[Senate Hearing 110-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Murray, Lautenberg, Bond, Bennett,
Brownback, Stevens, Alexander, and Allard.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY PHYLLIS F. SCHEINBERG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET
AND PROGRAMS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. The hearing will come to order.
Today the Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies, is holding its first
hearing of the year, and before we begin I do want to welcome
four new members to the subcommittee: Senator Alexander,
Senator Feinstein, Senator Johnson, and Senator Lautenberg. And
I also want to give a warm welcome to our principal witness
today, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters.
Today's hearing comes at a very important time. While the
official purpose of this hearing is to review the President's
transportation budget for 2008, the reality is that Congress
has not yet enacted a transportation budget for 2007.
Currently pending in the Senate today is H.J. Res. 20, the
joint funding resolution. That bill was developed by both the
House and the Senate Appropriations Committees on a bipartisan
basis. Its goal is to finalize the funding levels for the
Department of Transportation and most other departments for the
remainder of this year. It was made necessary by the fact that
the last Congress never completed the appropriations process
before adjourning.
The joint funding resolution for the most part freezes
programs across the Government at their 2006 funding level.
Importantly, however, the bill also makes necessary funding
adjustments to deal with critical programs that cannot and
should not endure a funding freeze.
In the case of the Transportation Department, we were not
prepared to ignore our responsibility to ensure safety in our
skies, on our highways, and on our railroads. The bill provides
funding increases totaling more than a quarter billion dollars
to ensure that there are adequate numbers of personnel to
control air traffic, as well as inspect and enforce safety
rules governing commercial airliners, trucks, railroads, and
pipelines. Without this additional funding, the FAA
administrator told us that she would be required to put every
air traffic controller and every aviation inspector on the
street for 2 weeks without pay between now and the end of
September.
The joint funding resolution currently before the Senate
boosts funding for Amtrak to $1.3 billion. Under the continuing
resolution, Amtrak's funding would remain $200 million lower
than it was last year. That would endanger passenger rail
service across the country, as well as the annual maintenance
expenses that must be made to ensure safe operations in the
Northeast Corridor.
Finally, the bill pending before the Senate provides an
additional $3.75 billion in additional formula funding for our
Nation's highway and transit systems. That funding will serve
to create almost 160,000 new jobs, while alleviating
congestion. It will be an important infusion of cash to the
States to help them address their most pressing bridge
replacements, highway widenings, and safety enhancements. When
you look at all the highway needs across my State of
Washington, the additional $71 million the State will receive
is urgently needed and will be put to work right away.
The Department of Transportation, like most of the rest of
the Government, is now operating under the terms of a
continuing resolution that makes none of the funding
adjustments I just talked about. It simple freezes all programs
or cuts them to reflect the cuts that were passed in the House
of Representatives during the last Congress. That CR will
expire a week from today, February 15.
Now, some of our Senate colleagues have suggested we should
not adopt this new joint funding resolution, and have advocated
that we extend the existing CR through the remainder of the
year. They are saying that we should forego these desperately
needed funds for highways and transit, that we should allow the
FAA to furlough all its safety personnel for 2 weeks, and that
we should allow our aviation, truck, railroad, and pipeline
inspection work force to dwindle.
As part of this hearing, we will learn Secretary Peters'
views on that question. And very soon, Senators will have their
first opportunity to vote on this question one way or another.
Are we going to debate and pass the new joint funding
resolution, or will we ignore our responsibility to
transportation safety and investment for an entire fiscal year.
Now for 2008 the President has sent us a transportation
budget totaling just under $67 billion. That represents an
increase of $4.6 billion above the 2007 level that we hope to
achieve by enacting the joint funding resolution. This 7.3
percent increase is a substantial boost, given the tight
funding we find across the rest of the President's budget.
My biggest concern with this budget proposal is not what it
does do but what it doesn't do. It seeks substantial new
resources for one critical need, alleviating highway
congestion, while providing little growth and even less
emphasis on an equally critical need, reducing highway
fatalities.
As a resident of the Puget Sound region, I can attest to
the critical national need to address congestion. Congestion is
keeping parents from their children and workers from their
jobs. My State serves as a critical cargo gateway from Asia.
Our future prosperity requires that we can get cargo out of our
ports, onto highways and railways that are moving, not clogged
with congestion.
The administration's budget proposes $175 million for a
series of new programs designed to relieve congestion. We are
told that this investment is part of a new comprehensive,
department-wide national strategy to reduce congestion. The
Secretary is serious about this initiative, and I am willing to
give it a very careful look.
But I also have to ask, where is the new comprehensive,
department-wide national strategy to reduce highway deaths?
Back in early 2003, when she was serving as our Federal Highway
Administrator, Secretary Mary Peters noted that there were
41,000 highway-related fatalities annually and said we were
facing a national safety crisis. She was right.
Tragically, however, the only thing that has happened since
then is that the number of highway fatalities have increased,
and it's not just the number of deaths that have increased. The
fatality rate has increased as well, and the numbers are all
going in the wrong direction. The 41,000 fatalities that
alarmed the Secretary back in 2003 have now grown to more than
43,400. That is the highest number recorded in 15 years.
The Bush administration established a performance goal for
the Department of Transportation to reduce highway fatalities
to 1 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by 2008.
Unfortunately, for 2005, the most recent year for which we have
data, the rate was 45 percent higher than that, 1.45
fatalities.
The administration's budget documents indicate that the
Department, instead of redoubling itself to achieving its goal,
is now pushing off this goal until 2011. The Bush
administration is lowering the bar when it comes to saving
lives, and I personally find that disappointing. The growing
carnage on our highways cries out for national attention and
national leadership, and instead we see resignation and
retreat.
The Department of Transportation has many different
responsibilities. One of the jobs of this subcommittee is to
make sure that the policy direction and funding we provide is
balanced between all the transportation modes and all the
challenges the department faces. I do commend the department
for trying to seriously reduce congestion on a department-wide
basis and asking for some innovative funding to back that up.
But the department I hope also will bring an equally serious
focus to reducing highway deaths. With the statistics moving in
the wrong direction, one thing that is clear is that the
current strategies are not working.
In the next few weeks our subcommittee will have a special
hearing on just this topic with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, the NTSB and other officials to address
the problem, and I encourage all of our subcommittee members to
attend that.
With that, I would like to recognize my partner and ranking
member, Senator Bond, for any opening remarks he would like to
make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I
congratulate you and wish you well on assuming the chair of
Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies. I congratulate you
on your new responsibilities, and based on our good working
relationship in THUD over the last 2 years, I know we will have
a good relationship in balancing the many needs and the
important issues that are within what is left of our
jurisdiction.
And it is with sadness that as I turn the gavel over to
you, half the gavel is gone, with all the things that have been
taken away from our jurisdiction. Now, it's no secret that I
would have preferred to have remained chair, but I have the
utmost respect for my partner from Washington's abilities and
sensitivities to the many issues and points of controversy that
are parts of our responsibility. We share many of the same
concerns and objectives with regard to the programs and
activities within the THUD subcommittee.
Again, we appreciate the close working relationship that we
have had and our staffs have had in crafting the THUD portion
of this ominous--excuse me, I used to call it ``ominous''--
omnibus appropriations bill called a CR. I'm glad we have an
omnibus and not a CR, because a CR would have left us terribly
underfunded, although I do share the concerns of many, my
partner to the left, on the fact that Milcon was not funded,
which the overall committee is going to have to address very,
very shortly.
And now to turn to the new Secretary, Madam Secretary,
congratulations to you. We are absolutely delighted to see you
back. Now that it's snowing in Phoenix, it may not be so bad to
come back to Washington. We've worked very closely over the
last couple of years, during the passage of SAFETEA-LU, when
you were Administrator of FHWA, and I know that we will
continue to have a good working relationship.
As the chair has noted, the 2008 budget for DOT proposes
$67 billion in gross budgetary resources. Similar to last year,
however, the administration chose to underfund popular programs
such as the Airport Improvement Program, Amtrak, and new
starts. Nevertheless, Congress is not likely to provide lower
levels of funding in 2008 than what was done under H.J. Res. 20
covering the remainder of 2007.
I am pleased that the administration remains committed to
meeting the guaranteed funding levels for highways as
authorized under SAFETEA-LU. These funds will allow an
increased investment in key highway and transportation projects
which will complement and assist the continuing growth of the
economy.
However, the administration chose to cancel the revenue-
aligned budget authority put in place, I might add, as part of
the Bond-Chafee amendment to a previous highway bill. I'm
concerned over the loss of funding, since SAFETEA-LU calls for
an upward adjustment if receipts into the Highway Trust Fund
exceed what we had anticipated. This results in a $631 million
loss for 2008, and as one of the original co-authors, I need to
listen to the people in Missouri and other States to see where
we should go in addressing our additional highway needs
nationwide.
The administration also proposes a rescission of the
unobligated balance of contract authority for demonstration
projects authorized under ISTEA in 1991. These funds will
provide for a $175 million pilot to address congestion, which
is, no doubt about it, a major problem for our economy and
families across the Nation, and we see it here in Washington as
it impacts both this city and rural and urban areas across the
country.
Different approaches are needed for all our modes of
transportation, and I will carefully review the
administration's proposals to see whether these new ideas will
actually provide us with ideas for the future or whether we're
just continuing down the same path where we get little bang for
lots of bucks. I continue to believe that while congestion on
our rail and port systems are important areas to address,
Highway Trust Fund dollars should be used only to address
congestion on our Nation's crumbling road structure and not on
other modes of transportation.
Now, Madam Chair, I'm unclear on the proposed $900 million
for Amtrak. Amtrak will directly receive $800 million for
capital spending grants, efficiency incentive grants, and $100
million dedicated to issue capital matching grants to States
for intercity passenger rail. While I remain critical about the
expenditure, the manner of expenditure of Federal funds for
Amtrak, I question whether this funding level will meet
anticipated expenses for 2008, considering H.J. Res. 20
includes $1.29 billion for Amtrak.
I continue to look for the administration to outline a
precise vision for Amtrak and maintain pressure for the
organization to meet its overall objectives and goals Congress
has set. If detailed transportation improvement plans were
provided by Amtrak, we would be better able to understand what
the needs are and whether or not providing additional funds for
passenger rail service is effective and efficient.
Another area I look forward to working with the department
on FAA reauthorization. I know the administration is looking at
a hybrid funding proposal involving user fees, increased fuel
taxes, and general revenue. The details I guess we'll get next
week. While it's too soon to pass judgment on the
reauthorization without seeing the total picture, it's my hope
the proposal will be fair and equitable to all parties involved
in the aviation system: both commercial and general aviation.
I think it's critically important we get it right when
dealing with how to fund the next generation of our air system.
It's obvious FAA faces major challenges adapting to future
changes such as the expanded use of very light jets and the
anticipated increase in overall air traffic. Couple this with
the complex challenge of managing a modernization program as
large as the Next Generation Air Traffic System, and it's clear
that the department and FAA will have their hands full. I know
that Senator Murray will conduct further hearings on the FAA,
and we look forward to working with you, Madam Secretary, and
Administrator Blakey.
Another area of particular concern to me is the proper way
to adjust the corporate average fuel economy or CAFE standards
for passenger cars and light trucks. I was pleased to hear in
the President's State of the Union that the administration
proposes to reform and increase CAFE standards for passenger
cars, using sound science and detailed cost-benefit analysis,
and without impacting the safety of the motor vehicle fleet. In
addition to the proposal for cars, the President supported the
continued increase in fuel standards for light trucks and SUVs
under an extension of the current light truck rule.
Nevertheless, we need to ensure that we make appropriate
CAFE reforms that will not discriminate against domestic
automakers in favor of foreign automakers, and that is a
concern. It's important for Members of Congress and the
traveling public to realize that CAFE is very complex and
requires scientific analysis. In recent studies, several
leading engineering and highway safety organizations, including
the National Academy of Sciences and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA, have warned that any
significant increase in CAFE standards could have adverse
impacts both on safety for the traveling public and the
economic health of an already struggling U.S. automotive
industry.
As one of the leaders in pushing for NHTSA to determine
what technology is available to ensure increased fuel mileage
without raising safety concerns, I think I should note that
NHTSA was the one, after the first major increases in CAFE,
that estimated that roughly 2,000 additional lives were lost on
the highway when the original CAFE proposals led to a
significant decrease in weight in cars without having the
technology to achieve the greater mileage. The lighter cars did
increase highway fatalities, a significant number of them, even
in one-car crashes.
PREPARED STATEMENT
But, in closing, I do have concerns about the
administration's budget and funding proposals as proposed for
this committee, especially the funding proposed for housing
programs that are the safety net for many low-income families,
including seniors and persons with disabilities, as well as
many of the other funding proposals that are contained in the
jurisdiction of other subcommittees. How we meet these demands
will be a challenge for the Appropriations Committee and the
Congress.
Madam Chair, I thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond
Good morning Madam Secretary. I'm glad to see you back with the
Department. We worked closely over the last couple of years during the
passage of SAFETEA when you were the Administrator of the FHWA and I
look forward to continuing our working relationship as well as hearing
your comments today on the overall budget for all modes of
transportation within the Department.
I also look forward to continue working with Senator Patty Murray
as the new chair of the Transportation, HUD and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee. I congratulate you on your new
responsibilities and, based on working together on THUD over the last 2
years, I think we will continue to have a good relationship in
balancing the many needs and important issues that are within our
jurisdiction. While I would have preferred to remain chairman, I have
the utmost respect for Senator Murray's abilities and sensitivities to
the many issues and points of controversy that are part of our
responsibilities. I know that we share similar concerns and objectives
with regard to many of the programs and activities that are within the
THUD appropriations subcommittee.
The fiscal year 2008 budget for DOT proposes $67 billion in gross
budgetary resources. Similar to last year, the administration chose to
under fund popular programs, such as the Airport Improvement Program,
Amtrak and the New Starts. Nevertheless, the Congress is not likely to
provide lower levels of funding in fiscal year 2008 than what is done
under H.J. Res. 20, covering the remainder of fiscal year 2007.
I am pleased the administration remains committed to meeting the
guaranteed funding levels for highways as authorized under SAFETEA.
These funds allow an increased investment in key highway and
transportation projects, which will complement and assist the
continuing growth of the U.S. economy. However, the administration
chose to cancel RABA, ``revenue aligned budget authority''. I am
concerned over the loss of funding since SAFETEA calls for an upward
adjustment if receipts into the Highway Trust Fund exceed what we had
anticipated when we were drafting the bill. This results in $631
million for fiscal year 2008. As one of the original authors of this
concept, I will need to talk to people in Missouri and other States and
see where we should go from here in addressing our additional highway
needs nationwide.
The administration also proposes a rescission of unobligated
balances of contract authority for demonstration projects authorized
under ISTEA in 1991. These funds are to be provided for a $175 million
pilot to address congestion. As everyone knows, congestion is a major
problem for both our economy and families across the Nation. Congestion
impacts both rural and urban areas. Different approaches to addressing
the issue are needed for all of our modes of transportation. I need to
review carefully the administration's proposal to see whether we are
spending these crucial dollars on pilots that will actually provide us
with ideas for the future, or whether we are just continuing down the
same path where we get little bang for the biggest bucks. I continue to
believe that while congestion on our rail and port systems are
important areas to address, highway trust fund dollars should be only
used to address congestion on our Nation's crumbling road structure,
and not on other modes of transportation.
I am still unclear on the proposed $900 million for Amtrak. Amtrak
will directly receive $800 million for Capital Spending Grants and
Efficiency Incentive Grants and $100 million dedicated to issue capital
matching grants to States for intercity passenger rail projects. While
I remain critical of Federal funds for Amtrak, I question whether this
funding level will meet anticipated expenses for fiscal year 2008
considering H.J. Res. 20 includes $1.29 billion for Amtrak. I continue
to expect the administration to outline a precise vision for Amtrak and
maintain pressure for the organization to meet its overall objectives
and goals Congress has set. If detailed transportation improvement
plans were provided by Amtrak, we would be better able to understand
what the needs are, and whether or not providing additional funding for
passenger rail service is both effective and efficient.
I look forward to working with the Department on the
reauthorization of the FAA. I am aware that the administration is
looking at a hybrid funding proposal involving user fees, increased
fuel taxes and general revenue. I understand the exact details of the
long awaited reauthorization proposal will be unveiled next week. While
it is too soon to pass judgment on the reauthorization without seeing
the full picture, it is my hope that the proposal will be fair and
equitable to all parties involved in the aviation system: both
commercial and general aviation.
I think it is critically important that we get it right when
dealing with how to fund the next generation of our aviation system. It
is obvious that the FAA faces major challenges in adapting to future
changes in aviation, such as the expanded use of very light jets and
the anticipated increase in overall air traffic volume. Couple this
with the complex challenge of managing a modernization program as large
as the Next Generation Air Traffic System and it is clear that the
Department and the FAA will have its hands full. I am certain Senator
Murray will conduct further hearings on FAA where we can better
understand and address these issues, and we look forward to working
with both you and Administrator Blakey on these immense challenges.
Another area of concern is the proper way to adjust Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for both passenger cars and light
trucks. I was pleased to hear in the President's State of the Union
that the administration proposes to reform and increase CAFE standards
for passenger cars using sound science and detailed cost/benefit
analysis and without impacting the safety of the motor vehicle fleet.
In addition to the proposal for cars, I was glad to hear that the
President supports the continued increase in fuel standards for light
trucks and SUVs under an extension of the current light truck rule.
Nevertheless, we need to ensure that we make appropriate CAFE reforms
that will not discriminate against domestic automakers in favor of
foreign automakers and that appears to remain a concern under the
proposal.
It is important for members of Congress and the traveling public to
realize that CAFE is a complex issue that requires much thought and
careful scientific analysis. In recent studies, several leading
engineering and highway safety organizations including the National
Academy of Sciences and NHTSA have warned that any significant
increases in CAFE standards will have adverse impacts on the both
safety of the traveling public and the economic health of an already
struggling U.S. automotive industry.
I close by noting that I have many concerns about the President's
budget and funding proposals, both as proposed for this subcommittee
(especially the funding proposed for housing programs that are a safety
net for many low-income families, including seniors and persons with
disabilities) as well as many of the funding proposals that are
contained in the jurisdiction of other subcommittees. How we meet these
demands will be a challenge for both the Appropriations Committee and
the Congress.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Stevens. Madam Chair, I have another committee. I'd
like to submit a question for the record concerning the Indian
Roads Program. Would you do that for me, please?
PREPARED STATEMENTS OF SENATORS FRANK R. LAUTENBERG AND SENATOR SAM
BROWNBACK
Senator Murray. The Senator has that right, and it will be
submitted for the record. Senator Lautenberg and Senator
Brownback have also submitted statements for the record, which
will be included as well.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Madam Chair, statistics tell a story. When it comes to
transportation, the story they tell is of a system that is costly to
consumer and is not safe.
In 2005, more than 43,000 families lost a loved one in a car crash.
And traffic on our roads costs Americans more than $60-more billion
dollars a year--or 2.3 billion gallons--in wasted fuel.
In 2006, flight delays were the worst they have been in 6 years,
according to a report released yesterday by the Department of
Transportation. One in four flights arrived or took off late. Because
of delays, it often takes 2 hours to fly from here to New York and New
Jersey, and you are only airborne for 36 minutes.
But this budget does not offer a solution solve these problems.
This budget seems to feed our addiction to oil. President Bush
proposes full funding of highway programs but cuts to transit funding
by more than $300 million. Cuts to Amtrak of almost $500 million would
tear apart the national passenger rail system or send the company into
bankruptcy.
Who suffers here? Not the oil companies. Last year, Exxon made some
$40 million in profits. Working families pay the price for our failure
to act--people who trying to get to work, or get home from work. People
who need transit options.
I look forward to hearing witness testimony today.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
PRESS RELEASE, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C.--United States Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
issued the following statement during today's hearing of the
Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the President's budget request
for the Department of Transportation for fiscal year 2008.
``For a president who used his State of the Union Address to say
that we are too dependent on foreign oil, it is ironic that his budget
proposal would slash transit funding by $300 million, affecting 33
million transit riders each weekday.
``Instead of making air travel safer, the President wants to leave
old equipment in place and air traffic towers low on staff. Instead of
giving commuters more choices by bringing Amtrak into the 21st Century,
President Bush wants to give people fewer choices by destroying the
nation's passenger rail system.
``Without adequate funding for Amtrak, rail service for New Jersey
commuters who travel along the Northeast Corridor everyday could be in
jeopardy.
``Given how crowded our skies and highways are becoming, I would
have thought the President would propose more choices for New Jersey's
commuters. Instead, he proposed fewer.
``I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this budget
request on the right track.''
Is The Bush Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Proposal Addicted to Oil?
Cuts funding for transit projects by more than $300 million when
transit ridership is growing some 33 million transit riders each
weekday.
Cuts funding for Amtrak by 38 persent--$500 million--which is
insufficient to operate National Passenger Rail System.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Sam Brownback
Madame Secretary, I want to thank you for coming before this
committee today to discuss the President's budget request for our
Nation's transportation system. Before I go into my questions, I'd like
to take a moment to speak on a topic that is of great importance to me
and the people of Kansas, and that is aviation.
You recently traveled to Wichita and made stops at some of the
various aircraft manufacturers who call my State's largest city home.
Kansans are proud of their legacy as the designers and producers of the
world's finest aircraft, and the Air Capital of the World is home to
five major aircraft manufacturers: Cessna, Spirit Aerosystems, Hawker
Beechcraft, Boeing, and Bombardier Learjet. Last year, these companies
employed over 31,000 people with a combined payroll of $1.65 billion.
Additionally, they are the driving force of south-central Kansas'
economy: they purchased over $1.9 billion in supplies from other
Kansas-based companies. It is estimated that over 20,000 people are
employed by subcontractors that provide services to the big five.
Because of this, any indication of wholesale changes in the way the FAA
does business sends shivers down the spines of thousands of my
constituents.
This budget, which we assume is a precursor to the administration's
detailed plan for FAA modernization, proposes to make large changes to
the way in which the aviation trust fund is financed. Significantly, I
read here that the administration wants to shift from our current model
to a user-fee based model. Also, I read that the administration will
likely recalibrate the fuel tax rates for general aviation.
First, I want to say that I understand the pressing need for the
United States to update and modernize its air traffic control systems
and get to a point at which the skies are open to fair usage by both
airlines and private aircraft owners. However, I'm confused as to why
the administration has linked the ability of the FAA to modernize with
placing a greater share of the burden for paying for such updates on
general aviation.
Here in front of me, I have estimates that come from the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget request, and these estimates
indicate that over the next 5 years, the current financing structure
for the aviation trust fund would actually result in more receipts than
would a user-fee alternative. These estimates note that under the
current financing structure, receipts into the trust fund would
increase at either 5 percent or 6 percent per year until 2012,
resulting in net receipts for those 5 years of $68 billion. These
estimates further note that under a user-fee structure, receipts into
the trust fund would increase anywhere from 2 percent to 8 percent per
year with net receipts coming in at $67.1 billion. Additionally, the
FAA's budget levels have increased at a steady rate for the past 12
years. These numbers indicate that the FAA has been working with a
stable increase in receipts from year to year for at least 12 years.
If changing the financing structure of the trust would result in
fewer receipts in the future, and the current structure has produced a
stable funding mechanism in the past, why change it? I simply don't
understand how the administration intends to modernize our air traffic
control system by instituting a financing mechanism that shifts a
greater financial burden to a marginal user of the system--general
aviation--and results in fewer receipts into the trust fund.
As to the budget's insinuation that the FAA will raise fuel taxes
for general aviation, I want to remind the administration of a
fundamental principle of economics: if you tax it, you get less of it.
If you raise taxes on general aviation, you'll have fewer people flying
small aircraft. General aviation users are sometimes portrayed as
corporate fat cats who won't even notice a tax increase. However, the
numbers tell a different story. Typically in 1 year, approximately 80
percent of general aviation flight hours are consumed by people who are
using single piston aircraft. In other words, these are small business
owners and independent pilots who use only the smallest of small
aircraft. These are the people who would be harmed the most by a tax
increase on fuel. If a sharp tax increase becomes a reality, I'm sure
many of them would find it uneconomical to fly.
I hope you understand my concern with the administration's proposal
on user fees and fuel tax increases. If instituted, they would have an
immediate effect on my State's economy.
Senator Murray. Senator Bond, thank you for your statement,
and I am looking forward to getting the 2007 bill behind us and
working together with you on this committee in a bipartisan
way, as we have done so well in the past. I look forward to
working with you.
Senator Bond. Thank you.
Senator Murray. For all the committee members, we have 21
members on this committee, a large committee, so knowing the
Secretary's time is concise this morning, we are going to have
her make her statement and then we will have rounds of
questions, 6 minutes per Senator, alternating between sides
based on when you arrived. So we will move forward to Secretary
Peters' opening statement and then to questions. Secretary
Peters.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, I want to thank you--
Senator Bond. Madam Secretary, could you pull that
microphone--
Secretary Peters. Will do, sir. Madam Chairman and members
of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for the 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, as you all know so
well, lies at the core of the freedom we enjoy as Americans--
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.
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
Madam Chairman, you are exactly right. There is no
acceptable fatality rate when it's our loved ones, our
communities, who are at risk. The President's budget proposes
resources for equipping our Nation's airports and roadways with
new safety technologies for targeting growing problems like
motorcycle crashes, something that I have had a little
experience with, and for supporting aggressive inspection of
trucks, tracks, and pipelines to ensure the highest safety
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 a framework for
reforming our approach to paying for the safety and technology
improvements needed to keep air travelers, freight, and pilots
on schedule.
FAA REAUTHORIZATION
We have put together a package that will tie what users pay
to what it costs the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to
provide those services with air traffic control. 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 reforms, we can all expect to spend more time waiting
in airports or strapped in an airplane seat, sitting at the end
of a runway.
While we will soon announce the details of our aviation
proposal, 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, as well as over $900 million for additional
capital projects that will support the move to this Next
Generation system. For travelers, this transformation is going
to bring greater convenience and reliability to the state-of-
the-art technology that can safely handle dramatic increases in
the number and the type of aircraft using our skies without
being overwhelmed by congestion.
CONGESTION RELIEF
And 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 get traffic
moving on clogged highways and city streets by directing $175
million to support the comprehensive congestion relief
initiative that was announced last year, and thank you, Madam
Chairman, for recognizing that.
This funding will help our growing metropolitan areas that
want to lead with leading edge solutions. It will help
distribute real-time traffic information to commuters, so that
they will know prior to traveling when the roads are congested
and be able to make alternative travel plans. And it will allow
us to accelerate development of the trade and travel corridors
that will be key to moving freight and people without
congestion in the future, particularly at our ports of entry.
Accessible and cost-effective transit projects also help
fight congestion, and the budget provides $9.4 billion for
transit programs. The 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 in smaller communities and in
rural areas.
FUNDING TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS
Even as we make these investments, we realize that a
business-as-usual approach to funding these programs will not
work much longer. There is, and will continue to be, money
coming into the Highway Trust Fund from gasoline taxes, and
revenues are growing every year, but so is spending, and at an
even faster rate. The bottom line is that we're spending more
than we're taking in, and we've 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. So as we go through
this budget process, I hope to start working with Congress now
on solutions for long-term funding. In the long term, we need
serious reform of our approaches to both financing and managing
our Nation's 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, and I
sincerely appreciate the decision by this subcommittee not to
include appropriations earmarks in the continuing resolution. I
support President Bush's call for transparency and a 50 percent
reduction in earmarks in the coming year. As a former State DOT
director, I strongly support giving States the freedom to set
priorities and use Federal dollars where they will provide the
maximum benefits for their citizens.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madam Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you so
much for giving me the opportunity to speak with 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 America free from stifling congestion. I look forward
to answering your questions, and I am also joined here today by
our Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, Phyllis
Scheinberg. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Mary E. Peters
Madam Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the administration's
fiscal year 2008 budget request for the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Transportation lies at the core of the freedom we enjoy
as Americans--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
all of us to make daily decisions confident that we can reach our
destinations safely without worrying about how we will get there, or if
we can make it on time. To reach that goal, President Bush is
requesting $67 billion for America's transportation network in the next
fiscal year.
For those who fly, the President's budget includes $14 billion for
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The budget includes $175
million to support the transition to a 21st Century satellite
navigation system that will replace the current dated air traffic
control architecture and over $900 million for ongoing capital projects
that will also support the move to this Next Generation system. For the
flying public, this investment is critical if we are to deploy the
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.
Technology is critical, but the budget also includes significant
resources to hire and train the people that keep the system safe. The
fiscal year 2008 budget supports a total of 1,420 new air traffic
controllers that will help replace controllers leaving the system due
to retirements and other attrition. Based on our current projections
this will result in a net gain of 144 controllers.
Most importantly, the fiscal year 2008 budget provides the
framework of a new proposal that the administration will announce
shortly to tie what users pay to what it costs the FAA to provide them
with air traffic control and other services. Our plan puts incentives
in place that will make the system more efficient and more responsive
to the needs of the aviation community. Without reforms to help finance
increased air traffic control capacity and modernization, 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 hope that there will
be a vigorous debate about the structure of the system, and we look
forward to working with the Congress to enact legislation later this
year.
For drivers, the budget proposes a record $42 billion, consistent
with the funding envisioned in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation, Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
for highway construction and safety programs.
Building on our safety accomplishments over the last 6 years, this
budget will allow us to target problem areas like motorcycle crashes
and drunk driving. The President's budget includes $131 million for
alcohol impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants as well as
$124.5 million for Safety Belt Performance grants to encourage States
to enact primary seat belt laws for all passenger motor vehicles.
Crashes not only cost precious lives, but also precious time for
everyone waiting for the road to be cleared and re-opened. So our
budget supports aggressive development of ``Intelligent Transportation
Systems,'' which put the latest technologies to work both to help
eliminate crashes and to cut congestion. We believe that technology has
a central role to play in reducing the growing costs of congestion and
system unreliability. We are proposing $175 million to support specific
elements of the comprehensive, department-wide National Strategy to
Reduce Congestion announced last year. We hope to target these funds to
support some of our most congested cities and explore cutting edge
demonstrations of concepts such as time of day pricing, flexible
transit systems, real-time traffic information, and improved incident
management strategies. We also propose to accelerate development
capacity and operations projects along our most congested trade and
travel corridors through our Corridors of the Future program. We must
get ahead of freight and travel trends along our most critical
corridors to ensure that our interstate system continues to support the
country's economic growth.
Accessible and cost-effective transit projects also help fight
congestion, and the budget provides $9.4 billion for transit programs.
The President's budget includes $5.8 billion to help meet the capital
replacement, rehabilitation, and refurbishment needs of the existing
transit system. Also included is $1.3 billion for major projects that
will help provide new commuter rail and other transit projects in large
metropolitan areas. Another $100 million will be used to implement a
new program with a simplified funding process to help provide smaller
scale transit alternatives such as rapid transit, to relieve congestion
in both urban and suburban locations.
But even as we make these investments, we realize that a business-
as-usual approach to funding these programs will not 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 at an even faster rate. We are spending more than
we take in, and we have nearly run through the balances that had built
up in the fund.
We continue to be concerned in particular about the solvency of the
Highway Account in the Highway Trust Fund. Our projections suggest that
spending may outpace receipts before the end of fiscal year 2009.
Because we do not want to burden the trust fund further, the budget
proposal does not include $631 million for revenue aligned budget
authority--or RABA. As we go through this budget process, I pledge to
keep the Congress informed of the administration's revenue projections,
and work closely with you to ensure that we do not outspend our
resources.
Long-term, we need serious reform of our approaches to both
financing and managing our transportation network to win the battle
against congestion. We must fully explore the variety of mechanisms
available to us to pay for transportation, as well as analyze the
relationship between each mechanism and overall system performance.
Serious reform must include reform of the legislative process itself.
The explosive growth of earmarks in recent years has hit transportation
programs especially hard. The law that funds highway, transit, and
safety projects had over 6,000 of them, a practice that takes away from
the freedom that States have to put the money where it will do the most
good. I want to reiterate the President's call to cut the number and
cost of earmarks in half this year--which is vitally important if we
are to maintain a transportation network responsive to our customers'
needs.
We also urge action on making needed reforms to the Nation's
Intercity Passenger Rail system. The President's fiscal year 2008 plan
provides a total funding level of $900 million for intercity passenger
rail. Included in this total is $100 million for a new matching grant
program that will enable State and local governments to direct capital
investment towards their top rail priorities.
Our ``safety first'' priority includes ensuring the safe and
dependable transport of hazardous materials throughout the
transportation network. The President's plan provides $75 million for
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's pipeline
safety programs specifically for this purpose.
Finally, we are requesting $154 million to support a fleet of 60
vessels in the Maritime Security Program--ensuring ships and crews to
assist the Department of Defense with mobilization needs. Our support
is critical in supporting our military as they give so much to protect
our way of life.
Freedom is at the core of our American values. But we lose a little
more freedom each time we venture into traffic. This budget proposal
takes a big step in helping us get our freedom back.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to working with the Congress and the transportation community
to ensure a safe transportation system that helps America break free of
stifling congestion.
Senator Murray. Madam Secretary, thank you for your opening
remarks, and I look forward to working with you. Before I move
to my questions, I just want to mention that I know that Deputy
Secretary Maria Cino has resigned and has moved on to other
responsibilities. She did an outstanding job for the
Department, and I just wanted to make special recognition of
the work she did in challenging times, moving the agency
forward. She has now been replaced by another capable woman,
and as my friend Senator Mikulski says, with a lot of women and
a few good men, we'll get some things done on transportation
this year.
Secretary Peters. Thank you, Senator.
FUNDING TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRAMS
Senator Murray. So I'm delighted to be working with you.
Madam Secretary, as I said in my opening statement, the
joint funding resolution that is now before the Senate provides
an increase totaling $270 million for some of the critical
safety programs in your agency. We included in that funding
levels the Bush administration requested for 2007 air traffic
control, aviation safety, railroad safety, truck safety, and
pipeline safety. Our goal in doing that was to make sure that
inspectors and enforcement agents were on the job rather than
having to face furloughs.
I wanted to ask you, while you were in front of us today,
if you could describe for us what would be the impact on your
overall safety mission if we do not pass the joint funding
resolution and instead freeze programs for the remainder of
this year.
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman, as you indicated earlier,
if we were funded at the 2006 levels without any opportunity
for adjustment, it would have drastic consequences not only at
the FAA but, as you mentioned, within other safety programs
such as our rail safety programs, our truck inspection
programs, and of course the air traffic controllers and safety
inspectors of aviation maintenance facilities. We very much
appreciate Congress considering adjustments to that process
that would avoid these very negative consequences in our
budget. We also would ask for, to the extent possible,
flexibility in order to reprogram money within some of the
funds so that we can meet these high priority safety needs.
Senator Murray. Thank you. And we're already into the fifth
month of the current fiscal year. I assume your administrators
need to know when this funding is coming fairly soon?
Secretary Peters. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Murray. Well, when it comes to hiring and employing
adequate safety enforcement officials, tell me what the impact
would be if we don't get this done by next Thursday.
Secretary Peters. If not able to do this, we will see a
serious decline in the number of safety inspectors, truck
safety inspectors, rail safety inspectors, aviation inspectors,
across-the-board in our programs. Madam Chairman, it would also
eliminate some of our ability to work on important safety
improvements that we need to make for the traveling public and
those who use our aviation system.
Senator Murray. You used to serve as a State transportation
commissioner as well as the Federal Highway Administrator. The
joint funding resolution proposes to boost highway formula
spending to all 50 States by $3.4 billion. It's already well
into February, and the States still don't know whether they're
going to see this 9.6 percent increase. Can you describe for us
what State transportation commissioners are saying today?
Secretary Peters. Certainly, Madam Chairman. It is critical
for State transportation commissioners to know how much money
will be available to them in order to execute their capital
improvement programs. It is especially important to those
States who have a construction season that will be upon us very
shortly. If they are uncertain that this funding is coming and
unable to let contracts accordingly, we can easily miss an
entire construction season.
HIGHWAY FATALITY RATE
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much for outlining
that, and I hope that we can all work together to get this out
soon, so that they can get to work and we don't miss that
construction season, so thank you.
Let me go to what I talked about in my opening statement,
about the recent highway fatality data that has been released
by your department. It's very disturbing, frankly. The number
of highway fatalities grew to 43,400. That is a rate of 1.45
fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. That figure,
as I said, represents the highest number of fatalities since
1990, and in real terms it means 1 life lost on our Nation's
highways every 12 minutes.
Given those really grim statistics, why is your Department
actually weakening your goal of reducing the fatality rate to
1.0 next year?
Secretary Peters. The Department of Transportation is
firmly committed to meeting its goal of the 1.0 fatality rate,
but we have realized that we won't be able to achieve that goal
by fiscal year 2008 as planned. To move the fatality rate even
one-tenth of a point requires preventing approximately 3,000
additional fatalities at current fatality and vehicle-miles-
traveled (VMT) levels, but we recognize how important it is to
do so.
The Department has assembled a cross-modal working group to
identify new strategies and technologies that will help reduce
highway fatalities. The working group is analyzing trends and
taking into account new technologies that are coming into the
fleet such as the electronic stability control. Electronic
stability control has the promise of saving as many lives as
the seat belt did when it first came into prevalent use.
We want to use these tools to establish new performance
targets in key areas, to focus the Department's effort on the
critical factors responsible for these highway fatalities, and
especially this very tragic increase. These key focus areas
include passenger vehicle occupants, non-occupants such as
pedestrians and bicyclists, motorcycle riders, and large trucks
and buses. These groups were chosen, in part, to cover the
breadth of users.
Madam Chairman, I have heard you this morning about how
important this is, and I promise you that I will personally go
back and redouble our efforts to work on these safety issues,
and call upon my colleagues throughout the transportation
community to make this a very, very important issue this year.
Senator Murray. Well, I assume that you're not happy with
having to move your deadline down 3 years on this.
Secretary Peters. I'm not.
Senator Murray. And I guess I was really disappointed.
You've got some great, bold new proposals in your budget on
combating congestion, which we all agree is a problem, and I
was hoping to see some bold new proposals that could take
effect immediately, because these numbers have been coming at
us for some time now and it's pretty disheartening.
So I hope that we can come back to this and talk about this
again. And as I said, I will be having some hearings on this
because I think it's something that we can't push down the road
3 years from now. With that, I'm going to turn to Senator Bond,
and I will come back to this issue again in my next round.
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
Senator Bond. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Madam Secretary,
we know that we've got some problems in both the funding for
the Aviation Trust Fund and the Highway Trust Fund. We've seen
several Highway Trust Fund runs showing a negative balance of
approximately $200 million by 2009. This is, as I indicated,
the first time to my knowledge that the administration has not
proposed funding the RABA funds.
You, as a former chair of the National Commission for the
Future of the Highway Trust Fund, have been deeply involved in
this question for a long time. Does the administration have a
position on how to address the Highway Trust Fund going down,
going into the red by 2009?
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman and Senator Bond, we are
working on that as we speak. As you mentioned, I chair a
commission that was appointed by this Congress to look at the
future of surface transportation funding, and it's something we
take very seriously.
In the near term, Senator, the administration has begun to
take action to protect the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund,
and these actions will result in a projected $238 million
shortfall in 2009, as opposed to the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) projection, which is $3.62 billion. The safeguards
that we have taken in order to protect the solvency of the fund
include, as you mentioned, our recommendation that we not
include the $631 million in revenue aligned budget authority in
the program this year.
Another step that we have taken is a new accounting
procedure where we use flex funding from the highway account of
the Highway Trust Fund to the mass transit account when the
money is actually needed for outlays, rather than in one lump
sum when the contract authority and obligation authority are
transferred. Because the mass transit fund outlays at a slower
rate, there isn't any harm to the fund in our doing this.
But, Senator, I agree with you. We have to do something,
and we have to do something in the nearer term, not the longer
term. And you have my commitment to work with you in the coming
year to look at possible solutions.
FAA REAUTHORIZATION
Senator Bond. We'll look forward to that. Do you have any
idea yet how the administration's plans to deal with the
Aviation Trust Fund will impact the funds required from general
revenue and the trust fund in this committee for the 2008 year?
Secretary Peters. Senator, in our budget that we have
submitted, we have outlined some of the initial steps that we
would like to take in order to modify and modernize funding for
the air traffic control systems and for aviation safety in our
Nation. I wanted to take just a moment of your time to talk
about some of the limitations that have resulted in less than
optimal customer service within the current system.
Safety is, and must always be, our highest priority, but we
have seen more delays and a lack of reliability due to capacity
and capability of the current system. In fact, many of you,
like myself this morning, saw this headline in our own
Washington Post, ``Flying Late, Arriving Light.'' Too often we
have delays in our transportation system, and we seek to remedy
those delays within our proposed funding.
I wanted to share with you some of the statistics that have
alarmed me, and I think all of us, in terms of what we need to
look to in the future. In less than 10 years the Nation's air
space will be 30 percent more crowded than it is today.
By 2012, FAA projects 23 percent more passengers will be
flying, and by 2025 U.S. commercial carriers will be carrying
1.4 billion passengers. That is nearly an 87 percent increase
over the number of people who are flying today. In 2012, FAA
projects that aircraft handled by FAA en route centers will be
17.6 percent higher than in 2006, and by 2025 that demand will
increase to 86.5 million aircraft, an increase of 87 percent.
The current funding structure that's based largely on the
price of a ticket provides no direct relationship between the
taxes paid by the users and the air traffic services provided
by the FAA. In order to meet both current and future consumer
demand, we need to transition to a dynamic 21st century
structure that ties the use of the system to the cost, a system
that is equitable and a system that is responsive to demand.
We have developed a proposal in consultation with the Joint
Program Development Office and many of our stakeholders. That
plan is represented in the President's budget and will also be
in our reauthorization proposal next week.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. That
headline about arriving late kind of struck home to me. Twenty
days ago, in the middle of a snowstorm, I arrived at Reagan
Airport in Washington, and the plane landed at 6:40. They said
the gates were filled, so we sat on that plane, two other fully
loaded planes, sat there during, I might add, during the first
three quarters of the Colts-Patriots game, and we offloaded
that plane at 9:20, 2 hours and 40 minutes later.
Needless to say, this does not generate happy feelings
among the flying public. I commended the attendants on board
for being nice. The pilot was funny. But the whole problem is
absolutely unacceptable, which I have shared with the airline
as well. But I also, just in case anybody thought I was not
counting, I did count the time and I do remember it.
But I also fly, I have 1 million frequent flyer miles on
small airplanes, and we need to find adequate funding for the
AIP program, or the Nation's airport infrastructure is not
going to keep up with demand. Are you going to have a proposal?
Secretary Peters. Senator, yes, we are going to have a
proposal. Proposed changes to the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) and the passenger facility charges will be forthcoming in
our reauthorization proposal, which again, we hope to deliver
to you next week.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Bond, for sharing.
Senator Lautenberg.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman. This is the
first time in 6 years that I have sat in the Transportation
subcommittee, any subcommittee on Appropriations. In my
previous service for 12 years I was either ranking or chairman
of this subcommittee. I used to like that.
And I still like it, and I hate to think that I have to
stay another 18 years to regain that position.
When I look at the proposal--and welcome, Madam Secretary--
that has been offered in the President's budget, I see a lot of
woe out there, and I don't mean W-H-O-A. I'm talking about W-O-
E. In your testimony you introduced the fact that 1 in 4
flights these days is either late going or late coming, but
late, and I see it.
I fly a lot to the New Jersey, New York airports. I live
midway between LaGuardia and Newark Airports, depending on the
traffic flow, and the flight is listed to be 36 to 40 minutes.
That's after sometimes a 1-hour delay sitting on the ground or
waiting for a gate when you finally get there. And so the
proposal to increase the air traffic control population by 140-
some, it's a rounded number, strikes me as being an impossible
solution to the problem.
We know that light jets are going to be pouring into the
sky, purportedly 5,000 of them in the next 10 years. That's not
going to make it easier to manage the traffic. And when you
look at the number, you're proposing over 1,000 hires but it's
going to be a net of 140-something with the retirees.
How are we going to manage this traffic? We talk about
safety being the principal factor, 45,000 people dying on the
highways, and the delays in air travel that worry people, the
unwillingness to finance Amtrak at a rate that makes sense. How
do you justify that small number of additions to the controller
population?
Secretary Peters. Senator Lautenberg, you bring up a very
important point, and we very much value our air traffic
controllers who make sure that our airspace is safe.
Accordingly, the President's budget provides funding to bring
the total number of air traffic controllers to nearly 15,000.
An important fact is that controllers today operate the
same number of aircraft as controllers did in the year 2000,
and certainly there are more controllers and more airplanes in
the sky today. We will have our updated controller work force
plan out in March of this year. Administrator Blakey and I
would be happy to share it with you at that time, Senator. The
plan will demonstrate that we are ensuring adequate numbers of
controllers.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, but we're short now. It's
estimated that there are almost 1,000 less air traffic
controllers than 3 years ago, and the strain is obvious. So how
do we look forward to managing what we've got? I don't see any
way to do it, and I think the numbers are disastrously short.
AMTRAK
Let me talk for a minute about Amtrak. The company's last
projection for fiscal year 2008 calls for almost $1.7 billion
in Federal funding. So why does the President only request less
than half of that, $800 million for Amtrak? Included in that,
by the way, is a substantial amount of money owed on debt that
must be paid each year. The number is over $285 million. What
do we do to keep this thing going, besides going into
bankruptcy?
Secretary Peters. Senator, we also are concerned about
Amtrak, and we are very pleased to have seen a lot of progress
in the last year by the Amtrak board and the Amtrak management.
The President's budget for 2008 does support Amtrak and
recognizes----
Senator Lautenberg. How much? Can you tell me?
Secretary Peters. I'm sorry, sir?
Senator Lautenberg. What kind of progress did we see in the
last year?
Secretary Peters. In terms of the Amtrak board, sir, they
are controlling costs in a better way. They are looking at
their operating subsidies and attempting----
Senator Lautenberg. I'm sorry. That's a little too general
for me. There are still empty chairs on the Amtrak board. Have
you yet been to an Amtrak board meeting?
Secretary Peters. Sir, I have not been to an Amtrak board
meeting. I have, however, met with members of the board, and I
also have met with Alex Kummant and talked with him about
Amtrak. As I said to you in my confirmation hearing, Senator, I
do support intercity passenger rail, and want to work with you
and with the Amtrak board to make sure that they continue to
provide service to Americans.
The other factor, though, sir, is that they do have fiscal
resources in addition to the President's budget proposal of
$900 million. They have approximately $2 billion in normal
operating revenue that comes in each year. They also have
nearly $250 million in State subsidies, and with the $100
million that we have proposed for the intercity rail grant
program that could encourage more State participation, they
could avail themselves of another $100 million in matching
funds.
Senator Lautenberg. It was said that they need $1.8 billion
for the next year, so to come back and say, ``Well, there are
other sources,'' the other sources are not sufficient to give
the railroad the money it needs to improve the structure, the
capital structure, or to support the operating losses. And at a
time--and Madam Chair, I'm sorry--when security is so much on
everybody's mind, here we are, we're locked into aviation, we
spend a lot on highways, and we need a third leg on our
transportation tripod in order for us to be able to manage.
Heaven help if we need an evacuation in a time of trouble.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Senator Murray. Senator Alexander, do you have any
questions?
CONGESTION RELIEF
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I look
forward to being a member of the committee.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I'm impressed
with the attention you're paying to surface congestion, and the
numbers that you have in your budget are really staggering. I
mean, we take these things for granted or we have come to
accept them. You say 3.7 billion hours of travel delay, 2.3
billion gallons of fuel costing $63 billion. That's a lot of
money and time and lost productivity.
And you list a number of things that you're encouraging to
try to reduce traffic jams which occur in almost every major
city in America today, but based on your own experience, what
do you see as the most promising ideas for making a real
difference in the traffic jams and congestion that Americans
experience every day driving to and from work?
Secretary Peters. Senator Alexander, thank you for giving
me the opportunity to answer that question. Some of the most
promising things I see in terms of relieving congestion and
getting our transportation system to flow more smoothly are
within the technology realm. Many of our intelligent
transportation systems can help us manage traffic in real time.
The sad fact is that once traffic breaks down, it takes up
to four times longer to get that traffic moving again. So if we
can use technology to inform us of what's happening on the
system, to give motorists the information they need, that
certainly is one of the most promising aspects.
But another aspect, sir, that is very promising in terms of
relieving congestion is using road pricing, dynamic pricing, or
variable pricing as it's sometimes called. On roads in southern
California that are using dynamic pricing, we have found that
we can get up to a 40 percent increase in throughput by using a
pricing model on the same lane configuration. An adjoining, so-
called, free lane gets 40 percent less throughput than does the
price lane.
USE OF CELL PHONES DURING FLIGHTS
Senator Alexander. I'll switch to another subject. The
Federal Communications Commission is currently considering
proposals to allow passengers on airlines to use cell phones
after takeoff. The FAA has some rules about that which limit
the use of cell phones during flight for safety reasons.
I can think of some other reasons that that might not be a
good idea, that have something to do with safety. It seems to
me that it would add to the cost of travel. I mean, you would
have to hire more air marshals to stop the fistfights when
people started yakking on their cell phones.
You would have to land, have emergency landings of the
airplane to deal with the heart attacks and the injuries that
would occur. You would have additional stress for 2 million
travelers, who would come home after being strapped in between
two people talking about their love life and their office
personnel policy as they go along.
So I think it's cruel and unusual punishment even to think
about the prospect of that, and I wonder what steps you're
taking to--I wonder what the status of that is and whether we
can expect that as we travel, that we'll be--that cell phones
will be permitted after takeoff?
Secretary Peters. Senator Alexander, I certainly share your
concern about being trapped and strapped into a seat with
someone carrying on a loud phone conversation on a cell phone
next to me. I am not immediately aware of what the status is,
sir, but I will look into that and get back to you as soon as
possible.
[The information follows:]
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on February 15, 2005 proposing to relax the
ban on 800 MHz cell phone use on aircraft in-flight. Prior to issuance,
the FAA had provided suggested language, which was adopted by the FCC,
to mutually assure adequate protection of airborne and ground systems.
The FAA position remains the same on the use of cell phones in-
flight. Before an operator can allow the use of Portable Electronic
Devices (PEDs), including cell phones, it must determine that device
won't interfere with any aircraft system.
FAA, along with the FCC, participates on the Radio Technical
Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) committee that was formed to develop
the guidance procedures for PED allowance. RTCA continues to work on
this issue.
One of the most contentious issues regarding in-flight cell phone
use is the ``loud-talking seat mate'' concern. FAA shares this concern
and, if cell phone use is allowed, the FAA will continue to monitor its
impact on a flight crew's ability to perform critical safety duties.
Senator Alexander. I would appreciate that. We value our
freedoms in America, but I think you put it pretty well. In
this case we don't have a choice. We're assigned a seat, we're
strapped in it, we don't know who is next to us. So I hope it's
something you'll pay attention to, and I'll look forward to
hearing from you, what you find out.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Peters. Thank you, sir. I will do so.
Senator Murray. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Madam
Secretary.
Secretary Peters. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. I hadn't planned to go into this, but I'm
stimulated by Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Senator Murray. Thank you for sharing.
Senator Lautenberg. Intellectually.
Senator Murray. I think this committee hearing is really
getting out of hand.
AMTRAK
Senator Bennett. As members of the committee have heard me
say, maybe too often, I helped create Amtrak when I was serving
at the Department of Transportation under Secretary Volpe
during the Nixon administration, and I remember assuring the
Congress--it was my responsibility to sell the idea to the
Congress--I remember assuring the Congress that within 2 or 3
years Amtrak would be a freestanding private corporation, for
profit, and there would be no Federal money involved. We are
decades away from that promise, and it is clearly never going
to come to pass.
You have talked a great deal about congestion relief, and a
viable passenger rail, passenger system in corridors where
there is a tremendous amount of traffic can be, should be a
major form of congestion relief. Maybe we should be thinking
about the Amtrak budget less in terms of, ``Gee, this is what
they need to maintain their present relatively inadequate
service,'' to ``This is what we need to spend to get some
congestion relief in this area.''
Now, the area where I part company with my friend from New
Jersey has to do with the question of whether or not rail
passenger should be a national system, and I have repeatedly in
these hearings offered up Amtrak service in Utah to help get
rid of the deficit, because the number of passengers that come
into Salt Lake City could be handled on a single bus. One
airplane a month, practically, if it were a 747, could fill the
entire rail passenger usage into Utah, and the amount of money
that is spent maintaining these long-range hauls for very few
passengers has always struck me as being a foolish expenditure.
I would be more than happy to have that money go into the
Boston-Washington corridor to give reliable, fast service to
get people off the airplanes. But when I take Amtrak to New
York, as I have done, frankly the on-time performance of the
Delta shuttle is a whole lot better. Even when you add showing
up at Reagan 1 hour early to get through security, and the
mind-boggling, harrowing taxi ride from Laguardia into town,
and add those two time delays onto the 45-minute flight, you
will get there faster on the airplane than you do on Acela,
that is supposed to be the high-speed system, and it's almost
always broken down or it runs into some other kinds of delays,
and I very, very seldom have had an Amtrak experience that has
been on time.
So maybe we need a think tank of some kind within the
Department of Transportation to say break out of the
traditional stovepipes of saying we have this for rail traffic
and we have this for bus traffic and we have this for airline
traffic, and say okay, we have this many people that need to
get across this piece of real estate, and what is the most
efficient, rapid, logical way to move them? And then maybe we,
in the name of congestion relief, take some money out of the
Airport/Airways Fund--I don't know what you call it now, that's
what we called it when we created it--and say for congestion
relief we're going to supply Amtrak with these kinds of funds
that will allow them to become reliable.
I've taken an Amtrak situation, I could have gotten across
the country in an airplane in the period of time I spent on the
train, and cabin fever on the train gets to you after a while
when you're constantly stopping for this or slowing down for
that. You can only see so many back yards by the time you say,
``Well, the scenery doesn't excite me anymore.''
So I just raise that. I'm a conservative Republican who
doesn't like to spend money, but the benefit of relieving the
congestion in this most highly populated part of our country is
something we ought to look at. And every year we go through the
same Kabuki dance. Every year it's, ``Why is Amtrak losing
money?'' ``Well, we've got a new plan.'' ``Well, the board is
being tight now.'' ``Well, we've got cost-cutting.''
Maybe we just push all that off the table, take a clean
sheet of paper and say we've got so many people that we have to
move in this corridor, and what's the best way to move them?
And if the best way to move them is by buses that are
controlled by GPS systems and smart transportation, let's spend
the money to do that. If the best way to move them is by train,
and it's a high-speed train that goes at 150 miles an hour,
let's spend the money to get track that stays up and stays
operative at 150 miles an hour, instead of it's always down and
always broken. And look at the whole situation, to use a term I
learned at the department, intermodally, but perhaps with a new
view of intermodal transportation than we ever had before.
Could you think about putting together a group of smart
folks and locking them in a hotel room to think about this
until they come out with some answers?
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Secretary Peters. Senator, I think you make a very valid
suggestion, and I certainly will talk with people back at the
Department and within the industry about this. It is one of the
challenges that the Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue
Study Commission is looking at very closely, in fact. We're
looking at how can we meet transportation demand in better ways
than we have in the past, both in terms of freight and in terms
of passengers.
It's one of the goals that I gave the President when I
accepted the nomination, and you graciously confirmed me here
in the Senate. I want to look at how our system is performing,
as well as our funding and authorizing structures, and
determine if they are meeting our needs in the way they should.
I share your concern about the modal silos; we need to break
those down and look more comprehensively at transportation for
the future than we have in the past.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. One last quick comment, Madam
Chairman.
Senator Murray. I've been very generous with you.
Senator Bennett. All right. Never mind.
Senator Murray. Senator Allard.
DENVER SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL PROJECT (T-REX)
Senator Allard. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I come to this
subcommittee as former chairman of the authorizing subcommittee
on mass transit. It's a subcommittee on banking. And if there
ever was an agency that overpromises and underdelivers, it's
Amtrak. You ought to look at some of our hearings if you want
more information on that.
But I want to talk about a project that we have had in
Colorado. It's called T-REX. It's a combination of rail and
highway. I've talked to them about not overpromising to the
Department of Transportation, certainly, and then
underdelivering. That's very important. So I stressed it to
them, how important it was that they keep the project on time--
it's a huge project--and they do it within budget. They
accomplished both those goals.
The most discouraging thing to me is that now the Congress
and the national Department of Transportation are not keeping
their end of the deal, and they have not put the money into the
project to pay for their shared cost. In fact, the local
governments had to borrow money to cover the cost that the
Federals should have been carrying on their share of the deal.
I hope that when you work with local governments and States
on these projects, that you don't overpromise and underdeliver,
because I think that everybody's better served if we just watch
and make sure that we don't overpromise and underdeliver.
That's one particular case that's right in my backyard, that I
think deserves mentioning. I think that we probably have to
carry the message back to our States to be careful about the
kind of project size, and make sure again that there is some
fiscal responsibility and that it's going to serve the
constituents and taxpayers the way it should.
The other thing that I wanted to bring up is, you asked the
question about or you have in the budget--and Senator Alexander
I think talked about this, about programs that relieve
congestion on the highways. There are a couple of programs that
we've already put in place, we authorized.
TRANSIT NEW STARTS AND SMALL STARTS
One is the new starts program, the other one is the small
starts program. New starts was to encourage large communities,
large cities to get into the mass transit system, and small
starts was to go down to a smaller size city and encourage them
to put together some mass transit systems that work. These
programs are not being fully funded in your budget.
Congress has already in many ways begun to address what it
is that we can do to get people off the congested highways.
High technology is some thing that can be done but it's going
to have minimal effect. I think we have some programs right now
that, if you go ahead and provide the money for them, they're
going to help get people out of congested situations on our
highways.
I'd like to have you respond to those two, if you would,
please.
[The information follows:]
The Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the Denver Southeast
Corridor, signed in November 2000, provides a total of $525 million in
New Starts funds for fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2008. The FTA
seeks the amount indicated in Attachment 6 to the FFGA, a year-by-year
agreed upon funding commitment in the FFGA as part of the President's
annual budget request. By the end of fiscal year 2006, $366.2 million
had been appropriated for the T-REX project. This amount is $27.2
million less than the Attachment 6 amounts in the FFGA for fiscal year
1999 through fiscal year 2006. Thus, as you mentioned at the hearing,
there is a shortfall in the amounts appropriated compared to amounts
requested in the President's annual budgets for these years.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2007 requested $80 million,
the FFGA Attachment 6 amount for fiscal year 2007. I am pleased to
inform you that the President's budget for fiscal year 2008 requests
$78.8 million, compared with $51.6 million in the FFGA Attachment 6,
which will make up for the shortfall that you expressed concerns about
during the hearing. lithe fiscal year 2008 appropriations are enacted
in accord with the President's budget request, the Denver Southeast
Corridor project will be fully funded in accord with the Federal
commitment originally called for in the FFGA.
TRANSIT NEW STARTS AND SMALL STARTS
Secretary Peters. Senator, I certainly understand your
concern about funding for transit in general, and the small
starts and the new starts program specifically. Sir, we had
some tough budget decisions to make within the administration,
much like you do here on the Hill as well, and we endeavored to
put as much money as we could to these programs.
But, as has been indicated earlier, we are funding transit
about $309 million below the fiscal year 2008 level authorized
in SAFETEA-LU. In the President's budget, we also have put the
brakes on the revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) for the
highway program, to the tune of $631 million.
But, sir, I will assure you that the President's budget has
provided funding for every project that's ready to go in our
fiscal year 2008 budget proposal. No projects that are ready
for funding have been left on the table, and we have funded 11
existing full funding grant agreements, and have sufficient
funding for two pending and two proposed grant agreements. We
also have set aside $72 million for six projects that aren't
quite there yet, but we will continue to watch those projects,
Senator, to make sure that we're not dropping funding.
For small starts projects, we have set aside $51.8 million
for four projects that have been approved to date and reserved
$48.2 million for additional small starts projects. One of the
issues with smalll starts is that the regulations governing the
program will not be fully in place until 2008, so we don't
believe that there will be more projects than the $100 million
would satisfy in the near term.
ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE PROGRAM
Senator Allard. Another program I wanted to bring to your
attention is called the Essential Air Service Program. This
enables air carriers to provide service between selected rural
communities and hub airports. Now, the fiscal year 2008 budget
proposes funding of $50 million, less than half that provided
for in the House-passed continuing resolution. Can you explain
the impact on the program if we were to fund at less than half
of the current level?
Secretary Peters. Senator, I understand how important the
Essential Air Service Program is to a number of small
communities, and the President's budget includes $50 million to
continue service to the most isolated communities. Clearly this
amount of money would not meet every eligible community's
needs.
So our recommendation is to limit funding to those
communities that are currently subsidized by the EAS program,
that are more than 70 driving miles from the nearest large- or
medium-hub airport, and the subsidy does not exceed $200 if the
community is more than 70 miles but less than 210 miles from
the nearest large-or medium-hub airport. We would then rank
communities that are eligible under these criteria and allocate
the $50 million to the most isolated communities.
Senator Allard. With those priorities and that way of
establishing priorities, do you think you'll have enough money,
then, for half of the fiscal year?
Secretary Peters. Sir, we believe we'll have about enough
for the most isolated communities.
Senator Allard. How is that funded? I mean, where does the
money come from for that?
Secretary Peters. I'm going to turn to my Assistant
Secretary for Budget for that question.
Ms. Scheinberg. The money comes from overflight fees that
FAA collects.
Senator Allard. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. For the committee members, I've been very
generous recognizing Senators as they come in and have not gone
back to our side. Senator Brownback has come in. I'm going to
allow him to speak. I will then return and reclaim my time,
Senator Bond, and back to Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Brownback.
FAA REAUTHORIZATION
Senator Brownback. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate that. And Madam Secretary, delighted to see you,
glad to see you were in my State not long ago, in Wichita,
meeting with the aircraft manufacturers. They appreciate that
greatly, and we appreciate it. It is, as you saw, a big
industry in our State and they're doing quite well now. That
hasn't always been the case. Some of the changes in the tax
laws here and the growing economy have really made a big
difference for them, and so they're hiring and doing very
nicely.
One of the things they're real concerned about, and I want
to get some of your thoughts on this, is shifting some of the
burden on FAA modernization to general aviation. I had a group
in my office yesterday. They, as I mentioned, they're growing.
You saw them, what's taking place. It is a world class
manufacturing operation. They're engaging more and more global
competition, and they're just fearful that you're going to
shift a bunch of the FAA costs onto general aviation.
And so I want to get you, if you could, to address some of
these questions and concerns. Particularly there was an article
in the Wall Street Journal this past Tuesday where the FAA
Administrator said this: ``I'm talking about shifting of cost,
not increasing of cost.'' Now, we can assume that the shift in
question would result in increasing the burden on general
aviation, or that's what we're hearing. Now, is that the plan?
Is it to shift it more to the general aviation manufacturers,
or not? I'd like to hear your comments about that.
Secretary Peters. Senator Brownback, we certainly
appreciate the general aviation community, and they provide a
very important service in the United States. Our
reauthorization proposal will be out next week, and I believe
that if we could wait until we have that document, I can more
fully answer your question about the impacts of modernizing the
air transportation system on various industry segments.
Senator Brownback. Well, I appreciate that. That doesn't
give much solace. If you were addressing the Wichita City
Council, my guess is they would want a little more fuller
discussion or an assurance from you that you're not going to
shift costs to general aviation.
I was noting in some of your budget projections that if you
stayed within the current fee structure, you would actually
raise more revenue than if you shifted a fee structure that's
being projected under new user fee proposals. The current one
would produce $68 billion and the new fee structure, $67.1
billion.
My point in saying this I think probably should be obvious.
Here's an industry that's growing. It's doing well. But if you
start putting on a 40 percent increase in general aviation fuel
taxes, that's going to have a big hit in the system and it's
going to drive a reduction in purchasing of the aircraft.
I hope you can understand that these have direct
implications. The industry took back off after we made some tax
changes here to allow people to purchase aircraft. It really
helped the industry. But you can also do it in reverse and hurt
it a great deal as well.
Are those being contemplated, increasing fuel taxes for
general aviation?
Secretary Peters. Senator, I know that the structure is
being looked at. Again, not to be disrespectful of the
question, I would prefer to answer that once the
reauthorization proposal is out, so that I can correctly answer
what might be included in the new funding system.
Senator Brownback. Okay. I notice that you do have in your
Department of Transportation budget proposal this statement:
``General aviation users would continue to pay a fuel tax that
would be deposited in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Fuel
tax rates will be calibrated based on the costs these users
impose on the system.''
That sounds like to me an increase in fees is in your base.
Now, I don't mean to try to trick you, but that's in your base
document.
Secretary Peters. Senator, yes. We have heard from the
general aviation community, and I certainly heard this when I
had the opportunity to visit Kansas. Their preference is to pay
through the fuel tax system as opposed to any new user fees
that would be problematic and difficult for them to pay. That
is the issue to which we're referring in the budget. We do plan
to have the cost allocation study come out at the same time as
the reauthorization proposal, which will help us see where
costs are imposed on various industry segments of the system.
PROPOSED AVIATION FEE STRUCTURE
Senator Brownback. And I would hope you would look at your
current fee structure versus your new proposed fee structure.
If the current one is producing more in revenues than a new
one, that wouldn't seem to make much sense. If you're looking
for FAA modernization and funds to be able to do the
modernization, it doesn't seem like changing to a fee structure
that produces less would be a wise move to go.
Secretary Peters. Senator, one of the problems with the
current system is that it is not dynamic and is not able to
align costs to revenue based on system usage. Funding the Next
Generation Air Transportation System will help us dynamically
match the costs to system usage. But I absolutely understand
your concerns about the general aviation community, and commit
to you that we will look very closely at them.
In terms of the numbers that are included in the budget
about the difference between what the new system would collect
versus the old system, I'll ask our Assistant Secretary to
explain how that was calculated.
Senator Brownback. Please. I would just note before she
gets on and my time runs out, I have heard people talking about
as much as a 40 percent increase in general aviation fuel tax.
That's going to hit people when you increase at that level, and
I really don't think that's meritorious to do. I think it's
going to be very harmful.
Ms. Scheinberg. Senator, I believe the numbers you're
referring to are from a table in the President's budget. That
table shows what revenues would be generated if the FAA user
fees were in place in fiscal year 2008, which we're not
planning to do until 2009, compared to the current system.
There is a difference of about $600 million.
What that says is that under our proposal, users will pay
for what is needed in that fiscal year. The current system
generates $600 million more than the budget requests for FAA in
fiscal year 2008. This difference is one of the reasons we're
proposing a new system that generates the amount we need rather
than money that is in excess for the year. There could be years
in the future when we would need more money, but right now
we're collecting money that is not completely correlated to the
amount that we need in the budget. That's what that table is
trying to show.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
OVERSIGHT AND CONTROL OVER FAA FUNDING
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, let me continue on the issue of the FAA
reauthorization. I know we're not going to see your proposal
until next week, but there is one major issue that really
concerns me and really should concern every member of this
subcommittee, and that is whether or not you're going to
propose taking funding control and oversight of the FAA away
from this subcommittee. Some of the major airlines have
proposed that funding for the FAA be converted from
discretionary category to mandatory category, taking it out of
the control and oversight of this appropriations subcommittee,
and I wanted to ask you today if the FAA reauthorization
proposal that you're going to present will convert any of the
FAA's accounts to mandatory funding outside the appropriations
process.
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman, no, they will not. Those
accounts will not be mandatory, and of course they would be
subject to annual appropriation.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much. And even if your
proposal finances the FAA through user fees, do you anticipate
that this appropriations subcommittee will still set the annual
disbursements of those funds for each program and project
within the FAA?
FAA FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman, yes.
Senator Murray. Given the considerable problems we have had
with FAA procurements that have come in late, have come in over
budget, or deliver less than was originally promised, would you
agree that the FAA's acquisition budget needs an annual review
both by the Office of the Secretary and by this appropriations
subcommittee?
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman, we know that there have
been problems in the past, and that GAO has had some of these
programs on its ``high risk'' list. We have made significant
progress within FAA in improving the management of some of the
major investments. For example, in 2006, 97 percent of the
major capital projects, which account for 90 percent of the
capital spending, were on schedule and within budget, and we're
on track to meet that level this year as well. We understand
that this has been a long-term issue, and if I may, the
Assistant Secretary has more information on that topic.
Ms. Scheinberg. As the Secretary mentioned, GAO has been
looking at this for years, and they have come out with their
most recent high-risk list. GAO reported that the FAA has done
a number of things to improve its project management for
capital improvements, and has given the FAA a complementary
report. While this program is still on GAO's high-risk list,
it's much improved according to GAO. We have spent a lot of
time and effort inside the Office of the Secretary overseeing
this program.
Senator Murray. Well, as you reported, your Department, as
you know, received a clean audit of its financial statements
for each of the last 4 years until this year, and this year
your auditor couldn't issue a clean audit because of
significant accounting weaknesses at the FAA. And I understand
that the central problem pertains to the FAA's inability to
accurately account for the value of all of its properties.
You stated that your authorization proposal is going to
look at levying new user fees on the aviation industry based on
the extent to which they use FAA services. So given that the
FAA undermined the opportunity for a clean audit for the entire
Department because of those accounting weaknesses, why are you
now confident that the FAA can appropriately assess the true
value of its services and charge user fees fairly for each of
those services?
Ms. Scheinberg. If I may, Madam Chairman, the issue with
the audit had to do with past years' documentation of FAA's
capital improvement projects. The problems are consistent with
FAA's past problems because they are from previous years.
The most recent years are much improved. Part of what this
reflects is that FAA had major problems in past years. In
current years, we have addressed the issues, but the accounting
records go back. We need to clean up previous years as well.
The weakness was documentation for equipment that we had
purchased in previous years.
As far as the cost accounting system and the cost
allocation system, that has gone on separately, and FAA has led
the way in the Department for being able to allocate its costs.
Senator Murray. Well, they will be before this committee at
some point here in the future, but it just seems to me with the
basic accounting problems that they have, it wouldn't be
appropriate to put their budget on automatic pilot through the
authorization of mandatory funding. I assume you would agree
with me on that.
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman, we are not doing that,
and we would agree with you on that point.
PRIMARY SAFETY BELT LAWS
Senator Murray. Thank you very much. Okay, with my minute
left here I did want to go back to highway safety, just to
follow up on that. I don't think that money is the answer to
everything, obviously. None of us do. Senator Lautenberg here
has been a champion of effective drunk driving action that has
been mandated on the States, that has made considerable
improvement.
Your department has long supported the enactment of primary
seat belt laws by our States, and those laws have been on the
NTSB's most wanted list for a very long time, but even so, only
half the States have enacted laws. Some of our States in fact
have been debating this for a very, very long time. Do you
think it is time for us to go the route of sanctioning the
States if they don't enact primary seat belt laws?
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman, we prefer to use
incentives and rewards for behavior that helps improve safety,
as opposed to sanctions. I would point out how effective that
has been with the seat belt laws, in terms of providing
incentives for States that adopt those laws.
Senator Murray. But have you personally traveled to any
State to try and get them to enact their own laws?
Secretary Peters. Yes, I have.
Senator Murray. Has that worked?
Secretary Peters. Right now 80 percent of the States have
laws. And I would harken back to my own home State of Arizona,
where as a State administrator I tried very hard to get them to
adopt that law. Once the incentives were put in place they
ultimately adopted it.
Senator Murray. Well, I hope you and I can have this
discussion as we go along, because it is disconcerting to me
that only half the States yet, though the use of words, have
used in that direction. And again, we're seeing high
fatalities, so I think it's something we ought to take a look
at.
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman, we recognize how
important it is. In fact, I participated over the holiday
period with a number of States on driving under the influence
(DUI) task forces, and personally went out and spent the
evening with them to try to tackle this drunk driving issue. We
agree with you that it is very important.
Senator Murray. And how about the seat belt laws?
Secretary Peters. They're also enforcing the seat belt
laws. Again, as you said, it's much easier to enforce a primary
seat belt law, so an officer doesn't have to stop a motorist
for another reason.
Senator Murray. But only half the States have that----
Secretary Peters. That is correct, Madam Chairman. I
misspoke earlier. It's 80 percent seat belt use, but not all
the States have primary seat belt laws.
Senator Murray. Senator Bond.
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND REVENUES
Senator Bond. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, we've been talking about CAFE and
increasing the fuel mileage. I understand that hybrid cars have
been having some impact on reducing fuel usage, and my staff
who have hybrids are very pleased to be freed from the costs at
the pump. But what are these reductions in fuel usage having in
terms of an impact on the Highway Trust Fund? Do you have some
ideas, some figures on that, and any suggestions about what if
any remedies might be needed?
Secretary Peters. Senator Bond, I think you're exactly
right. We are seeing declining amounts of funding coming in
from the gasoline taxes, or I should say a flatter portion of
fuel taxes coming into the Highway Trust Fund. I think it's one
of the reasons that we need to comprehensively evaluate this
system.
Sixty-five percent of the Highway Trust Fund revenues are
related to gasoline and gasohol. We're seeing that the annual
growth in the Highway Trust Fund revenues has slowed
considerably over the last 5 years as compared to the previous
decade. We're also seeing a slowdown in the vehicle-miles
traveled, as well.
These are all precursors, in our opinion, to a need to look
comprehensively at the effect these things are having on
funding and whether or not fuel taxes are an appropriate
mechanism for the future.
CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE)
Senator Bond. Well, I think that's appropriate to look at.
Now, Madam Secretary, you and I know that there have been some
very wonderful, exciting, bold proposals by those of us with
all-knowing insight into vehicles, to propose corporate average
fuel standards of 30, 40, 50 miles per gallon, and they are
very ambitious. Do you have any views on why it makes sense for
fuel economy standards to be set by DOT and NHTSA instead of
having Congress legislate a particular numeric fuel economy
increase?
Secretary Peters. Senator Bond, I do. I think it's very
important to have the opportunity to set those standards
through a rulemaking process that considers the attributes of
various models of vehicles that are in the fleet today. We also
want to make sure that we look at the scientific data, the
cost-benefit analysis, the impacts on safety, the impacts on
the economy, and the impacts on jobs as part of setting those
standards.
Senator Bond. I hope you will, because Congress doesn't
always look at them when it makes those wild proposals. And I
would note that the automotive industry has been struggling for
the past few years. We've had significant layoffs across the
country, including my State of Missouri, and many stakeholder
groups within the automotive industry, including the United
Auto Workers, have expressed serious concerns about negative
impacts that large CAFE increases might have on automotive
jobs.
I assume from your previous answer that the administration
will be considering the negative impacts that CAFE standards
have on U.S. automotive jobs. The current standards for
vehicles as opposed to light trucks, sport utility vehicles
(SUVs), might have that impact. Does the administration support
a more targeted fuel standard based on the size of vehicles, so
we won't disadvantage the U.S. auto industry?
Secretary Peters. Senator Bond, we believe that we should
use an attribute-based system which takes into account
different vehicles that are in the fleet in establishing these
standards. The President has laid out a very ambitious goal to
attempt to save 8.5 billion gallons of fuel by 2015, but we
also believe that we need to set these standards based on
different sizes of vehicles that are in the fleet. Some
families can't always use a small sedan, and so we have to take
that into account as well, and not to have a disproportionate
impact on any industry segment in the process.
FUNDING FOR CONGESTION MITIGATION
Senator Bond. Thank you. I think that's very important.
As I mentioned in my statement, we know that congestion is
a major problem, and we've had some very innovative suggestions
from my colleague from Utah. I will look forward to hearing
more from him. But I want to see some more flesh on your
congestion mitigation skeleton. Have you looked at alternative
funding for this congestion program?
Secretary Peters. Senator Bond, yes, we have. The SAFETEA-
LU legislation that was enacted in 2005 provides opportunities
for private activity bonds, which have been very helpful in
attracting private sector investment to transportation
infrastructure, and also by giving States the opportunity to
use public-private partnerships more broadly than they did in
the past.
I had a conversation with Ric Williamson, who is the chair
of the Texas Transportation Commission, just this week. He
related to me how these provisions have substantially helped
them attract additional funding for transportation. But those
should not be the only methods that we're using, Senator. We
need to look more broadly at available revenues for
transportation and what the impacts of those various revenue
sources would be.
Senator Bond. Well, my former colleague was a very strong
supporter of private activity bonds. We'll look forward to your
proposals. Thank you.
Secretary Peters. Thank you.
Senator Murray. Senator Lautenberg.
INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL AND TRANSIT
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
To my friend from Utah, for whom I have a great deal of
respect, he has had a lot of experience with Government and
he's a thoughtful fellow, and he was one of the 93 who voted
for the bill in effect when it was presented. That was a good
vote. Only six people were so conservative that they couldn't
support it. So I thank you.
Now, in terms of your experience, Senator, you may bring
bad luck, because the average wait time, on-time performance on
Acela is 90 percent, other Northeast trains, 85 percent, all
airlines is 75 percent. So I don't think I want to travel on
the train with you.
Senator Bond. Senator, you probably don't want to travel on
a plane with me, either.
Senator Lautenberg. I know Utah fairly well. Cottonwood
Canyon has been a favorite place of mine in the Wasach
Mountains. I love them dearly and I've been up and down them a
lot of times.
And for our colleague from Missouri, my first training in
the military was digging foxholes in the Ozarks, and I will
tell you it's not possible, and I've seen a lot of muscle used.
I have fond memories of that State, and that's why I was
pleased to see that the mule train is getting reinstated, and
that there is service that could be employed between Chicago
and St. Louis and other cities across the country. St. Louis to
Kansas City would also be a good one.
In all seriousness, when we look at this energy savings, a
passenger on Amtrak uses 2,900 Btu's per passenger mile.
Automobiles, it's 3,500, and airlines, it's also 3,500. So the
savings would be enormous. And I would tell you, in a very
serious moment, I look at what happened when the Trade Centers
went down, and railroad was the only thing operating. The
aviation system came to a total halt. The highways were jammed.
A country like ours ought to have a more reliable, robust rail
system, and one of the things that we have to look at is what
the energy savings might be.
But I think in terms of security of this country, and I
remember the problems with two nuclear energy plants, one built
in Long Island and one built in New Hampshire, and the
principal problem with one of them, total abandonment of
billions of dollars of construction because they couldn't offer
a decent evacuation system to get people out of there in the
event of a problem. So I think we have to look at the system.
And I am told, Senator Bennett, that if the train which
passed through Salt Lake wasn't at 3 a.m. in the morning, maybe
the traffic and service would be better. And for long-distance
trains, the biggest problem for them is that they are often
stuck behind freight railroads. That's tough, and they just
can't command it.
So I have heard many cases made for projects, but you made
a case for capital investment in railroads such as I have never
heard, and that is if we could be a kind of Brussels to Paris
kind of thing, 200 miles in an hour and 20 minutes. I was in
the cab of the engine there, and the cows were flying by. It
was really quite an experience.
Could you just imagine, if we could make the investment
that we have to in Amtrak and long-distance rail, how many
places could be improved in terms of their transportation?
Washington State, Portland, for instance, making good use of
rail service. Oklahoma City to Dallas, Texas would be an
excellent corridor. So many places.
And I would ask, Madam Secretary, passenger rail I think
clearly holds promise for not just getting cars off the roads
but also reduction of our Nation's reliance on foreign oil. It
was mentioned how much is lost as a result of congestion and
delay. Does the administration see rail as an important
mechanism to promote energy efficiency, reducing that reliance
on foreign oil?
Secretary Peters. Senator Lautenberg, I see your chart, and
it certainly makes a compelling argument about the use of oil
and the different modes of transportation.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, then, why aren't we getting more
money for improving passenger rail service? You know, in Penn
Station in New York the train traffic is equivalent to a 747
that leaves every 30 seconds. We see what happens now. They
recently repaired and renovated a rail line from Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania to Harrisburg, and the ridership went up 30
percent. That's what we're seeing. Wherever new rail systems
are in there, transit systems, people take them out of
necessity, to get out of the traffic and have more reliable
arrivals when they have to go someplace.
And, you know, I see 3 weeks after the President's State of
the Union address he proposed cutting funding for transit
projects by over $300 million from the congressionally
authorized level. Now, in light of the President's environment
and energy goals set forth in his speech, how do we justify
these cuts for transit?
Secretary Peters. Senator, we had some very difficult
decisions to make in putting the President's budget together.
We have been asked to keep non-defense discretionary spending
down to 1 percent growth. We have actually allocated more than
that to transit and highway programs, but we faced overall
limitations, sir. Again, we are not leaving any transit project
that is ready for funding on the table. All of those projects
are funded.
Senator Lautenberg. Return on the dollar is the fact that
it's got to be in consideration. Thanks very much. Thanks,
everybody, for your tolerance during my reintroduction to the
Transportation subcommittee.
Senator Murray. It's great to have you back.
Senator Bennett.
MASS TRANSIT AND CONGESTION RELIEF
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
will be more succinct this time. I apologize for getting
carried away before. I do remember learning in the department
that in order to have mass transit make sense, you have to have
a mass that needs to be transited.
There are those of us, you have a transit program, you talk
about that as being funded, Salt Lake to Ogden, in my State,
I'll defend that as vigorously as the Senator from New Jersey
will defend Amtrak on the Northeast corridor because there is a
mass that needs to be transited. But the mass that needs to be
transited over the long distances of the West, to me it still
don't make that much sense, but we'll have that debate later
on.
Let me go back to, you're talking about congestion relief
and the use of technology to get there. I simply want to call
your attention to an example that you're probably familiar with
but may not be, and that is the experience that we had in Salt
Lake City in the 2002 Olympics. I learned, being connected to a
State that put on the Olympics, that the biggest challenge of
putting on a successful Olympics is transportation. That was
the problem in Atlanta. That was a huge problem in Athens. And
it was a problem that got solved extremely well in Salt Lake
City.
A lot of folks don't realize, we had buses literally from
all over the country, and I was in Salt Lake City and I would
see these strange buses on the street and think that was kind
of interesting, until I finally saw a bus that was a home town
bus that I felt comfortable with and then did a double-take. It
was a D.C. bus, not a Utah bus.
The thing that made it work was the electronic gizmos that
I think you're talking about here. Every bus driver could be
contacted from a central facility and told, ``Avoid this
intersection. You can get to where you want to go if you go two
streets left. This is where we are.'' And the whole thing
worked seamlessly by virtue of that kind of technology
available.
One of the key parts that made it work was the training.
And when we got buses imported from these various cities, we
also had the drivers imported, who were properly trained so
that they knew the vocabulary that was coming at them either
electronically in the form of a GPS system or by voice in the
form of a dispatcher. They instantly knew what to do.
And as you look at this whole question of congestion
relief, don't just look at the technology but look at the
training that has to go in it. Again, I'm willing to be one who
will spend dollars for this kind of thing because of the value
added that comes. People complain about an extra 2 or 3 cents
on the gas tax, and then they don't realize that that 2 or 3
cents on the gas tax is going into the trust fund that could
produce the technological changes that could reduce congestion.
They will get that 2 or 3 cents back in huge multiples, being
at their office on time, being at their appointments on time,
getting their goods on time.
I'm glad that the overall statistics for Amtrak indicate
that my personal experiences are not typical, but if we could
say the value added of increasing the reliability and the speed
of ground transportation in these areas can justify the
additional taxes in other areas that get shared, we can make a
case that people can be comfortable with.
The light is still green and I'm through, Madam Chairman. I
want the record to reflect that.
Senator Murray. I am impressed.
Senator Bennett. I would ask to put in for the record the
name of the great, far-sighted CEO of the Salt Lake Olympics
that implemented such a success, but I shall refrain from that
because he's going to make an announcement within the next few
days that might cause people to think this was a political
advertisement.
RAIL SAFETY
Senator Murray. I thank you for refraining.
I have a few more questions for you, Madam Secretary, and
then I'll turn it over to Senator Bond.
In drafting the joint funding resolution for 2007, our
committee added $5 million above the freeze level for the
Federal Railroad Administration's safety office, to get funding
closer to the Bush administration request. Our goal really was
to make sure that you can keep railroad inspectors and safety
personnel on the job and enforce safety rules.
I see that your budget would cut this account by almost $3
million in comparison to the joint funding resolution, and in
fact it would be a cut of about $4 million below the level that
you requested for 2007. You announced that cut, in fact, on the
day a train carrying hazardous materials was derailed in West
Virginia, and less than 1 month ago another train carrying
hazardous materials derailed in Kentucky, setting chemicals on
fire and sending a lot of people to the hospital. Do you think
this is the time to cut funding for your Department's rail
safety activity?
Secretary Peters. Senator Murray, I certainly share your
concerns, and have talked with our Federal Railroad
Administrator about rail safety on numerous occasions. Our
fiscal year 2007 and 2008 budgets both assume the same staffing
level of 449 inspectors, as well as adequate resources for
these inspectors. We have applied cost savings to travel
funding, not for the inspectors themselves but other travel
funding. We have also targeted gap deficiencies within our
inspector work force.
Senator Murray. Well, even according to your own budget
documents, your request is going to force the FRA to delay
filling some of their vacancies for 6 months and hire less
qualified candidates for safety inspections. Doesn't that
concern you?
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman, that certainly would
concern me if that were the case. My understanding is that FRA
has offered targeted buyouts to positions where we have
specific gap deficiencies. But if I may, I will ask the
Assistant Secretary to speak specifically to the budget items.
Senator Murray. Okay, but I will refer you to your own
budget, where you say that the FRA proposes to not backfill
vacancies for up to 6 months to achieve some of those cuts.
Ms. Scheinberg. I believe the vacancies that they would
delay backfilling are less critical vacancies, not the
inspectors.
Senator Murray. You assume that?
Ms. Scheinberg. Yes.
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman, if we may, I would like
to get back to you on the record on that point, because I do
believe you make a very valid point.
[The information follows:]
FRA has offered early retirement to approximately 30 employees in a
variety of positions. Early retirements were not offered to any of our
critical field safety positions, such as our inspector workforce. Six
early retirements were offered to Headquarters safety specialists, who
did not have the most effective skill sets FRA needs to face the
challenges of the future. The FRA buyout plan was developed after
performing a detailed workforce analysis that identified skill gaps in
a variety of positions. Some positions to which early retirement offers
were made include Supervisory Industry Economists, Program Analysts,
Administrative Officers, Administrative Assistants, Railroad Safety
Project Coordinators, Industrial Hygienists, and IT Specialists.
Employees who accepted these offers will retire in fiscal year 2007,
and be replaced in either fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008,
depending on their separation date. In many cases, FRA is proposing to
replace these employees at a lower grade than the separating employee,
which will result in cost savings.
The FRA is also proposing to not backfill selected non-critical
safety positions for periods of up to six months during fiscal year
2008 in order to achieve cost savings. This proposal will not postpone
or delay hiring for our inspector workforce, or any other safety-
critical positions.
Finally, the fiscal year 2008 budget proposes filling selected
inspector positions at the GS-5 and GS-7 levels, consistent with our
Inspector Trainee program approved by Congress in the fiscal year 2005
budget, which will allow us to continue to groom a diverse and robust
inspector workforce. As explained in our fiscal year 2005 budget
request, the ``trainees'' at this lower grade level represent fewer
than 5 percent of our inspector workforce at any given time.
Additionally, ``trainees'' are partnered with senior level inspectors
to assure that inexperienced inspectors are not assigned to work
independently until they possess the knowledge and skills necessary to
fulfill their safety role independently.
FUTURE FUNDING OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
Senator Murray. I would appreciate that very much. That is
very disconcerting.
Let me end by asking you about the Highway Trust Fund, a
critical issue. Although your budget request pretty much
follows the levels authorized, you have deviated from SAFETEA-
LU by requesting about $630 million less than the full amount
that's authorized. Even at those levels, it appears that your
proposal will spend down the entire balance in the highway
account of the Highway Trust Fund by the end of 2009.
I am one of those who is very interested in making sure we
have highway and highway safety programs. They are very
critical. But I am also very worried about putting the trust
fund into bankruptcy, and I wanted to ask you what concrete
proposals there are in your budget to refinance the Highway
Trust Fund so we keep it out of bankruptcy.
Secretary Peters. Madam Chairman, as I indicated, we took
several steps to protect the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund
through fiscal year 2009. I absolutely agree with you that we
need to begin to discuss how we prevent the highway account
from going into deficit, and I look forward to working with you
to bring forward proposals toward that end. Also, as I
mentioned, the commission is working very hard on those issues,
and--
Senator Murray. When do we expect to see them?
Secretary Peters. The commission's report, ma'am, will be
available at the end of December of this year. I'm assuming
that the technical corrections bill goes through. But I hope to
bring proposals to you even sooner than that.
Senator Murray. Well, I would hope so, because this is a
looming crisis and we cannot delay a decision on this. The
President's budget wasn't bashful in providing us with concrete
proposals about extending that budget cut, so I would assume
they should not be bashful about proposing how we handle major
crises that are facing us like this, as well. So I hope that we
can see something sooner than that.
Secretary Peters. I understand, Senator.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Murray. At this point I see no other Senators
present. Madam Secretary, I thank you for your testimony today.
I look forward to working with you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
AMTRAK
Question. Madam Secretary, you are a Member of Amtrak's Board of
Directors. Your budget is requesting $900 million for AMTRAK--the same
amount you requested in 2007. That amount is 30 percent less than the
level the railroad received in 2006.
When you look into the details of your request, you're proposing to
use $100 million of this $900 million for new matching grants to States
to improve passenger rail infrastructure. So in terms of dollars that
are immediately available to AMTRAK, your budget represents a cut of
almost $500 million or 38 percent. By anyone's account, whether it be
AMTRAK's management or the DOT Inspector General, a cut of that size
would surely put AMTRAK into bankruptcy.
What is the point in requesting $100 million in matching grants to
States for improved passenger rail service if the national provider of
passenger rail service is bankrupt?
Answer. Over the last 30 years, the real growth in intercity
passenger rail service has been in those corridors where States, such
as Washington, have taken the lead in planning, designing and funding
the service. This has happened despite the lack of the traditional
Federal/State funding partnership for intercity passenger rail. The
administration seeks to create that partnership in part because of the
administration's belief that the States, and not Amtrak based in
Washington, DC are most knowledgeable of their own mobility needs.
Question. Your budget explains that the $100 million you have
requested for these State grants is supposed to help the States to
enter into partnerships to improve and expand intercity passenger rail
service.
Who are the States supposed to partner with to improve passenger
rail service if AMTRAK is allowed to go under?
Answer. Commuter rail operations across the country have
demonstrated that there is a robust competitive market place for
passenger rail operators--both passenger specific operators and, in
some cases, established freight railroads. The administration would
like to see the States receive similar benefits from a competitive
marketplace for operators of intercity passenger rail service, a
marketplace that would include an efficient and competitive Amtrak.
CONGESTION RELIEF
Question. Madam Secretary, as you know, the 2007 Joint Funding
Resolution includes no earmarks for the discretionary accounts within
DOT. That means that, unlike in recent years, you will be awarding some
$2.7 billion in highway and transit funds through a nationally
competitive process.
Given your agency's new focus on alleviating congestion, which I
commend, will you be using the funds that have been provided in 2007 to
target dollars on applications that alleviate congestion?
Answer. In March 2007, shortly after the enactment of the fiscal
year 2007 Continuing Appropriations Resolution (Public Law 110-5), the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) published Notices of Funding Availability in the
Federal Register, where FHWA invited States to apply for grants to fund
projects that address statutory goals and provide significant highway
safety and congestion relief benefits, and FTA, through its
``Congestion Bus Notice,'' invited applications for funding under the
section 5309 Bus Program for projects that support the objectives of
the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation
Network (``Congestion Initiative'').
In line with the Department's goals to save lives and reduce
traffic delays on highways, FHWA is making available a total of $329
million in grant funds in an effort to target resources strategically
across eight discretionary programs to improve safety and relieve
congestion: Ferry Boat; Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment;
Interstate Maintenance; Public Lands Highway; Highways for Life;
Transportation Community and System Preservation; Truck Parking
Facilities; and Delta Region Transportation Development Program. An
electronic copy of the March 22 Notice is available at http://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=2007_register&docid=fr22mr07-117.pdf.
FTA will reserve a significant portion of the funds not
``earmarked'' by law and otherwise available in fiscal year 2007 under
the section 5309 Bus Program for projects selected in accordance with
the Congestion Bus Notice of March 23rd. By separate notice published
in the Federal Register, FTA solicited proposals for use of those funds
not distributed pursuant to the Congestion Bus Notice and not earmarked
by law to support other critical investment needs in both rural and
urban areas.
Question. Will such applications be getting additional points or
priority consideration as you award these funds for the current fiscal
year?
Answer. FHWA has solicited applications and published Notices to
assure competition for the discretionary grants and to enhance
transparent and merit-based determinations to achieve program
objectives, consistent with the purpose of the statute and
administration policy. FHWA will award funding in accordance with the
statutory criteria for each of the discretionary programs and will
weigh the safety and congestion reduction benefits associated with
individual applications. As indicated in the FHWA Federal Register
Notice, those projects that meet the statutory requirements and make
significant impacts to safety and to reducing congestion will be given
priority consideration. Applications for fiscal year 2007 funding
should describe how the project, activity, or improvement relieves
congestion in an urban area or along a major transportation corridor,
employs operational and/or addresses major freight bottlenecks.
On the transit side, to be eligible for funding pursuant to the
Congestion Bus Notice, an applicant (a) must be located within a
Metropolitan Statistical Area or Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical
Area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, which has (1) a travel-time
index of 1.25 or greater, as reported by the Texas Transportation
Institute (``TTI'') in its 2005 Annual Urban Mobility Report; or (2) an
annual congestion cost per traveler of $600 or greater, as reported by
TTI in its 2005 Urban Mobility Report; or (3) a number of hours of
congestion per day of 7 hours or greater, as reported by TTI in its
2005 Urban Mobility Report; and (b) the applicant proposes to use the
funds applied for to improve existing transit service or to provide new
transit service in a corridor or area that is part of a congestion
reduction demonstration. Priority for funding will be given to those
applicants that have also been selected as Preliminary Urban Partners
through the Department's Congestion Initiative. FTA is currently
reviewing all the applications and expects to award a significant
portion of the available discretionary funding to targeted bus projects
in support of the urban partnership initiative while still funding many
meritorious projects that address bus replacement, fleet expansion, and
facility needs in other areas.
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY
Question. Madam Secretary, as you know, there was a 13 percent
increase in motorcycle fatalities in 2005, representing the eighth
consecutive year that there has been a rise in motorcycle fatalities.
Moreover, motorcycle fatalities have increased an alarming 115 percent
since 1997. Simply put, the current approach to reducing the number of
motorcycle fatalities isn't working.
The Department's budget for fiscal year 2008 does propose an
increase in funding for motorcycle safety activities, and in your
statement you indicate that the Department is targeting this problem
area.
But what specific new approaches is the Department going to take in
order to start moving those numbers in the right direction, so that we
see fewer motorcyclists die on our Nation's highways?
Answer. The rise of motorcycle fatalities continues to be a great
concern to me and the Department. I am an avid rider, and I know the
problem is multi-faceted and there is not one single silver bullet to
solve the problem. The Department is looking at a comprehensive
approach to motorcycle fatalities, which will include reducing the
number of alcohol-impaired riders, decreasing the number of unlicensed
riders and encouraging all riders to wear DOT-approved helmets.
To address the problem of alcohol-impaired riders, the Department
will initiate a demonstration project implementing heightened law
enforcement and communication programs to test their effectiveness in
reducing alcohol-related motorcycle crashes. Impaired riding messages
will also be incorporated into the impaired driving crackdown over the
Labor Day holiday.
We will continue to work with State licensing agencies to implement
programs that identify motorcycle owners that are not legally licensed
to operate the vehicle, notify them of the licensing requirement, and
assist them in obtaining the proper license. The Department will also
continue to hold quarterly meetings with representatives of national
motorcycle safety organizations to coordinate efforts to improve
motorcycle safety.
In addition, we continue to encourage all riders to use DOT-
certified helmets. Our efforts to promote helmet use include print and
web-based consumer information materials, public service announcements,
and articles in magazines and other publications. I recently challenged
motorcycle manufacturers to help address rising motorcycle fatalities
by providing free or discounted DOT-certified helmets with all new
motorcycles purchased and ensure rider training is available for all
their customers.
The Department will continue to implement the motorcycle safety
programs specified in SAFETEA-LU. The Motorcyclists Safety Grant
program will award $6 million in fiscal year 2008 to States to use to
support rider training and motorists' awareness programs. The Federal
Highway Administration will continue to host meetings of the
Motorcyclists Advisory Council to improve motorcycle safety through
infrastructure design and maintenance and sponsor the motorcycle crash
causation research study.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
AMTRAK
Question. Secretary Peters, I appreciate your offer to come to
North Dakota and ride the Empire Builder. The Empire Builder is one of
Amtrak's most successful long distance trains, recently reporting an
increase in ridership in 2006 of 4.3 percent. And I appreciate the
comments that you made during your confirmation hearing before the
Senate Commerce Committee when you said that you agreed that we need a
national passenger rail system.
However, the administration continually shows its lack of
commitment to the success of Amtrak, and in fact ignores Congress'
stated will to keep Amtrak going. Each year the President seeks
insufficient funding for Amtrak, and the Congress has to act to restore
the funding.
Can you explain to me why we must have this routine year after
year?
Answer. Amtrak is based upon a flawed business model that works
against achieving the administration's goal that the limited amount of
discretionary funds available for transportation be expended in a cost-
effective manner that meets important mobility needs of this country.
As an example, the administration sees no compelling public purpose in
funding subsidies of food, beverage and first class service. In each of
the last two Congresses, the administration submitted legislation, the
Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, which would address the
fundamental problems with how this Nation provides intercity passenger
rail service. If that bill or something similar were to be enacted, we
would break the annual routine that you mention.
Question. It is clear that Amtrak cannot survive on the $800
million requested by the administration. What is the sense in asking
for a budget that is so insufficient?
Answer. It is true that Amtrak as presently configured and operated
cannot operate on $800 million. That is the point. There are embedded
inefficiencies in Amtrak's operation and items subsidized by the
Federal Government that serve no compelling public purpose, such as its
food and beverage service that consumed over 10 percent of Amtrak's
total Federal subsidy in fiscal year 2006. The administration is
unwilling to pay for inefficiency and activities not essential to basic
transportation. The funding request puts management on notice that it
must address these issues.
AVIATION
Question. Recently the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on
airline mergers, and one topic that arose was whether some additional
Government intervention was necessary for maintaining or improving air
service to rural communities.
Do you believe the current system is working to sufficiently
maintain service to rural communities?
Answer. The Essential Air Service (EAS) program was designed when
airline rates, routes, and services were regulated as means of
providing temporary support to some communities during the transition
of the industry to a deregulated structure. Although the program was
eventually made permanent, it has remained fundamentally unchanged
since its inception. That is one reason the administration has proposed
reforms over the last several years. We believe that the program needs
to be targeted to serve the needs of the most truly isolated
communities across the country, and the administration's plan offers
specific proposals to accomplish that objective.
Question. With the administration's budget requests consistently
cutting the Essential Air Services Program, is there another solution
that you believe is preferable to achieve rural air service?
Answer. It is clear that the EAS program must be reformed or the
costs will continue to escalate. As more and more regional carriers
upsize their fleets to larger turboprops or even regional jets, it will
leave more and more communities reliant upon subsidized EAS. In
addition, as the spread of low-fare carriers continues, more local
communities will be unable to support their local airport's service as
travelers will drive to nearby, low-fare jet service. EAS service of
two or three round trips a day cannot compete with low-fare jet
service, and more and more communities are falling into this situation.
The administration's budget request is wholly consistent with the
notion that the most isolated communities should continue to receive
subsidized EAS in order to keep them connected to the national air
transportation system.
NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
Question. Madame Secretary, in your testimony you spoke about the
Department's goal of reducing traffic fatalities and congestion. These
are important goals and I support the Department in its efforts. One of
the tools to help address these problems is the Nationwide Differential
Global Positioning System (NDGPS). This nationwide system provides
accurate positioning and location information to travelers, emergency
response units, and other customers. North Dakota invested $300,000 to
convert a former Air Force Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) station
at Medora, ND into a NDGPS site. Another conversion is planned for a
former GWEN site in Edinburg. In North Dakota, the system is used for
land surveying, precision farming, utility locations, archeology
locations, and emergency operations. In one example, a single North
Dakota Department of Transportation official completed land surveying
work for a highway project in 4 days using NDGPS that would have taken
four officials 2 weeks to complete without the system.
Some of the most exciting NDGPS uses deal with traffic congestion
and accident prevention. Applications are being developed to provide
drivers with information they can use to more safety navigate roads. In
my State, NDDOT officials are researching the use of NDGPS on snowplows
to prevent future accidents. New investment is needed to expand the
system and to improve the stations from single to dual coverage. The
administration moved the funding responsibility of NDGPS from the
Federal Railroad Administration to DOT's Research and Innovative
Technology Administration (RITA). The fiscal year 2008 budget proposes
$5 million to ``operate and maintain'' NDGPS.
Question. What role does NDGPS play in DOT's goal of reducing
traffic fatalities and congestion, especially in your Intelligent
Transportation Systems initiative?
Answer. NDGPS is one of several enabling positioning, navigation
and timing (PNT) services that may play a significant role in providing
21st Century solutions for 21st Century transportation problems. We
hope that advanced PNT services will enable us to develop and deploy
technologies that will increase safety and reduce systemic congestion
across all modes of transportation.
NDGPS is one potential PNT infrastructure solution for Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) projects. ITS research has identified some
future safety and mobility enhancing applications that would require
PNT performance capabilities that NDGPS currently offers. Other, more
advanced ITS applications may require additional infrastructure and
performance upgrades to the current NDGPS system. However, ITS research
is still on-going to determine how to best achieve the required PNT
performance capabilities for ITS applications.
Question. Is DOT committed to expanding and improving the system?
If so, is DOT planning budget increases for the system?
Answer. The Department decided to manage fiscal year 2008 inland
NDGPS operations and maintenance expenses at a low level to preserve
the Government investment in the system, while RITA completes a systems
analysis and assessment of current and potential future NDGPS
requirements for transportation and other applications. NDGPS user
needs will be evaluated in conjunction with the National PNT
Architecture effort to determine to what extent the NDGPS
infrastructure can meet user needs as part of a national PNT
architecture, before any decision on the future maintenance, operation
or enhancement of NDGPS is made.
The assessment is identifying other Federal and non-Federal users
of inland NDGPS that could fund its completion and operation. The
assessment may also point to another funding source for future
maintenance, operation or enhancement of NDGPS, or to shared
sponsorship. The Department has stated that if no transportation or
other Federal user requirements are identified as a result of the needs
assessment, DOT would plan to end support for NDGPS. If the assessment
determines there are non-Federal users, DOT would work to develop a
transition plan for non-Federal sponsors.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for NDGPS allows for continued
operations and maintenance of the partially-deployed inland NDGPS
segment, with no system build-out or enhancements. This request
provides funding for DOT to continue protecting the Government assets,
and to initiate action on the future course of inland NDGPS. The
planned fiscal year 2008 decision could result in: continuing inland
NDGPS system operations and maintenance; transferring sponsorship of
inland NDGPS to another sponsor or set of sponsors; or other options
that may be determined following the completion of the assessment.
Question. When will dual NDGPS coverage be completed in the United
States?
Answer. Completion of dual NDGPS coverage depends upon the results
of the needs assessment, and on funding decisions made by all NDGPS
partners as a result of the assessment. At this time, approximately 92
percent of the area of the lower 48 States (CONUS) has single coverage,
and 65 percent has dual NDGPS coverage.
Question. What are your plans for adding the Edinburg site into the
system?
Answer. The Department recognizes the strong interest that North
Dakota has had in NDGPS, providing funding for the Medora site, and the
State's strong desire to add the Edinburg site to complete dual NDGPS
coverage in North Dakota. However, we do not wish to add any additional
NDGPS sites until the needs assessment is complete, and the long-term
future of NDGPS funding and sponsorship are resolved.
CAPTIVE SHIPPERS
Question. During your confirmation hearing, you heard about the
concerns that many rail customers have about problems with a lack of
rail competition. Many of the rail customers in my State are served by
a single railroad. They pay exorbitant rates and receive inferior
service. A report by the Government Accountability Office has verified
those concerns, concluding that: (1) captive shippers pay rates that
are three, four or even fives times as high as those of shippers with
competitive choices, (2) the STB's rate relief processes are largely
inaccessible and rarely used, and (3) the STB does not fully use its
existing statutory authority to address competition issues or ensure
reliable deliveries.
Do you agree that the STB has existing authority to create a more
robust and effective rate relief process? And if you agree, what steps
do you intend to take to prompt the STB to use that authority?
Answer. The Department agrees that the Surface Transportation Board
(STB) has authority to adopt an effective rate relief process. In an
ongoing rulemaking proceeding, the STB has proposed simplified, less
costly procedures for assessing rate reasonableness in cases brought
before it, and sought comments from stakeholders on those procedures.
The Department has recognized this effort and submitted its views on
the new procedures proposed.
Question. The GAO has reported that it would be helpful for a
Federal agency to evaluate where areas of inadequate rail competition
exist, and where an inappropriate exercise of a railroad's market power
might force shippers to pay inappropriately high rates. Do you agree?
Will the Department undertake such an investigation?
Answer. Such a study would have limited usefulness, because the
absence of substantial rail-on-rail competition in an area is not, in
itself, a good indication that rail competition should be introduced.
The structure of the rail system has developed in response to varying
levels of demand across areas and the particular economies of density
that characterize the rail industry. As a result, some areas of low
traffic density cannot support more than a single railroad. We do
recognize, however, that the potential for exercise of market power in
certain areas can lead to rate levels for which rate regulation may be
appropriate.
Question. According to the GAO, each rate case filed with the STB
takes an average of 3.5 years to complete, and costs approximately $3
million. Do you think this is an appropriate amount of time and money
for a shipper to spend on a rate case?
Answer. The Department has called for simplified, less costly
procedures for adjudicating rate cases, particularly for small
shippers. However, as the record going back to the mid-1990s of
attempts by STB to simplify the process for small shippers has shown,
it is not an easy determination. For example, there are trade-offs
between simplifying the process and accurately assessing an appropriate
rate level that is fair to both the shipper and the railroad. We
believe progress is being made on this task, as noted above, with the
STB's current rulemaking proceeding to simplify the process and reduce
the cost.
Question. Has the Department conducted any analysis on the ability
or limitations of the rail system to deliver either feedstock or
refined ethanol to market, or the impact of unreasonable rail rates on
the cost of these critical domestic fuel supplies? If not, will you
conduct such an analysis?
Answer. We are monitoring developments in the booming ethanol
industry closely and have discussed the issue of alternative energy
distribution broadly with the Department of Energy, Department of
Agriculture and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. We would like
to explore the potential implications of the specialized transport and
distribution requirements of ethanol further. Two critical needs are
the development of a pipeline infrastructure capable of carrying
alternative energy products and the development of unloading terminals
in destination markets, particularly to handle ethanol unit trains.
Another is the availability of rail tank cars to serve the industry. If
ethanol production continues on its present growth trend, and if rail
continues to be the dominant mode to move it, there could be a demand
for as many as 480,000 tank car loadings by 2010. Some reports put the
backlog at almost 4 years for delivery of new cars.
Regarding rail rates for ethanol, we have no indication they are
unreasonable. Ethanol is a hazardous material, and we would expect
rates would be set high enough to cover the railroads' liability in the
event of an accident and ethanol spill. Additionally, as with any
commodity, rates must offer enough return to justify continued
investment. The regulatory processes of the STB are available if a
shipper decides to challenge an individual rate.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
AMTRAK
Question. President Bush appointed you to the Board of Directors of
Amtrak, America's National Passenger Railroad. The company's last
projection for fiscal year 2008 calls for almost $1.7 billion in
Federal funding. So why has the President only requested less than half
of that--$800 million--for Amtrak?
Answer. There are embedded inefficiencies in Amtrak's operation and
items subsidized by the Federal Government that serve no compelling
public purpose such as its food and beverage service that consumed over
10 percent of Amtrak's total Federal subsidy in fiscal year 2006. The
administration is unwilling to pay for inefficiency and activities not
essential to basic transportation. The funding request puts management
on notice that it must address these issues.
Question. As a Member of the Board of Directors of Amtrak, you must
be aware of the debt payments and liabilities of the corporation--
likely to amount to $285 million next year. You suggest funding to pay
for Amtrak's debt ought to be paid for out of non-Federal sources, such
as revenues. But all revenues are used to pay for operating and capital
needs of the corporation. Where do you propose cuts to service or
capital be made?
Answer. It is the administration's position that Amtrak's
management has the responsibility for managing the Corporation in such
a way as to live within the resources available to it.
Question. Does the administration feel Amtrak's debts should be
paid at all?
Answer. The Department believes that Amtrak should meet its debt
service obligations and makes that a condition of the grant agreements
between the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak. To be clear,
however, Amtrak's debts are the obligation of the Corporation and not
of the Federal Government.
FUNDING FOR TRANSIT PROJECTS
Question. Less than 3 weeks after President Bush's ``State of the
Union'' address, he proposes cutting funding for transit projects by
over $300 million from congressionally authorized levels. In light of
the President's environment and energy goals set forth in his speech,
how can you justify these cuts for transit?
Answer. The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) budget requests
$1,399.82 million in fiscal year 2008 for New Starts projects, of which
$100 million is for Small Starts. The President's budget request sets
priorities and keeps commitments by fully funding all existing
construction projects, as well as funding four new, highly qualified
projects.
FTA's budget fully funds existing and new multi-year construction
projects under the New Starts program. Eleven projects with existing
full funding grant agreements (FFGAs) are recommended for funding in
fiscal year 2008. In addition, two projects with pending FFGAs carried
over from fiscal year 2007 are proposed in the budget. Two new projects
are proposed for funding in the budget: New York, NY--Second Avenue
Subway, Phase I and Seattle, WA--University Link LRT Extension, both of
which are rated ``High'' in overall project rating. It is expected that
these projects will receive an FFGA in fiscal year 2008. The table
below reflects projected ridership for the two projects with pending
FFGAs and the two projects proposed to receive FFGAs in fiscal year
2008.
RIDERSHIP FORECAST FOR SELECT PROJECTS ANTICIPATED TO RECEIVE FFGAs IN FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridership Forecast
City Project -------------------------------
Ridership Forecast Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending FFGA:
Denver, CO................................ West Corridor LRT............... 28,300 2030
Portland, OR.............................. South Corridor I-205/Portland 46,500 2025
Mall LRT.
Proposed FFGA:
New York, NY.............................. Second Avenue Subway Phase I.... 213,000 2030
Seatle, WA................................ University Link LRT Extension... 40,200 2030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the November-December 2006 time frame, New Starts ratings
and the President's fiscal year 2008 budget decisions were finalized.
At that time, six projects were forwarded in the ``Other'' category
that might be ready for funding or an FFGA prior to the end of the
fiscal year (September 30, 2008). Forwarding these projects in the
``Other'' category of the budget demonstrates the administration's
interest in funding them if progress toward completion of preliminary
requirements is sufficient to support a recommendation for an FFGA
under the New Starts evaluation and rating framework. During late
spring and summer 2007, FTA will provide periodic updates on the
``Other'' category projects to appropriators to support sound
appropriation decisions. Past experience has shown that not all of the
projects in the ``Other'' category will be ready for funding or an FFGA
during fiscal year 2008. FTA is confident that the amount requested for
New Starts in total meets the demand for funding expected during fiscal
year 2008.
FTA requested $100 million for Small Starts in fiscal year 2008
because there were no Small Starts projects ready in fiscal year 2007,
and only four Small Starts projects were ready for funding when work
was completed on the fiscal year 2008 budget. In total, those projects
only need $52 million in fiscal year 2008 and two of those four will
now be funded in fiscal year 2007. Thus, the Small Starts request is
realistic and sufficient, both for these projects and for any other
Small Start that becomes ready for funding in fiscal year 2008.
FEWER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Question. There are still almost a thousand less air traffic
controllers than 3 years ago, and the strain on the system is obvious,
with delays throughout the system and a growing workload for each
controller. How do you know that the 1,420 controllers you plan to hire
will be enough, given that FAA has underestimated the number of
retirements?
Answer. At the end of September 2003, there were 15,691 controllers
on board compared with 14,469 as of March 31, 2007, for a difference of
1,222 controllers. This only tells part of the story, however, as the
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) previous contract required the
agency to increase staffing, even as the number of FAA-handled
operations plummeted following the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks. While the agency continued to hire, the FAA's customers in the
aviation industry were laying off tens of thousands of employees and
drastically scaling back operations.
From the chart below, you can see that today headcount is still
ahead of traffic. You can also see that through 2006, total operations
per controller on average remain more than 6 percent below pre-
September 11, 2001 levels.
FAA now staffs its facilities based on traffic, with workload
driven by the number of positions that need to be staffed due to
forecasted traffic demands. Additional information can be found in the
March 2007 Report, A Plan for the Future: The FAA's 10-Year Strategy
for the Air Traffic Control Workforce. This concept of staffing to
traffic requires the FAA to incorporate many individual facility
characteristics. They include facility-specific traffic volumes based
on FAA forecasts and hours of operation, as well as individualized
forecasts of controller retirements and other attrition losses.
--In fiscal year 2006 the FAA hired 1,116 air traffic controllers.
--In fiscal year 2007 the FAA plans to hire more than 1,300 new air
traffic controllers.
Should adjustments become necessary due to changes in traffic
volumes, retirements or other losses, the FAA will take action at the
facility level.
REPORTS TO CONGRESS
Question. When does the administration intend to submit the
following reports, as required by law:
--Public Law 109-115: ``Provided further, That not later than
December 31, 2015, the owner or operator of an airport
certificated under 49 U.S.C. 44706 shall improve the airport's
runway safety areas to comply with the Federal Aviation
Administration design standards required by 14 CFR part 139:
Provided further, That the Federal Aviation Administration
shall report annually to the Congress on the agency's progress
toward improving the runway safety areas at 49 U.S.C. 44706
airports.''
--Public Law 109-59:
SEC. 2003. HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS.
(f) Refusal of Intoxication Testing.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall carry out under section 403
of title 23, United States Code, a study of the frequency with
which persons arrested for the offense of operating a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and persons
arrested for the offense of operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated refuse to take a test to determine blood alcohol
concentration levels and the effect such refusals have on the
ability of States to prosecute such persons for those offenses.
(2) Consultation.--In carrying out the study under this
subsection, the Secretary shall consult with the Governors of
the States, the States' Attorneys General, and the United
States Sentencing Commission.
(3) Report.--
(A) Requirement for report.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit a report on the results of the
study to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives.
(B) Content.--The report shall include any
recommendation for legislation, including any
recommended model State legislation, and any other
recommendations that the Secretary considers
appropriate for implementing a program designed to
decrease the occurrence of refusals by arrested persons
to submit to a test to determine blood alcohol
concentration levels.
Answer. The Runway Safety Report has been completed and the Federal
Aviation Administrator transmitted the report to Congress on May 25th.
In December 2005, the Department met with House and Senate staff
to discuss the timing of the alcohol testing report. We were very
pleased when the Committees agreed to allow the deadline for this
report to be moved until June 10, 2008. The issue of breath test
refusals and its impact on the ability of States to prosecute impaired
driving offenses is complex, which necessitated our request to delay
the report. NHTSA awarded a contract in fiscal year 2006 to update an
existing report on breath test refusals (using data from 2000) and
added the requirement to study its impact on impaired driving
prosecutions. The Department fully expects to meet the new deadline.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS
Question. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) directs the Secretary of
Transportation, in cooperation with the Secretary of Interior, to
complete a comprehensive national inventory of transportation
facilities eligible under the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program.
This inventory is to be completed within 2 years of SAFETEA-LU's
enactment. I have been contacted by tribes from across the country
concerned their roads are not being included in the national inventory
based on vague guidance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that
varies from region to region as to what requirements must be met for a
road to be accepted. Roads must be included in the inventory in order
to receive funds through the IRR program
Given that the IRR program is jointly administered by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
what is FHWA doing to ensure clear and uniform guidance to Tribes so
their inventories may be accepted?
Answer. The Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program is jointly
administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and we are jointly working on the development of
a comprehensive inventory of all facilities eligible for inclusion in
the Program. Numerous changes to the IRR Program have taken place over
the past few years, the most significant being the publication of the
IRR Program Final Rule (25 CFR 170). This rule provides all of the
regulations on how the IRR Program is to be carried out and was
developed as a result of the negotiated rulemaking process between the
Indian tribes and the Federal Government that was required in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
During the first year under these new regulations (2005), it became
evident that the requirements to have a road or facility included in
the IRR Program inventory needed to be clarified. The IRR Coordinating
Committee (which also was formed as a result of the Final Rule)
recognized this fact and worked closely with BIA and FHWA
representatives to develop a new comprehensive list of the requirements
needed for IRR Program Inventory submittals. This updated list was
presented to the Department of the Interior's Assistant Secretary Cason
for his approval and a new policy letter was published with his
signature on June 15, 2006.
The policy was provided to all of the BIA Regions and their
respective tribes. Additional information and training was provided to
the various Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) Centers
throughout the country so that they too could provide training on this
subject to the Tribes. As a result, the number of inventory sections
that were submitted yet returned to the Tribes as incomplete
substantially decreased last fiscal year and has continued to decrease
this past year. With the ability to make the inventory system available
to tribes directly through the Internet, we anticipate this reduction
to continue.
Over the past few years, the number of miles included in the IRR
Program inventory has increased from approximately 64,000 in fiscal
year 2003 to over 85,000 this past year. One BIA Region that has
witnessed a substantial increase in their IRR Program inventory has
been the Alaska Region where the number of miles in the approved IRR
Program inventory has increased over 1,800 percent in the last 10
years.
Improvements to the IRR inventory process is an ongoing process in
which the IRR Coordinating Committee, FHWA, and BIA are all jointly
working together to develop and implement. It is well understood that
it is in the best interest of everyone that the system be as simple as
possible yet be carried out in a manner that is fair for all tribes.
This is often difficult yet it is one that all of us involved are
striving to accomplish.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Murray. This subcommittee stands in recess until
Thursday, March 1.
[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., Thursday, February 8, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]