[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FY 2008 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
(110-6)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 8, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-030 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, JERRY MORAN, Kansas
California GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JULIA CARSON, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine Virginia
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TED POE, Texas
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CONNIE MACK, Florida
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Louisiana
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DORIS O. MATSUI, California WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii Carolina
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin CONNIE MACK, Florida
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of York
Columbia CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
BOB FILNER, California Louisiana
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio)
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Peters, Hon. Mary E., Secretary of Transportation, U.S.
Department of Transportation................................... 2
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 25
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., of South Carolina..................... 28
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 29
Mica, John L., of Florida........................................ 34
Mitchell, Hon. Harry, of Arizona................................. 42
Oberstar, James L., of Minnesota................................. 55
Walz, Timothy J., of Minnesota................................... 62
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESSES
Peters, Hon. Mary E............................................. 64
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Peters, Hon. Mary E., Secretary of Transportation, U.S.
Department of Transportation:
Responses to questions from Rep. Oberstar...................... 67
Responses to questions from Rep. Carney........................ 70
Responses to questions from Rep. Hall.......................... 75
Responses to questions from Rep. Brown......................... 79
(v)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FISCAL YEAR 2008 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
----------
Thursday, February 8, 2007
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington,
DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable James L.
Oberstar [Chairman of the committee] presiding.
Mr. Oberstar. The Committee of Transportation and
Infrastructure will please come to order.
Regrettably, I have just been notified from the floor that
there will be a series of floor votes that could take as much
as 25 minutes. I would hope that we would be able to get on
with the Secretary's testimony right at the outset. I know all
members have statements and pronouncements and points they want
to make and flags they want to lay down, but we can do that in
the course of the questioning.
We are here to hear the Secretary's presentation, her first
presentation before the full Committee, on the Administration's
Transportation Budget, which for some of us is a great
disappointment in many regards. There are other bright spots in
it, but overall I have some real concerns about the short
funding for transit, short funding for AIP, the under-funding
of Amtrak. There are a number of other areas that others have
concerns about.
We also will have from EPA, Ben Grumbles and Susan Bodine,
whom I welcome as former Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee staff members, and they are always dangerous when
they go over to the other side. They know how the legislative
side works, and then they take that expertise and go over to
the executive branch.
That will conclude my statement to welcome the Secretary.
We really appreciate your time spent with us.
I will yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Mica, for comments
that he might make.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you, and I will try to be brief too
and welcome Madam Secretary.
I too did receive the President's budget. Hopefully, it is
a good framework in which to start. Both Mr. Oberstar and I
have questions and concerns. We have already discussed some of
them.
As you know, I am a big fan of mass transit, and I am
concerned about some of the cuts that have been proposed. We
want to keep the trust fund whole, and I think we are committed
to that and try to get as many dollars as we can in there to
get distributed to our States. Amtrak, while you have a lowball
figure, I continue to encourage elimination of waste and
hopefully better management, and we will look at that.
There are other things that we will have questions about,
the State revolving fund and some of the investments that you
have in fact proposed and then also looking at some of the EPA
funding provisions.
I do have a lengthy statement, Mr. Chairman. I ask
unanimous consent that we put the entire, every morsel of
choice words into the record.
Mr. Oberstar. Every thoughtful comment by the Ranking
Member will be included in the record, without objection, and
my statement and those of other members.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Madam Secretary, the microphone is yours.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to be here
with you today to share the highlights of President Bush's
fiscal year 2008 budget plan for our Nation's transportation
programs.
Transportation lies at the core of the freedom that we
enjoy as Americans, the freedom to go where we want, when we
want, freedom to live and work where we choose and freedom to
spend time with our families.
Our goal is to deliver a transportation system that frees
people to make daily decisions, confident that they can reach
their destination safely, without worrying about how they will
get there or even if they can make it on time. To reach that
goal, the President's budget requests $67 billion for America's
transportation network.
Nearly one-third of the Department's resources will be
devoted to transportation safety. There is no acceptable
fatality rate when our loved ones, our communities, our friends
are at risk. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposes
resources for equipping our Nation's airports and roadways with
new safety technologies for targeting growing problems like
motorcycle crashes, something I have had personal experience
with, and for supporting aggressive inspections of trucks,
tracks, and pipelines to ensure the safest standards are met.
In addition to supporting our efforts to raise the bar on
safety, the President's budget will help cut congestion and
bring our transportation system into the 21st Century.
For those who use our aviation system, it provides the
framework for reforming our approach to paying for safety and
technology improvements needed to keep air travelers, freight
and pilots on schedule. We have put together a package that
will tie what users pay to what it costs the Federal Aviation
Administration to provide them with air traffic control and
other services. Our plan puts incentives in place that will
make the system more efficient, as well as more responsive to
the needs of the aviation community. Without reform, we can all
expect to spend more time waiting in airports or strapped in an
airplane seat, sitting at the end of a runway.
We will announce the full details of our aviation proposal
soon. I can tell you that the budget targets almost $175
million for a 21st Century satellite navigation system that
will replace the current dated air traffic control architecture
and over $900 million for additional capital projects that will
support this move to the Next Generation system.
For travelers, this system is going to bring greater
convenience and reliability, thanks to state of the art
technology that can safely handle dramatic increases in the
number and type of aircraft using our skies without being
overwhelmed by congestion.
For drivers stuck in traffic, the budget proposes a record
$42 billion in funding for highway and highway safety programs.
Our budget proposes resources to help move traffic on clogged
highways and city streets, directing $175 million to support
the comprehensive Department-wide congestion relief initiative
that Secretary Mineta announced last year.
This funding will help growing metropolitan areas that want
to test leading edge solutions. It will help commuters get
real-time traffic information, so they will know in advance if
roads are congested and be able to make alternative
transportation plans, and it will allow us to accelerate the
development of travel corridors that will be key to moving
freight and people without congestion in the future.
Accessible and cost-effective transit projects also help
fight congestion, and our budget provides $9.4 billion for
transit programs. This funding includes $1.3 billion for major
projects that will help provide commuter rail and other travel
options in large urban areas, and another $100 million will
support transit alternatives through the Small Starts program.
Even as we make these investments, we realize that a
business-as-usual approach to funding these programs is simply
not going to work much longer. There is and will continue to be
money coming into the Highway Trust Fund from gasoline taxes,
and the revenues are growing every year, but so is spending and
even at a higher rate. The bottom line is that we are spending
more than we take in, and we have nearly run through the
balances that had built up in the fund. The highway funding
problem is not going to go away, nor can we put it off until
the last minute.
As we go through this budget process, I look forward to
working with Congress on solutions to these issues. In the long
term, we need serious reform of our approaches to both
financing and managing our transportation network to win the
battle against congestion. Serious reform must include reform
of the legislative process itself.
The explosive growth of earmarks in recent years has hit
transportation programs especially hard. I support President's
call for transparency and a 50 percent reduction in earmarks in
the coming year. As a former State Department of Transportation
Director, I strongly support giving States freedom to set
priorities and use Federal dollars where they know they will
provide the maximum benefits.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to
working with each of you and the transportation community to
ensure a safe transportation system and to begin to break free
of the stifling congestion. I also look forward to answering
any questions you may have.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to introduce our
Assistant Secretary, Phyllis Scheinberg, who is here with me
today. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. Ms. Scheinberg, welcome. Thank you for being
here.
Ms. Scheinberg. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Madam Secretary. It was a very
succinct statement, remarkable.
Ms. Scheinberg, you have no statement? No, OK, thank you.
One question, your aviation user fee proposal, such as we
know of it, by our calculations--we spent some time working
over this--would raise $600 million less than the ticket tax is
now raising and the other user fees. How can that be consistent
with the Administration's argument that a user fee system is
needed because there is a revenue crisis?
Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, the $600 million difference
that you refer to was based on the 2008 budget year. We would
not begin collecting that tax until 2009, so it was a
hypothetical example. The Assistant Secretary could certainly
provide more details if that would be helpful.
Mr. Oberstar. I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity.
Madam Secretary, it is good to see you again. Thank you for
being here.
We are concerned. I am concerned, and I believe other
members of the Committee would share my concern about cuts
proposed in the Small Starts program. Can you explain the
rationale for these cuts, New Starts and Small Starts?
Secretary Peters. Mr DeFazio, yes, I would be happy to
explain those. The overall FTA budget for the year is $9.4
billion as I indicated, and it is a reduction of $309 million
below the fiscal year 2008 levels authorized in SAFETEA-LU. The
problem is, sir, that we had difficult budget choices to make.
We have made a choice to provide historic levels of transit
funding and in this budget we have proposed funding every
project that is ready to go. There are no projects that are
sacrificed in our budget. That includes 11 existing full-
funding grant agreements, two pending agreements and two
proposed agreements. We have also set aside $72 million in
funding for 6 projects that are not yet ready to be funded.
We have also included $100 million for the Small Starts
program. We believe that the new regulations will not be
finalized until early 2008 which would make it difficult to
award more projects.
Mr. DeFazio. I guess if I could, I appreciate that, but it
has been quite some time since we passed the legislation. Why
can't we have the regulations for Small Starts sooner than
that? Why would it take another year to get the bureaucratic
regulations published?
Congress expressed its will. We will be near the end of
this highway bill before we get to that. Couldn't we move that
up a little bit?
Secretary Peters. Congressman DeFazio, I understand your
concern, and I will do everything in our power to get those
regulations moved up sooner.
Mr. DeFazio. There are some in the transportation community
that think the Administration doesn't like the idea of Small
Starts and New Starts, and I would hope that that is not true.
The $275 million you are saving, where is that going? Is
that going to your new congestion whatever program, the one you
are pushing communities to do?
I have heard from communities saying well, gee, DOT has
been out here. They have all this new money. They have got
these new programs they want us to do for congestion
mitigation. They want us to do time of day tolling and other
things. Is that where that money is being moved to?
Secretary Peters. Sir, that is not where that money is
being moved. The money that we are using for the congestion
initiative is money that came from inactive projects, projects
that were as old as the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Then where did the $275 million from
transit go? What are we dong with that?
Secretary Peters. Sir, that is within the balance of our
overall budget which includes some small portion of general
fund monies.
Mr. DeFazio. We are cutting an authorized program paid for
by user fees in order to offset some of your administrative
overhead costs that are reimbursed out of the general fund in
order to provide the illusion of moving toward a balanced
budget, is that correct?
We are foregoing real investments in transportation in
order to satisfy the green eyeshade trolls over at OMB who want
to pretend they are providing us with a fiscally responsible
budget.
Secretary Peters. Sir, the reduction in the transit program
comes from the general fund portion.
Mr. DeFazio. So, again, we are cutting real programs that
could provide transit alternatives for Americans at a time of
escalating fuel prices, a time of concern over our dependency
on imported oil, and we are doing all that to offset this
general fund contribution in order again just to try and
provide the illusion of fiscal responsibility.
Secretary Peters. Congressman, the President has asked us
to keep non-defense discretionary spending at or below 1
percent. We have actually allocated more money than that to the
surface transportation and transit programs, but the need to
have budget discipline this year is what led us to this level.
Mr. DeFazio. Right, but again this is something authorized
by the Congress and authorized to be paid for by a trust fund
tax paid by the American people for a dedicated purpose, a
purpose for which there is no shortage of demand out there in
America, and we are cutting it. Bottom line, is that it is
because the President says, well, we just can't. We don't have
that money, and we are going to spend it somewhere else or we
are going to use it for tax cuts for rich people.
Secretary Peters. From the general fund portion, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. My time is about expired, but I guess I have
one other quick question about the fuel tax.
I just had a State legislator in, a Republican State
legislator. There is a big conference at the White House
tomorrow to push privatization projects. I am concerned, and I
raised this with you privately and I have raised it publicly,
about the push toward privatization. It can be appropriate in
some instances. In others, it might not be. But overall we have
to protect the integrity of the national transportation
infrastructure and its interconnected nature. We need to
protect the public interest.
I fear that, particularly that you have got a fellow from
the Reason Foundation and you have got a staff person who has
produced a one-sided document on this issue. I looked at the
panel members. There is no balance. You are not talking about
the fact that there is a way to do it right and another way
that may not be in the public interest. I am very concerned
about that, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Peters. Sir, I understand your concerns.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Mica?
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Again, welcome, Secretary Peters.
We find ourselves, and I guess we have done this before, in
one of our more unique funding situations and budget situations
in that the fiscal year that started in October of last year,
we have not resolved financing, at least Congress has not
finished it with a CR. I have a question about the impact of
the CR, the 2006-2007 CR, that we should be financing
Government with now as far as your Department-wide
responsibilities, are you going to be able to meet your goals
as far as safety and programs?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Mica, if the H.J. Resolution
20 includes some 2007 fiscal year levels of funding, we will be
able to do so. If it is flatlined at 2006 levels, it would
require drastic action in the Agency, particularly with regard
to our FAA air traffic controllers as well as safety inspectors
and other positions.
What we would ask, in those areas that are held to the 2006
levels, is that we would have the flexibility to reprogram so
that we may ensure that the highest priority needs are met.
Mr. Mica. Because I think they are going to play a game of
chicken at the end here for folks to try, from what I heard, to
eliminate some amendments in the Senate and messing with it.
You just testified the Administration doesn't want to see a
lot of earmarks. This may be the biggest earmark in history,
and you will also have discretion in how to distribute those
funds if there are not specific earmarks, isn't that correct?
Secretary Peters. Yes, sir, that would be correct. We
would, however, follow Congressional guidance in establishing
the programs.
Mr. Mica. OK, because we did have a discussion, the
Chairman and I, earlier about procedures, and I think that is
going to be important.
We don't have your whole FAA financing plan. If you can't
tell us the plan, can you tell us the rollout schedule?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Mica, we expect to roll out
that proposal next week.
Mr. Mica. Is that everything? Is that the PFCs? We got a
little glimpse in here, and some of this does possibly look at
user fees.
Secretary Peters. It does.
Mr. Mica. Do you want to talk about that for a minute?
Secretary Peters. I would, Congressman, and if I may take
just a moment to talk about the need for the change in system
because that has been the subject of some discussion.
The current funding structure for FAA has significant
limitations. These limitations have resulted in less than
optimal service. Many of us saw an article in the Washington
Post this morning about significant delays in aviation travel.
Safety of the program is and remains our highest priority, but
there have been delays and a lack of reliability due to the
capacity and the capability of the current 20th Century system,
and these are only going to get worse as demand on the system
increases.
In just less than 10 years, the Nation's air space will be
30 percent more crowded than it is today, and by just 2012, FAA
projects 23 percent more passengers will be flying. By 2025,
commercial carriers will be carrying 1.4 billion passengers,
which is an 87 percent increase. By 2012, FAA projects that
aircraft handled by FAA en route centers will be 17.6 percent
higher than in 2006. By 2025, demand will increase to 86.5
million aircraft, which is an 87 percent increase over 2006.
Our current funding structure is largely based on the price
of a ticket, and bears no direct relationship between the taxes
paid by users and the air traffic services provided by FAA. In
order to meet the future demand as well as some of the current
demand, we need to transition to a dynamic 21st Century
structure that ties use of the system to costs, a system that
is equitable and a system that is responsive to growing demand.
Sir, we have talked about user fees, but there are a number
of policy considerations that will be addressed in the
reauthorization proposal itself. I understand that people are
concerned, and I understand the general aviation community is
concerned. But I would ask that we have that discussion after
the proposal is released so that we can look at the policy
implications and decisions together.
Mr. Mica. OK. Final question, to actually get us to deal
with the aviation congestion, we have got to go to the next
generation of air traffic control. For the new members, the
acronym, and you will lots of these, is NGATS, Next Generation
Air Traffic Control.
The schedule for NGATS and then our preliminary discussions
to date, we are looking at about a billion dollars additional
per year in financing that for 18 to 20 years to keep up with
it because you can never hire enough air traffic controllers to
keep up with that as per the MITRE. I strongly recommend if you
get a chance, and I think they are coming up here with a little
display, you should see the MITRE study on NGATS. Could you
respond quickly?
Secretary Peters. Congressman, I think you make a valid
point. Today's system is largely dependent on ground-based
radar, and so as planes fly across the Country, they are
tracked from one system to another based on the ground towers.
The new system, which we call Next Generation, will be based on
satellite technology and will allow planes to fly closer
together, and land closer together without compromising the
safety of the system. This system will require not only changes
with the infrastructure within the air traffic control system,
but also within the airplanes and the architecture that is part
of that system today.
So, as Congressman Mica said, this is a long-term, highly
capital-intensive investment. We are developing a business plan
for that investment, and we will be able to share it with you
in the reauthorization proposal. But, as the Congressman said,
this is a very significant investment that will move us into
the 21st Century and allow us to be able to handle the type of
aircraft traffic increases that I spoke to earlier.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think most of my questions might be for the second panel,
but I will ask if by chance you are recommending user fees
anywhere else because of the shortness of the budget.
Secretary Peters. Congresswoman, we are not recommending
user fees at any other part of our budget at this time.
Ms. Johnson. Well, do you think you are going to have
enough money to deal with the New Starts and all the projects
that are ongoing considering the fact that the gas tax fund
will, run out in 2009?
Secretary Peters. Congresswoman, you make a valid point. In
fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected
already a $3.62 billion deficit in the highway account of the
Highway Trust Fund for 2009. The Administration is recommending
several steps to help mitigate that and protect the solvency of
the trust fund. However, we still anticipate that a projected
$238 million shortfall will occur in 2009.
The two steps that we are taking: Our first, a new
accounting procedure that transfers cash to the flex funding
from the highway account to the mass transit account (MTA) when
the money is needed for outlays as opposed to when the actual
contract authority and obligation limitation are transferred it
doesn't hurt the MTA because these outlays go out at a slower
rate. The second, and probably the bigger recommendation that
we are making is that the President's 2008 budget proposes not
spending $631 million in revenue-aligned budget authority.
These two mechanisms will reduce the anticipated shortfall to
$238 million anticipated.
But, as you said, Congresswoman, we really need to talk
about what we are going to do for the transportation funding
well before 2009.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Petri?
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, there are a lot of areas that I would like
to ask about, but there is one that my colleague, Mr. Duncan,
who is not here right now, and I think you might want to expand
on. It is kind of plowing new ground in a way, and that is the
area of congestion pricing. What is the Administration's
proposal and what are the implications of that? The ideas to
get greater utilization out of infrastructure, something that
the transportation professors talk about all the time but the
people where the rubber hits the road, so to speak, and have to
manage the system have trouble implementing. Could you talk
about that and what the merits and problems are associated with
what you are doing in the area of congestion pricing?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Petri, I would be glad.
Congestion pricing, or dynamic pricing as it is sometimes is
known, is the differential pricing based on time of day and use
of a system. Probably the longest going project in the United
States today that uses congestion pricing is State Route 91,
Riverside County in California. Their sytem does dynamically
prices the system to keep the traffic free flowing at all
times. On several projects in Southern California, we have seen
a 40 percent greater through-put by using this congestion or
dynamic pricing than we do with the same lane configurations on
adjacent so-called free lanes.
Congestion pricing can help us get more throughput out of
our transportation infrastructure but also can keep that
transportation infrastructure safer because it keeps most of
the traffic moving at relatively the same speed of travel which
is always safer than the dangerous stop and go that you
sometimes see in congested areas.
Mr. Petri. Could you explain it a little bit more
concretely? How would people pay more at different times of day
as mainly it would be commuters, I assume, going into and out
of congested areas?
Secretary Peters. Yes, in most cases, it is commuters. The
way the system works is the tolls or the fees are charged
electronically through a transponder that is mounted in the
car. Signs approaching the entrance to these lanes would state
what the price is at that time so people could make a conscious
choice whether or not to get on those lanes. If they choose to
get on the lanes, the price does not change during the time
that they are on the lanes. The price only changes at the onset
of the facility not during the time that you are on the
facility.
Mr. Petri. You would be using, in effect, HOV lanes for
congestion pricing?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Petri, that is where it works
extremely well. Converting an existing high occupancy vehicle
or HOV lane to what is sometimes called a high-occupancy toll
lane uses the available capacity that is already there on an
existing HOV lane. In many cases it can capitalize on existing
infrastructure so that single-occupant drivers can use those
lanes by paying the fees. The pricing structure helps keep the
traffic moving or free flowing for the entire facility.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
You may have mentioned this--I was distracted for a
minute--the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System. I
realize it is not a turning off one system and turning on a new
system. The technology will be deployed in a sequential way and
layered into the system, and a lot of people are working on it.
Do you have some idea going forward the next 5 years and 10
years what the cost implications are?
Is it going to be manageable within the budgets or will
there be a surge? Can you give us some sense of what you are
thinking in terms of the cost of the new system?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Petri, we are looking at a
variety of ways to pay for this system right now as well as
developing a budget. We are looking at a variety of ways where
we might be able to access funding, including possibly the
private sector, to build and operate the system. That is all
part of a business plan that we are developing and should get
to you in the next few weeks, or the next few months rather, as
well.
A very important part of what you said, Congressman Petri,
is the fact that this system has to migrate in over time. It
isn't just flipping a switch and changing from the existing
system today to the Next Generation system. As I mentioned
earlier, it will involve changes not only to air traffic
control infrastructure but to the aviation equipment itself.
The airplanes, airports, et cetera will also have to be
retrofitted with this equipment.
We believe, sir, that this will indeed cost several billion
dollars. As I said, we are in the process of developing a
business plan and should have more firm information to you in
the coming months.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
I think the benefit is that it will improve safety and
expand the capacity of the system enormously.
Secretary Peters. Sir, it absolutely will. The truth is the
existing system simply cannot handle the growth in aviation
traffic that we are going to be seeing in the future.
Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Costello?
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Madam Secretary,
welcome to the hearing here today.
I share what I expect what many of my colleagues expressed,
and that is I am concerned that the fiscal year 2008
Administration budget does not adequately meet the needs of our
Nation for the expectation of investment in critical
infrastructure, and specifically let me address a couple of
issues concerning aviation.
For the past several years, the Administration has proposed
massive cuts in the AIP program. I have opposed those cuts for
obvious reasons. When we look at airports, much of the
attention is put on security. However, we have a capacity issue
that we have to address to avoid costly delays in the future.
My question has just a few concerns about the proposed
budget for aviation. We have a hearing next week which will get
into specifics, but I understand from an earlier question that
you noted that your 2008 comparison for the proposal to the
current tax structure was, you indicated, hypothetical, that it
was hypothetical because the user fee structure would not be in
place.
We did a preliminary analysis of the analytical perspective
accompanying the budget, and it indicates that the
Administration user fee proposal will actually generate $900
million less in revenue than the current tax structure between
the years 2009 and 2012. I just ask you, is that correct?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Costello, I don't know if
that is correct. I would be happy to look at the numbers with
you and see if we could reconcile that, but I don't have that
number with me today.
Mr. Costello. My understanding is in response to Chairman
Oberstar's question, you had indicated that it was hypothetical
because the user fees would not be in existence in 2008. They
will be if your proposal is enacted by Congress in that period
of time. You have not run the numbers for 2009 through 2012?
Secretary Peters. Yes, we have. If I may, I will ask the
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs to answer that
question.
Mr. Costello. The question is our analysis shows it is
about $900 million less during that period of time with the
user fee system than the current tax structure, and I just want
to know if that is correct.
Ms. Scheinberg. I won't disagree with those numbers, but I
wanted to say that the user fees in the future are now just
estimates. Our user fee proposal will be directly tied to the
needs and costs of the system. As the needs and costs go up,
the user fees would go up. So, right now, we are not showing
what would probably be the accurate numbers. Those numbers
would be adjusted the closer we get to 2012. This is pretty
much an estimate at this point.
Mr. Costello. But you would not disagree. You would not
quarrel with the numbers if your preliminary analysis says it
is $900 million less than the current tax structure. You
wouldn't have reason to doubt that.
Ms. Scheinberg. I don't have the numbers in front of me,
but I wouldn't disagree if you say so, yes.
Mr. Costello. Let me also ask, Madam Secretary. The issue
of the general fund contribution, in the Administration, we
have seen a reduction over a period of time now. I happen to
believe in a robust general fund contribution because I believe
it benefits everyone, the system does, and an efficient air
transportation system benefits the economy.
Let me ask your feeling about a general fund contribution.
It went from about in the high twenties to 25 percent down to
21 percent and now I believe down to 19 percent. What is your
feeling about a general fund contribution to support the system
and the modernization program?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Costello, we believe that a
general fund contribution is important to fund those things
that are inherently governmental functions, or those things
that are in the interest of the public as a whole. Some of
those things would include defense uses of the air traffic
control system. We believe the general fund contribution ought
to be equitable to inherently governmental or public use
functions.
Mr. Costello. The current projections that I have seen for
the AIP program, and if these are correct in front of me, the
President's proposal is $2.75 billion. You know and I know that
under the current entitlement program for airports, when the
figure falls below about $3.2 billion, then the primary
airports that are entitled to a minimum of $1 million, that
would drop down to about $650,000 and the non-primary airports
would be cut out of the process, the entitlement process
altogether. I wonder if you might comment as to how the FAA
intends to address that if the President's AIP budget proposal
is adopted by the Congress?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Costello, our reauthorization
proposal will contain changes to the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) formula and passenger facility charges.
Today we support a level, as you said, of $2.75 billion.
This amount, based on our projections, will provide enough
funds for us to meet the high-priority airport capacity,
environmental, safety and security needs of the airport system.
The proposed changes that will be contained in our
reauthorization proposal will ensure that funds flow to
projects that further National goals and airports that depend
heavily on AIP to meet their capital financing needs.
Mr. Costello. Last question, the Administration has been
promising to deliver their proposal for the reauthorization of
the FAA since last summer, and I have heard it was going to be
June and then the fall and then the first of the year and now
we are hearing next week. Will we get the Administration's
proposed reauthorization plan next week and, secondly, will it
be in one part or will it be divided up into three parts as we
have heard?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Costello, I do apologize. I
can't speak for the past, but since I have been at the
Department, it has been our target to get that proposal to you
right after budget rollout which would be next week, and it is
my expectation that we will do that.
Mr. Costello. In one package or in parts?
Secretary Peters. One package, sir.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Secretary Peters. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Hayes?
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, welcome.
Secretary Peters. Thank you.
Mr. Hayes. We appreciate the challenge and opportunity
before you. The Department of Transportation is a tremendous
contributor to commerce and employment and jobs and the overall
health and well-being of the Nation, whether it is highways,
rails, ships.
Aviation is a particular area of interest to me, and I am
sure you will get a couple of other questions about that going
forward. Looking at aviation, and let me say up front that I
think the idea of user fees is just very, very frightening and
damaging to the potential for maintaining and increasing the
aviation community's contribution to the whole process. Talk
about increased congestion, that is a problem in the air and on
the ground, but in the air it is three-dimensional as opposed
to one on the ground. The FAA, in modernization, has almost
doubled the air space with the advent of RVSM equipment and
some other things that the community is paying for.
My question becomes then as well look forward, we want to
make sure that these tax dollars are getting the maximum
effect. Now on increasing capacity, there are a number of
obsolete systems. When I say obsolete, they still work but very
few people use them, VORs and NDBs, those types of things. I
hope and I would assume that going forward you all will look
very carefully at the savings generated, kind of like cleaning
out your closet, as we move into more technology-driven areas.
Is that a big part of your planning process when it comes to
what the FAA will ask for in the reauthorization?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Hayes, it is. I think you
make a valid point that some of these systems will no longer
need to be used.
The only difference, I would say, is the transition period.
As Congressman Petri pointed out, we can't simply turn off one
system and turn on another. So it will be a migration over
time. But yes, we are calculating the cost savings from the
systems that will no longer be used.
Mr. Hayes. I appreciate that, and I will look forward with
Mr. Costello and others to sitting down and talking about that
in detail. If I fly from here to Concord--and under the rules,
that is now questionable--there is only one VOR involved in
that. The other one is still out there. There are a lot of
things that could happen.
The FAA has had some issues with recent audits. It is a big
agency and has a lot going on. I hope we would make sure,
particularly under the threat of huge tax increases on fuel and
potential user fees, that we get that cleared up. I want the
folks, particularly in the name of safety, to have everything
that they need but making sure that those dollars are well
spent and that we do not put undue strain, particularly on that
segment of industry where hundreds of thousands of people are
employed in building airliners and all the way from 747s all
the way down to unmanned aerial vehicles.
Any thought or is it premature since the final document is
coming out next week, where is the whole user fee issue?
Chairman Mica mentioned it earlier. What is the latest and
greatest on that and can you give us a preview of what proposed
tax increases on fuel there are and kind of how that is going
to shake out?
Secretary Peters. Congressman, I am at a bit of a
disadvantage due to the fact that we don't have the
reauthorization proposal out yet, and because some of those
issues are being decided, I would not be comfortable talking
about what the components of charges would be. I would be happy
to talk with you next week.
You obviously have much greater knowledge about the
technical aspects of this than I. In fact, I think I have just
about exhausted my technical capability here, but I do
understand your concern about the audit and about
responsibility for public funds. I think the issue is a very
important one.
Air traffic modernization has been on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) high risk list for years.
Administrator Blakey and I take these issues very seriously,
and we have been giving the programs and accountability for the
programs very careful attention. Ninety-seven percent of FAA's
major capital programs were on time and on budget in 2006, and
that number will be even higher for 2007. Both GAO and the
Department's Inspector General have noted FAA's improvement in
major project management.
Now in terms of calculating the fee, sir, it is intended
that an advisory group would be structured and would work with
Congress in determining what the actual fees would be.
Mr. Hayes. We certainly, again, welcome you to the Hill and
appreciate your efforts. If I have more knowledge that you do,
it is got to be in very limited areas. So, again, thank you and
we look forward to working with you and make sure that
everybody wins at the end of the day.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Secretary Peters. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Hayes.
Ms. Norton? No questions.
Mr. Cummings?
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, welcome. Madam Secretary, I wanted to ask
you about two areas, water and Amtrak.
The President has proposed significant cuts in the
Environmental Protection Agency's budget for wastewater
infrastructure. Cuts are also proposed for the Clean Water
State Revolving Loan Fund programs to mitigate runoff and
programs to restore brownfields. The Targeted Watershed Grant
program is proposed to be zeroed out. Obviously, these are also
cuts that would target the safety of our water supply and cut
the meager environmental protection programs we currently have
in place. I just wanted to know what was the thinking behind
those cuts?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Cummings, I unfortunately am
not qualified to answer those questions. I believe the
witnesses on the second panel from EPA would be able to do so.
Mr. Cummings. No problem.
Let us go to Amtrak. You believe Amtrak ought to be
privatized?
Secretary Peters. Sir, I believe that the Nation needs an
inter-city passenger rail service, but we need one that
operates on a business model that is sustainable.
Mr. Cummings. So I take it that, as you probably know, in
the last few Congresses, there seems to have been an effort
afoot by the Administration to move towards privatization, but
even the Republican Congress has repelled that. You know that,
right?
Secretary Peters. Sir, I do. Having fairly recently come
through the confirmation process, it became abundantly clear to
me that there is support for the Amtrak program in Congress,
albeit for the funding to be used responsibly.
I have had the opportunity to meet with the Amtrak board,
the chairman, as well as the new head of Amtrak, Alex Kummant,
to talk about what they are doing. We have seen some progress
in the last year by the Amtrak board and by management to
control costs and to raise revenues. The President's 2008
budget for Amtrak recognizes that the corporation has made some
necessary budget reforms, and we have included $900 million in
our budget just as we did last year.
We also are aware of the fact that Amtrak has some
substantial resources in addition to the amount proposed in the
President's budget. Those resources include approximately $2
billion in normal operating revenue as well as $250 million in
State subsidies.
One of the reasons we structured our proposal the way we
did, allowing for $100 million for proposed inter-city
passenger rail grant programs, is that it could be matched with
State funds to gain another $100 million for the Amtrak
program. The reason we feel that those State partnerships are
so important is that over the last 10 years, ridership on
inter-city passenger rail routes that benefit from State
support and State involvement has grown by 73 percent.
Ridership on Amtrak routes that are not supported by States has
increased by only 7 percent.
Mr. Cummings. Now you realize that both Republican and
Democratic governors are looking for resources--and my
governor, the Republican that was in there and now the Democrat
in Maryland--are just screaming, just trying to figure out how
they are going to deal with the responsibilities they have
presently. Basically, what you are saying is that you want to
put more, the President wants to put more responsibility on the
States to give more to Amtrak, is that an accurate statement?
Secretary Peters. Congressman, we believe that where States
choose to do so and can provide money, which is then matched at
a 50 percent level by this program, it can have very positive
results. For example, Washington State, California, and a
number of other States who already put money into commuter rail
programs are putting money into Amtrak programs and seeing
significant increases in ridership.
Mr. Cummings. You have the belief that the Northeast
corridor should be separated from the Amtrak system?
Secretary Peters. Sir, I have not arrived at that decision.
The Northeast corridor is very important, and that is one of
the reasons that we put $500 million for capital costs in our
budget, to help the maintenance and repair of capital
infrastructure across the system, but particularly in the
Northeast corridor.
Mr. Cummings. Just very briefly, tell me about this. It
seems like there has been built up this structure to plan
basically to have private and public going against each other,
I guess in some type of competition. Is that right?
Secretary Peters. Sir, I am not aware of that. In fact,
what I would prefer to see is public and private contributions
working together for the greater good. I am not aware of an
effort to contract out Amtrak nor has that been mentioned to me
by the CEO or the board members with whom I have spoken.
Mr. Cummings. You are not anxious to see it privatized, is
that what you are saying?
Secretary Peters. Sir, I am not sure that that is on the
table as an offer. If it is, I would certainly want to know
what the parameters of that offer were and whether or not it
was in the public interest at the end of the day.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Peters. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Graves?
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being here today and coming up and visiting with
us.
My biggest concern is with the FAA and with the new
proposals, and I have got a real problem. We talk a whole lot
about this funding proposal and how we are going to pay for
this thing, but you stated yourself you are still working on
the business plan for the Next Generation Air Traffic Control
System. Is that going to be available next week with your
funding proposal?
Secretary Peters. Sir, the business plan will not be
available next week. What will be available next week is the
product that came out of the Joint Program Development Office.
That office includes representatives not only from FAA, but
from Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department
of Homeland Security, NASA, as well as aviation stakeholders
who have put together the parameters of the plan that will be
included in our proposal.
Mr. Graves. But we still don't know what it is we are going
to have. We still don't know what the Next Generation Air
Traffic Control System is going to be.
Secretary Peters. We do not, sir.
Mr. Graves. We still don't know what it is going to cost.
We still don't know. We really don't know a whole lot about it
except for a concept, but yet we are coming up with a funding
proposal to pay for it.
We talk all about congestion and how crowded the skies are
going to be, but I am specifically talking to those GA pilots,
those VFR pilots who are out there in Class D air space. They
are not using this system, and if they are not using this
system, then how can congestion be a problem?
I have heard rumors of as much as a 300 percent increase in
the gas tax in and the aviation fuel tax for these GA pilots.
That is the word that I got, a 70 cent gas tax. Right now, what
is it? It is about 22 or something like that. Now that is a
horrendous increase if that is what the case is, and that is
for pilots that aren't using the system. That is for pilots who
aren't a problem with the system.
I know pilots out there that have got thousands of hours,
and they are operating strictly in Class air space. They are
not going into Class B air space. They seldom cross through
Class C air space. They are just not a drain on the system, but
yet they are going to be taxed to help pay for this.
Now I understand through the Aviation Trust Fund, what this
money goes to. Truly, the Aviation Trust Fund, and Mr.
Oberstar, I know can surely speak to this because he has
institutional knowledge about everything when it comes to
transportation. The Aviation Trust Fund was developed to build
runways and infrastructure, not pay for operating costs. I
understand GA has a role in that, and we have the whole
reliever airport system to get GA off of the big airports so
that the airlines can get in there and we don't have
congestion.
But now all of a sudden we are talking about safety in the
system. We are talking about crowded skies. We are talking
about a Next Generation Air Traffic Control System. That brings
me to a whole other point, and that is new equipment.
I can't afford the equipment that is being put in some of
these airplanes now. The equipment is worth more than the
airplane is in many cases, and now you are talking about a
whole new system that is going to require new equipment. Just
through certification costs and everything that is associated
with that, I can only imagine what that is going to cost, and
it concerns me a great deal for those GA pilots out there.
Those are the ones that I am worried about. They can't afford a
300 percent increase in aviation fuel costs. I don't what it is
going to be, and I am sure you don't know what it is going to
be either. We will see next week what the proposal is going to
be.
More than anything else, I am venting, and I don't expect
you to necessarily respond to it because I have a whole lot of
questions next week and I have got reams of questions that I
have about this system that we still don't know what it is and
what it is going to cost and how we are going to use.
Mr. Oberstar. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Graves. Yes, yes.
Mr. Oberstar. The gentleman is not venting. The gentleman
is just making a very profound, compelling statement that
reflects the views on both sides of the aisle about the
Administration's plan or non-plan or incomplete proposition. So
when that proposal comes out next week, it better not just be a
concept. It better be something very specific.
Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, I understand.
Congressman Graves, we do understand the concerns of the
general aviation community. There are a number of policy
considerations that will have to be made by the Department,
working together with Congress, as this reauthorization
prospect goes forward in the coming months. Those policy
considerations will have a great deal to do with some of the
concerns that you have expressed by the general aviation
community.
Again, in terms of the concept of Next Generation, what we
want to do is work with you and work with experts in the field
so that together we identify the correct technology because
sometimes Government is a little behind the curve when it comes
to the best available technology. That is something that we
want to work together with you on.
I know that Administrator Blakey will be able to address
those issues when she appears before this Committee next week .
Mr. Graves. In closing, I do want to thank you for coming
up here, and I appreciate your answering our questions or
talking about them.
Secretary Peters. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman for this very
perceptive and compelling statement.
Mr. Holden?
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I really don't have a question. I have a
comment, but I welcome your opportunity to respond to it when I
am finished.
On your comment that you believe that earmarks should be
reduced by 50 percent, I couldn't disagree with you more if I
tried. Those of us on this Committee and particularly those of
us from rural districts depend upon the opportunity to steer
dollars to our districts for hazard mitigation, for congestion
problems, for economic development, and quite frankly, our
state DOTs do not have endless resources. We do not give them
endless resources. The money naturally gravitates to the
metropolitan areas. We need that opportunity to take care of
those concerns that we have.
The Chairman has been to my district two times. The former
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Highways, Mr. Rahall, was
there once looking at projects. While you are thinking about
reducing earmarks, I am just going to give you three examples
of projects, two complete, one in progress right now that would
still be on PennDOT's planning if it were not for my ability
and Senator Specter's ability to earmark funds for these
projects.
In my home county of Schuylkill, Route 61 was deemed one of
the most dangerous highways in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. It was a four lane highway, not wide enough, no
divider on it. Two highway bills ago, I earmarked $15 million.
Senator Specter put a little bit on top of it. Now it is a four
lane highway with jersey barriers, and there has not been a
fatality there in six years.
Route 222 in Berks County, one of the fastest growing
counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, had the esteemed
pleasure of being known as the Home of the Road to Nowhere.
Route 222 is a highway between Reading, Pennsylvania and
Lancaster, Pennsylvania which was two lanes in two fast growing
counties. It would still be a road to nowhere if we were not
able to earmark a sufficient amount of funds to have that
complete. They are open and operating and safe.
Chairman Oberstar was in my district in Lebanon,
Pennsylvania, the City of Lebanon. Norfolk Southern comes
through a city of 35,000 people 40 plus times a day. Since I
have been representing that county, people have been killed by
trains. The ambulance service, the fire service are separated
when the trains are coming through from getting to the
hospital, getting to the fire sight. As the result of an
earmark, it is now a land acquisition. So earmarks are not a
dirty word. It is an opportunity for us to help our districts,
and I hope you will consider that.
Secretary Peters. Congressman, if I may clarify, what the
President is concerned about are earmarks that are not done in
the light of day, those things that happen away from the
decision-making part of Congress. We absolutely understand that
while the Administration proposes, Congress disposes, and we
will always follow the law. But what we ask is that those laws
be made in the light of day so that your fellow members and the
American people can know where those monies are going.
I don't question your judgment, sir.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Believe me, they
were transparent. We had six newsletters out on those projects.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman. He made a very
powerful statement about the high priority member projects that
are designated.
Just for the Secretary's edification, although she was
Federal Highway Administrator during the process of SAFETEA-LU,
we circulated, then Chairman Young and I circulated a 22 point
questionnaire to all members that they had to fill out and sign
to identify projects in their districts that they would like to
have included in the Transportation Bill. All of that was
included in the Committee report. Those submissions by members
were all vetted. They had to be included in the STIP, that is,
the long-term Surface Transportation Improvement Program of
their State, and a whole host of other requirements. The
specific geographical location of the project, and their
identification by member were part of our Committee report and
part of the bill that went to the House floor and through
conference and in the conference report.
There is no night time designation and no night time fly by
night operation in this Committee. It is all done in the light
of day.
Secondly, in the aviation reauthorizations, we have never
during the time that I was Chair, during the time that Mr.
Duncan was Chair, during the time that Mr. Mica was Chair,
allowed in the reauthorization of FAA, any airport designation.
There were hundreds of requests from members to have a tower, a
runway, a taxiway, terminal improvements, all that sort of
stuff. We kept it out.
It is the appropriation process that is bad, and I can
guarantee, Madam Secretary, that if they cross our line in this
Congress, this Chairman is going to be on the floor and raise
points of order.
Secretary Peters. I understand, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I arrived late because of another meeting,
but I don't think this question has been put to you. The 2008
budget does not include any funds for the new Department of
Transportation building in Southeast D.C. Two questions, when
are you moving into the new building, and do you have
sufficient funds in the 2007 continuing resolution to make the
move?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Coble, thank you for asking
the question. If the 2007 H.J. Resolution 20 is enacted as it
passed the House, we will have sufficient money to complete the
new building, and we will be moving in beginning in
approximately April of this year through the end of June of
this year. In fact, I am very pleased to report that that
project is coming in under budget and on time, should H.J.
Resolution 20 pass both chambers of Congress.
Mr. Coble. Good news, we don't hear that very often on this
Hill, do we, Mr. Chairman?
Secretary, let me ask you one final question. Do you
believe that there are opportunities to move more cargo on our
waterways as part of the intermodal transportation system, (a)
and (b), what can be done to encourage greater or widespread
use of our waterways as a means of addressing some of the
congestion problems of other modes?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Coble, I think you make a
valid point. We are looking at more than doubling the freight
transportation of our Nation just within the next 10 years.
Estimates are that there will be as much as two and a half
times the trucks on the road that you see out there today than
trains. So, absolutely, using our inland waterways, using a
concept called short sea shipping is something that we
absolutely should look at. It is something that I am talking to
our maritime administration about to determine where and how we
might propose to you to make better use of the waterways.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Secretary Peters.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Oberstar. I supplement the gentleman's inquiry by
saying that this Committee, the Coast Guard Subcommittee
actually will have a hearing on short sea shipping for the
purpose of exploring wider opportunities to use our maritime
inland waterways and the salt water as well as the Great Lakes
coastal system to move goods more efficiently and at least cost
and least environmental impact.
Short sea shipping has been in practice in other countries.
We have not used it, I was going to say sufficiently. We have
hardly used it at all in the United States. The purpose of the
hearing is to explore exactly the point of the gentleman's
question.
For example, containers that come into the United States
from the West Coast to the Port of Vancouver by the Canadian
Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway, the CN
brings those containers, about a half million of them now,
through International Falls on the U.S.-Canadian border in my
district and then by rail down through the heartland of the
United States.
Those containers could be offloaded at Duluth, placed on a
lake-size container vessel, moved past the choke point in
Chicago where it takes as long for a container to move through
Chicago seven miles as it does to move 1,800 miles from the
West Coast to Chicago. Now we can relieve the congestion,
reduce the cost and move containers more efficiently. We are
going to explore that issue in the coastal regions, the salt
coastal regions and the Great Lakes.
Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for your testimony.
One of the goals that this Committee has adopted on a
bipartisan basis is to examine the connection that exists
between transportation policy and energy policy. The President
in his State of the Union message in 2006 said that we were
addicted to oil. The President is now acknowledging that human
activity contributes to global climate change. It is imperative
on all of us obviously to bend our policies in a way that
reduces our dependence on foreign oil, reduces carbon emissions
and so on.
My question to you is really very straightforward. Does the
Administration believe that increased reliance on mass transit
is a means by which we can reduce our consumption on foreign
oil and in the process thereby reduce carbon emissions?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Bishop, mass transit
certainly has a place in meeting the Nation's transportation
demand, and with the right systems in place, mass transit can
relieve some of the congestion that we are experiencing on our
roadways today.
Mr. Bishop. Then let me be more specific. How is it if the
Administration shares that belief, how is it that the
Administration can cut funding by $300 million below the level
authorized in SAFETEA-LU?
You made the point that what the Administration was trying
to reach was historic levels of funding. I believe that is how
you characterized it.
Secretary Peters. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. I guess my question is: Is this the time that
we can settle for historic levels of funding?
We passed, on a bipartisan basis, a reauthorization bill
that included a level of funding for mass transit that we
thought was prudent. The Administration is now cutting that by
$300 million. How can you justify that?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Bishop, we recognize the
importance of mass transit. We have funded overall
transportation programs well in excess of the 1 percent
limitation that the President has asked us to meet for non-
defense discretionary spending. In crafting our proposal for
transit this year, while mindful of that goal, we funded every
project that was ready to go, every project that has a full
funding grant agreement, that is pending or we believe will be
at that point during the year.
When SAFETEA-LU was passed by the Congress and signed by
the President in August of 2005, it was a very different
picture in terms of the health of the Highway Trust Fund and
the Highway Account. We have to make tough choices, and those
were the choices we made, sir.
Mr. Bishop. I understand that. At the risk of being
argumentative, the 1 percent cap that the President imposed
clearly is an arbitrary number. I mean the Pentagon's budget is
going up by 11 percent. We are spending more in that area
because the President believes that that is a priority. The
Nation believes that that is a priority.
I guess what I and a number of us are struggling with is
how are we going to move this issue, this issue of climate
change and the way in which Government policy can impact our
ability to bend that. How are we going to move that to a
priority that eclipses some arbitrary 1 percent barrier?
Secretary Peters. We believe that those systems are a
priority, and we have allocated more than the 1 percent to
those programs. I certainly understand where you are coming
from, and I believe that we share those concerns. We will work
hard with you to resolve these issues.
Mr. Bishop. OK, thank you, Madam Secretary.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman.
We have about 10 minutes remaining on this vote, and then
we have 50 minutes of voting. I can't ask the Secretary to stay
for an hour.
We will go to other members and ask them to fire one
question off, and I hate to do this, but then we will negotiate
with the Secretary about a return encounter.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, in light of your statement, I
will just go ahead and submit my questions for the record.
Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. As the former Chairman of the Aviation
Subcommittee, you are entitled to a question.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. Well I am curious. I am curious about two
things. One, the recission of these almost $8 billion in
highway funds and what we are going to do about that and also
are you making any recommendations about new ways to finance
the aviation system? I am interested in both of those things,
but that is two questions.
Mr. Oberstar. All right, she can answer. She talks fast.
Secretary Peters. Congressman, I am going to ask our
Assistant Secretary to discuss the recisions.
In terms of new ways to fund aviation, we are looking at
new ways to fund aviation and trying to find ways to meet the
increasing demand without putting any undue burdens on our
aviation community, as Congressman Graves mentioned. When we
get our proposal out next week, we will talk to you in more
detail about those.
Mr. Duncan. All right.
Ms. Scheinberg. Sir, there are four proposed cancellations,
as we call them. Two of them are from the Miscellaneous
Appropriations Account, one is contract authority that
correlates with the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA),
that we are proposing not be instituted in fiscal year 2008,
and the fourth one is unobligated balances of contract
authority, similar to what the Congress did last year and is
doing in H.J. Res. 20.
Our level is at $1.4 billion compared to the $3.5 billion
that the Congress is proposing. These are similar to what has
been done in the past, but we have four different pieces from
the Highway Account.
Mr. Duncan. I am concerned about that because our vehicle
miles traveled keeps going up at three or four times the rate
of the increase in population.
Mr. Oberstar. Exactly.
Mr. Duncan. At any rate, I could say a lot more, but I will
let it go.
Thank you very much for being here with us.
Secretary Peters. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. That last point is so vital.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will make mine
very brief also.
We have been searching with great interest any of the
increase in dealing with some of the transportation issues in
Southern California which is where I am from, and I would like
to submit a letter to you. It is not a question.
It is rather we need congestion relief in California on
that bottleneck of I-5, the Santa Ana freeway and also on the
Alameda corridor east simply because that brings the economy to
the rest of the Nation, and it is heavily impacting my
district, not only because of the pollution but because of the
building of the third rail and also add to that, out of 54
grade separations, only 20 are being geared for building or for
setting up. The funding is not there, not even for those 20.
Never mind the other 34.
That is going to create not only a health hazard, a
pollution hazard, more trains derailments because we have had
five in my district in about a span of less than a year. I will
give credit to Union Pacific, they are going through and
putting down concrete ties and longer rails and upgrading which
we have been having a big battle over because of those
derailments. Those are the things I would like to submit to
you.
Also, I understand that you will be in Los Angeles. I
invite you to my district to have a bird's eye of what we have.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
I will submit the letter to the young lady.
Secretary Peters. Thank you, Congresswoman, and I look
forward to the visit to your district.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to reiterate that I am very, very
concerned about the Highway Trust Fund. We have got a situation
where if you look at the tremendous inflation in our highway
projects with the cost of steel, the shortage of concrete and
things and you look at the last time we had an increase and you
look at the purchasing power of those dollars, we have lost
tremendous purchasing power and have not kept up that way.
Earlier we had some of our truckers come in, and they were
telling about how they had reduced fuel consumption by up to 25
percent in the last year by going straighter routes and things
like that.
We are looking at increasing the standards on fuel
efficiency and things. We have got the strongest economy that
we have ever had and not keeping up now when that dips back
down.
I guess really what I would like to know from you is you
said that we need to get with you and work this out. Do we have
a plan to get where we need to go and specifically what is that
plan?
Secretary Peters. Congressman Boozman, I also am very
concerned, and I know the Chairman is as well.
Right now we have a commission that was authorized by the
SAFETEA-LU legislation, which I have the privilege of chairing,
that is working very hard to come up with recommendations for
you. Those recommendations are due in December of this year.
Because of the very urgent nature of this situation with the
Highway Trust Fund I am working within the Department, and
within the Administration. We will work with you to try to come
forward with recommendations even sooner if we can do that. You
make a valid point about the cost of construction materials,
sometimes approaching 13 percent growth in the cost of those
materials, well in excess of the rate of inflation.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Chairman, do you think we possibly could
have that group over to give us some preliminary as to what is
going on with them, the commission?
Mr. Oberstar. Oh, yes, we will. We have periodically in the
past had a briefing with the executive director of the
commission, and with Mr. Mica's participation, we will schedule
another one.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Lipinski?
I would just say that while there are 4 minutes remaining
on the vote, 338 have not yet voted, and it is a 2 minute and
38 second hike from here to the House floor.
Mr. Lipinski. We have plenty of time there.
I just want to quickly say I also have concerns, Madam
Secretary, about Amtrak, rail infrastructure funding, transit
funding. Focusing specifically on Chicagoland which I represent
part of it, there are massive congestion problems in aviation,
rail, highways.
I certainly would invite you to come out there and see some
of these and discuss more that we can do.
On aviation right now, we are working on a remodernization
project and rail, the CREATE project which I have been the
leader on to reduce rail congestion. In terms of highway
congestion, we have groups like Metropolis 2020, Metropolitan
Planning Council. These are civil organizations, think tanks
working on innovative ways to address highway congestion. I am
just wondering what you could quickly say about the highway
congestion initiative and how that may be able to help in
Chicago.
Secretary Peters. Congressman Lipinski, the congestion
initiative can help you. Secretary Mineta established the
Department's National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on
America's Transportation Network last May before he left the
Agency. I think that is a wonderful idea and have picked up on
that. Accordingly our budget proposes $175 million to be
devoted to this initiative. The money supports four programs
that are consistent with the SAFETEA-LU legislation: $100
million for the value pricing pilot program, which complements
the $12 million that was already in SAFETEA-LU for that
program; $25 million to Corridors of the Future; $25 million
for real time traffic information systems; and $25 million for
intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and research and
development which will disseminate technology more quickly.
Certainly, we are very interested in working with Chicago,
and I have had the opportunity to be there. By the way, the
commission will be there this spring to see firsthand some of
the challenges. When I was in the private sector, one of our
main offices was in Chicago, I spent much time in the City and
can understand what you are saying about congestion.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I look forward to
working with you and seeing you in Chicago.
Secretary Peters. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lipinski. I yield back.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you.
Ms. Hirono?
Ms. Hirono. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, is it your Department's position to
support New Starts mass transit programs' systems especially
where the localities have made a commitment to the system by
passing tax increases to pay for their share?
Secretary Peters. Congresswoman, yes, it is.
Ms. Hirono. Good, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Oberstar. The Committee will stand in recess, pending
the seven votes, and we will reconvene within five minutes
after the last vote for which I cannot set a specific time.
Mr. Hayes, did you have a question at all that you wanted
to ask? You are going to talk individually, all right.
Thank you very much for being with us today. We will see if
there is interest among members in having you come back at
another time that would be convenient, but we thank you very
much for the time you have given us today.
Secretary Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity.
Mr. Oberstar. We hold you excused.
We will ask our water panel to be patient. You can have a
free cup of coffee over here in the lounge and make yourself at
home.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the committee stands adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]