[Senate Hearing 109-944]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-944
NOMINATION OF MARY E. PETERS TO BE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-168 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 20, 2006............................... 1
Statement of Senator Burns....................................... 19
Statement of Senator DeMint...................................... 21
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 16
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 14
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 23
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Statement of Senator Lott........................................ 14
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 25
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 17
Statement of Senator Smith....................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 26
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 1
Witnesses
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona......................... 2
Peters, Hon. Mary E., Nominee to be Secretary of Transportation.. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Biographical information..................................... 8
Appendix
Chilson, George, President, National Association of Railroad
Passengers, prepared statement................................. 33
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Mary E. Peters
by:
Hon. Barbara Boxer........................................... 48
Hon. Conrad Burns............................................ 40
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 50
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 33
Hon. John F. Kerry........................................... 45
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 53
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe........................................ 41
NOMINATION OF MARY E. PETERS TO BE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
The Chairman would agree that it would be proper to allow
time for the two Senators from Arizona to introduce the
nominee. Senator McCain, you're the senior Senator.
Senator McCain. Thanks very much. I remind Senator Kyl of
that daily.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Well, thank you.
It's with great pleasure, Mr. Chairman, I introduce to the
Committee Mary Peters, who has been nominated, as you well
know, as the 15th Secretary of the Department of
Transportation. And, of course, all of us are familiar with
Mary through her nearly 4 years of service as the Administrator
of the Federal Highway Administration from 2001 to 2005. She's
a fourth-generation Arizonan, was the director of the Arizona
Department of Transportation, known as ADOT, prior to taking
the helm of the Highway Administration. She gained nearly 16
years of firsthand transportation agency experience during her
service at the Arizona Department of Transportation, and
another 4 years at the Federal Highway Administration.
I appreciate very much the President of the United States
selecting such an outstanding and capable individual to fill
this important leadership position. She has a long and
accomplished professional record. And, Mr. Chairman, she has so
many awards, I will not repeat them. I would ask that my
complete statement be made part of the record.
And I would like very much that this committee approve, or
consider and then approve, her nomination as quickly as
possible, as I think it would be good for the country to have
her on the job before we go out for recess.
And I thank you for allowing me to make this statement on
her behalf.
The Chairman. Your statement will appear in the record in
full.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
Thank you. It is with great pleasure that I introduce to the
Committee Mary Peters, who has been nominated to serve as the 15th
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Of course, most of
you are already familiar with Mary through her nearly 4 years of
service as the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), from 2001-2005.
Mary Peters is a fourth generation Arizonan and was the Director of
the Arizona Department of Transportation, known as ADOT, prior to
taking the helm at FHWA. She gained nearly 16 years of firsthand
transportation agency experience during her service at ADOT and another
4 years at FHWA. This hands-on experience will serve her well in
fulfilling the duties of the Secretary, and I commend the President for
selecting such an outstanding and capable individual to fill this
important leadership position.
Mary has a long and accomplished professional record and has often
received well-deserved recognition for her efforts, whether in
Washington, D.C. or in Arizona. For example, she has received numerous
awards throughout her career from the Women's Transportation Seminar,
including the 2004 National Woman of the Year Award. She has also
received awards from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (ASHTO), the National Council on Public
Private Partnerships and the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association. And not surprising, Mary also been recognized as one of
the Top 100 Who's Who of Arizona Women in Business, and as the Most
Influential Person in Arizona in Transportation.
On a personal side, Mary is one of the kindest persons you'd ever
want to know. She is a great humanitarian and is genuinely interested
in the lives of all of her employees. I am told Mary not only knew the
name of every Arizona DOT employee by their names, but she also knew
the names of their spouses and children. She understands the importance
of family and friends and she shows it every day in her care and
concern for those around her.
And finally, I cannot resist mentioning something from Mary's past
that I hope she will rely on as she works to meet the challenges she
will face as the DOT Secretary:
Before Mary became involved in transportation, she was in the
butchering business. She made her living by cutting pork. As I said
during her last confirmation hearing, this background should come in
very handy and I urge her to rely heavily on her past pork-cutting
expertise as she works to carry out her new responsibilities. Mary will
undoubtedly face unlimited requests to support and fund Members' pork
projects but to the extent of her authority, those projects would more
appropriately deserve the same treatment that she mastered as a
butcher.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Kyl?
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, first let me agree
with my colleague Senator McCain that it would be very much in
the best interests of this country if the nomination of Mary
Peters could move forward very expeditiously, first through the
Committee and then on to the floor of the Senate.
My colleague, of course, traced the career of Mary Peters,
a distinguished career focused on transportation issues. I'll
just note a couple of things that were not said.
When she was here in Washington as the head of the Federal
Highway Administration at DOT, among other things she led
efforts to improve the safety and security of our country's
highways and bridges, reduce congestion, and institutionalize
better fiscal oversight and accountability. And she
distinguished herself in the same way when she headed the
Department of Transportation in the State of Arizona. Both
Senator McCain and I know Mary Peters personally; and so, we're
obviously biased. But, for my place, I couldn't recommend more
strongly someone who has all of the attributes, not just the
skills and the experience, but the personal qualities to be a
part of the President's Cabinet, to be advising him, to working
with Members of Congress. And so, when, once again, she agreed
to answer the President's call to leave the warm and sunny
weather of Arizona to come back to Washington, I applauded her
choice, and I urge the Committee to act quickly so that she can
begin her responsibilities here as soon as possible, serving
the people of this country.
She's a person of great integrity and charisma, and I'm
very proud to call her a friend and commend her to the
Committee.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator.
I would suggest that the nominee present her statement,
then we'll go around and give Senators an opportunity to
question the nominee.
Ms. Peters?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, NOMINEE TO BE SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, thanks so much.
Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye, and Members of the
Committee, it is an absolute honor to appear before you today
as you consider my nomination for Secretary of Transportation.
And I sincerely appreciate my home state Senators, Senator John
McCain and Senator Jon Kyl, for being here today to introduce
me.
I am deeply grateful that President Bush has offered me the
opportunity to again serve my country in the field of
transportation.
I also would like to express my gratitude to my family,
whose love and support have made it possible for me to be here
today. My husband is home today; however, he is with our two
brand-new grandchildren. One got out of the hospital 8 days
ago, one got out of the hospital 2 days ago. So, they are
appropriately there taking care of those new babies. I have
pictures to bore you with, should you like to see those later.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Peters. But I know that they are with me in spirit here
today.
And my grandchildren have asked me to say their names.
Jeremy, Jenna, Charles, Shannah, and Daniel, I love you.
Thank you, Senators.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Now, are there any of your family with you
today?
Ms. Peters. No, sir, they are not here.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, America's continued economic
vitality, our ability to compete in a global economy, and our
citizens' high quality of life are all dependent upon dynamic,
well-performing transportation systems. And while the current
systems have served our nation well, those systems must be
strengthened to meet even greater challenges ahead.
The challenges are numerous, and they affect every mode of
transportation. Our vital transportation infrastructure is
showing signs of aging. Traditional transportation programs and
their funding sources are no longer able to keep pace with
demand. Increasing congestion on our highways, railways,
airports, and seaports reduces our nation's economic
productivity and consumes our citizens' time.
Despite the progress that we have made, transportation
safety and transportation security are a greater concern than
ever before. I do not take lightly the challenges that I would
face, nor the responsibilities that I would accept, should you
vote to confirm my nomination. I believe my 20-plus-year career
in transportation has given me the hands-on experience, the
technical knowledge, and the leadership skills necessary to
identify and implement the right solutions for these
challenges.
For more than 16 years, as Senator McCain has said, I
worked for the Arizona Department of Transportation. That
position allowed me to gain valuable insight on the way Federal
policy affects real-life aspects of planning, building, and
operating transportation systems on state, regional, and local
levels.
As director of ADOT for the last 3 years of that time, I
oversaw highway, transit, rail, and aviation, as well as motor
carrier programs, driver licensing, vehicle registration,
transportation-related clean-air programs, transportation tax
collection and distribution. I learned the economics of
developing and maintaining transportation infrastructure, as
well as the responsibilities and accountabilities necessary
when entrusted with public funds.
I was then privileged to serve for nearly 4 years as
Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, and had
the honor of working with you, with Congress, to develop the
important SAFETEA-LU legislation.
As Administrator, I made safety my highest priority. And if
confirmed as Secretary, I will ensure that safety continues to
be the Department's highest priority and that safety
considerations are built into every transportation decision.
As Administrator, I also focused the Federal Highway
Administration on improving its oversight and accountability
for public funds. During my tenure, we implemented policies for
better management of mega-projects, and I worked very closely
with Ken Mead, the Inspector General, to eliminate waste,
fraud, and abuse in the programs.
If confirmed, a significant priority will be the
reauthorization of the Nation's aviation programs. I look
forward to working with Congress to improve aviation safety and
to identify new approaches for modernizing the Air Traffic
Control System, improving the environmental review process for
airports, and addressing the aviation needs of small urban
communities and rural areas.
We must continue to promote the use of public
transportation and assist states and communities to maximize
transit capacity and reliability. Intercity passenger rail
should be an important component of our nation's transportation
network. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress
to pass a bill that will ensure the Nation's passenger rail
system delivers maximum benefit to its customers.
Our nation's maritime industry plays an important role in
daily commerce. In fact, our seaports handle 2.5 billion tons
of goods and materials each year. If confirmed, I will work
with industry and state officials to alleviate congestion at
our nation's seaports.
Small urban and rural transportation needs--air, rail, and
public transportation, as well as roads--were always very
important considerations to me when I served at the Arizona
DOT. And, if confirmed, I would look forward to working with
you to maximize the mobility options for all Americans,
regardless of where they live.
Mr. Chairman, I believe my experience, my understanding of
state and local transportation needs, and my commitment to
ensuring the continued excellence of the American
transportation system will enable me to provide effective
leadership for the U.S. Department of Transportation. In these
challenging times, we need that leadership. If confirmed as the
next Secretary, I look forward to working with Congress, with
President Bush, and other members of the Cabinet, as well as
our public- and private-sector partners, to ensure our nation
and the American people are provided a safe, secure, efficient,
and effective transportation system, both now and into the
future.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I sincerely
appreciate the opportunity that you have given me here today,
and I will respond to questions, as the time is appropriate.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms.
Peters follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary E. Peters, Nominee to be Secretary of
Transportation
Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye, Members of the Committee, I
am honored to appear before you today as you consider my nomination for
Secretary of Transportation. I am deeply grateful that President Bush
has offered me the opportunity to again serve my country in the field
of transportation. I also want to express my gratitude to my family
whose love and support have made it possible for me to be here today.
I am especially honored to succeed Secretary Norman Mineta and am
grateful for having had the experience of working on his team. Through
his outstanding career in public service, Secretary Mineta made an
indelible impression on transportation policy. If confirmed, I know I
will have quite a legacy to live up to at the Department.
America's continued economic vitality, our ability to compete in a
global economy, and our citizens' high quality of life, are all
dependent upon dynamic and well-performing transportation systems. And,
while the current systems have served our nation well, they must be
strengthened to meet even greater challenges ahead.
These challenges are numerous, and they affect every mode of
transportation. Our vital transportation infrastructure is showing
signs of aging. Traditional transportation programs and their funding
sources are no longer able to keep pace with demand. Increased
congestion on our highways, railways, airports, and seaports reduces
our nation's economic productivity and consumes our citizens' time.
Despite the progress we have made, transportation safety and security
are a greater concern than ever before.
I do not take lightly the challenges I would face, nor the
responsibilities I would accept, should you vote to confirm my
nomination to be Secretary of Transportation. I believe my 20-year
career in transportation has given me the hands-on experience,
technical knowledge, and leadership skills necessary to identify and
implement the right solutions for these challenges.
For more than 16 years, I worked for the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT), where I gained valuable insight into the ways
Federal policy affects real-life aspects of planning, building, and
operating transportation systems on local, state, and regional levels.
As Director of ADOT for 3 years, I oversaw highway, transit, rail, and
air transportation in Arizona, as well as motor carrier programs,
driver licensing and vehicle registration, transportation-related clean
air programs, and transportation tax collection and distribution. In
Arizona, I learned the economics of developing and maintaining
transportation infrastructure, as well as the responsibility and
accountability necessary when entrusted with public funds.
I was then privileged to serve as the 15th Administrator of the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for nearly 4 years, and had the
honor of working closely with Congress on the development of the
important Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) legislation.
As Administrator, I made highway safety my highest priority and
worked closely with the Administrators of the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to develop strategies for reducing fatalities
and injuries. During the drafting of the Administration's surface
transportation reauthorization proposal, I championed an increased
focus on, and funding for, safety.
Yet, despite the gains we have made, safety remains an ongoing
challenge. We cannot complacently accept fatalities and injuries as the
``price we pay'' for mobility. If confirmed as Secretary, I will ensure
that safety continues to be the Department's top priority and that
safety considerations are built into every transportation decision.
While rail accidents have begun to decline as a result of the
National Rail Safety Action Plan, which was issued last year in
response to several major accidents, we must do even more to reduce the
number of train accidents, including those that involve highway-rail
grade crossings. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Federal Railroad
Administration continues to work with industry to implement new
technologies that will create a safer rail system.
This year's incident at Prudhoe Bay demonstrates we also have more
work to do on pipeline safety and, if confirmed, I will ensure the
Department continues to proactively reach out to stakeholders and other
Federal, state, and local agencies to ensure a safe and reliable
pipeline infrastructure. If confirmed, I also look forward to working
with this committee on the pipeline safety program reauthorization.
This is an important bill that will allow the Department to ensure the
continued safety, security, and reliability of our pipeline system.
If I am confirmed, reauthorizing the Nation's aviation programs
will be a significant priority, and I look forward to working with
Congress on crafting a bill that not only improves aviation safety, but
also identifies new approaches to modernizing the air traffic control
system to meet increased travel demand, improves the environmental
review process for airport infrastructure, and addresses the aviation
needs of small urban communities and rural areas.
We must continue to promote the use of public transportation and
assist states and communities to maximize transit capacity and
reliability. Transit is not just a big city concern. Many rural areas
are increasingly recognizing the many benefits of transit and, if
confirmed, I plan to ensure the successful implementation of SAFETEA-
LU's expanded rural transit programs.
The terrorist attacks on the transit systems in Madrid and London
have highlighted the importance of transit security in this post-9/11
world. Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the lead
on security matters, if confirmed as Secretary, I assure you the
Department of Transportation will continue to work collaboratively with
DHS to address the vulnerabilities of our nation's open public
transportation systems.
Intercity passenger rail should be an important component of our
nation's transportation network. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with Congress to pass a bill that will ensure our nation's
passenger rail system delivers maximum benefits to consumers.
Our Nation's maritime industry plays an important role in our daily
commerce as well as an auxiliary role for security in times of war or
national emergency. In today's global trade economy it is vital that we
maintain a robust marine transportation system. The backbone of that
system is the Jones Act, which I strongly support. We must also
continue to work to address congestion at our ports. Innovative
technologies such as PierPass at the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach
have made progress in addressing congestion at that facility. If
confirmed, I will work with industry and state and local officials to
find other novel ways to tackle this problem at our ports.
My experience in transportation management in Arizona, and at the
Federal level, made me acutely aware of the need to focus on better
overall management and operation of an integrated system, and to
identify the appropriate balance of transportation alternatives. I am
convinced that the Department of Transportation for the 21st century
must employ a systems approach to managing transportation and support
operational strategies with cutting-edge technologies. Research will
play a vital role and we must define and promote an appropriate
national agenda for research and technology deployment.
Small urban and rural transportation needs--air, rail, public
transportation, as well as roads--were always important considerations
when I served as Director of ADOT. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with you to maximize mobility options for all Americans,
regardless of where they live.
As Administrator of FHWA, I worked to fulfill a commitment I made
at my confirmation hearing to improve and strengthen FHWA oversight and
accountability for Federal funds. To improve the accuracy of financial
data and assure the agency fully executed its stewardship
responsibilities, I established an Office of the Chief Financial
Officer reporting directly to the Administrator, and led the
development of FHWA's Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE)
Program, an important tool for better financial controls. I worked very
closely with the Office of Inspector General to increase awareness of
transportation fraud and, more importantly, to take action to prevent
it. I oversaw implementation of policy and guidance for better
management of mega-projects, and worked to eliminate waste, fraud, and
abuse in programs administered by the agency.
If confirmed as Secretary of Transportation, I pledge conscientious
stewardship for resources and responsibilities entrusted to the
Department. The American public and the Nation's business community
must feel confident that every dollar provided to transportation is
used wisely and well. This confidence must derive from results the
public can see, such as reduced traffic congestion, fewer lives lost,
seamless delivery of goods, improved livability, and respect for human
and natural environments in transportation construction, operation, and
performance. Accountability must be the watchword for every Department
of Transportation program.
Mobility is one of our country's greatest freedoms, but congestion
across all of our transportation modes continues to limit predictable,
reliable movement of people and goods, and poses a serious threat to
continued economic growth. Congestion no longer affects only roads in
larger urban areas, but is spreading across America. After a decline
following 9/11, our aviation system is once again nearing capacity, and
instances such as severe weather or a security alert can result in
gridlock of the system.
The Department of Transportation, under Secretary Mineta's
leadership, recently launched a national multi-modal initiative to
alleviate congestion in travel and freight movement. The initiative
provides a clear plan for Federal, state, and local officials to follow
for improving operation of our surface transportation system,
encouraging the development and deployment of new technologies and
construction methods, and expanding opportunities for private
investment in transportation infrastructure. If confirmed as Secretary,
I will continue to advance this comprehensive national congestion
strategy.
Public-private partnerships can bring much-needed capital to the
table, and market-based congestion solutions can provide a means to
fund infrastructure improvements and fight congestion. I recognize
these methods are not appropriate solutions in every situation, rather
they should be among the options available for state and local
government to use as they determine appropriate.
We cannot assume that methods of the past, whether for designing,
financing, constructing, or operating transportation infrastructure and
systems, will necessarily continue to be appropriate in the future. The
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission
Congress established in SAFETEA-LU is taking on exactly such issues for
surface transportation.
I was honored to be appointed by President Bush to serve on the
Commission and believe it affords a great opportunity for historic
changes in transportation policy. If you confirm my nomination to be
Secretary of Transportation, it will be my goal as Chair to ensure that
the Commission produces a comprehensive and timely report to inform the
next reauthorization of surface transportation programs.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, I believe my experience, my
understanding of state and local transportation needs, and my
commitment to ensuring the continued excellence of the American
transportation system will enable me to provide effective leadership
for the Department of Transportation in these challenging times. If I
am confirmed as the next Secretary of Transportation, I will work
closely with Congress, with President Bush and other members of his
Cabinet, and with our public- and private- sector partners to ensure
our nation and the American people are provided a safe, secure,
efficient, and effective transportation system now and in the future.
I sincerely appreciate the time you have given me today as you
consider my nomination. I will be pleased to respond to any questions
you may have.
______
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used):
Mary Elizabeth Peters.
Maiden name: Mary Elizabeth Ruth.
2. Position to which nominated: Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
3. Date of Nomination: September 7, 2006.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: information not released to the public.
Office: 3200 E. Camelback Road, Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018-
2311.
5. Date and Place of Birth: December 4, 1948, Phoenix, Maricopa
County, AZ.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Spouse: Terryl Gene Peters, Sr., Consultant Engineering, Inc.
(CEI), Construction Technician, Phoenix, AZ.
Children: Tamara Marie (Peters) Cleavenger, age 38; Terryl Gene
Peters, Jr., age 34; Christina Rose Peters, age 27.
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended: University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, B.A. Management, 1994.
8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs
that relate to the position for which you are nominated.
HDR Engineering, Inc, Sr. Vice President, Oct. 2005-present.
Federal Highway Administration, Administrator, Oct. 2001-July
2005.
Arizona Department of Transportation:
Director, March 1998-October 2001,
Deputy Director, July 1995-March 1998,
Deputy Director Admin., September 1992-July 1995,
Contract Administrator, January 1992-September 1992,
Contract Manager, July 1988-January 1992.
9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, state, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last 5 years.
Commissioner, National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue
Study Commission, June 2006-present.
10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational or other institution within the last 5 years.
HDR Engineering Inc., Sr. Vice President, Oct. 2005-present.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), Board Member March 1998-October 2001.
Western States Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (WASHTO), Board Member, March 1998-October 2001.
Women's Transportation Seminar, Member Washington, D.C. and
Phoenix, AZ Chapters, Member 1990-present; Advisory Board
Member 2001-2005.
National Leadership Conference of Women Executives in State
Government, Treasurer and Board Member, September 1999-October
2001.
Project Challenge, Board Member, February 1997-October 2001.
Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Board Member,
1995-2000.
Arizona Clean and Beautiful, Advisory Council Member and past
Board Member, 1993-1995.
11. Please list each membership you have had during the past 10
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age or handicap.
I have held no memberships with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership that
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age or handicap. My memberships during the past 10
years and current are as follows:
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), Board Member March 1998-October 2001.
Western States Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (WASHTO), Board Member, March 1998-October 2001.
Arizona State University, College of Extended Education, Deans
Council, October 1999-October 2001.
Grand Canyon State Employees Federal Credit Union, Past
President and Board Member, 1993-1995.
University of Phoenix, Alumni Advisory Council, September 1994-
October 2001.
Arizona Quality Alliance, Board Member and former Senior Judge,
March 1999-October 2001.
Women's Transportation Seminar, Member Washington, DC and
Phoenix, AZ Chapters, Member 1990-present; Advisory Board
Member 2001-2005.
Arrowhead Republican Women, Member 1997-2001 and September
2005-present (does not restrict membership to women).
National Leadership Conference of Women Executives in State
Government, Treasurer and Board Member, September 1999-Oct.
2001. (The organization, now defunct, was focused on
professional development for women leaders in state government,
and did not, to my knowledge, restrict membership on the basis
of gender.)
Project Challenge, Board Member, February 1997-October 2001.
Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Board Member,
1995-2000.
Arizona Clean and Beautiful, Advisory Council Member and past
Board Member, 1993-1995.
American Road and Transportation Builders, Public-Private
Ventures Committee, December 2005-present.
12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? I have never
been a candidate for public office.
13. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years.
Sen. Jon Kyl, $700.
Sen. John McCain, $500.
Bush for President 2000, $750.
Bush-Cheney 2004, $2000, $250, $200.
Bush-Cheney 2004 Compliance Committee, $600.
Hull for Governor, AZ 1998, $500.
14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.
Top 25 Most Influential Business Women, Greater Arizona Area,
1995.
Who's Who in Arizona Women, 1997 Person of the Year, Women's
Transportation Seminar 1998.
Most Influential Person in AZ transportation, AZ Business
Journal, 2000.
Scholarship, Harvard University, State & Local Government
Executive Program Kennedy School, 2000.
Woman of the Year Award, Women's Transportation Seminar, 2004.
Woman of the Year Award, Women's Transportation Seminar AZ,
2005.
American Road and Transportation Builders Assn. Award, 2005.
National Council on Public Private Partnerships Leadership
Award, 2005.
Am. Assn. of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Bartlett Award, 2005.
15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have
given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
Numerous speeches, articles, columns, etc., while
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 2001-2005.
Numerous speeches, articles, columns, etc., while Director, AZ
DOT, 1998-2001.
Speech, American Highway Users Alliance, May 2000.
Article, Associated General Contractors, Arizona Division,
2000.
Article, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, 2000.
Speech, AZ Alliance for Construction Excellence, 2005.
Remarks, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 2005.
Remarks, Tucson/Pima County, AZ Regional Transportation
Association, 2005.
Remarks, AZ Trucking Association, 2005.
Speech, Multi-State Highway Commission, 2006.
Speech, AZ Transit Association, 2006.
Presentation, Design Professionals Coalition, 2006.
Speech, AZ State University Distinguished Transportation
Seminar, 2006.
Presentation, Indiana Top Officials, 2006.
Article, Better Roads Magazine, 2006.
Article, Innovation Briefs, 2005.
Foreword to book, Street Smart, 2005.
16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and
specify the subject matter of each testimony.
Testimony before the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, Ground Transportation Subcommittee, U.S. House of
Representatives regarding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Planning
and Environmental Processes, September 13, 2000. Testimony was provided
in my official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of
Transportation.
B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers.
As required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(a), I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct
and predictable effect on my financial interests or those of any person
whose interests are imputed to me, unless I first obtain a written
waiver, pursuant to section 208(b)(1), or qualify for regulatory
exemption, pursuant to section 208(b)(2). I understand that the
interests of the following persons are imputed to me: my spouse, minor
children, or any general partner; any organization in which I serve as
an officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee; and any
person or organization with which I am negotiating or have an
arrangement concerning prospective employment.
When I began working at HDR, Inc., I received a signing bonus,
contingent upon my continuing to work for the company for a minimum of
2 years. This bonus is reported on Schedule A of my financial
disclosure report (SF-278) as a part of my ``salary and bonus.'' I am
contractually obligated to repay HDR, Inc., this bonus if my
resignation occurs within 1 year. As a result, upon my resignation from
HDR, Inc., I will promptly repay the signing bonus.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain.
No. Upon confirmation, I will resign my position as Senior Vice
President, HDR, Inc. Furthermore, pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 2635.502, for
1 year after I terminate this position, I will not participate in any
particular matter involving specific parties in which HDR, Inc., is a
party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
As required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(a), I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct
and predictable effect on my financial interests or those of any person
whose interests are imputed to me, unless I first obtain a written
waiver, pursuant to section 208(b)(1), or qualify for regulatory
exemption, pursuant to section 208(b)(2). I understand that the
interests of the following persons are imputed to me: my spouse, minor
children, or any general partner; any organization in which I serve as
an officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee; and any
person or organization with which I am negotiating or have an
arrangement concerning prospective employment.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 5 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
Upon confirmation, I will resign my position as Senior Vice
President, HDR, Inc. Furthermore, pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 2635.502, for
1 year after I terminate this position, I will not participate in any
particular matter involving specific parties in which HDR, Inc., is a
party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate.
My spouse is employed by CEI, Inc., from which he receives a fixed
annual salary. Pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 2635.502, I will not participate
in any particular matter involving specific parties in which CEI, Inc.,
is or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate.
5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
Testimony and discussions related to the SAFETEA-LU
transportation authorization legislation bills while
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 2003-2005.
Testimony and discussions related to appropriations bills for
programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration,
2001-2005.
Testimony, Indiana General Assembly, 2006 related to Major
Moves Legislation.
Testimony, Illinois State Senate Approps II, 2006, regarding
public-private partnerships.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
As required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(a), I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct
and predictable effect on my financial interests or those of any person
whose interests are imputed to me, unless I first obtain a written
waiver, pursuant to section 208(b)(1), or qualify for regulatory
exemption, pursuant to section 208(b)(2). I understand that the
interests of the following persons are imputed to me: my spouse, minor
children, or any general partner; any organization in which I serve as
an officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee; and any
person or organization with which I am negotiating or have an
arrangement concerning prospective employment.
Upon confirmation, I will resign my position as Senior Vice
President, HDR, Inc. Furthermore, pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 2635.502, for
1 year after I terminate this position, I will not participate in any
particular matter involving specific parties in which HDR, Inc., is a
party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate.
My spouse is employed by CEI, Inc., from which he receives a fixed
annual salary. Pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 2635.502, I will not participate
in any particular matter involving specific parties in which CEI, Inc.,
is or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate.
My spouse and I participate in defined benefit pension plans with
the Arizona State Retirement System. Therefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 208, I will not participate personally and substantially in any
particular matter that will have a direct and predictable effect on the
ability or willingness of the State of Arizona to provide these
contractual benefits to my spouse and me, unless I first obtain a
written waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption.
C. LEGAL MATTERS
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, state, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
state, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? If so, please explain.
I was named, in my official capacity as Director of the Arizona
Department of Transportation, in a civil rights action filed against
the agency. I had directly supervised two of the individual plaintiffs
at some time during their tenure with the agency. Without admission of
any fault on the part of the agency, a settlement was negotiated with
the plaintiffs on the class action suit. Cases for individual
plaintiffs have been adjudicated in favor of the State of Arizona. To
the best of my knowledge, other agency proceedings and civil litigation
relating to my matters occurring during my service at Arizona DOT from
03/98 to 10/02 have not referenced specific action by or relationship
to me personally.
As Federal Highway Administrator, from 10/02 to 07/05, I was named
in an official capacity in a number of lawsuits involving the Federal
Highway Administration. To the best of my knowledge, I (as well as the
Secretary and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator) was named
personally in only one lawsuit, filed in December 2001, which involved
the admission of Mexican owned trucks into the United States. The
complaint involved decisions going back to 1995, but at the time of my
appointment as Federal Highway Administrator in 2001, and thereafter,
the Federal Highway Administration had no role in deciding whether to
allow Mexican trucks to operate in the United States. This case was
dismissed by the Federal District Court in January 2003, a decision
which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in February 2004.
HDR, Inc. has received subpoenas from government investigators to
produce records pertaining to the collapse of a pre-cast concrete
ceiling panel in the I-90 Boston Marine Industrial Park Tunnel. HDR was
the designer of the tunnel structure (the concrete ``box'') in the
early 1990s. HDR was not the designer of the ceiling panels or the
hangers that collapsed. HDR is complying with all requests for
documents and is assisting the NTSB with the investigation.
HDR, Inc. has been named in a lawsuit filed by the family of the
woman who died as a result of the ceiling collapse. I had no
involvement with HDR's work on the I-90 Boston Marine Industrial Park
Tunnel.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination.
As director of the Arizona Department of Transportation, I had
responsibility over functions involving highways, roadways, structures,
aviation, transit, research, vehicle registration and driver license
functions, motor carrier licensing, motor carrier safety inspections,
titling and tax collection.
6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any
other basis? If so, please explain.
I was named, in my official capacity as Director of the Arizona
Department of Transportation, in a civil rights action filed against
the agency. I had directly supervised two of the individual plaintiffs
at some time during their tenure with the agency. Without admission of
any fault on the part of the agency, a settlement was negotiated with
the plaintiffs on the class action suit. Cases for individual
plaintiffs have been adjudicated in favor of the State of Arizona. To
the best of my knowledge, other agency proceedings and civil litigation
relating to my matters occurring during my service at Arizona DOT from
03/98 to 10/02 have not referenced specific action by or relationship
to me personally.
As Federal Highway Administrator, from 10/02 to 07/05, I was named
in an official capacity in a number of lawsuits involving the Federal
Highway Administration. To the best of my knowledge, I (as well as the
Secretary and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator) was named
personally in only one lawsuit, filed in December 2001, which involved
the admission of Mexican owned trucks into the United States. The
complaint involved decisions going back to 1995, but at the time of my
appointment as Federal Highway Administrator in 2001, and thereafter,
the Federal Highway Administration had no role in deciding whether to
allow Mexican trucks to operate in the United States. This case was
dismissed by the Federal District Court in January 2003, a decision
which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in February 2004.
D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Peters.
I think we'll have a round of questions, as I said. We'll
limit the first round to 5 minutes. I expect that almost every
member will come. We'll see how much time we'll take.
Let me start off by saying, you know, as the junior member
of this committee, I remember when we eliminated the Civil
Aeronautics Board. One of the mechanisms we put in place to
assure that small isolated areas would continue to get air
service, where needed, was the Essential Air Service program.
There have been a lot of comments about it. And, undoubtedly,
it needs to be reviewed and reformed. But have you had a chance
to examine that program? Do you know that program?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do know of the program,
and I know of its importance. It was certainly an important
program in the State of Arizona, as well. And, if confirmed, I
would look forward to working with you to continue that
program.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
We're also looking at two concepts. One is the next-
generation air transport system, and the other is a joint
planning and development office for that system. Are you
familiar with the background of what we've done so far on that
approach to that new system?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, yes, I have had the opportunity
to be briefed by Administrator Blakey, as well as others in the
agency, and would look forward to helping provide leadership
for that system. The coordination with other agencies, like DHS
and Department of Defense, as well as NASA, would be very
important in that regard.
The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that. We've got an
enormous problem with these new small business jets--I like to
call that the ``mosquito fleet''--that's going to enter the
system. And they're going to be very efficient aircraft. I'm
told that they'll consume about 35 percent of the fuel of the
existing planes of that size, 9 to 12 passengers. And they will
have about 40 percent of the weight of the current planes. But
they're going to enter the system, and primarily be used by
private executives. Have you looked at that problem and reached
any conclusion on how to handle the enormous number of new
planes that are going to enter the system?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the issue, and
aware of the incidence--the higher incidence of these planes in
the aviation fleet. I have not yet reached any conclusions as
to the impacts of those planes coming into the fleet, but, if
confirmed, would look forward to learning more about that issue
and working with you on that.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
Our Co-Chairman is here now. Senator, I did not make an
opening statement. We just went right into Ms. Peters'
statement. And I would call on you for any questions or
comments you might have.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. Well, I'd just like to congratulate the
nominee.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inouye. I had the great honor and privilege of
meeting her yesterday. And I'm supporting her.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, sir.
Senator Inouye. That's my statement.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Then we will go by the early bird rule here. The staff
tells me the next person who entered the room was Senator Lott.
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
having an expeditious hearing on this nominee. And
congratulations, Ms. Peters, on----
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
Senator Lott.--being nominated by the President to this
very important position as Secretary of Transportation.
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
Senator Lott. Mr. Chairman, I've had occasion in the past
to work with the nominee when she was at the Federal Highway
Administration, and I found it to be a very satisfactory
relationship, and we actually produced a result, and it led to
a completion of a project that had been in the mill for 40
years. And so, I know she can help make things happen.
I don't want to ask a lot of questions now, because a lot
of the questions I would ask you would be in areas that you may
not have been involved in in the past. But let me just say
that, as I told the nominee when I met with her, I think
transportation is a critical part of our society and our
economy. I think it's the best department in the government, in
terms of actually creating jobs and doing things for people. Of
course, the Defense Department obviously does a whole lot in
that area. But I just believe that we need to have an agenda, a
plan, and we need to be forward-leaning when it comes to
transportation and how we build our roads and bridges, and
doing more in the aviation area. We have so much we have to do
there. Next year, we have the reauthorization of the FAA coming
up. We have an air traffic control system that is just not up
to the standards that we're going to have to have.
We have had improvements in railroads, the short lines and
the big freight lines, but we need even more. We need more
capacity, and we need it soon. And Amtrak, we've got to decide,
do we want a national rail passenger system, or not? Do we want
some real reform, or not? Do we want it to be able to provide
good service, on-time service, you know, with input from the
states and the passengers, or not? We need leadership.
Now, I can just say that in Congress we're going to provide
initiatives in all these areas. As a member of the Finance
Committee, we have a tax incentive proposal to greatly
encourage the freight railroads to expand their capacity. We're
going to keep pushing on Amtrak until we get a reform. And so
on down the list.
So, as our new Secretary of Transportation, I challenge you
to get hold of this issue and get us moving forward. And I
think you're going to have to speak to the White House and OMB
a little bit, because they're not going to want to spend some
of the money. But there is never a better dollar spent, other
than for defense, than the money we spend on lanes, planes,
trains, ports, and harbors. So, I hope that you will provide
real leadership in this area.
Just a couple of specific questions with regard to your
appointment to the National Surface Transportation Policy and
Revenue Study Commission. Can you give us an update on how that
commission is going? I thought that was a good idea that could
give us some direction. But one of the things we need is an on-
time report from that commission. What do you know about that,
as a member of the Commission?
Ms. Peters. Yes, Senator, I can answer that question.
Senator, as a member of the Commission, we met, I believe, four
times before my nomination was moved forward, and I have
stepped out of that role for the duration of this nomination
process.
But, Senator, the Commission is looking at developing a
work plan that will address all of the issues that were
included in the legislation authorizing the Commission. There
has been much discussion among the Commission members, and I,
for one, have strongly stressed the need to complete that
report and submit it to Congress on time so that it can inform
the next surface transportation authorization.
I'm not sure that all of the other members of the
Commission shared that view, but, if confirmed, sir, I would
have the honor of chairing that commission, and would certainly
look forward to driving home the need to get that report
completed accurately, completely, and to you on time.
Senator Lott. Well, I hope that you will push that and get
it to us.
One of the other areas that I have developed some concern--
and it involves a conversion on my own part--is my concern
about safety in all of these areas--in trains, in planes, and
also in the highways. And we had a significant portion of the
highway bill that had safety proposals in it. We actually
changed our approach to states on seatbelts, for instance. And
instead of trying to punish them or threaten them or beat them
into submission, we gave them incentives, that if you pass the
comprehensive seatbelt laws, you'll get a little extra money.
And my state, which is always recalcitrant on being told by the
Federal Government what we have to do, within 6 months did it.
And we've seen, already, an improvement in our statistics with
regard to seatbelt use by people involved in accidents.
We also have asked your department, the appropriate
department, to look at some other safety proposals to see how
it might work with regard to child safety and some of the
rearview activities and how kids accidentally can knock cars
out of park and have them roll forward and kill children. So, I
hope that you will also take a look at some of these safety
initiatives that are being considered. I don't advocate doing
them just for appearance's sake, but if we can do some things
that would help in that area, I think it would be a very good
thing for you to focus on.
Ms. Peters. Senator, you have my commitment to do so. I
think the greatest tragedy is for a child to lose his or her
life in an automobile crash because they were not properly
buckled in or in a child restraint seat.
Senator Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Dorgan is next.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I intend
to support the nomination.
Let me congratulate Mary Peters. I think she has very
substantial experience directly in these areas, so I think this
is a good nomination.
And I would also join my colleague Senator McCain in
suggesting that it would make sense for us to move quickly on
this nomination. I think having vacancies in these top
positions in agencies is a hindrance, and I would hope we would
move quickly on it.
I want to mention just several things. First, Essential Air
Service. We have, in western North Dakota and eastern Montana,
particularly in the Williston area, an Essential Air Service
contract connecting Williston and Dickinson, to Denver, and
that contract--they had attempted to have a third flight a day
when it was reauthorized a few years ago. Since that time,
there has been substantial activity in the oil patch, and our
region has increased ridership over 23 percent in one city, and
12 percent in another. And I want to work with you and visit
with you about that, because we need to connect that increasing
activity in the oil patch to the hub in Denver with better EAS
service.
I also want to mention, on Amtrak, if I can, the Empire
Builder, which runs from--it affects a number of us on this
committee--it runs from Chicago to Seattle. The previous
Secretary, Norm Mineta, whom you succeeded, once said, ``Trains
that nobody wants to ride''--he was talking about long-distance
trains, and used the Empire Builder as an example--``Trains
that nobody wants to ride.'' I sure hope you'll dig into this
Amtrak issue, as Senator Lott indicated. Senator Burns knows
how important Amtrak is across Montana. I know how important it
is across our states. And it is full. Unbelievably popular.
It's a terrific service. And obviously Secretary Mineta didn't
know what he was talking about, hadn't done his research. But I
think all of us look forward to working with you on Amtrak.
Zeroing out Amtrak funding or coming in with a proposal that
would essentially eliminate all long-distance trains is not the
way I think the majority on this committee believes we should
approach this. So, I look forward to working with you on that.
And then, Senator Inouye has been very active--and I have
joined him--on this issue of a rulemaking with respect to
foreign control of U.S. airlines. That is very controversial,
as you know. Senator Inouye has proposed an amendment to
interrupt that. I've supported that amendment. I hope we can
have discussions about that issue, because I think that is--
that's very important.
So, those are a few of the issues. I talked to you about a
radar issue at--in our state, as well, at the Bismarck Commerce
Center.
But, having said all of that, I--you know, Mr. Chairman, we
have a lot of nominees that come to the Congress who are
marginally qualified--I shouldn't say ``a lot,'' but a number
of times someone's friend is nominated. You have a depth of
experience, I think, in transportation issues that's very, very
important.
I do want to mention one additional thing, and that is the
issue of surface transportation, the STB, with respect to
railroads. Again, my colleagues, Senator Rockefeller, Senator
Burns, and myself, have worked long and hard on the issue of
captive shippers. And to say that the STB does nothing is to
give them much greater credit than they deserve. It's an
unbelievably inept agency that--I mean, glaciers move more
rapidly than the STB on very serious issues that they are
confronted with. So, those of us on this committee, on a
bipartisan basis, who push and try to cajole and force the
actions on some of the important things for captive shippers,
who are really, literally held captive and are paying a massive
amount of extra money--our Public Service Commission estimates
that North Dakotans are overcharged by $100 million--$100
million a year. You know, we'd just like an agency to stand up
for the interests of consumers. And that has not been the case
for a long, long time. And, again, on a bipartisan basis,
Members of this committee would very much like some action.
That falls under your jurisdiction, at some point here, and we
hope to be able to visit and work with you on all of these
things.
I've not asked you a question, because we didn't have
opening statements. I know the Chairman said we could either
ask questions or make a statement. I wanted to at least alert
you to those issues of interest from the standpoint of one
rural state, North Dakota. And I look forward to working with
you, and I will look forward to seeing that--if we can get this
nomination to the Senate as expeditiously as possible.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
The Chairman. Well, for the interest of the members,
Senator Inouye has just consented that we'll have a vote after
the next vote on the floor. We will convene in the President's
Room to see if we can get an agreement to report out the
nominee's name for consideration by the Senate.
Senator Rockefeller?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would say, Ms. Peters, that if we're going to have a vote
on you after our next vote, that your situation doesn't sound
exactly dire to me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rockefeller. And, I think, for--I think, for very,
very good reason. You came to see me. We had a--we had a very
good talk. We discussed a number of issues. But the thing that
struck me most about you is your openness, your--the sense of
transparency about you, and that you, kind of, look for the
right solutions, and you're willing to stand by them, and
you're plainspoken in the way you do it. So, I just--I want to
praise you, and the President in his selection of you----
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
Senator Rockefeller.--because I think you're--I think
you're going to be terrific. And I agree with what Senator
Dorgan said about the transportation background. That's
important.
I'll just raise, a little higher than he did, the issue of
captive shipping. That drives most of our colleagues on this
committee crazy, but it ought to drive all of them, I think, in
the direction of trying to solve this, and it's a very--it's a
very simple thing. Staggers, who is a West Virginian--that
Staggers Deregulation Act of 1984, everybody got deregulated if
there were two lines going into a business, but the 20 percent
who weren't didn't get deregulated. And that's--when he was
referring to the STB--ICC, before that--there's never been any
movement on that. And then, there's the question of revenue
inadequacy. And the railroads always have inadequate revenues,
and then, as you're discussing that, you open up their annual
reports, and the revenues are overflowing in all directions.
And this is serious, because I don't know what the West
Virginia figures are. If his are 100 million, that means,
probably, ours are more, because there are so many chemicals
and coal and timber that comes out of our state--car parts, all
kinds of things. And I think it's just a question of a Cabinet
officer, sort of, grappling with that issue. And we've been--
I've been at it for 22 years, made absolutely no progress
whatsoever, and so have others. It affects every one of us
individually, as--virtually equally. Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison isn't here today, but, you know, Houston was just in
a mess--or parts of Texas were in a mess when a certain
situation happened down there. And it's got to be solved. And I
think your transparency creates an atmosphere for doing that. I
mean, maybe there would be a special meeting that you call. I
met with the head of one of the big railroads this morning, and
he seemed very open, accommodating in his attitude. Maybe
things are changing.
It isn't good enough to, sort of, take an individual
industry which is having a problem and then make an
accommodation to them, because that slides past the real
problem. But that's a hard one.
I would also mention the safety of motorists and
pedestrians who--at rural rail crossings. That's a huge thing
in West Virginia. And it's a--it's not just you, it's the DHS,
Coast Guard, TSA, the Corps of Engineers, all kinds of other
folks, local also, and the behavior of people. But it is an
enormous problem. And I won't ask for an answer right now, but
I would actually appreciate if you would, maybe, send me a
letter giving me some of your thoughts on what we do about
that, because the costs involved and the safety involved--like
you mentioned, the child with the seatbelt--well, this is, sort
of, Americans with a seatbelt for a period of a number of
yards. And a lot of people die as a result of this.
Another issue that I would just bring up is the--something
that we face very much in West Virginia, where we have--only 4
percent of West Virginia is flat. Everything else is either
going up or down. And so, that means that when you have as many
chemicals as we do, up and down the Ohio, and then into the
interior and the Kanawha River, so, it was really the
foundation state for chemicals--and so, there's the question
of, what do you do when there's an incident, whether it's a
terrorist attack or whether it's just a car that overturns? And
the way of systematically handling those problems is something
that is in your realm.
And I would conclude, with 12 seconds. I am ranking on the
Aviation Subcommittee here, and we've seen that the aviation
industry has been turned upside-down, as you very well know.
And its budget--the FAA's budget for dealing with these
things--the Congress has consistently rejected cuts to airport
construction funding. We ought to be redoing O'Hare Airport. I
was there 2 days ago. I mean, it's wildly inefficient for
today; very, very expensive. But the budget that gets submitted
for FAA construction is extremely important. You will have a
voice in that.
Ms. Peters. Yes.
Senator Rockefeller. And I want you to be sensitive to--you
know, we've had all kinds of things that have been taken from
our budget, but some of these things affect Americans every
single day.
And, with that, I'd just say that if you would think about
those, respond to me on the rail-crossing thing, and to say
that I'm going to very proudly vote for you. And evidently,
very soon.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Peters. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir.
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Next is Senator Burns.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Peters, thank you very much, and congratulations on
your nomination. And we're glad you're willing to serve.
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Senator Rockefeller was talking about
aviation, and the area of aviation. I think our challenges
there are a great deal more than they were before 9/11. All the
passengers are back in the air prior--we had prior to 9/11. But
the problem is, it's taking more airplanes to carry them. We've
got our regional jets now, not big--not as big as airports, but
making more frequent flights. I think that is--has to be put in
the mix. And general aviation--how general aviation is treated,
it will play, I think, an even larger role in the years to
come. And if decisions are made in the Department of
Transportation, in the FAA, or wherever, we've got to make sure
that the big and the small are considered, and to be at the
table.
And as we talked about--in surface transportation, I think
we're going to be facing great challenges in the terms of
capacity constraints in our network. The next 20 years, freight
shipments are expected to dramatically increase, placing
serious demands on roads, aviation, rail, and waterways. My
particular concern, as you know, relates to the role of what
freight rates--or the freight railways play in our nation's
infrastructure. I think we have a problem in the rail industry
that cannot be ignored any longer. There are capacity
constraints. I understand that. But most of those limitations
are a symptom of a much larger problem, the lack of meaningful
competition for rates and service in many parts of our country,
especially Montana, and I think Senator Dorgan alluded to that
for North Dakota a little while ago.
We've got to remember, the other day, the Surface
Transportation Board issued some rules on trying to deal with
small shippers, that they may have a place to obtain, but it's
anything under $200,000. That's--that is--that rule is not--I
don't think has a lot of merit to it. And we will probably
address that, some way or other, here in this committee.
But one has to remember that it is in the law now, in
Section 10101, in Title 49 of the U.S. Code-- ``...it is the
policy of the United States Government to allow, to the maximum
extent possible, competition and the demand for services to
establish reasonable rates for transportation by rail.'' But
there's also another line to that, ``to maintain reasonable
rates where there is an absence of effective competition.'' We
have to address that. And--because it's being reflected not
only in our grain that we ship from the State of Montana to our
ports, but the energy, the coal we ship from our--from ours
that goes into--that goes into electricity. And, of course,
ratepayers pay that. And we've seen a big increase there. And
we have to deal--now, we have to deal with it in the context of
what's good for the railroad, too, because we cannot operate
without good rail service. We can't--we have to have them. But
we're down to four. And so, we have to find some way--some way
that the small and the large can survive, and along with our
railroads, even our short lines and how we handle that.
And there are certain things that we can do, and we should
do in the near future, in order to address those problems and
still take care of the infrastructure that they need to improve
their capacity to move freight by surface transportation.
Amtrak, I will tell you, I want you to move some folks down
to the Department of Transportation.
Ms. Peters. You've mentioned that, sir.
Senator Burns. I mentioned that to you, and I think it--
because they have to be in the overall mix of our
transportation plan in this country. And everybody says there's
no--there's nobody who rides those trains across--the Empire
Builder. Try and get on it, because it's a pretty busy train
from Minneapolis to Seattle.
So, those are the areas that I think--and I look forward in
working with you in all of these challenges. I have no
questions now. Thank you for coming to the office and visiting
with us. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this
hearing. And let's us get this--let's get this person in the
seat that she deserves.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
I have to amend the statement I made, because absent
Senators may have questions for the record that you will need
to answer, so we will delay the vote on your nomination. But we
will meet off of the floor on the next vote after the questions
have been answered.
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
The Chairman. They will be presented to you in writing by
tomorrow at 10 o'clock.
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator DeMint?
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMINT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
express to you my full support for the nomination of Ms.
Peters. I appreciate her courtesy in coming by my office. She
has actually been to South Carolina to work on some innovative
transportation solutions. I think she is open to consider
innovative ideas.
I think we all know that the federal Department of
Transportation can do only so much, and I think it was the
thought of considering taking some of the road responsibilities
back to local and state governments while we look at national
infrastructure for rail and what we're going to do with
aviation may make sense at this time--and she seems willing to
look at some innovative ideas.
So, I appreciate her very much and look forward to
supporting her nomination.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Smith?
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mary Peters, I congratulate you on your nomination.
And I join my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, in
looking forward to voting affirmatively for your confirmation.
As we spoke in my office about a range of issues from
planes, trains, and automobiles, you've got a huge job. And I
know you're up to it, both personally and professionally.
You're a wonderful selection.
There are now reports coming out that the Highway Trust
Fund will be out of money by, or short of money by 2008. Yet,
Americans love to travel, and they particularly love their
cars. We previously spoke of the I-5 Columbia River corridor
that connects the States of Washington and Oregon, and the
congestion is so bad there that by 2 in the afternoon it's a
parking lot, and yet, it is a vital link for commerce and
transportation in our country.
So, obviously, I'm anxious to work with you and to learn of
any ideas you have to help us to alleviate the congestion on
our highways and how we're going to finance it.
Ms. Peters. I'll look forward to that, sir.
Senator Smith. I want to comment on the railroads.
Obviously, part of alleviating congestion on our roads is
investing in our rails. And the Federal Government has had a
minimal role in investing in rails. On the Finance Committee we
recently implemented a tax credit for the railroads to invest
in rails, and we find, in the operation of that tax credit,
that much of it was nullified by the AMT. The IRS is now coming
out with a ruling further restricting it, and, therefore,
frustrating the very unanimous--or near unanimous intent of
Congress.
Anything you can do to help us come up with ideas for how
we can obtain more investment in rails, both cross-country and
short line, would be appreciated. It is critical to relieve
congestion on our highways and to increase efficiency in our
transportation means.
I would also throw in my support for Essential Air Service.
Oregon has many rural places. It's a big state, geographically,
and rural airports cannot be forgotten. I appreciate anything
that you can do for those rural airports.
And I look forward to working with you on these issues.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon H. Smith, U.S. Senator from Oregon
Congratulations on your nomination. You have an excellent track
record on transportation issues, particularly road and highway issues.
I look forward to working with you in solving our nation's
transportation problems and developing Oregon's unique transportation
projects.
I have a great deal of interest in how this country is going to
address the increasingly congested and over burdened transportation
system. Our airports and airways are reaching their saturation point.
There is concern the Aviation Trust Fund is running out of money and
the aviation transportation infrastructure is outdated and overwhelmed.
Our highways are experiencing unparalleled amounts of congestion.
New construction projects can not keep up with demand. There are now
estimates that the Highway Trust Fund will be out of money as early as
2008.
A perfect example of this congestion is the Interstate-5 Columbia
River Crossing linking Oregon and Washington. Interstate-5 is a vital
commercial link along the Pacific coast. In its current state, the
congestion is so bad along this route that backups begin to occur at 2
p.m. in the afternoon. This congestion is currently choking the region,
restricting commerce along the corridor, costing our businesses extra
money in time and fuel and frustrating drivers of all types.
Our national transportation systems are reaching a critical point.
I expect you to put forth the necessary leadership to address these
problems and work with Congress to develop adequate, affordable, and
common-sense solutions.
There are a couple of issues I would like to raise. To begin with,
I am concerned with the Essential Air Service to the rural airports in
my state. In Fiscal Year 2007, the President's budget included a $59
million reduction for this vital program, from $109 million to $50
million. My hometown airport, Eastern Oregon Regional Airport in
Pendleton, is a recipient of EAS funds. Such a cut would hurt these
airports. I am aware that there have been efforts to change the funding
formula for this program and I suggest you work with Congress to make
the needed changes, these changes must be made without placing too much
of the financial burden on these small communities.
Oregon's medium-sized airports are expanding. Roberts Field in
Redmond now services San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Denver, Los
Angeles, Seattle, Eugene, and Portland. McNary Field in Salem has an
opportunity to add jet service to Salt Lake City in the coming months.
The airport has done an admirable job of improving its aviation
capabilities and the Salem business community stepped up with a
commitment of over $500,000 to expand the airport and make it suitable
for a major carrier use. In order to address this increased demand,
these airports must continue to expand to keep up with this expansion.
I hope that we can work together to ensure these airports receive the
support they need from the Department of Transportation.
We are shipping more products today, using all modes of
transportation, than ever before. As our economy continues to expand,
transportation demands will only increase. Railroads are an efficient
and safe means to transport goods, and a critical component of our
national transportation system. It is important that our railroads have
sufficient capacity to accommodate the shipping needs of our nation.
Sufficient rail capacity is not only important to the rail industry but
also to the overall health of our transportation system. Increasing
capacity and shipping more products by rail will also alleviate
congestion and strain caused by trucks on our Nation's highways.
Although our railroads do not receive Federal funding similar to our
highways, this mode of transportation is vital to our economy and our
nation.
Portland has a state-of-the-art light rail transit system. There
are other communities, such as Denver, Salt Lake, and Phoenix that are
passing local measures to match Federal funds for light and commuter
rail. The Federal funds needed to construct these types of projects are
going to have to grow to meet demand. I support these transit projects
as they lead to a high return on investment to help remove cars from
the roads, leading to less congestion and a cleaner environment. They
are easy to use, safe, and clean. I am interested in hearing your
thoughts on the expansion of these transit programs and how to fund
these increasingly popular transit systems.
Congratulations again on your nomination. I look forward to working
with you to update and grow our nation's transportation infrastructure.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Smith.
Senator Lautenberg?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And greetings,
Ms. Peters.
It looks like you have made a lot of friends in your
private discussions, and I, sort of, feel the same way, but
I've got a couple of questions to ask.
Ms. Peters. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg. The fact of the matter is that, while
we can't do much about the destruction that we get from extreme
weather and other conditions beyond our control, we can do
things to provide transportation. And I'd like to know that
you're going to tackle all the problems that exist for every
mode of transportation.
And so, let me start. Mr. Chairman, you will have full
opening statements in the record, I assume? Yes, he said.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, you didn't object, right?
OK.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing.
Like electricity and water, we need and expect our transportation
systems to work. Trains must run. Planes must fly. Roads must be paved.
Our personal livelihood and national economy depend on it.
If confirmed, we will look to Ms. Peters, to keep our system
running as Secretary of Transportation. With, freight cargo doubling,
our skies getting more crowded and cars and trucks stuck in congestion
on highways across America, you will have much to do to keep our
country moving. If Ms. Peters takes the helm at the Department of
Transportation, I hope she will focus on passenger rail.
This committee developed legislation to grow our nation's rail
infrastructure for high-speed corridor service--and provide $11.4
billion over 6 years to reauthorize Amtrak. Senator Lott and I hope to
debate that bill on the floor soon. The Amtrak bill will help bring
balance to our nation's transportation system. This year alone, we will
spend more on highways than we have in the last thirty-five years on
passenger rail.
Another area of concern is aviation. As you know, Conair Flight
5191 crashed in Kentucky. Forty-nine people were killed. Only one air
traffic controller was on duty--contrary to Federal Aviation
Administration policy. We already have 1,081 fewer controllers in our
towers than we did 3 years ago--and seventy percent of those
controllers can retire by 2011.
These are difficult problems, and I look forward to questioning Ms.
Peters.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. You certainly have experience on the
highway side of things, but future transportation needs of our
country will not be met by highways alone. I've met with
officials from the freight rail industry. And, you know, I'm
very concerned about Amtrak, and listen with interest as other
Senators from other parts of the country beside the Northeast
have shown today a serious interest in seeing that Amtrak
continues to operate and appropriate investments are being made
to bring it up to date. This year, we're going to celebrate the
35th anniversary of Amtrak. But the budgets tell us the true
story, that in a single year we spend more on highways than
we've spent on Amtrak improvement over the last 35 years. And
we just can't continue like that.
It was noted that the skies are going to be fuller with the
advent of the light jets. Right now we're trying to find room
in our national airspace for all the flights that we have--by
reducing separations and limiting flights at certain airports.
But I also note that there are shortages of air traffic
controllers. At Newark, for instance, Federal Aviation
Administrator Blakey has said we need 35 controllers for safe
operations, but we're 15 percent short. And so, we have to
continue to see that that population is built relative to the
need.
Ms. Peters, do you see a role for rail service as part of a
security measure dealing with emergencies like 9/11 or the
hurricanes, like Katrina? Do you see rail as an essential part
of that structure that helps us deal with these emergencies?
Ms. Peters. Well, Senator, I also agree that we need a
national passenger rail system. And I certainly, to respond to
your specific question, see a role for passenger trains, in
terms of evacuating areas. In fact, part of the emergency
response that is in place in the post-Katrina situation for the
Gulf Coast area is to use Amtrak to help evacuate people from
that area, should another hurricane come into the area.
Senator Lautenberg. I have a letter that you sent to
Senator Kyl. It goes back a few years, but it is about the
safety concerns with heavier, longer trucks. You wrote
``rollovers and jack-knifings by trucks already''--this was,
again 7 years ago--``already a problem on our interstates and
our highways. In addition to safety consequences, we're
reminded about the effect of additional weights on our highway
facilities, especially bridges.'' Do you still maintain that
view?
Ms. Peters. Senator, I do. I think safety has to be a
predominant consideration, and certainly the wear and tear on
our roads. If confirmed, I would look forward to discussing
that issue with you. There are circumstances where we could
perhaps define situations where longer and heavier trucks could
be safe, but I share your concern about making sure that safety
is always first in this issue.
Senator Lautenberg. The principal thing for us is to make
sure that we have this balanced highway system. And so, we've
discussed shortages in FAA controllers, the search for more
capacity in the airspace, on the freight rail lines, and
dealing with the congestion and pollution that we now get from
jammed highways. So, we have little choice. Senator Lott and I
have a bill that's sponsored by many of our friends here to get
Amtrak the Federal funding that would permit it to operate
without having to go out there with a tin cup every time they
need something. So, I'm hoping, Ms. Peters, that you will join
us in that quest to make sure that Amtrak gets the investment
that it needs to bring our country's passenger railroad up to
date.
Ms. Peters. Senator, I look forward to working with you.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks.
Mr. Chairman, are we going to have another 5-minute round?
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Pryor?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Peters, thank you for being here before the Committee
today.
Let me ask a couple of questions about trucking security.
Last week, the Senate passed the port security bill, and it had
some trucking security provisions in there to clarify authority
and responsibility when it comes to fraudulent CDLs, state and
local law enforcement, those type issues. I've noticed, in some
of my reading, that the FMCSA is considering a pilot program to
allow some long-haul Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate
throughout the United States. Do you know anything about that?
Ms. Peters. Sir, I have also heard that, Senator. And I
have asked the question. And there are no immediate plans to do
so.
Senator Pryor. OK. I'd--if there are plans, I'd be curious
about what statutory authority there is to do that. Do you know
what statute might give the agency that authority?
Ms. Peters. Sir, I do not. And I understand your concern
about the issue, and, if confirmed, would look forward to
getting to the bottom of the so-called rumors and addressing
the issue.
Senator Pryor. I'd say this, that--and I look forward to
working with you on this, but I would say this, that if DOT is
planning on moving forward, the kinds of things I would want to
know is, what legal authority is there? And then I would want
to know, is there some sort of agreement with Mexico to allow
U.S. safety inspectors and auditors to look at the trucks? Do
they have to meet the same requirements that U.S.-domiciled
carriers have to meet? Would they have to pay all the same
fees, the various registration, fuel taxes, those kind of
things? Would they have to do the international registration
plan, the IRP, and the internal fuel tax agreement? Would they
have to comply with all the same rules and regs that the U.S.
carriers would have to? So, as you look at that, I would very
much appreciate having a dialogue with your Department and
those agencies as that is being developed.
And the other thing I wanted to touch on, something you and
I talked about several days ago, is the real infrastructure
needs that we have in this country. I mean, we just talked
about trucking. Obviously, our highways are overcrowded. We all
know that in the trucking industry there's a driver shortage
right now. But you look at our railway system, it's about at
capacity in many places. Air Traffic Control Systems are
outdated. We've not done a great job of upgrading and
maintaining our locks and dams on our rivers. You know, we can
go through a long list of our needs. And I know part of your
responsibility is to try to address all those things. And I
know you've given that a lot of thought. But let me just ask my
question, then I'll let you answer.
In some of my reading, I read where you said that we can't
depend on the Federal Government to bring the money in, that it
was around--that was around when the interstate system was
first built. And I guess my question is, what does that mean?
When you say, ``We can't depend on the Federal Government to
have that same kind of money when the interstate system was
first built,'' what does that mean? That sounds like toll
roads, to me, but I'm curious to hear your response on how you
think the Federal Government will--or we, as a Nation--will pay
for these transportation needs that we have.
Ms. Peters. Sir, the basis of the remark was the fact that
the gas tax system which was put in place to finance the
interstate system is likely not going to be viable to help meet
all of our nation's transportation system needs in the future,
because of the greater incidence of hybrid or alternatively
fueled vehicles coming into the fleet, which is a very good
thing, in terms of air quality and other issues. So, the basis
of my remark was that we have to look beyond those traditional
methods of funding infrastructure to look for new and
innovative ways to bring a diversified set of funds to bear to
meet our nation's transportation needs.
Senator Pryor. Does--would that include toll roads?
Ms. Peters. It could very well, sir, yes.
Senator Pryor. Would that include toll roads on existing
highways, or just on new construction?
Ms. Peters. Sir, I believe that the intent right now is
only on new construction or improvement construction, but those
are decisions, as was mentioned by one of your colleagues, that
I think are better made, in most cases, by state and local
governments. However, the Federal Government certainly has an
interest, especially in our interstate system, in ensuring that
that system continues to serve all Americans, and, importantly,
serve commerce needs throughout the United States. So, it is an
issue that I would look forward, if confirmed, sir, to
discussing more with you and learning more about your position
on the issue.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Snowe?
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome you, Administrator Peters. And you certainly come
with, you know, the highest level of commendation with respect
to your past accomplishments and experience, so I'm very
pleased that you'll become the next Secretary of Transportation
because of your breadth of expertise in the areas that are
going to be so critical to the future.
I know some of my other colleagues on the Committee have
already referenced it, and I'm very pleased as well that we had
the opportunity to meet recently on some of the issues that I
consider to be critical, certainly to my State of Maine, as
also to, I think, the national transportation policy. But
obviously as we look to the future, one of the concerns that I
had, and I've expressed, is making sure that, you know, rural
states like Maine are not forgotten in the overall
transportation policy.
First of all, as I mentioned to you about Amtrak--and we
were fortunate to be one of the last states to have the benefit
of an extension of Amtrak from Boston to Portland, and it's
extremely successful, has a 92-percent, you know, customer
satisfaction rate, because of the outstanding services provided
to the people of Maine and the vicinity. It's worked
exceedingly well, so much so that we're looking to extend it
even further up into the State. It's heavily utilized. It's one
of the most successful routes--second-highest revenue routes in
the country. So, I think that there's no question this bodes
well for the future.
And one of the reasons for its success, as I mentioned to
you, was the Federal waiver that was granted to the State to
use the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds for that
purpose, and that will expire in 2009. Can you state for this
committee what your views are with respect to the use--the
flexibility using Federal transportation funds for this
purpose? Because that certainly has contributed to the success
for the Downeaster, the extension of Amtrak to Maine, and
certainly will in the future, and if--particularly if we want
to extend that service even further up because it's so heavily
utilized by the people in New England, in my state.
Ms. Peters. Senator, as a former state transportation
administrator, I very much encourage the exercise of local
discretion to use funding that is allocated to states, such as
Maine has done, to help support the Amtrak operation. In fact,
in terms of having a viable national transportation--rail
transportation system, I think having that kind of flexibility,
and state participation and involvement, will be essential in
the future.
Senator Snowe. Well, I appreciate that, because I think
that it is--I think it's going to be critical. You know, I
happen to believe in--and I gather you share that belief, as
well--that it is essential that the Federal Government play a
role in creating a strong national rail system. It is
absolutely essential that we have one, and one that--obviously,
that's going to provide--that's going to have the benefit of
Federal support. You know, hopefully we can move, you know,
further and further away from, you know, huge Federal
subsidies. I mean, that's obviously what we have striven for in
this committee over the years. But, nevertheless, I think it's
so vital and central to our overall transportation policy.
Second, on aviation, rural aviation--and, again, I know my
colleagues have raised this issue, but I do think it is
paramount--and that is, of course, regional airports, such as
those that exist in Maine, or Essential Air Service communities
that depend upon the Essential Air Service, you know, funding.
And one, of course, is the fact that--first, referring to the
operational evaluation plan--it seems that much of the focus in
the past of--by these plans--and certainly the most recent,
focused on the large hub airports--understandably so, because
of the congestion that exists at these hub airports. But, on
the other hand, what concerns me is what is occurring in, you
know, my state with the small regional airports, is that we're,
you know, losing--a loss of seats and overall--both in terms of
flights and seats in passenger service--there's no question
that our airports have been very hard hit over the years, and
yet it's pivotal and central to economic development.
So, I would like to get your views--one, in terms of
examining, you know, how you incorporate, you know, regional
airports and those that serve the rural states of this country,
in the overall plans for the future.
Ms. Peters. Senator Snowe, I do think it's essential to
have air service into our rural areas. You know, it's been over
25 years since deregulation of the aviation industry, and we--
we need, I think, to look again at how the service is working,
and look at the situations that you describe, and determine
where it's most appropriate to provide assistance to those
airports.
Having come from a state, also, with a large amount of
rural area, I do appreciate how important those regional
airports are, and think they have to be part of the complement
of transportation services in the future.
Senator Snowe. Well, I appreciate that. And I hope you will
give that consideration, since they play a premier role in the
development of our economies, as does the Essential Air Service
program that--you know, Maine is one of the--other than four
other states, we're the largest beneficiaries of that program.
It's absolutely vital to ensure that those airports receive
that service.
I'm also concerned about the Administration's proposed, you
know, community cost-sharing between the Federal Government--in
some cases as much as 80/20. It's something that we have
rejected in the past, and certainly, hopefully, will do so in
the future, because I think that places an inordinate burden on
those communities that depend on the EAS program. But in--it's
obvious it's going to have a paramount impact on them if they
have to--if they have to provide for the cost-sharing and they
see a reduction in the overall program, which--the
Administration has submitted, you know, a program and a budget
for that, for less than, I think, half of what exists today.
Ms. Peters. Senator, I absolutely understand your concerns
in that area and would be happy to get more information, should
I be confirmed, and follow up with you personally on that.
Senator Snowe. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Peters, I'm told that while you were reading your
opening statement this committee finally received clearance to
seek unanimous consent to pass the National Transportation
Safety Board reauthorization bill. Aviation safety is one of
our major concerns.
In Alaska, I was alarmed when I found that one out of 11
pilots were being killed in aircraft accidents, and we have the
highest number of pilots per capita in the country. We
developed what we called the Five Star Medallion Program, with
the help of the Department of Commerce and FAA, and we have
reduced significantly pilot deaths and increased safety in our
state.
I want to know if you're willing to come up and take a look
at that program and study it to see if it couldn't be
replicated throughout the United States, particularly the rural
areas of the United States.
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, it sounds like an exemplary
program, and one I would be very pleased to come to Alaska to
review.
The Chairman. I look forward to showing you a little bit of
my marine research capabilities, too.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Peters. Ah. I'll look forward to that, sir.
The Chairman. I want to get back to the whole problem of
financing. As other Senators have said, FAA will be
reauthorized next year. And we've had hearings now on aviation
investment needs. And I think we're going to have to have a
major session with the aviation communities in order to try and
develop a plan. We need a financing option that pulls in both
the increased needs, in terms of investment, and the
transformation to the next-generation air transport system. I
do hope that that is something that you will help us on. As a
matter of fact, we have one of your people here on this
committee as a fellow for a year to help find ways that we can
work together on that issue.
I've not talked about highway issues. We all know your
background is in highways. And so, all I can say is, is that we
have an increasing number of fatalities on our highways. I
think if we can't reverse that any other way, we're going to
have to restore the speed limits on interstate highways. We
have to find some way to reduce those deaths.
Ms. Peters. Yes.
The Chairman. And each year they're going up. So, I would
hope that we would have a chance also to work with you on that,
particularly with regard to the fatalities on our interstate
highways.
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, you have my commitment to do so.
There is no higher priority at USDOT than reducing the number
of deaths and injuries that occur on our nation's highways
every year.
The Chairman. Yes. I was appalled at some of the statistics
I saw today as we prepared for this hearing, and that is an
alarming rate of increase.
Let me now turn to Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Peters, you struck a note of alarm with me, which
passed because I ran out of time, but to say that you were
looking at the opportunity in--for areas where truck size and
weight standards could be changed, so long as it's done safely.
Now, if I look at your letter that I mentioned before, when you
were with the Arizona Department of Transportation, you talked
about the damage that results from heavier weights in the
trucks. And here, you're telling us--and we're laggard by
billions and billions of dollars in repairing bridges. We have
lots of functionally obsolete bridges across the country. And I
hear you say you're looking for opportunities to increase truck
weights--the size and the weights. Isn't that kind of a
reversal of position? And, if so, please let me know, because
that's not something that I would take to as a positive
indication of where you want to go.
Ms. Peters. Senator, please forgive me if I miscommunicated
on that. What I was referring to is that some states are
considering proposals for truck-only lanes, lanes where trucks
might be segregated from the rest of the traffic, with deeper
pavement depths, deeper pavements that would withstand the
weight of a truck better. If traffic could be segregated as in
those weight proposals--which some states are considering now--
that is what I was referring to. I was not referring to lifting
the ``Longer Combination Vehicle'' freeze or the truck size and
weight limits. The position that I took in that letter, back 7
years ago to Senator Kyl, remains my position.
Senator Lautenberg. OK. I just wanted to be sure that we're
on the same truck length, as they say.
And the matter of foreign ownership of our airlines,
ownership and control, that's a matter of great concern to me,
and to many of us. U.S. airlines are important national assets.
And I'd be wary and resistant to the notion that we might turn
over--let control be taken by foreign owners. I think it's a
bad idea, for many reasons. But do you intend to--if you're
confirmed, to pursue changes in the rules on foreign ownership
of U.S. airlines?
Ms. Peters. Senator, I certainly have heard your concerns,
as well as those of many other Members of this committee, and
of Congress, as well, and I do understand that there have been
comments received by the Department on a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking as it relates to the control of airlines. I
commit to you that I will carefully review all of those
comments, and review them with you, and talk with you, before
the Department makes any decision on that issue.
Senator Lautenberg. You're aware of the fact that there is
a strong interest, in our region, to open up another rail
tunnel under the Hudson River----
Ms. Peters. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg.--so that we can increase the capacity
to allow enough trains to go through there. And I'd like to
know that you will at least consider seriously the requests for
help from you to make sure that we get going with that project.
That's a project of national interest, even though the tunnel
is between New York and New Jersey, because right now it is the
biggest bottleneck on the entire Northeast Corridor from here
to Boston. And so, can I have an indication of the fact that
you're--that you understand the need for this tunnel and will
be helpful to us as we pursue a way to get it done?
Ms. Peters. Senator, certainly. I certainly appreciate the
need for that tunnel, and have had an opportunity to work with
my former colleagues, Jack Lettiere, as well as Joe Boardman,
who are now in different positions, but have impressed upon me
the need for transportation solutions in that area.
Senator Lautenberg. Now, I don't want to ask any questions
that might be interpreted as being on the personal side, but
you're a motorcycle rider, are you not?
Ms. Peters. Yes, sir, I am.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you always wear a helmet?
Ms. Peters. I never ride without a helmet, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. I just wanted to be sure, because----
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg.--everybody--I would buy you one, if you
didn't have one.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Because I had a ski accident a couple
of years ago on my skis. The helmet that I was wearing was 2
days old, and I've been skiing 60 years, and it virtually saved
my life. I had to go in for emergency surgery as a result of
that.
That was for foolishness, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Ms. Peters. I look
forward to working with you.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. A bike rider, huh?
Ms. Peters. Yes, sir, an avid motorcyclist. In fact, I own
two.
The Chairman. You've got another one down there at the
White House, in Josh Bolten. Now we understand why you move so
quickly.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We thank you very much. As I said, there are
some absent Senators and we have agreed that they will have
until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning to file questions. As soon as
those answers are received, we will move to consider reporting
your nomination to the floor, in a meeting held in the
President's Room off the floor. I cannot tell you exactly when
that time will be. It depends on how long it takes you to
answer those questions.
We do thank you very much for your appearance today, and I
think you've been very frank to all these people. You've made
some promises that I'm not sure you can keep, but that's all
right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. I'll be hanging over there, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I understand. We do have a fairly bipartisan
approach to many issues, particularly in transportation here in
this committee. I look forward to working with you, along with
our Co-Chairman and members on both sides of the aisle. You
have a grand assignment. It's a very difficult one. We wish you
very well.
Ms. Peters. Thank you so much, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you. The Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of George Chilson, President, National Association
of Railroad Passengers
I commend the Bush Administration for nominating Mary Peters to
lead USDOT. Her comprehensive vision of transportation makes her an
excellent choice.
I had the pleasure of working with her when she was director of the
Arizona Department of Transportation. I found her to be smart, creative
and action oriented as well as open-minded and willing to listen. I was
most impressed by the fact that she had a strong belief in multi-modal
transportation.
I believe she understands that rail will become an increasingly
important component of our transportation system as we confront the
dual challenges of intractable congestion and rising oil prices. Rail
represents a strategic solution that will help preserve America's
mobility, quality of life and competitive position in a global economy
as we adapt to new realities.
If confirmed as Secretary of Transportation by the Senate, she will
have an important opportunity to broaden the scope of Federal
transportation policy beyond its traditional emphasis on highway & air
transportation. Her talent for finding common ground among competing
and diverse interests makes such an important change possible.
There is increasing recognition that public investment in rail
infrastructure is essential just for freight railroads to maintain
their existing market-share, much less increase it as most Americans
including DOT officials would like. Maintenance and growth of rail's
market share is critical for maximizing safety, fluidity and energy
efficiency of our national transportation system, and for minimizing
that system's environmental impacts.
The Alameda Corridor in southern California and the CREATE project
in Chicago are happy exceptions to an overall pattern of Federal non-
involvement in rail infrastructure investment. Railroad trackage in the
New Orleans area has needs similar to those in Chicago. One of Ms.
Peters' challenges will be to make critical investments in rail the
rule rather than the exception. We look forward to working with her on
this.
If Ms. Peters succeeds in finding ways that incorporate rail within
the scope of Federal transportation policy and planning--as I believe
she will--her appointment will prove to be a transforming event that
will serve the American people well for generations to come.
NARP urges speedy confirmation of Ms. Peters and looks forward to a
productive dialogue with her about the future of passenger rail in
America. Thank you for considering our views.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
General
Question 1. What do you believe are the significant challenges
facing the U.S. transportation system? Do you believe that the
Department of Transportation is doing all that is necessary to prepare
the Nation for the transportation challenges ahead?
Answer. The most significant challenges facing the U.S.
transportation system are safety, system reliability, and the
uncertainty of future funding sources. I believe that the Department is
confronting each of these issues head-on, and if confirmed, my goal
will be to make significant advances in each area during my tenure.
Question 2. The Department of Transportation is a collection of
stove-piped modal agencies, with modal-specific programs and
responsibilities. Do you believe this structure restricts the ability
of the Department to address the needs of our multi-modal
transportation system?
Answer. While it is true that the Department's modal
administrations were established with specific programs and
responsibilities, I believe the Department can and will continue to
evolve to meet the Nation's transportation and economic needs by
building links across those administrations to address new developments
in safety, multimodal travel, and international transportation Breaking
down traditional stovepipes was an important goal of Secretary Mineta's
and one that I also intend to embrace if confirmed.
Amtrak
Question 3. As Secretary, you will have a position on Amtrak's
Board. Will you regularly attend the Board meetings or do you plan to
have a designee attend on your behalf?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to appoint Federal Railroad
Administrator Joseph Boardman as my designee on the Amtrak Board, and
will remain informed of the issues before the Board.
Question 4. What is your personal vision for the future of
intercity passenger rail in the Nation?
Answer. I support a national rail passenger system. I believe the
system must be operated on a sustainable business model and deliver
maximum benefits to consumers while recognizing the need to invest the
taxpayers' money wisely.
Question 5. Do you agree with the Administration's Amtrak
reauthorization proposal and previous suggestions that Amtrak should be
reformed through bankruptcy?
Answer. I support the Administration's desire to have a national
rail passenger system that is driven by sound economics. I do not
believe that bankruptcy should be the preferred route to reform.
Question 6. Do you believe that multi-year, dedicated funding is a
critical aspect of the Federal highway, transit, and aviation programs?
Should such multi-year and dedicated Federal funding exist for major
intercity passenger rail capital projects for use by Amtrak or the
states? If so, what should be the funding sources and how should the
funding be distributed? If not, why is Federal multiyear, dedicated
funding not appropriate for major passenger rail capital projects?
Answer. I will support dedicated funding for a national passenger
rail system that is operating on a sustainable business model. I
believe that multi-year funding should be established through a
reauthorization and if confirmed, I look forward to working with
Congress to pass such legislation. I am sure the structure and source
of such funding will be the subject of a lively debate and I look
forward to discussing that issue with Congress and the stakeholder
community.
Question 7. What is your personal opinion of S. 1516, the Passenger
Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2005?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to study S. 1516 in great
detail. However, I do support a national rail passenger system, and I
understand S. 1516 incorporates a number of key reforms. If confirmed,
I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to pass a long-
term reauthorization to end the annual funding crisis that Amtrak has
operated under for too many years now.
Question 8. According to Amtrak data, three Amtrak lines--the
California Zephyr (Oakland, CA to Chicago, IL), the Coast Starlight
(Seattle, WA to Los Angeles, CA), and the Sunset Limited (Los Angeles,
CA to New Orleans, LA) --were more than 4 hours late over 50 percent of
the time in the month of June. This has been the case for the Coast
Starlight for the entire Fiscal Year (since October 1, 2005). As
Secretary, will you commit to reviewing this situation, determining the
causes of delays, and help to ensure that Amtrak's passenger trains are
not unnecessarily delayed?
Answer. The success of a national rail passenger system is
predicated on on-time, quality service. Amtrak cannot be successful if
its trains continue to run late. I recognize that this is an area that
Amtrak and the freight railroads, which control the right-of-way over
which Amtrak operates, must address and I commit that the Department
will be engaged on this issue if I am confirmed.
Motor Carrier Safety
Question 9. In 1999, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) set a goal of reducing truck fatalities by 50
percent by 2008, but it does not appear likely that this goal will be
achieved under present conditions. Truck fatalities increased from
5,190 in 2004 to 5,226 in 2005. What would be your first actions as
Secretary to reduce motor carrier crash deaths and injuries? What can
the Congress do to make the most immediate improvements in truck
safety?
Answer. If confirmed, safety would continue to be the Department's
top priority. Congress, by passing SAFETEA-LU, has equipped the
Department with additional tools to prevent truck deaths and injuries
and one of my first actions as Secretary would be to ensure that FMCSA
aggressively implements the relevant provisions of that legislation.
Question 10. FMCSA is preparing a rulemaking on the installation of
Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBR) to verify driver hours of service
regulation compliance. When will this rule be released?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the Electronic On-Board
Recorder (EOBR) NPRM and work with FMCSA to expedite the rulemaking
process.
Question 11. FMCSA has suffered the embarrassment of having had two
of its major rules, one on commercial driver hours of service limits
and the other on minimum training requirements for entry-level
commercial motor vehicle operators, overturned by the U.S. Court of
Appeals. Consumer, health and safety groups have sued the agency again
on the Hours of Service rule because FMCSA essentially re-issued the
identical rule overturned by the Court. How would you approach this
rule if it should once again be thrown out by the Court?
Answer. If confirmed, I will always consider input from stakeholder
groups on existing and proposed regulations, while at the same time
ensuring that safety remains the Department's first priority. On the
hours of service suit in particular, I will respectfully refrain from
commenting while a judicial decision is pending.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
Question 12. Do you support the Railroad Rehabilitation and
Infrastructure Financing Program that was expanded in the SAFETEA-LU
legislation?
Answer. If confirmed, I assure you that the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) will continue to implement the law.
Question 13. Are you supportive of Federal financing for freight
railroad projects that have significant national public benefits?
Answer. I recognize that our freight rail infrastructure needs to
be upgraded and that there may be specific areas where public funds are
justifiable, such as those that involve highway-grade crossing
separation and highway congestion relief The Chicago Region
Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program is a good example
of a potential public-private partnership that can yield numerous
public benefits. I look forward to meeting with the railroads to better
understand their capital investment needs, and am also interested in
exploring potential tax credits for rail infrastructure development.
Question 14. The Federal rail safety program authorizations have
been expired since 1998 and the Department has not put forward a
reauthorization proposal for rail safety since 2003. As Secretary, will
you push the Department to release a rail safety reauthorization
proposal?
Answer. I am aware that DOT launched the National Rail Safety
Action Plan last year, which was issued in response to several major
accidents. However, DOT must do even more to reduce the number of train
accidents, including those that involve highway-rail grade crossings,
and this means enhancing rail safety throughout the industry. If
confirmed, rail safety will be a major focus of mine and I will work
with Administrator Boardman to determine how best to accomplish the
Department's rail safety priorities.
Question 15. One of the National Transportation Safety Board's
``Most Wanted'' recommendations is to require the equipping of mainline
railroads with Positive Train Control (PTC) technology. Do you believe
that freight railroads should be required to implement this safety
technology as its effectiveness and availability increases?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Federal Railroad
Administration continues to work with industry to implement new
technologies that will create a safer rail system; however, I do not
know enough about this technology at this time to say it should be
required for all railroads. If confirmed I will ask Administrator
Boardman to brief me and will consult with industry stakeholders and my
colleagues at the NTSB.
Question 16. Some rail carriers have proposed voluntarily
installing PTC systems on their railroad, but only if they could
operate certain trains over such systems with a single crew member. As
Secretary, would you commit to ensuring that the safety aspects of any
such single-person crew operations were thoroughly evaluated before
such operations commenced?
Answer. DOT's core mission is safety. I assure you that no decision
will be made on any issue until its impact on safety is fully
addressed.
Question 17. I joined Senator Lott in introducing a bill that would
provide tax credits to freight railroads for infrastructure and
capacity expansion. Do you support this approach? Do you believe
Congress should look at something similar for promoting the development
of passenger rail capacity and infrastructure?
Answer. I recognize that the rail transportation network will need
added capacity to meet the freight demands for the next several
decades. I look forward to working with you and industry stakeholders
to discuss ideas that could spur additional investment in rail
infrastructure.
Highways
Question 18. Are there circumstances under which the new tolling of
existing interstates might be appropriate?
Answer. Under current law, there is limited authorization to do so
under the Interstate Toll Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Toll Pilot
and the Value Pricing Program. I support states' having this
flexibility to finance important reconstruction and rehabilitation of
their Interstate routes and to manage congestion.
Question 19. In your nomination hearing, you mentioned that the gas
tax is unlikely to be a sufficient source of Federal funds for surface
transportation improvements in the future. What other sources of
revenue do you believe the Congress should consider? Is moving to a
mileage-based use tax for automobiles and motor carriers, given the new
technologies that are available, an option?
Answer. I believe that we need to explore any number of innovative
financing mechanisms. For example, a 2005 special report from the
Transportation Research Board recommends expanded use of tolling and
road use metering (as your question suggests) among other long-term
alternatives for transportation funding. I believe we should explore
all innovative possibilities that will allow us to maintain a vibrant
and effective transportation system. I look forward to working with
Congress and surface transportation stakeholders in this endeavor.
Question 20. There are still significant restrictions on how states
can use Federal transportation funds to enhance the mobility of people
and goods in their regions. Do you believe that more flexibility needs
to be provided to the states in their use of Federal funds so that they
may invest in intercity rail and transit options that reduce road
congestion, energy-use and protect the environment?
Answer. While I understand that providing funds by program category
enables Congress to target resources according to national needs and
priorities, I believe it is important to provide states significant
flexibility to transfer funds among programs in order to improve their
ability to choose the best mix of solutions to meet their individual
transportation needs. For example, programs like the Surface
Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) offer broad eligibilities for
funding highway and transit projects.
The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission
is currently examining future transportation program direction, as well
as funding alternatives. If confirmed, I look forward to chairing the
Commission and presenting programmatic recommendations to the Congress
next year.
Question 21. How will you as DOT Secretary implement the language
in SAFETEA-LU that requires state and metropolitan transportation plans
to ``accomplish'' the planning objectives set out in the preamble of
the planning section of the law, to support mobility and economic
development while minimizing fuel use and emissions? This provision in
law is designed to ensure state and metro areas focus on considering
options to boost transportation system performance to cut congestion
while protecting our nation's energy security, and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and health-threatening air pollution. There is concern
that the proposed DOT planning rule slated to be finalized in a few
months failed to even mention that requirement. Will you, as Secretary,
ensure the final DOT planning rule includes clear criteria for state
and metro areas to demonstrate their compliance with this statutory
requirement?
Answer. As Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration,
environmental stewardship and reducing congestion were priorities of
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). I believe that these remain
high priority goals of the FHWA as well as the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), and I will continue them as high priority goals,
if I am confirmed as Secretary.
SAFETEA-LU changed the transportation planning and transportation
conformity process to more closely align the transportation and air
quality planning horizons for purposes of transportation conformity,
and to better integrate the transportation planning and air quality
planning processes.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that, in air quality non-
attainment and maintenance areas, transportation plans and improvement
programs demonstrate they conform to the air quality goals of state
implementation plans through the transportation conformity process.
This integration of transportation planning and air quality planning
processes will ensure that the continued reduction of motor vehicle
emissions and the improvement of air quality, while reducing
congestion.
Question 22. A growing number of cities--London, Oslo, Stockholm,
Singapore, and others--have put congestion charges on existing roads to
manage traffic and support expanded travel choices and better
transportation, typically cutting congestion delay by a third, reducing
pollution, and sharply boosting use of public transportation. On
Sunday, voters in Stockholm, Sweden, affirmed their support to
reinstate such a congestion charge on existing roads into and out of
central Stockholm after a 6 month pilot project, again demonstrating
the popular appeal of true traffic congestion relief strategies. The
USDOT Congestion Initiative, advanced by Secretary Mineta in May 2006,
has been promoting consideration of this promising performance-oriented
transportation management strategy by major U.S. cities. What will you,
as DOT Secretary, do to help encourage such initiatives that might
deliver real relief from traffic problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to carry this important
initiative forward, as I share Secretary Mineta's concern about
congestion on our highways, railways, airports and seaports--and the
staggering costs this congestion imposes on families and businesses.
I believe there is much that the United States and U.S. cities can
learn from Stockholm's congestion pricing demonstration, and we will
continue to watch the results closely as Stockholm implements a more
permanent pricing system. It's my understanding that several American
cities are very interested in what Stockholm accomplished during the
demonstration and the positive effects that pricing have had on
congestion and the environment.
The Department's National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on
America's Transportation Network offers incentives to a state, city,
county or locality that can commit to a broad congestion pricing or
variable toll demonstration similar to Stockholm. If confirmed, I will
continue to reach out to Congress, our state DOTs, Governors, and
municipal leaders to educate them on congestion reducing strategies.
Question 23. You are a big supporter of public-private partnerships
(PPPs) in transportation. These have been used in the U.S. to date
largely to extract cash up front from existing publicly-owned toll
roads and to attract private investment to build new roads faster than
they could be delivered by the public sector. Some have raised concerns
that this may not produce cost-effective congestion relief, but could
leave behind an increasingly dysfunctional network of existing roads.
Pat DeCorla-Souza, a senior staff person at the Federal Highway
Administration and Michael Replogle at Environmental Defense have
recently suggested that public agencies use PPPs to contract directly
for performance, inviting concessionaires first to better operate and
manage existing corridors, rewarding them based on the number of people
and amount of freight moved without congestion while meeting
environmental performance standards. Will you, as DOT Secretary, help
encourage wider consideration and use of these innovative approaches
and a ``fix-it-first'' approach to PPPs?
Answer. I am a supporter of public-private partnerships (PPPs).
Although the financial aspects of PPPs are most commonly discussed, we
use the term ``public-private partnership'' more broadly to refer to
contractual agreements between a public agency and private sector
entity that allow for greater private sector participation in the
delivery of transportation projects. There are opportunities for the
private sector in the operation, maintenance, and management of a
highway facility or corridor, beyond existing toll road concessions and
building new roads faster and cheaper. In these cases, it is possible
to structure contracts so that contractors are paid on a fixed fee
basis or on an incentive basis, where they receive premiums for meeting
specified service levels or performance targets. If confirmed as
Secretary, I will encourage wider consideration and more innovative
approaches to partnering with the private sector in appropriate
circumstances.
Question 24. FHWA has apparently determined that Tribal Governments
are not eligible to apply for the Safe Routes to School program,
stating that ``Since Congress did not specifically list federally-
recognized Indian tribal governments as eligible grant recipients,
state DOTs may and should find another means for reaching this
important constituency.'' Some believe that FHWA has the latitude to
make grants directly to Tribal Governments, but has chosen instead to
interpret the statute very narrowly. Do you agree with this
interpretation?
Answer. Coming from a state with a large tribal population, I am
sensitive to the needs of this important constituency; however, I am
not familiar with the FHWA's interpretation of this provision of
SAFETEA-LU. I understand that the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee recently included in its technical corrections bill a
provision for making Indian tribal governments eligible grants
recipients under the Safe Routes to School program, and if confirmed I
would support that provision.
Question 25. The DOT has found, through its Highway Cost Allocation
Study, that certain trucks operating on our interstate system do not
cover the costs related to the damage they cause to highway
infrastructure through the various excise taxes paid by motor carriers,
thus resulting in a subsidy which skews the freight transportation
marketplace. As Secretary, what will you position be on subsidies such
as these that advantage one transportation mode over another?
Answer. I believe that user fees should recover costs imposed by
the user on the transportation system. This principle should be applied
to all users and all modes of transportation to ensure the efficient
allocation of infrastructure investment. On the highway side, the
Department is studying alternatives to the Federal fuel tax that better
reflect a vehicle's actual use of highway resources, rather than the
amount of fuel it consumes. These alternatives include mileage-based
fees that can be varied to reflect the number of axles and weight of
the vehicle, the functional class where the vehicle is operated and the
volume-to-capacity operating condition of the roadway. I understand
that the Department is also currently conducting an update of the 1997
cost study, to provide a more recent context for analysis of user fees
relative to cost responsibility.
Transit
Question 26. I understand that you have been a strong proponent of
private investment in public infrastructure. Clearly, there are some
public infrastructure projects, such as public transit systems, that
have a limited ability to attract private investment. Will you, as
Secretary, be requiring transit applicants for Federal funds to first
seek private investment in their project before approving a grant for
Federal funds?
Answer. No. With public funding--whether it be Federal or state or
local--becoming increasingly scarce, I believe we must begin to
consider innovative financing ideas, for all modes of transportation,
including transit. However, I have no plans to require transit
applicants to seek initial private investment.
Maritime
Question 27. The Nation's port facilities are facing record growth.
The DOT has apparently prepared a ``SEA-21'' port infrastructure
proposal, but this has been held up by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and has never been publicly released. What are your views
on the status of the Nation's existing port infrastructure and its
capacity to meet the growing throughput demand as international
commerce continues to expand? Will you push to have the ``SEA-21''
proposal released?
Answer. Like most of our nation's infrastructure, our ports are
increasingly congested and are at or nearing capacity. Congestion is
one of the single largest threats to our economic prosperity and way of
life. The Department is working to address this serious problem through
its National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation
Network announced in May 2006 by Secretary Mineta. Through this
initiative, the Department is using its resources and expertise to help
its partners at the state and local levels use their existing
transportation networks better and to add capacity where it makes the
most sense, and develop better policy choices to reduce congestion. As
Federal Highway Administrator, I was not involved in the development of
the SEA-21 proposal and was not aware of where it was (or is) in the
process. However, if confirmed, I will work closely with Administrator
Connaughton and Congress to determine how best to address our nation's
maritime needs, including moving forward with a legislative proposal.
Question 28. Do you fully support the Jones Act and the related
cabotage laws like the Passenger Vessel Services Act? If so, how do you
intend to ensure the protection and expansion of the U.S. maritime
fleet both domestically and internationally?
Answer. I fully support the Jones Act and related cabotage laws. If
confirmed, I will work closely with Administrator Connaughton to ensure
that both the spirit and the letter of such laws are adhered to in
order to ensure the continued vitality of the U.S.-flagged fleet.
Aviation
Question 29. Do you agree that the Secretary of Transportation is
required to consider several objectives as being in the public
interest, including: keeping available a variety of adequate, economic,
efficient, and low-priced air services; encouraging, developing, and
maintaining an air transportation system relying on actual and
potential competition, and; encouraging entry into air transportation
markets by new and existing air carriers and the continued
strengthening of small air carriers to ensure a more effective and
competitive airline industry?
Answer. Yes, I agree with these objectives.
Question 30. While it appears the DOT has opted not to move forward
on the issue of foreign control of U.S. air carriers prior to this
year's elections, there have been indications that the Administration
intends to fmalize a deal on this matter before the end of the year. Do
you support a year-end timeline for permitting foreign ownership
despite the clear objections raised by the Congress through
overwhelming votes in both Houses over the past months?
Answer. While I was not involved in the development of the
Department's proposed rulemaking, I can assure you that, if confirmed,
I would carefully review the comments and that I would be fully
committed to discussing these matters with Congress before the
Department makes any decision.
Question 31. While it is the Department's job to interpret and
enforce the laws, it is the Congress' prerogative to enact laws. Do you
prefer the current approach of using a rulemaking to alter the meaning
of ``actual control'' of U.S. air carriers to move foreign ownership
forward, or would you rather see a legislative fix in which the
Congress determines an acceptable process for allowing increased
foreign investment in domestic airlines?
Answer. I was not involved in the development of the Department's
proposed rulemaking. I understand Congress' interest in this matter. If
confirmed, I can assure you that I would carefully review the comments
filed by interested parties and that I would be fully committed to
discussing these matters with Congress before the Department makes any
decision.
Highway Safety
Question 32. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) has set a goal of achieving a 1.0 fatality rate per 100 million
vehicle miles traveled (MVMT) by 2008. However, recent decreases in the
fatality rate have only been incremental. In 2005, the fatality rate
actually increased for the first time in twenty years. At the same
time, the actual number of highway and traffic fatalities has increased
almost every year since 1992, reaching a total of 43,443 in 2005, the
highest number of fatalities in over a decade. How does the Department
intend to achieve a fatality rate of 1.0 per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled by 2008? What specific steps are you going to take as
Secretary to ensure that future National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) undertakings are directed at reducing the
fatality rate?
Answer. Like you, I am troubled by the increase in the fatality
rate in 2005. As FHWA Administrator, I made highway safety my highest
priority and worked closely with the Administrators of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop strategies for
reducing fatalities and injuries. Should I be confirmed, I plan to
continue placing a heavy emphasis on safety initiatives and programs.
For example, it is important to incentivize states to implement key
highway safety programs such as primary and secondary seat belt laws
enforcement of drunk driving laws, and motorcycle helmet use.
Question 33. The CAFE Program was funded at approximately $20
million annually at the program's inception through the 1980s. In 2006,
the CAFE Program was funded at $1.6 million, and the CAFE Program staff
is entirely reliant on data provided by the auto industry and has no
ability to do independent assessments. The fines collected from CAFE
are currently deposited in the Treasury. Would you be willing to
consider redirecting CAFE fine receipts back to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the purpose of supporting
current and future CAFE rulemakings?
Answer. I have not been made aware of any funding problems faced by
NHTSA's CAFE program. However, if confirmed, I will ask NHTSA to
provide a status update on that specific program, and will keep your
proposal in mind if funding is determined to be inadequate.
The Environment
Question 34. Based on current greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
reporting guidelines, the transportation sector directly accounted for
approximately one-third of total U.S. GHG emissions. Transportation is
the fastest-growing source of U.S. GHGs and the largest end-use source
of CO2, which is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. Estimates of GHG
emissions do not include additional ``lifecycle'' emissions related to
transportation, such as the extraction and refining of fuel and the
manufacture of vehicles, which are also a significant source of
domestic and international GHG emissions. As Secretary, what would you
have the Department of Transportation do to promote GHG emissions
reductions in the transportation sector, including through technology
and fuel efficiency requirements?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Transportation, with its agency and
state partners, works to ensure that policies balance environmental
goals with our transportation goals of safety, mobility, and
efficiency. All programs that reduce fuel consumption also reduce
carbon dioxide emissions. Among many important DOT programs, I am aware
of three new initiatives that are of particular importance:
The National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's
Transportation Network, released by the Department in May.
Effective policies--including technology, public/private
partnerships, and market-based approaches--have the potential
to reduce fuel usage, and hence emissions in aviation, freight,
and passenger travel.
New legal authority to reform passenger car Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), as requested by Secretary Mineta
in April. With the support of Congress, it will be possible to
develop a new passenger car CAFE rule that increases fuel
economy and provides net benefits to the economy.
The Federal Aviation Administration has been working with
airlines to improve fuel efficiency through improvements in
operations that save fuel and otherwise reduce environmental
effects.
Question 35. Does the Administration have any plans to reduce the
contribution of GHG emissions by the transportation sector?
Answer. The Administration's long-term strategy for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector is to hasten the
transition to a hydrogen economy, through the President's Hydrogen
Initiative. DOT's work focuses on helping develop safety codes and
standards for hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure, and demonstration
programs for hydrogen fuel cell buses.
Question 36. At a time when it is clear that we cannot count on an
uninterrupted, cheap supply of energy, isn't it in the Nation's
interest to ensure we harness technology and incentives to use the
least amount of fuel possible to transport people and goods? This would
be a ``no regrets'' measure, because it makes both economic and
environmental sense. If confirmed, would you work with us to devise
such a tangible win-win strategy for America?
Answer. The President and I share your concerns about the current
energy situation, and if confirmed, I look forward to working with the
Congress to implement cost-effective strategies to improve the
efficiency of the transportation sector.
The key elements on the Department of Transportation's energy
agenda are congestion, CAFE reform, and modernizing the air traffic
system. These programs make both economic and environmental sense.
Collectively, they incorporate technology, incentives, and market-based
measures. Each program requires the support of Congress to achieve its
potential. I look forward to working with you on them.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Conrad Burns to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. Ms. Peters, if you are confirmed as Transportation
Secretary, you will face a substantial challenge in terms of capacity
constraints on our transportation network. In the next 20 years, the
freight shipments are expected to dramatically increase, placing
serious demands on roads, aviation, rail, and waterways. My particular
concern, as you know, relates to the role that freight rail plays in
our nation's infrastructure. I think we have a problem in our rail
industry that can not be ignored any longer. There are capacity
constraints, but those limitations are a symptom of the much larger
problem of a lack of meaningful competition for rates and service in
many parts of the Nation.
Ms. Peters, do you see competition issues as a serious problem for
the freight rail industry, and what will you do, if confirmed, to help
address those problems?
Answer. I recognize that our rail infrastructure will need added
capacity to meet the freight demands for the next several decades. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with and encouraging both large
and small railroads to invest additional capital in new construction
and technology that will expand our rail network and in turn allow for
robust competition.
Question 2. Sec. 10101 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code sets forth the
rail transportation policy for this Nation. It states, in part, that
``it is the policy of the U.S. Government to allow, to the maximum
extent possible, competition and the demand for services to establish
reasonable rates for transportation by rail'' and ``to maintain
reasonable rates where there is an absence of effective competition.''
This is the policy of the U.S. Government--not just the Surface
Transportation Board--so as Transportation Secretary, you share this
obligation. Do you believe we have achieved these goals, and if not,
what will do you if confirmed to help implement this vision?
Answer. I recognize the Surface Transportation Board (STB), an
independent regulatory agency, continues to struggle with this issue.
Although I am not familiar with the specific cases before the STB, I am
aware of the need to bring together small and large railroads,
shippers, states, local communities, and other interested parties to
mitigate some of these rate concerns. Where competition is not easily
achievable, railroads and shippers need to have the ability to resolve
their differences in a fair and unbiased manner. Additionally, if
confirmed, I promise to reach out to the STB and have regular dialogue
with its appointed board members on these issues.
Question 3. While we are on the subject of rail, let's talk a
little about Amtrak. We've had quite a battle over the last couple of
years on Amtrak, especially in terms of the budget that the
Administration sends up to us. What are your thoughts on Amtrak? Will
you be an advocate for passenger rail and work with Congress to
implement reasonable reforms that ensure Federal subsidies are well
spent?
Answer. I support a national rail passenger system and believe it
is an important component of our nation's transportation network. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to
pass a long-term reauthorization to end the annual funding crisis that
Amtrak has operated under for too many years now.
Question 4. What are your thoughts on the Essential Air Service
program, and what role do you believe rural air service plays in the
national aviation system?
Answer. As a former director of transportation for a state with
large rural areas, I fully appreciate the impact that the EAS program
has had on ensuring rural America access to our nation's air
transportation system. I also believe that it is time to take a fresh
look at the program to assure that it is accomplishing it objectives as
effectively as possible. The laws governing our administration of the
EAS program have not changed significantly since its inception 28 years
ago, notwithstanding the dramatic changes that have taken place in the
airline industry. If confirmed, I would like to work with Congress to
address these issues.
Question 5. As the months progress, this committee will be turning
its attention to the FAA Reauthorization bill. Do you have any thoughts
on how we can effectively modernize the aviation system through that
process?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to reach out
to Congress and the aviation community for input as the Administration
develops a reauthorization proposal. Air traffic modernization is
absolutely critical to ensure our aviation system remains the envy of
the world. Consequently, a key element of the coming reauthorization
will be to implement funding structures and mechanisms that will allow
us to build air transportation systems for the 21st century.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. As a former director of a state transportation
department, to what extent should states have the flexibility to
utilize programmatic funds for transportation improvements? Do you
advocate a relaxation of programmatic restrictions on Federal Highway
programs?
Answer. While I understand that providing funds by program category
enables Congress to target resources according to national needs and
priorities, I believe it is important to provide states significant
flexibility to transfer funds among programs in order to improve their
ability to choose the best mix of solutions to meet their individual
transportation needs. For example, programs like the Surface
Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) offer broad eligibilities for
funding highway and transit projects.
The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission
is currently examining future transportation program direction, as well
as funding alternatives. If confirmed, I look forward to chairing the
Commission and presenting programmatic recommendations to the Congress
next year.
Question 2. Would you continue your predecessor's support of a
waiver for Maine to utilize Federal highway funds for continued
operation and successes of the Downeaster? Is the success of Maine's
passenger rail system something that would serve as a potential model
for other passenger rail routes nationwide?
Answer. Yes. As a former state transportation director, I strongly
support giving states appropriate flexibility to use Federal dollars
under certain circumstances. I continued my support of this policy as
Federal Highway Administrator. If confirmed, I will support the waiver
for Maine to utilize Federal highway funds for the Downeaster.
The success of the Downeaster demonstrates that passenger rail can
be a successful component of a state's overall transportation network
if the state is directly invested in developing and providing ongoing
support for its passenger rail routes.
Question 3. In your previous capacity as Federal Highway
Administrator, I know you were a strong supporter of innovative
financing. including public-private partnerships and the use of State
Infrastructure Banks. Looking in the near-term, it is my understanding
that a potential redistribution of leftover highway funds may occur
this October. Do you foresee such a redistribution of funds occurring
before the end of the Fiscal Year?
Answer. It is my understanding that the annual redistribution
occurred earlier this month, and a total of $2.1 billion of obligation
authority was available for redistribution to the states for their
highway programs.
Question 4. For example, one successful project you may be aware of
is the Waldo-Hancock Bridge, which has been partially paid for by
bonding. Is paying off something like a GARVEE Bond considered an
eligible use for these funds?
Answer. While I am not knowledgeable about the specifics of the
Waldo-Hancock Bridge, Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles, or
``GARVEE'' bonds are an eligible use of Federal-aid funds.
Question 5. Can you assure my colleagues and I that, as Secretary
of Transportation, you would ensure the Commission is allowed to
proceed independently and is unbound by any ideological constraints in
the formulation of its recommendations for Congress?
Answer. Yes. Congress created the Section 1909 Commission in
SAFETEA-LU to provide recommendations on transportation policy and
financing that would inform the next surface transportation
reauthorization process. Prior to my nomination as Secretary, I was
honored to serve on that Commission as Vice-Chair. In that capacity, I
worked with then-Chairman Mineta and my fellow Commissioners to ensure
that all viable options and solutions for improving our transportation
system would be considered in an independent manner. If confirmed, I
will continue that approach as Commission Chairman.
Question 6. As it becomes more and more apparent that a new
approach is needed for providing a sustainable, realistic method for
Federal transportation funding, do you see an end of the Federal
gasoline tax as the sole provider of these funds?
Answer. The Federal fuel tax will continue to play a role in
funding national infrastructure, but it has already ceased to be the
sole provider of highway funding. I believe that the role of the fuel
tax will continue to diminish as vehicle fuel efficiency increases and
new transportation technologies are introduced. Over the last 10 years,
and with the blessing of the Federal Government, states have
increasingly turned to private sector partners in the financing
process, especially for new infrastructure. They are also looking for
ways to implement new funding mechanisms that track more closely to the
costs that highway users impose on the highway system.
Question 7. What sort of new funding regime to you foresee,
relative to your discussions on the Commission? In the short term, is
it a combination of means; gasoline taxes, bonding, public-private
partnerships, and a smattering of other methods? How do you envision
the Department accounting for vehicles like hybrid-use or electric?
Answer. In the short term, the highway fuel tax will remain the
mainstay of Federal highway funding. But already, for new highway
infrastructure, private sector finance is playing a prominent role in
highway infrastructure funding. The new Private Activity Bond provision
in SAFETEA-LU is now being implemented, and will lead to an increase in
tax-exempt bonding as a source of highway finance. And as you note, the
proliferation of higher fuel efficiency vehicles will result in
decreasing fuel tax revenues. The Surface Transportation Policy Revenue
Study Commission is examining these very issues and at this point, it
is too early to predict what new funding structures the Commission will
recommend.
Question 8. Do you have any concerns that the changes in the
collection of aviation fuel taxes, which went info affect as part of
the 2005 Highway Bill, could have a significant negative impact on the
Aviation Trust Fund, and that the Trust Fund could lose deserved
revenues to the Highway Trust Fund?
Answer. It is my understanding that we do not yet have sufficient
data to estimate the extent of the impact on Aviation Trust Fund
revenues from this issue. Given the low balance in the Aviation Trust
Fund, any revenue loss would certainly be a concern. I am also aware
that some in the industry have expressed concern about the
administrative burden these changes have caused for the aviation
industry. If confirmed, I will monitor this issue and work with
Congress to make changes if necessary.
Question 9. What are the financial impacts of the hiring, training,
and assimilating these controllers into our national Air Traffic
operations? How does the financial outlook of the Aviation Trust Fund
affect the ability of the FAA to hire and retain these vital employees
who are so crucial to the unparalleled safety of our aviation system?
How quickly can these new controllers become a part of the Air Traffic
management system?
Answer. It is my understanding that the FAA has recently released
an updated Controller Workforce Plan that addresses these issues. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the FAA Administrator and the
Department's Inspector General to ensure that the Plan adequately
addresses all of these factors and that the FAA is hiring and training
controllers in accordance with the Plan.
Question 10. With the potential to lose up to 33 percent of our
current air traffic controller workforce, and the FAA rushing to get
new systems and technology in place to fill that gap, a worst-case
scenario where we are short on both human and technological resources
are deficient to maintain the safety of our skies. What steps would you
propose taking to develop a back-up plan if this scenario were to
arise?
Answer. I believe it is critical to develop and implement a plan of
action to avoid a worst-case scenario. It is my understanding that the
Controller Workforce Plan is designed to ensure that we do not face
such a gap as you describe. As noted above, if confirmed, it will be
one of my top priorities to review the Plan with the FAA Administrator
and the IG.
Question 11. Among the cost-savings measures that have been
proposed to account for the fact that many of our next-generation
technologies for air traffic control are over-budget and behind
schedule is the closure of overnight operations at some Air Traffic
Control Towers, as well as the consolidation of certain TRACONs across
the country. With such a vast increase in operations and the number of
planes of various capabilities forecasted for the next decade, is it
really wise to begin to close down facilities when the activity in our
skies is only increasing?
Answer. Following our meeting, I discussed this issue with the FAA
Administrator, and she has assured me that the FAA has no plans to
implement the overnight closures the agency had been considering at
this time.
Question 12. Are you aware of any concerns on behalf of the
aviation community that due to the growing number of planes, increased
congestion, and an inability to increase capacity, other positions may
come up short in the future, high-paying positions such as pilots that
could conceivably affect the airlines' bottom line?
Answer. Concern with the health of the industry is one of DOT's
core missions. If confirmed, I will make it one of my first priorities
to visit with the aviation community and seek its feedback on the
challenges facing our air traffic management systems in the long-term.
Question 13. With the potential crisis in our aviation workforce, I
found it somewhat stunning that some Towers are being considered for
closure by the FAA, particularly some that possess both commercial and
military utility. It is especially galling in light of the fact that
the cost-savings are not only considered negligible, but such savings
projections are completely inconsistent, ranging from $2 to $5 million.
When is the final list of Towers that FAA is suggesting for closure
going to be released? Do you anticipate that this is the first of
several rounds of such closures to be conducted?
Answer. As mentioned above, I discussed this issue with the FAA
Administrator, and she has assured me that the FAA has no plans to
implement the overnight closures the agency had been considering at
this time.
Question 14. In the event that the FAA does close several of the
towers on the preliminary list, does it retain the right to reopen them
at a later time? If many of the projections offered by the FAA come to
pass, having as many functional Towers and controllers able to handle
the capacity issues would seem a prudent measure, given the potential
dangers of overcrowding in our skies.
Answer. As mentioned above, I discussed this issue with the FAA
Administrator, and she has assured me that the FAA has no plans to
implement the overnight closures the agency had been considering at
this time.
Question 15. Administrator Peters, have you had an opportunity to
examine the various reform proposals being issued for Amtrak? What are
your thoughts on reforming the passenger rail system?
Answer. I am aware that there are several different reform
proposals that have been drafted and discussed, but I have not had a
chance to go through them in detail. I believe there is a role for a
national rail passenger system. It should be funded in a manner that
allows it to deliver maximum benefits to consumers while recognizing
the need to invest the taxpayers' money wisely. I also recognize the
need to create a national rail passenger system that incorporates
significant reforms from its current state. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with the Senate Commerce Committee on a
comprehensive bill that includes significant reforms.
Question 16. In the future, as Federal funding for Amtrak will
hopefully be curtailed as its profitability increases, do you support
some sort of partnership such as an 80-20 capital funding program to
help states pay for infrastructure investment?
Answer. I believe that the Amtrak reform process must keep all
options on the table.
Question 17. Have you considered any ideas on using alternative or
non-traditional sources of funding to supplement passenger rail? Has
there been any examination of developing a financing regime outside the
realm of receiving a check from the Federal Government every year?
Answer. Funding for Amtrak is one area where significant reforms
need to be made. I believe Amtrak must operate on a sustainable
business model. I also believe that states should contribute to
passenger rail service, as Maine already does. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with you and your colleagues to pass a long-term
reauthorization to end the annual funding crisis that Amtrak has
operated under for too many years now.
Question 18. Do you feel the Department has a role in promoting the
increased use, and possible expansion of, the existing Amtrak system in
light of the dramatic increase in the use of rail and transit systems
given the roller coaster ride that has become our domestic gasoline
prices.
Answer. DOT must continue to encourage the use of public
transportation systems, including Amtrak. Additionally, DOT must assist
states and communities to maximize transit capacity and reliability.
Question 19. It has come to my attention that the bulk of existing
Amtrak passenger cars and their engines--excluding the Acela high-speed
rail, which had its own problems with the braking system just last
spring--are practically worn out. Will you seek funding for upgrades or
even replacements if you are confirmed, before the equipment shortage
becomes critical?
Answer. Amtrak must look at its entire operation and prioritize its
capital needs to ensure a future system that delivers maximum benefits
to consumers.
Question 20. Just this past Monday, the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute came out with a report stating that
the Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG could
increase their profits by $800 million to $2 billion a year by using
aggressive strategies for improving fuel efficiency regardless of what
happens to gas prices or what their competitors do. Needless to say
they could use an infusion like this.
Even taking into account gasoline prices and actions of their
competitors, the analysis found the optimal strategy for each automaker
was to take a proactive approach rather than business as usual, that
this would be financially safer, regardless of what their competitors
do.
The report also said that if U.S. automakers do not take the
aggressive approach on fuel economy, they could stand to lose as much
$3.6 billion in profits and that they have more to gain from
aggressively pursuing improvements in fuel economy than their Japanese
counterparts in large part because they face more risk from high
gasoline prices and have more room for improvement. Under this
proactive approach, overall fuel economy would improve 7.4 percent over
model year 2005 levels, which would mean a dramatic savings of around 8
billion gallons of gasoline per year.
I am sure you are well aware that Senator Feinstein and I have been
attempting to close the SUV loophole over the past 5 years and this
year to increase CAFE standards by 10 miles as averaged over a
manufacturer's entire fleet over the next 10 years--or 10 in 10. We
already have the technology to do this and we sincerely do not want
Detroit to be the industry time forgot.
Do you think that, if Congress had increased fuel economy standards
over the last 5 years for passenger cars as we have the authority to do
and NHTSA had appreciably raised SUV standards as it has the authority
to do, the U.S. auto industry would be more competitive and we would
have kept more high paying U.S. jobs? The University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute report released last week certainly
reflects this.
Answer. As you know, the Department is seeking the legal authority
to reform CAFE for passenger cars. If confirmed, I look forward to
working closely with you and this committee to advance this
legislation. It is the position of this Administration that reforming
CAFE for passenger cars could be done in a way that does not diminish
the competitiveness of U.S. automakers.
Question 21. It sounds to me from the Michigan report that both
Congress and the Administration have done as much disservice to the
U.S. automakers as the automakers have done to themselves by not
calling for an increase in CAFE standards, especially in light of the
2001 National Academies CAFE report that gave us a clear signal that
increasing fuel economy standards was feasible and economically viable
if automakers were given enough lead time to design and build more
efficient vehicles. The big loser here--and the most distressing to
me--is the loss of high paying U.S. manufacturing jobs. If Congress
were to abrogate its authority to you for increasing fuel economy
standards for passenger cars, what kind of an increase can we expect
NHTSA to make under your leadership, especially given the very small
increase of less than two miles per gallon NHTSA came out with for
SUVs?
Answer. I agree with you that achieving higher fuel economy
standards is important, but I also believe that such increases must not
be made at the expense of passenger safety or American jobs. If given
the authority by Congress to reform CAFE, I will ensure that NHTSA
raises fuel economy standards for passenger cars to their maximum
feasible level, while taking into account safety, data, technology, and
American jobs.
Question 22. As part of the 2005 Highway Bill, a provision
encouraged states to give diesel retrofitting of transit vehicles
priority in making decisions when spending their programmatic highway
funds. This provision did not pre-empt the states authority to make
final decisions on how to spend those funds, but encouraged the states
to focus on improving their emissions by using this diesel technology.
It is my understanding that the DOT will be issuing guidelines very
soon. This would be a tremendous help in reducing emissions for public
transit, such as a fleet of city buses. Can you tell us how DOT plans
to use the guidance to ensure that the legislative intent as it affects
diesel retrofits will be carried out?
Answer. Since my nomination, I have not had the opportunity to be
briefed on the status or content of the proposed retrofitting
guidelines. However, if I am confirmed, I will quickly get educated on
this issue and will ensure that you receive a briefing before the
guidelines are released.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Highways
Question 1. A number of states have taken advantage of Federal
regulations which allow states to lease operational control over
federally funded toll roads to private corporations, including foreign
corporations. Indiana, for instance, recently leased the Indian Toll
Road to an Australian-Spanish conglomerate, Macquarie-Cintra, for $3.8
billion over 75 years. While this provided an immediate influx of
funding for the state, it will ultimately result much higher profits
for the operator and has proven to be a divisive issue among Indiana
residents concerned about highway management and toll increases.
You have been a strong advocate of free-market solutions to public
infrastructure problems. Do you support allowing states to lease
federally financed toll roads to private corporations, including
foreign corporations?
Answer. States and other non-Federal authorities own and operate
the vast majority of roads in America. Many of these roads, including
the older toll road systems, were constructed prior to the creation of
the interstate highway system with little or no Federal financial
support. Where the facilities were built using Federal funds, I believe
it is important that the public interest is protected in any potential
transaction.
In my time at FHWA, I supported giving states flexibility to
explore new partnerships with the private sector. With the enactment of
SAFETEA-LU, Congress also declared its support for more state
flexibility. The question that must always be asked is: does the
contractual arrangement improve performance of the facility, enhance
customer services and protect the interests of the taxpayer. If the
public interest and security can be protected in connection with these
types of transactions, then we should continue to support them.
Question 1a. If so, do you believe this is the best way to solve
highway funding deficiencies?
Answer. There are multiple approaches that we must take to solve
our highway infrastructure problems. Those problems extend beyond
simply the need for more funding. We must also make significant
improvements to how we manage our existing systems to reduce congestion
and improve system safety and reliability. The private sector is
willing and able to play a large partnership role with the public
sector to help the country address these problems. But private sector
participation will not necessarily make sense everywhere. The Federal
Government can supply resources, expertise and leadership to help the
diverse regions of the country tailor solutions to fit their own
specific needs.
Question 2. Would you support allowing states to lease management
and maintenance of any federally financed state road system to a
private corporation?
Answer. I support giving states the tools and flexibility to
optimize the performance of their highway system. The Federal
Government has historically played and continues to play a major
investment role in the U.S. highway system. In certain circumstances,
private entities, working in conjunction with state and local agencies,
can improve the operational performance and provide high levels of
customer service on highway facilities. This, in turn, can increase the
returns on Federal investments. Congestion, undercapitalization and the
misallocation of investment resources reduces the effectiveness of
those investments. If confirmed, I will work tirelessly to assure that
Federal investments produce positive results for the American taxpayer.
Question 3. How is the public interest served by allowing private
corporations to control publicly funded infrastructure?
Answer. Growing congestion, increasing safety risks and declining
reliability are all threats to the public interest, the quality of life
of all Americans and the U.S. economy. If private entities are capable
of helping state and local governments reduce these trends, they will
help governments advance the public interest. The public entity retains
ownership of the infrastructure in these agreements, and exercises
control of the infrastructure through specific requirements in the
contractual documents. The degree to which governments call on the
private sector for such assistance will vary across the country.
Question 4. Do you support extending private leasing authority to
states for other modes of transportation?
Answer. Most other modes of transportation have long had extensive
private sector participation. Whether or not a leasing or concession
model can be effective depends on the mode of transportation. The U.S.
freight railroad system, widely considered to be the most productive in
the world, is privately owned, financed and managed. Seaport terminals
have been operating under a public/private model, including long-term
leases to private terminal operators, for many, many years. To date,
there has been less interest utilizing private capital (except of
course through the access of private lenders in the tax-exempt
marketplace) in public transportation and aviation infrastructure. The
question that must always be asked is: does the contractual arrangement
improve performance of the facility, enhance customer services and
protect the interests of the taxpayer. The answer will likely vary from
case to case.
Aviation
Question 5. As you know, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
stands to lose more than thirty percent of its air traffic controllers
to retirement and attrition over the next 3 years. It takes roughly a
year to train a new controller, and it is unclear that the FAA has made
progress hiring enough new controllers to avoid a staffing crisis. What
is your plan to hire and train enough controllers to make up this
shortfall and keep up with projected increases in air traffic?
Answer. It is my understanding that the FAA has recently released
an updated Controller Workforce Plan. If confirmed, I will work closely
with the FAA Administrator and the Department's Inspector General to
ensure that the Plan is adequate to meet projected retirements and that
the FAA is hiring and training controllers in accordance with the Plan.
Question 6. In 2003, Congress passed legislation preventing the FAA
from privatizing the Air Traffic Control System (ATC) for 1 year. When
the prohibition was lifted in 2004, the FAA leased control of Flight
Service Stations to Lockheed Martin and required Flight Service
Specialists to compete for their jobs. Do you support the FAA's
decision to privatize FSS's, and will you support privatizing the
entire ATC as Secretary of Transportation?
Answer. Although I am not familiar with the specifics of the Flight
Service Station contract, my understanding is that all affected FAA
employees were either offered jobs with the contractor, Lockheed
Martin, or were hired into other areas of the FAA. In 2002, Secretary
Mineta determined that air traffic control services at en route and
large terminal facilities are a core capability of the FAA and
therefore not subject to outsourcing.
Question 7. Are you aware of any A-76 studies being conducted by
the Office of Management and Budget in anticipation of privatizing the
other components of the ATC?
Answer. I am not.
Question 8. Do you believe that privatizing one or all components
of the ATC will increase safety and reduce accidents?
Answer. Any proposal to privatize a component of the system would
have to be evaluated on its individual merits before making a final
judgment.
Question 9. The FAA has also decided to consolidate its Air Traffic
Organization (ATO), ostensibly to save money. As you know, the ATO
provides maintenance and logistical support to FAA and local airport
personnel. The FAA's plan will require the closure of several regional
ATO offices, including the Burlington, Massachusetts office. Instead,
the ATO's New England operations will be conducted from Atlanta.
Burlington office employees who do not want to transfer to Atlanta can
either quit or take a reduced pension.
Do you believe it is feasible to conduct air traffic support for
New England from Atlanta, and do you believe that the FAA is capable of
providing the same quality of service from Atlanta that it does from
Burlington?
Answer. It is my understanding that the FAA will continue to staff
the Burlington office while consolidating administrative functions,
such as budgeting, finance, personnel support, and procurement support
to Atlanta. The FAA does not believe consolidating administrative
functions will affect the maintenance and logistical support that is
provided to the New England airports or affect the control of air
traffic.
Question 10. Are you concerned that closing the Burlington office
could compromise safety at Logan and other regional airports?
Answer. I do not believe that consolidating administrative and
support staff functions will affect the safety of the air traffic
control system or compromise the safety at Boston Logan or other local
airports. It is also my understanding that major operating facilities,
such as those in Boston, will continue to have administrative staff in
place to support the local facilities and local airports.
Question 11. If Congress allows the FAA to finish consolidating the
ATO, will you commit to helping employees at the Burlington office who
do not or cannot move to Atlanta find comparable jobs at other FAA
facilities in Massachusetts?
Answer. To the extent that comparable FAA jobs exist in
Massachusetts, I will commit to helping employees at the Burlington
office find those jobs. Additionally, if confirmed, I will direct the
FAA to work with the Department's other operating administrations to
identify potential openings within the Department's other Massachusetts
offices.
LORAN-C
Question 12. As you know, LORAN-C is an international multi-modal
navigation and timing system used by commercial and recreational
mariners, general aviation pilots, the telecommunications industry, the
military, and other government agencies as a back-up to the Global
Positioning System (GPS). Earlier this year the Coast Guard asked
Congress to shut-down LORAN despite having failed to coordinate its
request with the Department of Transportation and other Federal
agencies that have an interest in the system or solicit public
comments.
I am very concerned by the Coast Guard's effort to shut down a
valuable civilian and national security asset and have worked with
Chairman Stevens and others to prevent it.
Do you support maintaining LORAN as a back-up to GPS? If so, will
you commit to working with the Department of Homeland Security to
develop a national LORAN policy?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department, in coordination
with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is required to make a
decision regarding the future of the LORAN system by the end of 2006.
If I am confirmed, I assure you that any decision regarding the future
of LORAN will be consistent with existing Federal policies to ensure
sufficient back-up in the event of a disruption of GPS. Furthermore, if
the decision is to maintain LORAN as part of the Nation's
infrastructure, DOT will work closely with DHS to develop a national
policy on LORAN.
Amtrak
Question 13. In 2003, the Bush Administration introduced an Amtrak
plan that called for separating the Northeast Corridor from the Amtrak
system and hiring a private operator to run it. Additionally, the
President's budget requests for Amtrak have been well below what Amtrak
says is necessary to provide adequate service and avoid bankruptcy,
leaving Congress to increase funding to maintain the system. Do you
support federally funded intercity passenger rail service?
Answer. I support a national rail passenger system. I believe the
system must be operated on a sustainable business model and deliver
maximum benefits to consumers while recognizing the need to invest the
taxpayers' money wisely. I also believe that states should be involved
in and contribute to passenger rail service, as Massachusetts does. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to
pass a long-term reauthorization to end the annual funding crisis that
Amtrak has operated under for too many years now.
Question 14. Will you commit to maintaining the Northeast Corridor
as a part of a federally funded Amtrak system?
Answer. I look forward to working with the Senate Commerce
Committee to create a national rail passenger system that incorporates
significant reforms from its current state. I believe that the Amtrak
reform process must keep all options on the table.
Question 15. Will you oppose privatizing any part of the Amtrak
system?
Answer. As I previously mentioned, I look forward to working with
the Senate Commerce Committee to create a national rail passenger
system that incorporates significant reforms front its current state. I
believe that the Amtrak reform process must keep all options on the
table.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. Last year, the Federal Government purchased 64,000
passenger vehicles. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the
average fuel economy of the new vehicles purchased for the fleet in
2005 was an abysmal 21.4 miles per gallon.
Today, hybrid cars on the market can achieve over 50 miles per
gallon and SUVs that can obtain 36 miles per gallon. The government's
average of 21.4 miles to the gallon is too low.
I have a bill, S. 2773, ``Government Fleet Fuel Economy Act of
2006,'' that requires the Federal Government to purchase vehicles that
are fuel-efficient to the greatest extent possible. Yes or no, will you
support my bill? If no, why?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review to review your
legislation in detail, but there is no question we can do more to
improve the fuel economy of all vehicles, including government
vehicles. However, should I be confirmed, please be assured that I will
examine your proposal and work with you on this critical issue.
Question 2. In the last few months, there have been problems at Los
Angeles International Airport and the TRACON.
ILS Failure: In 2 weeks, the Instrument Landing System (ILS) at LAX
failed twice.
Power Outage: A power outage in Palmdale (which was not the fault
of the FAA) occurred in July. This is where the TRACON, the regional
radar system, is located. Back-up generators immediately started.
However, the backup generator eventually failed and the radio and radar
systems were not operational. Controllers lost radio communication with
pilots for 15 minutes, and the radar was out for 2 hours.
Near Miss on Ground: In July, two small airliners on the ground
came within moments of colliding with each other. It was pilot error
when one pilot did not follow instructions and went into another
plane's runway. An air traffic controller saw what happened and yelled
into the radio to warn the other plane. However, part of the problem
was a warning alarm that was turned off on a ground radar system after
it had a false alert.
Accident: A cargo truck hit a Qantas Airways jet damaging the
plane's engine but causing no injuries.
Are the problems in Southern California separate incidents or part
of a larger mismanagement problem by FAA?
Answer. It is my understanding that all recent incidents at LAX
were largely due to unrelated factors and have been addressed by the
FAA. A service technician has been stationed at the airport 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week until construction is finished. If confirmed, I will
work with the Administrator to ensure that LAX and other California
airports receive the highest level of air traffic services.
Question 3. The Palm Springs Airport needs a new control tower
because the old one is out of date and too short, so it is a potential
safety problem. Last year, Rep. Bono obtained $2.3 million. This year,
Rep. Bono and I each obtained $2 million in the TTHUD appropriations
bill. Can FAA begin the process of building the new tower?
Answer. The Air Traffic Control Tower at Palm Springs Airport is on
the FAA's list for terminal replacement projects, earmarked by
Congress. I understand the importance of a replacement tower to you and
to the people of Palm Springs and, if I am confirmed, I will work with
you to ensure this project is completed as expeditiously as possible.
Question 4. Over 40 percent of the Nation's imported goods come
through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. After the goods
arrive, they are shipped through Los Angeles County and the Inland
Empire (the counties to the east of Los Angeles County), which causes
increased air pollution and congestion both with trains and truck
traffic on the highways.
This is a national issue because people across the Nation receive
less expensive goods while people in California are negatively impacted
with increased congestion and public safety concerns. What are
potential solutions to solve this problem? And, how would you pay for
the solutions?
Answer. The Department is working to ease congestion at our ports,
not only to reduce the economic costs that such congestion imposes on
the United States, but also to limit the environmental impacts that it
can bring. My understanding is that the Department's Congestion
Management Initiative specifically targets congestion at the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach. As a part of that Initiative, DOT has
reached out to other Federal agencies, states, and stakeholders to
define the parameters of this problem and to think creatively about
public and private funding sources that could be tapped in order to
tackle it.
Question 5. One issue of concern with the highway bill is the
decreasing highway trust fund and how to fund the next bill. What are
your suggestions for a dedicated source of funding to continue to pay
for highway and transit construction?
Answer. While I believe that the gasoline tax will continue to be
an important source of dedicated funding for our highways and transit
systems, I also believe it is critical that we begin to diversify our
funding resources using innovative financing mechanisms. For example, a
2005 special report from the Transportation Research Board recommends
expanded use of tolling and road use metering among other long-term
alternatives for transportation funding. I believe we should explore
these and other innovative possibilities that will allow us to maintain
a vibrant and effective transportation system. I look forward to
working with Congress and surface transportation stakeholders in this
endeavor.
Question 6. Amtrak is important for California, which has the
second highest Amtrak ridership in the country and the ``Pacific
Surfliner''--the second most traveled corridor in the country. Amtrak
offers three different services in California: (1) state-supported--the
most important; (2) commuter operations; and (3) long-distance service.
Do you support Amtrak? If yes, how do you suggest Amtrak is funded in
the future?
Answer. I support a national rail passenger system. I believe the
system must be operated on a sustainable business model and deliver
maximum benefits to consumers while recognizing the need to invest the
taxpayers' money wisely. I also believe that states should be involved
in and contribute to passenger rail service, as California does. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to
pass a long-term reauthorization to end the annual funding crisis that
Amtrak has operated under for too many years now.
Question 7. I am concerned over losing the oil produced in Alaska's
Prudhoe Bay due to corrosion of the pipeline operated by BP and the
lack of oversight by the Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA).
Even before the BP pipeline incident, gasoline prices were already
high enough to cause American consumers and businesses to struggle. BP
neglected the upkeep of its pipeline, despite its phenomenal profits in
recent quarters.
How would you ensure that the Federal Government is providing
oversight in protecting pipelines whose proper functioning is so
crucial to our economy and environment?
Answer. This year's incident at Prudhoe Bay demonstrates we have
more work to do on pipeline safety and, if confirmed, I will ensure the
Department continues to proactively reach out to stakeholders and other
Federal, state, and local agencies to ensure a safe and reliable
pipeline infrastructure. I also look forward to working with the Senate
Commerce Committee to pass pipeline reauthorization. This important
legislation will provide the Department additional authority to ensure
the continued safety, security, reliability and enforcement of our
pipeline system.
Question 8. California has obtained expanded service options to
Mexico, including flights by low-fare carriers. This has helped expand
economic growth. Are you supportive of low-cost carriers--for both
domestic and international service? Do you believe that the Department
of Transportation should promote competition in the aviation industry?
Answer. Yes, I believe that competition within the airline industry
has a positive effect on the traveling public, which benefits front the
availability of new services and more low-fare options both
domestically and internationally.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. The Essential Air Service (EAS) program, established as
part of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, is a program that helps
to ensure that our Nation's rural communities are serviced by
commercial air carriers. With jet fuel costs having risen more than 165
percent since the attacks of September 11, 2001, carriers are faced
with considerable challenges in maintaining eligibility under the EAS
program in providing service to rural communities.
What adjustments will be necessary to ensure rural communities
across the U.S. continue to receive commercial air service under the
EAS program?
Answer. I support the Administration's view that it is time to take
a fresh look at the EAS program to assure that it is accomplishing it
objectives as effectively as possible. The laws governing our
administration of the EAS program have not changed significantly since
its inception 28 years ago, notwithstanding the dramatic changes that
have taken place in the airline industry. If confirmed, I will work
with Congress, particularly Members from rural states, to review the
EAS program in light of today's realities.
Question 2. The most significant transportation issue for my
constituents in southwest Washington State concerns the construction of
a new bridge crossing I-5 at the Columbia River. With thousands of
people crossing the river every day for work and 75 percent of all
commercial traffic in Washington and Oregon traveling on I-5 at some
point, construction of a new bridge is critical. Bridge traffic stops
completely for 4 hours a day, every day due to rush hour traffic and
bridge lifts for maritime traffic. An accident or bridge malfunction
snarls traffic all over the Portland metropolitan area for hours.
Analysis of new bridge solutions are costing tens of millions of
dollars to taxpayers and projected costs for the bridge are estimated
to be between $500 million to $1 billion. Annual traffic growth
estimates, conservatively projected at 15 percent annually,
dramatically exacerbating this problem.
What can the Federal Government do to alleviate this problem,
accelerate the process and ameliorate the financial burden on taxpayers
in Oregon and Washington?
Answer. I understand that the replacement of the bridge crossing I-
5 at the Columbia River is a vital project from metropolitan, regional,
national, and international perspectives. The bridge is a critical link
between Washington State and Oregon and needs to be replaced due to age
and increased traffic. Work on the environmental impact statement (EIS)
is underway and on schedule to be completed in 2009, due to the
streamlining efforts of all the Federal, state, and local parties
involved. The cost of this project will be shared by Washington State,
Oregon, and affected local governments, and will include Federal
highway and transit funding. I also understand that both Washington
State and Oregon have public-private partnership enabling legislation,
and while that option is not on the table now, it could be a
consideration in the future. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with you and the states to ensure that this critical bridge project is
built in a timely and cost-efficient manner.
Question 3. The Northwest corner of our nation is host to
burgeoning international trade. Trade with Canada is substantial and
measured in tens of billions of dollars annually in the I-5 corridor
alone. It is widely acknowledged that global trade with existing and
emerging trade partners, including China, will at least double over the
next decade or so, and highway, rail and marine port capacity will be
far exceeded. Non-highway solutions for existing and anticipated
highway congestion have been championed by past and present
administrations, but while appearing to offer relief, little difference
in modal distribution has been seen. Congestion prevails as
infrastructure and regulatory barriers to highway, rail and marine
options defy solution.
What multi-modal solutions and strategies will you set in motion to
change this economically untenable condition?
Answer. Our transportation systems must be upgraded to accommodate
the growth in international trade--particularly with Pacific Rim
nations--that shows no signs of abating. We must improve modal
connectivity and encourage the widest possible array of funding
options. Strategies such as short sea shipping and multimodal
construction projects such as the Alaska Way Viaduct and Seattle
Seawall improve the efficiency of regional transportation and remove
traffic from congested transportation corridors. If confirmed, I look
forward to advancing these and other solutions to our transportation
chokepoints.
Question 4. Emergency Medical Service (EMS) aviation operations
provide an important service to the public by transporting seriously
ill patients or donor organs to emergency care facilities. Next week
marks the 1-year anniversary of a fatal crash of an EMS transport
helicopter just north of Edmonds, Washington, that took the lives of
the pilot and the two nurses on board. In January 2006, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released a report on its
investigation of the 55 EMS accidents and identified recurring safety
issues. While the NTSB noted that the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) had recently taken positive steps to improve the safety of EMS
operations, it concluded ``the FAA has not yet imposed any requirements
for all aircraft EMS operators regarding flights without patients on
board, risk management, flight dispatch, or the use of technologies.''
In your testimony before the Committee, you said that safety is the
Department's highest priority. I agree with you and look forward to
working with you on EMS and other aviation safety issues during the
upcoming FAA re-authorization.
In light of your statement, do you believe that all helicopter EMS
should operate under more stringent Part 135 rules for all flights with
medical crews on board?
Answer. Due to the emergency nature of these operations and the
life saving mission which they serve, it is heartbreaking to realize
that the causes of some of these accidents were avoidable. It is my
understanding that the FAA and industry have taken steps which have led
to a marked decrease in accidents in this area. Nevertheless, if
confirmed, I will undertake a review of this issue to determine whether
requiring helicopter EMS to operate under Part 135 rules would improve
safety without otherwise negatively impacting life saving operations.
Question 5. We've seen in recent years that UAV's can play an
invaluable role in both the military theatre and homeland security, as
well as in non-defense capacities. Air Traffic Management and Unmanned
Aerial Vehcles integration in the National Airspace structure is a
critical issue as we look to expand the use of UAV's.
What is the Department's plan to accelerate this integration? What
steps are currently being taken? What are your thoughts with respect to
a graduated regional UAV integration strategy that builds from less
densely populated regions in the U.S.?
Answer. I have not been thoroughly briefed on this subject;
however, it is my understanding that the FAA is working to develop
standards to integrate UAV's into the national airspace. It seems
reasonable that UAV's could be integrated into the airspace more
readily in sparsely populated regions of the country; however, I would
want to have a more thorough understanding of any potential safety
issues before the Department committed to a course of action. If I am
confirmed, I will make it a priority to get educated quickly on this
program.
Question 6. This past June, the Surface Transportation Subcommittee
held a hearing concerning service and capacity in the freight railroad
industry. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) testified that that
there are competition problems in the rail industry and the rate
process at the STB doesn't work. The GAO went on to testify that the
STB has broad powers to investigate and address rail industry
practices, but that they have only exercised this authority in the area
of mergers and actual rate cases.
Do you believe that there are legitimate concerns with regard to
freight rail competition? What actions do you intend to take to assert
the role of the STB and broaden its limited scope of investigation?
Answer. During my courtesy meetings with Members of the Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee, several Senator raised the
concerns you have highlighted. I recognize the Surface Transportation
Board (STB), an independent regulatory agency, continues to struggle
with this issue. Although I am not familiar with the specific cases
before the STB, I am aware of the need to bring together small and
large railroads, shippers, states, local communities, and other
interested parties to mitigate some of these rate concerns. Where
competition is not easily achievable, railroads and shippers need to
have the ability to resolve their differences in a fair and unbiased
manner. Additionally, if confirmed, I promise to reach out to the STB
and have regular dialogue with its appointed board members on these
issues.
Question 7. Do you believe that the STB should have more authority?
Should they have the power to suspend rates during an investigation?
Should the burden of proof in rate cases be shifted from the freight
rail shipper to the freight rail carrier itself?
Answer. I believe it is generally accepted that the Staggers Act
has been a success for both railroads and shippers. I also understand
that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) has several matters pending
that could address some of these issues, including one dealing with
fuel surcharges and another addressing rate case resolution. At this
time, I do not have any personal opinions on whether any changes need
to be made. If confirmed, I would be interested in discussing these
issues with the rail industry, shippers, states and local communities
to determine how we can ensure an equitable process.
Question 8. As you know, the U.S. and the nations of the European
Union (EU) have been working on an ``Open Skies'' agreement. However, a
key issue in this negotiation involves increased foreign ownership
rights. Through a recently announced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), the Administration is proposing to redefine the actual control
test to cover only safety and security decisions, and permit other
economic decisions, including day-to-day operations, market strategy,
and purchase of aircraft, to be controlled by foreign officials.
What are your thoughts with regard to granting all the European
Community carriers rights to U.S. domestic routes and vice-versa,
giving U.S. carriers rights to intraEuropean Community (EC) routes?
What are the economic implications, if any, of shifting from bilateral
to multilateral aviation agreements?
Answer. The United States has not proposed, nor does the draft
U.S.-E.U. Air Transport Agreement reached last November contain, rights
for EC airlines to operate U.S. domestic routes. Such operations are
prohibited by U.S. law, and I would not support changing this law.
I believe that the benefits of extending the Open-Skies regime to
all markets between the U.S. and the EU through a single agreement will
transcend anything achieved through the bilateral process.
Question 9. As you know, the contract negotiations between FAA and
the National Air Traffic Controllers Association reached an impasse
last April and formally ended negotiations. To my disappointment,
Congress was unable to review the FAA proposal within the 60 days as
required under statute and as a result, the FAA implemented its own
proposal without have to return to the bargaining table with NATCA.
That is why I cosponsored legislation (S. 2201) that would have
required the FAA and NATCA to go back to negotiations.
What is your experience with handling contract negotiations between
an employer and its employees? Given current law, how do you intend to
ensure the FAA puts forward the best contract offer on its employees?
Answer. I believe that contract negotiations between employers and
employees should be conducted in good faith, and follow all legal
requirements. If confirmed, I will work with Administrator Blakey and
the NATCA to open dialogue between the agency and the union. I placed a
call to Pat Forrey, the new President of NATCA, immediately after my
nomination was announced and should I be confirmed, would plan to meet
with him to start this process.
Question 10. The FAA's goal to enhance the quality of flight
service centers at a considerable savings while improving service and
technology is laudable. However, I strongly believe enacting reform to
achieve cost savings cannot come at the expense of government workers.
What is your strategy/approach to improving aviation services while
at the same time, reducing air traffic control operating costs?
Answer. I am committed to delivering government services in as
efficient and cost-effective manner as possible. My experience at both
the state and Federal levels has taught me that this can be achieved
through strategic budget planning, effective program oversight, and
smart management of our personnel--our most important resource. One of
my management priorities is to have an open dialogue with all
Departmental employees as to how we may best serve the public,
including how we can invest in the best training and most advanced
technology to improve productivity. If confirmed as Secretary, I would
take every opportunity to improve efficiency and safety of the air
traffic operation while maintaining a high degree of customer service
and a commitment to be fair to our employees.
Question 11. One of the pending issues is the implementation of the
program called Projects of National and Regional Significance at the
Federal Highway Administration. The SAFETEA-LU legislation set out
activities for that program that include working toward a
recommendation for the full Federal involvement in projects funded by
the program. In my state, the Alaskan Way Viaduct project in Seattle
was allocated $ 220 million from this program in SAFETEA-LU.
What will the Department, working with Washington State DOT and the
City of Seattle, do to ensure that the full funding provided for the
project in SAFETEA-LU remains available for the project and to develop
a Federal funding recommendation for the project that extends beyond
the life of the SAFETEA-LU legislation?
Answer. I understand that the FHWA is working with the State of
Washington in the development of the finance plan for the Alaskan Way
Viaduct, which will include identification of funding for the project
beyond SAFETEA-LU. If confirmed, I assure that I will monitor the
progress of this important project.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. If confirmed, will you encourage or pursue the sale of
state roads, even to foreign corporations?
Answer. States and other non-Federal authorities own and operate
the vast majority of roads in America. Many of these roads, including
the older toll road systems, were constructed prior to the creation of
the interstate highway system with little or no Federal financial
support. Where the facilities were built using Federal funds, I believe
it is important that the public interest is protected in any potential
transaction.
In my time at FHWA, I supported giving states flexibility to
explore new partnerships with the private sector. With the enactment of
SAFETEA-LU, Congress also declared its support for more state
flexibility. The question that must always be asked is: does the
contractual arrangement improve performance of the facility, enhance
customer services and protect the interests of the taxpayer. If the
public interest and security can be protected in connection with these
types of transactions, then we should continue to support them.
Question 2. If confirmed, will you ensure that any redesign of the
airspace over New York and New Jersey takes into full account the
effects of noise pollution on citizens?
Answer. Yes.
Question 3. If confirmed, will you ensure that the air traffic
controller contract which was unilaterally imposed on the U.S. air
traffic controller workforce will be fairly implemented?
Answer. Yes.
Question 4. If confirmed, would you work to reinstate the mandatory
rest period after 2 hours of work for air traffic controllers?
Answer. While I am not familiar with the specifics of the air
traffic controller contract, I will consult with the FAA Administrator
to ensure adequate rest periods for all safety-sensitive positions
including controllers.
Question 5. If confirmed, will you work to formulate a fair
agreement with the State of New Jersey on a full funding grant
agreement for a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River, consistent with
state matching requirements for other Federal projects?
Answer. It is my understanding that this project was recently
approved into preliminary engineering by the Federal Transit
Administration. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with
you and the State of New Jersey on this regionally significant project.
Question 6. If confirmed, will you ensure that Amtrak receives its
capital and operating grants from the USDOT in a timely manner?
Answer. Yes.
Question 7. Aside from notifying Congress, as you promised to do
before taking any departmental action on the USDOT's rulemaking effort
to change the rules on foreign ownership and control of U.S. airlines,
if confirmed, will you commit to withdrawing the rulemaking, which has
been voted down by both Houses of Congress?
Answer. I was not involved in the development of the Department's
proposed rulemaking. As such, I will not commit to any action before I
have had the chance to review the comments filed by interested parties.
Question 8. If confirmed will you take any action to pursue changes
in the Federal laws concerning truck size and weight standards, aside
from the use of truck-only lanes?
Answer. No.
Question 9. If confirmed, will you pursue or require the use of
electronic on-board enforcement devices for trucker hours of service
enforcement?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the Electronic On-Board
Recorder NPRM and work with FMCSA to expedite the rulemaking process.
Question 10. Regarding New Jersey's continued use of multi-year
funding as an accepted financing method for infrastructure projects,
the former Secretary and current FHWA Administrator stated that the
Administration will not back away from the agreement reached with the
New Jersey Department of Transportation last fall. The statement in
that agreement pertaining to multi-year funding indicates that FHWA
will continue to honor New Jersey's multi-year funding approach. Can
you confirm my understanding that this agreement applies to both the
current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FY06-FY08) as
well as the FY07-FY10 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program?
Answer. Yes.
Question 11. If you are confirmed as Secretary, will FHWA continue
to approve New Jersey's use of multiyear funding in Statewide
Transportation Improvement Programs beyond FY07?
Answer. Yes.
Question 12. As former Secretary Mineta stated, congestion costs
our country about $200 billion a year. He proposed a strategy to reduce
congestion, but I found it to be lacking in terms of passenger travel
needs, and the use of rail service. Will you continue this initiative,
and will you take the opportunity to correct some of the problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to continue this initiative. I share
the former Secretary's concern about congestion clogging our highways,
railways, airports and seaports--and the staggering costs this
congestion imposes. I see the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on
America's Transportation Network, as a flexible document intended to
offer useful guidance to states, counties, cities and other localities
in search of solutions for combating congestion. As we progress with
this initiative, we will continue to modify our strategy as further
analysis and circumstances dictate. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with you to ensure that rail, intercity bus, and other long-
distance travel modes are included in the congestion solution for our
states and localities.
Question 13. If confirmed, will you pursue Federal efforts to
encourage or require motorcycle helmet use?
Answer. As an avid motorcyclist, I would never consider getting on
one of my bikes without wearing my helmet. As FHWA Administrator, I
made highway safety my highest priority and worked closely with the
Administrators of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
to develop strategies for reducing fatalities and injuries. Should I be
confirmed, I plan to continue placing a heavy emphasis on safety
initiatives and programs such as those promoting greater use of
motorcycle helmets.
Question 14. If confirmed, how will you ensure that we have a
balanced transportation system, with rail travel options for both
travelers and freight shippers?
Answer. The success of passenger rail systems is predicated on on-
time, quality service. I recognize this requires frequent dialogue
between passenger and freight rail operators. Additionally, America's
economy relies on an efficient freight rail system which we must
preserve. If confirmed, I commit to you the Department will be engaged
on this issue.
Question 15. Do you have plans to privatize our government
functions that are currently handled by Federal officials and
employees? What about the contracting out of work currently performed
by Federal officials and government employees?
Answer. I have no plans to privatize government functions that are
currently handled by Federal employees. I support DOT managers using
contractors as part of their overall workforce planning, if such use
provides a cost benefit to the American taxpayer and the service
provide by the contractor is not inherently governmental.
Question 16. If confirmed, will you allow the hiring by USDOT
agencies of contractors to prepare reports of agency activities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will allow USDOT agencies to utilize
contractors as part of their overall workforce planning, if such use
provides a cost benefit to the American taxpayer and the service
provided by the contractor is not inherently governmental.
Question 17. If confirmed, will you ensure that all ``prepackaged
news stories'' funded or produced by the Department of Transportation
will include disclaimers clearly notifying the audience that the U.S.
Government produced or funded the news segment?
Answer. Yes.