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



                    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND

                    RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

                                FOR 2003

_______________________________________________________________________

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
                             SECOND 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 Leigha 
                      M. Shaw, Subcommittee Staff
                                ________
                                 PART 4

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
                                                                   Page

   Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration....................    1
   Federal Highway Administration.................................  113
   National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.................  621
   Federal Transit Administration.................................  891
   Bureau of Transportation Statistics............................ 1368

                              

                                ________
         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 81-137                     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 
                                  2003

                              ----------                              

                                      Wednesday, February 13, 2002.

              FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                                WITNESS

JOSEPH M. CLAPP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY 
    ADMINISTRATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Rogers. Good morning. We have Mr. Joseph Clapp, 
Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA), here with us today to present his 
agency's budget request. Mr. Clapp is the first Senate 
confirmed administrator of FMCSA since its inception in the 
year 2000. Congratulations.
    Because you were appointed in the middle of the cross-
border trucking debate last year, I am sure that you had a 
quick indoctrination in your new position. I congratulate you 
on your new position, confirmed and all, and welcome you here.
    This agency is the regulatory body charged with ensuring 
safety in commercial vehicle operations on the nation's 
highways. It was extracted from the Federal Highway 
Administration in 2000, to improve our truck and bus safety, 
and to accomplish this, this agency's budget requests $371 
million in budget resources to increase safety. That is an 
increase of 8.5 percent from the year 2002 level.
    The FMCSA has strong safety goals. Its primary goal, first 
introduced during the last administration, is to reduce large 
truck-related deaths by 50 percent by the end of 2009. That is 
a very ambitious goal, if not impossible. Largely as a result 
of this subcommittee's prodding, the agency has made advances 
and some progress in its overall management.
    But as the nation's priorities changed after September 11, 
so did FMCSA's. The terrorist attacks stand as a stark reminder 
that a major portion of any safety mission is security. One of 
your agency's main activities became security sensitivity 
visits, (SSVs) to make sure that motor carriers hauling 
hazardous materials are aware of security measures that should 
be in place.
    Federal and state inspectors are visiting 39,000 companies 
that haul hazardous materials that could be used as a weapon. 
And I am happy to report FMCSA has stepped up to the plate and 
completed 95 percent of those visits. That has resulted in 126 
referrals to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    To further secure America from this type of threat, the 
U.S.A. Patriot Act signed into law last year requires 
background checks before issuance or renewal of licenses to 
transport hazardous materials. The rule associated with this 
law is important and needs to be finalized. Ensuring America's 
security is of the utmost importance. We need to take every 
action possible to prevent trucks carrying hazardous materials 
from being used as a weapon. No activity should be given higher 
priority.
    I would be remiss if I did not mention the compromise 
reached on the issue of cross-border trucking in the North 
American Free Trade Agreement.
    Last year's appropriations bill honored our NAFTA 
commitment by allowing the southern border to open to Mexican 
trucks some time this year. It included a number of provisions 
to ensure eligible foreign motor carriers operating in the U.S. 
comply with America's motor carrier regulations, and I 
understand you are in the process of implementing those 
provisions as we speak.
    In fiscal '02, we provided a total of $140 million to 
implement NAFTA, including $54 million within the FMCSA 
account. In fiscal '03, the administration requests a total of 
$116 million to ensure cross-border trucking safety and of this 
amount $69 million is included within your budget. The $24 
million reduction is attributed to one-time costs such as 
scales, training, relocation and the like.
    Mr. Clapp, we are interested in discussing the progress 
made to ensure security and to implement the safety provisions 
in last year's appropriations bill regarding Mexican motor 
carriers, while still maintaining and building on the other 
advances your agency has made over the last two years.
    You have got a lot of challenges before you. As you know, 
it is this Committee's job to perform oversight and we will do 
that diligently. We will measure your agency's performance each 
and every year 5 strict but fair.
    Without objection, we will enter your statement into the 
hearing record, and shortly we would welcome an oral summary of 
your testimony. But first, let me turn to the gentleman from 
Minnesota for any opening comments he would like to make.

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clapp, welcome to 
the Committee.
    As the Chairman indicated, the responsibilities of your 
agency are substantial. If one were to look back a couple of 
years, you had primarily safety responsibilities and now you 
have significant security requirements. You have both the 
initial inspection and the ongoing responsibility to deal with 
the transport of hazardous waste. You have the problem of 
assuring us that the provisions of law as it relates to border 
crossings on our southern border are implemented, and 
implemented safely.
    We also had the requirement that before Mexican trucks 
carrying hazardous waste come into this country, negotiations 
had to occur to assure the same type of inspection of drivers 
as supposed to exist in this country. I am not sure if that is 
your responsibility or at the secretary level. But the 
responsibilities are substantial. The increased money you 
requested is not significant, and I will be listening with 
interest to how we are going to maintain our historic concern 
over safety, and that has always been a major concern of this 
Committee that there was basic safety problems with truck 
traffic in this country and lots of deaths that we hope to 
reduce. We will listen with interest as to how you are going to 
accomplish substantial and significantly increased 
responsibilities with fairly limited resources. So we wish you 
well.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clapp, please proceed.


                            OPENING REMARKS


    Mr. Clapp. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for that warm 
welcome. I do appreciate it, and as you suggested, I will 
submit my written statement for the record and will summarize.
    I do thank you for the opportunity to testify before the 
Subcommittee on behalf of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, (FMCSA). I am pleased to report on our key 
activities and our plans for continued progress.
    Despite an overall increase in highway fatalities, 
fatalities and crashes involving large trucks have declined in 
each of the last two years. We hope that our efforts and those 
of our safety partners in the states and other federal agencies 
will continue to help extend this positive trend.
    The FMCSA has placed a strong emphasis on deploying its 
resources on the front line. This helps us deliver results and 
has provided a real advantage in recent efforts to improve 
security as you have suggested.
    In response to the events of September 11th, our agency 
initiated on-site visits to hazardous materials carriers to 
increase awareness to terrorist threats, identify potential 
vulnerabilities, and to report potentially serious issues to 
the appropriate authorities.
    As you have already noted, over the last four months we 
have completed well over 36,000 contacts, and the remainder 
will be completed very soon. We have made 126 referrals to the 
FBI.
    In the future, compliance reviews of hazardous materials 
carriers will be expanded to include a security component. We 
are also developing a program for periodic visits to carriers 
transporting certain types of explosives, radioactive 
materials, and highly toxic substances.
    The FMCSA has developed outreach material and a training 
course to raise the awareness of law enforcement officers to 
the potential threat that commercial vehicles can pose if they 
are used as a weapon.
    Implementation of the requirements of the U.S.A. Patriot 
Act are an important part of our overall effort to enhance 
security.
    Coordinating with other federal agencies and the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, FMCSA is 
developing procedures for background checks on drivers seeking 
hazardous materials (HAZMAT) endorsements. FMCSA expects to 
issue an interim final rule to implement this process very 
shortly.
    The Department is well underway in implementing actions in 
anticipation of lifting the moratorium on cross-border 
trucking. Rulemakings establishing the application process and 
the strict safety monitoring system for Mexican domiciled motor 
carriers should be issued this month. Carriers applying for 
provisional authority will undergo a safety audit to review 
their safety systems for compliance and knowledge of the 
federal motor carrier safety regulations.
    After those carriers receive provisional authority, their 
safety performance will be monitored through roadside 
inspections of vehicles and drivers, and in addition, all 
performance data related to the carrier will be captured in our 
safety information database.
    In an 18-month period of provisional authority, a 
compliance review must result in a satisfactory rating before 
the carrier can receive permanent authority.
    We are hiring an additional 214 personnel, more than a 25 
percent increase to our overall staff, for the inspection of 
vehicles and drivers and to perform those safety audits and 
compliance reviews on Mexican-domiciled carriers. This will 
bring our total complement of border enforcement staff to 274.
    States are hiring additional border inspectors and 
enhancing their inspection infrastructure at border locations.
    In fiscal year 2003, a total of $116 million is requested 
for southern border safety activities. This includes $61 
million to maintain the fiscal year 2002 safety enforcement 
program levels. Of this amount, $43 million would support 274 
federal enforcement personnel, and $18 million would be 
provided to maintain state inspection operations. An additional 
$8 million for motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) 
grants is requested to support state enforcement personnel at 
the border.
    Under the Federal Highway Administration's Borders and 
Corridors Program, $47 million is requested to fund state 
inspection facilities construction.
    We are requesting $165 million for states to conduct 
compliance reviews, traffic enforcement, roadside inspections, 
CDL oversight activities and state border enforcement efforts. 
In addition, $20 million would support vital motor carrier 
safety information systems and data analysis activities, 
including SAFESTAT, and the Performance and Registration 
Information Systems Management (PRISM) Program. Twenty states 
now receive funds to implement PRISM, up from five states in 
1998.
    Completion of rulemakings is a priority. In addition to 
rules for background checks and the Mexican carrier rules, 
FMCSA will soon complete the new entrant rule which extends the 
safety review process to new U.S. motor carriers, and the 
Uniform Carrier Register, a rule to streamline and update the 
carrier registration process. We also will continue our work on 
the important hours of service rule.
    We will soon finalize rules to implement changes in the 
commercial driver licensing (CDL) program. Seeing that these 
rules are effectively carried out and that greater progress is 
made in improving CDL information exchange will be areas of 
personal emphasis for me. Improved CDL data exchange and 
working with states to reduce vulnerability to fraud yield 
benefits for both commercial vehicle safety and security.
    I look forward to working with this subcommittee and its 
leadership as we seek other ways to make continuous improvement 
at FMCSA. It says here I will be happy to answer any questions 
you may have. [Laughter.]
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    Mr. Rogers. Are you happy about it? Are you happy?
    Mr. Clapp. I'm very happy, and if your questions match my 
answers, we will be in good shape. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we will try our best.
    Mr. Clapp. Okay.

                      SECURITY SENSITIVITY VISITS

    Mr. Rogers. Now, after September 11, your first priority 
became completing the security sensitivity visits (SSVs), and 
you identified some 39,000 companies, those that haul types and 
quantities of materials that could be used as a weapon. I 
understand it also included training schools, truck leasing 
companies, bulk loaders and so forth.
    What did you do? When you contacted those people, what was 
the purpose and what did you ask of them?
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    What we did was somewhat different from what normally 
happens when they see one of our people come in the door. We 
were very careful to communicate that this was a different kind 
of visit. It was not about a compliance review to check up on 
whether they had complied 100 percent with every regulation 
that we have. It was a session to make sure that those folks 
had a heightened sense of awareness of the need for--in this 
day and time--a legitimate--excuse me--a legitimate security 
protocol and plan of action to be in place. We were there to 
review with them alist of considerations and elements.
    Mr. Rogers. What were those considerations?
    Mr. Clapp. Depending on the type of carrier, of course, it 
would be such things as the need to have a plan; the need to 
make sure that all personnel involved are involved in that 
plan; a means of communicating the plan to the people that need 
to carry it out; and training so that people know how to react 
in the event of some kind of unforeseen emergency.
    Mr. Rogers. Was there an effort made to check the 
identities of the people who were on the road?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes there was, Mr. Chairman. We also sat down 
with the carrier and went through their driver rosters. We 
were, of course, looking for anything that might be untoward 
there, and also checking those rosters against, for example, 
the FBI watch list.
    Mr. Rogers. So that has been done at most of these 39,000 
companies?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, sir, it has.
    Mr. Rogers. How many of the 39,000 have you actually 
visited?
    Mr. Clapp. We have conducted over 36,000 at this point.
    Mr. Rogers. And so in those 36,000 at least every driver's 
identity has been checked against the FBI list?
    Mr. Clapp. We have--yes, yes.
    Mr. Rogers. And did that turn up anything?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes sir, it did.
    Mr. Rogers. Can you tell us what it did?
    Mr. Clapp. For security reasons, I cannot tell you. I do 
not actually know the breakdown of the number of cases by 
cause, but I do know that we referred 126 specific reports to 
the FBI when something did not look right, including a few in 
which a name on a watch list may have shown up.
    These could be anything from unexplained disappearances of 
an individual around the time of September 11th, falsification 
of identity, immigration issues, and some cases of 
falsification of the driver's background.
    Mr. Rogers. So you found instances of all of those?
    Mr. Clapp. We did. We also found instances in which 
suspicious questions were asked by the applicants; for example, 
an individual is more interested in what type of HAZMAT that 
you haul than what you are paying and what the working 
conditions might be, or where they will be going.
    Mr. Rogers. When do you expect to have completed all 39,000 
visits?
    Mr. Clapp. I would think that we ought to be through with 
them by the end of this month or early next month.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, the committee had required you to give the 
SSV program high priority. In fact, to report back to us on the 
status of these visits by January 31st past.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. We do not have the report yet, but I understand 
it is in the works?
    Mr. Clapp. I am chagrined to learn that you do not have it 
because we did it, and it is obviously on the way to you. It is 
in review in the Administration at this point.
    Mr. Rogers. Other agencies?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes. And so you should have it very shortly.
    Mr. Rogers. All right.
    Mr. Clapp. Much of what I have in my statement here and the 
exchange that you and I just had constitute what is in the 
report.

                           HOMELAND SECURITY

    Mr. Rogers. Now, how do you fit in with homeland security 
on something like this?
    Mr. Clapp. Well, security, of course, is a DOT-wide matter 
and we have intermodal working groups or task forces within 
DOT. In addition, we are coordinating our information with the 
Transportation Security Agency, and the Deputy Secretary is 
involved on a daily basis with the homeland security people so 
they have the information that we have and he has.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Mr. Clapp. However, the referrals that we made were 
specifically to the FBI.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes. For possible violation of federal law?
    Mr. Clapp. Possible violation or possible suspicious 
activity that needs to be investigated.
    Mr. Rogers. Right. Now, this is consuming, I have to say, a 
lot of your time.
    Mr. Clapp. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. How are you able to also focus on the 
traditional safety activities that the agency normally does?
    Mr. Clapp. Well, that is certainly an appropriate question 
because since September our field staff and many of our 
headquarters staff have been focused on getting these done. You 
obviously do not do almost 40,000 personal visits without 
having your people heavily involved.
    So that was a focus, and to some extent it was naturally at 
the expense of the traditional compliance review activity. 
However, we did continue to do compliance reviews, for example, 
in serving out-of-service notices, doing compliance reviews on 
unsatisfactory carriers, and in following up on complaints. And 
the reality is that, for example, in the last quarter we did 
approximately 800 compliance reviews along with the SSV 
activity. That is about half of what we did in the last quarter 
of last year.
    Mr. Rogers. I will have other questions, but I want to 
share the time with the others.
    Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think the report you are supposed to give to us is also 
supposed to contain recommendations. Will it have any 
recommendations on policy change?
    Mr. Clapp. Let me refresh myself on that point, if I can.
    Mr. Sabo. Well, we will find out when we get it.
    Mr. Clapp. Fine.
    Mr. Sabo. But I think--let me go on to some other 
questions.

                            SECURITY FUNDING

    The budget has no additional funding for security 
activities, but the Patriot Act also, as I understand, requires 
that all new applications for licenses for drivers or renewal, 
I think, have to come through your agency for clearance.
    How are you going to handle that?
    I would assume that is going to require a significant 
amount of staff to do that clearance, and also to fairly 
quickly get back to a company, otherwise you would have a real 
bureaucratic mess.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, Mr. Sabo. The application, of course, is 
for new HAZMAT endorsements.
    Mr. Sabo. Yes.
    Mr. Clapp. Or renewal of a HAZMAT endorsement, so it is not 
all licenses.
    Mr. Sabo. Right.
    Mr. Clapp. It is a subset of all commercial drivers 
licenses.
    Still, it can be a substantial number, and you are correct, 
it will require staff in our agency to do it. Of course, we 
would also be interacting with the Department of Justice to get 
that done.
    Mr. Sabo. Do you have a plan in place as to how you are 
going to handle that?
    Mr. Clapp. We are working on that, of course. We are 
working to get the rule out and to identify exactly how the 
process will work, and we are well along in that process.
    Mr. Sabo. What about personnel?
    Mr. Clapp. We have not hired any additional personnel yet. 
With respect to the funding aspect, it will be necessary for us 
to work within the Department to determine both the applicable 
level of funding and to identify the means by which it will be 
funded.
    The working premise for our modal budgets that you have for 
fiscal year 2003 was that funding for discrete security-related 
activities is supposed to be in TSA. It is not in our modal 
budget.
    Mr. Sabo. Assuming that you will get funding from the 
Secretary's office to handle----
    Mr. Clapp. We will have to work with the Secretary's office 
to provide the appropriate funding mechanism to carry this out; 
yes sir.
    Mr. Sabo. Do we have any requests for that kind of funding?
    Mr. Clapp. It falls within TSA's budget, so I cannot tell 
you.

                      CANADIAN AND MEXICAN DRIVERS

    Mr. Sabo. I am told we have no budget details for TSA.
    What is the progress on implementing the same requirement 
on drivers for both Canadian and Mexican drivers?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes. I have met with Mexican officials on two 
occasions now and similar conversations have taken place 
between my staff and Canadian officials, making them aware of 
the provisions of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, which require 
background checks on drivers applying for new or renewal of 
HAZMAT licenses.
    We have existing memorandums of understanding, of course, 
with both Canada and Mexico, and it is our expectation that we 
will be able to agree on a process and have an exchange of 
letters which will put in place a mechanism for a parallel 
requirement in both of those countries.
    In talking with the Mexican officials, it is not something 
they take lightly. They, indeed, need to ascertain whether some 
legislative activity may be required on their part in order to 
effect it. But they fully understand and appreciate exactly 
what is at stake here. My reading of it, quite honestly, Mr. 
Sabo, is that they understand completely why this is necessary 
and will be cooperative.

                      HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ROUTING

    Mr. Sabo. What about the routing of hazardous materials, 
and particularly some of them, to what degree are you working 
with carriers and state and local communities in trying to 
examine whether there need to be changes in routing?
    Mr. Clapp. Right. Well, of course, that is one of the 
things we talk about when we go to see the HAZMAT carriers with 
respect to routing, but it has also long been the case that 
there are designated routes for hazardous materials throughout 
the country.
    In the case of some of the most exotic sorts of hazardous 
materials, certain radioactive materials and things of that 
nature, (some are actually called highway route-controlled 
quantities), there are armed escort provisions and/or tracking 
provisions.
    I do not know if that was responsive to your question; we 
have discussed it in the course of our visits. We have in place 
a regime for the routing of hazardous materials. That has been 
true for a substantial period, and there are additional routing 
restrictions for a limited number of very high consequence 
types of HAZMATs.
    Mr. Sabo. Do you consider them adequate?
    Mr. Clapp. For the very high consequence materials. Yes, I 
think the restrictions are adequate. However, we are looking at 
that issue right now with respect to whether or not that kind 
of regime needs to be expanded to cover some materials that are 
not presently subject to those types of protocols.
    Mr. Sabo. It would seem to me that, with our experience of 
September 11th, we may want to have a more expansive view of 
what might or might not be appropriate. The norm of ensuring 
that the truck is safe--we now know that we have to be 
concerned about people who may want to turn that truck into a 
weapon which is somewhat different.
    Mr. Clapp. It is a very different proposition, Mr. Sabo. I 
would say the good news is that, in visiting the 36,000 
carriers that we have seen a dramatically different reaction to 
the response that we normally get when we go in on a compliance 
review.
    The carriers have been very receptive to these visits. 
They, of course, already are sensitized, quite honestly, 
because most of them never really thought about the possibility 
of turning their vehicle and their cargo into a weapon of mass 
destruction. That has hit people right between the eyes. They 
are not only responsive, but are doing a lot of work to try to 
secure the transportation system.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, let me turn to the godfather of this 
agency, Chairman Wolf. [Laughter.]

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, 
welcome.
    Mr. Clapp. I am sure he meant that in a positive context.
    Mr. Wolf. I am sure, and I want to welcome you. I read a 
Kansas City Star piece the other day. I do not know if you read 
it. Have you see this material?
    Mr. Clapp. I am sorry, I have not, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. I will send it to you.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you.

                              TRUCK SAFETY

    Mr. Wolf. Things really do not look that great with regard 
to truck safety. I know you have come from a good company and I 
know you are committed to safety, but I think it is really 
important, particularly since youunderstand the industry and 
you are where you are now, to be very aggressive in pushing everything 
possible, because the sole purpose basically of your agency is to deal 
with the truck safety issue.
    And I worry with the trucks now coming in from Mexico that, 
and I hope I am wrong, and I will stipulate if I am that I was 
wrong, we may actually see the death rate increase.
    Can you summarize for us the safety situation? How many 
deaths per day last year versus five years ago? How many deaths 
per month and how many deaths per year? And could you also 
submit for the record the states that are doing the best job, 
and kind of list this in order?
    I know you cannot list that in order for us now, but can 
you kind of talk about how many deaths roughly per day, people 
are dying from truck accidents?
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you, Congressman Wolf.
    The way I characterize it in talking with our people and 
talking with our constituents, is that each week we are losing 
100 a day, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers 
and sisters.
    Mr. Wolf. A week.
    Mr. Clapp. Forgive me. One hundred a week. And our job is 
simply to see that those folks make it home safely for dinner. 
But 100 times a week, if you just take last year's numbers, an 
average of 5,211 people died in crashes involving commercial 
motor vehicles.
    That is down from the year before, which is down from the 
year before that. We have made fractional improvements, 
something under four percent, over those two years.
    However, that is contrary to the overall trend in highway 
fatalities during that period of time, and at the margin. I 
have now been here a few months, and I have looked to see what 
our people have done. I think at the margin our people are 
making a difference, and at the end of the day, this is what we 
are about; not paperwork and regulations. At the end of the 
day, we have got to get into the hearts and minds of people at 
the wheel who make decisions every day and every minute. That 
is what will make a difference in those numbers.
    I am rambling on, and your question was how are we doing. 
Well, we are doing a little better than we did before, but we 
absolutely have to continue and accelerate that rate of 
improvement.
    Mr. Wolf. Well, I would appreciate it if you would commit 
to doing that. There has been a history, unfortunately, of the 
Office of Motor Carriers, when it was in the Federal Highway 
Administration, to have too close a relationship with the 
trucking industry. I think there was an IG report several years 
ago whereby the people at the Federal Highway Administration 
were meeting with the trucking industry to do certain things.
    So I think it is important, and you may be in a unique 
position having an understanding of the industry better than 
anybody to really make a major impact in bringing that down 
dramatically.

                            HOURS-OF-SERVICE

    Secondly, where are we on the hours-of-service? This 
article went into the hours-of-service issue. It literally 
inferred that driver after driver violate these--many times not 
because they want to, and many truck drivers are almost 
captives, independent operators--they have got to be there at a 
certain time, they have got to hang around.
    Where are you on the hours-of-service issue?
    Mr. Clapp. If I may respond to both elements of your 
comment----
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. Because I think it is important.
    I do come from the industry, and I am aware that there was 
considerable criticism of me perhaps as being quote/unquote 
``too close to the industry'' at some point in time.
    Mr. Wolf. That was not asked for that reason.
    Mr. Clapp. I understand that.
    Mr. Wolf. I just meant, in fact, the person who had your 
job in a different capacity was not in the industry.
    Mr. Clapp. I understand.
    Mr. Wolf. They were very close to----
    Mr. Clapp. I understand, and I did not take it that way. I 
really did not.
    I have come to appreciate that what we are doing in this 
agency is regulating at the retail level.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clapp. In the sense that we actually do come face to 
face with thousands of the people that we regulate every day, 
and that is a little bit different from, for example, what 
NHTSA does in terms of safety promotion.
    So I actually view those interchanges that our people have 
more than 10,000 times a year as being a form of outreach. It 
may be a compliance review or an enforcement-related visit, but 
what it really is is an opportunity to make a difference by 
making sure the person--sitting just like you are across from 
me now--who is responsible for that operation, whether it be 
the president of a 20-truck company or the owner of a five-
truck company or the safety director of a 10,000-truck company, 
knows that it is not about driver logs, it is not about the 
driver qualification record, it is not about the vehicle 
condition reports. Those are the tools, those are the tools for 
implementing a safety regime.
    But what makes the difference is having a quality person 
making good decisions behind the wheel at the moment when those 
judgments are going to make a difference between whether 
somebody lives or dies. You have got to understand, at the end 
of the day, what it is all about.
    So, in that sense, I am a very strong believer in outreach, 
and I think you can do it when you are there on a compliance 
visit. I think I can do it from a bully pulpit if I go talk to 
the American Trucking Association, or I go to the National 
Propane Dealers Association, or whomever it is.
    I believe in outreach, but I also believe that we have to 
do those things which we call a compliance program.
    You also questioned me about hours-of-service.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clapp. Shortly after I came on board, the moratorium 
expired with respect to the prior appropriations bill, and our 
staff was able to complete their analysis, and review of the 
more than 50,000 comments that were filed in that rulemaking, 
as well as comments from eight public meetings and three round 
tables.
    So that the issue became ripe for a what's next 
determination. I have made the determination from a process 
standpoint, and since it is an ongoing rulemaking I am not at 
liberty to discuss substance of what I think is going to happen 
in the rule, but we are moving forward----
    Mr. Wolf. Okay.
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. With that rule. There again, at the 
end of the day, what people have got to understand is they must 
use their common sense and they have to be convinced that it 
matters that we have a person at the controls at three o'clock 
in the morning or three o'clock in the afternoon.
    Mr. Wolf. I understand. My time may be expiring fast so I--
--
    Mr. Clapp. I am sorry I used your time.

                           TRUCK INSPECTIONS

    Mr. Wolf. No, that is okay, and I think though, if you read 
the article and talk to some of the truckers they will tell you 
that sometimes they almost want you to inspect because they are 
being forced by circumstances, and so you offer them the 
opportunity to make sure they are safe, and they almost lose 
control over their own destiny because they are being pushed.
    I think you ought to get that out, and I would urge two 
things. One, you ought to make it a priority for your agency to 
work with the governors to have more pull-offs whereby the 
truckers can find places to sleep.
    Trucker after trucker tells me--even in my state--that the 
state police come and bang on the side of the truck, and tell 
them to move on. I mean, if you have been asleep at two o'clock 
in the morning and somebody bangs on your vehicle and tells 
you, get in, start up and go--you are tired, you are not quite 
sure, you know. And so I think, in fairness to the truckers, 
there ought to be a major push to have pull-offs and places 
where they can sleep.
    Well, actually, I would like to invite you, if you could, 
since my district is right here, and I am here just about every 
day, to join me on a truck inspection. We can go out whereby 
you can see what I saw, if they pull the tires and look at the 
logs. You have come from a company obviously that is very well 
run, but I would like to invite you to come out with me some 
time in Fairfax County, or Loudoun County, where we could take 
two hours, just stop the trucks, pull them off, see what they 
have. We want to know who we are stopping, whereby you could 
experience something that I think would make a difference. So 
if you would be open to that, I would like that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. You have turned the 
tables on me. I am the one who is supposed to make those 
invitations, but I will be happy to do that.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chairman Wolf.
    Mr. Olver.

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Clapp, for being with us today.
    I must say I really appreciate the good humor and 
equanimity with which you have come to us today, given the fact 
that you have been in the job only four months, and the job--
well, you knew what the job was changing into very quickly when 
you came.
    But your agency has been in place now a little over two 
years. The reorganization was done somewhat over two years ago, 
and it was supposed to be in effect the first of January of two 
years ago. And as I understand it, the personnel that was there 
came from the old Motor Safety Bureau or the Office of Motor 
Carrier Safety that was there. And you are the first 
administrator.

                      SAFETY AND SECURITY MISSION

    So in fact, you are coming in 21 months after the bill was 
in effect essentially, and with a totally new kind of a role in 
essence, because safety was the crux of why it was created in 
the first place. And then we come in after one month and we 
have just passed or just immediately after that passed the 
Patriot Act, but certainly you knew that it was going to be 
security----
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. Became a major function, and 
putting together any kind of a staff that really is focused 
upon a security arm, I am really impressed that you have been 
able to do 36,000 of the SSVs in that period of time.
    Of course, I have really no idea how comprehensive those 
kinds of reviews are along the way. You have given some results 
of them, no question.
    Let me just ask you, what is your assessment of the 
security needs of the over-the-road bus industry, passenger 
carrying bus industry?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Olver. Can you give me thoughts on that.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you. I will try, Mr. Olver.

                              BUS SECURITY

    I have met on several occasions with members of the over-
the-road bus industry on the subject of security. Oddly enough, 
the CEO of Greyhound Lines happened to be in our office on the 
day their bus was attacked by an individual out in Tennessee 
who attempted to kill the driver and so forth.
    I was not there, but he was there. We have had several 
sessions with those folks since then, talking about security 
issues. And while we have not come to a point of consensus yet 
with respect to what elements should be required, or what 
should constitute the security protocol, in reality, we have 
made a lot of progress.
    There are, as you know, two distinct industry segments when 
you are looking at motor coaches. You have the regular route 
common carrier system, such as Greyhound, who pick up people up 
at terminals and at way points and have passengers who are 
ticketed--that kind of thing. And then you have your very large 
segment that bring the tour people to visit Washington, or to 
go to Atlantic City, or----
    Mr. Olver. Scheduled versus the----
    Mr. Clapp. Correct.
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. Chartered.
    Mr. Clapp. So their needs are a little bit different, but 
there are commonalities with both of them.
    Mr. Olver. Well, I guess I am most interested in, if you 
are actually working on that, since it would be so easy, given 
the focus here, to do essentially everything in relation to the 
truck security and the hazardous materials possibly used as 
weapons and so on, so if you are working on it, in any case 
thinking about it.

                             BORDER OPENING

    The Secretary has indicated that the border is going to be 
open in June. Can you tell me, has the $18 million that we 
appropriated for states to help them with enforcement and 
improvement of the infrastructures along those borders for 
those border states, has that been allocated yet?
    Mr. Clapp. It is in the process of being allocated now. 
Yes, sir.
    Mr. Olver. It is in the process.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Olver. How soon will that allocation get to the states 
involved?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Olver. Has it been allocated?
    Mr. Clapp. It has been allocated.
    Mr. Olver. When was that then?
    Mr. Clapp. Just within the last couple of weeks or so.
    Mr. Olver. In our appropriations bill which, of course, was 
running parallel with the actions that led to your appointment 
in a sense----
    Mr. Clapp. Right.

                       TRUCK WEIGH-IN FACILITIES

    Mr. Olver [continuing]. We appropriated money for truck 
weigh-in-motion facilities at high volume crossings, and I do 
not know, have those high volume crossings been identified, and 
have the truck weigh-in-motion facilities been put in place, or 
have you not had time to do that?
    Mr. Clapp. That obviously takes some time to do, and that 
is going to be the most difficult objective, of course, to 
reach in this whole process.

                           BORDER INSPECTORS

    Mr. Olver. Have the new border inspectors been deployed?
    Mr. Clapp. We have 60 inspectors on the border. We are in 
the process of hiring the additional 214 total personnel, not 
all border inspectors. We have probably got 35 or 40 percent of 
those new people already hired. We are scheduling our first 
training class for border inspectors on the 25th of this month, 
and we have several classes to follow that.
    It will be a real push to get all of these people hired, 
trained, certified, in place, but we will come very close.
    Mr. Olver. Can you do that by June?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Olver. You will do it by June?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    The sites for the inspection stations have been identified 
in all four states. Texas, as you may know, has traditionally 
not had those stations at the border, but they have come up 
with a plan for eight stations, and they will have temporary 
facilities in place at those eight stations by June, probably 
before June. Then they will follow up with construction of 
permanent facilities on those same sites.
    Mr. Olver. My impression is that the budget request for 
your agency actually seems to steer away from these safety-
related infrastructure border things, infrastructure type 
things. Maybe I am wrong.
    Can you speak to that?
    Mr. Clapp. You may be referring to the fact that the fiscal 
year 2002 budget has more dollars in it for infrastructure than 
the fiscal year 2003 budget in that regard.
    Mr. Olver. That is clearly the case.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, we have $68 million in infrastructure for 
these kinds of things in the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget. 
That is toward a three-year total of $162 million for these 
facilities: $68 million in 2002 and $47 million is in our 2003 
budget, and $47 million in the next year.

                      PERMANENT BORDER FACILITIES

    As you have indicated, it will take time to put the 
permanent facilities in place, and that there are one-time 
costs that fall more heavily in fiscal year 2002. And you must 
understand, we also do inspections at the federal facilities. 
In fact, we are doing most of the inspections in Texas at this 
point in time, and in Texas we are located on the Customs 
compounds.
    The 12 sites that have been identified for the states up 
till now will constitute more than 93 percent of the volume of 
traffic across the border.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Ms. Kilpatrick.

                            Opening Remarks

    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning again, Mr. Clapp.
    Mr. Clapp. Good morning.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. It is nice to meet you. Look forward to 
working with you.
    Mr. Clapp. My pleasure.

                           BORDER INSPECTORS

    Ms. Kilpatrick. I want to go back a little bit to what 
Congressman Olver was talking about in terms of the 214 
inspectors as opposed to border police, for lack of a better 
word.
    You mentioned that you hired 60 of them. Is that 60 of the 
214 or 60 on top of the 214?
    Mr. Clapp. Of the 214.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Of the 214.
    You mentioned that the $18 million is already out and 
appropriated to the states.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Did they submit a plan? Are those people on 
the borders now or what exactly----
    Mr. Clapp. No, they are not on the borders yet, but yes, 
that is--that is pursuant to a grant request from the states 
and allocating that money accordingly.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay. You mentioned there were four states. 
What are those four states?
    Mr. Clapp. The four southern border states: California, 
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

                            NORTHERN BORDER

    Ms. Kilpatrick. Which brings me to my State. I am from 
Michigan.
    Mr. Clapp. You set me up for that one, did you not?
    Ms. Kilpatrick. No, I was trying to understand it as well. 
No, long before you sat in that chair I have been concerned 
about this.
    I am from Michigan, and my district borders Canada.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. By the river, the Detroit River separates 
the two countries, as you know. Before September 11th what you 
just--we have been talking about this morning, all attention 
was paid to the southern borders. I think we have to do that 
without a doubt, and continue to do that.
    I now know and many in this committee and the world know 
that we also have to secure our northern borders. Not enough 
attention is being paid to that for many years now.

                         BORDER STAFFING STUDY

    I would ask, and both the Chairman and the Ranking Member 
accepted that in our last appropriations bill we put in a 
request for a report to be done on the analysis of what is 
needed in other borders around the country in addition to the 
southern borders, and the assignment of federal personnel to 
those borders.
    We asked that that report be sent to us by February 1st. 
Are you familiar with it? Is it being worked on? What is the 
status of it?
    Mr. Clapp. Knew I would not get through this unscathed----
    Ms. Kilpatrick. You are doing wonderfully.
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. Congresswoman Kilpatrick. I 
honestly am not aware of that specific report. It may well have 
been done, but I am not specifically aware of it.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay, a gentleman is leaning out. Perhaps 
he can help you.
    Mr. Clapp. He needs to help me with this.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. Oh, all right, I did not recognize the name of 
it.
    Yes, we have done that report, and I knew we did it. I did 
not recognize the name of it.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay. What is it called in-house?
    Mr. Clapp. We are calling it the border staffing study.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. That is a good name.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, right.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay. A good name.
    Mr. Clapp. We have completed it. It is in concurrence, and 
it should be out shortly.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. It should be out shortly.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you very much, and I know you had 
worked on that, I knew you had it. I agree with my colleagues 
here. I like your demeanor. You have come to work with us and 
that is a good sign.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Our northern borders need major attention. 
The President is talking about it. We are a part of the 
country, and more at least and others live in our part of the 
country than any other, so we just want the same attention 
paid. We have--some of our police personnel both county, local 
and federal working on our borders, and we are understaffed, 
and we need to have that risk assessment made, so I look 
forward to working with you.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Clapp. As I mentioned to you, I was in Detroit on 
September the 11th, and trying to make our way back, and the 
only real traffic we had trying to get out of town was the 
bridge traffic.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Yes. It is still abominable.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, sir, for being with us today.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you.
    Mr. Serrano. And as Ms. Kilpatrick said, I also want to 
look forward to working with you.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you.

                             BORDER ISSUES

    Mr. Serrano. Let us stay on the border for awhile. It is 
not a bad place to be actually. But before September 11th when 
Congress spoke about the border, it was usually an immigration 
issue. It was a discussion about who was coming through our 
borders. Now since September 11th, it is still somewhat an 
immigration issue, but it has the issue of safety and security 
of this country.
    Now, you are going to have personnel at the border dealing 
with certain issues, and then INS will more than ever now have 
personnel at the border dealing with many issues.
    Does that complement each other? Do you foresee that that 
could become a problem in having that many folks eventually 
doing different jobs or stepping on each other's toes, perhaps 
doing some of the similar jobs?
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
    I can only respond to that in terms of the limited 
experience that I have had in that respect. I have been to the 
southern border, and you are entirely correct. We have multiple 
agencies typically represented in that compound. It is usually 
a Customs compound, but Customs works in conjunction with the 
INS people, also the Department of Agriculture people, and our 
people as well, the Federal Motor Carriers Safety people are 
all involved.
    From what I have seen it is a collaborative and a 
cooperative effort between the two. Of course, my hat is off to 
the Customs folks and the INS folks, to whom a great portion of 
this burden has fallen. They, of course, are on high alert and 
still faced with the necessity to move commercial traffic with 
some degree of fluidness, if you will.
    But my own experience has been up to this point that this 
is a cooperative effort, and is not one that is creating 
difficulty. Of course, since then, particularly at the Canadian 
border, they have added a substantial National Guard presence 
as well.
    Mr. Serrano. National Guard?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Serrano. Is the FBI also there, to your knowledge?
    Mr. Clapp. I would tell you that but I would have to shoot 
you.
    No, I honestly do not know the answer to that.
    Mr. Serrano. You are not the first administrator to 
threaten to shoot me. [Laughter.]
    You should see me on the other committee. It gets real 
rough over there with the State Department.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Serrano. And the Justice Department. I cannot wait for 
that hearing.
    Okay, so this is a Customs compound, as you called it. Who 
is in charge?
    Mr. Clapp. Customs.
    Mr. Serrano. Customs. Everybody else then is sort----
    Mr. Clapp. We are not reporting to them, but----
    Mr. Serrano. Right.
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. They are usually there on----
    Mr. Serrano. It is their facility, so they are there.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Serrano. Okay. This is important.
    Now, there is also a question as to June of 2002, when the 
border is supposed to be fully open, of making sure that folks 
enter where they are supposed to enter.
    Has that been a problem so far in setting that up?

                            USA PATRIOT ACT

    Mr. Clapp. No, it has not. The U.S.A. PATRIOT Act requires 
that we have an appropriate state or federal inspector on duty 
at all times that the border is open for commercial crossing. 
So that is a requirement that we have to meet, and we will 
meet. We have worked those agreements out with the states as to 
that division of labor.

                              BUS SECURITY

    Mr. Serrano. Let me switch here for a second. I think Mr. 
Olver touched on it, but I want to go deeper, you know.
    We always think of trucks and now since September 11th we 
think of planes. Buses were always seen as something less 
harmful in so many ways.
    Are you getting, you did mention, but are you getting the 
full cooperation from all the carriers that you want? And are 
some areas that you are encountering that perhaps we do not 
know how to deal with use for safety or for--either the luggage 
or so on?
    You know, we have had hearings here where we spoke for 
hours about how we were going to check luggage at airports, but 
what is happening with the situation with the interstate bus?
    Mr. Clapp. Well, you are correct, Congressman Serrano, that 
buses represent a much more open system than the airline 
system, and the typical use of the motor coach system also does 
not function in the same way. You usually do not board that bus 
at a fixed location in many--well, you are at a fixed location, 
but you are not funneled through a security point----
    Mr. Serrano. Right.
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. Before you get on that bus, you are 
not checking the baggage typically, but it is right there.
    The regular route carriers have put in place passenger 
screening operations at the large terminals. They have not got 
100 percent coverage of their terminals at this point in time. 
It is their view they need help to get that done. But the 
reality is that people board not necessarily at a terminal. 
There are 2,500 ticket selling places, for example, where buses 
stop and pick up and discharge passengers.
    Now, it is likely that they come to a terminal facility 
shortly thereafter.
    Mr. Serrano. How many terminals did you say?
    Mr. Clapp. There is maybe 400 what you call terminals, but 
there are 2,500 ticket selling places, and that might be a 
cafe.
    Mr. Serrano. A little bench outside or something.
    Mr. Clapp. Right. Well, not a bench necessarily, but it 
could be just a convenience store.
    Mr. Serrano. Right.
    Mr. Clapp. Or a cafe somewhere out on the road, and you 
know, this system of transportation serves more people than 
Amtrak and all the airlines combined.
    Mr. Serrano. True.
    Mr. Clapp. It is appropriate that be given attention. To 
their credit, the industry is trying to come to grips with it. 
Interestingly, in discussing with them the number one item on 
their agenda, which I do believe we can help them with, is not 
so much physical security apparatus, although there is a lot of 
interest in that, but training for their people----
    Mr. Serrano. Okay, so that----
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. Is their number one item on their--
--
    Mr. Serrano. Actually, that is what you said. They want 
help.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Serrano. This is the help they are asking for?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Serrano. To train their people.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Serrano. All right. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.

                   BACKGROUND CHECKS--USA PATRIOT ACT

    Now, the law, U.S.A. Patriot Act requires background checks 
before new or renewed commercial driver licenses with hazardous 
material endorsements are issued.
    When will you do that rule?
    Mr. Clapp. I expect to sign that rule out of my Agency 
within a matter of days. Then, of course it has to be cleared 
within the Department, but it will be very soon.
    Mr. Rogers. Do the states have a set amount of time in 
which they have to implement those requirements?
    Mr. Clapp. That will--well, let me ask for some help on 
that one.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. We expect that that will be covered in the 
regulation itself. They will need some time to implement this. 
You know, it requires systems changes.
    Mr. Rogers. When do you think they will be fully 
implementing that?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. Our expectation is they will be implemented this 
spring.
    Mr. Rogers. Could not be soon enough.
    Mr. Clapp. Could not be soon enough.
    However, I might add that there should not be any advantage 
to someone hurrying up and getting their license renewal before 
it gets implemented. We will ask the states to supply and we 
expect to get the information about anyone who has gotten a 
license since September the 11th, and the names, which will 
then refer to the FBI.
    You may recall that after September the 11th the FBI asked 
us if we could provide them a list of all holders of HAZMAT 
endorsements. We were able to pull that list together and gave 
it to them. They did check that against their databases.
    Mr. Rogers. So we do not need to worry then about that 
somebody may apply before your rule goes into effect. You are 
going to check them anyway; is that what you are saying?
    Mr. Clapp. Oh, I would never say you do not need to worry, 
but we are going to check them, yes.
    Mr. Rogers. I mean----
    Mr. Clapp. We are going to get those lists and give them to 
the FBI.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes. For all people since 9-11?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Irrespective of when they apply?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Even if they apply before your rule goes into 
effect?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.

                      COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSES

    Mr. Rogers. Now, some of these licenses are available for 
five, six or seven years. In fact, I understand that one state 
issues CDLs for life.
    How are you ensuring that all people with current HAZMAT 
licenses are safe?
    Mr. Clapp. That is a pertinent observation, Mr. Chairman, 
and the rule is going to address that issue.
    Mr. Rogers. All right. Now, the Patriot Act also required 
the states to submit information on each alien to whom a 
license is issued, and on any other individual if required by 
DOT.
    When are you planning on implementing that requirement and 
how will you do that? And how will you use the information 
again?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, that should be all a part of the same rule 
we were talking about.
    Mr. Rogers. The rule.
    Mr. Clapp. Because, for example, a resident alien would 
require the checking of additional databases such as INS.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, our staff was told that the implementation 
of the Patriot Act would cost additional monies.
    Can you tell us where you are with respect to the budget 
request for these additional matters?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated earlier, our 
operating premise in submitting the budget was that items that 
were discretely related to security would not be included in 
our specific modal budget request, but that essentially have to 
be included within the TSA budget.
    So in the meantime we will have a cost to implement the 
Patriot Act. It will be necessary for us to work with the 
department to identify the appropriate funding mechanism to 
take care of the necessary costs on our part for personnel.

                        FRAUD IN THE CDL PROGRAM

    Mr. Rogers. Now, let me quickly deal with fraud in the CDL 
program. The IG has said that fraud is a significant problem in 
the national CDL program, especially in the testing and the 
licensing of drivers. The largest investigation occurred in 
1998 in the State of Illinois and Florida. In fact, criminal 
activity dealing with CDLs has been identified in 15 states 
since 1998, and that could put the nation at risk, put all of 
these programs at risk.
    In the FY02 bill we gave you $15 million for that CDL 
program. Your request of FY03 is $11 million. Can you tell us 
how the monies we gave you specifically to improve the CDL 
program will be used to combat fraud?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, Your Honor. In addition to the $11 million, 
by the way, that is a line item in our budget request, the CDL 
improvements are also eligible for high priority MCSAP funding 
as well. I think we may have allocated as much as $8 million 
last year for that.
    Those monies are used in a variety of ways. For example, to 
provide for electronic transmission of data from one state back 
to the state of record for the driver's license. They are used, 
for example, in New York's current program whereby transmission 
can be made from the police officer literally to the traffic 
court, to the DMV, and on to the home state.
    With respect to the whole matter of the CDL system, since 
the identification of fraud a couple of years by the OIG as a 
major issue, we have done 19 audits of the state CDL programs 
in the past year. I think we did 20 the year before that, and 
maybe 20 the year before that.
    We will review every state every three years. We put 
together a panel of ``experts'' to review what had happened in 
Illinois and Florida, for example. Our people came up with 25 
specific recommendations as to how their systems could be 
improved.

                              CDL TRAINING

    We have put on new training courses for our own personnel 
who are involved in doing the state CDL compliance reviews, 
keeping in mind this is a very different kind of compliance 
review than we do when we go in to see a carrier about hours of 
service and driver qualifications and what have you.
    We also have engaged the services of a contractor to help 
us with the systems aspects of these state CDL audits.

                               CDL SYSTEM

    Having said all of that, I believe rather strongly in the 
whole premise of the commercial driver's license system which 
goes back to the mid-1980s, under which we put in place a new 
system that replaces one in which drivers could have multiple 
licenses in various states over which they could spread 
violations, with a system that says you shall have one license 
from your home state, and any conviction activity that meets 
the criteria of serious offenses which can lead to 
disqualification will be put back on the record in your home 
state.
    So in the whole CDL system, the basic premise is that we 
will identify an individual who is a bad actor, who has chosen 
to operate in such a way, that he or she has demonstrated he 
should not have the privilege of operating with a CDL. That 
whole system has to work from start to finish. I am personally 
not satisfied that it is working as well as it needs to work. 
So we are going to have to put new emphasis on every aspect of 
that whole system.
    There are a number of recommendations specifically with 
respect to fraud. Of course, the typical source of the fraud is 
plain old-fashioned bribery, and that can take place whether it 
is a state employee or a contractor employee. So that means you 
have to devise systems of separation of duties, separations of 
function like you do when you are auditing a business, so that 
you do not have the same person who is able to test the person 
and issue the license, for example--things of that nature.
    There seems to be a significant CDL issue involved with 
language. I mean, after all, why would you go in and try to buy 
a CDL, instead of just taking the test and passing it and 
getting a CDL?
    In some cases, maybe its because the person does not have 
the language skills necessary to pass the test, and so there 
have been fraudulent activities involving the use of 
interpreters, if you will, or taking a test in a foreign 
language. Well, those things can be kind of relatively easily 
dealt with.
    If there is going to be an interpreter, it will be the 
state's interpreter, not the individual's interpreter, and it 
will be taped. Now, this varies by state by state, but that is 
one way of dealing with it. In other cases you just do not 
allow an interpreter, if you will.

                           COMPLIANCE REVIEWS

    But these are a couple of the things. We have developed, by 
the way, a secure web site to track the progress of the state 
compliance review activity. When we do a compliance review and 
we find things that need to be improved, the state is required 
to develop a plan of action and to keep us informed as to their 
progress toward including that.
    We are now putting up a secure web site where we can track 
the compliance of all of that, and there are a number of other 
issues, but I have been too wordy as it is.
    Mr. Rogers. Well----
    Mr. Clapp. But I am sure you will have further discussions 
with the inspector general when he comes on this.
    Mr. Rogers. He is coming this afternoon.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, obviously, from listening to you, it is 
on your mind, and that is good because as I said before if we 
are--if fraud is being utilized to gain access to the driver's 
wheel of potential bombs, we have got a problem. And at this 
point that is being left to the states under your oversight.
    Mr. Clapp. Under our oversight, that is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. But nevertheless the nation could be at risk.
    Mr. Clapp. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. And so I know that is going to continue to 
weigh on your mind.
    Mr. Clapp. It does. It is a matter of personal concern to 
me.

                          BORDER-NAFTA ISSUES

    Mr. Rogers. Now, back to the border, cross-border trucking 
and NAFTA.
    The GAO, in December of last year, was critical. They said 
that DOT does not have a fully developed operational plan in 
place.
    How do you respond to that?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I understand that. The GAO 
report did in fact suggest that. I think to some extent we have 
a timing issue because that report was issued almost concurrent 
with the passage of the Appropriations Act, which spelled out 
certain steps that we had to take in order to implement the 
border opening plan or process.
    The fact of the matter is that we do have a plan. We have a 
process that we are following. We have identified all the steps 
that we have to take. We have identified all the steps that 
anybody has to take in order to meet the requirements of 
Section 350 and to put in place the regime by which Mexican 
motor carriers may apply and be given authority to operate in 
this country and cross the border.
    Several times today we have referenced June 1st. June 1st 
is a target date by which we will have all of this regime in 
place, but the regime requires a number of rulemakings. I have 
commented this morning on the fact those rulemakings require us 
to create some policies. A lot of those have been done. We have 
to have an intergovernmental agreement in place with the states 
and with the Mexican and Canadiangovernments. Most importantly, 
as you all already recognized quickly this morning, we have got a lot 
of people work to do, and getting people in, bilingual by the way, who 
are qualified and then appropriately trained and certified. We have our 
plan laid out for accomplishing that, and we are well on the way of 
doing that.

                           BORDER FACILITIES

    There are facilities issues, not only the state facilities 
that you talked about, but we have to have places for these 
folks to work. We have to have offices for the auditors to work 
from. That is underway.
    We have to put in place procedures in our organization 
because we have a new protocol that is being followed here for 
the first time with these new entrants. Those operational 
procedures had to be developed, put in place, then they have to 
be supported by software. All of that has been done.
    In addition to that, we have hardware requirements as well. 
We are in the process of getting that done. We also have, of 
course, requirements to be accomplished with our states.
    So the GAO may well have been correct in their assessment 
in a literal sense at the time they made that report. But 
today's reality is that we have identified what it is that we 
have to do, who has to do it, and when they have to have to 
have it done. That comes pretty close to being a plan.
    Mr. Rogers. Is that anywhere in a short summarized form 
that could be filed with the record?
    Mr. Clapp. We will be responsive to that request, Mr. 
Chairman; try to give you something that identifies that.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes, the time, the time rates--the time lines.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
                           BORDER INSPECTORS

    Well, as of today the border states have 178 state 
inspectors on or near the border, 60 federal inspectors for a 
total of 238. In our fiscal year 2002 bill, we provided for an 
additional 214 federal border staff for a total of 274 to 
deploy a multi-tiered enforcement program. And then we also 
provided $18 million to encourage states to hire more state 
border inspectors, and the IG is to verify that all federal 
positions have been filled and fully trained. You reported a 
few minutes ago on where you are.
    Let me ask you about the $18 million that we provided to be 
distributed to the states. You have touched on this somewhat 
already, but how will that money be distributed and to whom?
    Mr. Clapp. Oh, how will it be distributed?
    Mr. Rogers. Yes.
    Mr. Clapp. Let me just check myself on that.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. Mr. Chairman, that is--yes, it is allocated in 
accordance with the grant request from the states. That has 
been done, and it goes to the state enforcement agencies.
    Mr. Rogers. Do we--I think you said this went out yesterday 
or so, the money?
    Mr. Clapp. Well, the allocation has been done within the 
last week.
    Mr. Rogers. Do we know who it went to and how much to whom?
    Mr. Clapp. I will get you that information, a breakdown.
    Mr. Rogers. For the record for us?
    [The information follows:]

                        Border Grants to States

    Mr. Rogers. How will the distribution of border grants to 
States breakdown.
    [The information follows:]
    The breakdown on the distribution of border grants to the 
States is as follows: California, $5.3M; Texas, $9.5M; New 
Mexico, $0.4M; and Arizona, $2.7M.

    Mr. Rogers. Now, exactly how many inspectors do you figure 
that $18 million will provide, and how long will it take the 
states to staff up with that money?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. It would be in the range of 150 plus over the 
next seven months, up to maybe 175.
    Mr. Rogers. Is there any evidence or indication that any of 
the border states will request some of that money to pay for or 
supplant border personnel currently paid with state monies? Do 
you follow me?
    Mr. Clapp. I do follow you. If there is any indication of 
that, I am not aware of it. A good deal of this, of course, 
goes to where there has not been a significant state presence 
in the past.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we do not want--the intent of the 
Congress was not to supplant----
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. The way I mentioned.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. So if you find evidence of that, what will you 
do?
    Mr. Clapp. I really do not expect it because we have to 
reach agreement with the states on what the staffing will be as 
between their presence and our presence. So we will be aware 
specifically of the states.
    Mr. Rogers. Okay. Now on facilities----
    Mr. Clapp. Sorry. It is stipulated.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes.
    Mr. Clapp. It is nice to have people who know when you come 
here.
    Mr. Rogers. I know what you mean.
    Mr. Clapp. These are all new hires, so therefore they would 
not be replacing existing staff.
    Mr. Rogers. So these are all new hires?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. The $18 million will be only for new hires?
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. All right, good.

                     NEW TRUCK INSPECTION STATIONS

    Now, tell me exactly, where will these new truck inspection 
stations be located, and who makes that decision?
    [The information follows:]

                     New Truck Inspection Stations

    Mr. Rogers. Where will the new truck inspection stations be 
located?
    [The information follows:]
    The new truck inspection stations are as follows: Otay 
Mesa, California; Calexido, California; Laredo, Texas (2 
stations); El Paso, Texas (2 stations); Brownsville, Texas (2 
stations); Eagle Pass, Texas; Pharr, Texas; Nogales, Arizona; 
San Luis, Arizona; and Santa Teresa, New Mexico.

    Basically the states make the decision, and I will tell you 
where they are in a minute. I thought I was going to tell you 
where they are. Oh, okay.
    The poster child for state inspection stations as I am sure 
you all probably know is the one that has been in existence at 
Otay Mesa in California. There is one at Calexico as well. In 
Arizona, it is San Luis, where there is a new POE under 
construction which will include inspection authorities. I have 
a better list than that somewhere. Oh, maybe I do not.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, if you would like to file that with the 
record.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, I can get that for the record.
    Mr. Rogers. We do not need it this minute.
    Mr. Clapp. What is really relevant that there are eight in 
Texas at major crossings that have not been served with a state 
inspection station in the past.
    Mr. Rogers. So you are going to build facilities at all of 
those?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. But if you will file with the record the places 
where you intend to build.

                            WEIGH-IN-MOTION

    Now, weigh-in-motion (WIM) scales are required by the law 
at five crossings before the border opens and another five 
within a year.
    Where do you stand on this? Where are you with the status 
of those?
    Mr. Clapp. I believe we are already up to the five required 
before the border can open.
    Mr. Rogers. And where are those?
    Mr. Clapp. Let me see if I can remember them. There has 
been one at Otay Mesa, as we mentioned before; Calexico, 
Nogales, and the two new ones are at Eagle Pass and Pharr in 
Texas. We do not expect any difficulty in having the next five 
busiest crossings equipped with WIMs up to the full 10 covered 
by the end of the year.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you know where those additional five will 
be?
    Mr. Clapp. I do not know for certain at this point. I can 
submit it if you would like.
    Mr. Rogers. Submit that for the record if you will.
    Mr. Clapp. Okay.
    [The information follows:]

                         Weigh-in-Motion Scales

    Mr. Rogers. Weigh-in-motion scales are required by law at 
five crossings before the border opens and another five are 
required within a year. What is the status?
    [The information follows:]
    Weigh-in-motion scales are currently in place in Nogales, 
Arizona; Otay Mesa, California; and Bridges of the Americas, El 
Paso, Texas. By April 30, 2002, scales will also be in place at 
Eagle Pass, Texas and at the Columbia Solidarity Bridge, 
Laredo, Texas.
    The remaining five locations will be Calexico, California; 
World Trade Bridge, Laredo, Texas; Yselta Bridge, El Paso, 
Texas; Pharr, Texas; and Veterans Bridge, Brownsville, Texas.

    Mr. Rogers. Has the decision been made on where the other 
five will be?
    Mr. Clapp. That is what I am not certain about.
    Mr. Rogers. All right. We would like to know that.
    What is the most difficult Section 350 requirement to meet 
and why?
    Mr. Clapp. Getting the people in place. People are always a 
major problem in most endeavors. The facilities, of course, are 
also an issue. I spent my life in the motor carrier industry, 
and I have never seen a case yet when you could actually open 
for business in your ultimate facility. Sometimes you have to 
make do when you first open up. But I am encouraged, quite 
honestly, by the facility plans that we see coming to fruition, 
so three years from now we are going to look at lot better than 
what we do now. We will be there and doing the inspections and 
doing them properly when the border is open. We may not have 
the best facility in the world at that point.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                            YOUNGER DRIVERS

    Could you tell me if, on serious accidents or fatal heavy 
truck accidents if the younger drivers 21 through 25 are 
disproportionately represented in that group?
    Mr. Clapp. I do not know that I can give you the specific 
data on that, but that has generally been true: younger drivers 
are overrepresented.
    Mr. Sabo. I understand there is some interest in having 18 
to 20-year-olds drive. Does not the 21 to25-year-olds suggest 
certain caution?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, it does suggest caution. There is no 
question about that.

                                SECURITY

    Mr. Sabo. I am not sure if you have an answer or not, and I 
am not sure what I am looking for in this question. We talk 
about the broad area of security, and that is sort of endless. 
And I suspect our committee and the whole Congress has got a 
lot of sorting out to do, what we mean by that term in terms of 
what we have been about since 9-11. It seems to me what we 
are--what is unique, we are trying to sort out what is unique 
and what is security that relates to potential terrorist 
attacks.
    My observation, everyone in the world that has some 
security concern that may not be particularly related to 
terrorist threat is at the doors wanting money. I expect in the 
name of security you could have a law enforcement official at 
every block, and that is sort of unrelated to what the problem 
is. And I do not particularly want an answer today, but I think 
it is very important for folks like yourself who are involved 
in this to help us sort through what really are priorities and 
what is really the type of security threat that we are trying 
to deal with today, and how serious a potential that something 
is.
    There are limited dollars, and I am afraid we are going to 
spend huge amounts of money for very little gain, and other 
things are going to suffer because of it. So we have got to 
have some sense of how we make priorities.
    You know, I do not know what national guardsmen are doing 
on your borders. My own judgment in the airports, that it was 
purely symbolic, and it served absolutely no security purpose 
that I could ever figure out as I go through airports. I hope 
they are doing something more useful at the borders where they 
are. But I just hope you think about it because I think we need 
help up here thinking through it, because every conceivable 
group in the world is going to ask us to help them with 
security, which in many cases really is not reflected in 
national priorities.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Clapp. It sounds like you are dampening my expectations 
for when I come up here asking for three or four billion 
dollars for security. But I understand what you are saying, and 
I might offer an observation, and that is you could argue that 
we do not necessarily have security authority in my agency. But 
our common sense view of the world is that there is no safety 
without security, and under that rationale, we have done many 
of the things that we are doing with respect to security.
    I expect that some aspect of that will continue when we go 
see carriers on compliance reviews or safety audits. However 
you might characterize the visit. Going forward we will 
incorporate a security element to our regular compliance 
reviews of HAZMAT carriers. While we do have a new 
transportation security agency, I would not expect that that is 
going to change even down the road. There may be other things 
that we do, such as Patriot Act implementation, that probably 
will go to TSA, I would assume, since that is a more logical 
place for it than it is with us.
    But I think I understand the common dilemma we have with 
respect to how do you prioritize, not only what needs to be 
done, but who does it and how do you pay for it.
    Mr. Sabo. Oh, clearly safety is your original and primary--
--
    Mr. Clapp. Surely.
    Mr. Sabo. And on the other hand there is the potential, 
particularly in HAZMAT, that there are potential uses of that 
vehicle that go beyond the safe operating of that piece of 
equipment or somebody disrupting simply, or maybe sabotage for 
some reason the operation of that vehicle. Where you really get 
into the problem is where that vehicle may be operated totally 
safely, but is used in a fashion that can have significant 
impact beyond what happens to that particular vehicle.

                           DRIVER REGULATION

    Mr. Clapp. Oh, certainly, but we have a responsibility for 
regulating how the driver operates, and one of the common sense 
things is, is that when he stops at a rest area he has got to 
secure the vehicle.
    Mr. Sabo. Yes.
    Mr. Clapp. You cannot just go off and leave it unlocked, 
and people have changed the way they do things as a result of 
that.
    Mr. Rogers. I want us to wrap up here reasonably soon 
because of the lunch hour, so we will be brief with our follow-
up questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
    Two things to follow up on what Mr. Rogers and Mr. Sabo 
said. The CDL issue is very important. We had heard two of the 
hijackers got a driver's license in the State of Virginia 
precisely the way that Mr. Rogers stated.
    Mr. Clapp. I am aware of that.
    Mr. Wolf. And also Route 110 in my area is closed, next to 
the Pentagon, for buses and trucks. Last night there was a tow 
truck, apparently, that was pulled over on Route 110. So what 
Mr. Rogers said is very, very important. So I want to double 
that, triple that, and every place is not the Pentagon.
    But the other thing that Mr. Sabo said is exactly right. If 
you look at today's Congressional Digest, it says everyone is 
hiring somebody in town to represent them with regard to 
obtaining more funding for anything that can be construed as 
security.
    I would urge you to consider having a forum or conference 
for a week whereby industry technology people can come in and 
show you what is available now off the shelf that can do the 
job both from say security that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Sabo is 
talking about, but also as they both--you are the office of 
motor carrier safety, but also safety and security. And we have 
asked Mr. Ridge to bring it in the area of INS and FBI because 
everyone is peddling everything, and there are a lot of good 
ideas out there.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Wolf. So that there may be a time in April or May you 
set aside a period where companies can come in and tell you 
what they have with regard to securing the truck, dealing with 
the CDL issue, and other issues, so you get the very best 
technology for security. We want to be educated on 
technological opportunities, but also to guard against what Mr. 
Sabo said.
    Mr. Clapp. Fine.
    Mr. Wolf. But you could do that on a one-time basis and get 
a lot of good ideas, and then spend the money wisely.
    Mr. Clapp. I might mention that in effect that idea has 
been done. Our sister agency, RSPA, went out with a broad 
agency announcement----
    Mr. Wolf. When?
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. Seeking proposals.
    Mr. Wolf. When?
    Mr. Clapp. Oh, two months ago--about six weeks ago. In any 
event, they normally get about 50 responses to one of those. 
They got like 600. They have put together panels to go through 
all of these and distill them down. They have shared them with 
their sister agencies, such as ourselves, but it also comes 
back to the dilemma that Mr. Sabo was talking about. I do not 
actually have money to go out and demonstrate or try some of 
these things.
    Now, we do have in our budget and our research dollars for 
proposals to do some things with respect to security. But the 
RSPA announcement was a great idea, very similar to what you 
just suggested, and things just poured in. So it is nice to 
have the wealth of all of that.
    But I am a little bit limited in actually what I can do 
with it at this point. I can probably beg and borrow some funds 
around the Department to come up with something.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Olver, do you have anything?
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess after all of 
this I am even more impressed by the difficulty of the job that 
you have.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you.
    Mr. Olver. And trying to do what needs to be done to meet 
the deadlines for the southern border in the period of time, I 
would be fascinated to see the list in view of the questions I 
was going to ask and that the Chairman has already asked 
concerning what is left to be done and whether there are 
categories of things with time lines.

                        WEIGH-IN-MOTION DEVICES

    You say you will have 10 in-motion weighing devices in by 
the end of the year.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Olver. Which are mandated.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Olver. But then there are all these other places. How 
many other places are there that will not have the in-motion 
weighing devices but must--but will be crossing places where 
you have got to have an inspector? Do you have an idea how many 
more--other places there are? Are there 100 additional places 
on the southern border? Is it 500?
    Mr. Clapp. There is either--there are either 25 or 27, 
depending on who is doing the counting.
    Mr. Olver. In addition to the 10?
    Mr. Clapp. No, inclusive of the 10.
    Mr. Olver. Oh, so those are the only crossing places?
    Mr. Clapp. That is correct, for commercial motor vehicles. 
However, before we open the border all of them will have a 
static scale in place.
    Mr. Olver. Static.
    Mr. Clapp. Static scale.
    Mr. Olver. Right. And an inspector in place?
    Mr. Clapp. An inspector.
    Mr. Olver. One of your motor vehicle inspectors?
    Mr. Clapp. That is right. As a matter of information, the 
weigh-in motion devices are not actually used for enforcement. 
As you probably know, the states are the ones who do the 
enforcement of weight regulations. In order to issue a citation 
they must do it on a static scale. The weigh-in-motion scales 
are not accurate enough.

                            BORDER SECURITY

    Mr. Olver. Well, that is not quite as bad as I thought it 
was. I thought there were a lot more.
    The other thing that seems to me--after 9-11 we saw a lot 
of people, a lot going back and examining who was coming in, 
they were coming in on the northern border. Nobody was coming 
in on the southern border in relation to 9-11. Most of it had 
been in Washington, Vancouver, or down into New England or New 
York State, all those that we know about related there, or 
almost all. And we have focused on the safety aspect on the 
southern border because we believe that the safety aspect is 
pretty well in shape on the northern border. But if we are 
worried about hazardous materials and people, and it has been a 
sieve on the northern border in terms of persons, then is there 
not some capacity for it to be an equal sale on the security 
issues than on the hazardous material issues?
    I do not know why one should not begin to be worried about 
that northern border on this broader set of issues, and I think 
that that suggests that there must be needs for infrastructure 
and personnel and so forth, and I do not see that in the budget 
document as of yet.
    Mr. Clapp. Right. Let me try to respond in this way if I 
can.
    It is probably due to the fact that we have had two-way 
crossing up in the northern border for quite a long time, 
whereas that has not been the case with respect to Mexico until 
now.
    With regard to the security aspects of the nature of the 
cargo and of the individual who is coming across, in this case 
that is a discrete obligation of the Customs folks and of 
course they are there in force. We do not actually have a 
security role in that respect at either of the borders.
    The National Guard that I mentioned awhile ago, they are 
deployed in relatively significant numbers on the northern 
border. Instead of standing around like you see in the 
airports, they are actually, from what I have been told, (and I 
am out of my league now), is they are actually assisting with 
the inspections on those vehicles as they come across for 
contraband cargo, that sort of thing.
    In addition, for example, the busiest crossing is that in 
Detroit. We mentioned earlier that there is an inspection 
facility not right at the border but just west of the border 
where safety inspections do take place, so that we just had an 
established infrastructure and an established routine for a 
longer time on the northern border.

                               CONCLUSION

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clapp, we thank you for your testimony here 
today, and the attendance of you and your staff. We will do all 
we can to help you achieve your goals because they are our 
goals, and we wish you the best of luck in your chores. You 
have got a heavy job ahead of you here. I think you are making 
a good headway and we look forward to working with you.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you. I have got some awfully good people 
as you can tell to get it done. I want to personally express my 
thanks to you and to this Committee for the help that you have 
in fact given us to allow us to have a shot at getting it done. 
I am personally appreciative of that.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
                                       Thursday, February 28, 2002.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                                WITNESS

MARY E. PETERS, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
    Mr. Rogers. The committee will be in order. Good morning to 
everyone. This morning we welcome Mary Peters, the Federal 
Highway Administrator, and thank her for her appearance here 
today. Ms. Peters, your job has been challenging from the very 
beginning. You have taken the helm of the ship in a very 
difficult storm. For the first time in years instead of 
announcing a large increase in the highway program for 2003, 
your agency is announcing a reduction, a big one. It is not 
minor. It affects several important highway-related programs in 
every state in the country. And while many have been critical 
of your budget request, it is clear that you followed current 
highway law, TEA-21, just as the authorizing committees wrote 
it. We wish you well in your new position during these very 
challenging times.

                        FY 2003 BUDGET REQUESTS

    Your budget requests a total obligation limitation of $23.2 
billion. This funding level represents a reduction of $4.4 
billion, 16 percent from the TEA-21 base level. This, I 
understand, is solely based on a mechanism spelled out in TEA-
21 called a revenue aligned budget authority, RABA, which 
requires highway funding to rise and fall based on trust fund 
receipts. And because those trust fund receipts are lower than 
anticipated, RABA results in a negative adjustment of $4.4 
billion. And when compared against the positive $4.5 billion 
RABA adjustment for the current year, the result is a reduction 
of $8.6 billion, or a 27 percent decrease from the 2002 level.
    Though you have simply followed the law, I am confident 
that none of us here wish to trivialize the impact that the 
reductions caused by TEA-21 will have on states next year and 
beyond. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is slated to receive $70 
million less than the level assumed in TEA-21 and $122 million 
less than it will receive this year. Transportation, obviously, 
is critical to a largely rural state like mine and like so many 
others. Many states are facing their own budget shortfalls, 
meaning that it will be extremely difficult for states to make 
up this loss in Federal funds.

                    REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY

    Just as we warned when TEA-21 was being debated, RABA is a 
double-edged sword. When the economy was expanding and RABA was 
positive, RABA was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But 
now that RABA is negative, supporters are opposing the very law 
that they so loudly advocated. It has become exceedingly clear 
that to some RABA is acceptable only when it results in 
increased spending. TEA-21 tied the hands of Congress by 
putting highway spending on automatic pilot, cruise control. 
But I believe we have learned a good lesson: Cruise control 
should not be used in bad terrain and stormy weather. You have 
got to go back to manually controlling the process. The highway 
program needs an annual review, just like every other program, 
and I hope we will learn from the mistakes of the past as we 
attempt to deal with their consequences.

                       ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING

    Another challenge facing your agency is the implementation 
of the environmental streamlining provisions contained in TEA-
21. 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 of projects. We 
have all heard the horror stories about critical projects put 
on hold while they jump through bureaucratic hoop after hoop. 
Delays are rampant, especially during the environmental phases. 
This agency has made some measurable progress, but it can still 
take an average of over five years just to maneuver around the 
environmental review process. We want to hear from you on the 
status of this very important mission in this provision, what 
you have done to date and what we can expect from you in the 
future.

                           PROGRAM OVERSIGHT

    Program oversight and management; another area that I have 
been concerned about for some time. Both the IG and the GAO 
have been critical of this agency's work in this area. The IG 
has stated that it has seen some improvement but has continuing 
concerns with FHWA's willingness to fulfill their 
responsibility as steward of Federal highway funding. Ms. 
Peters, I hope the IG is wrong. I hope you tell me today how 
you are responding to specific recommendations by the IG, the 
GAO, and others pertaining to management and use of these 
resources. I intend to hold FHWA accountable. It is your 
fiduciary responsibility to oversee Federal funding. No program 
can be successful without good oversight.
    Ms. Peters, I believe you have the right background for 
this job. We have had the pleasure of meeting with you in our 
office. Your experience and your perspective as a state 
transportation leader promises valuable insights on these 
issues as well as command of what will practically work out 
there in the field. I am confident that you can take whatever 
actions are necessary to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars are 
managed and spent efficiently and effectively. And we will be 
right here to remind you how important these issues are to the 
subcommittee and ultimately the taxpayers. And we look forward 
to working with you, and we congratulate you on your elevation 
to this high place and look forward to a good relationship. Let 
me yield to Mr. Sabo.

                         OBLIGATION LIMITATION

    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Ms. Peters, welcome 
to the committee. Every year that we get a budget from the 
executive branch, regardless of party, we always find there are 
certain things that are excluded, and we suspect they are 
excluded because the administration knows that Congress will do 
them. They are generally small. They may be large in 
significance, but the budget impact of them is relatively 
small.
    This year, in the budget as it impacts this 
subcommittee,those exclusions are major. We have major funding problems 
for the security program as it relates to transportation. We have a 
place holder for Amtrak which will involve millions of additional 
dollars, and we have the administration's budget which follows TEA-21 
but results in a significant reduction in the highway limitation. We 
understand it follows law, but we also find through executive budgets 
that there are always recommendations for a change in law which 
sometimes we can accommodate, sometimes we cannot, and sometimes the 
change is dependent on an authorizing action.
    My question is: does the administration consider it good 
policy to reduce the highway limitation by over $4 billion from 
what was assumed in TEA-21, or over $8 billion from last year. 
We need to know whether you think that is good policy or 
whether it is simply an administrative act of following 
existing authorizing language. I expect before the year is over 
that Congress will try desperately to find the money somehow to 
increase that obligation limit, and we need to know whether you 
think that is good policy.
    So I wish you well. You have important obligations, and we 
look forward to hearing from you.
    Mr. Rogers. We would like to hear from you on your 
testimony. We will make your written testimony a part of the 
record, and feel free to summarize it for us.
    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will summarize. 
Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today in 
support of the president's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal. I 
do look forward to working with this subcommittee and Congress 
to achieve the goals that we have outlined in our 2003 budget 
request, and as you said, I will submit a more detailed 
statement for the record.

                              INTRODUCTION

    You all know this, but it is important to state: Highways 
are the critical links in our nation's multimodal surface 
transportation system, and our collective challenge is to 
maintain our high-quality network while increasing safety, 
improving mobility, and promoting environmentally responsible 
project decisions, and, of course, efficient program delivery. 
Our ability to accomplish these objectives is related to the 
adequacy and the availability of transportation funds. TEA-21 
provided a mechanism for ensuring revenues in the trust fund 
are spent, and that the funding level for the highway program 
is aligned with trust fund receipts. And as you said, Mr. 
Chairman, over the past three years the revenue aligned budget 
authority, or RABA, has provided more than $9 billion in 
additional highway funding, funding that is now working in the 
economy.

                         FY 2003 FUNDING LEVELS

    Due to the recent economic slowdown and current projections 
of future highway trust fund receipts, a downward adjustment of 
the highway program occurred when the highway spending was 
aligned with revenues in the highway trust fund for 2003. It is 
a calculation, as you indicated, based in law, not a proposal 
by the administration to reduce highway funding. The $24.1 
billion funding level for highways that is proposed in the 
president's budget reflects the funding level enacted in TEA-21 
as adjusted for the latest highway trust fund revenue figures. 
Even with the negative calculation in 2003, over the life of 
TEA-21, RABA will have provided a net gain of almost $4.7 
billion in highway funding. But as we look at reauthorization, 
we do need to smooth out these highs and lows. We do need to 
evaluate the unintended consequences that you mentioned 
earlier, Mr. Chairman.
    The 2003 reduction can serve as a wakeup call for all of 
us. Current trends in fuel use, as well as technological 
advances such as fuel cell technology, will require us to 
consider new sources of revenue and leveraged funding if we are 
going to have sufficient funds for our highway system in the 
future. Reauthorization gives us the opportunity to have that 
important discussion.
    The Federal Highway Administration budget emphasizes four 
priority areas: safety, mobility, environmental stewardship and 
streamlining, and oversight and accountability. Safety remains 
a critical priority and among our greatest challenges. Our core 
construction programs contribute both to safety and mobility by 
improving roadway design, system condition and capacity, and 
eliminating hazards. We can also improve the overall operation 
of the system. Significant progress has been made in the 
deployment of intelligent transportation systems, and we need 
to focus that deployment not only in rural areas but urban 
areas as well.
    The 2003 budget provides almost $360 million for research 
and technology funding that will support innovations in safety, 
system preservation, and congestion mitigation, including the 
expanded deployment of ITS. Continued progress in streamlining 
the delivery of transportation improvements will also improve 
safety and congestion. We must, at the same time, of course, 
remain respectful stewards of the environment. However, meeting 
our nation's mobility needs and environmental stewardship are 
not mutually exclusive goals.
    I am happy to report some progress. The median time it 
takes to do an environmental impact statement and get to a 
record of decision has been cut by an entire year. While this 
is an excellent start, much more needs to be done. Our budget 
proposes $6 million in additional funding for streamlining 
efforts.
    We will continue to improve federal oversight and 
accountability to ensure, as Secretary Mineta has said, that 
the public gets what it pays for. We do owe the public a good 
return on the investment of transportation funds that they 
entrust us with. I very much recognize that this is the 
public's money, not our money, and we are responsible to you 
and to the public.
    We must keep our infrastructure secure and strengthen our 
commitment to reducing highway injuries and fatalities, even as 
we obtain additional capacity from the system. By working 
together we can provide the American people with a safe, 
efficient, affordable, and reliable transportation system.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will conclude 
my remarks. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
    [Clarification for the record follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
            NEGATIVE REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY (RABA)

    Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you for your testimony. Ms. Peters, 
because vehicle miles traveled have remained relatively stable, 
many people conclude that gas consumption and the revenues into 
the trust fund must also be stable. And they further conclude 
that it is impossible that RABA, therefore, could be negative. 
Respond to that and tell us why RABA is negative.
    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think you make 
an excellent point. I have heard this from many people. Vehicle 
miles traveled is not down substantially; therefore, why is 
this calculation negative? And the simple truth is that we are 
seeing an increasing use of ethanol. In fact, during this 
reporting period ethanol use increased by 28 percent. And 
overall ethanol use has been about 12 percent of gasoline-based 
fuel in the Year 2000, but there was a substantial increase in 
the use of ethanol during this period.

             IMPACTS OF SHIFTING FROM GASOLINE FOR GASOHOL

    Mr. Rogers. And what is that impact on the trust fund?
    Ms. Peters. The impact on the trust fund is basically that 
for every billion dollars of gasohol sold in place of gasoline, 
the highway trust fund receipts are approximately $75 million 
lower.
    Mr. Rogers. Why is that?
    Ms. Peters. It is because gasohol is taxed at a different 
rate. The highway trust fund receives 15.44 cents per 
gallonfrom gasoline and approximately eight cents per gallon from 
gasohol.
    Mr. Rogers. How much can you attribute that shift from 
gasoline to gasohol, how much of that shift can be attributed 
as a dollar figure and as a percentage?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, as a percentage, and I will start 
with the first one, two-thirds of the negative effect that we 
are seeing on the highway trust fund for 2001 is due to the 
displacement of gasoline for gasohol. So if we look at it in 
round numbers, of the $4.6 billion, nearly $3 billion is 
associated with that reduction.
    [The information follows:]

    Issue: What changes should be made to TEA-21 to avoid big 
swings in RABA in the future.
    The Federal Highway Administration is examining a variety 
of potential changes that could be made to the current RABAS 
mechanism to avoid large year-to-year adjustments in the 
future. Among the possibilities would be to eliminate the look-
ahead feature of RABA, to set a ceiling and/or floor on annual 
adjustments, or to prorate adjustments over several years. We 
have not finished assessing the various options and cannot 
recommend specific changes that should be made at this time. In 
evaluating the various options, important considerations are 
the extent to which they fully utilize anticipated revenues for 
the year and their ability to minimize annual adjustment 
factors under different circumstances.

                  RESULTS OF NEGATIVE RABA ADJUSTMENT

    Mr. Rogers. In your opinion, does the mechanics of the RABA 
calculation magnify and result in dramatic swings when there 
are changes in the direction of total trust fund receipts? [See 
clarification provided for the record on page 14A.]
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, yes, it does. Because of the way 
that it is currently calculated, you have, if you will, a 
double-negative because you have a negative adjustment based on 
reconciling prior estimates to current estimates when those 
estimates have not come in as high as was forecast earlier. And 
then, of course, in the current period you have the effect of 
looking forward and some of these effects on the trust fund 
continue into the future.
    One of the other major effects was the truck sales issue. 
Tax receipts from Truck sales were down a little over 45 
percent, but that will not be as dramatic, we think, in the 
future as it is right now. It is more a point-in-time than a 
point-over-time indicator. But as you said, you both have to 
reconcile prior estimates to current figures, and you have a 
look forward that impacts negatively as well. You have, in 
effect, a double-negative, and that is what has resulted in 
this calculation.

             REVENUES CONTRIBUTE TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUNDS

    Mr. Rogers. What percent of the reduction is due to the 
result of the lower truck sales?
    Ms. Peters. Let me consult with someone so that I do not 
misspeak here, but I believe it is just under a third. Mr. 
Chairman, let me get back with you on that to make sure that we 
give you an accurate answer.
    Mr. Rogers. You think it is roughly a third, though.
    Ms. Peters. I am guessing. Let me talk a little bit more 
about a couple of other figures here that might help us get it 
in place. When you look at the composing increments that go 
into the highway trust fund, those revenue increments that 
support the highway trust fund, gasoline, gasohol, diesel, and 
other fuels, retail tax on trucks, highway-type tires, and 
heavy vehicle use tax, again, the two that we look at as the 
major indicators here that affected the calculation were the 28 
percent increase in the use of gasohol displacing gasoline that 
I spoke to earlier and the 45 percent decrease in receipts from 
the retail tax on trucks. The other increments of the fund did 
not swing as much. There was a decrease in highway-type tires 
and a decrease in heavy vehicle use tax as well, but not to the 
magnitude that we saw in the other indicators. [See 
clarification provided for the record on page 73a]
    Mr. Rogers. Well, now, you are saying gasohol increased 28 
percent. Right?
    Ms. Peters. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. In one year.
    Ms. Peters. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. How come?
    Ms. Peters. That happened, sir, because a number of states 
have outlawed the use of MBTEs. For example, when I was the 
transportation director in Arizona, our neighboring state, 
California, had implemented some laws that affected the use of 
gasohol versus gasoline, and we were seeing a much more 
significant level of sales in gasohol than gasoline. Gasohol is 
often used as a measure to help improve air quality, and as 
states and local governments are looking more and more for 
efforts and for things that will help them improve air quality 
and meet air quality mandates, I think we will continue to see 
increasing sales of gasohol.

                  RABA AFFECTED BY ALTERNATIVE FUELING

    Mr. Rogers. So there will be continuing pressure on the 
RABA, then.
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, as the RABA calculation sits 
today, it will be increasingly affected by increased use of 
gasohol.
    Mr. Rogers. Should we think about increasing the tax on 
ethanol--I mean, gasohol?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that I would want 
to take a position on that, but I certainly think we have to 
look at the effect on the highway trust fund of use of 
alternative fuels and of alternative fueling methods such as 
the fuel cells.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we are going to start using more and more 
fuel cells and alternatives to gasoline, are we not?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I believe we will.
    Mr. Rogers. So aren't we going to have to rethink how we 
raise money to build roads?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, most definitely.
    Mr. Rogers. How would you do that?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I think there are a number of 
ways that we can do that. Some methods would be more like a tax 
on miles traveled, although I came from a state that at one 
point in time had a ton-mile tax, and it was later repealed by 
the state legislature, so I know there are many difficulties 
with that type of taxing method.
    What I would suggest, and what I have suggested to the 
Secretary and my counterparts at the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, is that we look very substantively at what 
those alternatives might be within the context of the 
nextauthorization act and come to you with a recommendation that we 
could jointly develop during that period of time.

                NEGATIVE RABA IMPACTS ON STATE PROGRAMS

    Mr. Rogers. Compared to the underlying TEA-21 authorization 
for Fiscal 2003, the negative RABA results in a 16 percent 
reduction in obligation limitation. That in turn will reduce 
the amounts each state receives in formula funds by 13 to 17 
and a half percent. You come from a state DOT. Tell me what 
kind of impact this will have on state transportation programs. 
You are welcome to give examples if you have them.
    Ms. Peters. I will, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. I cannot 
say that it will not have an effect on the program. The effect 
will be somewhat delayed, in that highway programs spend out 
rather slowly. For example, on capital outlay, in the first 
year when a project has been obligated, approximately 27 
percent of that amount is spent out; in the second year, 41 
percent; 16 percent in the third year, and 10 percent in the 
fourth year, et cetera. So it is a rather slow spend out rate.
    Perhaps the best way for me to frame this, Mr. Chairman, is 
to say, if I were sitting in the job that I sat in a year ago 
today, what would I do? I would not cancel contracts 
immediately because I would know that I had the basis to pay 
for the contracts in the short term. But what I would do is 
look at future programs. I would probably scale back the out 
years of my program. A program, for example, that could have 
been completed in five years might have to get stretched out to 
six or seven years. Transportation projects that we were 
planning in the out years would not happen as quickly as we had 
anticipated.
    The real important thing for state DOT directors and local 
governments in programming transportation projects is some 
reasonable surety of transportation funding over time. And 
because of the effects of what we are seeing today and 
reauthorization coming up in the next year, I think the best we 
can all do is find a way within the context of reauthorization 
to have reasonable assuredness of what a funding level is going 
to be. States then can react to that. They can use innovative 
financing methods. They can use bonding programs and a variety 
of other things, but all of that, of course, is predicated on 
knowing with some amount of reasonable assuredness what that 
funding is going to be.

                   CURRENT METHOD OF CALCULATING RABA

    Mr. Rogers. Well, I hear you saying that the RABA funds are 
likely to decrease or be negative from here on for a while.
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, under the current method, if RABA 
were to be calculated for 2004, I think we would not see a 
positive number, that is accurate.
    Mr. Rogers. What about the next year?
    Ms. Peters. Again, under the current method of calculation, 
I do not believe that it would be positive for a while. The 
economy is showing signs of improving, so some of the other 
indicators that I mentioned may turn back and be more positive. 
But according to discussions that I have had with OMB, they 
look for gasohol sales, which are now about 12 percent of all 
gasoline sales, to be more like 20 percent within the next 
decade.

               NEGATIVE RABA ATTRIBUTABLE TO SLOW ECONOMY

    Mr. Rogers. Well, how much impact on the RABA reduction was 
caused by a slower economy?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that. I could 
hazard a guess to that. Again, I know that two-thirds of it was 
related to the issue of the displacement of gasoline with 
gasohol. That is not necessarily due to the economy. I suspect 
that the truck sale issue and some of the other indicators that 
I mentioned are more attributable to fluctuations in the 
economy than is this indicator [see clarification provided for 
the record on page 73a]
    Mr. Rogers. But that was around a third, give or take----
    Ms. Peters. Correct.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Of the problem--right?--the truck 
sales.
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, the gasoline versus gasohol was 
two-thirds. I am estimating that the truck sales contributed to 
the other third, probably to a rather substantial extent [see 
clarification provided for the record on page 73a].
    Mr. Rogers. So if the economy comes back around, we are not 
going to see, therefore, much of an improvement in the RABA 
monies, are we?
    Ms. Peters. We will not see a substantial improvement, no, 
sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Because of the gasohol displacement.
    Ms. Peters. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. So until the Congress readdresses how the trust 
fund is made up, where its monies come from, we are going to 
see a declining RABA for years to come. Right?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, unless the methodology is 
adjusted to prevent these wide swings, I would say that we will 
continue to see negative calculations.

            PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS RESULTED FROM NEGATIVE RABA

    Mr. Rogers. And now you are back there at home as state DOT 
Secretary, and you see declining RABAs out there in the out 
years and no promise out of the Congress on what they are going 
to do about it. How do you now adjust your program?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I now will go to a 
specific example. One of the things that we were able to do in 
Arizona before I left was take a regional freeway system that 
had been contemplated to be completed in 2012, the final years 
of that in 2012 to 2014, and shave seven years off of that 
schedule so we had a completion in 2007. And staff there are 
very much on track to deliver that or certainly have been. If 
the trends, as you describe them, would continue, that simply 
will not happen by 2007. I suspect that that completion date 
would get stretched out more along the lines of what we were 
dealing with earlier, more in the lines of 2012 or on out. That 
is the kind of effect that it would have.
    While we try to talk about the slow payout rate, we are not 
going to fall off the end of the earth this summer. But as you 
said, if these trends continue, projects will have to be 
delayed over time.

              OUTLAY REDUCTION RESULTED FROM NEGATIVE RABA

    Mr. Rogers. Let me close this part with this. You mentioned 
earlier that the outlay rate per year is reasonably low. Can 
you tell us in dollar figures what the RABA reduction will mean 
in terms of outlays during the coming year? How many dollars 
reduction in outlays will the RABA reduction amount to?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, we are estimating it is about 
three percent, or about $500 million, in the first year, in 
2003.
    Mr. Rogers. That is the reduction in the outlay of dollars 
that we would have in Fiscal 2003.
    Ms. Peters. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, and I cangive 
you the base data that I have used to calculate that as soon as I get 
my fingers on the right paper here.
    For Fiscal Year 2002 we anticipate outlays of $29.2 
billion. For Fiscal Year 2003, again based on that slow payout 
curve that I spoke to earlier, $28.7 billion. So if I have done 
my math correctly, a $500 million reduction in 2003.
    Mr. Rogers. So, we bandied about that the guaranteed level 
of highway funding. In 2003 that level would be reduced by $4.4 
billion. That does not mean that the outlays that we lay out to 
states will be reduced by that figure, does it?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, no. Because the program does work 
on an obligation basis, once authority has been given to fund a 
project with federal funding, they are guaranteed, if you will, 
payment for that project over a period of time. But again, the 
amount that they have available to program will be reduced by 
the amount you spoke to.
    Mr. Rogers. So the RABA reduction for 2003 in terms of real 
dollars available to states will be reduced only by about $500 
million.
    [The information follows:]

    Issue: Provide documentation of the calculation of the 
reduction in outlays in 2003 resulting from negative RABA.
    Estimated outlays for obligations of Federal-aid Highway 
(FAH) programs are predicted using a payout curve that reflects 
average spend-out rates over nine years. On average, when funds 
are obligated for a project, 27 percent is expended in the year 
that the obligation takes place, 41 percent the next year, 6 
percent in the third fiscal year, 5 percent in the fourth 
fiscal year, etc.
    A comparison of total FAH estimated outlays in FY 2003 
associated with obligations of funds subject to the obligation 
limitation, plus exempts, to FY 2002 estimated outlays, yields 
a reduction of only about 1.26 percent. This is because most of 
the outlays occurring in FY 2003 will be the result of 
obligations made in FY 2002, when the FAH was significantly 
increased over authorized levels. Total outlays also include 
estimates associated with prior-year obligations that are 
projected to be spent out at a much lower rate starting the 
fourth year of the nine-year cycle.
    Comparing the overall FHWA programs, including expected 
levels of outlays from the FAH account and other miscellaneous 
programs or projects funded from the HTF or from the General 
Fund, usually through annual budget authority, yields about a 2 
percent reduction from the FY 2002 level. The following chart 
illustrates the percent change in outlay estimates from FY 2002 
to FY 2003.

                                         COMPARISON OF OUTLAY ESTIMATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Percent
                                                                FY 2002      FY 2003       Change       change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAH.........................................................       28,228       27,872        (356)        -1.26
Other HTF...................................................          491          415         (76)       -15.46
Other GF....................................................          520          377        (143)       -27.50
Overall.....................................................       29,238       28,664        (575)        -1.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, that is the calculation that we 
have made, yes.

                  SPEND OUT RATES FOR HIGHWAY PROGRAMS

    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am curious about that 
number. My understanding is that the spend out rate for the 
highway program obligation limit by OMB and CBO is about 27 
percent.
    Ms. Peters. That is accurate, but because projects are 
staggered, meaning that some projects started this year, some 
started last year, some started the year before that, on 
aggregate we are looking at a three percent reduction.
    Mr. Sabo. If the spend out rate is 27 percent, that is 
assuming that 27 percent of whatever additional dollars we 
obligate would be spent in Fiscal Year 2003, and if we were to 
increase the obligation limit by $4.4 million, our outlay 
scoring would be 27 percent of 4.4, a little over a billion 
dollars. If we were to restore the whole amount, it would be 27 
percent of 8.6, or somewhat over $2 billion that we assume 
would be spent in 2003. I think the variations you have are 
caused somewhat by the reduction. That is dependent on outflow 
from other years. If you are right, you would simplify our 
process in this budget for restoring the full amount because if 
it were five percent to restore $4.4 billion, it would only 
cost us a little over $200 million in outlay budget. That, I 
think, is wrong.
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Sabo, please let 
me not misspeak. Because we had a very high level of 
obligations in 2002, that is carrying over to 2003.
    Mr. Sabo. Yes.
    Ms. Peters. In 2002 we had the $4.5 billion positive RABA, 
so that is what is causing that carry-over effect, if you will.

                      IMPACTS ON OUTLAY REDUCTION

    Mr. Sabo. But the impact of the 4.4 reduction is an actual 
impact in outlays in 2003 of over a billion dollars. Am I not 
correct in that calculation?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, it certainly does affect the 
abilities of a state to obligate projects by that amount, yes.
    Mr. Sabo. No. That would be actual dollars assumed to be 
spent in 2003.
    Ms. Peters. Well, again, for example, 41 percent of the 
2002 obligations will be outlays in 2003, so it is a sliding 
basis.
    Mr. Sabo. I understand, but the impact of the reduction is 
over a billion dollars. To go down by $4.4 billion and to go 
down by $8.6 billion is over $2 billion of actual expenditures 
in 2003, if I am not mistaken.
    Ms. Peters. I do not believe you are mistaken, sir. 
Projects do obligate at different points in time during the 
year.
    Mr. Sabo. Right. I am curious when the department became 
aware that there was going to be a shortfall.
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Sabo. Last year, we were looking at significantly 
increased RABA accounts, and I forget who I had asked, but I 
regularly would ask what is happening with these revenues. I 
kept being told that they seemed to be in-line. All of a 
sudden, we have this dramatic change.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Sabo, we knew as soon as the mid-
term projections were out last summer that it was not likely to 
be a positive figure. The figures that were released by OMB, 
the budget office, at about that time indicated that it would 
not be positive. That was the first discussion I had, shortly 
after my nomination while I was still consulting with the 
department, that we were getting indications that it would not 
be positive. Then through the Fall, and especially by December, 
it was no longer ``it may not be positive, and it likely will 
be negative.'' ``It will be negative'' was the type of 
discussions we had at that time.

                      HIGHWAY TRUST FUND HEAD ROOM

    Mr. Sabo. Explain to me how the surplus in the highway 
trust fund works. We are told that there is an $18 to $20 
billion surplus currently in the highway part of the 
transportation trust fund. Some of that is obligated, and some 
is not, and there are always discussions of surplus in the 
fund, and I am never quite sure what numbers are accurate.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Sabo, you are accurate to say that 
it is not necessarily a surplus because, as youindicated, it 
does stay there to pay obligations that have been made in prior years. 
At the end of 2001 the trust fund balance overall was $27.7 billion. 
The highway account of the trust fund contained approximately $20.4 
billion, transit at about $7.4 billion. But as you indicated, it is not 
necessarily a surplus because it does exist to pay obligations that 
were made in prior years.
    Let me maybe go to some figures here. If we use the latest 
projections of income into the highway trust fund reported by 
the Department of Treasury, the highway account of the highway 
trust fund certainly has sufficient levels of funding to 
support the spending levels that were proposed in the 
president's budget. But over time that money has to continue to 
support projects that had been obligated in prior years, as you 
indicated. Now we are operating on the assumption, though, that 
highway funds will continue to come into the highway trust fund 
during that period of time as well.
    So there is some capacity, if you will, some head room 
between the amount of obligations that exist out there and the 
amount of spending authority that we would have in the account. 
However, current commitments of the highway trust fund for 
prior years plus the unobligated balance is greater than $67 
billion. So I do not have exact calculations to say what would 
the balance be if we projected or extrapolated this out into 
the future, but suffice it to say that there is some head room 
in that account. I believe we could accurately say there is 
some head room.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay. And you will get that number to us?
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Sabo, we will get that to you as 
accurately as we can.
    [The information follows:]

    Issue: How much headroom is available in the Highway Trust 
Fund?
    1. Based on current projections of Highway Account 
receipts, the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund has the 
capacity to support a higher program level (obligation 
limitation) than the adjusted guaranteed level proposed in the 
FY 2003 President's Budget.
    2. The Highway Account could support a FY 2003 obligation 
limitation at the level set for that year in TEA-21 
($27,811,000,000) and inflating that obligation limitation for 
future years.
    3. One way to approach the question is to determine the 
maximum obligation limitation that the Highway Account could 
sustain without bringing the cash balance too low for safety.
    4. The Federal Highway Administration believes that $8 
billion is the minimum prudent balance for the Highway Account. 
At TEA-21 funding levels, this would equate to about 3 months 
of outlays for the programs supported by the Highway Account.
    5. Using the approach described above, our analysis shows 
that the Highway Account could support a FY 2003 obligation 
limitation of $30 billion with inflation in the outyears. 
However, the Highway Account would run out of cash if the FY 
2003 obligation were set at the FY 2002 level of nearly $32 
billion and then inflated in the outyears. The cash balance 
would drop into the danger zone--below $8 billion--in FY 2007 
and the Highway Account would become insolvent in FY 2010.

                 REDUCTION IN HIGHWAY OBLIGATION LIMIT

    Mr. Sabo. My original question was, do you and the 
administration consider it good policy at this point in time 
with the economy where it is, to be reducing the highway 
obligation limit by the amounts of money that we are looking at 
reducing it?
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Sabo, let me answer the question 
this way, and you can come back to me if I do not answer it as 
accurately as you would like. When I was a state transportation 
director in Arizona, I had to work with the governor, and the 
governor, as the state did, had many competing demands for 
revenue, especially in times when revenues were not as high as 
they were. I never had the luxury then, even though I knew how 
important transportation spending is, and I know the positive 
effect it has on the economy, to say to her that she had to 
ignore other demands that were on her plate in terms of 
spending from other agencies, my counterparts, and other 
demands.
    I feel very much the same way here. This is not a decision 
that is a positive decision. We do understand that, but there 
are many, many competing demands for revenue in this very 
unprecedented time that our country is facing, and I believe 
that is the policy call the administration made.
    Mr. Sabo. I will not pursue it further.
    Ms. Peters. Thank you.

                   VIRGINIA STATE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

    Mr. Sabo. I do not know how much time I have taken, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Every year, state transportation departments, however they 
are organized, submit plans for their future. And I have been 
watching this unfolding in Virginia where they are now 
substantially revamping plans that apparently were very 
optimistic in terms of what could be done with the assumed 
revenues over, a five to seven year period. I think it is five-
year plans that they normally have. The plans were there, but 
the existing federal/state revenues simply could not build 
those projects. As you get those State plans, do you review 
them? Do you approve them? Do you make any judgment on whether 
they fit within the assumed available federal and state funds 
to actually be done in that period of time? I am curious how 
many other States have problems like what appears to be the 
case in Virginia.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Sabo, we do review those plans. 
Both the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit 
Administration are required to review both the planning 
process, the state transportation plans, and urban area plans, 
transportation improvement plans that contribute to that state 
transportation plan. What we look to do is to ensure that 
reasonably expected revenues will be there to support the level 
of funding that they have proposed. And we have had discussions 
specifically with the State of Virginia about what those plans 
were and did look at their plan. They are in the process, as 
you know, of revamping that plan right now.
    We find no evidence to believe that they intentionally 
overstated or falsely overstated what the revenues were. Like 
many areas, they were more optimistic about what the economy 
would be in the future than it has been. They looked at a level 
of maintenance that was more straight line than an increasing 
level of maintenance. Those are some decisions that states 
make. But we did not see anything that was egregiously wrong. 
But more to the point of the question, yes, sir, we do look at 
their plans, and we do look to make sure that they are based on 
what could be reasonably expected to be available in terms of 
revenue.
    Mr. Sabo. In this case the adjustments seem to be fairly 
major.

                   VIRGINIA STATE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

    Ms. Peters. They are, sir. Congressman Sabo, severalbig 
factors that are affecting the State of Virginia, because we did look 
at that very specifically, are the fact that some general fund revenues 
that were to be committed to that plan, to the transportation plan in 
Virginia, because of the economic projections that they are now dealing 
with, will no longer be available to them. They also, of course, had 
predicted that state highway funding and federal highway funding would 
continue on a trend upwards as opposed to flatlining or downward, which 
has happened.
    So, yes, there are some major changes in their program. 
Some of those changes are, to our earlier discussion, policy 
calls by the chief executive of the state, and the prior 
administration was making some different policy calls than the 
current administration is.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will stop at this 
point.

                   FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORTFALL

    Mr. Rogers. And now to Virginia is Chairman Wolf.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you. We are meeting at eleven-thirty with 
the Virginia highway people and the new Secretary of 
transportation. I came in late, and welcome you to the 
committee. Would you in about three sentences sum up what you 
were saying to Mr. Sabo and Mr. Rogers with regard to the 
shortfall? If you had to explain why a shortfall exists, and I 
watched the governors coming out of the White House the other 
day. Governor Engler was speaking and said, I think there is 
going to be something worked out, he said. He was very, very 
general. So I was going to ask you about what he was referrng 
to. But could you just explain for me in a capsule why you 
think there is a shortfall?
    Ms. Peters. I will. Mr. Chairman, if I may----
    Mr. Wolf. In three or four sentences.
    Ms. Peters. Absolutely. I think there are three factors 
associated with it. One was calibrating the prior estimates to 
the current estimates. The prior estimates were overly 
optimistic.
    Mr. Wolf. Was that just the normal thing that happens at 
times? Looking back, that has happened in the past?
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Wolf, yes. In fact, the RABA 
calculation causes both a look back and a look forward.
    The second factor is the displacement of gasoline for 
gasohol at a 28 percent increase.
    Mr. Wolf. Okay. How do the states tax gasohol?
    Ms. Peters. The states tax gasohol in different methods. 
State taxing methods vary from state to state, and I do not 
know what different states do. I do know what the federal 
government does in terms of taxing gasohol, but I do not know 
from state to state.
    And then the third factor was the substantial reduction in 
new truck sales.
    Mr. Wolf. And that was because of the economy.
    Ms. Peters. Probably related to the economy. Also, fleets 
were built up pretty substantially in the 1998-99 time frame 
and, just perhaps, Congressman Wolf, like you and I would do if 
we did not think the economic outlook was as bright, we might 
keep our vehicle another year as opposed to trading it in when 
we otherwise would have.

                        GASOHOL VERSUS GASOLINE

    Mr. Wolf. If you taxed gasohol the same way as you taxed 
gasoline, would that make up a lot of the difference?
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Wolf, it would have made up about 
two-thirds of the difference that we are seeing in this period 
[see clarification provided for the record on page 73a].
    Mr. Wolf. And just for the record, gasohol is taxed 
differently. Can you explain?
    Ms. Peters. I will. Let me get my notes so I do not 
misspeak here. Gasoline is taxed at 15.44 cents per gallon--I'm 
speaking only to the federal tax here--as opposed to gasohol, 
which is taxed at approximately eight cents. The highway trust 
fund receives 15.44 cents per gallon from gasoline and 
approximately eight cents per gallon from gasohol. So just a 
little less than half comes into the trust fund.
    Mr. Wolf. And that would have made up two-thirds of the 
difference that Chairman Rogers was talking about.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Wolf, yes, that is our analysis 
[see clarification provided for the record on page 73a].
    Mr. Wolf. And is there a different impact of a car using 
gasohol versus just gasoline? If I put 10 gallons of gasohol 
and 10 gallons of gasoline, do I go farther with one than the 
other?
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Wolf, it depends on your car. The 
impact on the highway system is no different.
    Mr. Wolf. So this is really a big issue.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Wolf, it is a big issue in terms of 
the highway trust fund, yes.
    Mr. Wolf. And yet it is not one that I have heard discussed 
very much.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Wolf, I certainly have discussed 
it, at least in my role in the past, but not in my current 
role. I would have to say that you are fair in saying in my 
current role, until this cycle, I have not had the opportunity 
to discuss it much, but I certainly have raised that issue with 
my counterparts many times in the past.
    Mr. Wolf. The last two questions, you can even combine 
them. When Governor Engler came out of the White House--I saw 
on C-Span--he said that it looks like there will be some fix. 
Is there something being done to adjust the negative RABA?
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Wolf, the administration has not 
taken a position yet. We are looking at the legislation. 
However, I do understand that there are a very substantial 
number of sponsors of legislation in both chambers right now 
that would adjust the spending rate for highways in the coming 
year.

                            REAUTHORIZATION

    Mr. Wolf. And lastly, in the reauthorization bill next year 
are you coming up with--I was talking to Chairman Rogers--some 
new ideas to meet this problem? Looking outward, do you have 
some substantive major changes that will be in that 
reauthorization?
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Wolf, I do not believe that we will 
propose substantive changes in terms of the funding mechanism 
for the highway trust fund in the coming authorization period. 
What I think we should do, however, and this has been, again, 
my statement to my counterparts and to Secretary Mineta, is we 
need to look at the composition of the highway trust fund out 
into the future and, within the context of the next 
authorization period, define a mechanism that the 
administration and Congress together can look at and come up 
with something.
    One of the reasons that I think we should not do anything 
too hastily is the law of unintended consequences. I think we 
have to very carefully look at how we compose methods of 
funding and the highway trust fund so that we do not do 
something that will have an unintended consequence thatcould be 
very deleterious to us later.
    Mr. Wolf. Are many states raising the gasoline tax as a 
result of this?
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Wolf, no, they are not. And states, 
as was mentioned earlier, are having some significant budget 
problems themselves.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.

                       TEA-21 SPEND OUT PROVISION

    Mr. Rogers. So the TEA-21 requirement that the spending out 
of the trust fund was put on automatic pilot, cruise control, 
if you will, irrespective of the weather or the terrain; was 
that a good idea or bad, looking back at it?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, looking back at it right now, I 
would say that on the whole it has yielded positive amounts, 
but I think as to your discussion earlier, it would not in the 
future, and I think it is something that needs to be 
reevaluated.
    Mr. Rogers. So what would you put in place of that 
automatic spend out provision?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I would probably put something in 
place that instead of having what amounted to, as per our 
discussion earlier, a double-negative in this rating period, 
something that would not give you that effect, that would be 
more calibrated to what the actual revenues were. I further 
think that there are things that we can do with the highway 
trust fund as a whole in terms of a fund-management approach to 
that and a go-forward position that would give us a more stable 
and assured funding mechanism over time.
    Mr. Rogers. Would you care to put some thought into that 
and give us for the record your recommendations as to how we 
should change TEA-21 so as to avoid this problem in the future?
    Ms. Peters. I will do that, Mr. Chairman. I do think that 
closely correlating what we tax the public for transportation 
services and what we spend on transportation services is part 
of our obligation to the public, but I will be glad to put some 
thoughts down for you.
    Mr. Rogers. The Congress is facing reauthorization of 
highway funding and programs right away, and this is a major 
problem that we have here. Do you not agree?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree.
    Mr. Rogers. And with your experience in Arizona and now in 
charge of the program here, we would appreciate hearing your 
best advice.
    Ms. Peters. I would be pleased to do that. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Olver.

                            TEA-21 ESTIMATES

    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Peters, you give 
such a clear exposition of an understanding of how this has all 
come about that I think I ought to be able to understand it, 
but I am truly puzzled. The $27.2 billion, which was the 
original estimate of the TEA-21 formulas for Fiscal 2002; that 
was presented in the original budget one year ago now. And that 
was before the recession, which started in March, before 9/11, 
which it had some economic effect, and yet by October when we 
were passing the final budget for the fiscal year 2002, the 
estimate was raised from $27.2 billion to $31.6 billion, a 15 
percent or so increase there. Am I missing something here? Is 
that addition based upon a reestimate of what would be 
available in 2002, which seems to be going in the wrong 
direction, given the recession and so forth? Is that an after-
the-fact final determination of what the revenues were that 
came in during Fiscal 2001?

                            RABA CALCULATION

    Ms. Peters. Congressman Olver, it is more the latter than 
the former.
    Mr. Olver. More the latter.
    Ms. Peters. Yes. Let me go over the calculation. 
Calculation of RABA is a product of two comparisons. It is a 
comparison of a prior year actual receipts, which were made a 
part of the President's budget in this case, to a previous 
estimate of the prior year fiscal receipts.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    Mr. Olver. Okay. So all of what we ended up in the 
budgeting for 2002 was based upon, first, the estimates of 2001 
and then the final numbers for 2001.
    Ms. Peters. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Olver. Ah. Well, that helps a lot because I have been 
really puzzled--I am still puzzled--about why the numbers are 
down so far because at the beginning the Chairman had made the 
comment, and you essentially agreed with it, said it was 
basically correct, that the total use of fuel had not changed.
    Ms. Peters. That is accurate.
    Mr. Olver. Okay. That is accurate.
    Ms. Peters. Not substantially.
    Mr. Olver. If that is happening, and you have said that 
ethanol was 12 percent, and it went up 28 percent, which means 
if the total amount of fuel had remained relatively constant, 
the amount that is now ethanol moved up from 12 percent to a 
little over 15 percent, barely over 15 percent, and that would 
mean that the regular fuel went down from 88 percent to 85 
percent or thereabouts. Now that is a three percent reduction, 
and, in fact, three percent is not the total to be attributed 
because the tax that comes in from gasohol is half the tax that 
comes from gasoline, from the regular gasoline fuel, and so it 
actually is under two percent as an adjustment that should come 
from the total amount of revenue if the total amount of fuel 
has stayed constant.

                            RABA CALCULATION

    Now, in fact, the new estimate has been dropped from $27.2 
billion to $23.2 billion, which is a 15 percent drop, and that 
$23.2 billion is almost 30 percent--it is 27 or 28 percent--
below the final figure for Fiscal 2001 at a time when we are 
being told that the total amount of fuel remains constant. I do 
not understand how that could fit together and how that could 
be two-thirds of this effect. I would be enormously pleased to 
see a spreadsheet kind of calculation of how these different 
factors fit into the calculation and the estimates that come 
out. It does help that this is prior year estimates that are 
driving this. I do not have all of the data, clearly, but I 
think my formulation about how much the gasohol has gone up and 
how much that should have reduced the total month receipts, 
given the total fuel is the same, does not lead to the 
allowance of a 15 percent reduction in that estimate or 27 or 
eight percent in the total. That is a set of comments you may 
answer, but I would love to see the full sheet of how those 
calculations are made to understand these different factors, 
how they come together.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman, we will get that data to you. The 
bulk of the problem was the issue that you and I discussed at 
the beginning of the conversation. Was it an overly optimistic 
forecast for 2001 that was made in January of 1999 for the 2001 
budget year? And it was overly optimistic at that point in 
time. So calibrating that, if you look at the total, $4.4 
billion negative, $3.5 billion of that negative is calibrated 
in the figures. A little under onebillion or $900 million is 
the look forward. So it is the look-back and the look-forward 
combination. And again, if I have misspoken, I will apologize and will 
correct that for the record, but we will get the data to you [see 
clarification provided for the record on page 73a].
    Mr. Olver. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. We are going to take a short recess while we go 
to the floor to cast votes, and we will come back very soon. We 
will stand in short recess.
    [Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., a recess was taken.]
    Mr. Rogers. The committee will be in order. Ms. Emerson.

                       RURAL PLANNING REGULATIONS

    Ms. Emerson. Administrator, it is nice to see you again. 
Thanks for being here. I am sorry I came in late earlier on, 
but anyway I apologize for that and appreciate very much your 
direct answers to many of our questions.
    I know you know I am going to ask you about rural planning 
regulations, but let me tell you what I have been hearing, and 
hopefully you can confirm that what I have heard is incorrect. 
But I have heard rumblings that the rural planning regulations 
that DOT is going to issue will be a greatly watered down 
version. And from my previous conversation in my office about 
this, you would know that I would think that is totally 
unacceptable because I think that the rule that the Federal 
Highway Administration had already written was a good rule, and 
I do not think that it needed to be changed in any way.
    And I have also heard, and it troubles me a lot that there 
have been employees at the Department of Transportation and the 
Federal Highway Administration who have said, well, there is 
only one member of Congress who cares about this issue, so we 
are just going to let it die, which is why it has taken so long 
to get this regulation published anyway. Now because this is 
pre your time at DOT, I do have a letter that we submitted on 
the 25th of September, the year 2000, with 36 signatures on it, 
members of the rural caucus. It took five minutes for us to get 
those signatures on the house floor, and I can bring you 100, 
or I can bring you 200. I can get every member of the rural 
caucus, if you wish, to sign this letter if you think that that 
will help us get a regulation that is not only mandated by TEA-
21, which is several years old now, but also one which I know 
that the secretary is most interested in as well.

                       RURAL PLANNING REGULATION

    Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congresswoman 
Emerson. I do know of your strong interest in this issue, but I 
also know it is not just your issue, that a number of others 
are interested in this issue as well. As you indicated, in 
fact, the Secretary and I have talked a bit about the whole 
issue of local consultation. I will not go into the issue of 
the rule or the pendency of the rule so that I do not get 
outside of ex parte communications. But the issue of local 
consultation is important and remains important, and I do 
understand that it is not just a Congresswoman Emerson issue; 
it is an issue that is important to rural elected officials 
throughout the country, and we are very well aware of the 
concerns.
    And as I mentioned to you in our prior discussions, as a 
prior state official, I recognize the importance of having that 
consultation process. So I would be happy to meet with you and 
discuss further.
    Ms. Emerson. What do you think the timetable is now? Are we 
looking at a regulation being published in two weeks, three 
weeks, four weeks? Are we in that time frame here, do you 
think?
    Ms. Peters. Congresswoman Emerson, I think that probably 
the most accurate thing I can say is that we are looking for a 
decision within a month, about a month, six weeks' period of 
time. Some of what we have to do in order to make a decision 
has to be approved outside of the Department of Transportation, 
so I cannot accurately speak for other parties, but I believe 
we are within about a month or six weeks of a decision.
    Ms. Emerson. And would that other party be the Office of 
Management and Budget?
    Ms. Peters. Congresswoman Emerson, that is correct.
    Ms. Emerson. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Ms. Emerson. You raised an awfully 
good point, and I join you in your sentiments.
    Ms. Emerson. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. Ms. Kilpatrick.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 
Madam Administrator.
    Ms. Peters. Good morning.

                  IMPACTS OF HIGHWAY FUNDING SHORTFALL

    Ms. Kilpatrick. It is nice to meet you. I look forward to 
working with you. I know my colleagues have been discussing the 
shortfall of some nearly $9 billion in highway funding that we 
will not see. We do not have an answer to that in light of the 
economics and all that is happening in the country.
    In my state of Michigan that equates to about 200, and, of 
course, everyone is all over us trying to get us to do 
something. The governors' association, and our governor was 
here yesterday, and our governor chairs the governors' 
association, I might add, is putting the screws on our 
delegation, 16 of us, to press for more dollars so that we can 
keep our spending plan going, but I understand in your remarks 
there is nothing that we can do at this moment.
    I might add, too, that myself and Congressman Joe 
Knollenberg are the only two appropriators from Michigan, and 
we both have taken the position not to sign on to H.R. 3694 for 
various reasons, most of which it takes away our discretion, 
and we do not think that arbitrarily because the economy is 
slow, and we are going to be about $9 billion less than we 
thought we would have for TEA-21 projects, that we ought to 
take it from somewhere. So as appropriators I want you to know 
that the two appropriators from Michigan bipartisanly agree 
that that is not the way to go, and H.R. 3694 is not. So your 
final word on that is what again? Can I just hear the final 
word on that?
    Ms. Peters. Congresswoman Kilpatrick, and if I misspoke 
earlier, let me make sure that I say increasing obligation 
authority beyond the requirements of the RABA calculation does 
not require a change in law. That could be done should Congress 
and the President could choose to do that. However, it would go 
outside the highway firewall spending limits and would have to 
compete with other domestic spending. So if I said that it 
could not be done, I do not want to misspeak that. That clearly 
is a decision that you all need to make in your deliberations. 
The President's budget did follow the law as it is currently 
written with respect to firewalls and made the calculation as 
was directed by the law.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay. And we will watch it closely and work 
with you on that. Yes, everybody wants their project. Yes, we 
need infrastructure of America, and we do need to keep it up.

                   AMBASSADOR BRIDGE GATEWAY PROJECT

    I mentioned that I am from Michigan, and our international 
bridge is called the Ambassador Bridge there. You probably are 
familiar with the Ambassador Bridge. There has been since 1995 
to 2000 called an Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project for which 
we have appropriated millions of dollars. It is the bridge that 
connects Michigan and Canada over the Detroit River. I am told 
by the Ambassador Bridge Corporation that MDOT is not moving 
the money forward to the project over these last five years and 
would like to work with you to see that it does happen. Once we 
appropriated it, I thought we could not spend money otherwise. 
I need to work with you and your office and your staff to see 
that the Ambassador Bridge project, and the local bridge 
people, both private and public, have put in millions of 
dollars, but they have not seemed to get the MDOT partnership 
that we have required from this Committee. Do you have any 
comment on that? Are you familiar with the project?
    Ms. Peters. Congresswoman Kilpatrick, I am familiar with 
the project. I am not familiar with any delays, but I would be 
happy to look into that and get back with you and work with 
you.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I thank you, and I appreciate that very 
much. It is a very important bridge. There has been a lot of 
upkeep on it and a lot of remodernization on it, but MDOT has 
fallen short in the money that this committee has appropriated 
for it, and I would like to work with you.
    Ms. Peters. We would be pleased to do that.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Ms. Kilpatrick. We are honored to 
have in the hearing room as a member of the audience my own 
state highway commissioner, Jim Codell. Mr. Codell, come around 
and have a seat up here with us. I am sure you know the 
director. We are glad to have you with us.

                IMPACTS OF FUNDING SHORTFALL ON KENTUCKY

    Mr. Codell. I am glad to be here, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Secretary Codell has been a real force in the 
Kentucky highway program and other transportation areas for six 
years and has proven to be one of the best highway 
commissioners our state has ever had. And I know that he has 
some interest in the RABA question, which we have been dealing 
with the director on this morning at some length. Do you have 
any thoughts you would like to add, Secretary Codell?
    Mr. Codell. Well, obviously, we would like to see the 
funding level increased certainly to the $31.6, $31.8 billion 
level because the impact that it will have on Kentucky, not 
only with the highway program proper but in terms of jobs. When 
we realize that this lick, if you would, that we are about to 
take equates to about $120 million, but it further translates 
into the loss of some 5,000 jobs, and, of course, when you 
magnify that 50 times across the nation in today's world that 
we are living in, it means a lot. It means everything. And 
since transportation has importance to not only the economy but 
to the safe and efficient movement of both people and goods, it 
is something that we would like to see serious consideration 
given to.
    Mr. Rogers. We thank you for being here today. Secretary 
Codell is the incoming president or vice president?
    Mr. Codell. Well, I am vice president of AASHTO now. I will 
take office in October.
    Mr. Rogers. And will be the president of AASHTO. What does 
it stand for, Jim?
    Mr. Codell. Oh, American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials.
    Mr. Rogers. Thanks for being here.
    Mr. Codell. Thank you. Thank you very much for the 
opportunity.
    Ms. Peters. You can stay.
    Mr. Rogers. Pass the buck. The Administrator is looking for 
company, I think.
    Well, let me ask you about H.R. 3694. Based on your 
technical read of the bill, what exactly would that bill do?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I believe what the bill would do, 
and again, I will try to be as accurate as I know how to be, 
and if I speak inaccurately, we will correct that on the 
record, but the bill would restore the funding limit to the 
2002 levels.
    Mr. Rogers. Does the bill increase funding for the highway 
program?
    Ms. Peters. Let me correct that. I'm sorry. To the TEA-21 
levels.
    Mr. Rogers. Which is the non-RABA-enhanced level.
    Ms. Peters. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. Which is what? Would be about $4.5 billion or 
so?
    Ms. Peters. I believe it is $4.5 billion.
    Mr. Rogers. It does not increase funding for the highway 
program. Right?
    Ms. Peters. In terms of the overall trust fund, Mr. 
Chairman?
    Mr. Rogers. It does not increase funding for the highway 
program, does it?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, it would add obligation 
limitation to the states so the states would be able to 
obligate more funds.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, as I understand it, the bill would not 
actually release the funding. It would still require action by 
the Appropriations Committee. Is that not correct?
    Ms. Peters. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Could we, the Appropriations Committee, provide 
increased funding with or without that bill?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier to 
Congresswoman Kilpatrick, my belief is, and my understanding 
is, that it does not require a change in law, but it does 
require action by the Appropriations Committee.
    Mr. Rogers. With or without the bill.
    Ms. Peters. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. So whether or not we pass that bill really is 
irrelevant, is it not?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I would leave that in your 
capable hands.

                 ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING ACTIVITIES

    Mr. Rogers. You mentioned in your testimony that the median 
environmental review time has been cut by about a year. Tell us 
what made that happen.
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, we went through a number of 
processes. We tried to do more concurrent processes and worked 
with states in a manner that we could have documents approved 
sooner by federal resource agencies and also not have those 
decisions overturned later on. That was a large part of what we 
were able to accomplish to reduce that time frame.
    Very specifically, some of these actions include 
interagency agreements for funding additional personnel in some 
of the federal resource agencies. Federal agencies also have 
adopted mergedprocesses, for example, for wetland permits with 
the Army Corps of Engineers. A number of states have also adopted, 
context-sensitive design approaches, Kentucky among them. In fact, 
Kentucky, your home state, and under Mr. Codell's leadership, has been 
a leader in the context-sensitive design approach. That type of thing 
has allowed the reduction in time, and the reduction in time has been 
impressive. It is still longer than we would like it to be, but it has 
been an impressive reduction.

                         STREAMLINING SOLUTIONS

    Mr. Rogers. What types of streamlining solutions have 
proven the most valuable, the ones that give you the most bang 
for the buck?
    Ms. Peters. I think that the most effective solutions allow 
the projects to be looked at sooner, to make sure that federal 
resource agencies are at the table and looking at that project 
a little sooner. And we believe that those actions need to 
occur as early as the planning stages of the project. So if you 
are going to impact wetlands, you have to involve the Army 
Corps of Engineers early on. If you are going to involve 
threatened and endangered species, you have to involve Fish and 
Wildlife Service and other parties early on in the process.
    Those are the types of things that we think will 
substantially improve streamlining. Also, programmatic 
agreements in different states are very helpful. For example, I 
met yesterday with the state of Oregon, and they have a number 
of agreements with the resource agencies and their counterparts 
on a state level so that they are reviewing projects sooner and 
concurring with what is going to be done on a project much 
sooner.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, do you have plans to issue or revise the 
draft NEPA regulations called for in TEA-21?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, that was the issue that I spoke 
earlier with Congresswoman Emerson about. We anticipate a 
decision on that within a month or six weeks.
    Mr. Rogers. Even if the federal environmental reviews could 
be streamlined, how much of a typical delay is due to reviews 
performed by state environmental protection or other agencies?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I think you raise a very valid 
point. It is not always just the federal reviews. I do not have 
a specific time frame, but I will get with staff and get back 
to you on an estimate of the percentage of time. But it is 
accurate that state-level reviews do cause delay sometimes as 
well.

                    ONGOING AND OVER BUDGET PROJECTS

    Mr. Rogers. Let me ask you about big projects. How many 
projects over a billion dollars are ongoing now, and how many 
of those are over budget?
    Ms. Peters. We currently have 14 projects that have been 
identified over a billion dollars right now, and there are an 
additional 20 projects that are in the environmental review 
stages right now that may become megaprojects, or the $1 
billion or over projects, as we go forward. Of those projects, 
five have finance plans that have been approved, and one 
project, the I-15 in Salt Lake City, has been completed. One 
was under construction prior to the current finance plan 
guidance being issued, and one project under $1 billion is 
being monitored because it has a lot of interest.
    In fact, we are not just monitoring. I think it is 
important for me to say that we are not just monitoring 
projects over a billion dollars. Since we have implemented 
these procedures--and we do apply your direction in that case, 
sir--we do not have any of those projects that are over budget 
right now. One of the projects that we are continuing to look 
at, and we have not yet approved a finance plan for this 
iteration, is the Central Artery Tunnel. However, it does not 
appear that the issues that we are dealing with on that are a 
change in budget, if you will, but in treatment of several 
aspects of that project.
    Mr. Rogers. So none of these are over budget now?
    Ms. Peters. According to the current finance plans, Mr. 
Chairman, the projects, and again, I'm looking at the notes 
that I have been given by staff here--we are looking at each of 
these projects, and in terms of being over what the finance 
plan has been approved for, with the exception of the ongoing 
negotiations on the Central Artery Tunnel, I do not have notes 
that indicate the projects are over budget.
    Mr. Rogers. But what about the finance plan of five years 
ago?

                         PROJECT COST INCREASES

    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry if I was 
misunderstanding your question. Have projects' cost increased 
since five years ago? I would say that, yes, there have been 
past increases on several projects.
    Mr. Rogers. But these big projects; how many of those are 
over budget compared to what the budget was five years ago?
    Ms. Peters. I am understanding your question a little 
better now [see clarification provided for the record on page 
55a].
    Mr. Rogers. Like the Central Artery.
    Ms. Peters. Yes, back to Central Artery. Again, there are 
projects, and I am looking to see if I have the notes on that, 
and if I do not, if someone in staff has them in the book, then 
please pull those out for me, but there are a number of 
projects that have experienced cost increases over a period of 
time, and I will ask staff to look through the book and see if 
they can find the exact number for you so we can talk about it.
    It is something that I am paying a lot of attention to, and 
while we look for the numbers, let me speak to this issue, if I 
may. When I first came to the Federal Highway Administration 
and to the department, I met very early on with the Inspector 
General and talked with him about some of the issues with major 
projects. And I worked extensively with our staff to go over 
what the procedures are for monitoring major projects in the 
go-forward position. And you have my personal attention, and I 
want you to know that.
    I have asked the Inspector General--and what we are trying 
to do right now is determine what factors have caused projects 
to go over budget--how can we identify those factors early on, 
and work with states and with local governments when they are 
estimating these projects going in. We have implemented a 
number of procedures to make sure that we are staying on top of 
these projects in the go-forward position.
    [The information follows.]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
                     PROJECT COST INCREASE ANALYSIS

    Mr. Rogers. Have you ever done a trend analysis to 
establish how much the average highway design or construction 
contract goes up from the time of award to completion?
    Ms. Peters. I believe the staff has done that. I will see 
if we have the data with me today, sir. There are generally a 
couple of factors that will affect a project going up or cost 
increasing over time. Some of those are that the engineer's 
estimate was not as accurate as it should have been, and that 
occurs occasionally. In other cases site conditions are 
different. I can remember on a very specific project that we 
worked on in Arizona, the geological surveythat we had done 
going into the project indicated that we would not be hitting hard 
rock. Indeed, we did hit hard rock, and it changed the project cost 
substantially.
    Another case is when we have projects that are accelerated, 
and sometimes that project is accelerated at the state's 
request, and I have also had projects lie along those lines as 
well, and that will cause a cost increase because time is 
money. And so those are the predominant reasons.
    Staff has handed me the note from the book, and the average 
is three percent, an overall three percent increase for all 
projects based on the trend analysis.
    Mr. Rogers. Are there some contractors that have a history 
of incurring significant cost increases as the project goes 
forward?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I would say from my experience 
there are some. We certainly knew firms that were more apt than 
others to submit change orders on projects. And the way that I 
dealt with that, at least in my prior role and the way that I 
would like it here, is to make sure that estimates are as 
absolutely accurate as they can be going into the contract and 
ensuring that we have a very good process for approving any 
changes during the life of a contract.
    Mr. Rogers. But would it be hard to establish a history for 
all the contractors that do work to see if there is one or more 
that are habitually having cost overruns as the project goes?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that would be 
difficult to gather that data.
    Mr. Rogers. Would that be useful to do?
    Ms. Peters. I think it probably would be. I know that I had 
state-level data in the past on that type of issue.
    Mr. Rogers. And in the awarding of a new contract would it 
not be important to know that this contractor that is bidding 
has a history of bidding low and adding as he goes along?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, under the current procedures that 
most states use for awarding contracts, it is based on the 
lowest responsive and responsible bid. It certainly would be 
good information to know, but I do not believe that very many 
states right now, absent disbarment, which certainly is 
something that could be taken up if you had a contractor who, 
indeed, was not working appropriately, do not award a contract.

                CENTRAL ARTERY--STATUS OF FINANCIAL PLAN

    Mr. Rogers. Let me ask you quickly about Central Artery. I 
understand the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority submitted the 
financial plan to your agency late. Can you explain why it is 
late and what is the status of the financial plan?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, yes. The finance plan was 
submitted slightly late. I believe it was a matter of a couple 
of weeks late. And again, we will get an exact date for you so 
that we can put that on the record. It was late because there 
were a number of issues that they were working through at the 
time, one of those issues being the issue of tolls. And there 
were others as well, but we will get that to you for the 
record.
    [The information follows.]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    The current status of that finance plan is it continues to 
be under review by our office. We are working very closely with 
MTA and with the office of the inspector general, and I expect 
that we will have agreement on that plan in the coming weeks.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, you understand that we have had this one 
under the microscope now for a long time.
    Ms. Peters. Most definitely, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. And I just want the word to go forth again that 
they are on a real tight trip wire. I am looking for a chance 
to stop funding for that project.
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I do understand your interest, as 
well as that of many other members of Congress. The project is 
important, and we will watch it very, very closely.
    Mr. Rogers. It is the most egregious cost overrun in the 
history of the world, from $2.5 to $14.6 billion. As I say 
before, I am just looking for the opportunity to stop that 
project in its tracks because I just am absolutely astounded, 
shocked, and aggrieved that we have let this go.
    Ms. Peters. I understand, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. They are not asking for more money, are they?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, no, they are not. Not from the 
federal government certainly.
    Mr. Rogers. That would be a futile request.

                  WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE COST ESTIMATES

    Now, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge came in 75 percent over the 
estimates. How come?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, there is an ongoing process right 
now to look at that bid. The State of Maryland had asked a 
number of experts to come and evaluate that bid, and that 
report has not yet been issued. In fact, we expect that a 
report will be issued within coming days that will give the 
analysis of why that bid was so high and also help us all 
determine what we should do in terms of going forward on the 
project with another bid.
    Mr. Rogers. How did you come up with your cost estimate?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, the cost estimate was developed 
by the state, and the cost estimates, and I will speak from my 
experience on this particular one because I cannot speak that 
Maryland did this exactly this way, but you generally look at 
the various elements of the project, what the project costs 
will be for certain components of the construction, the 
materials themselves, labor, et cetera, and you look at the 
conditions, the site conditions that you are going to be 
working in. And then the estimates also look at the recent bid 
environment and what has been bid.
    One of the unusual factors about this project is that it is 
a very big project, and a very unusual project. There are not a 
lot of them that are done. So it sometimes makes it more 
difficult for a state to come up with a very accurate estimate 
of what the bid will be.

                 WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE--BID EVALUATION

    Mr. Rogers. Now, what action is Maryland taking in response 
to that high bid?
    Ms. Peters. Maryland has instituted a team to look 
substantially at the bid and to analyze the various components 
of the single bid that they did receive, which as you 
indicated, was substantially higher than the engineer's 
estimate had been on the project, and determine exactly what 
happened with that bid that caused it to be higher and what 
might be able to be changed in a rebid situation that would 
allow a bid to come in more accurately. They also are looking 
at the engineer's estimate to see if that engineer's estimate 
was as accurate as it should have been.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
              IMPACTS ON PROJECT DELAYS AND COST INCREASES

    Mr. Rogers. What implications does this have on project 
delays and the total price tag?
    Ms. Peters. It could certainly cause a delay on the project 
and, as I indicated earlier, fortunately or unfortunately, but 
accurately, delays do cost more money on projects because costs 
do increase over time. So it could very well have a delay on 
that. We have discussed that issue with the State of Maryland 
and with the State of Virginia, and both states have indicated 
their strong support for the project going forward and their 
willingness to continue to fund the project on the state level.
    Mr. Rogers. The 1994 report said that heavy truck traffic 
would have to be stopped in 2004. Will this trigger that?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, we do not believe it will. One of 
the things that I asked be done within the Federal Highway 
Administration, once we learned the amount of the bid and the 
bid being over as much as it was, was to go back and reevaluate 
the sufficiency of the bridge for commercial traffic. We 
believe that based on improvements that have been made to the 
bridge itself over time that it will not have to stop carrying 
commercial traffic at the end of 2004, at this period in time. 
We hope to have a final report on that in the coming months.

                               H.R. 3694

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me go back to the 
bill H.R. 3694. Am I right that the CBO estimates that that 
bill would result in no outlays?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Sabo, I have not 
seen that analysis.
    Mr. Sabo. That is my understanding. The bill itself would 
result in no additional spending, and it would be totally 
contingent upon further action by this Committee.
    I am curious where we are going. I did not realize the 
degree to which the shortage was a result from the increased 
use of ethanol, but as we look to the future, and we deal with 
energy policy, clearly we will move to more energy-efficient 
cars and alternative fuels, which is going to significantly 
change how we have to fund highways.
    Ms. Peters. I believe you are accurate, Congressman Sabo.

                  GAS TAXES AFFECT HIGHWAY TRUST FUNDS

    Mr. Sabo. I have voted for gas taxes numerous times in my 
life, first in the state legislature and then here, and I 
expect we are going to have to look at that alternative again. 
As I heard your testimony, you seemed to indicate we need to 
think about the future, but you were not sure the 
Administration would have recommendations for TEA-21 
reauthorization.
    I hope you reconsider that because we are going to have to 
look at it seriously; otherwise, all of the pressure is going 
to be to simply take general revenue to pay for highways. And 
the reality is while at the federal level highway funds come 
from gas tax, generally at the state level, we subsidize the 
car and the truck in a significant fashion, particularly at the 
local level in the local street systems and the public safety 
that is heavily related to traffic. Over the years, I have seen 
estimates that up to 50 percent of local public safety costs 
are related to autos and trucks.
    We have never figured out really how to deal with this in 
this country. My observation is that we have a desire to live a 
half an hour from where we work, and a significant part, 
particularly in our urban areas, of congestion comes from 
people who choose to live a long ways from work, and then we 
ask general taxpayers to pay for the whole infrastructure, 
whether it be highways or transit, to allow them to move. But 
this is particularly true for the auto.
    I cannot believe at times what I hear locally from people 
about where they live in relationship to where they work. They 
travel miles and miles, and in our society it has got to be 
their choice. But, I have always thought, they should be paying 
for that choice when it comes to paying for the roads, or if 
the choice is to drive a more gas-consuming car--I am not sure 
to what degree we can regulate it--but at least it should be 
reflected in the cost of that choice. And it really is not in 
our society today.

                   ALTERNATIVE TO FUND TRANSPORTATION

    I have no particular recommendation to make, but it is 
clear that in the long term we have a major problem in funding 
the highway program and to maintain the historic levels that 
the federal government has been doing. I hope you find some 
creative suggestions, which is not simply to transfer general 
revenue to the highway trust fund.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Sabo, I would agree. In my 
experience, getting general fund revenues for transportation is 
not an easy battle to win, ever.
    Mr. Sabo. Well, sometimes it is too easy. I watch what is 
going on in states, and lots of states are avoiding dealing 
with the gas tax and in a variety of ways getting general 
revenue to pay for their highway programs because they cannot 
muster the votes to pass a gas tax. But it is clear that while 
maybe gas taxes can go up further, there are other alternatives 
that are going to have to be found. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Pastor.

                     ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND IMPACTS

    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me 
apologize for being late, but I was at another subcommittee 
hearing dealing with a favorite subject of both of us, Hoover 
Dam. So I thought I had better spend a little bit of time.
    Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege and honor of working 
with Ms. Peters for a number of years when she was the director 
of the Arizona Department of Transportation, and I have to tell 
you that because of her efforts we in Arizona are very proud of 
the system she helped develop and we are continuing to develop. 
She laid a great foundation. She started with ADOT--I think she 
started as a secretary, as I recall----
    Ms. Peters. I did.
    Mr. Pastor [continuing]. And ended up as director. So she 
is also a success story to many of us in how you can improve 
your life by being effective.
    I do not know if you have covered it, but I know that last 
year we talked about it here, and we started the conversation 
with runways and how we needed to increase the number of 
runways in different airports. Then the issue came up that 
there were 40 environmental laws and 11 agencies that were 
considered with the environmental impact. Eventually, I think 
this committee funded and asked agencies to come back and 
develop a streamlining so that we could go through the process 
quicker, not to compromise any environmental laws and not to 
compromise any environmental concerns, but what we could do to 
streamline it.
    And as I recall, last year we were told that there was very 
little success, and they were having problems, just the 
agencies, being able to get together and talk about how they 
could develop a method. And my good friend, John Olver, 
mentioned that we were now within a year or less than a year of 
having some of these NEPA environmental issues, the review 
period reduced.
    Ms. Peters. Correct.

           PROGRESS ON ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING ACTIVITIES

    Mr. Pastor. Where we are at today, and then we had about 
$4.7 million to deal with 2002 and what you expect to do with 
that money and what progress you will make with that 
investment.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Pastor, you are accurate, and thank 
you for giving me the opportunity to speak about it again. The 
time for processing environmental documents has been reduced in 
the last year, and that has been made possible by a number of 
efforts. Some of those efforts are interagency agreements that 
have funded personnel in other resource agencies so that they 
have time to review projects, such the Corps of Engineers and 
Fish and Wildlife Service. A number of states have also adopted 
merged processes for processing permits such as wetland 
permits, 404 permits, so that those can happen more quickly. 
Some states are using context-sensitive design, using a host of 
other efforts, including delegated authority for historic 
resources; that was something we were able to accomplish in 
Arizona, and it helped us quite substantially.
    If we met the requirements for historic resource properties 
on a state level, then we met the requirements on a federal 
level as well. The state laws were structured such that we were 
able to do that. As a result, nationally we have cut an average 
of almost eight months, from five years, 10 months in 1999 to 
five years, two months in 2001, on the actual time it takes. 
And because some projects take longer than others, we would 
like to look really at the median time it takes, and that 
median time has been cut by one year, from five years, six 
months in 1999 to four years, six months in 2001.
    We very much appreciate the money that you appropriated to 
us, for environmental streamlining. In the 2002 budget some of 
the things that we are going to do is help fund the AASHTO 
Center for Environmental Excellence. Secretary Codell and John 
Carr, a very capable staff person from the State of Kentucky, 
have been very instrumental in getting that started. So we hope 
to help fund that center because that is going to take best 
practices, what can we learn from them, and migrate those to 
other areas.

            STATE INITIATIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING

    We are also supporting a number of state initiatives, and I 
wanted to, if I may, just call out a couple of those really 
important state initiatives that are out there, and I will 
refrain from speaking about Arizona for the time being, but 
will discuss some of the other states, Florida, for example, 
has supported the early implementation of environmental 
transportation decision-making. They brought all of the players 
together. They developed a comprehensive process and a GIS 
system that allows them to move forward with electronic 
document retrieval.
    And this was something, Congressman Pastor, in our home 
state that was a problem. We would document, for example, a 
place where Native Americans had existed, and there were 
archaeological features there, but if projects were done 10 
years, 15 years later, that documentation had to be redone. 
That would no longer happen in a process such as the State of 
Florida is using.
    Maryland is disseminating a number of streamlined, project-
development training modules, CDs, that are helping people move 
through the processes much more quickly. New Hampshire is using 
the partnering process, which has been very successful on 
highway projects, to help expedite environmental reviews on a 
project there. And finally, the State of Pennsylvania, they 
have supported interagency agreements, and they have developed 
planning and NEPA linkage. This is an issue, again, as a former 
state director, that I think is very important.
    I have found that most of the delays occur if people do not 
know a project is going to be happening, if it is a surprise to 
environmental resource agencies, if it is a surprise to the 
public, and sometimes because the development process is not 
very transparent to the public. I think a lot of project delays 
come about as a result of that.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    So those are some of the ways that we are planning to use 
the money that you gave us, and we will use the money in the 
future. I do apologize for the lateness of the environmental 
streamlining report. I know that it was delivered here just 
yesterday, and I do apologize for the tardiness of that and 
moving through the approval processes as we should have done. 
But we are looking at defining specific timelines, a range of 
times for projects and how long they should take, and then 
making sure that we are adhering to those on a project level, 
calibrating that schedule on a project level for the nuances of 
the specific project.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and maybe we might get 
the chairman to get happy faces here for the goals that are 
met.
    Ms. Peters. Good.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 
back my time.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. A smiling face, I think, 
would be in order. Mr. Olver.

              MISALLOCATION OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND REVENUES

    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The staff has provided 
me what is a puzzling statement, and I wondered if you would 
comment or clarify, that before the President's budget was 
submitted to the Congress an error by the Treasury Department 
in allocating revenues to the highway trust fund was 
discovered. The error resulted in a reduction of $596 million 
to the RABA amount previously announced by the department. Is 
that accurate?
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Olver, it is accurate that an error 
was discovered prior to the time the President's budget was 
actually published. The error was a misallocation among 
accounts. We have no reason to believe that the error was for 
anything other than a simple misallocation to accounts which 
was discovered in the final review process.
    Mr. Olver. Does the $23.2 billion that is in there, does 
that change because of this?
    Ms. Peters. Unfortunately, no, Congressman Olver. We 
adopted the change, we made the change before the President's 
budget was released, so the change was incorporated in the 
final budget.
    Mr. Olver. So it has been incorporated.
    Ms. Peters. It has been incorporated.

                           ADJUSTMENT TO RABA

    Mr. Olver. Well, let me then ask one other thing. For each 
of the last several years what was the TEA-21 calculation? It 
has been adjusted upward by sizeable numbers, as you pointed 
out, to almost $9 billion over that group of years, a little 
over $9 billion over that group of years. The number that we 
are now using for this year at this stage in the budget process 
is $23.2 billion, which is below the TEA-21 estimate.
    Ms. Peters. That is correct.
    Mr. Olver. Can we expect by the end of August or whenwe are 
finishing this budget in September that we will have some correction, 
the kind of correction that has always been a big, positive correction? 
Are we likely to see a correction, either positive or negative, at that 
point that will change somewhat? The numbers that the changes have come 
to in previous years have been three, four billion dollars and so 
forth. Or do you believe that you have now given a number which is 
going to hold right through to the end of this budget cycle?
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Olver, the way the law is written 
right now, and again, I will kind of look out of the corner of 
my eye, and if I see someone shaking their head vehemently, or 
you all can give me a signal, but the President's budget is 
calculated on an annual basis, and the RABA calculation based 
on the current law is calculated on an annual basis. There is 
no mechanism for a mid-year correction, if you will, in the 
current law right now. Certainly, we could look at the mid-year 
figures, and if it was the will of Congress and the will of the 
Administration to do something different, perhaps there could 
be an adjustment made there. However, as I indicated in my 
conversation with the Chairman earlier, some of the factors--
the largest factor that affected this--and to our earlier 
conversation, was the calibration of the numbers that were 
estimated for this period versus what they actually were for 
this period.
    We might see some change as a result of that, but I would 
not see it substantial, and I, again, believe that we will 
continue to see an increased use of ethanol versus gasoline in 
the future.

                    IMPACTS ON THE FUNDING REDUCTION

    Mr. Olver. Have I misunderstood what happened last year 
maybe? Was the $31.8 billion in the President's budget in the 
first place?
    Ms. Peters. Yes, it was.
    Mr. Olver. It was in the President's budget.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Olver, yes, it was.
    Mr. Olver. Ah. Okay. So we are really talking about, from 
last year we are simply talking about an almost 30 percent 
reduction, which is a lot of jobs. That is $8 billion, which I 
think your earlier testimony that you have given translates to 
somewhere in the range of 300,000 jobs or thereabouts.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Olver, that is accurate if it plays 
out over time, but I think that is an important point to make, 
and I am certainly not understating the impact because clearly 
this will affect transportation programs, and it will over time 
affect jobs. So I will not quibble with that. In the short 
term, I believe the impact will be much less substantial. I 
believe that some of the industry associations that have 
developed that estimate believe that that job effect will be 
over a seven-year period of time.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Sabo.

              RABA COMPUTATION-LOOK BACK AND LOOK FORWARD

    Mr. Sabo. Could I just follow up on that? As I understand 
the reduction, it is for two reasons. One is the overestimate 
of revenues in 2000 or underestimate of revenues in 2001. In 
part it is because of the lower estimate than expected for 
2003. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Peters. Again, it is the combination of the look back 
and the look forward. I want to make sure that I say this as 
accurately as possible because I think I may have misspoken 
earlier in terms of the two-thirds effect, and I will talk with 
you, Mr. Chairman, about that.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    But the calculation reads that what happened in terms of 
comparing this, the calculation of RABA is two comparisons: a 
comparison of the prior fiscal year receipts, which are made 
annually as part of the President's budget, as required on an 
annual basis, to a previous estimate of the prior year receipts 
made during the development of TEA-21, and that number then was 
written in law.
    Similarly, a comparison of the estimates to receipts in the 
highway account of the highway trust fund for the coming fiscal 
year, as shown in TEA-21, with forecasts, is part of the 
President's budget. So it is what we call a look back and a 
look forward.
    Mr. Sabo. And how much of the reduction from last year is 
because of the look back, and how much is it from the reduction 
of the----
    Ms. Peters. The calculation of the look back was a negative 
$3.5 billion, and the calculation of the look forward was a 
negative $900 million.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay. Okay. That is from the TEA-21 number, and 
then the totality is a reduction from the increased amount that 
we had last year. Okay. So if we were only at what we are 
looking at on an ongoing basis, which is the 2003 account, the 
reduction would only be $900 million rather than $4.4 million.
    Ms. Peters. Congressman Sabo, for the look forward that is 
accurate.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay.

                               CONCLUSION

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Ms. Peters, for your 
testimony today. You have made very articulate answers to the 
questions that we propounded to you. This is a complicated 
thing we are dealing with, the RABA. It is difficult to 
understand. TEA-21 is difficult to understand at times, and we 
are still speeding down the highway on automatic pilot, and we 
are in a fog and going up a mountain and around curves at this 
point in time, and still TEA-21 has us on automatic pilot, and 
I am getting a little nervous. Aren't you?
    Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about highway 
funding for the future, yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Peters. Thank you.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                           Thursday, March 7, 2002.

     NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF 
                             TRANSPORTATION

                                WITNESS

JEFFREY W. RUNGE, ADMINISTRATOR
    Mr. Rogers. Good morning. The committee will be in order.
    Our witness today is Dr. Jeff Runge. Is that correct?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Administrator of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration. He will discuss NHTSA's fiscal 2003 
budget request.
    NHTSA is the Department's key administration for highway 
safety. The President's budget requests $429.8 million for 
fiscal 2003. This is a flat line budget with less than a one 
percent increase over 2002. Of that total, $204.8 million is 
for operations and research. $225 million will be given out to 
the states in the form of highway safety grants.
    Over the past 28 years, the nation has seen substantial 
decreases in highway traffic fatalities and injuries. However, 
in the last few years there has been a reversal in this trend. 
Your motor vehicle injury and fatality estimates show that 
approximately 41,821 people lost their lives in motor vehicle 
accidents in 2000. That is a one percent increase over the 
previous year. Within that total, motorcycles, light trucks and 
vans, and alcohol related fatalities are all on the upswing, 
some with double digit growth rates.
    At the same time that fatalities are increasing, frequency 
is also rising. If NHTSA is to stay focused on its mission to 
reduce the number and severity of crashes and to protect 
Americans in the face of ever increasing motor vehicle traffic, 
NHTSA must reverse those trends quickly.
    The previous Administration developed a number of long-term 
safety goals, including increasing seatbelt usage rates to 90 
percent in 2005 and reducing alcohol related fatalities to 
11,000 by 2005. As you know, the agency missed the 2000 
seatbelt goal by at least 15 percent, and alcohol fatalities 
are increasing rather than declining.
    It is my understanding that under your direction, the 
Administration has revised its goals to make them more 
realistic and achievable. I am very interested in learning what 
these new goals are and what new actions you will take to meet 
them.
    At the same time that fatalities are rising, the agency has 
a number of significant rule makings underway to address 
serious safety concerns identified during the Firestone tire 
debacle in 2000. To date, there have been over 200 deaths and 
800 injuries associated with the defective tires. During 
Congressional debate over this problem, Congress found that 
NHTSA did not have sufficient data regarding the problems with 
Firestone, and the agency did not use the data it already had 
to spot trends related to tire failures.
    In implementing the TREAD Act, Congress placed a number of 
requirements on NHTSA to improve their process to identify 
potential defects and to develop a new defect information 
system. To undertake these activities, NHTSA must implement a 
variety of new rules, including the establishment of early 
warning requirements for vehicles and equipment, updating tire 
standards and improving child safety restraints.
    All of these rules must be completed before November, 2002, 
and some are very controversial. In fact, OMB just remanded the 
final tire pressure monitor rule back to NHTSA because it 
believed NHTSA did not provide a strong analysis of the safety 
issues and benefits of the proposed system.
    This was one of the easiest rule makings that NHTSA was 
supposed to complete. Based on this surprising turn of events, 
I wonder if NHTSA will be able to meet the rule making 
deadlines on some of the more controversial areas, such as 
dynamic rollover testing and earning warning requirements. We 
will spend a little time today, I am sure, discussing those 
points.
    We will welcome your testimony before the subcommittee in a 
few seconds and minutes. First let me yield to my partner, Mr. 
Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Runge, we welcome 
you and look forward to your comments.
    Dr. Runge. Thank you, sir.

                           Opening Statement

    Mr. Rogers. We will make your written testimony a part of 
the record, and we would like to have you summarize that if you 
would, please.
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
am pleased to make my first appearance before you on behalf of 
NHTSA. I welcome the opportunity to testify on these issues of 
national importance and on our FY 2003 budget request.
    Before I begin, I would like to express my appreciation for 
the committee's support of Highway Traffic Safety and for the 
particular attention shown by your staff to the agency's 
programs. I look forward to continuing work with you and the 
committee and your staff as I finish out my term.
    The top goal of Secretary Mineta and of the Administration 
is transportation safety and security. NHTSA's focus is on 
keeping people safe on our nation's roads and highways. We use 
the resources we are given in programs and services that are 
results oriented. We will strive to use only effective, cost 
efficient countermeasures to address the safety needs of our 
citizens.

                          SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS

    We work in partnership with a broad array of professionals 
in various disciplines, and we understand our pivotal role to 
the entire traffic safety community, both nationally, as well 
as in states and in local jurisdictions and in the private 
sector. We also recognize that our influence extends 
internationally as we work to influence safety worldwide.
    As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the numbers speak 
forthemselves. Forty-one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one people 
dead on our nation's highways in the year 2000, 16,600 from alcohol 
impaired crashes. Nine thousand two hundred died because they were not 
buckled in a seatbelt or child restraint.
    We know that to fulfill our duty to the American people we 
must bolster our current efforts, especially in the areas of 
driver impairment, seatbelt use, speeding, and other unsafe 
driving practices like distracted driving and arrogant driving. 
Consistent with these efforts, we are requesting $430 million 
in FY 2003, an increase of $6 million over the FY 2002 budget, 
to support a balanced approach to increasing the safety of 
vehicles and tackling the human causes of crashes in this 
growing transportation sector.

               TRAFFIC SAFETY--A PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

    As a physician, I come to the table with decades of 
experience in treating victims of crash injury, and I came to 
NHTSA committed to ramp up our efforts to prevent crashes and 
to reduce the death and injury when they do occur. We will 
provide the science, the programs and the regulations, but 
highway safety is not our responsibility alone. The 
responsibility belongs to every American.
    People must take personal responsibility to drive sober and 
responsibly and to buckle themselves and their children into 
safety restraints. Private corporations must take 
responsibility to make the safest possible vehicles and 
equipment and must insure that their products can be used 
safely.
    NHTSA has a very successful legacy in keeping our citizens 
safe. Our programs have had a long-term influence in reducing 
traffic crashes, death and injuries. Mr. Chairman, the easier 
gains have already been made, and we are seeing that further 
progress is hard to come by.

                    NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY

    There has been consistent improvement in the numbers since 
NHTSA's inception in the 1960s. Despite this, the tragic fact 
remains that traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for 
Americans aged four to 33 years of age, and every day 115 
people are killed on the highways, the equivalent of an 
airliner. Over 3,000,000 people are injured annually.
    We have seen the first increases in alcohol related deaths 
in many years, and, as you mentioned, motorcyclist deaths are 
up significantly. This is a national public health emergency. 
It is a disease. It is both predictable and preventable, and it 
has a cure and a very effective vaccine.
    The most effective safety vaccine available is the safety 
belt and the child safety seat.

                         SEAT BELT USE INCREASE

    I am happy to tell you that seatbelt use did increase six 
percentage points from 1999 to 2001, boosted this past year by 
our high visibility enforcement campaign across the southeast.
    The bad news is that although this is the most effective 
tool we have against one of America's most urgent public health 
problems, we have an unbelievably difficult time getting people 
to use it. Belt use has been improving by a meager two 
percentage points each year in spite of our intensive efforts.
    NHTSA will need to mount a more widespread, more effective 
effort. Realistically, Mr. Chairman, reaching 90 percent belt 
use, or even getting the nation over 80 percent--to join the 
rest of the developed--world, will not happen unless states 
enact and then enforce primary seatbelt laws.
    The 27 percent of Americans who are not buckling up are 
much more difficult to convert than those who have already 
converted. We have the data on how it can be accomplished, but 
it will require consistent laws and enforcement throughout the 
states. NHTSA can help with programs such as Click It or 
Ticket, but the states have to take responsibility for the laws 
they fail to enact to safeguard their citizens.

                            IMPAIRED DRIVING

    With respect to impaired driving, impaired drivers are a 
national menace, and stopping them is one of my top priorities. 
Our program supports what our research shows to work. DUI 
enforcement, coupled with sure, swift sanctions, strong laws 
for repeat offenders, .08 laws to lower the BAC on the roads, 
administrative license revocation, vehicle sanctions, as well 
as widespread public education, including designated drivers, 
are the way to go.
    We are running a five state demonstration program of strong 
enforcement, and we are witnessing improvements in alcohol 
related deaths, compared to areas without that similar 
enforcement.

                    OTHER DANGEROUS DRIVING BEHAVIOR

    Our new budget is designed to address other dangerous 
behaviors, including aggressive driving, speeding and driver 
distraction. Our program will focus on effective traffic law 
enforcement, demonstrations in automated enforcement and speed 
management, as well as major public education efforts.

                    STRONG VEHICLE SAFETY COMPONENT

    We have a strong vehicle safety component plan as well. It 
includes vehicle crashworthiness and crash avoidance 
initiatives and continuing to advise consumers through our NCAP 
program about the relative safety performance of new vehicles.
    A strong research program is the underpinning for all 
vehicular and behavioral safety, including our crash injury 
data systems that are used worldwide to guide decision making 
about everything from driver behavior programs to vehicle 
design and road design.

                           COMPLIANCE TESTING

    The FY 2003 request also provides resources for vehicle 
safety crash testing and for new defect investigations and 
safety recall efforts, including implementation of the various 
provisions of the TREAD Act.

                               CONCLUSION

    Mr. Chairman, in closing I want to repeat my thanks for the 
committee's support. I look forward to working with you and 
carrying out what we believe will be a strong performance based 
program that will achieve our national safety goals. Thank you 
for your time.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
                             SEATBELT GOAL

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Dr. Runge. Did you change the 
seatbelt and alcohol goals for 2003?
    Dr. Runge. The seatbelt goals are changed, sir, and they 
are included in our budget. Let me just drop back here a second 
and talk about the previous goal.
    I researched how that goal was developed. At the time it 
was developed, it was known to be a stretch goal. It was based 
on data from the 1980s when seatbelt laws were beginning to be 
passed, and there was a sharp increase after the passage of 
seatbelt laws as to compliance. Once it reached a certain 
point, it became very flat.
    In spite of efforts, and I come from North Carolina where 
we are very successful with primary seatbelt laws, as well as 
being one of the first Click It or Ticket programs in the 
country, we know what works. If we convert a consistent 
percentage of non-users every year, it changes the slope quite 
a bit from what they were postulating back in 1995.
    The goal for me is not 90 percent. The goal is 100 percent, 
but I believe that we need more short-term targets that we can 
hold ourselves accountable for. I asked the research staff to 
look at the data and see what we were doing and what we were 
likely to do if we intensified our efforts.
    We looked at this in two ways. First, we looked at a 
consistent percentage of conversion of non-users. If we convert 
8.5 percent of non-users each year, which is going to be 
difficult to do, we will achieve a 2003 number of about 77.3 
percent.
    Then we went back to the states and asked the states 
themselves to give us an honest appraisal of what they really 
believed that they could do if they did everything that they 
could possibly do with their resources and using our 
demonstration programs, and the average came out to 77.6 
percent. So we picked 78 percent as the intermediate target by 
which we will measure ourselves in terms of our performance.
    I think that it is more data driven. It gives us a more 
near term accountability. Frankly, it gets rid of a goal which 
no one--no one--believes is reasonable. Quite frankly, it 
fatigues our efforts when we try to meet unachievable goals. 
That is the reason for the new seatbelt goal, and I hope that 
is an adequate explanation for you.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
                    BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION LAWS

    Mr. Rogers. In fiscal 2001, in this bill we required all 
states to enact a blood alcohol content level of .08 by 2004, 
and those states that did not do that would have a portion of 
their highway funds withheld. In fiscal 2001, ten new states 
adopted those standards, and South Dakota recently passed the 
legislation.
    Even with the .08 standard, why do you believe that your 
alcohol goal of no more than 11,000 fatalities in 2005 was not 
acceptable?
    Dr. Runge. Once again, I would be happy to get back with 
you and show you the exact curves of the progress that has been 
made.
    This is a very complicated issue, and it has more to do 
with societal beliefs and the willingness of Americans to live 
with this travesty than it does with what we can do at our 
federal level to intervene. I promise you that this is one of 
my very top goals.
    Now if you look back, once again in the 1980s when there 
was intensive effort towards passing blood alcohol laws and 
increasing enforcement, there were some considerable gains that 
were made. Unfortunately, it has been flat since about 1993. It 
was flat even when these goals were made, and I also believe 
that those were stretch goals. Our partners got together with 
us, and they said we should really try to do the absolute best 
that we possibly can.
    Even if you look at the slope of the progress that has been 
made, that 11,000 target was even optimistic looking at the 
gains that had been made through the 1980s, so it is difficult 
for me to understand how exactly they arrived at that number.
    We do know what works, however. The .08 was an important 
thing, but still we only have 28 states that have passed a .08 
law. However, as you suggested, Mr. Chairman, once the Act to 
transfer funds from the highway fund was enacted, we saw a 
rapid take in the number of states who were willing to pass 
that .08 law, so there was no question about the effectiveness 
of the sanctions that the Committee put in.

                 BLOOD ALCOHOL LAWS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE

    However, .08 is not the only answer to the issue. We saw a 
four percent increase in 2000 alcohol related crashes, which I 
hope is an anomaly. It had been flat, trending ever so slightly 
downward, for the previous few years before this uptake. We 
will know shortly if that was an anomaly or if that is a new 
trend, but we are taking it very seriously.
    We are doing some innovative things in various states. We 
know that, for instance, checkpoints work very well with a 
double digit effectiveness, in the area of 20 percent 
effective, in reducing alcohol related fatalities, but certain 
states have constitutional provisions against checkpoints. We 
are working with the ones who can do this. We have demonstrated 
it both in Tennessee and Louisiana, and we are encouraging 
states to adopt what they can.

                     OTHER ALCOHOL RELATED PROGRAMS

    Other states have had DWI Courts. We have an intensive 
program to educate prosecutors and Judges on administrative 
license revocation and ignition interlock systems aimed at the 
repeat offender, so we have a conglomeration of programs, and 
we are applying them intensively to the extent that we can.
    We desperately need strong political leadership in this 
area so that Americans no longer regard this problem with a 
wink and a nod, but in fact look at it as the public health 
emergency that it is.
    To the extent that I can from my little office in DOT, I 
will be shouting this from the rooftops, that we absolutely 
have got to change America's attitude about exposing each other 
to death and injury on the highway.

                        SEAT BELT USAGE SURVEYS

    Mr. Rogers. Now on the seatbelt statistics. I am informed 
that NHTSA has recently told the states that they have to 
conduct their seatbelt usage surveys immediately after high 
visibility campaigns take place in those states to get people 
to wear seatbelts.
    Is that so? If it is, does that not skew the usage 
statistics towards the high side?
    Dr. Runge. Well, I cannot speak to what has been done in 
the past with full knowledge. However, I can tell you that we 
generally do seatbelt checks in the summer. We also have a 
national occupant protection use survey which has been done 
every other year.
    There is no question that once we do have a high visibility 
enforcement campaign that our numbers will look as good as they 
can look. That is okay with me because we are also doing a pre/
post comparison, and I think our statisticians will be able to 
give you an idea of the effect of these programs.
    Keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that the money that was given 
to us last year by the Appropriations Committee had in it $8 
million for paid advertising. We chose to apply that not just 
to paid advertising, but to this intensive campaign. I equate 
this to a ground war with air support.
    In other words, we have to go out into these 12 states that 
we have targeted and recruit thousands of local police agencies 
to actually do the work. We will provide them air support with 
paid advertising. You have also given us $2 million to do a 
central evaluation from here in Washington, looking at the 
effectiveness of this program in the various states.
    Mr. Rogers. The question is did you inform the states that 
they do their surveys immediately after the campaigns? That is 
what I asked you.
    Dr. Runge. In June. They are going to do it in June. Yes, 
sir.
    Mr. Rogers. No. I asked you did you inform them to do their 
surveys immediately after their campaigns to wear seatbelts?
    Dr. Runge. Well, yes.
    Mr. Rogers. And again, does that not sort of skew theusage, 
the year round usage, on the high side?
    Dr. Runge. I think it will give us an idea of what the best 
we can do is if we apply this methodology nationwide.

                    SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE BONUSES

    Mr. Rogers. Well, I think it skews the results, but I am no 
statistician.
    Now I want to ask you about bonuses. This subcommittee is 
asking across the jurisdictions that we fund about how bonuses 
are given out. Last year, the Congress reduced your performance 
bonuses because it was not clear whether NHTSA was holding 
senior management officials accountable for achieving 
performance plan goals, particularly in the seatbelt area.
    Last year, did you reward your senior management for 
failing to meet seatbelt and alcohol goals? Did they receive 
bonuses?
    Dr. Runge. Mr. Chairman, approximately half of our SES 
received bonuses.
    Mr. Rogers. The question that I asked you was did you give 
performance bonuses to the people accountable for achieving 
performance plan goals, particularly in the seatbelt area?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir, we did.
    Mr. Rogers. And how can you justify that?
    Dr. Runge. I believe, being new to the system and asking my 
bosses, who were also involved with this decision, Mr. 
Chairman, we awarded bonuses based on overall program 
performance.
    Please keep in mind that we have seen increases, 
significant increases, in meeting seatbelt goals since 1999. We 
are up six percentage points. Every percentage point means 260 
lives saved. It means over 6,000 injuries mitigated. It means 
2.4 million new seatbelt users, so I am actually not so 
dissatisfied at all with our gains in seatbelt use.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, I am happy to hear that you are not 
displeased. We are displeased.
    Last year, as I say, the Congress reduced those performance 
bonuses. How much longer have we got to try to send a message 
to you----
    Dr. Runge. We get the message, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. That those bonuses go to people 
who achieve their goals? Bonuses are not a normal part of the 
salary.
    The Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs and 
the Associate Administrator for State and Community Services 
got bonuses last year, even though they are the two senior 
management officials directly responsible for meeting those 
goals. Is that correct?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir.

                           JUSTIFYING BONUSES

    Mr. Rogers. How can you justify that?
    Dr. Runge. They have a wide range of responsibility. Quite 
frankly, if you look at the schedule of bonuses, frankly, they 
did not get the same level of bonus that their peer Associate 
Administrators got.
    However, I do want to point out, and I want to make sure 
that the committee understands this perfectly well, the level 
of effort put forth by everyone at NHTSA has only a partial 
effect on what actually happens out there in the states.
    We simply have got to get states to enact primary belt 
laws. We have to get enforcement programs that are effective. 
Until we do, these numbers are not going to move in spite of 
people working 24 hours a day.

                           UNREALISTIC GOALS

    Mr. Rogers. Well, then your goals are unrealistic then, 
right?
    Dr. Runge. They have been. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. And are they realistic now?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir, I believe they are.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you think the 78 percent is a realistic goal 
that can be achieved with proper work?
    Dr. Runge. We are going to have to work very hard to get 
there, but, yes, sir, I believe we can do it.
    Mr. Rogers. These bonuses then, are they going to be given 
even though you do not reach that goal?
    Dr. Runge. That is a great question. When the time comes, 
we will look at the performance of all of our Associate 
Administrators and their performance objectives, and we will 
make that determination then.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we are going to look at that before you 
look at it.
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Sabo.

                 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOALS AND FUNDING

    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am curious about this change from 90 percent to 78 
percent. One was a stretch goal. Clearly, I suppose having a 
high goal complicates the problem the Chairman is talking 
about. On the other hand, the goal has to be high.
    I guess I am sort of curious. You have lowered the stretch 
goal from 90 to 78 percent, but also reduced funding. As I 
understand, the occupant protection funding is dropping by $1.8 
million or 14 percent in your budget. How are you going to get 
there?
    Dr. Runge. Well, let me just clarify one thing, Congressman 
Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Second, if you move from a stretch goal, which I 
think it has some pluses--it is probably impossible to 
achieve--to a lower goal, then clearly we have to see whether 
you meet that goal if it is not a stretch goal. The funding is 
going down.
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir. Let me clarify a couple things that 
may help us all to understand.
    I have been doing this traffic safety work for a long time, 
even as a physician. I have been familiar with NHTSA for a long 
time and the work it has put into seatbelt use. I will not 
rest, even when I am gone from NHTSA, until seatbelt use is 100 
percent in this country.
    Western European nations have done it. Seatbelt use is over 
90 percent in Canada. There is no reason why the United States 
of America cannot achieve that goal. My stretch goal is 100 
percent.
    What we seek to do here is to set some databased 
performance objectives against which we can measure our 
performance.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay. I guess my question is how are you going to 
do that with reduced funding?
    Dr. Runge. Well, that is a great question. We needed to 
submit a flat budget this year, sir, because of priorities both 
in the Department and priorities of the President. The budget 
that we submitted was flat over what was requested for FY 2002.
    We were given some additional money by the Congress to put 
some additional resources into this issue, but the flat budget 
that we submitted was based on our request for 2002 and not 
what was enacted. I do believe that there is sufficient money 
for occupant protection to get our job done.
    Mr. Sabo. It is not flat funding. It is down 14 percent.
    Dr. Runge. Over the enacted, sir. I believe that is 
correct.
    Mr. Sabo. Right.
    Dr. Runge. As opposed to what was requested by us in 2002. 
I share your concerns. However, you know, we all have to work 
lean and mean here.

                    LEADING CAUSES OF HIGHWAY DEATHS

    Mr. Sabo. I understand. I understand what happened to Mr. 
Parker, so you do not have to say anything more.
    Would you rank for me the order of the leading causes of 
highway deaths? What would be the leading reasons?
    Dr. Runge. This is based on data that is about 23 years 
old.
    Mr. Sabo. Twenty-three years old?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir. We would love to redo this at some 
point, but it is going to require some resources that are not 
currently budgeted. We have reason to believe that----
    Mr. Sabo. Do you mean our data on leading causes is 23 
years old?
    Dr. Runge. On causation. Yes, sir. The best study that we 
have on causation is about 23 years old.
    Now, we have more recent data on the numbers of fatalities. 
For instance, alcohol related fatalities. Sixteen thousand six 
hundred and sixty out of 41,821 are alcohol related. About a 
little over 30,000 of those deaths are occupant deaths.
    I can tell you that alcohol and lack of seatbelt use are 
the two leading causes of highway death. Once again, 9,200 for 
lack of a seatbelt, 16,600 alcohol related. Less than ten 
percent are vehicle related. Eight hundred are tire related, 
for instance, in a universe of 41,800.
    Did that answer your question, Mr. Sabo?

                             VEHICLE WEIGHT

    Mr. Sabo. Yes, but I am curious as it relates to another 
issue. Occasionally we hear of the relative importance of 
weight of car. I gather that is way down the list?
    Dr. Runge. How vehicles interact with each other is 
actually a separate issue. In the study that was done, the best 
causation study that we have, differential weight in vehicles 
was not listed as a cause.
    Now, Dr. Kahane on our staff has done a very nice study 
using some data from the mid 1990s, which he is updating right 
now, that shows that the disparity in weight of vehicles does 
lead to an increase in fatalities.
    We also know from our data, or at least the data suggests 
at this point, that down weighting the heaviest vehicles may 
have a safety benefit, but down weighting the lightest vehicles 
will, without a doubt, have a disbenefit.
    Mr. Sabo. What about in rollover?
    Dr. Runge. Well, rollovers are a unique problem. In fact, 
they are one of my top priorities this year. They are four 
percent of all crashes, but one-third of occupant fatalities, 
so those numbers are widely disparate and actually need direct 
and vigorous attention, which we are giving them.
    Mr. Sabo. I am amazed the studies are that old.
    Dr. Runge. So am I. Unfortunately, it is going to take 
literally millions. Actually, right now we are engaged in a 
large truck causation study nationwide using our NAS 
investigators who are actually going in and getting very 
detailed information as to causation when large trucks are 
involved.
    At some future point I will get back to you about this, 
Congressman. We would like to do this for cars by using a 
similar methodology that would update this data.

                 DRIVING SIMULATOR USE IN TRUCK STUDIES

    Mr. Sabo. That sort of leads into my next question. One of 
my questions was we have funded a driving simulator for some 
time, and I understand you are using that for studying some 
driver behavior.
    Are you planning to use that driving simulator at all to 
test what may be going wrong with the cars in relationship to 
larger trucks? It seems to me that would be a great use of that 
simulator.
    Dr. Runge. I do not know that we currently have a research 
plan to study interaction of cars and heavy trucks. Heavy 
trucks or light trucks? I am sorry. Did I get that question 
wrong?
    Mr. Sabo. Well, let us just leave it at trucks.
    Dr. Runge. Okay. We do have a giant truck cab that is part 
of the simulator or that can be moved into the simulator and 
can look at truck driver behavior. The current research that is 
being----
    Mr. Sabo. I guess what I am thinking of----
    Dr. Runge. Yes?

                         TRUCK CAUSATION STUDY

    Mr. Sabo [continuing]. Is not so much the truck behavior as 
often we hear in the truck crashes it is the other driver who 
is at fault, and I do not know that we have much understanding 
what it is of the big truck that causes the driver to do 
something they should not.
    Dr. Runge. That is precisely the reason that we are doing 
the truck causation study. I will be happy to get with you 
after the hearing and update you on the plans for the 
simulator.
    We do have some things. We started research there last 
month. We have a study ongoing. We are going to start one in 
the near future on distraction. I would be happy to update you 
on this plan.
    Mr. Sabo. I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I 
will wait.
    Mr. Rogers. All right. We will take a short recess. We have 
two votes on the Floor, and we will be back as soon as we 
possibly can. In the meantime, you are invited to relax.
    Dr. Runge. Thank you, sir.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Tiahrt, would you like to be recognized?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No, Mr. Chairman.

                  TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING SYSTEM RULE

    Mr. Rogers. Dr. Runge, what is the status of the tire 
pressure monitoring system rule that OMB summarily rejected?
    Dr. Runge. We have been working with OMB closely, and I 
believe we have an agreement on a sound rule. We expect to have 
a final rule out in the next couple of weeks.
    Mr. Rogers. Did NHTSA analyze real world data comparing the 
results of direct and indirect tire pressure monitoring 
systems?
    Dr. Runge. I can tell you a little bit about that cost 
benefit analysis. There are very few of the direct systems out 
there, but once again I want to try to make this abundantly 
clear. The rule that was sent will become public once the final 
rule is published. This was not about indirect versus direct 
systems. This was about a four tire standard versus a one tire 
standard.
    The current ABS based indirect systems measure a 30percent 
difference only if one tire is different from all the rest, and it has 
to be the correct tire. A four tire standard is necessary if you want 
to solve the problem of someone driving around in an SUV with 18 pounds 
of pressure in all four tires.
    What we have not done yet is to look at the performance of 
a one tire standard system versus the rest of the population of 
cars and trucks that we already know are running around under 
inflated at a rate of about 20 percent, and that is what our 
intention is.
    Mr. Rogers. During congressional debate on direct and 
indirect tire monitor systems, debate was focused around one 
indirect system installed in Toyota minivans that cost about 
$2.50 a vehicle. Apparently, the rule would outlaw the very 
system that Congress discussed in 2000 and would cost a great 
deal more than $2.50 a vehicle.
    What do you estimate the cost per vehicle for the direct 
tire pressure monitoring system?
    Dr. Runge. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into too much 
detail about the rule since the docket is still open. However, 
I can tell you that, to the best of my knowledge, it was not 
$2.50. It was more like $12 plus the cost of ABS brakes.
    The current direct systems are out there. They are about 
$66 a car and, of course, do not depend on the presence of ABS 
brakes to install them. They are being made by the thousands. 
We would love to have additional data on what it would cost 
when they are being made by the millions.
    Mr. Rogers. We now, as you have said, have a 73 percent 
seatbelt usage rate, and apparently you believe that 95 percent 
of drivers would heed a low tire warning light without further 
prompting when no more than 73 percent heed a seatbelt warning 
light. Do you see any inconsistency there?
    Dr. Runge. No, sir. The seatbelt light goes off after a few 
seconds. I am not sure what the regulation would say about a 
tire pressure warning light, but it would not have the same 
restrictions. Moreover, the arguments that we hear against 
wearing seatbelts do not apply to checking your tires, as far 
as I know.
    [The information follows:]

    Mr Rogers. During congressional debate on direct and 
indirect tire monitor systems, debate was focused around one 
indirect system installed in Toyota minivans that cost $2.50 
per vehicle. Apparently, your rule would outlaw the very system 
that Congress discussed in 2000 and would cost a great deal 
more than $2.50 per vehicle. What is the estimated cost per 
vehicle for the ``direct'' tire pressure monitoring system?
    [The information follows:]
    Our estimated cost to add an indirect tire pressure monitoring 
system to a vehicle that already has a 4-channel, 4-wheel antilock 
brake system is $13.29. However, a large percentage of light trucks 
currently have a 3-channel ABS system (on a 3-channel ABS system, the 
rear axle has one speed sensor rather than a separate wheel speed 
sensor on each wheel). The average cost of providing an indirect system 
for all ABS vehicles (passenger cars and all light trucks) is estimated 
to be $21.13.
    Our estimated cost to add a direct tire pressure monitoring system 
to a vehicle is $66.50.
    We also believe that a hybrid system, that could provide nearly the 
same level of information as a direct monitoring system, could be 
developed that uses two direct tire pressure monitors with an indirect 
system with the 4-channel, 4-wheel antilock brake system at a cost of 
$39.90.
    Mr. Rogers. OMB concluded that before issuing a final rule, NHTSA 
needs to provide a stronger analysis of the safety issues and benefits, 
including a formal analysis of a regulatory alternative that would 
permit the indirect monitoring systems after the phase in period. How 
long will it take NHTSA to do this analysis?
    [The information follows:]
    The analysis of the additional regulatory alternative has been 
completed. It is included in the Final Economic Assessment that will be 
published with the final rule.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you concur with OMB's advice that NHTSA should defer 
a decision about the ultimate fate of indirect systems for several more 
years?
    [The information follows:]
    During the review process under Executive Order 12866, OMB raised 
questions about the available data and the conclusions that the Agency 
reached regarding the data. NHTSA is evaluating their concerns and will 
attempt to obtain more definitive information for making a final 
decision on the appropriate requirements for 2007 and subsequent model 
years.
    Mr. Rogers. According to OMB's letter, NHTSA estimated that 95 
percent of consumers would respond to a warning light indicating low 
tire pressure. How does this compare with consumer response rates to 
other safety warning lights?
    [The information follows:]
    We have done a literature search and found no studies of consumer 
response rates to other comparable safety warning lights.
    Mr. Rogers. On average, NHTSA takes almost 4 years to complete 
significant rules. The Agency has been working on the early warning 
rule for about one year, and just received comments to its notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM). To meet the deadline in the TREAD Act, 
NHTSA must complete this rule in about 18 months. What is the status of 
your early warning rule? Is it still on track for June 30, 2002?
    [The information follows:]
    The comment period for the NPRM, issued on December 21, 2001, has 
closed. Over 452 comments were received, but over 400 of those dealt 
with one relatively minor issue. The comments are currently under 
review. NHTSA continues to believe that it will meet the June 30, 2002 
deadline.
    Mr. Rogers. Dr. Runge, what actions are you taking to ensure that 
this rule is issued in a timely manner? For example, have you involved 
OMB in this process already?
    [The information follows:]
    All Agency offices involved in this rulemaking are making it their 
highest priority to issue this rule in a timely manner. In addition, 
frequent periodic reviews are conducted to monitor the progress that 
has been made. OMB is involved and has decided that this is a 
significant rulemaking, meaning that additional OMB review will be 
necessary.
    Mr. Rogers. Your December proposal states that you expect to have a 
fully functional early warning system by the summer of 2002. What does 
``fully functional'' mean?
    [The information follows:]
    The comment referred to the new Information Management System for 
the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) rather than the early warning 
rulemaking. This new system, called ARTEMIS, will replace the existing 
Defect Information Management System (DIMS). Extensive revisions are 
being made to the database structure in order to improve ODI's ability 
to capture, retrieve, and analyze safety-related defect information 
related to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including the 
Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data when it becomes available. 
Additionally, increased public access to appropriate information 
through the Internet is being incorporated.
    By September 30, 2002, ODI staff will be able to capture, retrieve, 
and analyze data using ARETMIS. ODI does not plan to actually begin 
receiving EWR data until the spring of 2003.
    Mr. Rogers. Why is NHTSA in the process of developing a database to 
handle all the early warning information that vehicle and equipment 
manufacturers must submit when the administration does not know what 
type of the volume of data it will be receiving? Is it wise to develop 
this database without fully knowing the parameters of the system?
    [The information follows:]
    The new system, called ARTEMIS, will replace the existing Defect 
Information Management System (DIMS). Extensive revisions are being 
made to the database structure in order to improve the Agency's ability 
to capture, retrieve, and analyze safety-related defect information, 
including the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data when it becomes 
available.
    While the precise provisions of the EWR rule have not been 
finalized, NHTSA has a very good idea of the general form and types of 
information that will be submitted. The Agency is assured that the new 
ARTEMIS system is flexible enough to incorporate whatever specific EWR 
information is ultimately required. This way, NHTSA will be able to use 
the EWR effectively and in a timely manner.
    Mr. Rogers. Many are concerned that the amount of information NHTSA 
is requesting from the manufacturers will bury the Agency in data. For 
example, NHTSA currently receives about 50,000 automobile complaints 
per year, whereas the major automobile manufacturers receive more than 
100 million warranty claims per year. Because of the exponential growth 
in data, many are concerned that NHTSA will not be able to identify 
safety problems faster. How do you respond to these concerns?
    [The information follows:]
    The information that the Agency has proposed to require from the 
manufacturers under the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) rule is, for the 
most part, in the form of summary data, including the number of 
warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc., broken down by product 
characteristics such as make, model, and model year, and further broken 
down by various safety-related vehicle systems (brakes, steering, 
etc.). The Agency is not proposing to require the submission of actual 
warranty claims or consumer complaints. These data will be 
statistically analyzed in the Agency's new data system currently under 
development (ARTEMIS) to identify trends that indicate that a defect 
investigation is warranted. Because historical information indicates 
that manufacturers' data is more complete than the Agency's complaints 
data, the Agency believes that the EWR rule will enable the Agency to 
identify safety problems sooner.
    Mr. Rogers. According to submissions to the rulemaking docket, 
there appear to be at least 15 million customer contacts with 
manufacturers and over 100 million warranty claims filed per year. Will 
NHTSA's early warning system record each one of these contacts?
    [The information follows:]
    The information that the Agency has proposed to require from the 
manufacturers under the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) rule is, for the 
most part, in the form of summary data, including the number of 
warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc., broken down by product 
characteristics such as make, model, and model year, and further broken 
down by various safety-related vehicle systems (brakes, steering, 
etc.). The Agency is not proposing to require the submission of 
documents reflecting consumer contacts or warranty claims.
    Mr. Rogers. How will you decide when to open an investigation based 
on this volume of information?
    [The information follows:]
    The data in the Agency's new data system currently under 
development (ARTEMIS) will be reviewed to identify trends that indicate 
that an investigation is warranted. If the statistical data suggests 
that there may be a problem, the Agency will be able to obtain 
additional relevant information from manufacturers. Because historical 
information indicates that manufacturers' data is more complete than 
the Agency's complaints data, the Agency believes that the Early 
Warning Reporting data will enable the Agency to identify safety 
problems sooner.
    Mr. Rogers. Currently NHTSA uses customer complaints to open up 
about 70 percent of the Agency's defect investigations, yet these 
complaints can contain very limited information about potential 
defects. About 50 percent of these investigations are closed without 
any recall being undertaken. In your opinion, how will NHTSA's early 
warning system improved the productivity of the Agency's defect 
investigation activities so that agency resources are more efficiently 
devoted to investigating defects that lead to calls?
    [The information follows:]
    The data in the Agency's new data system currently under 
development (ARTEMIS) will be reviewed to identify trends that indicate 
that an investigation is warranted. If the statistical data suggests 
that there may be a problem, the Agency will be able to obtain 
additional relevant information from manufacturers. Because historical 
information indicates that manufacturers' data is more complete than 
the Agency's complaints data, the Agency believes that the Early 
Warning reporting data will enable the Agency to identify safety 
problems sooner. In addition, since NHTSA will have more complete 
information sooner, the Agency will be able to focus its investigative 
resources on the most serious potential safety problems.

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Tiahrt, questions?

                           CHILD SAFETY SEATS

    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I missed some of the conversation on the seatbelts, but in 
the child restraint area there has been a lot of controversy 
and some deaths that have resulted from it. Are there grants or 
something where you are working on different designs for child 
seatbelt restraints? How are you approaching that?
    Dr. Runge. That is a great question, sir. Thank you for the 
question.
    First and foremost, over half the children who die in car 
crashes die totally unrestrained. There is a population of 
children who are restrained in some fashion who die in non-
survivable crashes, so we have a small subset of those 400 
children who die every year--I am sorry; that is about right--
who are in a restraint, but do not survive.
    The TREAD Act gave us the opportunity to test child safety 
seats for integrity, for crashworthiness and so forth, and we 
are doing that in earnest. The rulemaking is in process right 
now. Over 90 percent of kids, right now, who are less than age 
two are in child safety seats. This is a huge success. The 
programs that we have out there have worked for this population 
of people. We are very happy about that.
    There is another population of children who are riding 
around, and I think this is the substance of your question, who 
are riding around in restraints that are not appropriate for 
their size, particularly children who are less than 4,9". The 
seatbelt geometry is really not consistent. We have been 
accentuating the use of booster seats for these children. We 
call them belt positioning booster seats for children who are 
too big for a car seat, but still are too small for the 
seatbelt.
    You have a report due to you, which will be here 
imminently, on booster seat users in the United States.

                      RAILROAD CROSSING FATALITIES

    Mr. Tiahrt. That will be interesting. I will be looking for 
that.
    Your work on railroad crossings. What investigative work do 
you do when there is a fatality at a railroad crossing? Is it 
only on request? If there was a perceived dangerous crossing, 
would you then get involved?
    Dr. Runge. Actually, that falls under the Federal Railroad 
Administration and Mr. Alan Rutter.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Okay.
    Dr. Runge. We have had this conversation, and there clearly 
is a need for some interaction between our agencies, but they 
have jurisdiction over that.

          AGENCY COORDINATION ON RAILROAD CROSSING FATALITIES

    Mr. Tiahrt. We are seeing quite a bit of coordination in 
other areas, especially since September 11. In many cases, 
there is money that is provided to states to make railroad 
crossings safer by putting some kind of indicators beside the 
crossbar. I think there has been some frustration in 
communities that have had fatalities in the way matching 
programs are set up or whatever the obstacles are.
    I do not know whether it is just that we have not set the 
right guidelines. I had hoped that there would be some kind of 
a coordination at the federal level with state and local 
agencies so that we could use the money that is available. 
There is money almost in every state available, as I understand 
it, that can make safer crossings upon request with no matching 
funding required.
    Perhaps in some communities hardship waivers could be put 
in place. Some small communities have great needs because they 
are old communities that were built on the railroad because the 
railroad came through there, and now they do not have the 
resources to match to make a safe crossing or a grade 
separation.
    Could you kind of give me an idea of how we could set up 
some kind of coordination?
    Dr. Runge. That is a great question. Interestingly, I asked 
the same question after another hearing, and I did find out 
that the 402 grant money that is out there in the states, the 
$165 million that is out there in the states, is eligible for 
railroad crossing upgrades. Again, it is discretionary money 
that the states receive to do that.
    I also did a little bit of digging, and now I have 
forgotten the number, but when we look at the numbers of 
fatalities per year in the U.S. at grade crossings, it is a 
relatively small number compared to everything else that NHTSA 
is trying to deal with. I think that the FRA and Mr. Rutter are 
on top of this. I can promise you that we will coordinate that 
and see if we can get some programs going.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Rutter?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tiahrt. What is his----
    Dr. Runge. He is my counterpart at the Federal Railroad 
Administration. Alan Rutter.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Olver.

                              FUEL ECONOMY

    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies for having 
to be elsewhere earlier.
    Dr. Runge, I do not believe anybody has spoken about this 
yet, but I have for many years been very interested in the fuel 
efficiency of vehicles and energy conservation and the ways we 
can reduce the production of greenhouse gases.
    The fuel economy of the nation's fleet. Has it changed over 
the last three years in any significant way?
    Dr. Runge. You say three years?
    Mr. Olver. Fuel economy over the last three years.
    Dr. Runge. I cannot answer that question specifically, sir, 
about the previous three years.
    Mr. Olver. Do you have a sense of it over a longer period 
of time; maybe a ten year period?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir. Of course, the fuel economy of 
vehicles varies by the vehicle. We are using more energy now 
than we have in the past, but overall fuel economy of vehicles 
has improved.
    Mr. Olver. Overall the fuel economy has improved?
    Dr. Runge. Per vehicle.
    Mr. Olver. The fleet? The fleet economy?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir. Efficiency, I believe.
    Mr. Olver. Well, I will let that pass for the moment here. 
I have got to look at some data here.
    I would be a little bit surprised. One has to take into 
account you have mentioned the total amount of fuel has gone up 
and the total number of miles has gone up, so one has to be 
watchful that you are really making the correct transfers here.
    Dr. Runge. Actually, Congressman, I got a lot smarter since 
Mr. Shelton passed me this note. Indeed, he says the combined 
new car and truck fuel economy has dropped in the most recent 
years. You are correct.
    Mr. Olver. Do you have any good insight into why that would 
be? Have you gotten that smart since you were handed that note?
    Dr. Runge. No, sir. I have not gotten any smarter.
    Mr. Olver. Well, I will not press you.
    Dr. Runge. Here we go.
    Mr. Olver. Okay.
    Dr. Runge. More trucks.
    Mr. Olver. More trucks? Okay. More trucks, as opposed to?
    Dr. Runge. As opposed to more passenger cars. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Olver. Okay. In that process, are we calling an SUV a 
truck?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Olver. So it is really more SUVs more than more 4x4s.
    Dr. Runge. There are various vehicles that meet our 
definition of a truck, including PT Cruisers.

                     FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS STUDIES

    Mr. Olver. Okay. Under that definition, under the 
definition of trucks, we have more trucks. Okay. Fine. That is 
fine.
    For the first time in a long time, NHTSA now has some 
authority to change the fuel efficiency standards I think, the 
fuel economy standards, because this subcommittee did recently 
give you a reprogramming that you had requested to allow you to 
implement some of the recommendation of the National Academy of 
Sciences in their report of last year.
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Olver. Can you give me a sense of which of their 
recommendations you are going to be examining and on what kind 
of a time schedule? What can we expect to happen over the next 
year on this issue?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir. The activities that we plan currently 
are some studies to flesh out the NAS recommendations with 
specific regard to the auto manufacturers' capability to 
improve performance and increase efficiency. We are doing a 
review of the technological potential of new vehicle designs 
and the environmental implications of increasing CAFE 
standards.
    As always, we are very concerned about safety. We have 
undertaken to update Dr. Kahane's study, which is mentioned in 
the NAS report, with respect to the safety disbenefits on 
unweighting vehicles, looking at the weight effects on safety, 
which should be due imminently.

                CRASHES BETWEEN DIFFERENT SIZED VEHICLES

    Mr. Olver. Well, truly reducing the weight compared to if 
you have big trucks around with the safety there, that can be a 
problem. On the other hand, you can increase the fuel economy 
by increasing the efficiency of the vehicles. You can also 
increase the safety and leave the weight the same. That is a 
variable. You can also change where the center of gravity is of 
the vehicle.
    We have had lots of information about the rolling 
characteristics of vehicles that sit high, which tend to be 
relatively unsafe in single vehicle crashes, although if you 
sit high you probably do a lot more damage to things that sit 
low by sitting high in a straight head on, or something along 
those lines, so there are some pretty complicated things there.
    I do not have clearly in my mind at least what those 
recommendations have been, but I was curious which ones you 
particularly were going to be dwelling on.
    Dr. Runge. Our research department, Dr. Kahane in 
particular, is looking at that issue. Once he finishes the 
weight study, he is going to look at the differential impact--
no pun intended--of vehicles of different size.
    This gets at a larger issue. This is why Secretary Mineta 
has asked Congress to allow NHTSA to look at the program 
holistically for the model years 2005 through 2010, as opposed 
to simply changing the number for any one particular type.
    We want to avoid collateral problems, collateral damage 
caused by well meaning, but inadequately analyzed, numbers that 
may come out, so we really would like to look at this in 
earnest holistically.
    Mr. Olver. When will you have that holistic result?
    Dr. Runge. We are committed to a rule making for 2005 to 
2010 in time for the model year 2005, which would be an 18 
month lead time, which is March 31, 2003.
    We currently have a request for comments out there right 
now on 2005 to 2010 trying to get everyone's great ideas about 
all of this from the sense of the community, the advocate 
community and the environmental community. Everybody seems to 
have a stake in CAFE.

                  RESEARCH SUPPORTING CAFE RULEMAKING

    Mr. Olver. If you are hoping to have rulemaking completed 
in 18 months, then you have got to have a report of your own 
research----
    Dr. Runge. That is correct.
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. Considerably earlier.
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Olver. Do you have a sense of when that research is 
going to be done that you would need for the rule making?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir. We will have much of that done by 
midyear and all of it----
    Mr. Olver. By mid this year?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir, and all of it done by the end of the 
year in time to support the rule making for three months later.
    Mr. Olver. Okay. Do I have any more time?
    Mr. Rogers. There will be a second round if you would like.
    Mr. Olver. Okay. Thank you.

                      MERIT OF STAR RATING SYSTEM

    Mr. Rogers. Do you agree, Dr. Runge, with the concern 
expressed by the National Academy of Sciences that the star 
rating system is not precise enough to tell a consumer what 
vehicles are the safest in terms of rollover?
    Dr. Runge. I think that the system does have merit, Mr. 
Chairman. We will look at that.
    When they came up with the star rating they thought about 
various things, whether it should be A, B, C, D, E; whether it 
should be a numerical score. The star rating in their focus 
group research seemed to be the easiest to understand. However, 
we have seen the criticisms and are taking them very seriously.

                   PUBLIC EDUCATION ON ROLLOVER RISK

    Mr. Rogers. Are you looking into alternative options for 
communicating information to the public that may place rollover 
risk in a broader context, maybe a percent risk or a pictorial? 
Are you looking at options?
    Dr. Runge. Yes, sir. I indicated earlier that rollover is 
something that we simply have got to get a good handle on.
    Rule making takes a lot longer than education. We are given 
funds to have an NCAP rating every year. We got an excellent 
mark from the National Academy of Sciences with regard to our 
static stability factor as it relates to real world rollover 
crashes. I, frankly, do not think we do a good enough job at 
marketing that to the public.
    [The information follows:]

    Mr. Rogers. Are you investigating alternative options for 
communicating information to the public on static stability factors 
that may place rollover risk in a broader context (e.g. percent risk, 
pictorially, etc.)?
    [The information follows:]
    Yes, we are presently conducting consumer research to test 
alternative presentations of the rollover resistance ratings. We are 
exploring alternative formats for presenting the data as well as 
greater refinements in the data. We will give consumers a better 
context for rollover risk by describing the size of the rollover crash 
problem and risk relative to other crash modes through future consumer 
information. In the longer term, the Agency will try to develop a 
method of combining available information on the safety performance of 
each new vehicle into a single overall safety rating.
    Mr. Rogers. If so, is this work included in your 2003 budget 
request?
    [The information follows:]
    Yes, the 2003 budget includes funding to develop additional 
consumer information on rollover risk, and the use of rollover ratings.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you plan on developing crash presentations that will 
be able to distinguish crash avoidance ratings (rollovers) from 
crashworthiness ratings (how a person would fair in a frontal or side 
crash)?
    [The information follows:]
    We do not know if we should distinguish crash avoidance ratings 
from crashworthiness ratings. We are presently conducting consumer 
research to test the understanding and preference for alternative 
presentations of rollover and other NCAP ratings. In the presentation 
of NCAP ratings, we explain the basis for each type of star rating and 
what it means in terms of increased risk of injury for front and side 
impact ratings, and increased chance of rollover crash for rollover 
resistance ratings. We are also developing additional text and 
explanatory information to give consumers a better understanding of 
rollover crashes and the meaning of the ratings compared to other types 
of crashes and ratings.

                    DYNAMIC ROLLOVER TEST PROCEDURES

    Mr. Rogers. Now, as part of the TREAD Act NHTSA is required 
to develop dynamic rollover test procedures to better inform 
consumers about a vehicle's propensity to rollover and do that 
by November of 2002. Where do you stand now on that?
    Dr. Runge. We should be able to meet that deadline. We are 
looking and have looked at the various options out there for 
dynamic rollover, and we will be narrowing it down and will 
publish a report this spring.
    Mr. Rogers. There are more than 20 dynamic test procedures 
that different manufacturers use. How will you be able to 
determine which ones would give customers the most reliable and 
precise information about a vehicle's likelihood of rolling 
over?
    Dr. Runge. The short answer, Mr. Chairman, is that we want 
to choose the test that best correlates to the likelihood of 
rollover on American roads. To the extent that we can do that 
based on sound science, we will do exactly that.
    Mr. Rogers. The National Academy of Sciences says, 
``Consumer information on rollover that captures both static 
and dynamic test results will probably not be available in the 
near future.'' Are they wrong?
    Dr. Runge. I hope so.
    Mr. Rogers. What are you doing to make sure that the rule 
is not indefinitely delayed, as has occurred with rollover 
issues in the past?
    Dr. Runge. Well, sir, I think so far we are on schedule. We 
have looked at various tests from Ford's robotic test to 
Consumer Union's test on J-turns and S-turns and various 
things. The researchers are on it. I expect that they will be 
able to complete this on time.

          PREVENTING GAMESMANSHIP IN DYNAMIC ROLLOVER TESTING

    Mr. Rogers. In the past, concerns have been expressed that 
depending on what system is used that car makers can game the 
system, and game the results. For example, the car makers could 
under inflate their tires to get a better rating. Is there a 
way to get around that type of gamesmanship.
    Dr. Runge. That is a very valid warning, sir. I would also 
remind the committee that the static stability factor really 
cannot be gamed. They can change it through engineering, which 
should, in fact, improve all of the characteristics.
    We will do everything we can to make sure that the dynamic 
test is not subject to gamesmanship in any substantive way.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Sabo.

                          BUS SAFETY STANDARDS

    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Runge, it is my understanding that your agency is 
responsible for safety standards as they apply to buses. I am 
just curious if you are re-examining those standards following 
9-11? I am thinking of things like particularly type of glass 
used in windows.
    Dr. Runge. That has not been on our list of performance 
standards upgrades, sir.
    Mr. Sabo. I suggest you take a look at it.
    Dr. Runge. What are your concerns about that?
    Mr. Sabo. Well, particularly, you know, instinct tells me 
that I watch other places in the whole transportation process, 
and one of the things that concerns folks particularly is the 
impact of glass in explosions. We are doing lots to change and 
protect the way it fragments. To the degree that one can do it 
at the point of production, it is much simpler than redoing it.
    In my questions to the transit agencies, they tell me that 
they do not have responsibility in that category, and your 
agency does.
    Dr. Runge. They are correct.
    Mr. Sabo. I would just suggest you take a look at that.
    Dr. Runge. Okay, sir. Thank you.

                            HYBRID VEHICLES

    Mr. Sabo. I have no preconceived conclusions.
    The President recently announced some tax credits for some 
new hybrid vehicles. How were those vehicles developed? What 
was the research?
    Dr. Runge. How were they developed?
    Mr. Sabo. Yes. Was that joint federal/manufacturing R&D?
    Dr. Runge. Congressman, I am not sure about that. I do know 
that the Department of Energy has been working with auto 
makers, but to the extent that they have I am not quite sure.
    Mr. Sabo. I guess I was particularly curious. We had the 
program, the New Generation of Vehicles Program, and I am 
curious if that is the money that was used to co-research with 
the companies.
    Dr. Runge. Congressman, if you will pardon me for a second 
I will find out.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay.
    [Pause.]
    Dr. Runge. Mr. Shelton tells me that the only ones out 
there right now are the Honda and Toyota models, and they were 
not part of the partnership.

    PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES (PNGV) EXPENDITURES

    Mr. Sabo. But part of the press was a Chevy Silverado, a 
Ford Escape and a Chrysler Town & Country, all hybrid fuel 
cell. Some of them were trucks, some were electrical vehicles 
and another was a hybrid fuel cell mini van.
    Again, I think all our research funds were geared to 
American companies, not Japanese companies.
    Dr. Runge. You are correct that there are some out there on 
the horizon. In fact, we have seen some prototypes. I am not 
sure to the extent that the PNGV money was spent on them or 
not. I will be happy to supply that after the hearing.
    [The information follows:]

    The Agency's role in the Patnership for a New Generation of 
Vehicles (PNGV) program was to ensure that the PNGV developed vehicles 
would meet existing and future safety requirements and to ensure that 
the overall crash and other safety attributes would not be compromised 
by the use of new advanced materials and because of the light weight 
production of future vehicles. It was through this involvement that 
NHTSA became familiar with the overall program activities.
    On September 29, 1993, the Federal government and the U.S. 
automotive industry joined in a partnership to establish global 
technical leadership in the development and production of affordable, 
fuel-efficient, low-emissions vehicles that meet today's performance 
standards.
    This unprecedented alliance, the partnership for a New Generation 
of Vehicles (PNGV), drew on the resources of seven federal agencies, 
the national laboratories, universities, suppliers, and the United 
States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR)--a cooperative, pre-
competitive research effort among Chrysler Corporation (now 
DaimlerChrysler), Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.
    The PNGV program has three separate but interrelated goals:
    Significantly improve national competitiveness in manufacturing by 
exploring technologies that reduce the time and cost to design and 
manufacture vehicles;
    Apply innovations, when they are commercially viable, to 
conventional vehicles; and
    Develop a vehicle with up to three times the fuel economy of 
today's conventional, mid-sized sedans, while achieving improved 
recyclability and maintaining comparable performance, utility, safety, 
and cost of ownership.
    The third goal intended that prototype vehicles be produced by 
2004. Since the program has been terminated, this goal has not been 
realized. However, during the conduct of the program, many new and 
innovative research findings have made their way into production 
vehicles, the thrust of the second goal. It should be noted that the 
funding was not spent specifically for the development of these 
production vehicles, but instead was spend on pre-competitive research.

    Mr. Sabo. Okay. I am curious because that program is being 
discontinued, and it was always a controversy here. Many of us 
supported it as a method of moving our technology forward, and 
I am curious if it is part of what is being called a success 
today or not.
    Dr. Runge. We will give you a full report, sir.
    [The information follows:]

    The PNGV program had three separate but interrelated goals:
    Significantly improve national competitiveness in manufacturing by 
exploring technologies that reduce the time and cost to design and 
manufacture vehicles;
    Apply innovations, when they are commercially viable, to 
conventional vehicles; and
    Develop a vehicle with up to three times the fuel economy of 
today's conventional, mid-sized sedans, while achieving improved 
recyclability and maintaining comparable performance, utility, safety, 
and cost of ownership.
    The third goal intended that prototype vehicles be produced by 
2004. Since the program has been terminated, this goal has not been 
realized. However, during the conduct of the program, many new and 
innovative research findings made their way into production vehicles, 
the thrust of the second goal. Furthermore, improved manufacturing 
techniques were developed such that advanced materials could be used in 
production vehicles. It is from this viewpoint that the program indeed 
was a success.

    Mr. Sabo. Okay. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. I would just like to follow up on that one. You 
got advice from your staff there. I am curious about that 
advise. It was that we had a Honda and a Toyota or something 
that were. What does that mean, that those were on the market 
and fully available and for sale?
    Dr. Runge. They are. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Olver. Whereas the ones that Mr. Sabo was talking about 
are basically not yet on the market in a general sense?
    Dr. Runge. That is right.
    Mr. Olver. Is that what you were trying to convey?
    Dr. Runge. That is correct.
    Mr. Olver. Okay.
    Dr. Runge. I am not sure how far out they are, but I am 
sure the auto makers can tell you.
    Mr. Olver. Yes. Well, the President is not usually about 
touting Hondas and Toyotas, but in his discussion, in his 
presentation of the tax credits as a major step toward 
improving fuel economy, it did seem that he was being very 
positive and touting, if you like, the other vehicles that Mr. 
Sabo mentioned.
    It is certainly my understanding that those were developed 
using the funding from the Partnership for a New Generation of 
Vehicles program, which is being terminated in the budget. It 
is kind of an irony, I think.
    Dr. Runge. We will find out for you, sir.
    [The information follows:]

    Funding was not spent specifically for the development of these 
production vehicles, but instead was spend on pre-competitive research. 
The fact that PNGV developments made their way into production vehicles 
is an indicator of the success made in meeting the second goal of the 
program--apply innovations, when they are commercially viable, to 
conventional vehicles.

    Mr. Olver. You will give us full advice on that. Good. 
Thank you. That is all I have.
    Mr. Rogers. Anything further?
    Mr. Sabo. No.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Dr. Runge, for your 
testimony and appearance here today with your staff. We will be 
in touch with you. We invite you to be in touch with us.
    We want to help you do your job well. Obviously there are 
certain things we feel strongly about here that we sure hope we 
can convince you to do, and I am sure you have some priorities 
as well that we want to pay attention to as well.
    Dr. Runge. I would be happy to work with you on that.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Dr. Runge. Thanks a lot.
    Mr. Rogers. Good luck, and God speed.
    Dr. Runge. Thank you.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                         Wednesday, March 20, 2002.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                                WITNESS

JENNIFER L. DORN, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Rogers. Our witness this afternoon is Ms. Jennifer 
Dorn, the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration. 
Welcome.
    Ms. Dorn. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. The President's budget requests $7.2 billion 
for FTA in fiscal year 2003, which is the same amount 
authorized by TEA-21. This request represents a 5 percent 
increase over 2002. The majority of this money will be given 
out to States through the formula programs or from direct 
appropriations for investments in the light rail, buses and 
access to jobs projects.
    Every dollar we provide should help ease the congestion 
Americans face on the road each day by giving people more 
options. Just 1 year ago, the Federal Transit Administration 
was sitting before this Subcommittee without a pretty picture 
to tell, although funding for transit projects had grown 
substantially over the past 4 years. Serious concerns had been 
raised about the administration's ability to oversee projects 
and identify concerns before they became long-standing 
problems. Case in point, Seattle's Sound Transit Project.
    After our hearing last year, the Administration had to pull 
the funding on a just signed full funding grant agreement 
because of more than $1 billion in cost overruns and in a 
three-year schedule delay. The Inspector General later 
recommended that this project not go forward until a number of 
funding schedule and scope issues had been addressed.
    To do this, Sound Transit materially changed the scope of 
this project from a 21-mile system heading north from downtown 
Seattle to a 14-mile system heading south towards the airport.
    Ms. Dorn, this is more than a revised project. It is 
virtually a brand new one. We will spend a fair amount of time 
today, I am sure, discussing the status of the revised project 
and lessons that FTA has learned from this fiasco last year.
    However, Seattle has not been the only problem project out 
there. This Subcommittee has also spent a lot of time over the 
past few years reviewing long-standing problems with Puerto 
Rico's Tren Urbano project. The Inspector General just reported 
that Tren Urbano continues to experience cost overruns and 
schedule delays, although construction and quality problems 
have been abating. We will also spend a few minutes discussing 
the status of this long delayed project.
    While problem projects like Seattle and Tren Urbano could 
be the focus of the entire hearing, there are also a number of 
funding issues that must be discussed, transit security, 
transit repairs in the New York area following 9/11 and local 
funding commitments.
    We on the Subcommittee and you are faced with growing 
demands for new or improved transit systems throughout the 
United States. It is up to us to find ways to make the federal 
dollar go further and help ease the gridlock that Americans 
face each day. Transit obviously is a large part of that 
solution.
    Ms. Dorn, we welcome you to your first hearing before this 
subcommittee.
    Ms. Dorn. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. We will enter your written statement into the 
hearing record so you may just summarize it for us, if you 
please, and let me first yield to my colleague, the gentleman 
from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dorn, we welcome you 
to the committee and look forward to your comments.
    Ms. Dorn. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. Please proceed.

                          FTA Opening Remarks

    Ms. Dorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I appreciate 
the opportunity to be here today to talk about the Federal 
Transit Administration's programs and the fiscal year budget 
proposal as proposed by the President a few weeks ago. The 
President's fiscal year 2003 budget requests the TEA-21 
guaranteed funding level of $7.2 billion for transit, as you 
indicated in your opening statement. As you know, this is the 
last year of TEA-21 funding, and I would like to thank the 
committee for your support in providing the guaranteed funding 
levels for transit over the life of the legislation.
    The stability of these guaranteed funding levels has been 
instrumental in allowing State and local governments to plan 
and to secure their investments in transit, and has resulted in 
increased mobility and accessibility throughout the Nation.
    The substantial TEA-21 investment in the Nation's transit 
systems has also resulted in an increase in transit ridership. 
Preliminary estimates indicate that more than 9.6 billion 
public transit trips were taken in the year 2001, an increase 
of over 2 percent over the year 2000. Since 1993, public 
transportation use has increased by nearly 28 percent, the 
fastest growth rate among all forms of surface transportation.
    FTA intends to do all that we can to support public 
transportation growth in America; to give communities the 
option to invest in public transportation; to help make public 
transportation systems so efficient, safe, and accessible that 
people choose to ride; to ensure that people can rely on public 
transport, especially when they have no choice; and to ensure 
that the Federal investment is made wisely and prudently.
    In my testimony this afternoon, I would like to highlight 
just three important aspects of the President's proposed budget 
for transit: transit security, proposed New Starts funding, and 
the President's New Freedom Initiative.

                            TRANSIT SECURITY

    On security, FTA is committed to helping local 
transportation agencies keep our communities safe and moving. 
In fiscal year 2002, using the emergency supplemental resources 
which this committee supported, we are working with transit 
agencies as partners to pursue our security goals through a 
five-part security initiative that I have outlined in my 
written testimony.
    In fiscal year 2003, FTA proposes $8.4 million for 
security-related activities, compared to the $1.3 million 
budgeted in 2001 prior to September 11th. This investment 
represents FTA's continued commitment to the transit-riding 
public and transit system employees to help keep them as safe 
and as secure as possible.
    Importantly, FTA will also encourage transit agencies to 
use available formula funds for capital investments to address 
their security vulnerabilities.

                               NEW STARTS

    The President's budget proposes about $1.2 billion be 
available for major capital investment program project grants. 
The 2003 New Starts report that supports the President's budget 
recommends funding for 34 projects. Of these, 25 have existing 
full funding grant agreements, as we call them, FFGAs. Two have 
pending FFGAs. Two are expected to be ready for FFGAs before 
the end of thefiscal year 2003, and five meritorious projects 
still in development are recommended for 1 year of funding.
    Located in every geographic area and in communities of all 
sizes, these projects include commuter rail, light rail, heavy 
rail and bus rapid transit. When complete, they are expected to 
carry over 190 million riders annually, save over 61 million 
hours in travel time, and significantly improve mobility in 
America.
    With the strong foundation provided by Congress and the 
valuable technical assistance and oversight by FTA, New Start's 
grantees engage in a rigorous financial planning, project 
development, and engineering process which we have, indeed, 
enhanced in part as a result of the situation with the Seattle 
project that you mentioned.
    New Starts projects, like all transportation investment in 
metropolitan areas, must emerge from a regional, multimodal 
transportation planning process in order to be eligible for 
Federal funding in the first place.
    In addition, New Starts projects may only receive funding 
if the project has been based on the results of an alternative 
analysis and preliminary engineering, and if certain project 
justification and financial criteria have been met.
    Under law, New Starts projects must be justified based on a 
comprehensive review of mobility improvements, environmental 
benefits, cost effectiveness and operating efficiencies, and 
they must be supported by an acceptable degree of local 
financial commitment, including evidence of stable and 
dependable financing sources to construct, maintain and operate 
the project.
    FTA evaluates proposed New Starts projects against a full 
range of criteria, using multiple measures for both project 
justification and local financial commitment. Project 
evaluation is an ongoing process, as it must be, and ratings 
are updated as needed to reflect new information.
    In evaluating projects, FTA strives to ensure that there 
are no outstanding issues that could delay or derail the 
project at a later time. Only projects that receive overall 
rating of recommended or highly recommended are eligible for 
multi-year funding recommendations.
    The administration also seeks a legislative change 
beginning in 2004 that requires the Federal share of New Starts 
funds to be not more than 50 percent of project cost. The same 
provision was proposed in the President's fiscal year 2002 
budget. We know it is an issue about which you feel strongly, 
and we agree.
    The Department already considers the degree of local 
financial support in making its budget recommendations on New 
Starts funding. Strengthening these policies and criteria to 
encourage project sponsors to forward projects with the highest 
local share feasible will allow us to fund a greater number of 
meritorious projects in the future.

                         NEW FREEDOM INITIATIVE

    And finally, the New Freedom Initiative. Lack of adequate 
transportation is a primary barrier to work for people with 
disabilities. In fact, one-third of people with disabilities 
report that inadequate transportation is a significant problem. 
Some 19 million working-aged disabled are unemployed and many 
recognize that transportation is perhaps one of the biggest 
barriers. The transportation component of the New Freedom 
Initiative will expand the transportation mobility of options 
available to persons with disabilities beyond the minimum 
required under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.
    The President proposes to the Congress that $145 million 
under the New Freedom Initiative be spent to provide additional 
tools to overcome these existing barriers facing Americans with 
disabilities who are seeking integration into the workforce and 
full participation in society. Authorizing legislation is being 
prepared and will be forwarded soon.
    Although the ADA has generated significant improvements in 
transportation accessibility over the past decade, it requires 
only that existing public transportation be accessible. It does 
not address the remaining gaps that exist in transportation 
services for persons with disabilities. FTA's New Freedom 
Initiative, if approved by the Congress, would expand the 
transportation mobility options available to persons with 
disabilities beyond the minimum required under the ADA, helping 
to fill these gaps in service.

                       FTA BUDGET IMPLEMENTS GPRA

    Mr. Chairman, this budget submission implements the process 
of tying the budget to performance measures as required by the 
Government Performance and Results Act. FTA's proposed 2003 
budget reflects the strategic goals of the Department and the 
strategic business plan of the FTA. It will form the basis for 
senior executive performance standards in fiscal year 2003 for 
FTA employees. We are currently in the process of formulating 
the specific shared performance accountabilities for all senior 
executives in FTA so that as an agency, we are jointly 
accountable for achieving key results.
    I believe this approach will ensure that we work as a team, 
that we are responsive to our customers, and that we allocate 
resources to support desired outcomes. The President has 
proposed a record level of investment in transit as authorized 
in TEA-21 to improve and expand the Nation's public 
transportation systems. This investment will improve the 
quality of life for Americans through increased access and 
mobility, reduced congestion, a cleaner environment, more 
efficient land use, and expanded economic development.

                                SUMMARY

    Most importantly, with this budget--if approved by 
Congress--public transportation will provide Americans with 
disabilities an opportunity to fully participate in the 
benefits, freedoms and opportunities of this great Nation.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to 
any questions from the committee.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
                  SEATTLE CENTRAL LINK--FUNDING ISSUES

    Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
    Let me start off with the Seattle project. Where do we 
stand on that now?
    Ms. Dorn. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are currently reviewing the 
environmental assessment of the Seattle project, and we have 
not made a determination about funding with regard to that.
    Mr. Rogers. Over the last year, costs for this new 14-mile 
project have risen by over a billion dollars. In your opinion, 
how much is the new segment estimated to cost, and how reliable 
do you think that estimate is?
    Ms. Dorn. Well, at this stage, I would say the overall 
project costs are approximately $2.6 billion, including the 
financing costs. That, of course, continues to be evaluated by 
our PMO contractors and our financial management contractors as 
well.
    Mr. Rogers. You say that includes the financing costs?
    Ms. Dorn. Yes, it does, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Now the voters out there are getting ready for 
a new initiative that might be on the November ballot, so-
called Initiative 776. What would be the impact of that?
    Ms. Dorn. Well, in terms of any kind of legal issues or 
when there are constituents or groups that challenge any aspect 
of proposed Federally-funded program, it really is for the 
States and localities to decide, and the court system. Our role 
in the FTA, at least one aspect of it, is to ensure that the 
financial capability is there in the long term for the payment 
of these projects. So as the project moves forward through the 
process, then we would determine whether there is that 
financial commitment and the ability to pay on the part of the 
transit agency. So that is one factor in this.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes. Well, if I-766 passes, my understanding is 
it would repeal Sound Transit's ability to tap into the motor 
vehicle excise taxes and the motor vehicle licensing fees, and 
would cut some $699 million from their capital and operating 
budgets between 2003 and 2009. They could lose an estimated 
$472 million in collections and about $227 million in bonding 
capacity for that total of $699 million.
    Would they have sufficient local revenues, do you think, to 
fund that 14-mile segment, assuming there is no more than $500 
million from the Federal government?
    Ms. Dorn. Well, if that came to pass, Mr. Chairman, we 
would certainly require an amended financial plan in order for 
us to have the guarantee, if you will, of being able to 
complete the project and be able to continue to operate and 
maintain the project without any diminution of service for the 
other parts of the system. So we would not forward a full 
funding grant agreement to you without that kind of assurance 
that in fact the locality was able to pay.
    Mr. Rogers. Last year the IG recommended that FTA not 
provide Sound Transit with its $50 million appropriations from 
fiscal 2001 for that project. What is the status of that money?
    Ms. Dorn. As both the Secretary and I have conveyed to 
Sound Transit officials and to the board, any release of those 
funds would be dependent on the approval by the FTA of moving 
into final design, and they are not yet at that point. And so 
it would be premature. We are certainly not going to release 
funds until we go farther into the process and can be assured 
that not only the environmental piece is satisfied, but that 
technical capacity to oversee not only the construction, but 
also the maintenance and operation of the project is well at 
hand. So it is really premature at this point to release those 
funds.
    Mr. Rogers. As you know, the previous Seattle project 
experienced dramatic cost increases and schedule delays in late 
2000 and early 2001, which ultimately led the Department not to 
recommend funding for MOS-1. What did you learn from that 
previous Seattle debacle that you are applying to all new 
transit projects now, particularly in terms of cost and scope?
    Ms. Dorn. Right. Excellent and important question, and I 
think we can all agree, Mr. Chairman, that what happened in 
Seattle was extremely unfortunate and should never happen 
again. And as the new administrator, I don't think it is 
productive to point fingers, but I am very happy to talk about 
what we are doing, as was your question, to ensure that it 
never happens again.
    A couple of things. First of all, we are reviewing the full 
funding grant proposals in more depth at an earlier stage of 
development. That includes third-party agreements, not the 
promises of third-party agreements, but the actual signing of 
them will be a very important issue before we forward a full 
funding grant agreement in this or other New Start projects. We 
are closely, more closely, examining real estate costs. Those 
can be a real bugaboo in terms of cost estimates. In addition, 
our financial oversight contractors are more thoroughly 
reviewing the grantee's financial systems and internal 
controls. Our regional administrators, as well as FTA's chief 
engineer, now must certify that cost estimates are current, 
because sometimes due to the length of the process 
deliberations, et cetera, things can change, and so we need to 
always keep up to date.
    And finally, we are continuing to work closely with the 
Inspector General (as we have, by the way, throughout the issue 
with Tren Urbano). We have monthly meetings with the Inspector 
General's office, and we are responding to his suggestions. We 
both have the same goal in mind: to leverage the Federal 
dollar, and ensure that the Federal investments are in fact 
appropriate.
    In addition, I would like to reiterate what I said in my 
written statement about my personal knowledge of the progress 
that Sound Transit has made with respect to a number of things. 
The project sponsor is working to address the concerns outlined 
by the Department, this Committee and the IG. The transit 
agency has a new executive director with whom I have met on 
many occasions about substantive issues, and she has put in a 
new team of experienced people. That is half the battle.
    The agency is also implementing control measures to avoid 
the missteps of the past. As I mentioned, we are now completing 
the environmental review of the project, and if that review is 
positive, FTA will assess the proposed project under the 
congressionally-mandated New Starts criteria. We are not going 
to be held to anyone's schedule with regard to this.
    By the same token, we are very aggressively working through 
the systematic requirements. We want to have a good project, 
and if we bring this to you in the form of an FFGA, you have 
our assurance that all of these issues will be addressed.

                  SOUND TRANSIT CENTRAL LINK--SCHEDULE

    Mr. Rogers. They say they would like to begin construction 
in July of 2002 so as to be completed by 2009. Is that a 
feasible start date?
    Ms. Dorn. Well, first of all, it is my understanding that 
what they are looking for is a letter of no prejudice in order 
to demolish one piece of the maintenance yard. So that approval 
of a letter of no prejudice would not come until or unless the 
final design has been approved by the FTA. So as I have told 
them, and as the Secretary has told them, they have a very 
ambitious schedule, and we will work diligently to do our job 
but will not be held by Sound Transit's schedule or any other 
local project schedule. We have to do our job.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, final design usually takes about 18 
months, doesn't it?
    Ms. Dorn. I couldn't tell you the exact time frame. I am 
sure that it is greatly dependent on the complexity of the 
project, what other kinds of work have already taken place, and 
in a vast majority of these projects, final design efforts have 
been under way for quite some time. So there are just a couple 
of pieces of the project that are not at that point.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we will, I am sure, be in touch and 
frequently on that one.
    Now, there is a number of other obstacles, key local 
agreements such as the transfer of operations of the bus tunnel 
that are not yet finished, are they?
    Ms. Dorn. They have made substantial progress. I have met 
with both parties who are negotiating that agreement. They have 
an agreement in concept. We have indicated to the transit 
agency that what are called the term sheets, which is the basic 
conceptual agreement in specificity, must be outlined to the 
Federal Transit Administration before we would even approve 
final design, and of course we would not come forward to the 
Congress with an FFGA unless those third-party agreements are 
actually signed. And that is one of the enhancements that has 
been made in the past few months as a result of the problems 
that were faced before in the Seattle project.
    [The information follows:]

    Mr. Rogers. What key obstacles would impede this start?
    [The information follows:]
    Sound Transit has proposed to start construction in July 
2002 by demolishing a structure on the site of the proposed 
Operations and Maintenance Facility. FTA would consider signing 
a letter of No Prejudice (LONP) for this demolition only. 
However, before obtaining an LONP, Sound Transit must first 
have: 1) an approved NEPA study and a Record of Decision (ROD), 
and 2) an approved to enter into Final Design.
    Mr. Rogers. In your opinion, does the bus tunnel agreement 
have to be in place before an FFGA is signed or amended for 
this project?
    [The information follows:]
    Yes. The bus tunnel agreement is a critical element of the 
project and has a bearing on the design of the system. The bus 
tunnel is proposed to have two operating modes, bus and light 
rail. Therefore an Operations Control Center (OCC) is needed, 
and its location and cost must be finalized before an FFGA is 
recommended or signed.
    Mr. Rogers. Are there any concerns with local support, 
either from the environmental assessment or through litigation 
that may substantially delay the project's onset?
    [The information follows:]
    FTA and Sound transit are currently assessing the public 
comments on the supplemental environmental document, the 
Environmental Assessment (EA), for the Seattle Central Link 
Initial Segment. If no significant environmental issues have 
been raised that have not been already addressed in earlier 
stages of the environmental review, FTA will make a 
determinations ending the environmental review. Otherwise, FTA 
will have to consider performing a further review, an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Initial Segment.
    The Mayor of Seattle strongly supports the project, as does 
the King County Executive. In November 2001, the Sound transit 
board, which consists of representatives of the local 
jurisdictions in the Seattle area, approved the Initial Segment 
by a 14-2 margin.
    Opposition to the project by citizen groups, however, is 
vocal and well organized. The group known as SANE Transit has 
indicated that, if FTA concludes the environmental review 
process at the conclusion of the EA, they will challenge the EA 
in court. Their primary objection appears to be the EA's 
treatment of joint bus and rail use of the Downtown Seattle 
Transit Tunnel.
    Besides challenging the EA, these groups have indicated 
that they may challenge the project in State or local court on 
the premise that the Initial Segment is not the same project 
that voters approved in 1996. They are also saying that they 
may pursue a public referendum to undo arrangements that are 
underway between Sound Transit and King County Metro for rail 
use in the Downtown Transit Tunnel.
    Any of the project opponents' actions listed above could 
delay the project. Some of the opponents have indicated that 
they are seeking to prevent construction of the Initial Segment 
in order to reprogram LRT funds for a regional Bus Rapid 
Transit system. Although, at this juncture, we cannot be 
absolutely certain regarding the outcome of any litigation, we 
do not expect any litigation to substantially delay the 
project.

                          SEATTLE LEGAL ISSUES

    Mr. Rogers. There have been questions raised about the 
legitimacy of any bonds issued to finance the project due to 
significant changes in the project versus what the voters 
approved in 1996. Do you think that will have to be revisited, 
that question of the bond issue?
    Ms. Dorn. Well, certainly that is a matter for the courts 
to decide, but by saying that, I also intend to signal that a 
very important piece of our analysis would be able to 
understand whether there is the financial capacity to complete 
the project, and that will be one factor. So we can't make a 
decision about whether there should be another referendum or 
the legitimacy of the bond. That is for the Legislature and/or 
the courts to decide. But certainly if it is a ripe issue at 
the point that we come to the FFGA, we have to make a 
subjective determination whether or not we believe that the 
financial commitments can be met, and if they cannot, we would 
not forward an FFGA.
    Mr. Rogers. A lot of things have to fall in place before 
July of 2002 to make all of this happen.
    Ms. Dorn. Yes. That is true.
    Mr. Rogers. And it sounds to me like it is not going to be 
possible to do it by that time.
    Ms. Dorn. I would not want to prejudge. As we have told 
them, it is a very ambitious schedule. We will do our job. They 
need to do their job.
    Mr. Rogers. They want to have an amended FFGA in place by 
September of this year. Is that reasonable, based on where they 
are in the process, and knowing of the past problems this 
project has experienced?
    Ms. Dorn. There is substantially different and enhanced 
management that gives the FTA much greater confidence in the 
ability to do the job. I would make two other points, however. 
First, that doesn't mean that we are not going to thoroughly 
review all of the traditional requirements. It also is, I 
think, important to note that Seattle is one of the three top 
congested cities in the country. They need an effective public 
transportation system enhancement, and we are not going to send 
one forward unless we think it is in that category. But I 
wanted to also note that in the most recent 2003 New Starts 
report, it did receive a recommended rating after the very 
careful analysis that FTA undertakes on all these projects. Now 
we continue to review those ratings as we move on. So I just 
would not want to prejudge, but I think it is enough to say it 
is a very ambitious schedule.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you believe 2009 is a feasible date for 
revenue operation?
    Ms. Dorn. If you keep to their calendar of approval, then I 
think the construction could probably occur in that time frame, 
but most of it is certainly dependent on when they get their 
Federal financial commitment.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Sabo.

                     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Dorn. We 
approved some money in the defense appropriation and 
supplemental bill last year, $23.5 million to replace some 
buses and other facilities at the World Trade Center, and also 
to provide some technical security assistance and training to 
transit agencies. Has that money been obligated?
    Ms. Dorn. Parts of it have been obligated. And I would be 
happy to provide for you the specifics of it.
    [The information follows:]

    FTA is in the process of obligating approximately $11 
million of the $23.5 million. The balance should be obligated 
before September 30, 2002.

    Ms. Dorn. If I could just take a minute and explain how we 
are using it.
    First of all, with regards to the piece that is for the bus 
kiosks for New York. New York has not yet determined whether or 
not those are needed or that Federal funds will be needed. So 
on that piece we are awaiting their views.
    The other pieces, we are aggressively undertaking security 
assessments of the top 30 transit agencies in order to better 
understand what kinds of threat and vulnerabilities there are 
to these agencies, and we have completed about half of those. 
And the top 30 represent, interestingly enough, 22 million 
daily passengers. So we felt it was very important to undertake 
the security assessments.
    A part of that money, once we complete those assessments, 
and find out what the threats and vulnerabilities are, we will 
utilize those funds to go back in to those agencies and help 
them define a plan, an emergency response plan and also an 
evacuation plan and a security plan. So all of these things are 
in progress and we are obligating the money as rapidly as 
possible.
    We also want to make sure that we are putting it in the 
right place. I am confident in the next few months that that 
$23.5 million will be effectively utilized. A piece of that 
also goes for training and for providing funding for drills, 
safety drills at local transit agencies. But all of this stems 
from what we learn in these security assessments, so we want to 
make sure we put the money in the right place. But I would be 
happy to provide you a progress report on that.
    [The information follows:]

    The FY 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act provided $23.5 
million in emergency supplemental formula grants for the replacement of 
buses and kiosks destroyed in the terrorist attacks; technical 
assistance for security and emergency response; and the continued 
development of chemical detection technology for transit stations.
    As of April 22nd, FTA is approximately 60 percent through the 
security assessment process of the 33 largest transit agencies. With 
the exception of the emergency funding dedicated for bus replacements 
and kiosks, FTA is utilizing this process to determine the needs of the 
supplemental funds.
    The Metorpolitian Transportation Authority (MTA) has not decided if 
insurance or federal funding will be used for the reimbursement of 
buses and kiosks damaged in the World Trade Center collapse.
    The remainder of the funding will be allocated through the 
following programs:
          Technical Assistance Teams: Proposals for this work have been 
        received and are being evaluated. Award of contracts will be 
        made within the next 30 days.
          Security Workshops and Training: FTA is expanding its free 
        security and emergency response training to incorporate new 
        security strategies and tactics and will be offering regional 
        security forums to give more local transit employees the 
        opportunity to attend. The forums are scheduled to start in May 
        and will include transit managers, fire, police and municipal 
        emergency operations management personnel. FTA is re-evaluating 
        these courses to ensure they are relevant and meet the needs of 
        the transit industry, in light of the terrorist events of 
        September 11th. Additionally, FTA is studying alternate methods 
        of instruction so as to bring these courses to as large a 
        transit audience as possible. The scope of work for this 
        activity is being developed and a contractor selection is 
        expected within the next 60 days.
          Drills: FTA is offering transit grantees financial assistance 
        to ensure their plans and procedures are tested and exercised 
        within the communities they serve. All eligible grantees have 
        been informed of the grants program. Additionally, information 
        has been posted on FTA's website.
          PROTECT: FTA is accelerating the development of a chemical 
        agent detection system for subways; assessing decontamination 
        tools and approaches; and exploring short term and long term 
        options to determine if an agent has been released in the 
        transit environment. The accelerated work plans include 
        expanding the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
        detection system to cover multiple stations and to expand the 
        research to an older subway system. FTA, with Argonne National 
        Laboratory, is developing a work plan for the expansion 
        project.

    Mr. Sabo. How has the transit agency been reacting to the 
recommendations that you have been making?
    Ms. Dorn. Extremely well, and in fact to an agency--and I 
think we have done 11 or 12 now--they have appreciated the 
value added, because at even the most well prepared agencies, 
we are discovering that there are some flaws in the system. So 
there are things they did not know, and we help them 
prioritize. And with the funding that will be forthcoming with 
regard to drills and training courses, et cetera, we will be 
able to help them respond. I am very pleased with the fact that 
FTA does not really have regulatory authority to go in and do a 
number of security and safety requirements. So this has been a 
very amicable partnership. Transit agencies have been very 
cooperative, and we have gotten a lot of information that we 
can pass on to other agencies in terms of best practices.
    I think we have also helped to fill some important voids. 
One of the first transit agencies that we did was Salt Lake 
City. That is not the highest ridership, but as you know, we 
wanted to undertake that before the Olympics, and I think that 
a number of the activities and the resources that we put in 
there as a result of our assessment really helped to make 
public transportation be a successful and security issue-free, 
as the Olympics were. So I believe it is moving along well.

                              LOS ANGELES

    Mr. Sabo. Now, I am curious about Los Angeles. They had a 
full funding agreement for $1.4 billion for three projects, and 
two of the projects ran into trouble. The North Hollywood 
project is under way and will be fully funded with the 2003 
budget request, and the budget proposes a new full funding 
agreement for the East Side project. The last project, Mid 
City, is not funded, and does not now have a full funding 
agreement, as I understand it. But there is a $157 million 
unfunded portion of the original Mid City commitment. Is this 
commitment authority available for new transit projects this 
year?
    Ms. Dorn. Yes. In other words, for the L.A. East Side 
project, which is proceeding very well, they need FFGA in the 
amount of $491 million, and as you have accurately stated, 
Congressman, that leaves $157 million that is an unused 
portion. We have in the President's budget recommended a return 
of that $157 million to the major ``kitty'', as it were.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay. Thank you. And that is unallocated at this 
point?
    Ms. Dorn. That is correct, because many of the projects 
that we have in the pipeline are not yet ready. We expect that 
in the 2004 budget or perhaps earlier if Congress so desires, 
that those funds will be obligated.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Olver.

                     RELATIONSHIP WITH FTA REGION I

    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I say anything--
before I ask any questions, I would like to say that I have--in 
my position here and in trying to serve the delegations in the 
Northeast and particularly in Massachusetts, had a lot of 
dealings with the original administrator in the Boston office.
    Ms. Dorn. Oh, Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Doyle. And I think the kind of relation--I 
don't know whether other Members of this subcommittee or of the 
Congress have as close a relationship and as cooperative and 
productive I think a relationship. It helps me to keep track of 
what it is that is going on and what the priorities are and 
why, and it works out very, very well, and I just want to say 
that it has been a very good thing. And I hope other people--
are using that kind of route as much as I am, at least. And I 
don't have any reason to think that I am using it in some 
particularly effective way, but I am quite pleased with the 
system as it is.
    Ms. Dorn. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate your saying 
that, as I am sure he will. Mr. Doyle is a real leader and a 
problem-solver, and he is very customer-oriented. I am very 
proud to have him on the team.
    Mr. Olver. Those are very good terms, problem-solver and 
customer-oriented.

                          LOS ANGELES PROJECTS

    I would like to follow up just a little bit. I remain 
puzzled about Los Angeles--you had given in your testimony the 
fact that the President's budget provided for 34 projects and 
25 are full funding agreements, and two are pendings, two are 
expected to be ready for FFGAs and five are meritorious 
projects. I take it that you do not expect the five--I think I 
figured out which ones those are----
    Ms. Dorn. Oh, sorry.
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. In this tabular document thing. If 
I understand correctly, they are the New York East Side Access, 
the Las Vegas, the Cleveland, a Twin Cities or Minneapolis 
North Star and Chicago Ravens Wood. Am I correct?
    Ms. Dorn. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Olver. That is that group of five. Then there is a pair 
which would appear to be Salt Lake City and Los Angeles East 
Side, which are--expected to be ready for FFGAs before the end 
of fiscal 2003.
    Ms. Dorn. Yes. That is right.
    Mr. Olver. Okay. And yet, I think in your answer to Mr. 
Sabo, you were saying that--I really am puzzled here still. 
What have we done? Have we stopped work on the Mid City Los 
Angeles project, or is that expected to come back? Is that full 
funding agreement that they once had, is that still a valid 
full funding agreement, or are they going to come back and work 
on that or not?
    Ms. Dorn. It is my understanding not. However----
    Mr. Olver. What does it mean? What have they done on that? 
They have expended apparently something like a third of the 
money that was originally part of that full funding agreement. 
What has been done? What is the status? Are there holes in the 
ground?
    Ms. Dorn. You know, I could not answer specifically, 
because there were originally three projects, and then they 
mixed them up and factored in a brand new project and went to a 
different type of approach, a light rail instead of heavy rail. 
So I would like to sort out the details for you. I would be 
happy to do so for the record.
    [The information follows:]

    The Los Angeles County Mass Transit Authority (LACMTA) is 
no longer pursuing the original Mid-City Subway project under 
the MOS-3 Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA). The remaining 
commitment authority available under the FFGA is $156.10 
million of the $244.45 million set aside for the original MOS-3 
Mid-City Subway project. LACMTA has reconfigured the proposed 
project into two corridors in the Mid-City area of Los Angeles. 
Because it is unlikely that either of these two projects under 
consideration for New Starts funding in the Mid-City Corridor 
will be ready for construction during the TEA-21 authorization 
period, FTA is releasing the remaining commitment authority for 
the original MOS-3 Mid-City Subway project under the MOS-3 FFGA 
for other projects.
    A summary of the different Mid-City projects is as follows:
    1. LACMTA is no longer pursuing the original Mid-City 
Subway project.
    2. The Mid-City Wilshire Boulevard Corridor is under 
consideration for implementation of Bus Rapid Transit. LACMTA 
is not pursuing New Starts funding for the Mid-City Wilshire 
Boulevard BRT project.
    3. The LACMTA has begun preliminary engineering on a 
proposed light rail system along the Mid-City Exposition 
Corridor. FTA formally approved entry into Preliminary 
Engineering in February 2002. LACMTA plans to complete the 
environmental process, and preliminary engineering in late 
2003. FTA anticipates receiving LACMTA's request to enter Final 
Design in early 2004, and negotiations on FFGA terms and 
conditions to start in late 2004.

    Ms. Dorn. But the main point is that the L.A. East Side is 
the only project that we would expect to move forward with an 
FFGA.
    Now, if they are--and I know they are moving forward on the 
other two projects, one of which they expect to ask for no 
funds from the Federal government, the other of which they are 
not yet sure. On that project about which they are not yet 
sure, they would have to get back in line. In other words, we 
have not reserved that contingent commitment authority for the 
other piece. So I did not want to prejudge what they want to 
do.
    Mr. Olver. Now I am not quite certain whether we have four 
projects, whether the Los Angeles East Side is a fourth one. I 
think that looking down this list, it looks to me as if it is a 
third one, unless there is something that has long since been 
finished that was really part of the original three. Although I 
do count the three that are showing here, two that are up in 
the top listing, and one in the category of ready for FFGAs, 
and it comes to about 1.4 billion in sum total in regard to 
those.
    So I am led to think at least that those are together, the 
three that Mr.--staff says that I am correct, that those are 
the three that were--so you are saying that they have sort of 
mixed part of this and are going ahead full force on the East 
Side project, which the amount that is there, since it is $490 
million expected FFGA, that this 35 cannot be much more than 
the preliminary engineering of slightly more advanced perhaps 
stage of engineering than that group of five that is viewed as 
meritorious but not--not ready to--will not be ready in 2003 
for an FFGA. Is that roughly----
    Ms. Dorn. I would not want to commit, because there have 
been so many changes in the project. It is my understanding 
that the fourth is the San Fernando Valley busway that I 
referred to earlier, and they want no Federal money for that. 
But, you know, I do not want to get things further confused----
    Mr. Olver. I see. They are not asking for Federal money. 
There is a 4th off in the picture someplace, but they are not 
asking for money?
    Ms. Dorn. That is correct.
    Mr. Olver. Well, I guess I would love to know what is 
really the status of the one, the so-called Mid City project 
which seems to be now stopped, and you would think with the 
amount of money that is expended. I am puzzled. I will just 
leave it at that.
    Ms. Dorn. Thanks.
    Mr. Olver. You may want to help me out with that at some 
point.
    Ms. Dorn. I will be happy to respond.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information follows:]

    Described below are the five projects in the Los Angeles 
area and whether or not they are seeking New Starts funding:
    1. MOS-3 North Hollywood: Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority (LACMTA) constructed a 6.3 mile 
extension of the Red Line Subway from Hollywood to North 
Hollywood through the Santa Monica Mountains, under the MOS-3 
FFGA, signed originally in 1993 and revised in 1997. This 
extension opened for service in June of 2000. The MOS-3 North 
Hollywood Project is recommended to receive $40.49 million in 
the FY2003 USDOT budget as the final payment for the FFGA.
    2. Eastside Project: The LACMTA is proposing to implement a 
5.9-mile light rail transit (LRT) line in the Eastside 
Corridor, connecting Downtown Los Angeles with low- to 
moderate-income communities in East Los Angeles. The project is 
estimated to cost $817.9 million in escalated dollars, with a 
requested Section 5309 New Starts share of $490.7 million. This 
project is the regions highest priority, and is intended to be 
a replacement project for the original MOS-3 Eastside heavy 
rail extension. The Eastside project is recommended to receive 
$35 million in New Starts funding in the FY 2003.
    3. Mid-City Exposition Project: The LACMTA is undertaking 
preliminary engineering on a proposed 9.6-mile light rail 
transit project that would run from the Los Angeles Central 
Business District west along Exposition Boulevard to Culver 
City. The project is estimated to cost $343.9 million in 
escalated dollars, with a requested Section 5309 New Starts 
share of $160.3 million. This project, along with the Mid-City 
Wilshire Boulevard project, is intended to be a replacement 
project for the original MOS-3 Mid-City heavy rail extension. 
This project is not recommended for funding in FY 2003.
    4. Mid-City Wilshire Boulevard Project: The LACMTA is 
undertaking studies of potential Bus Rapid Transit options in 
the 13 -mile Wilshire Boulevard corridor, from Downtown Los 
Angeles to Santa Monica. The LACMTA currently operates ``Rapid 
Bus'' service along the corridor and carries approximately 
40,000 riders per day. However, the LACMTA wishes to improve 
service by providing a dedicated bus lane and more frequent 
headways along the heavily congested corridor. This project, 
along with the Mid-City Exposition project, is intended to be a 
replacement project for the original MOS-3 Mid-City heavy rail 
extension. The LACMTA does not plan to request New Starts 
funding for this project.
    5. San Fernando Valley East-West Transit Corridor: The Los 
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) 
is proposing to implement a 14.4-mile Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 
line in the San Fernando Valley area of the County of Los 
Angeles. The proposed system would include 13 stations that 
would serve major activity centers including North Hollywood, 
the Van Nuys Civic Center, Pierce College, Valley College, and 
the high density commercial development along Ventura Boulevard 
with a dedicated bus lane. The project is estimated to cost 
$314 million in escalated dollars. The LACMTA does not plan to 
request New Starts funding for this project.

                          PHOENIX--EAST VALLEY

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms. Dorn.
    Ms. Dorn. Thank you.
    Mr. Pastor. And first of all, I want to thank you for 
taking the time off your schedule to meet with myself and the 
people from the Valley Transit, and my only question is we, who 
are committed to work with your agency in trying to get a full 
funding agreement, are hoping that in the near future you can 
let me know what the status is and what problems you are 
encountering so I can encourage the Valley Transit folks to do 
whatever they need to so that we can attain that magic step.
    Ms. Dorn. Absolutely.
    Mr. Pastor. So thank you, and I look forward to working 
with you as we develop this light rail system.
    Ms. Dorn. We will continue to do so. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. Ms. Kilpatrick.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good 
afternoon. It is certainly nice to meet you, and we look 
forward to working with you. We are straddled here. We have a 
vote on, but I do have a couple questions I would like to put 
in writing and get to you. I look forward to working with you. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you. We have a series of votes on the 
Floor. It probably is going to take about 30 minutes. So we 
will stand in recess, and you can relax during the time.
    Ms. Dorn. I will be here. Thanks.
    [Recess.]

                          TREN URBANO PROJECT

    Mr. Rogers. The hearing will be in order. Sorry about the 
delay.
    Let me ask you about Tren Urbano. How much of the $165.7 
million in previously withheld appropriations has been released 
or may be released immediately?
    Ms. Dorn. Mr. Chairman, $165 million.
    Mr. Rogers. The whole amount?
    Ms. Dorn. Correct.
    Mr. Rogers. And why did you release that right off?
    Ms. Dorn. Many months ago, after the FTA had rescinded the 
plan to provide dollars as scheduled under the FFGAs, we 
submitted to the Puerto Rico Transit Authority the requirements 
that they must fulfill in order to get the funds. They 
substantially met those requirements, and as you referred to in 
your opening statement, the Inspector General agreed that the 
construction and quality issues have in fact abated. There are 
still schedule and cost issues, and while we believed it was 
important to release the $165 million because of their 
technical compliance, we are also continuing to be vigilant to 
ensure that we get an updated financial plan and no further 
funds will be awarded until that point.
    I would also suggest noting that this project is 
substantially complete, 84 percent complete, as a pretty 
significant cost-effectiveness ratio. It will be a good project 
as they continue to refine their plans. And we worked very 
closely with the Inspector General, hand in glove, really, in 
this regard, because we had the same goal, to ensure that the 
funds were expended appropriately. And I feel comfortable, 
given the continued evaluation and rigorous requirements that 
we will impose, both the IG's office and the FTA, that we will 
see this project through to fruition.
    Mr. Rogers. They have had a lot of problems, long-standing 
management problems, construction quality problems, financing 
problems, schedule problems. Are you satisfied?
    Ms. Dorn. They are making significant improvements. I think 
there are a number of things from which we have learned and 
some flaws that have made it difficult to get back on track. We 
learned a number of things about design-build and the way that 
was structured with seven different contractors that made it 
even more difficult to manage. There was a tremendously 
unstable management environment. The new administration in 
Puerto Rico has substantially readdressed that. They had a lot 
of things to make up for, and they have really helped turn it 
around. The norms for construction in Puerto Rico are different 
than they are in the U.S., both in safety and quality control. 
So we have found it to be challenging to work in an environment 
that is different than ours. I say that on the one hand.
    On the other hand, I believe they have made substantial 
improvements and we need to see this project through to 
fruition. I think the ridership is upwards of a hundred 
thousand. It will be a good project when it is completed, and I 
am satisfied that it is substantially on track. But as I said, 
no further funds will be given until the financial plan is 
updated and they continue to make improvements in other areas.

                      TREN URBANO--COMPLETION DATE

    Mr. Rogers. Has the realistic completion date, do you 
think?
    Ms. Dorn. Well, they have a completion date in September of 
2003, at the end of September 2003. Both the Inspector General 
and the FTA believe that is optimistic. We say that it will be 
at least 6 months after that for the revenue operation date. If 
so, then the commensurate cost increases would be at least, 
just by a strict calculation, $90 million or so. And I would 
note that, of course, that is the responsibility of the Puerto 
Rican authority and not the Federal government. We have capped 
our full funding grant agreement share at, I believe, $307 
million. That is the New Start share. So any cost increases 
would need to be absorbed by the Puerto Rican authority.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, they say it is going to cost $2.036 
billion, and IG believes it will cost at least $2.19 billion. 
What do you think?
    Ms. Dorn. Let us see. Are we taking bids on that? I think 
it is difficult to judge at this stage. It is somewhere in 
between those, according to the experts with whom I have spoken 
in the regional office and our PMO. Until we continue to see 
the schedule and the completion of their schedule, I think it 
is difficult to predict a precise number, but we believe at 
least six months delay and, as I say, that would mean at least 
$90 million in addition to the projected costs that you cite.
    Mr. Rogers. But that is their cost?
    Ms. Dorn. Correct.

                   TREN URBANO--NO PLAN TO AMEND FFGA

    Mr. Rogers. And you have no plans to amend the FFGA to 
increase the monies?
    Ms. Dorn. We would, by necessity, amend the FFGA, but not 
in terms of the financial commitment that the Federal 
government would make. So it is a requirement that any time 
there is a substantial change, I believe, in schedule and/or 
costs, that we need to amend the full funding grant agreement, 
but not in terms of the cap on the Federal New Start share.
    Mr. Rogers. The IG recommended, and I am quoting 
here,``until the authority has revised the project's master schedule to 
reflect attainable milestones, revised the project's cost estimate to 
reflect resources needed to complete the project, provides supportable 
revenue projections and establishes a timetable to correct significant 
outstanding construction quality problems, FTA should not amend the 
project's FFGA or approve the finance plan''. Do you agree with that?
    Ms. Dorn. We have no disagreement with that.
    Mr. Rogers. Now why should the Congress appropriate the 59, 
74 million dollars in fiscal 2003 when the previous 
appropriations have just been released and the project 
continues to grow in cost and delay in schedule?
    Ms. Dorn. I think it is very important that we keep to our 
Federal commitments as long as Tren Urbano keeps to theirs. We 
felt it was important to lay a marker down, to keep current 
with the FFGA commitments for fiscal year 2003. If Tren Urbano 
does not keep to their commitments, then we would amend the 
budget or do whatever is technically required. I am concerned 
that the project is 84 percent complete, and if we delay 
unnecessarily--of course, we are willing to delay if 
necessary--but if we delay unnecessarily, it can continue to be 
a burden on Tren Urbano and increase the cost, delay the 
schedule, et cetera. So we have a fine balance here. The 
Inspector General, Mr. Mead, and myself, agree wholeheartedly 
in this approach and what has to be done by Tren Urbano, but we 
need to keep to our commitments as long as they satisfy the 
requirements.
    Mr. Rogers. And will this money complete the project, as 
far as we are concerned?
    Ms. Dorn. I believe that there is $113 million remaining 
over 2 years. We have proposed $59 million in 2003, and then 
the reminder in 2004 budget is what we would request of OMB.
    Mr. Rogers. Then that would be it?
    Ms. Dorn. Yes, sir.

                   FEDERAL LOCAL SHARE FOR NEW STARTS

    Mr. Rogers. Let me ask you about the Federal-local share 
for these New Starts that you touched upon in your opening 
statement. What is your position on limiting New Starts 
funding? Is it 50 percent or 60 percent of the total project 
costs for 2003?
    Ms. Dorn. For 2003, 60 percent is the strong guidance and 
recommendation with which we agree that you have given. For 
2004, the administration proposes, and I certainly agree, that 
the Federal matching cap should be 50 percent.
    Mr. Rogers. How much additional New Starts funds would be 
made available with a 60 percent cap and a 50 percent cap?
    Ms. Dorn. Well, I would be happy to provide the specifics 
for the record, but I would also state that the vast majority 
of the projects in the past and certainly in the future are at 
about 53 percent. So it is--we have the very rare occasion. I 
believe there is one being considered by you and your committee 
right now with the New Orleans Streetcar project, which is 
recommended for an FFGA at 80 percent. We believe that there 
are significant circumstances which warrant the committee's 
consideration at 80 percent, including the regional economic 
issues and the fact that this project was begun a number of 
years prior to that 60 percent requirement. We believe that it 
is a good project and that this would be the last one, so to 
speak, at a match that would be greater than what the committee 
desires in 2003 or that the administration has sought in 2004.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, if you would provide for the record then 
the amount of New Starts funds that be made available if we 
limited all New Starts to 60 percent and also at a 50 percent 
level.
    Mr. Rogers. Tell us for the record how much additional New 
Starts money we would----
    Ms. Dorn. Great. That is a very good question because it 
gets to the principle I think we are both trying to achieve, 
which is to allow more funds to go to a greater number of 
projects, given the fact that the pipeline is full.
    [The information follows:]

    The total cost of all of New Starts projects that currently 
have FFGAs, pending FFGAs or proposed FFGAs is $15.4 billion. 
The total Section 5309 New Starts share is $8.1 billion for all 
of these projects. Capping the New Starts share at 60 percent 
would bring the total New Starts share to $7.7 billion 
resulting in a Federal Savings of $469.6 million. This 
represents a Federal Savings of 5.8 percent from the current 
New Starts share. The capping of the share at 50 percent would 
bring the total New Starts share to $6.9 billion, resulting in 
a Federal Savings of $1.2 billion. This represents a Federal 
Savings of 14 percent from the current New Starts share.
    The total cost of all of New Starts projects that are 
currently in final design and preliminary engineering is $41.4 
billion. The total Federal Section 5309 New Starts proposed 
share is $20.3 billion for all of these projects. Capping the 
New Starts share for these projects in the pipeline at 60 
percent would bring the total New Starts share to $19.7 billion 
if these became FFGAs or were eventually funded, resulting in a 
Federal Savings of $562.7 million. This represents a Federal 
Savings of 2.8 percent from the proposed New Starts share. The 
capping of the share at 50 percent would bring the total New 
Starts share to $19.2 billion, resulting in a Federal Savings 
of $1.1 billion. This represents a Federal Savings of 5.2 
percent from the proposed New Starts share.

    Mr. Rogers. Do you believe the FTA will lose flexibility in 
funding highly recommended projects under the cap if those 
projects cannot come up with an increased State-local share?
    Ms. Dorn. We would--by necessity, I guess we would lose 
flexibility. I would hope that there would be an opportunity 
perhaps to consider the rare project in a unique 
circumstances--unique circumstance that might go over the cap. 
But if we must be rigid about that in order to accommodate a 
greater number of projects, we will. Flexibility is reduced. 
However, I think the success of a project is partly determined 
by local commitment and that is represented by financial 
contribution. And so I think it is not at all an unreasonable 
request.

                       NEW ORLEANS--FEDERAL SHARE

    Mr. Rogers. Why can't New Orleans reduce their share to 60 
percent?
    Ms. Dorn. I am not familiar with all of the specifics, but 
they just basically have told us, and we have gotten behind the 
numbers, that they do not have the resources at the local level 
in order to provide more than 60 percent, andwhen they 
originated the plan, all along it was at the 80/20 level, and we 
believe that the circumstances there merit consideration, because we 
think it is a good project. I would be happy to provide other details 
to--in terms of their financial plan to let you assess whether you 
agree with us.
    [The information follows:]

    TEA-21 currently allows local project sponsors to request a federal 
share that can be as high as 80 percent. However, to stretch the 
limited New Starts funds, a lower requested Federal share can improve a 
project's FTA ranking.
    RTA has been working toward the implementation of a financial plan 
and completion of this project based upon an 80/20 share since 1995. 
FTA approved the project to advance into Preliminary Engineering in 
1995, with a financial plan assuming an 80 percent federal share. In 
1997, a Record of Decision was issued, making the project eligible for 
an FFGA, pending demonstration of financial capacity. This was well 
before Congress indicated its desire to raise the local match 
requirement to 60/40. RTA has undertaken aggressive action to secure 
the non-federal share for this project and ensure a sound financial 
basis for operations. These actions include:
          (1) A fare increase from $1.00 to $1.25 for the basic fare 
        (and similar increases for other fares);
          (2) Reductions in expenses, including medical insurance, 
        service headways, administrative wages, and work force; and
          (3) A new dedicated sales tax on hotel and motel room rental 
        receipts (August 2000) which is being used to secure a capital 
        loan from the Louisiana Local Government Environmental 
        Facilities and Community Development Authority [25-year $100 
        million revenue bond issued Sept. 2000]; and
          (4) A new lease arrangement for 175 buses, and revised 
        preventive maintenance procedures.
          (5) The City of New Orleans has contributed the rights-of-way 
        for the project, valued at $3.1 million.
          (6) There was a private donation of catenary poles valued at 
        $1.0 million.

    Mr. Rogers. Well, every city says it is tough to come up 
with their local share, and all the projects are good ones. 
What distinguishes New Orleans--what would make us grant one 
exception to the rule?
    Ms. Dorn. I think the uniqueness of the local circumstance, 
and I think the record speaks for itself, because the vast 
majority of the projects that we have submitted for your 
consideration during the recent history of FTA has been much 
more on the 55 percent arena. It has been my understanding that 
there was a willingness on the part of the committee to 
consider unique circumstances, and I would appreciate the 
opportunity to talk with you further to see if you believe that 
this project meets that threshold.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, I have just got to be convinced that New 
Orleans is----
    Ms. Dorn. Right. I would be happy to provide that for the 
record.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    Mr. Rogers. If we give them 80 percent, everybody else is 
going to say, well you, broke the rule for New Orleans, why 
can't you do it for us.
    Ms. Dorn. Well, one of the criteria that we believe must be 
adhered to is the local match, and it was our judgment that 
this was one of those rare and unique circumstances, and we 
certainly do not plan to bring any others forward in that 
category. And that is why the administration supported this 50/
50 match last year to commence in 2004, because we thought it 
was very important to give early warning, early notice to these 
projects and----
    Mr. Rogers. Well, I understand that, but we have adopted a 
60 percent rule, and we have not given anyone an exception, 
including the Speaker of the House, on the Chicago project this 
current year, and others. Now what is it about New Orleans that 
would give them such an exemption?
    Ms. Dorn. Well, as I said, beyond the norm of the region's 
economic situation and what they have substantiated to us about 
what is the capacity of that region to provide local funding, I 
can't say that there is anything other than their economic 
ability, and I would be happy to provide the details of that.

                 NEW STARTS EVALUATION--50 PERCENT CAP

    Mr. Rogers. Has FTA determined how the proposed cap--your 
50 percent cap on New Starts funding will factor into the 
evaluation and rating process? For example, will you take a 
harder look at projects requesting a high percentage of New 
Starts funds?
    Ms. Dorn. Well, we have been very clear with all the 
grantees that at this point, 60 percent is the limit, and in 
2004, 50 percent is the limit. So, of course, we will continue 
to take a hard look.
    Mr. Rogers. Suppose somebody comes in and says, okay, we 
are willing to do ours for just 35 percent Federal funds, as 
opposed to somebody who wants 60 percent this year. Does not 
that make you feel a lot warmer toward the 35 percent 
community?
    Ms. Dorn. Not necessarily, because we believe that it is 
very important to have the mix, the balance of factors which 
Congress has mandated in terms of a project. It is not--we 
could have a real--excuse the expression--dog of a project that 
is 10 percent Federal share that we would never want to fund. 
We have to consider issues of mobility, of cost-effectiveness, 
of land use issues, et cetera, and so while it may be tempting 
to look only at the Federal share that is being requested, I 
think it is our mandate to look more broadly at the project's 
eligibility beyond simply what it is that they ask of the 
Federal government. We have to look at the criteria that 
Congress very thoughtfully put into law, and then do our 
rating. And frankly, we have one of the most aggressive, 
sophisticated and, by necessity, complex rating systems in 
government. I am proud of that and I think we should keep to 
it, and the balance of the benefits need to be taken into 
account.

    Mr. Rogers. Projects that move into the final design phase 
must have a reasonable degree of certainty in their finance 
plans. Will FTA allow projects to go into final design if they 
are over the funding cap?
    [The information follows:]
    The FTA considers the degree of local financial support in 
considering project approvals to initiate Final Design. 
Additionally, existing policies and criteria encourage project 
sponsors to forward projects with lower federal shares.
    TEA-21 currently allows local project sponsors to request a 
federal share that can be as high as 80 percent. However, FTA 
has made it clear that we will not pursue new Full Funding 
Grant Agreements for projects requesting more than a 60 percent 
share, beginning with those recommended in the FY 2003 Budget.
    Mr. Rogers. has FTA evaluated the Impact of a cap on 
transit systems? For example, would the cap have a greater 
impact on new developing systems than on established systems 
with a dedicated funding source and known benefits?
    [The information follows:]
    The Administration has already proposed that the maximum 
new Starts share of projects in FY 2004 and beyond be at 50 
percent. Grantees expecting to seek an FFGA in FY 2004 and 
beyond would be affected by this proposal. FTA is advising all 
project sponsors to revise their financial plans to reduce the 
anticipated share of New Starts funding.
    There are 22 projects reported in the FY 2003 Annual Report 
on New Starts pipeline that have a New Starts share greater 
than 50 percent. A cap may not necessarily have a greater 
impact on new developing systems than on established systems 
with a dedicated funding source and known benefits. Generally, 
more expensive projects will have the greater difficulty 
obtaining the 50 percent local share. Less expensive projects 
may have fewer impediments for providing the local share of 
funds, depending upon the stability and reliability of the 
local funding sources, compared to the more expensive projects.

    Mr. Rogers. American Public Transportation Association is 
opposed to efforts to establish a Federal match for transit 
capital projects that is lower than the match for highway 
projects. They say it is not a level playing field, that 
projects may be chosen based on the highest Federal share, not 
one which meets the best needs of the community. Is that a 
worry for you?
    Ms. Dorn. I can understand their concern. We want to try to 
avoid project sponsors moving to a particular pot of money 
because the match is better, rather than moving to a pot of 
money because the merits of the project dictate it. So I can 
understand that. By the same token, we do have opportunities 
for flexible funding, from highways, et cetera. These New 
Starts programs are discretionary monies, and so I think that 
is a different kind of category, whereas most of the highway 
projects are in the formula program. I think they have a 
legitimate concern. I don't know it is an overwhelming one, and 
certainly I support the 50 percent that the administration has 
suggested.

    Mr. Rogers. Is FTA considering whether some projects should 
be exempt from a proposed cap? When would such an exemption 
make sense?
    [The information follows:]
    The Administration has already proposed that the maximum 
Federal share for New Starts beginning in FY 2004 be limited to 
50 percent. Exemptions are not foreseen at this point.

    Mr. Rogers. Projects with a total cost of $25 million or 
less are exempt from the project evaluation and rating process, 
not required to sign a grant agreement to receive Federal 
funds. Have you determined whether these exempt projects would 
be subject to a cap?
    Ms. Dorn. Yes, we have.
    Mr. Rogers. And what is the determination, then?
    Ms. Dorn. Fifty-fifty.
    Mr. Rogers. The same caps. Mr. Sabo.

                       ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING

    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of your new programs 
is $6 million for environmental streamlining, and I am curious. 
Have you submitted legislation for this program yet?
    Ms. Dorn. No, but we plan to do so in the near future.
    Mr. Sabo. What do you expect that legislation to suggest?
    Ms. Dorn. It is my understanding that the focus of the 
legislation would be to authorize basically a number of efforts 
that we believe could help reduce the time frame in which 
transit and highway projects take to move to completion, while 
at the same time protecting the environment. With regards to 
the kinds of things that the administration has in mind in 
terms of utilizing this $6 million, there are a number of pilot 
projects within DOT, not only with our agency but with MPO, 
States, local governments and transit and highway agencies that 
we can utilize best practices to help reduce the time frame. We 
have a number of opportunities for peer-to-peer reviews that 
can allow us, simultaneously with the resource agencies, to 
review the environmental process to streamline the time line. 
Alternative dispute resolution processes have really been 
helpful in some cases. We want to see if we can do that in 
other areas. There is technical assistance that, for project 
managers who have not been through the environmental assessment 
piece before, can serve as a resource. So with those types of 
very focused initiatives, have tried to learn best practices 
that can help reduce the time frame, while protecting the 
environment. It is a thorny issue. It is probably not as 
significant an issue in terms of the kinds of problems it 
causes for transit as it is for highways. Transit tends to and, 
as a matter of history, has used the environmental process as a 
decision-making tool. So we can get many of our--most of our--
projects through the environmental process in record time, 4 to 
4\1/2\ years.
    Mr. Sabo. I gather it is legislation that is not likely to 
have been processed by the authorizers by the time we mark up 
in late spring.
    Ms. Dorn. That it is not likely to what?
    Mr. Sabo. Have passed and be signed into law by late 
spring?
    Ms. Dorn. I would not want to judge the Congress's ability 
to take up legislation. We would hope that would be the case.
    Mr. Sabo. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. Dorn. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. Nice try. Mr. Olver.

                    FEDERAL/LOCAL SHARE--NEW STARTS

    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take it from the 
conversation which I came in in the middle of, and I apologize 
for that, is that all of the pending FGAs, those that have not 
yet been reached, I guess it is those that you will be hoping 
might be ready at the end of 2003 and the couple that are 
expected to be ready, there is one listed there already at 60 
percent. But all of the remainder, there are six of them below 
that point in the tabulation, that those will be 60 or fewer.
    Ms. Dorn. Percent--the Federal match?
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    Ms. Dorn. Yes.
    Mr. Olver. Those will be. And so I wanted to just revisit 
for one question the New Orleans situation. I am surprised 
there that in the New Orleans case, they have had appropriated 
considerably over half of the total amount--I mean, not greatly 
over, but 53 or 4 percent of the total funding has already been 
appropriated. That is a substantially larger amount or 
percentage than any of the others--any below the list in other 
pending FFGAs or expected ones for the future, and it is in 
fact above the amount that has already been appropriated in 
quite a number of the ones that are in the list of ongoing--in 
your list of 25 that are being funded. And it surprises me that 
we would have gotten so deeply into that project without a full 
funding grant agreement already in place. How did that happen?
    Ms. Dorn. Well, I am not familiar with the specifics of the 
New Orleans situation, but this situation is not unrelated to 
the economic problems that New Orleans faced. I believe that 
early on in the preliminary engineering process, it is likely 
that this project got earmarks for that activity, and as I 
said, it is probably not unrelated to the fact that they were 
having trouble getting the project off the ground initially. 
And so the Federal government made a commitment to fund 
projects earlier than the administration typically supports. We 
usually prefer, strongly prefer to wait until farther down the 
process. We think it is important that the State and local 
commitment be shared early on in the process.
    Now I am not certain that is the case, but is that what 
happened? Yes. They had earmarks and did not have the financial 
commitment at that point.
    Mr. Olver. I see. I see. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                            SECURITY ISSUES

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Sabo mentioned in his firstround 
of questions the security problem on transit. You have got 9 billion 
passenger trips annually, 400,000 employees, hundreds, thousands, 
perhaps, of entry points on the public transit systems, a very 
vulnerable mode of travel. We followed the President's request 
following 9/11 and provided 23.5 million for you to initiate security 
assessments of the 30 largest agencies, evaluate their response plans, 
conduct drills, and so on. What kind of threats confront the agencies 
out there?
    Ms. Dorn. It depends on whether they are an old system or a 
new system. We are talking primarily subway systems. There are 
some commonalities we have learned as a result of completing 
about a third of them, about 12, I believe.
    Some of the findings are that in every system there are 
usually several high risk, high consequence assets that could 
really make a difference, if there was a problem, in terms of 
lives that could be lost or transportation significantly 
disrupted. Access control is a key issue, and you mentioned it, 
Mr. Chairman. It is a tremendous challenge when you have so 
many open places and open environments, and many of the 
agencies are hardening those access points. But we had a 
situation in Chicago, for example, just a few days ago, an 
individual was basically hiding out in one of the unused 
tunnels and did some serious damage and caused great concern, 
and they did not even know that he was there. These are the 
kinds of issues in New York and L.A. where they have unused 
tunnels and many access points. That is a very important issue 
that we need to address carefully.
    With regard to unified command structures, once there is an 
event, a security event, this is very important. This played a 
critical role in WMATA, in the Washington metro area, both on 
September 11th and when we had the number of the threats after 
that, and in New York. And by unified command structure, I mean 
that the operations center that is with the fire, the police, 
the transit agencies; they know to whom they report, who makes 
the decisions so that they can immediately evacuate. That is a 
very key consideration.
    We have also discovered that not all transit agencies have 
taken a systemic approach to security. You can plug one hole, 
but if the rest of the system has some vulnerabilities, it is 
as if you haven't plugged any holes. So these kinds of 
assessments are showing us that.
    Transit agencies also need help in developing security 
standards. We have already provided to agencies guidelines 
about chemical detection protocols so that, if there is an 
event, they know how it is that you can remedy it and move the 
public safely.
    So the assessments have produced some really important 
information, and now, as a result of the supplemental money 
that you have given us, we are going back to those agencies 
where we have done the reviews and helping them develop the 
plan, plug the holes, work on drills and training, et cetera. 
With the top 30 agencies that we are assessing, representing 22 
million daily passengers in an environment that is open, this 
is an important effort, and we appreciate very much your 
support on this.
    [The information follows:]

    Mr. Rogers. What are the typical problems that you found 
during FTA's security assessments of the largest transit 
projects?
    [The information follows:]
    The assessments we have conducted so far provide some 
preliminary findings:
    1. Transit systems inherently open and accessible. 
Therefore transit systems are vulnerable to a broad range of 
potential terrorist attacks that could result in significant 
loss of life and loss of transportation system capacity.
    2. There are high-risk access points that must be monitored 
more effectively. The transit agencies need to deploy better 
monitoring systems and improved technological systems to 
accomplish this.
    3. Many of the major transit systems need to upgrade their 
radio communications equipment in order for emergency 
responders and transit personnel to effectively communicate 
with each other during a critical incident.
    4. Security awareness training for employees varies greatly 
among transit agencies. A comprehensive security-training 
program that incorporates industry best practice procedures 
must be made available to all transit employees.
    5. There is a significant need for guidelines for 
decontamination. These guidelines would instruct transit 
employees, first responders and local emergency units on how to 
handle, respond to and recover from a chemical or biological 
attack.
    6. Unified command structures vary greatly and much work is 
needed to prepare our transit agencies for critical incidents.
    7. Sensitive system information is available either on the 
Internet or in public record. Guidelines must be established on 
what transit infrastructure and system operation information 
that exposes system vulnerabilities should be made available to 
the public.
    8. Timely security intelligence is needed to alert transit 
agencies of potential terrorist threats or incidents.

                    SECURITY FUNDING REQUEST FY 2003

    Mr. Rogers. But you did not ask any money in 2003 for 
funding security weaknesses.
    Ms. Dorn. We asked for $7.3 million in security related 
resources in 2003, which is about 230 percent over 2002, and we 
asked for it to supplement all of those five parts that I 
mentioned to you. So we believe that this is adequate to do 
what we need to do.
    Mr. Rogers. Where is that $7.5 million in your budget 
request? Can somebody help us with that?
    Ms. Dorn. Yes. Sorry. It is in the research budget. And, 
yes, in fact, it is part of the $15.5, right? Yes. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, but, you know, Washington metro last year 
asked for $120 million.
    Ms. Dorn. We know.
    Mr. Rogers. San Francisco Muni is asking $6 million for 
improvements and so on and so forth.
    Ms. Dorn. San Francisco? I was not aware of that.
    Mr. Rogers. I was giving those as examples. You have got a 
lot of money being requested, and yet there is very little 
money in your budget for fixing these weaknesses. That is in 
the research portion. Is that meant to just study the problem 
for----
    Ms. Dorn. No. It is actually to conduct the assessments, to 
do the follow-on, to plan, to design training courses, to 
provide free drills so that we can go in and they can test 
their evacuation plan, et cetera. We believe that this 
methodical approach is the right way to approach it. We need to 
get a better understanding of what the issues are rather than 
just--well, this is not the appropriate term, rather than knee-
jerk or say we need more cops on the beat. That is not always 
the most important prioritization of the resources.
    Mr. Rogers. You certainly need some money other than just 
for research, do not you, for fixing the problem?
    Ms. Dorn. The category of research I guess is generic. A 
small portion of that is actually for research. There also is 
substantial funds from that $7\1/2\ million is to do the 
practical things and to go in to fix the plan. It does not 
cover, admittedly, capital assets that a number of 
organizations have requested. That is not where we are going 
with this at this point, but we will have the kind of 
information that we would then be able to share with TSA and 
with OMB if that should be a necessity.
    And then I would also suggest that, you know, it is not the 
role of the FTA to determine what kinds of resources in the 
security arena are necessary. We can only do so from the 
perspective of the subway environment. I do not have the 
30,000-foot level view of that, and certainly those in the 
Department of Transportation can assess whether port security 
is really more of a priority, along with OMB as well.

                      FORMULA FUNDING FOR SECURITY

    Mr. Rogers. Now you allow recipients of formula funding to 
use up to 1 percent of their monies for security----
    Ms. Dorn. Correct.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Projects. Do you know how much 
they have spent on security?
    Ms. Dorn. At least 1 percent. That is a requirement, and 
many spend more, although the category of security is fairly 
broad. It can be from lighting to a chemical detection piece of 
equipment. But States need to come to the FTA and ask an 
exemption from the 1 percent requirement, and that is only 
granted, it is my understanding, if they can establish that 
they have spent it through other funds.

    Mr. Rogers. Can formula funds alone address the typical 
weaknesses your reviews have identified?
    [The information follows:]
    The FTA security assessments indicate a variety of transit 
agency needs. Formula programs are expected to fund a portion 
of the capital needs of the transit agencies, research funds 
will help address other identified needs. The $23.5 million 
supplied in FY 2002 emergency supplemental resources are 
helping to educate transit employees to identify and respond to 
potential security threats and what their role is during an 
emergency incident. Technical assistance will help transit 
agencies refine and update security and emergency management 
plans and procedures. In addition, transit agencies will 
conduct drills to practice procedures with police, fire, and 
other emergency response agencies in order to identify areas 
for an improved and coordinated response. In FY 2003, research 
and oversight funds will be used to continue these activities 
and oversee security actions.
    Mr. Rogers. FTA allows Recipients of formula funding to use 
at least 1 percent for security projects. How much have transit 
agencies spent on security? Please answer pre-September 11th 
and post.
    [The information follows:]
    The grant tracking system used by FTA does not identify 
grants by specific project type, but by general transit system 
categories, such as vehicles and facilities, signal and 
communication equipment, radios, ADP hardware/software, and 
fare collection equipment. Consequently, it is difficult to 
provide an amount spent on capital security projects by transit 
agencies. However, since the security assessments performed by 
the FTA reveal there is a need to upgrade radio communication 
systems, improve access control and monitoring systems to high 
risk assets, improve lighting and fencing around vehicle 
storage facilities, and other security enhancements, many 
transit agencies have begun to develop and implement plans 
which will better highlight funding for capital security 
projects.

                 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR NEW YORK CITY

    Mr. Rogers. Now on March the 8th, the President announced 
an additional supplemental request for New York City for 
expenses incurred after 9/11, including $4.55 billion for 
transit infrastructure needs. I am told that of that amount, 
$2.75 billion will be provided to FEMA to repair the damaged 
MTA and Port Authority infrastructures to their pre-incident 
condition, and the remainder, $1.8 billion, would be for FTA to 
fund the upgrading of transportation systems beyond restoration 
work.
    Last year we gave $1.7 billion in the DOD supplemental to 
FEMA for repairing the damaged infrastructure, and another $100 
million for FTA to fund capital investments of those transit 
agencies most severely impacted by the terrorist attack.
    If that new request should be approved, New York's transit 
community would receive over $6.5 billion in less than one 
year, and that is almost as much as what we appropriated 
nationwide for transit in 2002, which was $6.7 billion. Is that 
fair?
    Ms. Dorn. I think it is appropriate to the situation, yes, 
and I believe that there are tremendous unmet needs in public 
transportation in New York as a result of September 11th. We 
desperately need to restore mobility in Lower Manhattan because 
it is the Nation's premier financial center, and as we have 
worked very carefully and closely with OMB and with FEMA, we 
recognize there is a tremendous unmet need. Businesses 
desperately need the confidence that there will be a commitment 
on the part of the Federal government to restore mobility in 
Lower Manhattan, and so we are very supportive of those 
additional funds.
    I will say that we must continue to work closely with FEMA 
because we want to make sure that anything that FEMA funds, we 
are not--we are neither duplicating nor unnecessarily funding 
from the FTA pot. We want to look at this holistically and be 
proud that what we have done is restore mobility to Lower 
Manhattan.
    Mr. Rogers. How was the $1.7 billion that we gave in the 
DOD supplemental to FEMA, how is that money for transit repairs 
used?
    Ms. Dorn. It is my understanding that the final decisions 
have not yet been made by FEMA about how to expend those 
dollars. They and we have been working with the transit 
agencies in New Jersey and in New York to help determine what 
makes the most sense in terms of restoration and decisions are 
expected to be made this spring--I believe, next month. Those 
decisions will instruct FTA about how to use both the $100 
million for capital transit projects and the $100 million for 
ferry facilities, as well. So it is a complex, but I think 
appropriately so, discussion. This is a lot of money. On the 
other hand, there are a lot of needs.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, in your opinion, why does MTA and the 
Port of New York Authority need an additional $2.75 billion 
from FEMA for transit infrastructure needs?
    Ms. Dorn. Well, it all relates to being able to restore the 
mobility in the south part of Manhattan.
    Mr. Rogers. No. I need to know the specifics.
    Ms. Dorn. Well, I would be happy to forward to you a list 
of projects that are--have been proposed by New York, but they 
have not been sorted out yet.
    Mr. Rogers. Would you do that? Would you furnish us a 
breakdown of all of these monies? We are talking $6.5 billion, 
and we need it for the record to know----
    Ms. Dorn. Absolutely.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Who is spending what and for what 
purpose and assure us that there is no duplication and that we 
are repairing what was torn up, not building something new 
above and beyond what was there. At least we need to know that 
we are doing that.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    Ms. Dorn. Right. I would suggest also, Mr. Chairman, that, 
as you know, the vast majority of this underground system in 
that area was a kind of cobbled-together network created over a 
hundred years ago, and the idea of spending the money simply to 
restore the existing pathways may not make sense. So we would 
be eager to talk with you about how FEMA and FTA and the local 
authorities are working together to make sure we get the most 
bang for the buck without, overlooking an opportunity to 
improve the network and meet the need, which is to restore 
mobility.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, some people could argue that the $1.8 
billion for capital investments, above and beyond what it would 
take to get us back to normal pre-9/11, is fungible and that it 
could be used for MTA or PATH to expand services in Manhattan, 
such as the East Side access or Second Avenue subway or to 
enhance service in New Jersey because the employer has moved 
out of the city after 9/11. Do you understand that they could 
argue that?
    Ms. Dorn. Oh, absolutely. I would make the point, though, 
that there is a possibility of some 50 or 60,000 jobs not 
returning to New York's Lower Manhattan unless or until 
employers can be convinced that the infrastructure needs can be 
met and they can get their employees there, and it certainly is 
the commitment of the President to make sure that we bring New 
York back. I know that the White House is eager to make sure 
that we spend only what is necessary, but by the same token, 
there are a lot of needs.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we understand the request. We have to 
account, though, for spending, and so we need to have a 
justification for all of these.
    Ms. Dorn. Absolutely. I understand. That will be 
forthcoming.

                    MERITORIOUS NEW STARTS PROJECTS

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Olver, do you have any questions?
    Mr. Olver. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
follow just for a minute for one more line of reasoning around 
the group of meritorious projects that are funded in this 
budget request for preliminary engineering, as I understand it, 
and but may or may not end up with a full funding agreement by 
the end of 2003. I think that is a correct characterization. I 
hope so.
    I am basically wondering, do we have a lot more of these--
this group of projects had had substantial money previously, in 
each case considerably more, at least twice as much, as is 
being proposed for this year's preliminary engineering, but 
that, I take it, was money that had been previously used for 
alternative analysis and----
    Ms. Dorn. And preliminary engineering, yes.
    Mr. Olver. Some of it was being used for preliminary 
engineering, too?
    Ms. Dorn. Yes.
    Mr. Olver. Were those all projects that some of the money 
was used for alternative analysis and environmental assessments 
in those really early stages?
    Ms. Dorn. I think it would depend on the project, but some 
may have funded alternatives analysis. That is the rare 
situation. It usually does not start that early with earmarks 
of projects. Primarily it would be preliminary engineering, and 
preliminary engineering is when the environmental assessment 
piece begins.
    Mr. Olver. Under the leadership of the Chairman, the 
committee's guidelines have been that we would not continue to 
fund New Starts at the alternative analysis environmental 
assessment stage, but only at the preliminary engineering 
stage, and I am wondering if we have a group of other projects 
out there which might be called worthy projects, where all or 
part of the money--either it is still hanging around, projects 
where a fair amount of money had been done--had been used on 
alternative analysis, those early stages, or things that we are 
going to continue to see for the next fiscal year or even more 
than the next fiscal year?
    Ms. Dorn. I would expect that is the case. We have, I 
believe, 50 projects in preliminary engineering, and most, if 
not all, of them have received earmarks in the past at that 
very early stage. The administration in the main, at leastto my 
knowledge, does not support that, and we believe, as I had said 
earlier, that it is important for a local commitment to be demonstrated 
before the financial commitment is forthcoming from the Federal 
government. But we have a pretty full pipeline. Not very many projects 
are ripe at this point for fiscal year 2003 other than the ones that we 
have talked about. But we have over--I think it is over a hundred in 
the alternatives analysis stage. So we have 150 projects in the 
pipeline, 25 of which already have full funding grant agreements.
    Mr. Olver. It is that pipeline of 150 that I have begun to 
understand that there was quite a pipeline, but it is when you 
know that there are 150 of them when one really understands--or 
begins to understand the difficulties in terms of the funding 
here that is part of the driving force for a share of 50/50 or 
60/40 share, moving to the 50/50 share.
    Ms. Dorn. Absolutely. And not all of those projects will 
move to the fore. Some will not receive the recommended rating, 
because they are a glint in someone's eye or maybe hopefully a 
little more than that, but they may not pass the criteria on 
which the Congress has asked us to rate.
    Mr. Olver. Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
                         TRANSIT FUNDING POLICY

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you. I guess I can summarize the policies 
that we have tried to enunciate here on the subcommittee, which 
I think are in harmony with the administration's, and that is 
communities should, if they are interested in a project, at the 
very outset fund themselves the analysis alternatives stage, 
and if they have that sufficient interest and commitment to a 
project and if the analysis is good, only then would Federal 
dollars come into play on a project at the preliminary 
engineering stage.
    Ms. Dorn. We certainly agree.
    Mr. Rogers. And then secondly, as far as funding from the 
Federal level, I think we agree that the percentage of all 
projects, you would exempt New Orleans, the Federal share 
should not exceed 60 percent in 2003, and you say 50 percent in 
2004.
    Ms. Dorn. Correct.
    Mr. Rogers. I think we are more or less in agreement on 
that as well in order to fund as many projects, worthy projects 
nationally as we can with very, very limited dollars. Those are 
some of the broad strokes of the policy decisions that we have 
settled upon here which I am happy to say you have as well. So 
we will work with you. We will be scrutinizing all of the FFGAs 
as they come up to us from you, and there are some problem ones 
that we are both aware of that will need to be scrutinized 
extra carefully. We wish you well. You have been a good witness 
here your first freshman trip out.
    Ms. Dorn. Freshman trip. And thank you for not hazing me 
too vigorously on my first trip. Fair questions all.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, no. We have asked you tough questions, 
and you have provided good answers, and we appreciate that.
    Ms. Dorn. Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me for one 
minute?

                      FTA STAFFING--12 FTE REQUEST

    Mr. Rogers. Be happy to.
    Ms. Dorn. I just want to make a special request that I 
think is in keeping with our mutual philosophy about New Starts 
and the transit program. Over the past 10 years, FTA's program 
has more than doubled, and the funding has grown 12 times 
faster than FTA staffing. At the same time, we have had 
significant increases in requirements, as well we should in 
terms of oversight of New Starts, new programs like Jobs Access 
and over-the-road buses, clean air, ADA. FTA has spent a lot of 
time doing a top-down program planning and management review, 
and we have identified some critical workload gaps, and it was 
for that reason that the Secretary and OMB agreed with us in 
requesting an increase in FTE by 12. And we would ask that you 
would engage in a dialogue, both with Ms. Gupta and your fellow 
Members, about the reasonableness of that. I feel that those 
are the kinds of resources that will really allow us to 
continue to do a good job and, in fact, improve what we do. So 
I would appreciate your consideration of that.
    Mr. Rogers. We will give it consideration.
    Ms. Dorn. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you so much. The hearing is adjourned.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                                  2003

                              ----------                              

                                      Wednesday, February 13, 2002.

              FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                                WITNESS

JOSEPH M. CLAPP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY 
    ADMINISTRATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Rogers. Good morning. We have Mr. Joseph Clapp, 
Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA), here with us today to present his 
agency's budget request. Mr. Clapp is the first Senate 
confirmed administrator of FMCSA since its inception in the 
year 2000. Congratulations.
    Because you were appointed in the middle of the cross-
border trucking debate last year, I am sure that you had a 
quick indoctrination in your new position. I congratulate you 
on your new position, confirmed and all, and welcome you here.
    This agency is the regulatory body charged with ensuring 
safety in commercial vehicle operations on the nation's 
highways. It was extracted from the Federal Highway 
Administration in 2000, to improve our truck and bus safety, 
and to accomplish this, this agency's budget requests $371 
million in budget resources to increase safety. That is an 
increase of 8.5 percent from the year 2002 level.
    The FMCSA has strong safety goals. Its primary goal, first 
introduced during the last administration, is to reduce large 
truck-related deaths by 50 percent by the end of 2009. That is 
a very ambitious goal, if not impossible. Largely as a result 
of this subcommittee's prodding, the agency has made advances 
and some progress in its overall management.
    But as the nation's priorities changed after September 11, 
so did FMCSA's. The terrorist attacks stand as a stark reminder 
that a major portion of any safety mission is security. One of 
your agency's main activities became security sensitivity 
visits, (SSVs) to make sure that motor carriers hauling 
hazardous materials are aware of security measures that should 
be in place.
    Federal and state inspectors are visiting 39,000 companies 
that haul hazardous materials that could be used as a weapon. 
And I am happy to report FMCSA has stepped up to the plate and 
completed 95 percent of those visits. That has resulted in 126 
referrals to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    To further secure America from this type of threat, the 
U.S.A. Patriot Act signed into law last year requires 
background checks before issuance or renewal of licenses to 
transport hazardous materials. The rule associated with this 
law is important and needs to be finalized. Ensuring America's 
security is of the utmost importance. We need to take every 
action possible to prevent trucks carrying hazardous materials 
from being used as a weapon. No activity should be given higher 
priority.
    I would be remiss if I did not mention the compromise 
reached on the issue of cross-border trucking in the North 
American Free Trade Agreement.
    Last year's appropriations bill honored our NAFTA 
commitment by allowing the southern border to open to Mexican 
trucks some time this year. It included a number of provisions 
to ensure eligible foreign motor carriers operating in the U.S. 
comply with America's motor carrier regulations, and I 
understand you are in the process of implementing those 
provisions as we speak.
    In fiscal '02, we provided a total of $140 million to 
implement NAFTA, including $54 million within the FMCSA 
account. In fiscal '03, the administration requests a total of 
$116 million to ensure cross-border trucking safety and of this 
amount $69 million is included within your budget. The $24 
million reduction is attributed to one-time costs such as 
scales, training, relocation and the like.
    Mr. Clapp, we are interested in discussing the progress 
made to ensure security and to implement the safety provisions 
in last year's appropriations bill regarding Mexican motor 
carriers, while still maintaining and building on the other 
advances your agency has made over the last two years.
    You have got a lot of challenges before you. As you know, 
it is this Committee's job to perform oversight and we will do 
that diligently. We will measure your agency's performance each 
and every year 5 strict but fair.
    Without objection, we will enter your statement into the 
hearing record, and shortly we would welcome an oral summary of 
your testimony. But first, let me turn to the gentleman from 
Minnesota for any opening comments he would like to make.

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clapp, welcome to 
the Committee.
    As the Chairman indicated, the responsibilities of your 
agency are substantial. If one were to look back a couple of 
years, you had primarily safety responsibilities and now you 
have significant security requirements. You have both the 
initial inspection and the ongoing responsibility to deal with 
the transport of hazardous waste. You have the problem of 
assuring us that the provisions of law as it relates to border 
crossings on our southern border are implemented, and 
implemented safely.
    We also had the requirement that before Mexican trucks 
carrying hazardous waste come into this country, negotiations 
had to occur to assure the same type of inspection of drivers 
as supposed to exist in this country. I am not sure if that is 
your responsibility or at the secretary level. But the 
responsibilities are substantial. The increased money you 
requested is not significant, and I will be listening with 
interest to how we are going to maintain our historic concern 
over safety, and that has always been a major concern of this 
Committee that there was basic safety problems with truck 
traffic in this country and lots of deaths that we hope to 
reduce. We will listen with interest as to how you are going to 
accomplish substantial and significantly increased 
responsibilities with fairly limited resources. So we wish you 
well.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clapp, please proceed.


                            OPENING REMARKS


    Mr. Clapp. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for that warm 
welcome. I do appreciate it, and as you suggested, I will 
submit my written statement for the record and will summarize.
    I do thank you for the opportunity to testify before the 
Subcommittee on behalf of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, (FMCSA). I am pleased to report on our key 
activities and our plans for continued progress.
    Despite an overall increase in highway fatalities, 
fatalities and crashes involving large trucks have declined in 
each of the last two years. We hope that our efforts and those 
of our safety partners in the states and other federal agencies 
will continue to help extend this positive trend.
    The FMCSA has placed a strong emphasis on deploying its 
resources on the front line. This helps us deliver results and 
has provided a real advantage in recent efforts to improve 
security as you have suggested.
    In response to the events of September 11th, our agency 
initiated on-site visits to hazardous materials carriers to 
increase awareness to terrorist threats, identify potential 
vulnerabilities, and to report potentially serious issues to 
the appropriate authorities.
    As you have already noted, over the last four months we 
have completed well over 36,000 contacts, and the remainder 
will be completed very soon. We have made 126 referrals to the 
FBI.
    In the future, compliance reviews of hazardous materials 
carriers will be expanded to include a security component. We 
are also developing a program for periodic visits to carriers 
transporting certain types of explosives, radioactive 
materials, and highly toxic substances.
    The FMCSA has developed outreach material and a training 
course to raise the awareness of law enforcement officers to 
the potential threat that commercial vehicles can pose if they 
are used as a weapon.
    Implementation of the requirements of the U.S.A. Patriot 
Act are an important part of our overall effort to enhance 
security.
    Coordinating with other federal agencies and the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, FMCSA is 
developing procedures for background checks on drivers seeking 
hazardous materials (HAZMAT) endorsements. FMCSA expects to 
issue an interim final rule to implement this process very 
shortly.
    The Department is well underway in implementing actions in 
anticipation of lifting the moratorium on cross-border 
trucking. Rulemakings establishing the application process and 
the strict safety monitoring system for Mexican domiciled motor 
carriers should be issued this month. Carriers applying for 
provisional authority will undergo a safety audit to review 
their safety systems for compliance and knowledge of the 
federal motor carrier safety regulations.
    After those carriers receive provisional authority, their 
safety performance will be monitored through roadside 
inspections of vehicles and drivers, and in addition, all 
performance data related to the carrier will be captured in our 
safety information database.
    In an 18-month period of provisional authority, a 
compliance review must result in a satisfactory rating before 
the carrier can receive permanent authority.
    We are hiring an additional 214 personnel, more than a 25 
percent increase to our overall staff, for the inspection of 
vehicles and drivers and to perform those safety audits and 
compliance reviews on Mexican-domiciled carriers. This will 
bring our total complement of border enforcement staff to 274.
    States are hiring additional border inspectors and 
enhancing their inspection infrastructure at border locations.
    In fiscal year 2003, a total of $116 million is requested 
for southern border safety activities. This includes $61 
million to maintain the fiscal year 2002 safety enforcement 
program levels. Of this amount, $43 million would support 274 
federal enforcement personnel, and $18 million would be 
provided to maintain state inspection operations. An additional 
$8 million for motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) 
grants is requested to support state enforcement personnel at 
the border.
    Under the Federal Highway Administration's Borders and 
Corridors Program, $47 million is requested to fund state 
inspection facilities construction.
    We are requesting $165 million for states to conduct 
compliance reviews, traffic enforcement, roadside inspections, 
CDL oversight activities and state border enforcement efforts. 
In addition, $20 million would support vital motor carrier 
safety information systems and data analysis activities, 
including SAFESTAT, and the Performance and Registration 
Information Systems Management (PRISM) Program. Twenty states 
now receive funds to implement PRISM, up from five states in 
1998.
    Completion of rulemakings is a priority. In addition to 
rules for background checks and the Mexican carrier rules, 
FMCSA will soon complete the new entrant rule which extends the 
safety review process to new U.S. motor carriers, and the 
Uniform Carrier Register, a rule to streamline and update the 
carrier registration process. We also will continue our work on 
the important hours of service rule.
    We will soon finalize rules to implement changes in the 
commercial driver licensing (CDL) program. Seeing that these 
rules are effectively carried out and that greater progress is 
made in improving CDL information exchange will be areas of 
personal emphasis for me. Improved CDL data exchange and 
working with states to reduce vulnerability to fraud yield 
benefits for both commercial vehicle safety and security.
    I look forward to working with this subcommittee and its 
leadership as we seek other ways to make continuous improvement 
at FMCSA. It says here I will be happy to answer any questions 
you may have. [Laughter.]
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    Mr. Rogers. Are you happy about it? Are you happy?
    Mr. Clapp. I'm very happy, and if your questions match my 
answers, we will be in good shape. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we will try our best.
    Mr. Clapp. Okay.

                      SECURITY SENSITIVITY VISITS

    Mr. Rogers. Now, after September 11, your first priority 
became completing the security sensitivity visits (SSVs), and 
you identified some 39,000 companies, those that haul types and 
quantities of materials that could be used as a weapon. I 
understand it also included training schools, truck leasing 
companies, bulk loaders and so forth.
    What did you do? When you contacted those people, what was 
the purpose and what did you ask of them?
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    What we did was somewhat different from what normally 
happens when they see one of our people come in the door. We 
were very careful to communicate that this was a different kind 
of visit. It was not about a compliance review to check up on 
whether they had complied 100 percent with every regulation 
that we have. It was a session to make sure that those folks 
had a heightened sense of awareness of the need for--in this 
day and time--a legitimate--excuse me--a legitimate security 
protocol and plan of action to be in place. We were there to 
review with them alist of considerations and elements.
    Mr. Rogers. What were those considerations?
    Mr. Clapp. Depending on the type of carrier, of course, it 
would be such things as the need to have a plan; the need to 
make sure that all personnel involved are involved in that 
plan; a means of communicating the plan to the people that need 
to carry it out; and training so that people know how to react 
in the event of some kind of unforeseen emergency.
    Mr. Rogers. Was there an effort made to check the 
identities of the people who were on the road?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes there was, Mr. Chairman. We also sat down 
with the carrier and went through their driver rosters. We 
were, of course, looking for anything that might be untoward 
there, and also checking those rosters against, for example, 
the FBI watch list.
    Mr. Rogers. So that has been done at most of these 39,000 
companies?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, sir, it has.
    Mr. Rogers. How many of the 39,000 have you actually 
visited?
    Mr. Clapp. We have conducted over 36,000 at this point.
    Mr. Rogers. And so in those 36,000 at least every driver's 
identity has been checked against the FBI list?
    Mr. Clapp. We have--yes, yes.
    Mr. Rogers. And did that turn up anything?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes sir, it did.
    Mr. Rogers. Can you tell us what it did?
    Mr. Clapp. For security reasons, I cannot tell you. I do 
not actually know the breakdown of the number of cases by 
cause, but I do know that we referred 126 specific reports to 
the FBI when something did not look right, including a few in 
which a name on a watch list may have shown up.
    These could be anything from unexplained disappearances of 
an individual around the time of September 11th, falsification 
of identity, immigration issues, and some cases of 
falsification of the driver's background.
    Mr. Rogers. So you found instances of all of those?
    Mr. Clapp. We did. We also found instances in which 
suspicious questions were asked by the applicants; for example, 
an individual is more interested in what type of HAZMAT that 
you haul than what you are paying and what the working 
conditions might be, or where they will be going.
    Mr. Rogers. When do you expect to have completed all 39,000 
visits?
    Mr. Clapp. I would think that we ought to be through with 
them by the end of this month or early next month.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, the committee had required you to give the 
SSV program high priority. In fact, to report back to us on the 
status of these visits by January 31st past.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. We do not have the report yet, but I understand 
it is in the works?
    Mr. Clapp. I am chagrined to learn that you do not have it 
because we did it, and it is obviously on the way to you. It is 
in review in the Administration at this point.
    Mr. Rogers. Other agencies?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes. And so you should have it very shortly.
    Mr. Rogers. All right.
    Mr. Clapp. Much of what I have in my statement here and the 
exchange that you and I just had constitute what is in the 
report.

                           HOMELAND SECURITY

    Mr. Rogers. Now, how do you fit in with homeland security 
on something like this?
    Mr. Clapp. Well, security, of course, is a DOT-wide matter 
and we have intermodal working groups or task forces within 
DOT. In addition, we are coordinating our information with the 
Transportation Security Agency, and the Deputy Secretary is 
involved on a daily basis with the homeland security people so 
they have the information that we have and he has.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Mr. Clapp. However, the referrals that we made were 
specifically to the FBI.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes. For possible violation of federal law?
    Mr. Clapp. Possible violation or possible suspicious 
activity that needs to be investigated.
    Mr. Rogers. Right. Now, this is consuming, I have to say, a 
lot of your time.
    Mr. Clapp. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. How are you able to also focus on the 
traditional safety activities that the agency normally does?
    Mr. Clapp. Well, that is certainly an appropriate question 
because since September our field staff and many of our 
headquarters staff have been focused on getting these done. You 
obviously do not do almost 40,000 personal visits without 
having your people heavily involved.
    So that was a focus, and to some extent it was naturally at 
the expense of the traditional compliance review activity. 
However, we did continue to do compliance reviews, for example, 
in serving out-of-service notices, doing compliance reviews on 
unsatisfactory carriers, and in following up on complaints. And 
the reality is that, for example, in the last quarter we did 
approximately 800 compliance reviews along with the SSV 
activity. That is about half of what we did in the last quarter 
of last year.
    Mr. Rogers. I will have other questions, but I want to 
share the time with the others.
    Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think the report you are supposed to give to us is also 
supposed to contain recommendations. Will it have any 
recommendations on policy change?
    Mr. Clapp. Let me refresh myself on that point, if I can.
    Mr. Sabo. Well, we will find out when we get it.
    Mr. Clapp. Fine.
    Mr. Sabo. But I think--let me go on to some other 
questions.

                            SECURITY FUNDING

    The budget has no additional funding for security 
activities, but the Patriot Act also, as I understand, requires 
that all new applications for licenses for drivers or renewal, 
I think, have to come through your agency for clearance.
    How are you going to handle that?
    I would assume that is going to require a significant 
amount of staff to do that clearance, and also to fairly 
quickly get back to a company, otherwise you would have a real 
bureaucratic mess.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, Mr. Sabo. The application, of course, is 
for new HAZMAT endorsements.
    Mr. Sabo. Yes.
    Mr. Clapp. Or renewal of a HAZMAT endorsement, so it is not 
all licenses.
    Mr. Sabo. Right.
    Mr. Clapp. It is a subset of all commercial drivers 
licenses.
    Still, it can be a substantial number, and you are correct, 
it will require staff in our agency to do it. Of course, we 
would also be interacting with the Department of Justice to get 
that done.
    Mr. Sabo. Do you have a plan in place as to how you are 
going to handle that?
    Mr. Clapp. We are working on that, of course. We are 
working to get the rule out and to identify exactly how the 
process will work, and we are well along in that process.
    Mr. Sabo. What about personnel?
    Mr. Clapp. We have not hired any additional personnel yet. 
With respect to the funding aspect, it will be necessary for us 
to work within the Department to determine both the applicable 
level of funding and to identify the means by which it will be 
funded.
    The working premise for our modal budgets that you have for 
fiscal year 2003 was that funding for discrete security-related 
activities is supposed to be in TSA. It is not in our modal 
budget.
    Mr. Sabo. Assuming that you will get funding from the 
Secretary's office to handle----
    Mr. Clapp. We will have to work with the Secretary's office 
to provide the appropriate funding mechanism to carry this out; 
yes sir.
    Mr. Sabo. Do we have any requests for that kind of funding?
    Mr. Clapp. It falls within TSA's budget, so I cannot tell 
you.

                      CANADIAN AND MEXICAN DRIVERS

    Mr. Sabo. I am told we have no budget details for TSA.
    What is the progress on implementing the same requirement 
on drivers for both Canadian and Mexican drivers?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes. I have met with Mexican officials on two 
occasions now and similar conversations have taken place 
between my staff and Canadian officials, making them aware of 
the provisions of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, which require 
background checks on drivers applying for new or renewal of 
HAZMAT licenses.
    We have existing memorandums of understanding, of course, 
with both Canada and Mexico, and it is our expectation that we 
will be able to agree on a process and have an exchange of 
letters which will put in place a mechanism for a parallel 
requirement in both of those countries.
    In talking with the Mexican officials, it is not something 
they take lightly. They, indeed, need to ascertain whether some 
legislative activity may be required on their part in order to 
effect it. But they fully understand and appreciate exactly 
what is at stake here. My reading of it, quite honestly, Mr. 
Sabo, is that they understand completely why this is necessary 
and will be cooperative.

                      HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ROUTING

    Mr. Sabo. What about the routing of hazardous materials, 
and particularly some of them, to what degree are you working 
with carriers and state and local communities in trying to 
examine whether there need to be changes in routing?
    Mr. Clapp. Right. Well, of course, that is one of the 
things we talk about when we go to see the HAZMAT carriers with 
respect to routing, but it has also long been the case that 
there are designated routes for hazardous materials throughout 
the country.
    In the case of some of the most exotic sorts of hazardous 
materials, certain radioactive materials and things of that 
nature, (some are actually called highway route-controlled 
quantities), there are armed escort provisions and/or tracking 
provisions.
    I do not know if that was responsive to your question; we 
have discussed it in the course of our visits. We have in place 
a regime for the routing of hazardous materials. That has been 
true for a substantial period, and there are additional routing 
restrictions for a limited number of very high consequence 
types of HAZMATs.
    Mr. Sabo. Do you consider them adequate?
    Mr. Clapp. For the very high consequence materials. Yes, I 
think the restrictions are adequate. However, we are looking at 
that issue right now with respect to whether or not that kind 
of regime needs to be expanded to cover some materials that are 
not presently subject to those types of protocols.
    Mr. Sabo. It would seem to me that, with our experience of 
September 11th, we may want to have a more expansive view of 
what might or might not be appropriate. The norm of ensuring 
that the truck is safe--we now know that we have to be 
concerned about people who may want to turn that truck into a 
weapon which is somewhat different.
    Mr. Clapp. It is a very different proposition, Mr. Sabo. I 
would say the good news is that, in visiting the 36,000 
carriers that we have seen a dramatically different reaction to 
the response that we normally get when we go in on a compliance 
review.
    The carriers have been very receptive to these visits. 
They, of course, already are sensitized, quite honestly, 
because most of them never really thought about the possibility 
of turning their vehicle and their cargo into a weapon of mass 
destruction. That has hit people right between the eyes. They 
are not only responsive, but are doing a lot of work to try to 
secure the transportation system.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, let me turn to the godfather of this 
agency, Chairman Wolf. [Laughter.]

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, 
welcome.
    Mr. Clapp. I am sure he meant that in a positive context.
    Mr. Wolf. I am sure, and I want to welcome you. I read a 
Kansas City Star piece the other day. I do not know if you read 
it. Have you see this material?
    Mr. Clapp. I am sorry, I have not, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. I will send it to you.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you.

                              TRUCK SAFETY

    Mr. Wolf. Things really do not look that great with regard 
to truck safety. I know you have come from a good company and I 
know you are committed to safety, but I think it is really 
important, particularly since youunderstand the industry and 
you are where you are now, to be very aggressive in pushing everything 
possible, because the sole purpose basically of your agency is to deal 
with the truck safety issue.
    And I worry with the trucks now coming in from Mexico that, 
and I hope I am wrong, and I will stipulate if I am that I was 
wrong, we may actually see the death rate increase.
    Can you summarize for us the safety situation? How many 
deaths per day last year versus five years ago? How many deaths 
per month and how many deaths per year? And could you also 
submit for the record the states that are doing the best job, 
and kind of list this in order?
    I know you cannot list that in order for us now, but can 
you kind of talk about how many deaths roughly per day, people 
are dying from truck accidents?
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you, Congressman Wolf.
    The way I characterize it in talking with our people and 
talking with our constituents, is that each week we are losing 
100 a day, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers 
and sisters.
    Mr. Wolf. A week.
    Mr. Clapp. Forgive me. One hundred a week. And our job is 
simply to see that those folks make it home safely for dinner. 
But 100 times a week, if you just take last year's numbers, an 
average of 5,211 people died in crashes involving commercial 
motor vehicles.
    That is down from the year before, which is down from the 
year before that. We have made fractional improvements, 
something under four percent, over those two years.
    However, that is contrary to the overall trend in highway 
fatalities during that period of time, and at the margin. I 
have now been here a few months, and I have looked to see what 
our people have done. I think at the margin our people are 
making a difference, and at the end of the day, this is what we 
are about; not paperwork and regulations. At the end of the 
day, we have got to get into the hearts and minds of people at 
the wheel who make decisions every day and every minute. That 
is what will make a difference in those numbers.
    I am rambling on, and your question was how are we doing. 
Well, we are doing a little better than we did before, but we 
absolutely have to continue and accelerate that rate of 
improvement.
    Mr. Wolf. Well, I would appreciate it if you would commit 
to doing that. There has been a history, unfortunately, of the 
Office of Motor Carriers, when it was in the Federal Highway 
Administration, to have too close a relationship with the 
trucking industry. I think there was an IG report several years 
ago whereby the people at the Federal Highway Administration 
were meeting with the trucking industry to do certain things.
    So I think it is important, and you may be in a unique 
position having an understanding of the industry better than 
anybody to really make a major impact in bringing that down 
dramatically.

                            HOURS-OF-SERVICE

    Secondly, where are we on the hours-of-service? This 
article went into the hours-of-service issue. It literally 
inferred that driver after driver violate these--many times not 
because they want to, and many truck drivers are almost 
captives, independent operators--they have got to be there at a 
certain time, they have got to hang around.
    Where are you on the hours-of-service issue?
    Mr. Clapp. If I may respond to both elements of your 
comment----
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. Because I think it is important.
    I do come from the industry, and I am aware that there was 
considerable criticism of me perhaps as being quote/unquote 
``too close to the industry'' at some point in time.
    Mr. Wolf. That was not asked for that reason.
    Mr. Clapp. I understand that.
    Mr. Wolf. I just meant, in fact, the person who had your 
job in a different capacity was not in the industry.
    Mr. Clapp. I understand.
    Mr. Wolf. They were very close to----
    Mr. Clapp. I understand, and I did not take it that way. I 
really did not.
    I have come to appreciate that what we are doing in this 
agency is regulating at the retail level.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clapp. In the sense that we actually do come face to 
face with thousands of the people that we regulate every day, 
and that is a little bit different from, for example, what 
NHTSA does in terms of safety promotion.
    So I actually view those interchanges that our people have 
more than 10,000 times a year as being a form of outreach. It 
may be a compliance review or an enforcement-related visit, but 
what it really is is an opportunity to make a difference by 
making sure the person--sitting just like you are across from 
me now--who is responsible for that operation, whether it be 
the president of a 20-truck company or the owner of a five-
truck company or the safety director of a 10,000-truck company, 
knows that it is not about driver logs, it is not about the 
driver qualification record, it is not about the vehicle 
condition reports. Those are the tools, those are the tools for 
implementing a safety regime.
    But what makes the difference is having a quality person 
making good decisions behind the wheel at the moment when those 
judgments are going to make a difference between whether 
somebody lives or dies. You have got to understand, at the end 
of the day, what it is all about.
    So, in that sense, I am a very strong believer in outreach, 
and I think you can do it when you are there on a compliance 
visit. I think I can do it from a bully pulpit if I go talk to 
the American Trucking Association, or I go to the National 
Propane Dealers Association, or whomever it is.
    I believe in outreach, but I also believe that we have to 
do those things which we call a compliance program.
    You also questioned me about hours-of-service.
    Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clapp. Shortly after I came on board, the moratorium 
expired with respect to the prior appropriations bill, and our 
staff was able to complete their analysis, and review of the 
more than 50,000 comments that were filed in that rulemaking, 
as well as comments from eight public meetings and three round 
tables.
    So that the issue became ripe for a what's next 
determination. I have made the determination from a process 
standpoint, and since it is an ongoing rulemaking I am not at 
liberty to discuss substance of what I think is going to happen 
in the rule, but we are moving forward----
    Mr. Wolf. Okay.
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. With that rule. There again, at the 
end of the day, what people have got to understand is they must 
use their common sense and they have to be convinced that it 
matters that we have a person at the controls at three o'clock 
in the morning or three o'clock in the afternoon.
    Mr. Wolf. I understand. My time may be expiring fast so I--
--
    Mr. Clapp. I am sorry I used your time.

                           TRUCK INSPECTIONS

    Mr. Wolf. No, that is okay, and I think though, if you read 
the article and talk to some of the truckers they will tell you 
that sometimes they almost want you to inspect because they are 
being forced by circumstances, and so you offer them the 
opportunity to make sure they are safe, and they almost lose 
control over their own destiny because they are being pushed.
    I think you ought to get that out, and I would urge two 
things. One, you ought to make it a priority for your agency to 
work with the governors to have more pull-offs whereby the 
truckers can find places to sleep.
    Trucker after trucker tells me--even in my state--that the 
state police come and bang on the side of the truck, and tell 
them to move on. I mean, if you have been asleep at two o'clock 
in the morning and somebody bangs on your vehicle and tells 
you, get in, start up and go--you are tired, you are not quite 
sure, you know. And so I think, in fairness to the truckers, 
there ought to be a major push to have pull-offs and places 
where they can sleep.
    Well, actually, I would like to invite you, if you could, 
since my district is right here, and I am here just about every 
day, to join me on a truck inspection. We can go out whereby 
you can see what I saw, if they pull the tires and look at the 
logs. You have come from a company obviously that is very well 
run, but I would like to invite you to come out with me some 
time in Fairfax County, or Loudoun County, where we could take 
two hours, just stop the trucks, pull them off, see what they 
have. We want to know who we are stopping, whereby you could 
experience something that I think would make a difference. So 
if you would be open to that, I would like that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. You have turned the 
tables on me. I am the one who is supposed to make those 
invitations, but I will be happy to do that.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chairman Wolf.
    Mr. Olver.

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Clapp, for being with us today.
    I must say I really appreciate the good humor and 
equanimity with which you have come to us today, given the fact 
that you have been in the job only four months, and the job--
well, you knew what the job was changing into very quickly when 
you came.
    But your agency has been in place now a little over two 
years. The reorganization was done somewhat over two years ago, 
and it was supposed to be in effect the first of January of two 
years ago. And as I understand it, the personnel that was there 
came from the old Motor Safety Bureau or the Office of Motor 
Carrier Safety that was there. And you are the first 
administrator.

                      SAFETY AND SECURITY MISSION

    So in fact, you are coming in 21 months after the bill was 
in effect essentially, and with a totally new kind of a role in 
essence, because safety was the crux of why it was created in 
the first place. And then we come in after one month and we 
have just passed or just immediately after that passed the 
Patriot Act, but certainly you knew that it was going to be 
security----
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. Became a major function, and 
putting together any kind of a staff that really is focused 
upon a security arm, I am really impressed that you have been 
able to do 36,000 of the SSVs in that period of time.
    Of course, I have really no idea how comprehensive those 
kinds of reviews are along the way. You have given some results 
of them, no question.
    Let me just ask you, what is your assessment of the 
security needs of the over-the-road bus industry, passenger 
carrying bus industry?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Olver. Can you give me thoughts on that.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you. I will try, Mr. Olver.

                              BUS SECURITY

    I have met on several occasions with members of the over-
the-road bus industry on the subject of security. Oddly enough, 
the CEO of Greyhound Lines happened to be in our office on the 
day their bus was attacked by an individual out in Tennessee 
who attempted to kill the driver and so forth.
    I was not there, but he was there. We have had several 
sessions with those folks since then, talking about security 
issues. And while we have not come to a point of consensus yet 
with respect to what elements should be required, or what 
should constitute the security protocol, in reality, we have 
made a lot of progress.
    There are, as you know, two distinct industry segments when 
you are looking at motor coaches. You have the regular route 
common carrier system, such as Greyhound, who pick up people up 
at terminals and at way points and have passengers who are 
ticketed--that kind of thing. And then you have your very large 
segment that bring the tour people to visit Washington, or to 
go to Atlantic City, or----
    Mr. Olver. Scheduled versus the----
    Mr. Clapp. Correct.
    Mr. Olver [continuing]. Chartered.
    Mr. Clapp. So their needs are a little bit different, but 
there are commonalities with both of them.
    Mr. Olver. Well, I guess I am most interested in, if you 
are actually working on that, since it would be so easy, given 
the focus here, to do essentially everything in relation to the 
truck security and the hazardous materials possibly used as 
weapons and so on, so if you are working on it, in any case 
thinking about it.

                             BORDER OPENING

    The Secretary has indicated that the border is going to be 
open in June. Can you tell me, has the $18 million that we 
appropriated for states to help them with enforcement and 
improvement of the infrastructures along those borders for 
those border states, has that been allocated yet?
    Mr. Clapp. It is in the process of being allocated now. 
Yes, sir.
    Mr. Olver. It is in the process.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Olver. How soon will that allocation get to the states 
involved?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Olver. Has it been allocated?
    Mr. Clapp. It has been allocated.
    Mr. Olver. When was that then?
    Mr. Clapp. Just within the last couple of weeks or so.
    Mr. Olver. In our appropriations bill which, of course, was 
running parallel with the actions that led to your appointment 
in a sense----
    Mr. Clapp. Right.

                       TRUCK WEIGH-IN FACILITIES

    Mr. Olver [continuing]. We appropriated money for truck 
weigh-in-motion facilities at high volume crossings, and I do 
not know, have those high volume crossings been identified, and 
have the truck weigh-in-motion facilities been put in place, or 
have you not had time to do that?
    Mr. Clapp. That obviously takes some time to do, and that 
is going to be the most difficult objective, of course, to 
reach in this whole process.

                           BORDER INSPECTORS

    Mr. Olver. Have the new border inspectors been deployed?
    Mr. Clapp. We have 60 inspectors on the border. We are in 
the process of hiring the additional 214 total personnel, not 
all border inspectors. We have probably got 35 or 40 percent of 
those new people already hired. We are scheduling our first 
training class for border inspectors on the 25th of this month, 
and we have several classes to follow that.
    It will be a real push to get all of these people hired, 
trained, certified, in place, but we will come very close.
    Mr. Olver. Can you do that by June?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Olver. You will do it by June?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    The sites for the inspection stations have been identified 
in all four states. Texas, as you may know, has traditionally 
not had those stations at the border, but they have come up 
with a plan for eight stations, and they will have temporary 
facilities in place at those eight stations by June, probably 
before June. Then they will follow up with construction of 
permanent facilities on those same sites.
    Mr. Olver. My impression is that the budget request for 
your agency actually seems to steer away from these safety-
related infrastructure border things, infrastructure type 
things. Maybe I am wrong.
    Can you speak to that?
    Mr. Clapp. You may be referring to the fact that the fiscal 
year 2002 budget has more dollars in it for infrastructure than 
the fiscal year 2003 budget in that regard.
    Mr. Olver. That is clearly the case.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, we have $68 million in infrastructure for 
these kinds of things in the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget. 
That is toward a three-year total of $162 million for these 
facilities: $68 million in 2002 and $47 million is in our 2003 
budget, and $47 million in the next year.

                      PERMANENT BORDER FACILITIES

    As you have indicated, it will take time to put the 
permanent facilities in place, and that there are one-time 
costs that fall more heavily in fiscal year 2002. And you must 
understand, we also do inspections at the federal facilities. 
In fact, we are doing most of the inspections in Texas at this 
point in time, and in Texas we are located on the Customs 
compounds.
    The 12 sites that have been identified for the states up 
till now will constitute more than 93 percent of the volume of 
traffic across the border.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rogers. Ms. Kilpatrick.

                            Opening Remarks

    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning again, Mr. Clapp.
    Mr. Clapp. Good morning.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. It is nice to meet you. Look forward to 
working with you.
    Mr. Clapp. My pleasure.

                           BORDER INSPECTORS

    Ms. Kilpatrick. I want to go back a little bit to what 
Congressman Olver was talking about in terms of the 214 
inspectors as opposed to border police, for lack of a better 
word.
    You mentioned that you hired 60 of them. Is that 60 of the 
214 or 60 on top of the 214?
    Mr. Clapp. Of the 214.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Of the 214.
    You mentioned that the $18 million is already out and 
appropriated to the states.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Did they submit a plan? Are those people on 
the borders now or what exactly----
    Mr. Clapp. No, they are not on the borders yet, but yes, 
that is--that is pursuant to a grant request from the states 
and allocating that money accordingly.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay. You mentioned there were four states. 
What are those four states?
    Mr. Clapp. The four southern border states: California, 
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

                            NORTHERN BORDER

    Ms. Kilpatrick. Which brings me to my State. I am from 
Michigan.
    Mr. Clapp. You set me up for that one, did you not?
    Ms. Kilpatrick. No, I was trying to understand it as well. 
No, long before you sat in that chair I have been concerned 
about this.
    I am from Michigan, and my district borders Canada.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. By the river, the Detroit River separates 
the two countries, as you know. Before September 11th what you 
just--we have been talking about this morning, all attention 
was paid to the southern borders. I think we have to do that 
without a doubt, and continue to do that.
    I now know and many in this committee and the world know 
that we also have to secure our northern borders. Not enough 
attention is being paid to that for many years now.

                         BORDER STAFFING STUDY

    I would ask, and both the Chairman and the Ranking Member 
accepted that in our last appropriations bill we put in a 
request for a report to be done on the analysis of what is 
needed in other borders around the country in addition to the 
southern borders, and the assignment of federal personnel to 
those borders.
    We asked that that report be sent to us by February 1st. 
Are you familiar with it? Is it being worked on? What is the 
status of it?
    Mr. Clapp. Knew I would not get through this unscathed----
    Ms. Kilpatrick. You are doing wonderfully.
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. Congresswoman Kilpatrick. I 
honestly am not aware of that specific report. It may well have 
been done, but I am not specifically aware of it.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay, a gentleman is leaning out. Perhaps 
he can help you.
    Mr. Clapp. He needs to help me with this.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. Oh, all right, I did not recognize the name of 
it.
    Yes, we have done that report, and I knew we did it. I did 
not recognize the name of it.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay. What is it called in-house?
    Mr. Clapp. We are calling it the border staffing study.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. That is a good name.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, right.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay. A good name.
    Mr. Clapp. We have completed it. It is in concurrence, and 
it should be out shortly.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. It should be out shortly.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you very much, and I know you had 
worked on that, I knew you had it. I agree with my colleagues 
here. I like your demeanor. You have come to work with us and 
that is a good sign.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Our northern borders need major attention. 
The President is talking about it. We are a part of the 
country, and more at least and others live in our part of the 
country than any other, so we just want the same attention 
paid. We have--some of our police personnel both county, local 
and federal working on our borders, and we are understaffed, 
and we need to have that risk assessment made, so I look 
forward to working with you.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Clapp. As I mentioned to you, I was in Detroit on 
September the 11th, and trying to make our way back, and the 
only real traffic we had trying to get out of town was the 
bridge traffic.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Yes. It is still abominable.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Serrano.

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, sir, for being with us today.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you.
    Mr. Serrano. And as Ms. Kilpatrick said, I also want to 
look forward to working with you.
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you.

                             BORDER ISSUES

    Mr. Serrano. Let us stay on the border for awhile. It is 
not a bad place to be actually. But before September 11th when 
Congress spoke about the border, it was usually an immigration 
issue. It was a discussion about who was coming through our 
borders. Now since September 11th, it is still somewhat an 
immigration issue, but it has the issue of safety and security 
of this country.
    Now, you are going to have personnel at the border dealing 
with certain issues, and then INS will more than ever now have 
personnel at the border dealing with many issues.
    Does that complement each other? Do you foresee that that 
could become a problem in having that many folks eventually 
doing different jobs or stepping on each other's toes, perhaps 
doing some of the similar jobs?
    Mr. Clapp. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
    I can only respond to that in terms of the limited 
experience that I have had in that respect. I have been to the 
southern border, and you are entirely correct. We have multiple 
agencies typically represented in that compound. It is usually 
a Customs compound, but Customs works in conjunction with the 
INS people, also the Department of Agriculture people, and our 
people as well, the Federal Motor Carriers Safety people are 
all involved.
    From what I have seen it is a collaborative and a 
cooperative effort between the two. Of course, my hat is off to 
the Customs folks and the INS folks, to whom a great portion of 
this burden has fallen. They, of course, are on high alert and 
still faced with the necessity to move commercial traffic with 
some degree of fluidness, if you will.
    But my own experience has been up to this point that this 
is a cooperative effort, and is not one that is creating 
difficulty. Of course, since then, particularly at the Canadian 
border, they have added a substantial National Guard presence 
as well.
    Mr. Serrano. National Guard?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Serrano. Is the FBI also there, to your knowledge?
    Mr. Clapp. I would tell you that but I would have to shoot 
you.
    No, I honestly do not know the answer to that.
    Mr. Serrano. You are not the first administrator to 
threaten to shoot me. [Laughter.]
    You should see me on the other committee. It gets real 
rough over there with the State Department.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Serrano. And the Justice Department. I cannot wait for 
that hearing.
    Okay, so this is a Customs compound, as you called it. Who 
is in charge?
    Mr. Clapp. Customs.
    Mr. Serrano. Customs. Everybody else then is sort----
    Mr. Clapp. We are not reporting to them, but----
    Mr. Serrano. Right.
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. They are usually there on----
    Mr. Serrano. It is their facility, so they are there.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Serrano. Okay. This is important.
    Now, there is also a question as to June of 2002, when the 
border is supposed to be fully open, of making sure that folks 
enter where they are supposed to enter.
    Has that been a problem so far in setting that up?

                            USA PATRIOT ACT

    Mr. Clapp. No, it has not. The U.S.A. PATRIOT Act requires 
that we have an appropriate state or federal inspector on duty 
at all times that the border is open for commercial crossing. 
So that is a requirement that we have to meet, and we will 
meet. We have worked those agreements out with the states as to 
that division of labor.

                              BUS SECURITY

    Mr. Serrano. Let me switch here for a second. I think Mr. 
Olver touched on it, but I want to go deeper, you know.
    We always think of trucks and now since September 11th we 
think of planes. Buses were always seen as something less 
harmful in so many ways.
    Are you getting, you did mention, but are you getting the 
full cooperation from all the carriers that you want? And are 
some areas that you are encountering that perhaps we do not 
know how to deal with use for safety or for--either the luggage 
or so on?
    You know, we have had hearings here where we spoke for 
hours about how we were going to check luggage at airports, but 
what is happening with the situation with the interstate bus?
    Mr. Clapp. Well, you are correct, Congressman Serrano, that 
buses represent a much more open system than the airline 
system, and the typical use of the motor coach system also does 
not function in the same way. You usually do not board that bus 
at a fixed location in many--well, you are at a fixed location, 
but you are not funneled through a security point----
    Mr. Serrano. Right.
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. Before you get on that bus, you are 
not checking the baggage typically, but it is right there.
    The regular route carriers have put in place passenger 
screening operations at the large terminals. They have not got 
100 percent coverage of their terminals at this point in time. 
It is their view they need help to get that done. But the 
reality is that people board not necessarily at a terminal. 
There are 2,500 ticket selling places, for example, where buses 
stop and pick up and discharge passengers.
    Now, it is likely that they come to a terminal facility 
shortly thereafter.
    Mr. Serrano. How many terminals did you say?
    Mr. Clapp. There is maybe 400 what you call terminals, but 
there are 2,500 ticket selling places, and that might be a 
cafe.
    Mr. Serrano. A little bench outside or something.
    Mr. Clapp. Right. Well, not a bench necessarily, but it 
could be just a convenience store.
    Mr. Serrano. Right.
    Mr. Clapp. Or a cafe somewhere out on the road, and you 
know, this system of transportation serves more people than 
Amtrak and all the airlines combined.
    Mr. Serrano. True.
    Mr. Clapp. It is appropriate that be given attention. To 
their credit, the industry is trying to come to grips with it. 
Interestingly, in discussing with them the number one item on 
their agenda, which I do believe we can help them with, is not 
so much physical security apparatus, although there is a lot of 
interest in that, but training for their people----
    Mr. Serrano. Okay, so that----
    Mr. Clapp [continuing]. Is their number one item on their--
--
    Mr. Serrano. Actually, that is what you said. They want 
help.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Serrano. This is the help they are asking for?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Serrano. To train their people.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Serrano. All right. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.

                   BACKGROUND CHECKS--USA PATRIOT ACT

    Now, the law, U.S.A. Patriot Act requires background checks 
before new or renewed commercial driver licenses with hazardous 
material endorsements are issued.
    When will you do that rule?
    Mr. Clapp. I expect to sign that rule out of my Agency 
within a matter of days. Then, of course it has to be cleared 
within the Department, but it will be very soon.
    Mr. Rogers. Do the states have a set amount of time in 
which they have to implement those requirements?
    Mr. Clapp. That will--well, let me ask for some help on 
that one.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. We expect that that will be covered in the 
regulation itself. They will need some time to implement this. 
You know, it requires systems changes.
    Mr. Rogers. When do you think they will be fully 
implementing that?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. Our expectation is they will be implemented this 
spring.
    Mr. Rogers. Could not be soon enough.
    Mr. Clapp. Could not be soon enough.
    However, I might add that there should not be any advantage 
to someone hurrying up and getting their license renewal before 
it gets implemented. We will ask the states to supply and we 
expect to get the information about anyone who has gotten a 
license since September the 11th, and the names, which will 
then refer to the FBI.
    You may recall that after September the 11th the FBI asked 
us if we could provide them a list of all holders of HAZMAT 
endorsements. We were able to pull that list together and gave 
it to them. They did check that against their databases.
    Mr. Rogers. So we do not need to worry then about that 
somebody may apply before your rule goes into effect. You are 
going to check them anyway; is that what you are saying?
    Mr. Clapp. Oh, I would never say you do not need to worry, 
but we are going to check them, yes.
    Mr. Rogers. I mean----
    Mr. Clapp. We are going to get those lists and give them to 
the FBI.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes. For all people since 9-11?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Irrespective of when they apply?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Even if they apply before your rule goes into 
effect?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.

                      COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSES

    Mr. Rogers. Now, some of these licenses are available for 
five, six or seven years. In fact, I understand that one state 
issues CDLs for life.
    How are you ensuring that all people with current HAZMAT 
licenses are safe?
    Mr. Clapp. That is a pertinent observation, Mr. Chairman, 
and the rule is going to address that issue.
    Mr. Rogers. All right. Now, the Patriot Act also required 
the states to submit information on each alien to whom a 
license is issued, and on any other individual if required by 
DOT.
    When are you planning on implementing that requirement and 
how will you do that? And how will you use the information 
again?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, that should be all a part of the same rule 
we were talking about.
    Mr. Rogers. The rule.
    Mr. Clapp. Because, for example, a resident alien would 
require the checking of additional databases such as INS.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, our staff was told that the implementation 
of the Patriot Act would cost additional monies.
    Can you tell us where you are with respect to the budget 
request for these additional matters?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated earlier, our 
operating premise in submitting the budget was that items that 
were discretely related to security would not be included in 
our specific modal budget request, but that essentially have to 
be included within the TSA budget.
    So in the meantime we will have a cost to implement the 
Patriot Act. It will be necessary for us to work with the 
department to identify the appropriate funding mechanism to 
take care of the necessary costs on our part for personnel.

                        FRAUD IN THE CDL PROGRAM

    Mr. Rogers. Now, let me quickly deal with fraud in the CDL 
program. The IG has said that fraud is a significant problem in 
the national CDL program, especially in the testing and the 
licensing of drivers. The largest investigation occurred in 
1998 in the State of Illinois and Florida. In fact, criminal 
activity dealing with CDLs has been identified in 15 states 
since 1998, and that could put the nation at risk, put all of 
these programs at risk.
    In the FY02 bill we gave you $15 million for that CDL 
program. Your request of FY03 is $11 million. Can you tell us 
how the monies we gave you specifically to improve the CDL 
program will be used to combat fraud?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, Your Honor. In addition to the $11 million, 
by the way, that is a line item in our budget request, the CDL 
improvements are also eligible for high priority MCSAP funding 
as well. I think we may have allocated as much as $8 million 
last year for that.
    Those monies are used in a variety of ways. For example, to 
provide for electronic transmission of data from one state back 
to the state of record for the driver's license. They are used, 
for example, in New York's current program whereby transmission 
can be made from the police officer literally to the traffic 
court, to the DMV, and on to the home state.
    With respect to the whole matter of the CDL system, since 
the identification of fraud a couple of years by the OIG as a 
major issue, we have done 19 audits of the state CDL programs 
in the past year. I think we did 20 the year before that, and 
maybe 20 the year before that.
    We will review every state every three years. We put 
together a panel of ``experts'' to review what had happened in 
Illinois and Florida, for example. Our people came up with 25 
specific recommendations as to how their systems could be 
improved.

                              CDL TRAINING

    We have put on new training courses for our own personnel 
who are involved in doing the state CDL compliance reviews, 
keeping in mind this is a very different kind of compliance 
review than we do when we go in to see a carrier about hours of 
service and driver qualifications and what have you.
    We also have engaged the services of a contractor to help 
us with the systems aspects of these state CDL audits.

                               CDL SYSTEM

    Having said all of that, I believe rather strongly in the 
whole premise of the commercial driver's license system which 
goes back to the mid-1980s, under which we put in place a new 
system that replaces one in which drivers could have multiple 
licenses in various states over which they could spread 
violations, with a system that says you shall have one license 
from your home state, and any conviction activity that meets 
the criteria of serious offenses which can lead to 
disqualification will be put back on the record in your home 
state.
    So in the whole CDL system, the basic premise is that we 
will identify an individual who is a bad actor, who has chosen 
to operate in such a way, that he or she has demonstrated he 
should not have the privilege of operating with a CDL. That 
whole system has to work from start to finish. I am personally 
not satisfied that it is working as well as it needs to work. 
So we are going to have to put new emphasis on every aspect of 
that whole system.
    There are a number of recommendations specifically with 
respect to fraud. Of course, the typical source of the fraud is 
plain old-fashioned bribery, and that can take place whether it 
is a state employee or a contractor employee. So that means you 
have to devise systems of separation of duties, separations of 
function like you do when you are auditing a business, so that 
you do not have the same person who is able to test the person 
and issue the license, for example--things of that nature.
    There seems to be a significant CDL issue involved with 
language. I mean, after all, why would you go in and try to buy 
a CDL, instead of just taking the test and passing it and 
getting a CDL?
    In some cases, maybe its because the person does not have 
the language skills necessary to pass the test, and so there 
have been fraudulent activities involving the use of 
interpreters, if you will, or taking a test in a foreign 
language. Well, those things can be kind of relatively easily 
dealt with.
    If there is going to be an interpreter, it will be the 
state's interpreter, not the individual's interpreter, and it 
will be taped. Now, this varies by state by state, but that is 
one way of dealing with it. In other cases you just do not 
allow an interpreter, if you will.

                           COMPLIANCE REVIEWS

    But these are a couple of the things. We have developed, by 
the way, a secure web site to track the progress of the state 
compliance review activity. When we do a compliance review and 
we find things that need to be improved, the state is required 
to develop a plan of action and to keep us informed as to their 
progress toward including that.
    We are now putting up a secure web site where we can track 
the compliance of all of that, and there are a number of other 
issues, but I have been too wordy as it is.
    Mr. Rogers. Well----
    Mr. Clapp. But I am sure you will have further discussions 
with the inspector general when he comes on this.
    Mr. Rogers. He is coming this afternoon.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, obviously, from listening to you, it is 
on your mind, and that is good because as I said before if we 
are--if fraud is being utilized to gain access to the driver's 
wheel of potential bombs, we have got a problem. And at this 
point that is being left to the states under your oversight.
    Mr. Clapp. Under our oversight, that is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. But nevertheless the nation could be at risk.
    Mr. Clapp. That is correct.
    Mr. Rogers. And so I know that is going to continue to 
weigh on your mind.
    Mr. Clapp. It does. It is a matter of personal concern to 
me.

                          BORDER-NAFTA ISSUES

    Mr. Rogers. Now, back to the border, cross-border trucking 
and NAFTA.
    The GAO, in December of last year, was critical. They said 
that DOT does not have a fully developed operational plan in 
place.
    How do you respond to that?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I understand that. The GAO 
report did in fact suggest that. I think to some extent we have 
a timing issue because that report was issued almost concurrent 
with the passage of the Appropriations Act, which spelled out 
certain steps that we had to take in order to implement the 
border opening plan or process.
    The fact of the matter is that we do have a plan. We have a 
process that we are following. We have identified all the steps 
that we have to take. We have identified all the steps that 
anybody has to take in order to meet the requirements of 
Section 350 and to put in place the regime by which Mexican 
motor carriers may apply and be given authority to operate in 
this country and cross the border.
    Several times today we have referenced June 1st. June 1st 
is a target date by which we will have all of this regime in 
place, but the regime requires a number of rulemakings. I have 
commented this morning on the fact those rulemakings require us 
to create some policies. A lot of those have been done. We have 
to have an intergovernmental agreement in place with the states 
and with the Mexican and Canadiangovernments. Most importantly, 
as you all already recognized quickly this morning, we have got a lot 
of people work to do, and getting people in, bilingual by the way, who 
are qualified and then appropriately trained and certified. We have our 
plan laid out for accomplishing that, and we are well on the way of 
doing that.

                           BORDER FACILITIES

    There are facilities issues, not only the state facilities 
that you talked about, but we have to have places for these 
folks to work. We have to have offices for the auditors to work 
from. That is underway.
    We have to put in place procedures in our organization 
because we have a new protocol that is being followed here for 
the first time with these new entrants. Those operational 
procedures had to be developed, put in place, then they have to 
be supported by software. All of that has been done.
    In addition to that, we have hardware requirements as well. 
We are in the process of getting that done. We also have, of 
course, requirements to be accomplished with our states.
    So the GAO may well have been correct in their assessment 
in a literal sense at the time they made that report. But 
today's reality is that we have identified what it is that we 
have to do, who has to do it, and when they have to have to 
have it done. That comes pretty close to being a plan.
    Mr. Rogers. Is that anywhere in a short summarized form 
that could be filed with the record?
    Mr. Clapp. We will be responsive to that request, Mr. 
Chairman; try to give you something that identifies that.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes, the time, the time rates--the time lines.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
                           BORDER INSPECTORS

    Well, as of today the border states have 178 state 
inspectors on or near the border, 60 federal inspectors for a 
total of 238. In our fiscal year 2002 bill, we provided for an 
additional 214 federal border staff for a total of 274 to 
deploy a multi-tiered enforcement program. And then we also 
provided $18 million to encourage states to hire more state 
border inspectors, and the IG is to verify that all federal 
positions have been filled and fully trained. You reported a 
few minutes ago on where you are.
    Let me ask you about the $18 million that we provided to be 
distributed to the states. You have touched on this somewhat 
already, but how will that money be distributed and to whom?
    Mr. Clapp. Oh, how will it be distributed?
    Mr. Rogers. Yes.
    Mr. Clapp. Let me just check myself on that.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. Mr. Chairman, that is--yes, it is allocated in 
accordance with the grant request from the states. That has 
been done, and it goes to the state enforcement agencies.
    Mr. Rogers. Do we--I think you said this went out yesterday 
or so, the money?
    Mr. Clapp. Well, the allocation has been done within the 
last week.
    Mr. Rogers. Do we know who it went to and how much to whom?
    Mr. Clapp. I will get you that information, a breakdown.
    Mr. Rogers. For the record for us?
    [The information follows:]

                        Border Grants to States

    Mr. Rogers. How will the distribution of border grants to 
States breakdown.
    [The information follows:]
    The breakdown on the distribution of border grants to the 
States is as follows: California, $5.3M; Texas, $9.5M; New 
Mexico, $0.4M; and Arizona, $2.7M.

    Mr. Rogers. Now, exactly how many inspectors do you figure 
that $18 million will provide, and how long will it take the 
states to staff up with that money?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Clapp. It would be in the range of 150 plus over the 
next seven months, up to maybe 175.
    Mr. Rogers. Is there any evidence or indication that any of 
the border states will request some of that money to pay for or 
supplant border personnel currently paid with state monies? Do 
you follow me?
    Mr. Clapp. I do follow you. If there is any indication of 
that, I am not aware of it. A good deal of this, of course, 
goes to where there has not been a significant state presence 
in the past.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we do not want--the intent of the 
Congress was not to supplant----
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers [continuing]. The way I mentioned.
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. So if you find evidence of that, what will you 
do?
    Mr. Clapp. I really do not expect it because we have to 
reach agreement with the states on what the staffing will be as 
between their presence and our presence. So we will be aware 
specifically of the states.
    Mr. Rogers. Okay. Now on facilities----
    Mr. Clapp. Sorry. It is stipulated.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes.
    Mr. Clapp. It is nice to have people who know when you come 
here.
    Mr. Rogers. I know what you mean.
    Mr. Clapp. These are all new hires, so therefore they would 
not be replacing existing staff.
    Mr. Rogers. So these are all new hires?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. The $18 million will be only for new hires?
    Mr. Clapp. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. All right, good.

                     NEW TRUCK INSPECTION STATIONS

    Now, tell me exactly, where will these new truck inspection 
stations be located, and who makes that decision?
    [The information follows:]

                     New Truck Inspection Stations

    Mr. Rogers. Where will the new truck inspection stations be 
located?
    [The information follows:]
    The new truck inspection stations are as follows: Otay 
Mesa, California; Calexido, California; Laredo, Texas (2 
stations); El Paso, Texas (2 stations); Brownsville, Texas (2 
stations); Eagle Pass, Texas; Pharr, Texas; Nogales, Arizona; 
San Luis, Arizona; and Santa Teresa, New Mexico.

    Basically the states make the decision, and I will tell you 
where they are in a minute. I thought I was going to tell you 
where they are. Oh, okay.
    The poster child for state inspection stations as I am sure 
you all probably know is the one that has been in existence at 
Otay Mesa in California. There is one at Calexico as well. In 
Arizona, it is San Luis, where there is a new POE under 
construction which will include inspection authorities. I have 
a better list than that somewhere. Oh, maybe I do not.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, if you would like to file that with the 
record.
    Mr. Clapp. Yes, I can get that for the record.
    Mr. Rogers. We do not need it this minute.
    Mr. Clapp. What is really relevant that there are eight in 
Texas at major crossings that have not been served with a state 
inspection station in the past.
    Mr. Rogers. So you are going to build facilities at all of 
those?
    Mr. Clapp. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. But if you will file with the record the places 
where you intend to build.

                            WEIGH-IN-MOTION

    Now, weigh-in-motion (WIM) scales are required by the law 
at five crossings before the border opens and another five 
within a year.





                           W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Clapp, J. M......................................................     1
Dorn, J. L.......................................................   891
Peters, M. E.....................................................   113
Runge, B. J. W...................................................   621





                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

                                                                   Page
Accidents........................................................    77
Advisory Committee...............................................    97
Background Checks--USA PATRIOT Act...............................    26
Border:
    Facilities--Permanent........................................    22
    Grants to States.............................................    36
    Initiatives Funding..........................................    86
    Inspectors...............................................21, 22, 36
    Issues.......................................................    24
    NAFTA Issues.................................................    30
    Northern Border..............................................    23
    Opening......................................................    21
    Operations Implementation Plan...............................    32
    Staffing Study...............................................    23
Bus Security.....................................................20, 25
Canadian and Mexican Drivers.....................................    14
Civil Penalties..................................................    75
Commercial Drivers Licenses......................................27, 50
    CDL System...................................................    29
    Drug Test Report.............................................    51
    Electronic Data Transmission.................................    51
    Training.....................................................    29
Commercial Drivers License Program:
    Fiscal Year 2003 Program.....................................    52
    Fraud........................................................    28
    Funding Following September 11th.............................    52
    Funding to Combat Fraud......................................    54
Common Truck Problems............................................    67
Compliance Deadline Extension....................................    56
Compliance Reviews...............................................29, 59
Covert Enforcement Activities....................................    58
Crash Causation Study............................................   107
Crashes--Truck and Bus...........................................    69
Drivers:
    Home Heating Oil.............................................    99
    Inspector General Recommendations............................    52
    Logbooks.....................................................    58
    Regulation of................................................    40
    Younger......................................................    38
Enforcement Backlog..............................................    97
Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes/Fatalities...........................    76
Fatalities Involving Large Trucks................................    16
Fatality Records for States Involving Large Trucks...............    16
FMCSA:
    International Program Staffing...............................    80
    Rulemakings Chart...........................................90, 100
    Staffing.....................................................    79
Ground Water Industry Relief.....................................    47
Ground Water Contractors Regulations.............................    48
Hazardous Materials..............................................   103
Hazardous Materials Routing......................................    14
Homeland Security................................................    12
Hours-of-Service.................................................    17
Hours-of-Service Regulations.....................................    47
Hours-of-Service Rule............................................   110
Household Goods..................................................   107
Imaging Technologies.............................................   104
Inspectors--State and Federal at South Western Border............    71
Intrastate Carriers..............................................    80
Medical Qualification............................................    54
Mexican Carriers:
    Commercial Zones.............................................    72
    Hours-of-Service.............................................    70
    Truck and Bus Accidents......................................    75
Motor Carrier Advisory Committee.................................    97
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Process (MCSIP).................    90
Motor Carrier Safety Research Program............................   105
Motor Coach Security.............................................    48
NAFTA............................................................    69
    Funding (1998-2002)..........................................    71
National Advanced Driving Simulator..............................   105
National Motor Carrier Safety Program Funding Issues.............83, 87
No-Zone..........................................................    97
Northern Border..................................................    23
Opening Remarks--Joseph M. Clapp.................................     3
Out-of-Service Activities/Inspections/Disqualifications..........    57
Performance & Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM)    88
Performance Based Incentive Grant Program........................    81
Pilot Projects...................................................    98
Rest Area and Shipper Studies....................................    93
Reporting and Regulatory Requirements............................    90
Rulemakings.....................................................90, 100
SAFESTAT Data Improvements.......................................    64
Safety and Security Mission......................................    20
Safety Auditors..................................................    55
    Certification Process........................................    56
Safety Audits....................................................    55
Safety Investigator's Workload Priorities........................    67
Safety Ratings--Re-Reviews.......................................    66
Security........................................................39, 108
    Border Security..............................................    45
    Bus Security.................................................20, 25
    Homeland Security............................................    12
    Motorcoach Security..........................................    48
    Safety and Security Mission..................................    20
    Security Funding.............................................    13
    Security Sensitivity Visits..................................    11
Staffing--FMCSA..................................................    79
Staffing--International Program..................................    80
Statement of Joseph M. Clapp.....................................     5
TEA-21:
    Rest Area and Shipper Studies................................    93
    Twelve Required Studies (Status of)..........................    94
Truck Inspections................................................    19
Truck Inspection Stations--New...................................    37
Truck Safety.....................................................    15
Truck Weigh-In-Facilities........................................    21
USA PATRIOT Act..................................................    25
    Background Checks............................................    26
    Budgetary Requirements.......................................   110
    Security Requirements........................................   109
Weigh-In-Motion..................................................    37
Weigh-In-Motion Devices..........................................    45
Weigh-In-Motion Scales...........................................    38

                     Federal Highway Administration

                                                                   Page
Alternative to Fund Transportation...............................   164
    Environmental Laws and Impacts..............................164-165
Appalachian Development Highway System..........................221-241
    ADHS Construction...........................................225-238
    Cost to Complete the ADHS...................................221-224
    Current Status of Unobligated Non-TEA-21 Funds on the ADHS..239-240
    NHS Funds Allocated to ADHS..................................   241
    Status of ADHS...............................................   239
    Uncompleted Appalachian Development Highway System Miles.....   221
Central Artery-Status of Financial Plan.........................158-160
    Central Artery--Use of Interstate Construction Funds.........   513
    Central Artery--Staffing Levels.............................515-516
    Central Artery--Number of Consultant Personnel...............   516
    Cost Analysis of Central Artery Project......................   514
Commercial Vehicle Operations...................................477-513
    Clean Air Act Studies and Research..........................509-513
    CVISN Projects..............................................479-480
    CVO Related Expenditures.....................................   478
    Deployment of CVISN.........................................482-485
    Funding for Minnesota Operational Test Project...............   488
    Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI)........................485-487
    Investment in CVO Border Projects...........................480-482
    Projects Supported with IVI Funds...........................488-499
    Research and Development Contractors........................500-508
    SP&R and National Cooperative Highway Research Program.......   509
    Status of Field Operational Test for Advance Technologies...499-500
Demonstration Projects...........................................   517
    Construction Industry Unemployment Rates....................561-562
    Deficient Bridges...........................................555-557
    Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program....................   563
    Discretionary Awards........................................564-611
    Distribution of Federal-Aid Highway Obligation Limitation...540-541
    Fatal Accident Rate Information..............................   558
    Federal-Aid Highway Construction Price Trends...............559-560
    Federal-Aid Highways Obligations............................524-527
    Federal-Aid Obligations by Month............................522-523

    Federal-Aid Estimated Fiscal Year 2003 Obligation Limitation.   539
    Highway Trust Fund Spending Versus Receipts Highway Account..542-549
    Interstate Pavement Conditions by State.....................550-554
    Minimum Guarantee and Emergency Relief......................535-538
    Miscellaneous Programs......................................531-532
    Obligational Authority for Demonstration Programs............   519
    Redistribution of Unobligated Federal-Aid Authority.........528-530
    State Apportionment of Bridge Funds.........................533-534
    Status of Demonstration Project Obligation for Selected 
      Authorizations.............................................   517
    Status of Special Obligation Limitation--High Priority 
      Projects...................................................   518
    Unobligated Balances for Appropriated DEMO Projects.........520-521
Environmental Streamlining.......................................  114,
    Environmental Streamlining Activities........................   153
    Progress on Environmental Streamlining Activities...........165-166
    State Initiatives on Environmental Streamlining.............166-169
    Streamlining Solutions.......................................   154
Federal Highway Administration, Witness..........................   113
    Environmental Streamlining...................................   114
    FY 2003 Budget Request.......................................   113
    Obligation Limitation........................................   115
    Program Oversight............................................   114
    Revenue Aligned Budget Authority............................113-114
Follow-Up Items from 2/28/02 House Appropriation Hearing.........   151
    Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project...........................150-152
    Impacts of Funding Shortfall on Kentucky....................152-153
    Ongoing and Over Budget Projects............................154-155
    Project Cost Increase Analysis...............................   157
    Project Cost Increases......................................155-156
GPRA Accomplishments vs GPRA Performance........................268-272
    Funds Spent on Promotion of Educational Technology..........273-277
Highway Trust Fund..............................................169, 174
    Misallocation of Highway Trust Fund Revenues.................   169
    Relationship Between Highway Trust Fund Revenues & Highway 
      Program Spending...........................................   174
    R&T Funds Derived from the Federal Highway Trust Fund.......286-291
Implementation of the Strategic Vision of the ITS Rural Program.426-429
    Distribution of Funds--Rural ITS Research and Operational 
      Tests.....................................................430-434
    Impacts of ITS on Energy Consumption........................436-437
    Impacts of ITS on Environmental Quality.....................435-436
    Intermodal Freight Activities...............................438-439
    ITS America Recommendations.................................440-441
    ITS America.................................................439-440
    ITS Benefits.................................................   435
    ITS Deployment Goal.........................................472-473
    ITS Funding--Actual vs. Conference..........................474-476
    ITS Projects with Additional Funding.........................   469
    Metropolitan ITS Infrastructure Deployment/Integration 
      Projects..................................................454-464
    Metropolitan ITS Infrastructure Operational Tests...........452-454
    Personnel Assigned to the Joint Program Office...............   449
    Program Support.............................................449-450
    Rural/Statewide ITS Infrastructure Deployment/Integration...465-468
    Rural/Statewide ITS Infrastructure Operational Tests........464-465
    Safety Architecture for the FMCSA Enterprise................470-471
    Status of ITS Projects......................................451-452
    Unobligated ITS Earmarks....................................442-448
    Variable Speed-Limit Operational Test........................   469
Initiatives on Concern to OST, FHWA, and FMCSA..................260-261
    Breakout of LAE Activities..................................262-263
    Corporate Management Office Reports..........................   267
    Cost of Foreign Trips Taken by Senior Level Employees.......264-266
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)........................403-415
    FY 2003 Congressional Budget................................416-421
    Five-Year Strategic Capacity Building Plan..................422-425
Introduction: FY 2003 Funding Levels............................116-117
Negative Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA).................   126
    Impacts of Shifting from Gasoline to Gasohol.................   126
    Comparison of Outlay Estimates...............................   131
    Current Method of Calculating RABA...........................   129
    Effects of Negative RABA on Contract Program in TEA-21.......   283
    Factors Associated with Shortfall............................   135
    Flexibility in Applying Negative RABA........................   242
    Gasohol Versus Gasoline.....................................135-136
    Highway Trust Fund Head Room................................132-133
    Impacts on Outlay Reduction..................................   132
    Negative RABA Attributable to Slow Economy..................172-173
    Negative RABA Impacts on State Programs.....................128-129
    Outlay Reduction Resulted from Negative RABA................130-131
    Program Adjustments Resulted from Negative RABA..............   130
    RABA Affected by Alternative Fueling........................127-128
    Reduction in Highway Obligation Limit.......................133-134
    Results of Negative RABA Adjustment.........................126-127
    Revenues Contribute to the Highway Trust Funds...............   127
    Spend Out Rates for Highway Program.........................131-132
    Virginia State Transportation Plan..........................134-135
On-Board FTE....................................................242-254
    FTE Levels in FHWA for FY 1998 thru 2002....................255-260
Project Oversight and Cost Increases.............................   612
    One DOT Task Force on Project Oversight.....................612-613
    Draft Resource Manual for Oversight Managers.................   613
    Oversight of Highway Projects................................   614
    Protection of Federal Monies................................614-615
    Security....................................................615-617
Question for the Record to FHWA from Representative Tiahrt......618-619
Reauthorization TEA-21..........................................136-137
    TEA-21 Spend Out Provision...................................   137
    Adjustment to RABA..........................................169-170
    Balance Sheet................................................   146
    Discretionary Programs Funds................................175-176
    Discretionary Programs Guaranteed by TEA-21.................176-177
    Impacts of Highway Funding Shortfall........................149-150
    Impacts of the Funding Reduction.............................   170
    Income Statement.............................................   145
    RABA Calculation........................................39, 147-148
    Rail-Highway Crossing/Operation Lifesaver....................   178
    Rural Planning Regulation...................................148-149
    TEA-21 Estimates.............................................   138
    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).....140-144
Research and Technology Program..................................   292
    Accomplishments of Progress--R&D............................309-325
    Advisory Board Accomplishments..............................380-384
    Asset Management............................................399-400
    Designated Programs and Recipient of R&T Funds..............294-308
    Environmental Justice........................................   387
    Implementation of TRB Recommendations.......................292-294
    Major Challenges and Accomplishments........................339-349
    Major Research Activities...................................326-339
    Major Tasks Timetable.......................................350-363
    Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS)............401-402
    Operations Research.........................................364-379
    PM2.5 Impact of Transportation Regulation...................385-386
    Policy Research.............................................388-399
    Technology Deployment Program...............................402-403
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA):
    Local Match Issues and RABA..................................   241
    Other Programs..............................................219-220
    RABA Allocated by Program for Previous Year.................214-215
    RABA and States Ratios......................................217-218
    RABA Computation--Look Back and Look Forward................170-171
    RABA Under the Current Law...................................   216
Statement of Mary E. Peters, Administrator, Federal Highway 
  Administration.................................................   118
    Overview....................................................118-119
    Environmental Stewardship and Streamlining..................123-124
    Conclusion...................................................   125
    Mobility....................................................121-123
    Oversight...................................................124-125
    Safety......................................................119-121
    Status of the Highway Trust Fund.............................   125
TCSP Funds Retained for Technical Assistance, Evaluation, or 
  Research.......................................................   220
Transit Obligation..............................................179-212
    Exempt Programs..............................................   213
Transportation Research.........................................278-279
    Carryover Funds of the Surface Transportation R&D Funds.....281-282
    National Research Program...................................284-286
    Shortfalls in the Management and Coordination Area...........   283
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Cost Estimates.............................   160
    Gas Taxes Affect Highway Trust Funds........................163-164
    Impacts on Project Delays and Cost Increases.................   163
    Woodrow Wilson Bridge--Bid Evaluation.......................160-162

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

                                                                   Page
.08 BAC Laws:
    Blood Alcohol Concentration Laws.............................   650
    Blood Alcohol Laws Not the Only Issue........................   650
    (States With)................................................   740
Administrative License Revocation Laws (States With).............   817
Alcohol:
    Goal.........................................................   650
    Other Alcohol Related Programs...............................   651
    Related Fatalities by State..................................   741
    Related Fatality Rates Per Vehicle Mile......................   744
Auto Safety Hotline..............................................   719
Auto Safety and Public Health Research Comparability.............   891
Biomechanics:
    Budget Request...............................................   792
    Crash Test Dummy Development...............................789, 791
    Hybrid III Dummies...........................................   790
    Research Program.............................................   793
    Southern Consortium Research.................................   800
Bus Safety Standards.............................................   665
Child Safety Seats...............................................   659
Compliance:
    Test Failure Data............................................   707
    Testing Program............................................624, 710
Conclusion.....................................................625, 644
Contractors (Major)..............................................   879
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE):
    Adequate Staffing Levels and Expertise.......................   714
    Alternatives to Raising Standards............................   715
    Fuel Economy.................................................   661
    Penalties Collected..........................................   719
    Reprogramming Expenditures...................................   712
    Research Supporting CAFE Rulemaking..........................   663
    Standards....................................................   716
    Standards for Light Trucks and Vans..........................   717
    Standards Studies............................................   662
    Timetable....................................................   713
Crash Injury Research Engineering Network (CIREN):
    Changes in Vehicle Performance Requirements..................   797
    Cost Effectiveness...........................................   798
    Center Funding...............................................   795
    Outside Funding..............................................   798
    Rulemaking Activities........................................   797
Crashes:
    Between Different Sized Vehicles.............................   662
    By Collision Type............................................   757
    Rear-End Crashes.............................................   723
Dangerous Driving Behavior (Other)...............................   624
Defects Investigation:
    Early Warning Reporting System.............................674, 889
    Office of Defects Investigation--Additional Staffing.........   671
    Office of Defects Investigation Database--Planned Activities.   671
    Operation of New Database System.............................   673
    Volpe Findings for a Defect Identification System............   672
Dynamic Rollover Tests:
    Preventing Gamesmanship in Dynamic Rollover Testing..........   665
    Procedures...................................................   664
Emergency Medical Services:
    Head Injury Research--Brain Trauma Foundation................   798
    Rural Trauma--University of South Alabama....................   799
    Wireless E9-1-1: National Clearinghouse......................   801
    Wireless E9-1-1: Program Description.........................   800
    Wireless E9-1-1: State Adoption..............................   802
Fatal Crashes:
    By State.....................................................   752
    Motor Vehicle Crashes and Fatalities.........................   759
    Vehicles Involved in.........................................   754
Fatalities:
    By Vehicle Category..........................................   766
    Child Fatalities in Vehicle Crashes..........................   758
    Child Occupant Fatalities....................................   756
    For Selected Countries.......................................   768
    Railroad Crossing Fatalities.................................   660
    Rates Attributed to Alcohol and Speed........................   746
    Vehicle Fatalities by State..................................   761
Firestone:
    Non-Firestone Tire Investigations............................   680
    Wilderness AT Tires Recall...................................   679
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE):
    Actions Taken To Fill Vacancies..............................   859
    Authorized FTE Levels........................................   858
    FTE and On-Board Strength....................................   858
Graduated Driver Licensing Programs..............................   777
Highway Safety Programs..........................................   633
Highway Traffic Safety Grants....................................   643
Hybrid Vehicles..................................................   666
Impaired Driving:
    Impaired Driving...........................................624, 738
    Records Information System...................................   737
Information Technology Resources.................................   890
Large Scale Safety Problems (Adequate Resources).................   890
Leading Causes of Highway Deaths.................................   654
Minority Outreach................................................   884
Motorcycle:
    Fatalities...................................................   770
    Helmet Laws..................................................   772
    Initiatives..................................................   771
    Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Laws.............................   774
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS):
    NADS.........................................................   785
    Use in Truck Studies.........................................   655
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP):
    Activities Funded............................................   704
    Advanced Airbags.............................................   687
    Braking and Lighting Test Vehicles...........................   704
    Frontal and Side Impact Test Plans...........................   699
    Frontal Impact Testing.......................................   687
    Funding for Rollover Tests...................................   703
    Multiple Utilization of Test Vehicles........................   701
    Program Costs................................................   705
    Side Impact Tests............................................   698
    Testing......................................................   688
NHTSA:
    Allocation of Budget Increase................................   892
    Opening Statement............................................   622
National Accident Sampling System................................   804
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)   777
National Public Health Emergency.................................   623
Occupant Protection Program......................................   724
Older Driver:
    Program......................................................   887
    Safety.......................................................   779
Overseas Travel..................................................   871
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) Expenditures.   666
Pneumatic Tire Research..........................................   802
Public and Private Sector Fitting Stations.......................   856
Rent.............................................................   870
Reprogrammings...................................................   878
Research and Analysis Programs...................................   638
Rollover Risk (Public Education on)..............................   664
Rulemaking Actions...............................................   881
Safety:
    Defect Recalls...............................................   706
    Partnerships.................................................   622
Traffic Safety--A Personal Responsibility........................   623
Safety Assurance Programs........................................   632
Safety Performance Standards:
    Budget Reduction.............................................   683
    Cost Estimates...............................................   684
    Programs.....................................................   630
Seat Belt:
    Demonstration Programs.......................................   726
    Goal.........................................................   645
    Key Provisions of Safety Belt Use Laws.......................   735
    Relationship Between Goals and Funding.......................   653
    Restraint Use Among Passenger Vehicle Occupant Fatalities....   734
    Safety Belt Use Enforcement..................................   734
    Summit.......................................................   738
    Unrealistic Goals............................................   653
    Usage........................................................   727
    Usage Rate...................................................   729
    Usage Surveys................................................   651
    Use Increase.................................................   623
Section 157:
    Advertising Costs............................................   818
    Grants Awards................................................   819
Section 402:
    Grant Obligations............................................   812
    Program Funding..............................................   811
    Staff Support................................................   811
    State Expenditures...........................................   809
Section 410 Funding Allocations..................................   814
Section 2003(b) Child Passenger Protection Education Grants......   836
Senior Executive Service:
    Bonuses......................................................   652
    Justifying Bonuses...........................................   652
Speed:
    Estimated Cost of Speed Related Fatal Crashes................   750
    Related Fatal Crashes........................................   749
    State Speed Limits...........................................   747
Star Rating System (Merit of)....................................   663
Staff:
    Filling of New Positions.....................................   860
    Office of the Administrator..................................   868
    Political Appointees.........................................   860
    Regional Staffing............................................   861
Statement of Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D...............................   626
TASC Funding.....................................................   882
Third Row Seats..................................................   723
Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems...............................656, 682
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 
  Documentation (TREAD):
    Child Safety Seat Ratings....................................   702
    Dynamic Rollover Testing...................................664, 700
    Hybrid III Dummies...........................................   790
    Rulemaking IG Report.........................................   670
    Rulemaking Deadlines.........................................   670
    Rulemaking Requirements......................................   669
    Status of Additional FTP.....................................   859
Truck Causation Study............................................   655
Unobligated Balances.............................................   876
Vehicle Safety Component Plan....................................   624
Vehicle Weight...................................................   654
Web Site ``Hits''................................................   722
Witnesses........................................................   621
Workforce Planning and Development Efforts.......................   882

                     Federal Transit Administration

                                                                   Page
Administration:
    Administrative Expenses......................................  1232
    Delphi Accounting System.....................................  1272
    Delphi Conversion Requirements...............................  1272
    Employee Pension and Health Benefits.........................  1263
    Field Operations Staff by Activity...........................  1262
    FTE History..................................................  1236
    FTE Increase..............................................939, 1232
    General Engineers............................................  1237
    Political Positions..........................................  1262
Alaska and Hawaii Set Aside......................................   971
Alaska Railroad..................................................  1205
Alternative Clean Fuel Sources for BRT Projects..................  1360
Alternative Fuel Vehicles........................................  1282
Annual Accident Data.............................................  1126
Apportionments by State..........................................  1116
Average Age of Bus Fleet.........................................  1136
Average Real Labor Compensation..................................  1132
Boston Projects..................................................   964
BRT:
    BRT and Alternative Clean Fuel Sources.......................  1360
    BRT and New Starts Criteria..................................  1350
    BRT Program..............................................1323, 1344
    Compared to Clean Fuels Goals................................  1360
    Cost and Benefits of BRT.....................................  1356
    Cost Compared to Light Rail..................................  1358
    Criteria.....................................................  1348
    Demonstration Program........................................  1351
    Expenditure of Funds.........................................  1353
    Federal Funding for BRT......................................  1349
    Project Timetable............................................  1355
BRT Compared to Clean Fuels Goals................................  1360
BRT Cost Compared to Light Rail..................................  1358
BRT Criteria.....................................................  1348
BRT Demonstration Program........................................  1351
BRT Expenditures.................................................  1353
BRT Program..................................................1323, 1344
BRT Project Timetable............................................  1355
Bus and Van Useful Life..........................................  1137
Bus Procurement Grants...........................................  1139
Bus Rapid Transit............................................1323, 1344
Capital Obligations by Fiscal Year...............................  1134
Central Link:
    Funding Issues...............................................   904
    Legal Issues...............................................907, 944
    Local Funding Commitment.....................................   947
    Project Schedule.............................................   906
Central Link Funding Issues......................................   904
Central Link Legal Issues......................................907, 944
Central Link Local Funding Commitment............................   947
Central Link Project New Starts Rating...........................   944
Central Link Project Schedule....................................   906
Chicago Ravenswood Project.......................................   941
Clean Fuels:
    Alternative Clean Fuel Sources for BRT Projects..............  1360
    Alternative Fuel Vehicles....................................  1282
    Coordination with Other Federal Programs.....................  1285
    Eligible Bus and Bus Related Projects........................  1281
    Formula Program..............................................  1278
Clean Fuels Formula Program......................................  1278
Contingent Commitment Authority:
    Los Angeles.................................................910, 958
    Remaining Commitment Authority...............................   979
Dallas North Central Project.....................................   963
Delphi Accounting System.........................................  1272
Delphi Conversion Requirements...................................  1272
Denver T-Rex Design-Build Project................................   964
Design-Build.................................................1016, 1338
Distribution of Capital Funding..................................  1134
Dorn, Jennifer L.:
    Opening Remarks..............................................   892
    Prepared Statement...........................................   896
Drug and Alcohol Testing.........................................  1277
Emergency Supplemental Funding...................................   908
Employee Pension and Health Benefits.............................  1263
Environmental Streamlining:
    Activities...........................................901, 923, 1264
    Set-Aside from Formula.......................................  1214
    Solutions....................................................  1267
    State Environmental Requirements.............................  1267
Environmental Streamlining Activities Undertaken.................  1265
Environmental Streamlining State Environmental Requirements......  1267
Existing Full Funding Grant Agreements...........................   974
Farebox Recovery of Operating Expenses Data......................  1124
Federal Coordination of the Access to Job Program................  1202
Federal Limits Restrictions of Driver On-Duty time...............   961
Federal Share/Local Share for New Starts..................916, 924, 967
FFGAs:
    50 Projects Furthest Along in Preliminary Engineering........   967
    Federal Share/Local Share for New Starts..............916, 924, 967
    Pending FFGAs.........................................940, 985, 999
    Projects Behind Schedule.....................................   983
    Project Costs..............................................967, 972
    Ratings for Proposed FFGAs...................................  1002
Field Operations Staff by Activity...............................  1267
Financial Management and Capacity Reviews........................  1223
Financial Management Oversight...................................  1217
Financial Systems Support........................................  1273
Fixed Guideway Modernization Obligations for Old Rail Cities.....  1144
Formula Fund Grant Allocation Tables.............................  1095
Formula Funding for Security.....................................   927
FTA Capital Obligations by Fiscal Year...........................  1134
FTA Opening Remarks..............................................   892
FTE Increase..................................................939, 1232
Fuel Cell Bus....................................................  1336
Garrett Morgan...................................................  1334
General Engineers................................................  1237
Georgetown Fuel Cell.............................................  1336
GPRA Budget and Performance Integration..........................   902
Hiawatha Light Rail Project Status...............................   956
International Mass Transportation Program........................  1275
Job Access and Reverse Commute:
    Applications.................................................  1169
    Effectiveness................................................  1203
    FY 2001 and FY 2002 Grant Awards.............................  1150
    Grant Award Criteria.....................................1148, 1202
    Minimum and Maximum Award Levels.............................  1149
    Program......................................................  1147
    Qualifications...............................................  1169
    Ranking and Selecting........................................  1202
    Sustainability...............................................  1204
    Technical Support............................................  1168
    Transportation Projects......................................  1167
Job Access Program Criteria..................................1148, 1202
Job Access Program Effectiveness.................................  1203
Job Access Program Minimum and Maximum Award Levels..............  1149
Job Access Projects Qualified for FY 2001 and FY 2002............  1150
Job Access Program Sustainability................................  1204
Los Angeles:
    Bus Riders Union Bus Funding Dispute.........................   960
    Driver On-Duty Time Restrictions.............................   961
    Mid-City Project Status......................................   958
    MTA Procurement of Buses.....................................   961
    Remaining Funds............................................910, 958
Los Angeles Bus Riders Union Bus Funding Dispute.................   960
Los Angeles Bus Mid-City Project Status..........................   958
Los Angeles MTA Procurement of Buses.............................   961
Los Angeles Remaining Funds....................................910, 958
Major Capital Investments........................................   898
Mass Transit Account.............................................  1206
Mass Transit Account Transit Funding Issues......................   937
MBTA Projects....................................................   964
Meritorious New Starts Projects..................................   935
Minneapolis Hiawatha Light Rail Project Status...................   956
National Projects................................................  1315
National Transit Database........................................  1361
National Transit Institute...................................1311, 1334
New Freedom Initiative:
    FY 2003 Budget Request for New Freedom Initiative............  1269
    Mobility Needs for Persons with Disabilities.................  1270
    New Freedom Initiative....................................900, 1269
    Set-Aside from Formula.......................................  1214
    New Freedom Within Transit Planning and Research.............  1304
New Freedom Initiative........................................900, 1269
New Orleans Canal Street Project.................................   919
New Orleans Federal Share........................................   917
New Starts:
    Chicago Ravenswood Project...................................   941
    Contingent Commitment Authority..............................   979
    Evaluation of 50 Percent Cap.................................   922
    Evaluation Process.................................1008, 1010, 1014
    Existing Full Funding Grant Agreements.......................   974
    Federal Share/Local Share for New Starts..............916, 924, 967
    FFGA Project Costs.........................................967, 972
    Final Rule...............................................1007, 1015
    Funding......................................................   940
    In Final Design............................................940, 942
    Local Financial Commitment...................................  1013
    Meritorious New Starts Projects..............................   935
    Operating Under Recovery Plans...............................   983
    Past 3-year Availability Date................................   997
    Payout Schedule..............................................   974
    Pending FFGAs.........................................940, 985, 999
    Projects Estimated to be Ready...............................   977
    Project Federal Share......................................917, 967
    Proposed FFGAs in FY 2003 Budget......................941, 967, 974
    Project Ratings..............................................  1002
    Proposed New Starts and Attachment 6.........................   974
    ROD and Funding Schedule.....................................   985
    Seattle Central Link Project...............................904, 943
    Section 5309 New Starts Project Status PE and Final Design...   977
    Status of Specific News Starts Projects......................   940
    Unobligated New Starts Project Balances......................   987
New Starts Contingent Commitment Authority.......................   979
New Starts Eligible Projects.....................................   981
New Starts Evaluation of 50 Percent Cap..........................   922
New Starts Evaluation Process..........................1008, 1010, 1014
New Starts Federal Share/Local Share for New Starts.......916, 924, 967
New Starts Funding Constraints...................................   982
New Starts Local Financial Commitment............................  1013
New Starts Operating Under Recovery Plans........................   983
New Starts Payout Schedule.......................................   974
New Starts Pending FFGAs..................................940, 985, 999
New Starts Projects Estimated to be Ready........................   977
New Starts ROD and Funding Schedule..............................   985
New York City Supplemental Funding...............................   928
NTSB Recommendations.............................................  1310
On-Board Positions by Office.....................................  1238
Opening Remarks, Jennifer L. Dorn:
    FTA Budget Implements GPRA...................................   894
    New Freedom Initiative.......................................   894
    New Starts...................................................   893
    Opening Remarks..............................................   892
    Summary......................................................   895
    Transit Security.............................................   893
Oversight:
    Activities...................................................  1214
    Conflict of Interest Concerns................................  1220
    Financial Management and Capacity reviews....................  1223
    Financial Oversight Activities...............................  1217
    Funding......................................................  1215
    Oversight Obligations........................................  1222
    PMO and FMO Contractor Personnel.............................  1218
    PMO Lessons Learned..........................................  1221
    Program Changes..............................................  1216
    Risk Assessments.........................................1228, 1230
    Safety and Security Oversight................................  1229
    Set-Aside from Urbanized Formula.............................  1214
Oversight Funding................................................  1215
Oversight Obligations............................................  1222
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program..........................  1286
Pending FFGAs.............................................940, 985, 999
Phoenix-East Valley Project......................................   913
PMO and FMO Contractor Selection.................................  1218
PMO Lessons Learned..............................................  1221
Political Positions..............................................  1262
Prepared Statement of Jennifer L. Dorn:
    Environmental Streamlining...................................   901
    FTA Budget Implements GPRA...................................   902
    Major Capital Investment Program New Starts..................   898
    New Freedom Initiative.......................................   900
    President's Management Agenda................................   902
    Project Management Oversight.................................   899
    Statement....................................................   896
    Summary......................................................   903
    Transit Security.............................................   897
President's Management Agenda....................................   902
Program and Financial Management Personnel.......................  1218
Project Federal Share/Local Share for New Starts...............917, 967
Project Management Oversight.....................................   899
Project Management Oversight Activities..........................  1214
Proposed FFGAs in FY 2003 Budget..........................941, 967, 974
Proposed New Starts and Attachment 6.............................   974
Questions for the Record, Mr. Sweeney............................  1366
Rail Modernization:
    Eligibilty...................................................  1112
    Formula Funding Apportionment Tables.........................  1095
    Modernization Categories.....................................  1114
Rail Modernization and Formula Funding Apportionment Tables......  1095
Rail Modernization Categories....................................  1114
Rail Modernization Eligibility...................................  1112
Recoveries.......................................................  1211
Relationship with FTA Region I...................................   910
Risk Assessments.............................................1228, 1230
Rural Transportation.............................................  1366
Safety:
    NTSB Recommendations.........................................  1310
    Safety and Security Oversight................................  1229
    Safety and Security Program..................................  1309
Safety and Security Oversight....................................  1229
Safety and Security Program......................................  1309
Seattle Central Link:
    Financial Capacity...........................................   947
    Funding Issues...............................................   904
    Issues Impacting Project...................................907, 943
    Local Funding Commitment.....................................   947
    New or Amended FFGA..........................................   946
    New Starts Rating............................................   944
    Pending Legal Actions........................................   944
    Ridership Estimates..........................................   947
    Schedule.....................................................   906
Seattle Sound Financial Capacity.................................   947
Seattle Sound Funding Issues.....................................   904
Seattle Sound Local Funding Commitment...........................   947
Seattle Sound Pending Legal Actions..............................   944
Seattle Sound Ridership Estimates................................   947
Seattle Sound Transit Project..................................904, 943
Section 5309 New Starts Project Status...........................   977
Security:
    Formula Funding...........................................927, 1116
    Safety and Security Program..................................  1309
    Security Funding Request for FY 2003.........................   926
    Security Issues..............................................   925
    Training.....................................................  1367
    Transit Security Major Initiatives...........................   897
Security Issues..................................................   925
Security Training................................................  1367
Set-Asides Within the Transit Planning and Research Account......  1311
Sound Transit:
    Financial Capacity...........................................   947
    Issues Impacting Project.....................................   943
    Local Funding Commitment.....................................   947
    New or Amended FFGA..........................................   946
    New Starts Rating............................................   944
    Pending Legal Actions........................................   944
    Ridership Estimates..........................................   947
Status of Specific New Starts Projects...........................   940
Supplemental Request for New York City...........................   928
Transit Funding Issues...........................................   937
Transit Planning and Research:
    Alternative Fuel Vehicles....................................  1282
    Fuel Cell Bus................................................  1337
    Garrett Morgan...............................................  1334
    Georgetown Fuel Cell.........................................  1336
    National Projects............................................  1315
    New Freedom Initiative.......................................  1304
    Set-Asides Within the Transit Planning and Research Account..  1311
    Transit Planning and Research................................  1302
    Transit Planning and Research Earmarks...................1303, 1324
    Transit Planning in the National Parks.......................  1364
    Transportation Safety Institute..............................  1310
Transit Planning and Research....................................  1302
Transit Planning and Research Earmarks.......................1303, 1324
Transit Planning in the National Parks...........................  1364
Transit Ridership of 30 Largest Transit Operators................  1121
Transit Security Major Initiatives...............................   897
Transportation Safety Institute..................................  1310
Tren Urbano:
    10-Point Recovery Plan.......................................   952
    Construction Quality Concerns................................   950
    Impact of Estimated Cost Increase............................   949
    Potential Cost Increase......................................   949
    Project Schedule...........................................915, 948
    Revenue Operations Date......................................   948
    Status of Change Orders......................................   951
Ten Urbano 10-Point Recovery Plan................................   952
Tren Urbano Construction Quality Issues..........................   950
Tren Urbano Potential Cost Increase..............................   949
Tren Urbano Revenue Operations Date..............................   948
University Transportation Research...............................  1295
Unobligated Bus Funds............................................  1016
Unobligated Bus Projects.........................................  1062
Unobligated New Starts Project Balances..........................   987
Urbanized Area Formula Apportionment.............................  1116
Urbanized Area Formula Apportionments for Fiscal Year 2002.......  1095
Urbanized Area Formula Set-Aside.................................  1214
Wilmington City's Alternative Projects...........................   958
Wilmington, Delaware Transit Center..............................   957

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Budget Summary...................................................  1368
Carryover Obligations............................................  1376
Funding History..................................................  1370
Hiring Plans.................................................1374, 1375
Staffing History.................................................  1370
Staffing Request.................................................  1373
Staffing Vacancies...........................................1374, 1375
Staffing:
    Hiring Plans.............................................1374, 1375
    History......................................................  1370
    Requests.....................................................  1373
    Vacancies................................................1374, 1375

                                
