as well as changing 
demographics, such as the increase in older drivers and the 
growing dispersion of housing, shopping and other services.

                                MOBILITY

    Mobility is necessary to compete effectively in a global 
marketplace and enjoy a high standard of living. We are 
committed to facilitating the public's access to activities, 
goods and services through preservation, improvement and 
expansion of the highway transportation system and enhancement 
of its operation, efficiency and intermodal connections.

                      OVERSIGHT AND MAJOR PROJECTS

    Given the FHWA's role in distributing billions of dollars 
in federal funding each year to states for grants and 
infrastructure programs, it is important to ensure that federal 
funding for these projects is being used responsibly. The 
amount of these expenditures and FHWA's role in administering 
projects supported by these funds highlights the need for 
effective oversight monitoring of the uses of these 
investments.
    In an effort to address concerns about highway project 
oversight, we are working with the Administration to continue 
to strengthen our ability to provide timely review and 
evaluations of major highway projects and funding initiatives.

                         CONGESTION MITIGATION

    The congestion, mitigation and air quality program 
continues to help states and communities improve the 
environment. These particular projects like ITS, cleaner fuels, 
improved transit service, pedestrian and bike programs, can 
reduce congestion and emissions, thus making urban life more 
livable.

                       ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING

    Environmental streamlining continues to be a high priority 
for FHWA. Sound progress has been made, but it has become clear 
that a more sustained and focused effort is necessary to 
overcome institutional barriers to streamlining. We are in the 
process of proposing a series of regulatory and non-regulatory 
streamlining recommendations for Secretary Mineta's 
consideration.

                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

    Technology offers particular promise for transportation. 
Technology can improve the performance of our highway system 
and increase capacity, especially in our major cities where new 
construction may be too expensive or environmentally unsound. 
It is critical that we maximize the use of the authorized funds 
for research and technology in order to achieve our safety and 
mobility goals in the future.

                               CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, the President's fiscal year 2002 budget for 
FHWA will provide resources to meet the challenge of 
maintaining a high quality, intermodal transportation network 
through strategic infrastructure investment, and, secondly, it 
will underwrite Congress' strong commitment to TEA-21 and 
improving highway safety and employing new technologies that 
save costs and improve the efficiency of our existing 
facilities.
    Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today on our programs, and I would be happy to answer any 
questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement and biography of Vincent 
Schimmoller follow:]



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                        report on major projects

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much for your statement.
    When can we expect the report on major projects that was 
required in last year's report?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Chairman Rogers, that is something that, 
if I remember what you are referring to, is a project report 
assessing where we are on the projects, the number of projects 
and the status of them. That is something that we should have 
to you very shortly in addressing those particular issues.
    Mr. Rogers. I am referring to our appropriations bill 
report language last year. We asked you to provide, among other 
things, a listing of projects costing over $10 million for 
which the cost estimate had increased over the original 
estimate by 25 percent or more, as well as the major projects 
that exceed $1 billion.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Okay.
    Mr. Rogers. That was required by the report last----
    Mr. Schimmoller. October?
    Mr. Rogers. In November. Do we have that ready yet?
    Mr. Schimmoller. We do have the number of projects, Mr. 
Chairman. We do have that information available. We are 
collecting the other data from our field offices and from the 
states.
    We do not have that now, but we could have that available 
and will have that available for you within a couple months.
    Mr. Rogers. What is the problem? You have had plenty of 
time.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Mr. Chairman, to provide that information 
we need to be identifying exactly what the specific criteria of 
those particular projects would be.
    In many cases it requires input from states DOTs that we 
work with in order to do this type of thing. In many cases it 
is not an easy task, Mr. Chairman, to assemble this 
information.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, surely you know the projects that cost 
more than $1 billion.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Yes, sir. We can furnish those to you if 
we have not. I thought we had, but if we have not we can 
certainly furnish those to you.
    Mr. Rogers. We have the $1 billion, I am told.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Okay.
    Mr. Rogers. We do not have the other, though.
    Mr. Schimmoller. You are right, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. The projects that cost over $10 million for 
which the cost estimate has increased over the original 
estimate by 25 percent or more.
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is right.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you maintain an inventory of major projects?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Yes, we do. If you are asking about major 
projects that were $1 billion, the answer is yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes. Have you not identified the projects that 
cost over $10 million for which the cost estimate has increased 
by 25 percent?
    Mr. Schimmoller. No, we have not, sir. The information is 
at the state DOTs. And we need to be working with them on this. 
That is in the process, but we do not have that data yet, at 
this time.

                  management of major highway projects

    Mr. Rogers. Do you know how many major projects are over 
budget?
    Mr. Schimmoller. No, I do not, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Perhaps staff in the room could help us if they 
have the information.
    Mr. Schimmoller. We do not have that. I know there are 
several and we are keeping a monthly report on them. We do have 
that information available, but I do not know the exact number.
    We have four or five, Mr. Chairman, that require, and that 
are under the requirements right now, of a financial plan. I 
can easily get that information to you as far as the condition 
of those. The other ones are still in the very early planning 
stages and have been identified as potential major projects.
    The requirement in TEA-21 for the finance plan comes into 
place when we start and we obligate the projects when we take 
official action, so that would be later in the stage when the 
project is authorized and ready to begin work on it.
    Mr. Rogers. How many of these billion dollar projects are 
there?
    Mr. Schimmoller. From what we have been able to determine, 
there are approximately 11 to 13 that have been identified as 
potential highway projects that are going to be exceeding the 
$1 billion.
    As I indicated, six or seven of those are still in the 
planning stages and early identification, if you will, sir, on 
those particular projects.

                           project estimates

    Mr. Rogers. Now, will you monitor those major projects and 
take corrective action on those that exceed budget?
    Mr. Schimmoller. We will, Mr. Chairman, but the real 
problem in determining a budget on that is what is the real 
estimate of the project.
    Now, in the early planning stages of a project when the 
projects are being introduced into the Transportation 
Improvement Program and into the State Transportation 
Improvement Program, the best estimate at that time is based on 
the concept of what is going to be developed. Then it goesinto 
the environmental process in which the estimate is refined further, and 
then when it goes into design, where again it is further defined.
    So it really depends upon when the estimate is listed as 
the real estimate for project. It is very difficult in the 
early stages, before you have any public input, to determine 
what the project is really going to consist of because the 
public often wants us to look at different things and include 
several other options. The scope of the projects do change from 
the time of the original or the initial concept until they get 
into the final design stages.
    In answer to your question, yes, sir. We will be monitoring 
these particular projects.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we did not monitor the Central Artery 
Tunnel project adequately, did we?
    Mr. Schimmoller. There are some things that we could 
improve on that. Very much, sir. Yes. I would agree with you 
that particular one. And, the report that was issued last year 
by the Federal Highway Administration task force clearly 
pointed out that there are some areas where we can improve and 
we are definitely improving on our oversight on those type 
projects.

                      financial plans and guidance

    Mr. Rogers. Well, a provision in TEA-21 requires projects 
estimated to cost over $1 billion to prepare finance plans that 
can help focus attention on project costs so that decisions can 
be made to reduce costs or obtain additional financing if those 
costs increase. I am not sure that you are now using those 
finance plans, are you?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Yes, sir, we are. We are using those 
finance plans. As indicated, whenever we have a project that 
goes into construction we need to have a finance plan approved. 
We are looking at those closely.
    We did issue specific guidance in May of last year on what 
should be in a finance plan. This is a process or requirement 
that have been put in, and our particular offices were not, 
totally equipped.
    We did issue guidance, specific guidance on how we ought to 
be looking at costs, what costs ought to be in there, what 
revenue, how we ought to identify the revenue sources. The 
guidance also addresses the type of oversight and review and 
how we ought to be looking at those types of issues. So in May 
of last year we issued guidance that in response to some of the 
concerns that were developed on the Central Artery Project.

                        cost estimates oversight

    Mr. Rogers. So you are overseeing these cost estimates?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Yes, sir, we are.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you ensure that those estimates are 
accurate?
    Mr. Schimmoller. We do to the best of our ability, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, you cannot ensure a state's 
transportation improvement plan is financially constrained 
unless you can know that the cost estimates are accurate, can 
you?
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is correct. We need to be working 
with them to make sure that the cost estimates are accurate.
    On the particular project you referred to, the Central 
Artery Project, last year we did complete an independent 
evaluation of the costs on the project, and we are going to be 
doing another one this year in advance of the update that is 
required in October of 2001. So, we will be doing another 
independent evaluation of the costs and try to attain what we 
believe, looking at the data, is the cost estimate for that 
particular project.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, you are going to have to beef up the 
oversight of these projects for two reasons, it seems to me. 
One is the disaster that occurred when we failed to detect or 
failed to learn about the Central Artery Project overruns. We 
are not going to sit here and let that happen again. There will 
never be another Central Artery project as long as I am 
Chairman of this subcommittee.
    Two, you are going to be receiving the biggest slug of 
money, as I said, since Eisenhower's time, and, as I understand 
it, there was a great amount of fraud in projects that took 
place at that time.
    We are not going to see a repeat of the fraud and waste 
that occurred during the interstate buildup in the early 
Eisenhower years. I do not know how you are equipped or ill 
equipped to oversee these projects, and that is something we 
are going to want to delve into.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Mr. Chairman, we are very concerned. We 
realize that we have these huge additional resources coming 
into the program and need to provide the oversight.
    We have done a number of things to try to address that 
particular issue. We have looked at our oversight on all 
projects. We had a team look at that to reassess what our 
oversight responsibilities are. We have a report that we are 
just in the process of promulgating, or sending out, to our 
field folks that are going to be implementing that.
    I might indicate that Secretary Mineta on several occasions 
has stressed the importance of oversight, in his opinion, to 
make sure that we do get quality-type products in what we pay 
for and we provide funds for.
    On the Central Artery Project, the Secretary took immediate 
action to ask the Inspector General's Office totake a look at 
the information that was provided by the IG's Office in Massachusetts.
    We have some real concerns in this. When looking at the 
monies we have and the resources we have, clearly, we recognize 
that we need to have sufficient resources applied to oversight.
    I just might indicate, Mr. Chairman, that in 1972, or 
thereabouts, Federal Highway Administration had resources of 
about 5,000 employees, and we had a budget of about $5 billion 
to $6 billion. Now, as you indicated, the budget is around $32 
billion, and we have resources of around 2,800 employees.
    We have decreased as far as the number of people. Much of 
the information or the responsibility and decision making, by 
the different Acts of Congress and TEA-21 and ISTEA, have been 
delegated to the state DOTs, our partners in that area. But, 
clearly that does not relieve us of the oversight 
responsibility. We understand that, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you need any additional personnel to 
properly oversee these huge amounts of money?
    Mr. Schimmoller. It certainly would provide us some 
additional resources that we could use to address this issue. 
Clearly there are mega projects that are being advanced in some 
areas, we see more coming, sir.
    There are going to be more of these projects just because 
many of the urban streets, the urban freeways, are 20 to 30 
years old. They need to be rebuilt.

                          MAJOR PROJECTS TEAM

    Mr. Rogers. I am looking for details here. I want to know 
how you are set up to monitor these projects, who is managing 
it, how many people they have working for them, how they are 
going about it, and how they find red flags on these projects.
    Mr. Schimmoller. I will try to stick to what we have done 
or are doing in this, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes.
    Mr. Schimmoller. We did form what I call a major projects 
team within our headquarters office, which consists of three 
people. The team is trying to look at it from a national 
perspective to see what we need to be doing.
    One has experience and expertise in the financial area; one 
is an engineer, as in project-type scheduling type experience; 
and then we have a team leader who looks at the issues, who 
also is an engineer. So, we have a very small staff that is 
providing this oversight from the headquarters.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, that is the major projects team?
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is the major projects team.
    Mr. Rogers. Tell us who they are so that we will have 
somebody to go back to later if we need to talk to them.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Okay. The team leader on that is Carol 
Jacoby, and she works in our Office of Infrastructure. Also, 
there is Paul Nishamoto, and John Broadhurst. These are the 
three people that have been assigned to that responsibility.
    Mr. Rogers. Are any of those people present?
    Mr. Schimmoller. No, they are not, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Tell them we asked about them.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Okay. I will be glad to, sir.
    The real oversight, however, is carried out by our division 
offices. We have one in each state, and then the state highway 
departments in the states. The division offices work with the 
state DOTs in carrying out this program.
    Generally there is a set number of employees in each 
division office, and they are responsible for delivering the 
entire program: the projects, the environmental work, the 
right-of-way, all elements that they need to do in 
administering the Federal-Aid highway program.
    If a major project occurs, we are giving them one 
additional person to try to respond to that need. That is, I 
think, the very minimum that we probably need in that area. In 
light of all the other needs that we have within the agency, 
that is as much as we can provide in that particular area of 
activity. That is where we are, as far as how we do it, and the 
numbers that we are looking at.
    Mr. Rogers. Tell us typically how many people are in a 
state office?
    Mr. Schimmoller. It depends on the size of the state. I 
mean, it is much different in California than it is in Vermont. 
But I can tell you generally there is a division administrator 
and an assistant division administrator. The assistant may have 
some other functional duties within it, a bridge engineer or a 
planning engineer to do some things like that, but that is in 
the very small offices.
    Then in the smaller states we have usually one or two 
transportation engineers. They work with the state DOTs in 
trying to work through the federal-aid process, getting through 
the planning, the environmental, the design, and the 
construction phases of a particular project.
    We generally have one or more planning engineers, depending 
on the size of the state. They work with the metropolitan 
planning organizations in how they interact and do their 
particular work and develop their statewide transportation 
improvement programs.
    We do have an environmental specialist, one or more, 
depending on the amount of activity in that particular 
state,and then a right-of-way person, and then some administrative 
support folks.
    That is a general complement of the folks that we have in 
our divisions. The smallest division is 11 or 12 people. They 
go up to, I think California is in the neighborhood of 50. In 
that range, sir. I am not positive.
    Mr. Rogers. Is there somebody in each of the states who is 
monitoring these projects for overruns and estimate accuracy 
and accountability?
    Mr. Schimmoller. On the major projects, yes, sir.

                     MANAGEMENT OF SMALLER PROJECTS

    Mr. Rogers. And what about the smaller projects?
    Mr. Schimmoller. The other ones? Much of that information, 
as I indicated before, Congress has delegated or allowed the 
delegation of this to the state DOTs. In some cases they have 
directed the delegation, such as in the Surface Transportation 
Program, that these responsibilities be turned over to the 
state DOT for their administration.
    On the bigger projects, on the interstate system, projects 
that are generally over $1 million or $10 million in certain 
cases we do look at, but definitely those in the mega projects, 
the $1 billion projects, sir, they are reviewed.
    Mr. Rogers. Then some of the states would have been 
delegated the oversight of some of these $10 million projects 
for which the cost estimate has increased over the original by 
25 percent or more? Some of those are under state supervision?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Exactly, sir. That is part of the problem 
in getting it.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes. Does that trouble you?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Well, I would say it is of some concern to 
me, yes, Mr. Chairman. But, we cannot with the staff we have 
provide oversight on all those projects. We estimate that there 
are probably 81,000 projects, federal-aid projects, throughout 
the United States, and that is something that we just do not 
have the resources to do that.
    I think Congress indicated in TEA-21 and ISTEA that there 
are certain areas of responsibility that could be done by the 
state DOTs, and that the decisionmaking process could be at the 
state level.
    Mr. Rogers. But it seems to me with computers and the like, 
it would not be a major undertaking to constantly find and keep 
track of these $10 million plus projects for which the cost 
estimate has increased over the original by 25 percent or more. 
That should not be a major undertaking, should it?
    Mr. Schimmoller. It does not sound major, Mr. Chairman, but 
I would have to look at that first because I know that there 
are a multitude of projects, and each state has their own way 
of keeping their books.
    It is probably doable, sir, but I would like to get back to 
you on whether I can do that.
    Mr. Rogers. You know I am not going to take anything but 
yes for an answer. I mean, I understand that you cannot oversee 
every single project in the country, 81,000, with the staff you 
have. That is understandable.
    What we were trying to do, though, is to provide a red 
flag----
    Mr. Schimmoller. I understand.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. So that we would know when a 
project was going off the deep end, or it looked like it might 
be going off the deep end by exceeding the cost estimate by 25 
percent or more.
    How many of the 81,000 do you figure we are talking about 
here? I know it is a rough estimate.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Over $1 million you said?
    Mr. Rogers. Over $10 million.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Over $10 million?
    Mr. Rogers. And the original cost estimate was exceeded by 
25 percent or more.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Okay. This is a wild guess. Some states 
have many, many projects. In California I know of a lot of 
projects that are over $10 million. Maybe we are talking about 
1,000--I do not know--or 2,000.
    Mr. Rogers. I want you to get back in touch with us after 
you have had a few days to prepare on this and tell us why you 
could not buy computers or whatever keep track of those 
particular contracts, projects, because that is the first red 
flag it seems to me----
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. That we would see. Is that not 
correct?
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is true. Another area that really 
complicates the issue is when and what estimate do you use.
    As I mentioned before, we would suggest that we should be 
using the estimate when the project contract is awarded, 
because if we look at the estimate, the cost estimate, at the 
time of the planning stage it becomes very complicated. I would 
say there are a lot of scope changes and things that are done 
throughout when it goes from the planning and environmental 
stages until we get into the actual awarding of the contract at 
a later date.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, I think the language in the report dealt 
with the original estimate.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Yes. I know it says original, but, what is 
the original? That is an area that we have had a lot of 
discussions about internally and I have been personally 
involved. What is an original estimate?
    Mr. Rogers. What should it be?
    Mr. Schimmoller. It should be, Mr. Chairman, very 
legitimate and one on which we could really work with you very 
proactively. That, I suggest, is the cost estimate or the 
estimate of what we call the plan specification and estimate 
phase, that is when we have the design ready, and we are ready 
to go out for a bid.
    At that point the information is pretty well identified and 
nailed down, as far as what we think the project is going to 
be. We can at that time, sir, give you an estimate and then can 
track it from there. If we are tracking it from any other type 
estimate, it is really a difficult process.
    Mr. Rogers. So it would not be difficult then to keep track 
of the projects from that particular point?
    Mr. Schimmoller. From that point on we can make that 
happen, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. And would that be do you think a sufficient red 
flag to indicate a project is getting out of control?
    Mr. Schimmoller. I do, sir, because really what we are 
doing when you develop a project, whatever project you are 
thinking about and it is developed, the emphasis is on trying 
to meet and work with the public and the environmental 
agencies, to get in a project that not only satisfies the 
transportation needs, but satisfies the environmental needs, 
and satisfies the community needs for a project that they can 
live with.
    Throughout this discussion phase in the project development 
there are a lot of things, as I indicated, added to it in order 
to make it amenable. If it is a highway going through your 
particular area, your particular district, you would say hey, I 
can buy onto this now if you do this type of thing.
    Those types of things are the changes that are made from 
the original, or from the early estimate, in the planning or 
the environmental stages until we get into the project.
    Mr. Rogers. So how soon could you get us such a list under 
those terms?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Under those terms? I can probably get it 
to you within a month.
    Mr. Rogers. All right. You have a month.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Okay.
    [The information follows:]



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Rogers. We have a vote on the Floor. How much time is 
left? Eleven minutes.
    Let me yield to Mr. Sabo for the period of time.

                    revenue aligned budget authority

    Mr. Sabo. We have $4.5 billion more being distributed under 
RABA. When will we get an accurate listing of where that 
additional money is going?
    Mr. Schimmoller. The only thing I can give you on that, 
Congressman Sabo, is that there is one initiative that has been 
identified by the Administration.
    Mr. Sabo. Yes. There will be, I assume, when we get full 
budget.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right. That is the best I can do. The only 
thing I can give you right now, sir, is what is called the New 
Freedom Initiative, which is about $145 million.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay. But we have to wait until the budget is in?
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is correct, sir.

                             major projects

    Mr. Sabo. On major projects, my assumption is most major 
projects today are renovations or rebuilding of old systems. 
They are not primarily new highways being built.
    I am just curious how you figure out when a project is a $1 
billion project because I expect most of them in most states 
are done in segments, and then in some ways they are individual 
projects, but the totality of a series of segments may well be 
above $1 billion. How do you count those?
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is very true. I will try to address 
those questions.
    One, you asked about whether the majority of these major 
projects were reconstructions. I would say generally yes. That 
is true--your assumption. I believe, from our history and what 
we are working with, the number of projects we haveidentified, 
the answer is yes. There are a few, that we are talking about, that are 
of the new project variety, and most of those are associated with 
Appalachian highway development.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay.
    Mr. Schimmoller. I will deal with the ones that are 
reconstruction. Are they developed in segments? Sometimes yes 
and sometimes no. The design/build concept is becoming very 
much more frequently used. It is becoming an area in which the 
entire project is let out to a consultant and a constructor/
contractor to, not only design, but to construct the project.
    In many of those cases, they put it all together and let it 
as a single project. I will give you a couple of examples. One 
is the I-15 project in Salt Lake City that was done--which is a 
$1.5 plus billion project. The entire downtown Salt Lake City 
was done.
    Also, I-25 in Denver is being planned that way. That 
project is also going to include a component of federal 
transit, too, so they will be working on that project 
cooperatively with Federal Highway.
    Mr. Sabo. Would a more normal pattern not be that a certain 
segment of an interstate, for instance, that is being rebuilt 
and bid separately and then a different segment maybe----
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right.
    Mr. Sabo [continuing]. one or two or three years later?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Many projects are that way. They are 
designed and built in segments.
    What we try to look at, Congressman, in determining whether 
it fits within the $1 billion category is, do you need to have 
the whole of it constructed to make it really back into 
serviceable condition. I mean, you are really looking at all 
three of these projects, even though they are in segments, to 
be consisting of one.
    There is no hard and fast way of determining this, but to 
look at the projects and see if it makes sense at all, if the 
three of them fit together. That is something that we try to 
explain in our finance plan guidance.

                     major projects--cost increases

    Mr. Sabo. Have you gone back and looked at any of the 
projects where there have been significant cost increases as 
case studies to find out what drove that extra cost?
    What I am looking for is, you know, if you have looked at 
them do you find certain elements or certain factors that are 
driving the cost overruns, any pattern to that? You may well 
learn more looking back than simply trying to guess at the 
future.
    Mr. Schimmoller. We do look back.
    Mr. Sabo. I would exclude Boston from that.
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is a very unusual one, and we do have 
a lot of major projects that are in the $1 billion to $3 
billion range, but none of them that we have on the horizon 
that----
    Mr. Sabo. I guess I am not just simply looking at, you 
know, a $500 million project that has become $700 million. You 
may learn something.
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is a good suggestion, and I know we 
have looked at that. But, I do not know, I cannot put my 
fingers on an actual case study, that we have done that really 
goes back and looks at that, Congressman, but that is something 
to do. If we have, I am not aware of it, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. This would be a good time to break I think.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay.
    Mr. Rogers. We have about five minutes left on a vote. We 
will be in recess for a few minutes while we run and vote.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Rogers. The committee will be in order.
    Mr. Sabo is recognized.
    Mr. Sabo. No. Go on.
    Mr. Rogers. All right. Mr. Sweeney.

                       oversight responsibilities

    Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by 
saying hello to Mr. Schimmoller. I do not have a lot of 
questions. I only have some basic ones.
    The first is, and it seems that most of the discussion is 
centered on oversight responsibilities. Given the billions of 
dollars at stake and the number of ongoing highway projects and 
the bulk of it, I am interested in looking at the actions that 
you have taken over TEA-21 funds and monitoring of states in 
particular and whether states have met their obligations; more 
specifically, whether they have met them on their matches and 
who ranks well and who does not rank well.
    Since I am from New york specifically, where is New York in 
the process?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Congressman Sweeney, I indicated we have 
done, a number of different things to address, the oversight 
issues for all the projects.
    We did cover this morning the issues on the major projects. 
But, we have actually worked and looked at our oversight policy 
and guidance, that we are providing to our field folks, on all 
projects where we do have a federal responsibility for the 
stewardship of the federal dollars, even though in many cases, 
as you indicated, sir, the project supervision and decision 
making has been delegated to the states by the TEA-21 and 
ISTEA.
    States are using their match, are matching all the funds. 
We do not have any problem as far as additional projects or 
funding that is not being used in the State of New York or any 
of the other ones.
    How New York is doing compared to other states? I do not 
have that with me. I would be most happy to visit with you, 
specifically if you have questions on that issue.

                             PROJECT DELAYS

    Mr. Sweeney. If you would. I have heard from industry 
sources complaints that a number of projects have been delayed 
by virtue first of the commitment of the state match and then a 
withdrawal of state match, so if I could meet with you to talk 
about those things?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Okay. I would be pleased to do that.

                   MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

    Mr. Sweeney. I am interested. Yesterday we had a hearing on 
the future viability of Amtrak and where do we go here. Some 
folks in this town have suggested that we in Congress dedicate 
a penny or a half a penny of the federal gas tax in order to 
ensure a viable national passenger rail system.
    I am interested in your responses to such a request and 
what effect that would have. I think it is $1.6 billion if it 
were a penny from the trust fund that would be taken and 
dedicated to Amtrak. What would your sense of that be?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Clearly, transportation, as Secretary 
Mineta has indicated, needs a multi-modal approach. There is no 
one mode that is going to solve the problem. We need to be 
looking at how can the highway program work with the transit 
program in order to solve some of these issues, so clearly the 
idea of using highway funds for projects that do fit. And, 
there is flexibility built in by the provisions in past 
legislation.
    As far as specifically the use of funds for Amtrak, I guess 
my thought on that would be that the Surface Transportation 
Program could be used in that fashion. That funding is left 
more to the locals, as far as what they want to do with it, 
rather than the national highway system funding or things of 
that nature, so that would be----
    Mr. Sweeney. It is fair to say, though, losing $1.6 billion 
this year, you received what, a $2.1 billion increase. The $1.6 
billion would pretty much eat that up, and that would have a 
significant impact on the national highways.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right. It certainly would. We have more 
needs, as indicated in our condition and performance report of 
last year, for all the funds we are getting, in order to just 
meet the needs that we have.
    I guess I would defer that particular question to the 
Secretary's office on what the OST position would be, sir, as 
far as the use of monies from the trust fund in that regard.
    Mr. Sweeney. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Olver.

                         CENTRAL ARTERY PROJECT

    Mr. Olver. From the earlier discussion, the Chairman had 
pointed out that there was a new report by the IG in 
Massachusetts in regard to the central artery project.
    I just wanted to indicate that while we as Members of the 
Massachusetts delegation--there are ten of us--do not have a 
way of really auditing and assessing the character of that 
report, we have sent a letter or will be sending a letter, I 
guess I should say, to the Transportation IG, Mr. Mead----
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right.
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. Asking him to assess that so that 
we will have a better idea. I do not know what to make of it 
exactly, but it is only out for two days now.
    That is going to be our response to that, so we will be 
very interested in what Mr. Mead may do about that. Obviously 
you will get some involvement in that along the way.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right. Just to respond to that, 
Congressman Olver. The Secretary did direct Ken Mead to do an 
investigation on that, so I am sure the letter you have will 
just lend support or confirmation for it to take place, but 
that is already underway to be done.
    Mr. Olver. So it will not be asking him to do anything that 
he was not already planing to do, so we are not losing 
efficiency in this process?
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is correct, sir.

           TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM--MASSACHUSETTS

    Mr. Olver. I am a little bit curious from some of the 
earlier conversations. These days under the TEA-21 and the 
previous ISTEA legislation, do the local MPOs when they are 
developing their TIPs, is there some requirement that they keep 
FHWA somehow in that loop as that process goes on?
    Do they have to report it to FHWA? Do they have to get 
approval of that local TIP before it goes on to the state 
level? What is the level of involvement of FHWA in that TIP 
process, the TIP development process?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Okay. Good question, Congressman. The 
process, the way it goes is that the local MPOs develop their 
TIP, as you indicated. In most cases we have someone from our 
particular office that----
    Mr. Olver. In that state?
    Mr. Schimmoller. In that state.
    Mr. Olver. In that state.
    Mr. Schimmoller. In a state like Massachusetts. We would 
have a planner that would be working and be going to the 
meetings involved.
    There is no direct requirement that we have to approve the 
TIP, but we do offer significant input to the discussion 
process that goes on as they develop it, more of a technical 
assistance role. Then, when it is rolled up to the state----
    Mr. Olver. But voluntarily on the basis of the MPO asking 
for that technical assistance or what?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Well, I guess it is voluntary. Or, part of 
it is that we believe we need to look at it from the standpoint 
of knowing what the projects are that are being developed and 
being proposed in the particular metropolitan areas, how they 
fit into the overall----
    Mr. Olver. Do you have a veto on the item?
    Mr. Schimmoller. No. No, sir, not on the items that are 
developed, because that is a local prerogative as far as what 
they develop.
    As I indicated, we many times do provide significant 
technical guidance as far as indicating some other mechanisms, 
perhaps the funding, the availability of transferability of FTA 
funds and things of that nature, giving some ideas of what may 
be done.
    Mr. Olver. Do they have an obligation to send the local TIP 
to FHWA for any kind of sign off or review--review, comment, 
sign off--before it goes to the state? In Massachusetts there 
are 14 MPOs.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right. Okay. In non-attainment areas, sir. 
That would be in certain areas that are not in agreement with 
the national air quality standards that we do have this type of 
thing, but other than that, there is no specific requirement 
that it come to us. It goes through the process of going up to 
the----
    Mr. Olver. Do you actually have a veto or a sign offin this 
case of a TIP that is being developed in a non-attainment area, in an 
air quality non-attainment area?
    Mr. Schimmoller. My staff is telling me yes, we do, sir.

      STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM--MASSACHUSETTS

    Mr. Olver. Okay. That is good to know. On the statewide 
TIP, all these are put together, and it may not be all of the 
TIPs. Everything that is on the local TIPs may not appear in 
the statewide TIP for a particular year, as I remember it.
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is correct.
    Mr. Olver. Does that have to be reported to you or signed 
off? Do you have veto on particular projects or anything like 
that?
    Mr. Schimmoller. We have approval responsibilities for the 
STIP, State Transportation Improvement Program, but----
    Mr. Olver. You have to approve that?
    Mr. Schimmoller. That part of it, yes. The overall. They 
are all rolled up into that type of thing. Yes, sir, we do.
    Mr. Olver. But not specifically to the local----
    Mr. Schimmoller. No.
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. Unless it is in a non-attainment 
area?
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is correct.
    Mr. Olver. I see. Okay. That is all I wanted to clarify for 
myself.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Tiahrt.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I 
guess it is still good morning, is it not? I was on some other 
time zone, I guess.
    Is it Schimmoller? Is that how you pronounce it?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Schimmoller, yes.

                         BORDER/CORRIDOR SAFETY

    Mr. Tiahrt. Schimmoller. Mr. Schimmoller, I have Wichita in 
my district, and Interstate 35 goes from Mexico to Canada 
basically one way or the other through Wichita.
    The concern we have had lately is trucks coming out of 
Mexico that either appear to be unsafe or drive in an unsafe 
manner. Our governments between Mexico and America have a 
pretty good relationship now. President has been down and 
talked with Vincente Fox, the new president down there.
    I wondered. Is there anything that we are doing to 
coordinate some modicum of safety or similar qualifications for 
drivers and similar safety standards so that when we do have 
trucks come out of Mexico from Mexico that our people that are 
using the highways are going to be safe?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Congressman Tiahrt is it?
    Mr. Tiahrt. Yes.
    Mr. Schimmoller. It is an area that, up until last year, we 
had that responsibility for ensuring the driver registration 
and the safety of the trucks, and things of that nature. With 
the formation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, that particular element, that function, has 
been given to them.
    So I guess while we have concerns, Congressman, that we 
want to make sure are addressed, I guess I would really defer 
that question to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration rather than trying to answer for them, sir.
    As far as the transportation facilities and the impact on 
the infrastructure, we are concerned that we do have the 
appropriate infrastructure in place to be able to accommodate 
the truck traffic or the freight movement that will exist 
between Mexico and the United States.

                   INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

    Mr. Tiahrt. Okay. I know who to talk to now.
    One of the things that I think is paying off through this 
committee is the Intelligent Transport Systems that we are 
using with mass transit. We are currently doing that in 
Wichita, and it tells the bus drivers, you know, what schedules 
are the best for their ridership.
    What programs do we have on our infrastructure for 
automobiles and trucks to help us think intelligently in the 
future and design? Some would probably argue that the big dig 
in Boston was a good investment. We could have paved the entire 
State of Kansas for the same amount of money.
    I think that we ought to have some kind of way of coming up 
with a good plan nationwide. Is there something similar to an 
ITS that you are using now to plan our infrastructure?
    Mr. Schimmoller. To plan the infrastructure? Is that the 
question?
    Mr. Tiahrt. For the future.
    Mr. Schimmoller. What we are looking at, Congressman, is 
probably a combination of a number of different things. One, 
the idea of providing some additional capacities in particular 
areas where it is the right thing to do; where you can get 
something built from an environmental standpoint in the 
communities that want it. So, there are some advancements in 
the program that is set up to look at those particular issues.
    We are also encouraging the use of alternate 
transportation, as you said, transit in an area where that is 
appropriate. And, the third element is the idea of looking at 
ITS uses, Intelligent Transportation System technologies that 
can be used to improve the capacity throughput of the 
particular facility.
    I think there are a number of different things that can be 
done in that area, such as an HOV lane, high occupancy vehicle 
lanes in some cases, or high occupancy toll facility, that can 
use the capacity that does exist there and use it in a way or 
fashion to avoid the need for any future type things.
    There are technologies that are being looked at, ramp 
metering and things of this nature that are being deployed in 
certain areas to address these issues, so that is a broad 
picture of what it is.
    If there is something specific that you want me to address, 
I would try to do that.
    Mr. Tiahrt. You mentioned rail I think is a very important 
part of preserving our highway structure. Probably the most 
efficient way to move freight is rail. We notice especially on 
the county roads in Kansas when truck traffic increases because 
they do not have access to rail, some shift, it really impacts 
highways and especially county roads.
    I would hope that would be part of the plan that we would 
consider how we could strategically use our rail system to keep 
our highways lasting longer.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right. An effort that we have underway in 
that regard, that sort of touches on that, Congressman, is we 
have just in the last, I would say, two years, year and a half 
or so, really put an increased effort on looking at freight 
movement, how freight moves in the United States not only from 
a highway perspective, but as it comes in from the ports? Where 
does it go? Does it use rail? Does it use highways? The 
dispersion through the country.
    We have what I would call a freight framework or something 
like that, sort of developed, and we are looking at what impact 
this has on the capacities of both the rail lines and also on 
the highways. We are taking a joint look at that type of thing, 
but that is in the early stages.
    We just got some good information that we are starting to 
develop, and are going to be having that information available 
as we get into the reauthorization, to see are there some 
specific needs that we need to be addressing, we as a nation 
need to be addressing, in this particular area.

                         ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS

    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you. I would like to have your comment on 
one more thing. We have the concept of eminent domain where for 
the greater good we take a portion of our country's resources.
    I have an uncle who had a store on Highway 11 in Oklahoma, 
and when they expanded the highway they took a portion of his 
store off. Rather than tear down the building, he just built an 
angled wall as sort of a protest. If you understood him, you 
would probably know why.
    It seems lately that that right to eminent domain has been 
superseded by some environmental laws. Do you think there is a 
priority that is placed on one or the other? I know we have had 
this new bridge, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge replacement, that 
seems to be held up by lawsuits, environmental lawsuits, and 
yet there is a real strong demand for that and other bridges 
around the country and other highways.
    What is the highest priority? Is it eminent domain, or is 
it environmental laws?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Congressman, once a project has been 
approved through the environmental process, then we have the 
right, and the state has the right, to use the eminent domain 
process or powers in order to use property.
    Until that project is approved, we do not have and I do not 
believe the state does, unless they do some advance acquisition 
type things, which is a special situation that in certain cases 
they can qualify and use. But, generally the right of eminent 
domain does not really kick in, or the states do not use it, 
until we have the environmental process completed and the 
project is an approved project to go ahead.
    We do have a couple of environmental lawsuits, as you 
indicated, on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project. But, we are 
trying to advance that project and still consider their 
concerns, address those in another fashion. It is not 
technically being held up yet, at this time, by those 
particular lawsuits.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Okay. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         CENTRAL ARTERY PROJECT

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Let me get back to the central artery tunnel project for a 
while here. What do you think about the state IG's report that 
we have talked about?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Mr. Chairman, I guess I have read the 
report. I am disturbed by some of the information that is 
contained within the report.
    I guess I really believe I need to have the Office of 
Inspector General take a look at it and assess the allegations 
that are in there rather than speculate what I think at this 
particular time. I do not know. I mean, I have not had a chance 
to look at the----
    Mr. Rogers. How could a project go from a cost estimate of 
$2.5 billion? How could it go to $14.1 billion?
    Mr. Schimmoller. There are a number of reasons for it. One 
of them is that particular $2.5 billion was in the very early 
stages of the planning elements of that particular project, and 
it did not include any escalation costs as far as the cost of 
the project, sir.
    If you add the escalation on it from, I think that was 1988 
or 1989 or 1985, something in the early to late 1980s I believe 
is when that estimate was made, and if you project that to 
adjust the inflation elements up to today or to 2002 or 2004 
when the project is scheduled for completion, it is a 
significant part of it.
    Also, the scope, the scope changes that have occurred 
through public input in order to get the project accepted by 
the community. There were some significant changes made during 
that particular phase in order to make that happen, so there 
are a number of issues. That does not explain all of it.
    Mr. Rogers. No, it does not. Well, we will talk about it 
further.
    I want to recognize Mr. Pastor before we take a break for 
the vote.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you expect to come 
back?
    Mr. Rogers. We will come back.

                       ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING

    Mr. Pastor. You are coming back? Okay
    The area I want to concentrate on a little bit is the 
environmental streamlining provisions that TEA-21 had. Last 
week we had the airport people here, and we were talking about 
a problem with delays. One of the solutions is pouring more 
concrete. I know that in TEA-21 we address the problem of 
maintaining the NEPA process, but streamlining it so that we 
could pour concrete. By streamlining the process, we could pour 
concrete faster for new roads.
    I think it was in 1999 that you signed an agreement to 
implement the streamlining requirements, and then we decided on 
a pilot program. What is the status of that?
    To me, it is very important not only in this issue with the 
highways, but it is an issue with airports and concerning land 
and the developers. The government and community it also 
concerns, so this interests me in how your streamlining 
procedures are occurring.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Okay. Congressman Pastor, this is an area 
that we are very much concerned about would like to see 
projects moved through the environmental process in a quicker 
fashion also. We, too, have that as a real objective to try to 
make that happen.
    The TEA-21 asked that we take measures to streamline the 
project. We have begun that. You did indicate that we signed 
this agreement with the other agencies to make this happen in 
an expedited fashion. I do have to indicate to you, though, 
that there are approximately 40 additional environmental laws 
that we need to work with and make sure that the projects we 
develop comply with those requirements and things of that 
nature.
    The TEA-21 gave us that charge to improve that area; but in 
many cases we do not have any statutory authorities to make it 
happen in some of those areas where we need to be coordinating 
and cooperating and getting the sign offs of the various other 
resource agencies for a particular project.
    Mr. Pastor. You said that there are 40 statutes that we 
have to deal with dealing with the environment?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right.
    Mr. Pastor. How many agencies are we dealing with that have 
responsibility over those 40 statutes that you need to get to 
assist you in streamlining this process?
    Mr. Schimmoller. About a dozen.
    Mr. Pastor. So we are talking about a dozen?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right.
    Mr. Pastor. Do you know which ones they are?
    Mr. Schimmoller. I mean, I can list some of them, but I----
    Mr. Pastor. Go ahead.
    Mr. Schimmoller. All right. The National Park Service, the 
Department of Interior, the National Marine Fisheries, Fish and 
Wildlife, National Historic Preservation.
    Mr. Pastor. EPA?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Oh, yes. EPA, Corps of Engineers.
    Mr. Pastor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Fish and Wildlife, yes, with the Interior 
with the Park Service.
    I mean, I can get you the list, but, it is----
    Mr. Pastor. What I want to get to is that there are 40 laws 
or 50 laws that you have to make sure get implemented or at 
least have oversight over them----
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right.
    Mr. Pastor. But there are about dozen agencies. Now, not in 
every case do you have all dozen agencies involved.
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is correct.
    Mr. Pastor. But somehow we need to get the 12 agencies to 
cooperate with you in this streamlining. Now, what would you 
recommend to us in terms of being able to give you more 
authority or persuade them? This is an issue that not only 
affects you because the FAA----
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right.
    Mr. Pastor [continuing]. Has that similar problem. There 
are other federal agencies that have to pour concrete as part 
of solutions to the problem, but have to meet these 40 
statutes.
    What I am looking for is a possible vehicle that would 
allow a federal agency, as yours, to work with other federal 
agencies so that we do not compromise the environment----
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is right.
    Mr. Pastor [continuing]. But yet streamline the process so 
that we can make it more efficient and more effective. I know 
that TEA-21 was trying to do that.
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is right.
    Mr. Pastor. So I guess what I am asking for is we have had 
two years of working with it. We have had two years of a pilot 
program. How are you evaluating your success, and where do you 
need help?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Well, evaluating our success is not very 
good, Congressman.
    Mr. Pastor. Okay.
    Mr. Schimmoller. You know, while I say that, we have made 
some minor improvements as far as the processing of an EIS. It 
has gone down from about five and a half years to five years. 
Now, I do not see that as----
    Mr. Pastor. That is progress. That is right.
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is not a huge success. So, that part 
of it is--the thing that we need to be working on, and we need 
to protect the environment. I want to make sure that we are not 
saying here, what we ought to be doing is, not any concern, 
because we, too, we are part of the community. We live there, 
too, and we want, that type of thing.
    In order for us to be able to move these projects, we need 
some help in the area of getting the other resources agencies 
on board as far as a commitment that they are going to help us. 
Now, whether that is, to encourage them to be part of the 
language in what we do here, and what you put in as far as 
that, or if it is some statutory or some legislative fix, I 
guess I would leave up to you to decide how best to do that. 
Clearly it is an area that is something that we cannot do, 
because we do not have the responsive authority.
    Mr. Rogers. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Pastor. Yes, I will yield.
    Mr. Rogers. I wonder, is there a way that you could make 
some of these requirements and deadlines that states may have 
in preparation for a project and the federals may have in 
preparation for a project? Can any of those run currently by 
your dictate, or is that by law?
    Mr. Schimmoller. No. We can do that and are doing that, Mr. 
Chairman, where possible. We are trying to squeeze these things 
and do concurrent reviews, concurrent processing. We have made 
some progress in that particular area, so part of the problem 
has not totally been there.
    The issues, I mean, the real problems we get, are when you 
start developing a project and need to make a decision, at a 
particular point in the process that for all agencies it would 
be desirable if we could all agree that this is the alternative 
we are going to select and this is how we are going to move 
ahead. That way we can do that type of thing in advance, that 
particular project.
    If we do not get that particular acceptance by the resource 
agencies and I am not, pointing fingers at them totally since 
they have their responsibilities to do, but clearly we need to 
have a point where a decision is made that we are going to move 
ahead and that this is a project we are going to advance. That 
is the real thing that we would like.
    Also, you know, some time table put on as far as how long 
to review projects would help too. But again, that is something 
that we do not control.
    Mr. Pastor. We are talking about cost overruns. We have 
been talking about cost overruns. I have to tell you that the 
more you delay a project because a federal agency is not 
cooperating in terms of how to implement a plan, that is cost. 
Construction time is cost.
    We are saying cost overruns in many cases is the result of 
our inability as federal agencies to get together and develop a 
plan and implement it as quickly as we can, so I think this 
ties in.
    What can we do to streamline this process that protects the 
environment? I agree with you. Everybody wants to protect the 
environment. TEA-21 says that.
    Mr. Schimmoller. That is right.
    Mr. Pastor. But we need to find a way. You have had two 
years of experience at least in the pilot project. You have 
said that some agencies do not cooperate. Now I am trying to 
find a mechanism.
    Is it a memorandum of understanding? Is it an 
intergovernmental agreement? What things can we put in place 
that you and those agencies that need to get involved can 
develop that initial plan and then stick with it?
    Mr. Schimmoller. Something I think needs to be put in, as 
far as into the regulations that they particularly administer, 
that puts a requirement for them to facilitate it, to expedite 
that type of thing in order to work with the agency.
    That type of thing I think needs to be addressed when you 
are talking with or when you are visiting with the other 
agencies, or looking at their particular directive, to get them 
to streamline.
    I would say, you said we have not been able to cooperate 
with them or have had problems.
    Mr. Pastor. Well, they have not cooperated with you.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Right, but I guess we really try to do 
that type thing. I guess I am not looking to say that we do not 
get any cooperation, but clearly they have other constraints, 
and we are working our best to try to do that type of thing.
    Mr. Rogers. I hate to interrupt, but we do have a vote on 
the Floor.
    Mr. Pastor. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. We can submit I think the rest of the questions 
for the record. Is that agreeable?
    Mr. Pastor. Yes. That will be fine.
    Mr. Schimmoller. I would be happy to, if you want to 
discuss this further.
    Mr. Rogers. What we will request of you is that you and 
your staff prepare for Mr. Pastor and this subcommittee 
recommendations that we could take and implement that would 
streamline the process.
    Put your thinking cap on. We would like to have a list of 
suggestions that we can run with to help change laws or 
whatever to streamline the process. Can you do that for us----
    Mr. Schimmoller. I certainly can.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Within the next couple of months 
or so?
    Mr. Schimmoller. All right.
    Mr. Rogers. We will submit the rest of the questions for 
the record. We thank you for your testimony and appreciate you 
and your staff being here.
    Mr. Schimmoller. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                           W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Cirillo, J.A.....................................................   873
Dicks, Hon. Norm.................................................    35
Earl, Joni.......................................................    35
Izquierdo, Jose..................................................    35
Lluch, J.F.......................................................    35
Schimmoller, V.F.................................................  1041
Shelton, L.R., III...............................................   597
Walker, Hiram....................................................     1



                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                     Federal Highway Administration

                                                                   Page
Accomplishments and Progress.....................................  1276
Additional Funds for Advanced Research...........................  1268
ADHS Construction................................................  1191
Administrative Related Expenses Within R&D.......................  1250
Advancement of the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative................  1617
Advancing Methods................................................  1389
Advisory Board Pursuant to Section 5107 of TEA-21................  1379
Allocations:
    Allocation of Borders and Corridors Program Funding..........  1780
    Allocation of ITS Research Funds.............................  1781
    Allocation of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority...............  1183
    Allocation of Safety Research and Development Funds..........  1295
    Allocation of Safety Research and Development Funds..........  1296
    Allocation of Safety Research Funds..........................  1289
    Allocation of Technology Assessment and Deployment Funds.....  1267
    Allocations of Program Support Funds.........................  1502
    Allocations To Assist Foreign Entities.......................  1401
Archived Data User Service.......................................  1572
Asset Management.................................................  1407
Average Number of Positions......................................  1220
Binder Composed of Polymer Additives.............................  1354
Border/Corridor Safety...........................................  1095
Boston Central Artery Project....................................  1041
Breakout of LAE Activities.......................................  1235
Budget for Standards Development and Status of the Standards Work  1510
Budget Request for Highway Operations Program....................  1347
Budget Request Submitted to OST and OMB..........................  1288
Central Artery:
    Central Artery...............................................  1656
    Central Artery Project.......................................  1093
    Central Artery Project.......................................  1097
    Central Artery Tunnel........................................  1108
Challenges Facing the International Program......................  1404
Challenges Related to Research on the Availability of Truck Rest 
  Areas..........................................................  1305
Changes and Improvements at NHI..................................  1649
Clean Air Act Studies and Research...............................  1643
Completion of Phase 1 of Tren Urbano.............................  1652
Condition and Performance of the Federal-aid System Puerto Rico..  1654
Conference Committee Funding.....................................  1351
Conference Committee's Funding Directive.........................  1292
Congestion Mitigation............................................  1043
Congestion Mitigation and Environmental Streamlining.............  1058
Construction Industry Unemployment Rates.........................  1701
Cost Analysis of Central Artery Project..........................  1658
Cost and Benefits of ITS.........................................  1518
Cost Estimates Oversight.........................................  1065
Cost of Foreign Trips Taken by Senior Level Employees............  1237
Cost Sharing Activities..........................................  1365
Cost Sharing Received From States................................  1352
Cost To Complete the ADHS........................................  1188
Cost Trends and Capacity in the Construction Industry............  1699
Crash Avoidance Research.........................................  1611
CVISN Projects...................................................  1584
CVO:
    CVO Border Projects..........................................  1585
    CVO Deployment Activities....................................  1591
    CVO Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.............  1589
Deficient Bridges................................................  1693
Demonstration Projects...........................................  1661
Deploying Basic ITS Infrastructure...............................  1576
Deployment of CVISN..............................................  1591
Designated Program and Recipients of All Research and Technology 
  Funds..........................................................  1271
Development and Deployment of the Interactive Highway Safety 
  Design Model...................................................  1294
Development of Research on UV Headlights.........................  1301
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program........................  1702
Discretionary Awards.............................................  1703
Discretionary Highway Program....................................  1739
Discretionary Programs Funds.....................................  1145
Discretionary Programs Guaranteed By TEA-21......................  1146
Distribution of Funds--Research/Operational Test.................  1451
Earmark Projects.................................................  1453
Earmarked ITS Deployment Projects................................  1574
Education and Technology Transfer................................  1247
Effect of RABA on Contract Programs..............................  1249
Emulsified Sealer/Binder and Low Cost Pavement...................  1354
Enabling Research Consortium.....................................  1594
Environment Research Program.....................................  1370
Environmental Benefits...........................................  1455
Environmental Justice Impacts....................................  1386
Environmental Process............................................  1097
Environmental Research Activities................................  1371
Environmental Streamlining.......................................  1098
Environmental Streamlining.......................................  1127
Environmental Streamlining.......................................  1042
Environmental Streamlining.......................................  1044
Evaluating Environmental Justice.................................  1388
Exempt Obligations...............................................  1181
Fatal Accident Rate..............................................  1698
Federal-aid Estimated Fiscal Year 2001 Obligation Limitation.....  1681
Federal-aid Highway Construction Price Trends....................  1699
Federal-aid Highway Obligations..................................  1667
Federal-aid Obligations by Month.................................  1665
Federally-Funded ITS Projects....................................  1553
FHWA Administrative Staff........................................  1223
FHWA Field Operations............................................  1223
FHWA Information Technology Infrastructure Technology Refresh of 
  End-User Computing Systems.....................................  1227
FHWA Opening Remarks.............................................  1042
Field Positions in The Office of Public Affairs..................  1219
Financial Plans and Guidance.....................................  1065
Fiscal Year 2001 Spending Plan...................................  1331
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request..................................  1043
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary..................................  1046
Freight Performance Measurement..................................  1341
FTE for TIFIA Joint Program Office...............................  1209
FTE Levels by Office.............................................  1222
Funding for Rail Highway Crossing/Operation Lifesaver............  1148
Funding for TRANSIMS.............................................  1366
Funds Allocated to the Republic of South Africa..................  1400
Funds Budgeted for Standards Development and Operational Testing.  1475
Funds Derived From the Federal Highway Trust Fund................  1252
Funds for Advance Research.......................................  1269
Funds Requested for Training.....................................  1504
Funds Spent on Promotion of Educational or Technology Transfer 
  Activities.....................................................  1245
Funds Spent on Training Related To ITS...........................  1448
Funds Used for FHWA R&D Management Activities....................  1419
Funds Used to Promote Marketing..................................  1406
General Administration and Oversight.............................  1238
Geosynthetic Materials...........................................  1353
Global Warning...................................................  1647
Goals Related to Planning and Environment........................  1361
Highway Operations Program.......................................  1344
Highway Trust Fund Spending Versus Receipts Highway Account......  1683
Highway Trust Funds Spending Versus Receipts Highway Account.....  1686
Highways and Bridges.............................................  1060
Human and Natural Environment....................................  1053
Impact of the ITS Program On The U.S. Energy Situation...........  1458
Implementation of the Five Year Strategic Plan...................  1445
Implementation of the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative.............  1620
Implementation of the Strategic Vision of The ITS Rural Program..  1449
Implementing the Recommendations of the TRB Report...............  1349
Increase in Training Funds.......................................  1229
Initial Results on Research on UV Headlights.....................  1302
Initiatives of Concern to OST, FHWA, and FMCSA...................  1226
Innovative Financing.............................................  1061
Integration of Earmarked Projects................................  1267
Intelligent Transportation System................................  1095
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative...................................  1600
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI).............................  1593
Intelligent Vehicle Performance Criteria.........................  1610
International Activities.........................................  1398
International Scanning Trips.....................................  1399
Interoperability of DSRC Communications in CVO...................  1514
Interstate and Arterial Infrastructure...........................  1452
Interstate Pavement Conditions by State..........................  1688
Investment in Evaluations, Best Practices, and Research..........  1360
Investments in Earmarked Projects to Advance Standards Work......  1567
ITS:
    ITS America..................................................  1478
    ITS America..................................................  1593
    ITS Deployment Projects--National ITS Architecture...........  1572
    ITS Funding..................................................  1577
    ITS Funds Used for Other Purposes............................  1482
    ITS Intermodal Freight Activities............................  1463
    ITS Intermodal Initiatives...................................  1465
    ITS Projects.................................................  1564
    ITS Projects Related to the Highway Rail Grade Crossing......  1466
    ITS Research Funding Beyond FY 2002..........................  1575
    ITS Spending Plan............................................  1422
    ITS Standards Program........................................  1474
    ITS Technologies and Deployment Strategies...................  1459
IVI Spending Plan................................................  1597
IVA Program......................................................  1627
Lessons Learned About ITS........................................  1461
Listing of Federal-aid Projects Costing over a $10 million.......  1071
Local Highway Funds or Flex Funding..............................  1653
Local Match Issues...............................................  1208
Mailbox System...................................................  1581
Major Challenges and Accomplishments.............................  1307
Major in-House Research Projects.................................  1631
Major Project--Cost Increases....................................  1091
Major Projects...................................................  1090
Major Projects Team..............................................  1066
Major Projects Team..............................................  1118
Management of Major Highway Projects.............................  1064
Management of Major Highway Projects.............................  1102
Management of Policy's Research Contracts........................  1390
Management of Smaller Projects...................................  1068
Management of Smaller Projects...................................  1121
Management of The ITS Program....................................  1476
Minillas Extension of Tren Urbano................................  1655
Minimum Allocation, Donor State Bonus, Hold Harmless, and 
  Emergency Relief Data..........................................  1677
Minimum Pavement Marking Luminance...............................  1355
Miscellaneous Programs...........................................  1674
Multi-Modal Freight Analysis Framework...........................  1340
Multi-Modal Transportation Funding...............................  1092
National Academy of Sciences Peer Review.........................  1613
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.................  1381
National ITS Architecture and Standards..........................  1573
National IVI Meeting.............................................  1629
National Security................................................  1054
National Summit on the ITS 10-Year Program Plan..................  1480
National System Architecture.....................................  1513
National Systems Architecture and Standards Work.................  1506
National Technology Deployment Initiatives.......................  1416
Nationwide Mailbox System........................................  1583
Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS).................  1413
New Freedom Initiative...........................................  1139
Obligational Authority for Demonstration Programs................  1663
Office of Intermodalism..........................................  1239
Office of Program Quality Coordination...........................  1220
Office of the Inspector General..................................  1208
Onboard FTE vs FTE Levels........................................  1209
ONE DOT Task Force on Oversight of Large Transportation 
  Infrastructure Infrastructure Projects.........................  1778
Opening Remarks..................................................  1041
    Boston Central Artery Project................................  1041
    Conclusion...................................................  1044
    Congestion Mitigation........................................  1043
    Environmental Streamlining...................................  1042
    Environmental Streamlining...................................  1044
    FHWA Opening Remarks.........................................  1042
    Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request..............................  1043
    Mobility.....................................................  1043
    Oversight and Major Projects.................................  1043
    Research and Technology......................................  1044
    Safety.......................................................  1043
Operational Test.................................................  1612
Operations Research..............................................  1322
Operations Research..............................................  1343
Other EPA Regulatory Changes.....................................  1382
Other Programs...................................................  1186
Over-All GPRA-Related Goals and Performance Measures.............  1240
Oversight and Major Projects.....................................  1043
Oversight and Major Projects.....................................  1054
Oversight Responsibilities.......................................  1091
Pan American Highway Institute...................................  1402
Particulate Matter Pollution.....................................  1385
Pavement Conditions by Functional Classification.................  1691
Performance/GPRA-Measured Accomplishments........................  1241
Planning Research Program........................................  1359
    Planning Research Activities.................................  1368
Planning Research Program........................................  1367
Plans to Update and Revise the Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Action 
  Plan...........................................................  1306
Policy Research..................................................  1395
Program Support Costs............................................  1503
Projects:
    Project Delays...............................................  1092
    Project Estimates............................................  1064
    Projects Supported with IVI Funds............................  1601
Purpose and Amount of CVO Related Expenditures...................  1580
R&D and Technology Transfer......................................  1329
R&D Funds Used to Fund New Initiatives...........................  1248
RABA and State Ratios............................................  1184
Recommendation Received from ITS America.........................  1479
Redistribution of Unobligated Authority..........................  1672
Relationship Between Highway Trust Fund Revenues and Highway 
  Program Spend..................................................  1143
Report on Major Projects.........................................  1063
Research Activities..............................................  1282
Research and Development Contractors.............................  1629
Research and Technology..........................................  1044
Research and Technology..........................................  1059
Research and Technology Program..................................  1259
Research Integrated with Activities Conducted by State Government 
  and Other Organizations........................................  1250
Research on the Availability of Truck Rest Areas.................  1305
Research on UV Headlights........................................  1301
Research vs. Operational Testing.................................  1596
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority.................................  1090
    Revenue Aligned Budget Authority.............................  1047
Review of The Safety R&D Budget Allocation.......................  1297
Road Weather Management Program..................................  1327
Roadside Emergency Scenes........................................  1321
Rural ITS Program................................................  1565
Rural Local Officials Role in Planning and Programming Process...  1777
Safe Use of Cellular Phones......................................  1482
Safer Data Mailbox...............................................  1583
Safer Data Mailbox System........................................  1581
Safety Campaigns.................................................  1317
Safety Improvements..............................................  1290
Safety of Pedestrians and Bicycles at Highway Intersections......  1303
Safety Research..................................................  1288
    Allocation of Safety Research and Development Funds..........  1295
    Allocation of Safety Research and Development Funds..........  1296
    Allocation of Safety Research Funds..........................  1289
    Review of The Safety R&D Budget Allocation...................  1297
    Safety Research Spending Plan................................  1290
Scope and Nature of FHWA's Advanced Research.....................  1270
Shortfalls in Management and Coordination........................  1248
SP&R and National Cooperative Highway Research Program...........  1635
Springfield Interchange..........................................  1123
Staffing:
    Staffing--Executive Director's Office........................  1213
    Staffing--Office of Chief Council............................  1214
    Staffing--Office of Civil Rights.............................  1217
    Staffing--Office of Public Affairs...........................  1218
    Staffing--Office of the Deputy Federal Highway Administrator.  1211
    Staffing--Office of the Federal Highway Administrator........  1210
    Staffing Consultants.........................................  1660
    Staffing Levels Central Artery...............................  1659
Standards Requirements For Projects Receiving Federal Aid Funds..  1569
State Apportionment of Bridge Funds..............................  1676
State's Use of TEA-21 Highway Funds..............................  1126
Statement of Vincent F. Schimmoller..............................  1045
    Conclusion...................................................  1061
    Congestion Mitigation and Environmental Streamlining.........  1058
    Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary..............................  1046
    Highways and Bridges.........................................  1060
    Human and Natural Environment................................  1053
    Innovative Financing.........................................  1061
    Introduction.................................................  1045
    Mobility.....................................................  1050
    National Security............................................  1054
    Oversight and Major Projects.................................  1054
    Productivity.................................................  1051
    Research and Technology......................................  1059
    Revenue Aligned Budget Authority.............................  1047
    Safety.......................................................  1048
    Strategic Goals and Objectives...............................  1048
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program--Massachusetts......  1094
Status of NPTS...................................................  1415
Status of Read Your Road Partnership Program.....................  1298
Steps to Incorporate Standards into Deployment...................  1567
Strategic Goals and Objectives...................................  1048
Structures.......................................................  1356
Study of Parking Facilities at Public Rest Areas.................  1775
Surface Transportation Research..................................  1284
Surface Transportation Research Funds............................  1286
Sustainable Transportation.......................................  1359
TEA-21 CVISN.....................................................  1590
TEA-21 Funding Limits............................................  1651
Technological Challenges and Pilot Testing.......................  1366
Technology Assessment and Deployment Activities..................  1261
Technology Deployment--Environment...............................  1385
Ten Year Record of Accomplishments...............................  1370
The Importance of Advanced Research..............................  1269
Time and Constraints on Advancing Research on UV Headlights......  1302
TRANSIMS.........................................................  1362
TRANSIMS Contract Funds..........................................  1363
Transit Obligations..............................................  1149
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program.....  1187
Transportation and Community System Preservation Program.........  1360
Transportation Improvement Program--Massachusetts................  1093
Transportation Research Board Report.............................  1263
Tren Urbano Operating Deficits...................................  1653
Truck Size and Weight............................................  1397
Truck Size and Weight Studies....................................  1397
Uncompleted ADHS Miles...........................................  1187
Uncompleted Operational Tests or Earmarked Deployment Projects...  1485
Unified Carrier Register.........................................  1565
Unobligated Balance of ISTEA Demonstration Projects..............  1663
Unobligated Balances for Appropriated Demonstration Projects.....  1664
Updating of NPTS.................................................  1414
Value Pricing Pilot Program......................................  1325
Vehicle Warning Systems..........................................  1622
Woodrow Wilson Bridge............................................  1114
Work Zone Impacts................................................  1336
Yielding to Right of Way Signs...................................  1316

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Accidents.....................................................993, 1000
Advisory Committee......................................911, 1021, 1024
Biographies: FMCSA: Julie Anna Cirillo, Acting Deputy 
  Administrator..................................................   891
Border Enforcement Operations (LAE)..............................  1033
Border Facilities (U.S.).........................................   949
Border Facilities--U.S.-Mexico...................................   932
Border Fatalities--Michigan/Canada...............................   938
Border Inspections...............................................   906
Border Inspectors................................................   931
    Additional Inspectors........................................   937
    Border U.S.-Mexico...........................................   942
Border Operation Funding.........................................   911
Border Operations Implementation Plan............................   908
Border Related Safety............................................   873
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Data Improvements 
  Funding........................................................   916
California Highway Patrol--Assessing Fines.......................   982
Carriers (Intrastate)............................................  1003
Commercial Driver's License....................................882, 976
Commercial Driver's License Program..............................   969
    Illinois and Florida.........................................   913
    Federal Oversight............................................   913
    Rules to Disqualify..........................................   914
    Medical Qualification........................................   978
Commercial Passenger Carrier Safety..............................   884
Compliance Reviews.............................................957, 986
Congressional Requirements--Unfulfilled..........................   955
Crass Causation Study............................................   957
Crashes:
    Avoided in 1999 and 2000.....................................   988
    Involving Mexican Carriers...................................   983
    Reducing Fatalities From Truck-Related Crashes...............   956
    Top Ten States...............................................   998
Data Analysis Improvements.......................................   887
Data--Safety Data Improvements...................................   959
Driver Database Information......................................   933
Enforcement Backlog..............................................  1021
Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes....................................935, 998
Fatalities Rate--U.S. Carriers...................................   923
Fatalities Reducing Fatalities from Truck Related Crashes........   956
Fatality--Reduction Goal.........................................   929
Fatigue..........................................................  1030
FMCSA:
    Agency Budget................................................   929
    Agency Creation..............................................   930
    Rulemakings Chart........................................1015, 1025
    Staffing.....................................................  1001
    Strategic Plan...............................................   934
Hazardous Materials..............................................  1029
Hazardous Materials Entry........................................   941
Hours-of-Service Rule............................................   955
Hours-of-Service Rulemaking...............................876, 884, 972
Household Goods..................................................   889
Imaging Technologies.............................................  1032
Information and Outreach.........................................   887
Intrastate Carriers..............................................  1003
Language Proficiency.............................................   971
MCSAP Funding....................................................   881
Medical Qualification............................................   978
Mexican Border--Commercial Passenger Carrying Vehicles...........   917
Mexican Border--and the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program..   954
Mexican Border Safety............................................   875
Mexican Carriers:
    Application Processing Procedures............................   909
    Certification Requirements...................................   901
    Crash Rate...................................................   905
    Death Rate...................................................   922
    Definition...................................................   894
    Driver Logbook...............................................   904
    Education and Outreach.......................................   909
    Hours-of-Service.................................903, 907, 921, 995
    Inspections (1998-2000)......................................   983
    Language Proficiency.........................................   971
    Leaded Gas...................................................   921
    NAFTA Coordination...........................................   910
    Pre-Certification............................................   895
    Safety Audits................................................   896
    Safety Databases.............................................   910
    Safety on Southern Border....................................   879
    Safety Requirements/Signed Certifications....................   898
    Safety Review Procedures.....................................   909
Mexican Drivers--Regulations...................................894, 996
Mexican Truck Insurance..........................................   925
Mexican Trucks:
    Priority Safety Audits.......................................   941
    Safety Audits................................................   940
Michigan/Canadian Border Fatalities..............................   938
Motor Carrier Advisory Committee........................911, 1021, 1024
Motor Carrier Entrant Requirements...............................   912
Motor Carrier Fines..............................................   919
Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)..............   991
Motor Carrier Research...........................................   877
Motor Carrier Research--Five Year Plan...........................   915
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Funding..................  1007
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and the Mexican 
  Border.........................................................   954
Motor Carrier Safety Grants...................................876, 1008
Motor Carrier Safety Operations Program (MCSOP)..................  1035
Motor Carrier Safety Research and Technology.....................   885
Motor Coach Safety...............................................   916
NAFTA:
    Border Opening...............................................   892
    Carrier Conditions...........................................   994
    Funding (1998-2001)..........................................   997
    Inspections..................................................   893
    Commercial Zone..............................................   893
National Motor Carrier Safety Program Funding Issues.........1007, 1011
No-Zone..........................................................  1021
On-Board Recorders...............................................  1040
Opening Remarks--Julie Anna Cirillo..............................   873
Out-of-Service Activities/Inspections/Disqualifications..........   981
Performance & Registration Information Systems Management919, 992, 1012
Performance Based Incentive Grant Program........................  1004
Pilot Projects...................................................  1022
Research Initiatives.............................................  1036
Rest Area and Shipper Studies....................................  1018
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA)..........................   910
Reporting and Regulatory Requirements............................  1015
Rulemakings..................................................1015, 1024
Safety Auditor Training/Certification Rulemaking
Safety Audits..................................................940, 979
    For Mexican Trucks...........................................   940
    Priority Audits..............................................   941
Safety Data Action Plan (SDAP)...................................   959
    Objectives...................................................   960
    FY2001 Anticipated Accomplishments...........................   961
    FY2002 Activities............................................   961
Safety Data Improvements.........................................   959
Share the Road Safely............................................   888
Statement of Julie Anna Cirillo..................................   878
Strategic Plan...................................................   934
TEA-21:
    Rest Area and Shipper Studies................................  1018
    Twelve Required Studies (Status of)..........................  1019
Top Ten States--Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes......................   998
Truck and Bus Accidents..........................................   993
Truck Safety Goals...............................................   874
Truck Size and Weight Study......................................   925
Unfulfilled Congressional Requirements...........................   955
Unsatisfactory Ratings...........................................   919
U.S. Border Facilities...........................................   949
U.S.-Mexico--Border Facilities...................................   932
U.S.-Mexico--Border Inspectors...................................   942
Vehicle Definition...............................................   930

                     Federal Transit Administration

Administration:
    Administrative Expenses......................................   352
    Civilian Benefits............................................   357
    Delphi Accounting System.....................................   393
    Delphi Conversion Requirements...............................   393
    Diversity Activities.........................................   361
    Employee Training............................................   360
    Executive Management System..................................   359
    Field Operations Staff by Activity...........................   392
    FTE Increase to 505..........................................   356
    General Engineers............................................   367
    GSA Rent.....................................................   357
    International Travel.........................................   362
    Political Positions..........................................   392
    Reimbursable Program.........................................   356
    TEAM.........................................................   358
    Travel.......................................................   361
    Workforce Planning...........................................   359
Advanced Technology Transit Bus..................................   575
Alaska and Hawaii Set Aside......................................   137
Alaska Railroad..................................................   475
Amtrak Inspection Rule...........................................    18
Annual Accident Data.............................................   314
Apportionments by State..........................................   307
Average Age of Bus Fleet.........................................   323
Average Real Labor Compensation..................................   322
Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)...........................   122
Benefits of Transit..............................................   551
Bonding for Sound Move...........................................   106
BRT Compared to Clean Fuels Goals................................   538
BRT Cost Compared to Light Rail..................................   535
BRT Demonstration Program........................................   527
BRT Expenditures.................................................   527
BRT Project Selection Criteria...................................   533
BRT Project Timetable............................................   532
Bus Procurement Grants...........................................   327
Bus Rapid Transit................................................   525
Bus Testing......................................................   572
Bus Testing Technical Support....................................   572
Central Link Cost History........................................   100
Central Link Project Review Committee............................    60
Clean Fuels Formula Program......................................   476
Civilian Benefits................................................   357
Contingent Commitment Authority:
    Availabile for Preliminary and Final Design..................    31
    Los Angeles..................................................     8
    Remaining Commitment Authority...............................    30
Cost of Rail Compared to Highway Construction....................   591
Delphi Accounting System.........................................   393
Delphi Conversion Requirements...................................   393
Design-Build.....................................................   520
Dicks, Norm: Seattle Introduction................................    55
Disposition of Capital New Starts Earmarks.......................   240
Diversity Activities.............................................   361
Drug and Alcohol Testing.........................................   401
Earl, Joni:
    Biography of Joni Earl.......................................    97
    Prepared Statement of Joni Earl..............................    72
    Sound Transit Opening Remarks................................    56
Employee Training................................................   360
Executive Management System......................................   359
Existing Full Funding Grant Agreements...........................   133
Farebox Recovery of Operating Expenses Data......................   312
Federal Coordinating Council.....................................   543
Federal Share for New Starts:
    Federal Share for New Starts.................................    16
    Project Federal Share........................................    20
Federal Support for Minnesota Projects...........................     3
FFGA Project Gosts.............................................135, 137
Field Operations Staff by Activity...............................   392
Financial Management and Capacity Reviews........................   341
Financial Systems Support........................................   395
Fixed Guideway Modernization Obligations for Old Rail Cities.....   330
FTA Capital Obligations by Fiscal Year...........................   323
FTA Opening Remarks..............................................     4
FTE Increase to 505..............................................   356
Fuel Cell Bus....................................................   514
Full Funding Commitment..........................................    15
Full Funding Grant Agreements....................................    36
Garrett Morgan...................................................   550
General Engineers................................................   367
Georgetown Fuel Cell.............................................   540
GSA Rent.........................................................   357
Job Access and Reverse Commute...................................   404
Job Access Awards................................................   408
Job Access Projects qualified for FY 2000 and 2001...............   427
International Mass Transportation Program........................   397
International Travel.............................................   362
Izquiero, Jose: Puerto Rico Secretary of Transportation..........    54
Light and Commuter Rail Policy Changes...........................   589
Los Angeles Red Line Subway Project:
    Los Angeles Red Line Subway Project..........................    26
    Los Angeles Remaining Funds..................................    27
Low-Speed Magnetic Levitation Program............................   541
Lluch Garcia, Jose Francisco:
    Biography of Jose Francisco Lluch Garcia.....................    44
    Puerto Rico Opening Remarks..................................    36
    Prepared Statement of Jose Francisco Lluch Garcia............    39
Major Capital Investments........................................     4
Management Oversight.............................................   351
Mass Transit Account.............................................   317
National Transit Database........................................   551
National Transit Institute.......................................   509
New Freedom Initiative
New Starts:
    Existing Full Funding Grant Agreements.......................   133
    Federal Share for New Starts.................................    16
    Full Funding Commitment......................................    15
    Full Funding Grant Agreements................................    36
    FFGA Project Costs.........................................135, 137
    Funding to Meet, New Starts Demands..........................    29
    Proposed FFGAs in FY 2002 Budget.............................   138
    Project Federal Share........................................    20
    Status of Specific New Starts Projects.......................    28
    Full Funding Commitment......................................    15
    Funding to Meet, New Starts Demands..........................    29
    New Starts Evaluation Process................................   273
    New Starts Projects Estimated to be Ready....................   143
    New Starts Payout Schedule...................................   139
    New Starts Program Changes...................................   262
    New Starts Project Evaluation Regulation.....................   273
    New Starts Project Ratings...................................   237
    New Starts Project Requests..................................   129
    New Starts Projects Receiving 50 Percent Share.............148, 151
    New Starts Report Letter to Grantees.........................   268
    New Starts ROD and Federal Portion...........................   145
    Potential New Starts Impacted by 50/50 Split.................   147
    Proposed New Starts and Attachment 6.........................   154
    Section 5309 New Starts Project Status.......................   235
    Unobligated New Starts Project Balances......................   245
    Weighing of Local Financial Commitment.......................   275
New Starts Evaluation Process....................................   273
New Starts Program Changes.......................................   262
New Starts Projects Estimated to be Ready........................   143
New Starts Payout Schedule.......................................   139
New Starts Project Evaluation Regulation.........................   273
New Starts Project Requests......................................   129
New Starts Projects Receiving 50 Percent Share.................148, 151
New Starts Report Letter to Grantees.............................   268
New Starts ROD and Federal Portion...............................   145
New York Ridership vs Dollars....................................    17
New York Projects................................................    18
NTSB Recommendations.............................................   511
On-Board Positions by Office.....................................   368
Opening Remarks:
    Federal Transit Administration...............................     1
    Federal Transit Capital Projects.............................    35
Opening Statement, Hiram J. Walker:
    Background...................................................     6
    Commitment Authority.........................................     8
    Conclusion...................................................    11
    New Starts Evaluations.......................................     7
    Project Management Oversight.................................     9
Oversight:
    Financial Management and Capacity Reviews....................   341
    Management Oversight.........................................   351
    Oversight Funding Shortfall..................................   348
    Oversight, Necessary Funding.................................    32
    Oversight Obligations........................................   340
    PMO and FMO Contractor Selection.............................   336
    PMO Lessons Learned..........................................   338
    Project Management Oversight.................................     9
    Project Management Oversight Activities......................   334
    Rail Safety Oversight........................................   401
    Risk Assessments.............................................   346
    Safety and Security Oversight................................   346
Oversight Funding Shortfall......................................   348
Oversight, Necessary Funding.....................................    32
Oversight Obligations............................................   340
Over-The-Road Bus Accessibility Program..........................   483
Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell........................................   519
PMO and FMO Contractor Selection.................................   336
PMO Lessons Learned..............................................   338
Political Positions..............................................   392
Potential New Starts Impacted by 50/50 Split.....................   147
Program and Financial Management Personnel.......................   335
Project Management Oversight.....................................     9
Project Management Oversight Activities..........................   334
Project Federal Share:
    Project Federal Share........................................    20
    St. Louis, Portland, Atlanta.................................21, 22
Proposed FFGAs in FY 2002 budget.................................   138
Proposed New Starts and Attachment 6.............................   154
Puerto Rico Opening Remarks......................................    36
Puerto Rico Secretary of Transportation..........................    54
Questions for the Record, Chairman DeLay.........................   589
Questions for the Record, Chairman Rogers........................   117
Rail Safety Oversight............................................   401
Recoveries.......................................................   331
Request for Formula Based Programs...............................   581
Reimbursable Program.............................................   356
Reimbursement to the Inspector General...........................   351
Reprogramming New Starts Funds...................................    17
Risk Assessments.................................................   346
Safety and Security Oversight....................................   346
Scoring Issues...................................................   584
Section 5309 New Starts Project Status...........................   235
Seattle Cost Estimates...........................................    19
Seattle Bus Tunnel Costs.........................................   102
Seattle Busway Tunnel Agreement..................................   103
Seattle Cost Increase............................................    23
Seattle Earthquake Damage........................................    24
Seattle Financing Plan...........................................   104
Seattle Full Funding Grant.......................................    98
Seattle Introduction.............................................    55
Seattle Light Rail Project.......................................    13
Seattle Light Rail Costs.........................................    14
Seattle--New Starts Project Rating...............................   593
Seattle Project Completion Schedule..............................   111
Seattle Project Proposal.........................................   103
Seattle Site Acquisition Problems................................   110
Seattle Sound Transit Project....................................   117
Seattle Sound Transit Project Costs..............................    35
Seattle Total Cost...............................................    98
SEPTA Advanced Propulsion........................................   538
Set-Asides Within the Transit Planning and Research Account......   556
Signing of Seattle FFGA..........................................    13
South Boston Piers Transitway Project............................   124
Sound Transit:
    Bonding for Sound Move.......................................   106
    Central Link Cost History....................................   100
    Central Link Project Review Committee........................    60
    Seattle Bus Tunnel Costs.....................................   102
    Seattle Busway Tunnel Agreement..............................   103
    Seattle Cost Estimates.......................................    19
    Seattle Cost Increase........................................    23
    Seattle Earthquake Damage....................................    24
    Seattle Financing Plan.......................................   104
    Seattle Full Funding Grant Agreement.........................    98
    Seattle Introduction.........................................    55
    Seattle Light Rail Project...................................    13
    Seattle Light Rail Costs.....................................    14
    Seattle-New Starts Project Rating............................   593
    Sound Transit MOS-2..........................................   120
    Seattle Project Completion Schedule..........................   111
    Seattle Project Proposal.....................................   103
    Seattle Site Acquisition Problems............................   110
    Seattle Sound Transit Project................................   117
    Seattle Sound Transit Project Costs..........................    35
    Seattle Total Cost...........................................    98
    Signing of Seattle FFGA......................................    13
    Sound Transit Chronology.....................................    87
    Sound Transit Contingency....................................   120
    Sound Transit Criticism......................................   122
    Sound Transit Link Documents.................................    62
    Sound Transit Opening Remarks................................    56
Sound Transit Chronology.........................................    87
Sound Transit Contingency........................................   120
Sound Transit Criticism..........................................   122
Sound Transit Link Documents.....................................    62
Sound Transit MOS-2..............................................   120
Sound Transit Opening Remarks....................................    56
Status of Specific New Starts Projects...........................    28
St. Louis Rail Extension.........................................    27
TEAM.............................................................   358
Transit Market Share to Suburban Employment......................   591
Transit Planning and Research:
    Bus Testing..................................................   572
    Bus Testing Technical Support................................   572
    Fuel Cell Bus................................................   514
    Garrett Morgan...............................................   550
    Georgetown Fuel Cell.........................................   540
    Set-Asides Within the Transit Planning and Research Account..   556
    Transit Planning and Research................................   505
    Transit Planning and Research Earmarks.......................   547
    Transit Planning in the National Parks.......................   554
    Transit Technology Summit....................................   544
    Transportation Safety Institute..............................   509
    Zinc-Air Battery Development.................................   514
Transit Planning and Research....................................   505
Transit Planning and Research Earmarks...........................   547
Transit Planning in the National Parks...........................   554
Transit Ridership and Growth.....................................     4
Transit Ridership of 30 Largest Transit Operators................   310
Transit Technology Summit........................................   544
Transportation Safety Institute..................................   509
Travel...........................................................   361
Tren Urbano:
    Contractor Settlement Letter.................................    48
    Construction and Schedule Issues.............................    50
    Puerto Rico Opening Remarks..................................    36
    Puerto Rico Secretary of Transportation......................    54
    Tren Urbano Construction Quality Issues
    Tren Urbano Estimated Opening................................    45
    Tren Urbano Light Rail.......................................    24
    Tren Urbano Ridership Projections............................    53
Tren Urbano Construction Quality Issues
Tren Urbano Estimated Opening....................................    45
Tren Urbano Light Rail...........................................    24
Tren Urbano Ridership Projections................................    53
University Transportation Research...............................   490
Unobligated Bus Funds............................................   157
Unobligated Bus Projects.........................................   197
Unobligated New Starts Project Balances..........................   245
Urbanized Area Formula Apportionment.............................   277
Urbanized Area Formula Apportionments for Fiscal Years 2001 and 
  2002...........................................................   291
Urbanized Area Formula Funding for Areas Without Transit Service.   306
Utah Light Rail Project..........................................    25
Walker, Hiram J.:
    Biography of Hiram J. Walker.................................    12
    FTA Opening Remarks..........................................     4
Prepared Statement of Hiram J. Walker............................     6
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)...........   127
Weighing of Local Financial Commitment...........................   275
Workforce Planning...............................................   359
Zinc-Air Battery Development.....................................   514
2002 Budget Recommendations......................................    28

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

.08 BAC Laws (States With).......................................   683
Administrative License Revocation Laws (States With).............   799
Aggressive Driving:
    Coordination.................................................   865
    Highway Safety Research Budget...............................   867
Air Bag:
    Investigations...............................................   860
    Safety.......................................................   602
Alcohol:
    Related Fatalities by State..................................   685
    Related Fatality Rates Per Vehicle Mile......................   688
    Zero Tolerance Among College Age Offenders...................   687
Automated Crash Notification Program.............................   834
Auto Safety Hotline:
    Auto Safety Hotline..........................................   780
    Calls........................................................   781
Biography of L. Robert Shelton III...............................   617
Biomechanics Research Program....................................   826
Cameras at Stoplights (Effectiveness of).........................   623
Cellular Phones:
    Legislation..................................................   640
    Risks of Built-In Cellular Phones Systems....................   640
Challenges.......................................................   603
Child Safety Seats...............................................   861
Compliance:
    Test Failure Data............................................   733
    Testing Program..............................................   736
Conclusion.......................................................   616
Consumer Information.............................................   732
Contractors (Major)..............................................   775
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE):
    CAFE.........................................................   703
    Impact of the Appropriations' Rider on CAFE..................   708
    Kyoto Agreement Impact on CAFE Standards.....................   707
    Penalties Collected..........................................   706
    Raising CAFE Standards and Automobile Safety.................   709
    Safety Versus Fuel Economy...................................   632
    Standards....................................................   870
    Standards for Light Trucks and Vans..........................   704
Crashes by Collision Type........................................   691
Data Warehousing.................................................   783
Defects Investigation:
    Defects Outreach Funding.....................................   781
    Office of Defects Investigation..............................   653
    Organizational Changes.......................................   618
Distracted Driving:
    Distracted Driving...........................................   641
    Regulations..................................................   642
    Studies......................................................   641
Dynamic Rollover Testing Challenges..............................   622
Emergency Medical Services.......................................   832
Fatal Crashes:
    By State.....................................................   679
    Motor Vehicle Crashes and Fatalities.........................   694
    Vehicles Involved In.........................................   681
Fatalities:
    By Vehicle Category..........................................   700
    Child Fatalities and Injuries in Vehicle Crashes.............   693
    Child Occupant Fatalities....................................   683
    For Selected Countries.......................................   701
    Pedalcyclist.................................................   743
    Rates Attributed to Alcohol and Speed........................   690
    Vehicle Fatalities by State..................................   696
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)........................   691
Firestone:
    Investigation................................................   618
    Recall.......................................................   618
Ford Investigation...............................................   862
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE):
    Authorized FTE Levels........................................   757
    FTE and On-Board Strength....................................   756
Graduated Driver Licensing.......................................   791
Heavy Vehicle Program Funding....................................   837
Highway Safety:
    Achievements.................................................   601
    Programs.....................................................   607
Highway Traffic Safety Grants....................................   615
Impaired Driving:
    Drug-Impaired Driving Funding................................   868
    Drunk-Driving Among Teenagers................................   868
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Status Report.............   625
International Harmonization......................................   862
Investments in Safety............................................   601
Media:
    Effectiveness of Media Programs..............................   635
    Projects and Public Service Campaigns........................   634
Motorcycle Helmet Laws:
    Motorcycle Helmet Laws.......................................   739
    Repeal of....................................................   741
National Academy of Science (NAS) Rollover Study.................   864
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS):
    Construction Costs...........................................   643
    Cost Recovery................................................   645
    Cost Sharing Issues..........................................   645
    Federal Share of Funding.....................................   644
    NADS..................................................642, 644, 655
National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) Funding..........   673
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB):
    Study on Hard Core Drinking Drivers..........................   854
    Study on School Bus and Motorcoach Safety....................   835
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP):
    Frontal Impact Testing.......................................   709
    NCAP.........................................................   605
    Optional Testing.............................................   725
    Program Costs..............................................720, 723
    Side Impact Testing..........................................   719
    Testing....................................................710, 719
    Testing--Braking Performance.................................   724
NHTSA:
    Budget Authority and FTE.....................................   647
    Opening Remarks (Mr. Rogers).................................   597
    Opening Remarks (Mr. Shelton)................................   598
Occupant Fatality Crash Statistics...............................   692
Odometer Fraud Program...........................................   788
Overseas Travel..................................................   748
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)..............   832
Passenger Van Rollover Propensity................................   623
Private/Public Partnerships Effect on Rulemaking.................   652
Rear Impact Dummy................................................   731
Rent.............................................................   745
Reprogrammings...................................................   774
Research and Analysis Programs...................................   611
Rulemaking:
    Private/Public Partnerships Effect on Rulemaking.............   652
    Process......................................................   619
    Rulemaking Actions...........................................   778
    TREAD Rulemaking.............................................   619
    Usefulness of Data Resulting From Rulemaking.................   620
Safety:
    Education for Minority Populations...........................   634
    Recalls......................................................   727
    Safety Versus Fuel Economy...................................   632
    Standards....................................................   729
    Standards--Aging Tires.......................................   730
Safety Assurance Programs........................................   606
Safety Performance Standards Programs............................   604
Salaries and Expenses............................................   647
Seat Belt:
    Approaches to Increase Seat Belt Use.........................   636
    Initiatives..................................................   635
    Key Provisions of Belt Use Laws..............................   671
    Programs.....................................................   633
    Restraint Use Among Passenger Vehicle Occupant Fatalities....   669
    Seat Belt Use Enforcement....................................   670
    Summit Report................................................   664
    Usage........................................................   633
    Usage Goal...................................................   661
    Usage Rates...........................................637, 662, 665
Section 157:
    Comparison of Section 157 and Section 405....................   813
    Grants Awards................................................   814
Section 163:
    Comparison of Section 163 and Section 410....................   799
    Funding......................................................   801
Section 402:
    Grant Obligations............................................   795
    Program Funding..............................................   794
    Staff Support................................................   794
    State Expenditures...........................................   792
Section 410:
    Comparison of Section 163 and Section 410....................   799
    Funding Allocations..........................................   797
Section 411 Grant Awards by State................................   804
Section 2003(b) Child Passenger Protection Education Grants......   839
SES Bonus Recipients.............................................   768
Side Impact Air Bags.............................................   828
Speed:
    Estimated Cost of Speed Related Fatal Crashes................   677
    Related Fatal Crashes........................................   677
    State Speed Limits...........................................   674
Staff:
    Office of the Administrator..................................   766
    Political Appointees.........................................   759
    Regional Staffing............................................   760
State Participation..............................................   603
Statement of L. Robert Shelton III...............................   601
Static and Dynamic Testing (Differences Between).................   621
Traffic Records Assessments......................................   789
Training Data Update.............................................   769
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 
  Documentation (TREAD):
    Application to Foreign Entities..............................   651
    Child Passenger Safety Requirements..........................   654
    Defect Information Management System Database Upgrade........   650
    Early Warning Defect Detection System........................   651
    FTE Allocation...............................................   758
    Mandates.....................................................   648
    Related Funding Increase.....................................   621
    Safety Requirements..........................................   653
    Tire Pressure Monitors.......................................   654
    TREAD Act (The)..............................................   602
    Volpe Contract...............................................   649
Unobligated Balances.............................................   772
Web Site ``Hits''................................................   782
Witness..........................................................   597
Workforce Planning and Development...............................   769

                                
