[Senate Hearing 111-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 9:31 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senators Murray, Kohl, Specter, Bond, and Collins.

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Office of the Secretary

STATEMENT OF HON. RAY LaHOOD, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY CHRIS BERTRAM, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND 
            PROGRAMS AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY


    Senator Murray. Good morning, the subcommittee will come to 
order.
    This morning, we're going to be holding our first hearing 
on the President's budget request for the Department of 
Transportation.
    I want to welcome Secretary Ray LaHood. Thank you so much 
for being here today.
    The transportation budget that we have before us today is 
important for families, commuters, communities across the 
country, and it's about more than just dollar amounts and more 
than just the sum of the programs and provisions; it really is 
a statement of values and a reflection of priorities. It's an 
issue that touches every American, every day. It affects the 
men and women who commute to work and need safe roads or new 
public transportation options, it affects the parents who strap 
their young kids into the back seat of the family car and need 
to be confident that their government has the resources to make 
sure that passenger vehicles used by American families are 
safe. It affects communities around the country that are facing 
immense fiscal challenges and depend on Federal resources to 
maintain and improve their transportation infrastructure.
    The transportation budget has a real impact on real people, 
people who are struggling in these tough economic times. Last 
year, we passed a recovery package that is now working to 
create jobs and rebuild infrastructure and lay down a strong 
foundation for long-term economic growth. It was a good start, 
but we cannot stop working until our economy is steadily 
growing again and any American who wants a job can find one.
    That's why we are building on the Recovery Act with new 
targeted jobs bills to help workers get back on the job and 
make investments that strengthen our competitiveness in the 
long term, including investments in transportation. And its 
why, as we examine this budget request, we need to make sure 
that it builds on those efforts and continues moving us 
forward, creating jobs, and investing in our communities, long 
term.
    Today's hearing comes shortly after the Senate passed an 
extension of the surface transportation programs. But, 
unfortunately, as we know, this extension was not passed in 
time and almost 2,000 DOT employees were furloughed without pay 
for the first half of this week. The gap in funding didn't just 
hurt those Federal employees, it also left State governments 
wondering about the future of funding that they desperately 
need. In my home State of Washington, a reimbursement payment 
of $13.5 million for federally-sponsored projects, that was due 
on Tuesday, was left in limbo.
    Seeing these programs shut off, even just for a short time, 
is especially troubling since Senator Bond and I have worked so 
hard to bring stability to the highway safety and transit 
programs authorized under SAFETEA-LU. Two years ago, we 
included a transfer of funds to prevent the Highway Trust Fund 
from going bankrupt. Last year, we provided an additional $650 
million for the highway program, an increase of $400 million 
for transit, despite the absence of a new authorization law to 
provide for such increases.
    And now, when our communities need jobs and Federal 
investments in infrastructure more than ever, they're facing 
shutdowns of the highway and transit programs and instability 
in their funding streams. The uncertainty of this brings--
undermines essential planning by our States and local 
jurisdictions. That's why we need to move quickly toward a 
long-term authorization of the highway, safety, and transit 
programs, one that brings solvency to the Highway Trust Fund 
and stability to our States and communities, and I am committed 
to getting that done in the near future.
    Before I get to the budget request, I want to take a few 
minutes to commend Secretary LaHood and the DOT on meeting some 
significant challenges this past year. Immediately after the 
Recovery Act was enacted, the Department began working to 
distribute highway and transit grants to State and local 
governments. The law set very aggressive deadlines for all of 
the programs it funded, and to its credit, the DOT has met each 
one and it has worked hard to help our State and local 
governments meet their deadlines, as well. That was absolutely 
critical as we worked to create jobs, invest in our 
infrastructure, and accelerate economic recovery. I was very 
happy with the DOT's work on two programs, in particular, the 
Inner-City and High-Speed Rail Grants, and TIGER, the program 
that I helped create, that supports significant projects across 
almost every mode of transportation. I fought to include those 
programs in the Recovery Act, because I know that getting 
commerce and commuters moving is an important part of our 
recovery efforts. I was proud that my home State of Washington 
received $590 million for high-speed rail upgrades along the 
Pacific Northwest Cascades Corridor. And I recently was out in 
the State and visited the North-South Freeway in Spokane, and 
the Mercer Street Corridor in Seattle; both projects had been 
awarded TIGER grants.
    The project in Spokane will create about 100 jobs, and the 
Seattle grant is the final piece required to finish a project 
that will create thousands of jobs. These are projects that 
will help families and small businesses in their communities, 
get workers back on the job, and help lay the foundation for 
long-term economic growth. And I'm sure Secretary LaHood has 
seen plenty of great projects like that that are in the works, 
helping communities across the country.
    This subcommittee included an additional $600 million in 
the fiscal year 2010 bill to continue provided Federal 
resources to support these types of regional transportation 
investments, and I look forward to working with the Department 
as it moves forward in the coming year to get to a new round of 
investments out of the door.
    But, now, as we look toward this year's budget, it's clear 
that the DOT is going to have to find ways to do more with 
less, especially given the President's announcement of an 
overall cut in nondefense, domestic discretionary spending. 
But, even in this challenging environment, I'm encouraged by 
many of the items I do see in the budget request. The request 
includes increased funding for safety inspectors for aviation, 
rail, and pipelines, an investment of $1.1 billion for NextGen 
efforts at the Federal Aviation Administration, another $1 
billion in grants for inter-city and high-speed rail, and 
continued investment infrastructure to support our airports, 
roads, bridges, highways, transit systems, and Amtrak.
    I still have some questions about some of the decisions 
reflected in this budget request. I'm certain Senator Bond has 
some of his own, as well. For example, why is it necessary to 
create a new agency at the Department for awarding multimodal 
grants, especially when we have seen DOT agencies work together 
on the TIGER grants? And why did the administration choose not 
to request any funding for positive train control? PTC is an 
important technology for preventing rail collisions and 
derailments.
    But, the biggest question on my mind, and on the mind of 
many families I hear from, is whether the Department has been 
doing enough to oversee the safety of our cars and our trucks. 
The American people deserve to have faith in the safety of the 
cars and trucks they drive to work, to school, to soccer 
practice with their kids every day. Questions have been raised 
about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration has adequate expertise and resources to 
investigate safety defects among the 246 million passenger 
vehicles--246 million passenger vehicles--in the United States.
    Given that NHTSA opened and closed four narrowly-focused 
investigations into sudden, unintended acceleration in Toyota 
vehicles between 2003 and 2006 without a significant finding of 
a defect trend, I question whether additional resources would 
have resolved consumer complaints of sudden, unintended 
acceleration. NHTSA must ensure the industry is honest in 
disclosing defects, and timely in alerting drivers, 
particularly when these defects can result in fatal accidents. 
To do this, they need to be more strategic about their 
workforce and use the expertise of their employees more 
effectively.
    NHTSA finally does have strong leadership in place, with 
the recent confirmation of Mr. Strickland, as well as from you, 
Mr. Secretary. I am hopeful that you will reenergize the 
agency's vehicle safety mission to focus on enforcement and 
strengthen its electronic expertise. Families across America 
rely on the DOT to be a leader in improving transportation 
safety and to provide expertise on what safety issues need to 
be addressed.
    I'm also glad to see a request for additional resources to 
allow the Federal Transit Administration to oversee transit 
safety. However, this activity is not yet authorized; and, 
importantly, the FTA's proposal to oversee transit safety came 
out only after severe deficiencies were found in the safety of 
the Washington Metro system, right here in our backyard.
    I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Secretary, on where 
the greatest risks exist in rail transit and what steps the 
Department can take to make transit safer for the millions of 
Americans who rely on it for their daily commutes. 
Unfortunately, too much of the Department's work is initiated 
in reaction, now, to a crisis situation. We've seen this 
before; most recently, the Federal Aviation Administration 
revisited its safety standards after the tragic crash of the 
Colgan Air flight, a year ago.
    The DOT is doing good work in so many areas, but we can 
never ignore the core mission of this agency: to make sure the 
safety of our Nation's transportation system is there for all 
of our families. Over the course of this hearing this morning, 
we'll have an opportunity to discuss all of these issues in 
more--greater detail.
    But, Mr. Secretary, thank you again for your participation 
today, and I look forward to your testimony.
    With that, I'd like to turn it over to my partner, Senator 
Bond, ranking member, for his opening remarks, as well.


            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND


    Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    And welcome, Mr. Secretary. I'm pleased to join with the 
chair and Senator Collins in welcoming you to testify on the 
Department's 2011 budget.
    There are plenty of people in Washington who don't think 
transportation spending is glamorous. They'd rather spend money 
on anything else other than roads, bridges, and infrastructure. 
But, in my way of thinking, ensuring America has an updated 
transportation infrastructure is a key responsibility of 
government. And I--it's no secret that I am a huge proponent of 
spending to improve our transportation spending and create jobs 
and get the infrastructure we need; but it has to be done well. 
It's an economic climate where we need to invest our scarce 
resources in areas, like infrastructure, that will not only 
build roads and bridges, but help rebuild our economy.
    But, while investing in our transportation infrastructure 
is critical, we can't just wish it to be. With a $12 trillion 
and growing deficit, we cannot continue to throw Federal funds 
at projects, willy-nilly. We need a clear-cut, coherent, and 
detailed blueprint, detailing how taxpayer dollars will be 
spent to reach our transportation infrastructure goals.
    Unfortunately, the administration proposal misses this 
mark, once again. In fact, there is little ``print'' in the 
administration's supposed ``transportation blueprint.'' As I 
said earlier this year, this budget is making me feel a lot 
like Bill Murray in ``Groundhog's Day.'' Instead of a serious 
plan to tackle our Nation's transportation policy challenges, 
the administration is repeating last year's mistake.
    We're facing the same issues, Mr. Secretary, which we faced 
last year when you came before the subcommittee. I understand 
there are many difficult transportation challenges facing our 
Nation, but refusing to deal with them, or putting off the 
tough choices, is not a responsible way to go about it.
    Once again, the budget assumes an extension of SAFETEA. We, 
once again, need to bail out the Highway Trust Fund with 
general revenue to get us through the fiscal year, much less 
get us through fiscal year 2011. And, once again, we have to 
bail out the mass transit account with general funds to get us 
through fiscal year 2011.
    There are no broad reauthorization proposals or solutions 
to any of these challenges. Instead, this budget actually adds 
to our already daunting challenges by including various pet 
project initiatives that would wait, like everything else, for 
a full reauthorization to occur.
    In addition to a lack of realistic decisionmaking, this 
budget adds to our challenges by failing to provide a national 
rail plan and a cost-to-complete estimate of what we are trying 
to accomplish with the $10.5 billion we've already 
appropriated, much less the additional billions, which I fear 
will be in the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, 
this budget requests. Where are we going to spend all of that 
money? Where are we going to get all of that money? What's it 
going to do?
    Finally, we have another $4 billion request for what, this 
year, is called the National Infrastructure Innovation and 
Finance Fund. Last year, it was called the National 
Infrastructure Bank. You might have changed the name of the 
program, but the details remain the same. By that, I mean there 
are no details, once again, no legislative language about the 
specifics of this $4 billion proposal.
    I also must point out what is a general theme of this 
budget: a continuation of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act and its broad--and I mean very broad--
grantmaking authorities and requests. Your budget asks for 
Congress to write you a blank check, to the tune of $527 
million in grants, under a new Office of Livability. Your 
budget also asks Congress to write you another blank check for 
$53 million in greenhouse gas and energy reduction grants. Your 
budget asks Congress to write you another $1 billion check for 
high-speed rail. Do you really want us to give you another 
bunch of pots of money from which to make earmarks, with no 
accountability? I want to know where is Congress' role in 
deciding how these tax dollars will be spent.
    As you will recall, Mr. Secretary, Congress gives the--is 
given, by the Constitution, the responsibility to appropriate 
money. Why should all of the decisions about spending our 
scarce Federal resources be made by unelected and unaccountable 
bureaucrats with no involvement of the representatives of the 
people in Congress or a full disclosure to them?
    Equally important, where is the transparency in the 
process? I thought I heard the clear, unambiguous promise that 
this administration would be the most transparent ever. I've 
continued to ask questions on exactly how the administration is 
making their earmark decisions, awarding these transportation 
grants, what criteria are being used. I continue to get no 
answer.
    It's critical that the process be transparent so Congress, 
and the taxpayers we serve, knows how taxpayer dollars are 
being used. It's essential that we shine needed sunlight on the 
funding of transportation projects to date, and it hasn't 
happened.
    Mr. Secretary, I believe that if this grantmaking process 
is continued in our bill, it needs to be done in a far more 
transparent and accountable way. Grants that are applied for by 
communities and States should be posted on the Internet for 
every taxpayer to see and evaluate, not just delivered by a 
lobbyist to the Department of Transportation, with no 
transparency. Cost shares, the leveraging of funds, should be 
readily available on the Internet so that we, and our 
constituents, have access to information about other sources of 
Federal, State, or private funds that may be used to augment 
these grant awards.
    We have continued to demand that Congress be notified of 
award decisions 3 days prior to the Department of 
Transportation's announcement, with backup material and 
information on the methodology of award selections, including 
information on how the selected projects fit into our 
transportation goals. We have not been getting that, and it is 
very awkward to have to tell our constituents that you didn't 
even bother to tell us where the grants are going, why they are 
going there, and how they were selected.
    Now, it's unclear to me the extent to which the Department 
is funding projects for which there are no traditional sources 
of funding, as you indicated was the priority for the TIGER 
funds when you testified before our subcommittee last year. Mr. 
Secretary, last year when I asked you what Congress' role in 
all of this, you indicated that, ``Congress' role ended when 
the check was signed.'' I think the American taxpayer deserves 
more, deserves better. The administration has pledged to 
provide transparency, lobbying reform across all programs. This 
commitment must extend to the billions of taxpayer dollars 
spent on our transportation projects.
    Our transportation infrastructure, like our highways, 
roads, and bridges, are the lifeblood of our economy and key to 
future economic growth and economic recovery. We cannot afford 
to pass the buck on difficult challenges; we cannot afford to 
spend billions of dollars, with no transparency, oversight, or 
accountability, if we are to create a modern transportation 
infrastructure, new jobs in our community, safer travel for our 
families, and economic development across the Nation.
    For many of these challenges, there are no easy or popular 
solutions, but we cannot afford to keep putting the problems 
down the road, or there won't be a road to drive on.
    Mr. Secretary, obviously I look forward to your testimony.
    Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Bond.
    Senator Collins, do you have an opening statement?


                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS


    Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    First, let me thank you and the ranking member for your 
strong leadership on this subcommittee, and your advocacy.
    I do have an opening statement which I'm going to submit 
for the record, but I did just want to take a moment to talk 
about the TIGER grants that were authorized in the Recovery 
Act.
    It's my understanding that the Department of Transportation 
received nearly 1,400 TIGER grant applications, totaling $56.9 
billion. The Recovery Act included $1.5 billion for TIGER 
grants. I think this--the figures show what an overwhelming 
demand there is for infrastructure spending along the lines 
that both of you have outlined.
    A project submitted in the State of Maine, alone, totaled 
$236.2 million. Obviously, due to the high volume of 
applications, the vast majority of these projects were not able 
to be funded. There were two in Maine that were of particular 
importance. One, I'm going to discuss when the questions come 
around; it has to do with more than 200 miles of track in 
northern Maine that the railway in question is seeking to 
abandon, which would be devastating for northern Maine.
    The second is a very innovative program that New Hampshire 
and Maine have come together on, and that is to repair a major 
bridge that links the two States. And that, too, is an 
innovative project that I hope might be able to secure future 
funding.
    But, again, it just is evidence of the overwhelming need 
for investment in infrastructure. And I look forward to working 
with you and the ranking member, both of whom are such 
effective advocates in this area, and as well as with the 
Secretary.
    Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Senator Susan Collins

    Our Nation continues to face serious economic challenges and the 
transportation sector is certainly not immune to these hardships. 
During consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, I 
advocated for a strong investment in transportation funding. 
Unfortunately, our investment came up short. While we secured over $48 
billion for all modes of transportation, this funding represented less 
than 7 percent of Recovery Act spending. I find that troubling as 
investments in transportation infrastructure are strongly needed in all 
States and a sure way to create good-paying jobs.
    Maine was the first State in the Nation to obligate 100 percent of 
its Recovery Act highway funds. I applaud the quick action of my State 
to get Recovery Act funds out the door and create much needed jobs. I 
often hear from my constituents in the construction industry that the 
investments we made in transportation funding saved the industry from a 
dismal year and significant lay-offs.
    As many of the Recovery Act funds are now spent, the transportation 
industry faces difficult times ahead if we do not act to make the 
necessary investments in our transportation infrastructure.
    I am particularly pleased that the administration has taken steps 
to invest in projects of regional and national significance through the 
creation of a National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund. The 
high number of applicants for the Transportation Investment Generating 
Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grant program funded by the Recovery Act 
shows the need for continued investments in this area.
    The Department of Transportation received 1,381 TIGER grant 
applications totaling $56.9 billion. The Recovery Act included $1.5 
billion for TIGER grants. The need for funding is great. Projects 
submitted in Maine alone totaled $236.2 million. Due to the high volume 
of requests, most of these projects were funded.
    One project in particular that did not receive a TIGER grant is the 
Montreal, Maine and Atlantic (MMA) Railway in northern Maine. Because 
of the economic downturn, it is not financially viable for MMA to 
operate its full 745 miles of rail line, and the company, therefore, 
has filed to abandon 233 miles in Aroostook County. This will be 
devastating for Maine's economy. Once a rail line is abandoned, it is 
almost impossible to bring that line back into service. I look forward 
to working with the subcommittee and the Secretary to ensure that Maine 
has the resources we need to maintain our transportation 
infrastructure.

    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
    Mr. Secretary, again, welcome to this morning's hearing, 
and I will turn it over to you for your opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. RAY LAHOOD

    Secretary LaHood. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Ranking 
Member Bond, Senator Collins, for the opportunity to discuss 
the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the 
U.S. Department of Transportation.
    I've traveled to more than 32 States and 72 cities in the 
last year, and I've seen firsthand how much our citizens depend 
on a safe, modern, and reliable transportation system to access 
jobs, healthcare, and other essential services.
    The President's request for next year totals $79 billion, a 
$2 billion increase over fiscal year 2010 levels. These 
resources will support the President's and DOT's top 
transportation priorities for safety on the roads, in the air, 
and also making communities livable and sustainable, and 
modernizing our infrastructure.
    Safety is our highest priority at DOT. Our leadership 
campaign against the perils of distracted driving, which kills 
thousands of Americans every year, has been very effective. 
It's critical we continue to lead the charge on this; that's 
why we're seeking $50 million for the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration to develop an incentive-based grant 
program encouraging more States to pass laws prohibiting the 
unsafe use of cell phones and texting while driving. The 
President is also asking for 66 additional personnel assigned 
to highway and vehicle safety at NHTSA.
    Turning to aviation, the President's plan includes $1 
billion for next-generation technology, the program to 
modernize our air traffic control system. That's a $270 
million, or 32-percent increase, over fiscal 2010 levels. These 
funds are essential for transitioning from a ground-based radar 
surveillance system to a more accurate satellite-based one. 
This system is already in use in the Gulf of Mexico, and we 
look forward to working on building on our success.
    Our groundbreaking investments in high-speed passenger rail 
service, which have generated tremendous excitement around the 
country, will go a long way to enhance livability in many 
communities. Our budget seeks $1 billion to continue the 5-
year, $5 billion pledge made in this year's budget. I want to 
thank Congress for its commitment and leadership on high-speed 
rail; the $2.5 billion provided to the Department for high-
speed rail grants last year, combined with $8 billion we 
announced recently, brings us closer to ushering in a new era 
for passenger rail service in this country.
    In the area of transit safety, we're seeking $30 million to 
establish a new rail transit safety oversight program within 
the Federal Transit Administration. This program will carry out 
a comprehensive safety oversight strategy by establishing 
common safety standards nationwide, as envisioned in the 
administration's transit safety bill. This is an important step 
forward for the rail transit industry, which has suffered 
recent accidents in Washington, DC, Boston, and San Francisco. 
This is unacceptable, and we must put strong remedies in place 
as soon as possible. I urge Congress to pass this legislation 
this year.
    Going forward, we must find new ways to finance 
infrastructure. We're requesting $4 billion to establish a new 
Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund. These first-year 
funds would be used to invest in multimodal transportation 
projects of regional and national significance. Our 
crosscutting, outcomes-based approach to funding will enable us 
to move away from the silo mentality that has long hindered our 
ability to respond to local and regional needs.
    On authorization, the President proposes to continue 
spending levels with $42.1 billion for highway and bridges, and 
$10.8 billion for transit. This request includes $150 million 
to enable the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to 
address much-needed safety-related infrastructure improvements. 
Transportation must not only be safe, but also contribute to 
livable, sustainable neighborhoods. The President's plan 
provides record-level investments to make our communities more 
livable.
    Specifically, we're seeking $527 million for Livable 
Communities, which will help us build on the tremendous 
successes we have achieved through our sustainable partnership 
with HUD and the EPA. Together, we're helping State and local 
governments make smarter investments in their transportation, 
energy, and housing infrastructure, with better outcomes for 
our citizens.
    Finally, we're seeking $30 million to make long-overdue 
infrastructure improvements at the Merchant Marine Academy, 
which our Nation depends on to educate and train a new 
generation of military and civilian maritime leaders. I've been 
to Kings Point a number of times, and I know these investments 
will have a lasting, positive effect on this institution.
    I look forward to your questions.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Ray LaHood

                              INTRODUCTION

    Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Bond and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 
to discuss the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the 
U.S. Department of Transportation.
    The administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the U.S. 
Department of Transportation reflects the importance of strengthening 
our Nation's transportation system. In my first year as Transportation 
Secretary, I have travelled throughout the country and I know first-
hand how important a safe and reliable transportation system is to all 
Americans. The President's request totals $79 billion, a nearly $2 
billion increase over fiscal year 2010 levels. These resources will 
support the President's top transportation priorities: improving 
transportation safety, investing for the future, and promoting livable 
communities.

                             HIGHWAY SAFETY

    Safety is and will continue to be our top priority, and reducing 
highway fatalities is one of the Department's High Priority Performance 
Goals. The budget contains a number of new initiatives to increase 
road, transit, and aviation safety. One of the most serious issues 
facing drivers today is distracted driving. We must end the dangerous 
practice of unsafe cell phone use or texting while driving. Too many 
lives have been lost already due to distracted driving. Working 
together, I believe that we can stop this dangerous practice--and save 
lives. The President's budget requests $50 million for the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) for a new incentive 
grant program to promote State laws to curtail unsafe cell phone use 
and eliminate texting while driving. Today, our children don't think 
twice when they ``buckle up''--and our goal is that tomorrow, our 
future generations won't think twice about putting down their cell 
phone so that they can drive safely. This new program will work 
alongside NHTSA's other highway safety programs in making our highways 
safer for everyone. The President is also asking for funds to support 
66 additional personnel for NHTSA to be assigned to highway and vehicle 
safety issues, and $7 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration for 118 new truck safety personnel.

                                NEXTGEN

    The future of aviation is in our hands. The President's fiscal year 
2011 plan includes over $1 billion--an increase of $275 million over 
the fiscal year 2010 levels--for ``NextGen''--the program to modernize 
the air traffic control system. Currently, the Federal Aviation 
Administration is undertaking a long-term effort to improve the 
efficiency, safety, and capacity of the aviation system. But while we 
are talking about the future of aviation, I'm pleased to report that 
it's happening now. The funds requested under the fiscal year 2011 
budget request will support the transformation from a national ground-
based radar surveillance system to a more accurate, satellite-based 
surveillance system. This system is already being used in the Gulf of 
Mexico, which is improving the safety and accuracy of air traffic 
services in the gulf. We will be building on the successes of our 
research and development, to improve capacity to the flying public. We 
will be developing more efficient routes through the airspaces, and 
improving aviation weather information. As always, as we launch these 
critical new applications, we will continue to keep our strong focus on 
safety. Under my budget request, our vision of a modernized air traffic 
control system is becoming a reality.

                            HIGH SPEED RAIL

    The budget also continues President Obama's vision to better 
connect communities with a new, high-speed rail network. The budget 
includes an additional $1 billion for High Speed Rail. This request 
builds on the historic $8 billion down payment provided through the 
Recovery Act, and continues the 5 year, $5 billion pledge made in the 
fiscal year 2010 budget. The $2.5 billion provided to the Department 
for high speed rail grants last year along with our recent 
announcements of the first awards of the High Speed Rail Program will 
put us one step closer to making High Speed Rail a reality.
    This is an exciting time for the Nation. Looking ahead, high-speed 
rail will one day provide the traveling public with a practical 
alternative to flying or driving, particularly in highly congested 
areas. With trains efficiently connecting city and business centers, 
travelers will enjoy a new level of convenience not available in many 
parts of the country today.

                          RAIL TRANSIT SAFETY

    The President's request also includes resources to address rail 
transit safety. While rail transit is safe, we must take substantive 
steps now to make it even safer for the future. We are all well aware 
that rail transit has the potential for catastrophic accidents 
resulting in multiple injuries, considerable property damage, and 
heightened public concern. Following the recent tragic accidents in 
Washington, DC, Boston, and San Francisco, it is clear that we need to 
strengthen the safety oversight of transit rail operations. Our budget 
requests $30 million to establish a new transit safety oversight 
program within the Federal Transit Administration, which has never 
before been granted safety oversight authority. This program will 
implement a comprehensive safety oversight strategy, as proposed in the 
administration's transit safety bill, to establish common safety 
standards nationwide and to ensure the safety of our Nation's transit 
riders.

               INVESTING IN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

    As we continue to focus on improving transportation safety, we must 
also rethink the way we invest in our future transportation 
infrastructure. That is why the President's plan includes $4 billion to 
establish the new National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund 
(Infrastructure Fund). This is the first year of a 5-year plan to 
capitalize the fund with $25 billion. This fund will invest in projects 
of regional or national significance, and marks an important departure 
from the Federal Government's traditional way of spending on 
infrastructure through mode-specific grants.
    Instead, the Infrastructure Fund will directly provide resources 
for projects through grants or loans, or a blend of both, enabling us 
to effectively leverage non-Federal resources, including private 
capital. The projects funded under the Infrastructure Fund will be 
based on demonstrable merit and analytical measures of performance. 
Only the most worthwhile projects from around the Nation will be 
selected. Projects eligible for funding from the Infrastructure Fund 
consist of multi-modal projects that include highway, transit, rail, 
aviation, ports and maritime components. This marks a bold new way of 
thinking about investments in our transportation infrastructure and 
will become a key component of the administration's future surface 
transportation proposal.
    The reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation programs 
is complex and has critical long-range implications for the future. 
While the President and the Congress continue to work on a long-term 
strategy for surface transportation, the President's plan continues the 
current levels of spending: $42.1 billion is proposed for highways and 
bridges and $10.8 billion for transit. Within this funding, $1.8 
billion is included for ``New Starts'' and ``Small Starts'', and $150 
million to enable the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to 
focus on badly needed safety-related infrastructure improvements. 
Reauthorization is a challenging issue facing our Nation and I look 
forward to working with the Congress to design a new Federal surface 
transportation program that leads to higher performing investments, 
increases transportation options, and promotes a sustainable 
environment.

                               LIVABILITY

    The President's plan also provides a record investment to make our 
communities more livable. Our budget request allocates over $500 
million toward investments that support the President's multi-agency 
Partnership for Sustainable Communities. We have joined with the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental 
Protection Agency to stimulate comprehensive regional and community 
planning efforts that integrate transportation, housing, energy and 
other critical investments. Together, we will help State and local 
governments make smarter investments in their transportation 
infrastructure, to better leverage that investment and advance 
sustainable development.

                              RECOVERY ACT

    February 17 marked the 1-year anniversary of the Recovery Act and I 
am pleased to report that much has been accomplished to improve 
transportation infrastructure throughout the Nation. Overall, the 
Recovery Act provided $48.1 billion for transportation programs to be 
used for improvements to our Nation's highways and bridges, transit 
systems, airports, railways, and shipyards. To date we have obligated 
$36 billion on more than 13,700 projects nationwide.
    In addition, section 1512 of the legislation calls upon Recovery 
Act fund recipients to report on the number of jobs created on 
individual projects. We have now completed two rounds of recipient jobs 
reporting. Based on the recent October-December 2009 reporting period, 
we have created about 41,000 direct full time equivalent jobs for 
transportation programs nationwide. I want to emphasize that the jobs 
estimates included in this report are only those directly associated 
with the individual transportation projects and do not include the many 
other jobs created due to increased demand on supply chains and other 
supporting services. When these indirect jobs are also taken into 
account, it is clear that the Recovery Act resources have made a 
significant impact on jobs and we expect these numbers to hold steady 
as some of the larger transportation projects continue to come on-line.

                               CONCLUSION

    Finally, I am proud of the proposed investments the President's 
budget makes in the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy--one of our Nation's 
five service academies. I have visited the young men and women at Kings 
Point, and I'm greatly concerned about the conditions of their 
facilities. They are old and badly in need of basic repair. The 
President's plan includes $26 million to make long overdue capital 
improvements that will help ensure midshipmen have a positive learning 
environment.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to present the 
President's fiscal year 2011 budget proposal for the Department of 
Transportation and discuss some of the successes of the Recovery Act. 
This plan supports our Nation's key transportation priorities, and 
makes investments that will benefit all for years to come. I look 
forward to working with the Congress to ensure the success of our 
newest initiatives.
    I will be happy to respond to your questions.

                             TOYOTA RECALLS

    Senator Murray. Secretary, thank you very much.
    Let me begin with the safety aspect that I talked about in 
my opening remarks, which is what Americans really count on to 
know what is happening. And I'm concerned that, despite the 
recall of 6 million vehicles here in the United States and 8\1/
2\ million now worldwide, it's likely that engineers have not 
yet discovered the problem with the sudden, unintended 
acceleration in Toyotas. There is speculation that another 
problem may be in Toyota's electronics or software that manage 
the throttle operations. And I realize that Toyota and NHTSA 
are now investigating those possible causes, but I'm concerned 
because today I'm seeing another news articles that some Toyota 
owners say they're still having trouble with unintended 
acceleration after their recalled cars were repaired.
    Now, I know this isn't an easy issue, but I want to be sure 
that we understand how you are making the American people aware 
of what the problems are, and which problems the recalls can 
actually resolve, and what issues still need to be resolved. 
And I wanted to ask you this morning, what advice do you have 
today for consumers?
    Secretary LaHood. Well, first of all, they should look at 
our Web site, DOT.gov. We list all of the cars that have been 
recalled by Toyota, and every other manufacturer; and if their 
car is on that list, they should return it to the dealer and 
have the car repaired.
    I don't think we would have had the kind of testimony 
before the Senate or the House if it hadn't been for our people 
holding Toyota's feet to the fire. I personally requested Mr. 
Toyoda come to America, talk to Members of Congress, talk to 
its customers. I had a personal meeting with him.
    We have held Toyota's feet to the fire on these safety 
issues, and we will continue to do that. We're not going to 
rest until every Toyota is safe to drive. That's our pledge, 
because safety is our No. 1 priority.
    Senator Murray. Well, if the new stories are accurate and 
the reports are accurate, that the fix is not working, 
Americans who went online, saw that their car was supposed to 
go back in, took it back in, and they're still out there 
driving it, and that didn't work. What are we doing now to fix 
the problem?
    Secretary LaHood. We're suggesting to people, if your car 
is not working properly, take it to the dealer and have them 
address or fix----
    Senator Murray. But, that's what they did. They took it in 
and had it fixed----
    Secretary LaHood. They need to take it back. They need to 
take the car back if it's not running properly.
    And on the electronics issue, Madam Chair, I want you to 
know that, we did look into that, and we've listened to Members 
of Congress and from testimony that was given, both in the 
House and Senate. We are doing a complete review, looking at 
every aspect of the electronics in Toyota.
    Senator Murray. How long will that take?
    Secretary LaHood. It'll take some time, because we want to 
look at some studies that were previously done. We want to get 
the best experts we can; we want to get the best electrical 
engineers. I don't want to put a time on it, because we want to 
do it right, we want to do it thoroughly, and we want to make 
sure that, when we produce answers, it's done with the best 
possible research and background and review that we can do.
    Senator Murray. Well, I know it's not an easy problem, but 
it is very challenging to somebody who owns a car, did the 
right thing, took it in for a recall, and now they're hearing 
that perhaps that fix didn't work for them, and now they're 
sitting there with a car in a driveway and kids waiting to take 
to school. I mean, they're----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes.
    Senator Murray [continuing]. Concerned about it.
    Secretary LaHood. Well, I want you to know that we're not 
sitting around on our hands; we're addressing this. There was a 
woman that testified, at a House hearing, about a Toyota that 
she owned. We have purchased that vehicle, because she believed 
the electronics were what caused her to accelerate to a very 
high speed. We have purchased that vehicle, and we're going to 
do everything we can to investigate, look into, and check out 
the electronics on that car.

     NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION BUDGET REQUEST

    Senator Murray. Okay. Well, the President's budget 
requested 46 positions for vehicle safety. How many of those 
positions will be used to hire software engineers?
    Secretary LaHood. Well, the President is requesting 66 new 
positions, which will all come to NHTSA. I'll get back to you, 
for the record.
    If the Congress passes our budget, we're going to see where 
these experts are needed. We know they are needed in our 
opportunity to really look at cars and complaints and really 
make sure we have the right staff and also the right 
professionals to handle the kind of complaints that we're 
receiving from people.
    [The information follows:]

    Of the 66 additional personnel requested in the President's fiscal 
year 2011 budget, 46 positions (46 full time positions-FTPs; 23 full 
time equivalents-FTEs) would support electrical vehicle safety, light 
vehicle and heavy duty truck fuel economy and labeling standards, and 
import surveillance of automotive equipment coming into the United 
States from foreign countries. NHTSA retains outside experts in 
electronics and other fields as necessary to supplement its permanent 
Federal workforce. NHTSA is still assessing the agency's needs to 
determine what additional staff with expertise in electronics, computer 
science, or other areas of specialization are needed.

    Senator Murray. Okay. Also, are you going to be expanding 
your staff with expertise in electrical and computer 
engineering for both vehicle safety investigations and 
regulations?
    Secretary LaHood. Yes.
    Senator Murray. You are. Okay.
    Secretary LaHood. Yes. We do have some electrical engineers 
on staff, but we feel, now that this issue of the electronics 
has been raised, more resources are needed. While you all are 
working on our budget, we may look for some outside help on 
this, for some electrical engineers who can really help us with 
this.
    Senator Murray. Okay. The issue of sudden and unintentional 
acceleration in Toyotas has focused attention on the actions of 
Toyota and NHTSA officials, and the relationship between the 
two entities. Safety advocates have been complaining that NHTSA 
officials failed to push Toyota to find the root cause of this 
problem, and worked with vehicle manufacturers to 
inappropriately limit investigation. Now that you have new 
leadership at NHTSA, which I'm pleased to see, what actions are 
being taken now to ensure that there's a strong enforcement 
where culture exists and is encouraged?
    Secretary LaHood. There are laws on the books that prohibit 
former employees of NHTSA working on matters where they were 
intimately involved at NHTSA. We've checked out the two 
individuals, and we've determined that they did not come back 
to us and were involved on issues that they worked on in the 
Department.
    But, I've said at other hearings, Madam Chair, I think this 
law needs to be tightened up. I think the appearance of it 
causes great concern for people, and I'm willing to work with 
Congress to tighten that kind of exiting of employees. I'm 
willing to work on tightening that up.
    But, I will tell you this, it was our people who went to 
Japan and met with Toyota, because we thought they were a 
little safety deaf in Japan. We knew their people here in North 
America were making recommendations, but apparently they 
weren't hearing it in Japan. That's the reason I got on the 
phone with Mr. Toyoda and talked to him. I met with him when he 
came here. I think they get it now, I think they understand 
they have serious issues.
    The perception is that many of their cars, particularly the 
ones that are listed on the recall list are not safe. There've 
been some improvements in communication, thanks to the diligent 
effort of our people at NHTSA, to hold their feet to the fire.
    Senator Murray. Yes. And, I do understand that NHTSA has 
widened its investigation and requested documents about how and 
when Toyota learned of the defects. When do you expect NHTSA to 
complete that inquiry?
    Secretary LaHood. It'll be several months. I mean, we've 
asked for a voluminous amount of material to make sure that 
what they told us in 2004, 2005, 2006, and even prior to that, 
was everything they should have told us. The only way we can do 
that is to look at documents that they have. It's going to take 
us a while to pore through these documents.
    Senator Murray. Do you think the Department's authority to 
level civil enforcement penalties is sufficient?
    Secretary LaHood. I do.

                 CHILDREN IN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER

    Senator Murray. All right. Well, we'll be following that 
very closely. But, before my times up, I wanted to ask you 
another question on safety. And I, for one, was very disturbed 
about the report yesterday about a young child who was allowed 
to direct traffic at the Air Traffic Control Center at New 
York's Kennedy Airport, apparently speaking with pilots and 
clearing flights for takeoff. This subcommittee spent a lot of 
time talking with DOT, and you, and the Federal Aviation 
Administration about the FAA's culture of safety. How does this 
incident reflect on the FAA's culture of safety?
    Secretary LaHood. Well, this is a stunning example of a 
lack of professionalism, not following the rules, not using 
common sense. The air traffic controller and his supervisor are 
on administrative leave, and we are doing a thorough and 
complete investigation. The idea that a young child would be 
directing planes in and out of an airport is totally 
unacceptable. It's an abuse of all of the rules that----
    Senator Murray. Are there rules in place that children 
cannot be allowed in control towers?
    Secretary LaHood. There are, today.
    Senator Murray. Were there, yesterday? Just out of 
curiosity.
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, but they weren't followed.
    Senator Murray. Yes. Well, I think this is extremely 
disconcerting. I know during the Nisqually earthquake in 
Seattle, when air traffic controllers immediately had an 
emergency where they had to land every single airplane; after 
9/11, when we had a serious----
    Secretary LaHood. Right.
    Senator Murray [continuing]. Emergency; or a plane goes 
down--I think every one of the flying public, and all of the 
public, wants to know that those air traffic controllers' minds 
are on their jobs. This is extremely demanding, challenging, 
important safety aspect of our FAA, and I'm hopeful that this 
will be followed up.
    Secretary LaHood. Yes. I, too, want to congratulate NATCA. 
The head of NATCA, which is the union that represents air 
traffic controllers, spoke out very strongly on this being a 
violation of every rule and regulation that any controller has 
been taught.
    Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

          NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE INNOVATION AND FINANCE FUND

    Senator Bond.
    Senator Bond. Mr. Secretary, I have a lot of questions 
about details, as I indicated. And let's start with the 
National Infrastructure Innovation Finance Fund Policy Board. 
Who's going to be appointed? What's the process? Who will be 
the selections? Will they come before the Senate for 
confirmation?
    Secretary LaHood. You know what, Senator Bond? I don't know 
all the answers to that. I know that the idea of an 
infrastructure bank, as it was commonly referred to earlier on, 
has been kicked around Congress for a long time. The Department 
of Transportation is trying to find ways to do all the things 
that we all want to do.
    Senator Bond. Right.
    Secretary LaHood. And without raising the gasoline tax. We 
feel that the Infrastructure Fund is a way to do that. 
Specifically, I'll get back to you.
    But, if this is enacted into law, and if this comes about, 
we will work with, obviously, members of this subcommittee and 
Congress on the way forward for the implementation of it.
    [The information follows:]

    The details of the National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance 
Fund's (I-Fund) policy and investment council are still being 
finalized. The Department will soon issue proposed statutory language 
for the I-Fund that will include details on the composition of this 
council.

    Senator Bond. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, but 
let me just say, I'm from the ``Show Me'' State. And before I 
can support this, I want to know: Who's going to be on it? 
Who's going to appoint them? What the criteria will be for 
selecting them? Will Congress have a role? Will they be 
available for comment on--the people on the board? What are the 
criteria on which these grants are going to be made?
    And just to make it simple, so we don't get any confusion, 
I am not going to vote for it until I have that path laid out, 
because if we're going to try to fund that board with $4 
billion, I think that--we have had real problems knowing how 
money is going out the door, and I am not excited about sending 
any money--more money out the door unless I know, in advance, 
how it's going to go.
    I don't disagree with you. We need funding--infrastructure, 
bonding issues--there are a lot of--private-sector 
cooperation--there are a lot of good ideas, and we will work 
with you on those ideas. And we have seen where there are a lot 
of ways--toll roads are very controversial, but a lot of places 
are getting--they're getting badly needed highways built by 
toll roads. We want to see those ideas, and work with you on 
those. But, for my part, no blank checks until we see what 
you're going to do. And we'll be happy to work with you----
    Secretary LaHood. Thank you.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. But we need to know in advance.
    And as I said--I've mentioned earlier--I think, when the 
administration prepares to make these grants, it would be 
appropriate for the administration to follow the same policy 
that Congress makes when we select some things. Posting--for 
example, posting all of the applications on the Internet, along 
with the cost shares, funds leveraged. What are the metrics and 
evaluation criteria on how the projects will be selected?
    Congress has, rightly, reformed our earmarking process, and 
we've tried to make it as transparent as possible. Do you agree 
it's time for the administration to have the same kind of 
transparency?
    Secretary LaHood. Well, Senator, I would say this. I've 
been around 30 years--I served in Congress for 14, and I was a 
staffer for 17; I served on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee. I don't know of a more transparent 
administration than this one. If there's information you want, 
Senator, we'll be helpful in getting it to you.

                            HIGH SPEED RAIL

    I will tell you this, Senator, when it comes to the ``Show 
Me'' State, high-speed rail did very well; TIGER grants did 
very well. I was in a room with over 200 people, in Kansas 
City, announcing a TIGER grant; I heard not one word of 
complaint about the 40--or about the $50 million that went to 
Kansas City for a project that everybody in that room, in that 
region of your State, was very much for. I heard no complaining 
about the high-speed rail money that's going to connect Chicago 
to St. Louis to Kansas City. High-speed rail is coming to 
Missouri, thanks to the Economic Recovery Plan, and thanks to, 
I think, a lot of good staffwork with people in Missouri who 
want this. I think we've been very transparent about this.
    Senator Bond. Mr. Secretary, I've never had a problem being 
well received when I brought money. Only thing better is if 
you're bringing a free lunch and some beer. And they'll not 
object to you coming in when you bring the money. But, what I'm 
saying is that all of us need to know--and as far as I can 
tell, there's been--there has been an almost complete absence 
of transparency--how you're selecting them, where are you 
going? All right, great, it comes down like a gift from Santa 
Claus. And, sure, my State got some, every State gets some, but 
we have a right, these days, to know: What were the criteria? 
What were the applications? Whose were the ones who were 
disappointed? Who did not get it? How were they selected?
    I mean, no question, when you throw money into 
infrastructure projects--everybody likes money in 
infrastructure projects. But, we need to see how the process 
works. And I'll be damned if I can figure out how that process 
worked. That's what I'm just saying. You know, we work very 
hard to find out what the priorities are, and when we come 
before our colleagues in Congress to present them, we lay out 
the--who has applied, we go on the floor and debate them. And 
I've had a lot of debates on why these are good projects--
before they ever get the money. But, you know, you come in 
and--well, I'll get around to high-speed rail a little bit 
later on. But, before we put money into these things, we'd like 
to know that there is going to be advance information; there's 
going to be disclosure of--I mean, you don't let lobbyists in, 
but obviously they prepare the information, and they bring 
applications to you. When those applications come in, maybe 
there are some applications--if you're going to be making the 
earmarks, maybe we would like to comment, say, ``Here, you've 
got 12 applications from my State, or 250 applications from our 
intelligence and investigation. Here are several that really 
meet the needs, and we can tell you why.'' We----
    Secretary LaHood. Well----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. We didn't know where they were 
going.
    Secretary LaHood. Okay. Well, let me respond to some of 
this. Because----
    Senator Bond. Sure.
    Secretary LaHood. The truth is we put guidance up for the 
$1.5 billion, look on our Web site. It's up there now. We have 
another $600 million that you all provided to us, thankfully, 
in our budget. We're going to put guidance up.
    So, the guidance is up there. Everybody knows what the 
criteria are and then people begin to submit applications. I 
don't know of one lobbyist that darkened our door with an 
application. I don't know of one lobbyist that came to our 
office with the idea that they were going to have some kind of 
an edge because they're a lobbyist.
    Okay. So, we put the guidance up, and then we took time to 
review them all. I'll be honest with you, Senator, we heard 
from a lot of Senators and Members of the House, who called me 
and said, ``How many applications from my State? What are 
they?'' and we heard from Governors, too. So, the idea that 
nobody weighed in on this from Capitol Hill is not accurate. I 
got phone calls every day from House Members, from Senators, 
from Governors, saying: How many applications did you receive 
from my State? What are they? How much are they for? What are 
they going to do?'' We shared all that information.
    Senator Bond. Well, it would be very easy, if you'd just 
put it on the Web site, save you all those calls.
    Secretary LaHood. Well, I would have been happy to take a 
call from you, Senator, about anything in Missouri. And on 
the----
    Senator Bond. Well, I----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. High-speed rail--let me tell 
you about the high-speed rail. There is a rail plan. We put a 
rail plan together before we decided to go out and figure out 
what we were going to do with our $8 billion. We funded 13 
regions in the country. Missouri did very well, by the way, 
because you're going to be connected with some other States. 
Then we received these applications, we evaluated them, we met 
with the people, and we awarded $8 billion. Thanks to all of 
you, we have an additional $2.5 billion this year. If anybody 
in Missouri had questions about high-speed rail, we sat down 
with them, we answered them. I talked to your Governor on 
several occasions about high-speed rail. So, the idea that 
people don't have access to information is absolutely not 
accurate. It's not. I'll give you a list of my phone log and 
show you how many Members of Congress have called me, and how 
many Governors.
    Senator Bond. Well, I remember talking to you back in June. 
I said, ``How are you going to spend the money that you got in 
the ARRA?'' If I remember correctly, you said, ``You gave us 
some money, and we'll spend it.'' That's what----
    Secretary LaHood. Well----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. We heard.
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. You know what, Senator, I'll 
look back on the record----
    Senator Bond. Well----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. But, I doubt if I put it 
that way.
    Senator Bond. Well----
    Secretary LaHood. We'll get a copy of the record and see.
    Senator Bond. Well, this----
    Secretary LaHood. You know----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. This is----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. Look it----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. This is----
    Secretary LaHood  [continuing]. I have----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. This is the----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. Very----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. Question we had----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. High regard----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. In the S. 128.
    Secretary LaHood. Okay. Well, look I have a very high 
regard for Members of Congress, having been one, and I----
    Senator Bond. I--and I----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. I don't think----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. Have a high regard for you, sir.
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. And I----
    Senator Bond. But----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. Don't take----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. I'm just saying----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. Lightly questions----
    Senator Bond. Yes.
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. From Members----
    Senator Bond. There's no information----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. Of Congress.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. On the waiting. You've got some 
big, broad--I'm going to ask you how you define livability and 
all those things. I mean, wow. You know, it's like saying we're 
going to oppose pornography. What are you going to oppose? How 
are you going to support livability? We'll get into that in the 
next round.
    I have a great personal admiration for you; we've been good 
friends for a long time.
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir.
    Senator Bond. I'm just saying, the system is not working, 
and I need to know, before we put more money in. And more 
questions to follow.
    Thank you.
    Senator Murray. Do you need some more coffee, Senator?
    Senator Bond. No.
    Senator Collins. I--we could offer to get you some.
    Senator Bond. Thank you, it's working.
    Senator Murray. Senator Collins.

                              FREIGHT RAIL

    Senator Collins. Thank you Madam Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to take advantage of this opportunity 
to bring to your attention, and the attention of my colleagues, 
a very serious problem that we're facing in northern Maine. And 
the best way for me to do this is to refer to a map that we're 
providing to each of the members and to you. Thank you, I'm 
glad that you have it.
    First, let me tell you a little bit about the geography. 
The area in question in Maine includes the largest county east 
of the Mississippi in our country. And it is facing the 
imminent loss of virtually all the freight rail service for 
this area. The Montreal, Maine, and Atlantic Railway has filed 
with the Surface Transportation Board to abandon 233 miles of 
rail. It's signified on the map by the red line. And, as you 
can see, it's an enormous area. In fact, the only freight rail 
that would remain is a little strip at the very northern border 
between Madawaska and Van Buren.
    This area of our State has an unemployment rate that is 
almost 10 percent. It's higher than the national average, and 
it's higher than Maine's overall rate of 8.3 percent. If this 
rail line is abandoned, it will be devastating to the economy 
of northern Maine. There are about 20 major shippers that rely 
on this line. That includes a major paper mill that is in 
Madawaska; it includes a potato processing plant; and there are 
a variety of smaller shippers that also rely on the line.
    I want to read to you a quotation from the Maine 
transportation commissioner, because it sums up well just how 
important this is. ``The Maine Department of Transportation 
feels very strongly that we cannot allow this line to be 
abandoned. It is inconceivable that the largest county east of 
the Mississippi''--this is Aroostook County, it's my home 
county in Maine--``a county whose economy is primarily 
manufacturing and agrarian-based, would be completely cut off 
from rail service. That would truly be unprecedented. The 
outright abandonment of freight rail service would have an 
immediate and direct negative economic effect on the 
companies''--and I would add, all the employees--``that are 
located in this county.''
    Everyone, Mr. Secretary, is trying to work together--the 
State, the shippers, the local officials, county officials, 
State officials--but, it's obviously going to take an 
investment of capital to save this service. I am so committed 
to saving freight rail service for northern Maine. As you can 
see, it's an enormous area of our State. And I want the 
chairman of this subcommittee, and the ranking member, to 
understand that a contribution of Federal funding is going to 
be essential in saving this line. It's going to be one of my 
top priorities for the bill that we worked so hard on.
    Mr. Secretary, I know that the decision on whether or not 
to allow abandonment does not fall to you, it falls to the 
Surface Transportation Board. However, the Department does have 
funding options. And today I'm asking you to work with me, to 
work with this subcommittee, to work with the State of Maine to 
come up with a solution. We simply cannot allow 233 miles of 
line to be abandoned, when there's no other freight service for 
this large area of Maine. It would have a devastating impact on 
the economy, an economy that is already very fragile.
    So, today I'm asking you to work with me to try to identify 
solutions where the Federal Government can be a partner in 
trying to save this necessary freight service.
    Secretary LaHood. Well, Senator, thank you for your 
leadership on this. Freight rail is very, very important. It's 
a big, big component of our transportation system around 
America, and I know it is for Maine. You'll have my full 
commitment. What I'd like to offer up is for our rail 
administrator to go to Maine, as quickly as possible, to meet 
with all of the stakeholders and all of the people that are 
involved, and we'll figure out some kind of a funding 
opportunity to make sure that this line is not closed down, 
because, it's like an interstate system. You can't close down a 
part of the interstate that connects so many other parts of the 
State.
    We get it. I'm committed to helping you. I'll have our rail 
administrator in Maine, whenever we can get all the 
stakeholders together, and we will work with you on a plan to 
get this funded.

                               SAFETEA-LU

    Senator Collins. Thank you so much. It's so important, and 
I very much appreciate your commitment.
    I want, next, to discuss an issue that my colleagues have 
talked about, and that is the expiration of the 2005 highway 
reauthorization law. I'm very proud of the fact that Maine was 
the first State in the Nation to obligate all of the funding 
provided by the Recovery Act. That is a credit to Governor 
Baldacci, to State officials, but it also shows you what an 
overwhelming need that there is for funding for infrastructure 
in my State.
    And it was brought home recently when a construction 
company executive came to meet with me. He talked about the 
fact that he had hired 150 workers as a result of the funding 
from the stimulus bill, but he's very concerned that there's no 
long-term highway funding plan on the horizon.
    Given the unfortunate reality that it looks unlikely that 
Congress will pass a highway reauthorization bill this year, 
what actions are the administration taking to ensure that the 
Highway Trust Fund has adequate funding?
    Secretary LaHood. Well, actually, the bill that you all 
passed--that's pending in the House today, and I think there'll 
be a vote on it--which extends our program through the end of 
the year, is an enormous help to the States. These 30-day 
extensions do them no good. As a matter of fact, States begin 
to lose money, and it's impossible to hire contractors. I mean, 
we like the bill that you all passed, and we're encouraging the 
House to pass it today, because it takes us right up to the end 
of the calendar year. It gives us time to work with all of you 
on another authorization bill, to find the money to do all the 
things we want to do. That bill, alone, is an enormous lift for 
all of these States.
    Senator Collins. I couldn't agree with you more that it's a 
real problem that we're passing just these short-term 
extensions. I supported and helped advance the bill----
    Secretary LaHood. Thank you.
    Senator Collins [continuing]. In question, because--the 
contractors simply can't plan. And the State does not dare 
enter into contracts if it's not assured that funding is going 
to be forthcoming.
    And finally, Mr. Secretary, I do want to mention the TIGER 
grant applications. The demand was enormous for that funding, 
as you know even better than I--nearly 1,400 applications were 
submitted, including several from Maine. We're grateful for the 
port funding that we received. But, there are other projects 
that are so important--the rail project that I just mentioned--
but also what I believe is an innovative project that Maine and 
New Hampshire brought forth, to rebuild the bridge from 
Kittery, Maine, to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The two States 
collaborated on a TIGER grant application. It has unanimous 
support from both the Maine and New Hampshire delegations, both 
of our Governors. And I hope, as you do the second round of 
TIGER grant applications--I believe it's $600 million----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes.
    Senator Collins [continuing]. More that you have available 
this year----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes.
    Senator Collins [continuing]. That you'll take a hard look 
at that application. This is a major thoroughfare connecting 
our two States. It's important for commerce, for tourism, for 
day-to-day travel by residents. And I urge you to take a close 
look. It's unusual for two States to collaborate together in 
filing an application, but that's what we've done.
    Secretary LaHood. Yes. Senator, let me just suggest that 
maybe we could work with your staff and get the stakeholders 
from both of the States together. We could review their 
application, in anticipation of us posting up our guidance for 
the next round, and that may be helpful to them. If we could 
work with your staff to get a few of those people gathered 
together, we can talk about the previous application and the 
way forward.
    Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Collins.

                        PENNSYLVANIA EXPRESSWAY

    Senator Specter.
    Senator Specter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, 
Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary LaHood. Good morning.
    Senator Specter. Thank you for accepting the position in 
the administration to provide a breath of bipartisanship. We 
can use it around here. And thank you for being so accessible 
and the many trips you have made to Pennsylvania to take a look 
at our needs that come within the purview or your Department.
    As I have mentioned to you in our private conversations, I 
think that Pennsylvania ought to be getting more on the next 
round of disbursements. I understand the problems you've had, 
but the fraction allocated to my State has been relatively 
small.
    Picking up on some of the specifics, a very important 
project in Pennsylvania is the Mon Valley Expressway, and it 
connects Uniontown, in Fayette County, to the city of 
Pittsburgh, and is indispensable for economic growth in that 
area, an area which has been really hard hit with steel and 
coal, et cetera.
    PENNDOT requested some $401 million from the stimulus high-
speed, but no funding was awarded. And we're searching for the 
concerns which the U.S. Department of Transportation has. And 
this is a matter which has to be worked out at the staff level, 
but I want to make the request, to you, to use the power of 
the--your office to see if we can't move that along so that 
we're in a position to answer whatever questions there are. 
That--the Mon Valley Expressway is really of critical 
importance to southwestern Pennsylvania.
    Turning now to the so-called Lackawanna Cutoff between 
Scranton and Hoboken, New Jersey, to establish a line which 
would set the stage for a Wall Street West, which would be very 
important for Wall Street and very developmental for New Jersey 
and also for northeastern Pennsylvania, the request was made 
for $401 million from Stimulus High-Speed. And, here again, we 
do not know what the problems were, and I'd like to get that 
worked out, at the staff level, so we can figure out to----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir.
    Senator Specter [continuing]. Correct whatever problems you 
see.
    The Schuylkill Valley Metro is a project you know, because 
you came to Norristown and graciously participated in a meeting 
out there. We have received substantial funding over the years, 
but it hasn't gone forward. But, there is a fund of $24 million 
which has not been obligated. And I wrote you, back on December 
23, asking you not to reprogram the money, and I'd appreciate 
your taking a look at that and honoring our request, because 
that really is vital to take pressure off the Schuylkill 
Expressway. And one day we're going to get it worked out with 
existing sector rail lines called R6 and other lines which can 
be used to work all the way up to Reading.
    The Maglev issue has been on the table for a long time, and 
there have been plans to allocate $90 million--half in the west 
and half in the east. And finally, yesterday--and I thank you--
there was a release of the $950,000 which you and I talked 
about a long time ago. It was reduced to $889,200, but thank 
you for liberating it.
    Secretary LaHood. Thank you for jogging my memory on it.
    Senator Specter. Well, I'm glad you have a memory, once 
jogged, and even gladder, if there is such a word, that we got 
some of that money.
    Mr. Secretary, without carrying on a monologue, where do 
you see Maglev heading, what kind of a timeframe do you see for 
a decision to make an allocation of the $45 million to 
Pennsylvania?
    Secretary LaHood. Maglev is very expensive, Senator, and we 
really need to sit down with the stakeholders and look at their 
plans and determine what kind of commitment there will be from 
others. To be honest with you, it is a very expensive project, 
and we just need to make sure we know where all the money is 
going to be coming from, and that the plans are in place so 
that if somebody makes a decision to go ahead with this, that 
the commitments will be there, not only from us, but from those 
that want to implement this program.
    Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, whom are you looking toward 
to be at the table? Because I'd like to move ahead, and I would 
certainly take the lead in organizing the meeting. Who----
    Secretary LaHood. Well, I think we need to get people in 
the State that are interested in this program, and members of 
your delegation who have expressed an interest, together and 
have a meeting. We'd be happy to help you organize that--or if 
you want to take the lead. I think we should do that.
    Senator Specter. Well, I'd be glad to take the lead, and I 
will follow up with you on that. Maglev is present in other 
countries. I've rode on a pilot project in Hamburg; it must 
have been a decade ago. The train is designed to run close to 
300 miles an hour. You go from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh in 2 
hours and 7 minutes, with intermediate stops in Lancaster, 
Harrisburg, Altoona, Johnstown, and Greensburg. And you 
wouldn't have to take your shoes off to get on the train. It 
would cut down on a lot of vehicular traffic and have all the 
ingredients we talked about on high-speed rail--high-speed 
travel. And I think it is a technology which is expensive, but 
I think it would be worth it. But, let's pursue the----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir.

                          INFRASTRUCTURE FUND

    Senator Specter [continuing]. The dialogue we've had.
    We're working, on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, on the highway bill--highway and transit--and we're 
talking about a figure of $600 billion. Is that realistic, from 
the point of view of the administration? I hope so.
    Secretary LaHood. Well, if you look at the bill that's been 
put together in the House, it's about a $450 to $500 billion 
bill. Everywhere I've gone, I've said the President wants a 
robust, comprehensive transportation program. We need to find 
the money to do it. One of the ways that the President 
suggested, in the budget that you're all considering, is an 
infrastructure fund. Some people like it and some people don't, 
but it would be a fund that would allow for significant 
outstanding projects around the country.
    We need to think outside of the box. The President is not 
for raising the gasoline tax when unemployment, nationally, is 
just below 10 percent. So, the Highway Trust Fund is not 
sufficient to do all the things we all want to do, and we need 
to think about an infrastructure fund, we need to think about 
tolling, we need to think about alternatives that help us do 
the things that we all want to do.
    Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, what would the source of 
the revenue be for the so-called infrastructure fund? Would 
there be bonds? How would we----
    Secretary LaHood. That is correct.
    Senator Specter. How would you--put a little flesh on the 
bones. How would you proceed on it?
    Secretary LaHood. There are big, significant projects 
around the country that people don't have the money for, 
whether it's a bridge between two States, an interchange, or an 
extension of an interstate system to connect one State to 
another. The way I envision it, if Congress allowed this kind 
of a fund, to receive proposals for significant projects and 
then work with the States on the cost. The bonds would allow 
the money, then, to begin to flow, over a period of time.
    Senator Specter. Well, it certainly would be a----
    Secretary LaHood. I can tell you this, Senator. The Buy 
America Bond Program is wildly popular, oversubscribed. This is 
not exactly the same thing, but I'm just saying alternative 
funding is what we really need to think about, because there's 
just not enough money in the Highway Trust Fund.
    Senator Specter. Well, I've given you some homework, and 
you've given me some homework. And I'll proceed to look at 
that. It's the kind of legislation that I would favor and would 
be inclined to introduce, and we'll proceed.
    Well, my red light just went on.
    Thank you very much for your----
    Secretary LaHood. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Specter [continuing]. Service, Mr. Secretary.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Specter.

                            HIGH SPEED RAIL

    Senator Kohl.
    Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Murray.
    Secretary LaHood.
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir.
    Senator Kohl. On January 28, the White House announced the 
recipients of $8 billion in high-speed rail grants, including 
two projects, as you know, in Wisconsin.
    Secretary LaHood. Yes.
    Senator Kohl. Connecting Wisconsin's major metropolitan 
areas through high-speed rail will yield both immediate and 
long-term benefits. Ultimately, this link will help develop 
both Madison and Milwaukee's economies, creating long-term 
growth for each city, as well as the cities in between.
    In the short-term, the projects will create thousands of 
jobs, and Wisconsin is anxious to get started, as I'm sure you 
can well understand. My understanding, Mr. Secretary, is that 
the Wisconsin Department of Transportation is ready to assign 
contracts next month, and could begin construction this coming 
fall. If our goal is quickly creating jobs, then getting money 
out the door seems to be the most important and the most 
effective thing that we can do.
    I'd like to ask you what the Federal Railroad 
Administration's timeline is for getting this funding to the 
States. Will the FRA be able to get the funds to Wisconsin in 
time for our fall construction season?
    I want to be clear, Mr. Secretary, this is about jobs--we 
all understand that--now and in the future. And I'd like to 
hope that you will do everything you can to make sure that this 
process is well expedited and that transportation departments 
are able to put people to work quickly. Do you have some sense 
or knowledge about how the FRA might be able to act quickly on 
the Wisconsin----
    Secretary LaHood. We want to enter into agreements with 
these regions, of which, obviously, Wisconsin is ready to go, 
as quickly as we can so that people can begin working on high-
speed rail and Americans can begin to see the results of this 
economic recovery. Our plan is to do that very quickly, sign 
these agreements with the States, and begin as soon as the 
States are ready to go. Our people are, right now, putting 
together documents and will meet with the stakeholders, like 
the State of Wisconsin, very, very soon, like within the next 
10 days or 2 weeks, to begin to say, ``Here are the documents, 
here's what we think needs to be signed so that you can 
begin.''
    Senator, let me just say something that I talked to you 
about privately. I want to compliment your Governor. I think 
the reason that Wisconsin is in the high-speed rail business is 
because Governor Doyle stepped up, a year ago. He came to see 
me and said, ``How do we get into the high-speed rail business? 
This is something we've been planning.'' Thanks to the 
leadership of your delegation and your Governor, you all are 
going to be at the forefront of the Midwest Region by 
connecting your State with other States that are in that 
region. I want to compliment, not only you and Senator Feingold 
but also Governor Doyle, because he was early at the starting 
gate on this. We want to make it happen quickly, because we 
know there'll be thousands of jobs provided when they start 
building the train sets and the infrastructure and all the 
things that will be needed.
    Senator Kohl. Well, that is really encouraging to hear. 
And, of course, you are right about Governor Doyle. He has been 
out front and has exhibited the foresight to see this coming 
down the road and seeing that Wisconsin was there in time, 
fully planned and organized to take advantage. It's nice for me 
to know that you are fully aware of it and that you want to 
expedite----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir.
    Senator Kohl [continuing]. You know this particular project 
just as quickly as you can. I know he'll be happy to hear it. I 
think people all over our State will be happy to hear it, and I 
express my appreciation to you.
    Secretary LaHood. Thank you.
    Senator Kohl. Thank you.

                             TIGER PROGRAM

    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator Kohl.
    Mr. Secretary, DOT has, as you know, recently awarded 
grants under the TIGER program that we funded under the 
Recovery Act. And, under that, it was necessary to give 
priority to projects that could be completed over the next few 
years. However, the funding that we provided for fiscal year 
2010 has a new set of requirements, and it can be used for 
longer-term projects. I know there are a lot of projects across 
the country that need this funding. I've talked to you about 
one in Washington State, the Columbia River Crossing Project 
that's so important for mobility for cars and trucks and 
transit and bicycles and pedestrians; it's one of the worst 
bottlenecks we have on the I-5 corridor.
    I wanted to ask you, this morning, how will the different 
requirements for the 2010 funding affect the kinds of projects 
that you'll be able to fund under the TIGER program?
    Secretary LaHood. Right now, Madam Chair, we're probably 
looking at the same guidance that we provided for the other 
TIGER grants. And, frankly, we'd like to try and get some of 
this money out the door this year, so we can continue the 
progress that we've made with our economic recovery. We know 
that the $600 million will provide jobs. That's our goal. 
That's the reason you put this money in the bill, so people 
could go to work.
    I don't think the guidance will be that much different. We 
also will probably look at some applications that were very 
close in the first competition. The projects that if we'd had 
more than $1.5 billion, they would have gotten funded. We're 
advising----
    Senator Murray. You don't expect to see new requirements, 
even though we have said this funding can be for longer-term 
projects.
    Secretary LaHood. I want to try and get the money out the 
door as quickly as possible so we can provide jobs.

                          RAIL TRANSIT SAFETY

    Senator Murray. Okay. The budget that you submitted 
includes $24 million and 100 positions to establish a new Rail 
Transit Safety Oversight Program. That proposal, obviously, 
follows on the heel of rail transit accidents in Boston and San 
Francisco and, tragically, here in Washington, DC, and supports 
the legislation the administration transmitted to Congress in 
December. I know you're hopeful that Congress will approve that 
legislation this year. In the meantime, I wanted to ask you 
what you've been able to do, within your current authority that 
you have, to make sure transit systems are safe without that 
legislation.
    Secretary LaHood. We're prohibited by law from doing that, 
Senator. That's the reason we proposed to all of you a bill. 
Because the law says we can't do it. For some strange reason--I 
guess it was because, years ago, people thought since we were 
divvying up the money, we shouldn't have the responsibility for 
the safety aspect of it.
    Senator Murray. Can you provide training or technical 
assistance?
    Secretary LaHood. Peter Rogoff, our transit administrator, 
is looking at best practices from around the country, and then 
trying to make sure that transit systems know what that is. 
But----
    Senator Murray. So you really need that legislation.
    Secretary LaHood. We do, absolutely. We need the legal 
authority that only a law can give us, to really get into this 
up to our eyeballs, and really do a good job in making sure 
that these transit systems are safe.

                         POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL

    Senator Murray. Okay. Positive train control is an 
important new technology that will help, we believe, and 
prevent some of these train-to-train collisions and 
derailments. Recognizing the safety benefits of this 
technology, the NTSB included positive train control on its 
most-wanted list for 18 years, and they took it off the list 
only after Congress mandated its use. For fiscal year 2010, 
this subcommittee provided $50 million for a new program that 
would support the development of positive train control, but 
you've requested no funding for the program this year. Can you 
explain to the subcommittee why the budget request doesn't 
include any funding?
    Secretary LaHood. Well, we have a rule pending. We believe 
positive train control is something that is absolutely critical 
to safety. I'm going to ask Chris--you all know Chris Bertram, 
go ahead.
    Mr. Bertram. Yes. We did not include any funding for that. 
There is, as the Secretary mentioned, a rule pending at OMB 
that would mandate positive train control.
    Senator Murray. But, you've requested no funding.
    Mr. Bertram. Correct.
    Senator Murray. And you don't believe it needs any funding?
    Mr. Bertram. I think the FRA will take a look at the money 
that Congress provided, and evaluate the effectiveness of that.
    Senator Murray. From last year.
    Mr. Bertram. From last year, yes.
    Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I may submit another question 
on the record on that.

                             FERRY FUNDING

    I wanted to ask you about ferry systems. As you know, 
ferries are, just, a critical part of transportation systems in 
my home State, connecting communities between Puget Sound and 
across the Columbia River system. In fact, the ferry system in 
my home State is the largest ferry system in the United States, 
with over 40 percent of U.S. ferry passengers, and about three-
fourths of the vehicles, carried nationwide. Last year, I 
introduced legislation to reauthorize the Federal Ferryboat 
Discretionary Program and expand the Federal investment in our 
Nation's ferry system, and that legislation built directly on 
what we did in SAFETEA-LU to give priority to ferry systems 
that carry the most passengers and most vehicles and have 
access to critical areas. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Secretary, 
this morning, if I have your commitment to work closely with 
us, following that directive in SAFETEA-LU, to allocate ferry 
funding in 2010.
    Secretary LaHood. Absolutely. I had the privilege, when I 
was in Seattle, to use the ferry system. I know how important 
it is as a part of the overall comprehensive transportation 
system in the Northwest, and you have my commitment.
    Senator Murray. To work on the criteria.
    Secretary LaHood. Absolutely.

                             MEXICAN TRUCKS

    Senator Murray. Great, one last question for you. I wanted 
to ask you a question on a topic that we talked about at this 
hearing last year: cross-border trucking with Mexico. Last 
year, you talked about the work you were doing with the various 
departments to craft a plan to resume cross-border trucking 
with Mexico in a way that would address the safety concerns 
raised during the pilot and in the tariffs that have now been 
imposed by the Mexican Government. Those tariffs were imposed 
on over 90 U.S. products and they undermine the competitiveness 
of many agricultural products in my home State of Washington. 
If we're not able to find a path forward with Mexico on this 
issue, these tariffs are going to send American jobs north to 
Canada as our growers and our processors and our packers are 
being forced to relocate, and it is threatening the livelihood 
of many communities in my State.
    Now, I appreciate there's a lot of concern about 
implementing this cross-border trucking, but we've got to work 
with Mexicans to address this impasse and move forward. I met 
with Ambassador Kirk a few weeks ago. I wanted to ask you, this 
morning, to give us an update on your discussions with the 
administration and with Mexico, to give us a sense of when we 
will see the plan from the administration.
    Secretary LaHood. We are finalizing a plan. The reason it's 
taken so long is because there's a lot of different moving 
parts, including about five different Cabinet officials. Every 
time we make a tweak or a change, everybody has to sign off on 
it. But, we're very near a proposal that we think will meet all 
of the safety concerns that I heard when I talked to 25 Members 
of Congress. We're close to talking to all of you about what we 
think are----
    Senator Murray. Okay, well, we're----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. Our way of addressing the 
safety concerns that Congress brought to us.
    Senator Murray. Okay, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that. And 
you and I have had this discussion; I know you're working on 
it. This is critical to a number of our agricultural industry 
now in my State. Would you please tell the folks you're talking 
to in the White House, and others, that we need to get this 
done?
    Secretary LaHood. I will.
    Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary LaHood. Thank you.
    Senator Murray. I'm going to turn this over to my ranking 
member, Senator Bond. I have to get to another hearing. He has 
kindly agreed to be very nice to you. No.
    Secretary LaHood. Thank you, Madam Chair, for all of your 
leadership on transportation. We really appreciate your 
forward-looking on transportation issues, and it's a joy to 
work with you and your staff on these things that we all really 
want to get done. So, thank you for your leadership.
    Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I will turn this over to Senator Bond. He is going to ask 
his questions and recess the meeting for me. And I really 
appreciate your doing that.
    Thank you.

                               LIVABILITY

    Senator Bond [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you 
will continue to keep the E&W meeting going, I will look 
forward--I'd have some friendly questions to ask Secretary Chu.
    But, Mr. Secretary, let's go back to a couple of the 
questions we were talking about, about the standards. The TIGER 
grants, you said, the strategic plan is for safety, economic 
competitiveness, state of good repair, and livability. What's 
livability?
    Secretary LaHood. Communities where people have access to 
many different forms of transportation and affordable housing 
and the ability to really have access to all of the things that 
are important to them, whether it's a grocery store, a drug 
store--access. It's not dissimilar to the neighborhood, for 
example, that the Department of Transportation is located in. 
After the ballpark went there, there was a Metro stop, there 
were new bus stops, there are new condominiums, there's access 
to affordable housing. What it is, Senator, it's an opportunity 
for people who want to live in neighborhoods--maybe they don't 
want a car--so they can walk to work, they can take mass-
transit to work, they can take a bus to work, they can go to a 
grocery store. These are communities and neighborhoods where 
people want to live, where they have access to all the things 
that they want.
    Senator Bond. Well, I mean, how do you measure that? I 
mean, the--I don't think the Department of Transportation is in 
the business of determining the state of the communities. We 
do--we try to help build community plans that are locally based 
community plans, that come to the request from HUD for 
neighborhood stabilization, economic development; and the plans 
must come from the localities. And I've supported access--
transportation access--the BRT program in Kansas City--bus 
rapid transit--it's been very important. But, that supplements 
a local plan, where transportation is just one part of it, 
where there is a much broader plan for the housing, the 
facilities, and what the State is doing. And livability, to 
me--you know, I've got a lot of constituents for whom 
livability means having a decent highway. They've got to drive 
on the highway because they live in a rural area and they've 
got to drive from one town to another town or maybe from one 
town to a city. And we are killing those people on the roads. 
We have--we lose three people a day on highways, in Missouri, 
and at least one-third of those deaths are due to poor highway 
conditions. This is not a question of convenience; this is a 
question of staying alive.
    So, livability, in some areas, has a different meaning. And 
I just question--if we're building--if we're looking at all 
these dollars to go in and build urban livability sections, I 
think there needs to be broader criteria, as well. That's why 
I'm questioning----
    Secretary LaHood. Well, Senator, let me just give you an 
example in your home State. The $50 million that we gave to 
Kansas City is for some of the simplest things that you and I 
take for granted. In this neighborhood--it's a 150-block 
neighborhood, in your colleague Congressman Cleaver's district. 
That money is going to be used to do simple things, like make 
sure people have a sidewalk to walk on, and to make sure that 
there are curbs. Now, that may sound silly to you----
    Senator Bond. No, it's not--it's----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. But when I went there for 
the announcement, I took a tour with Mr. Cleaver, and what we 
found was an abandoned neighborhood, because there are no 
sidewalks, there are lousy streets, and people can't even drive 
down the streets. So, what Congressman Cleaver and a whole 
group of community people did is put together a plan--$50 
million of our money and some HUD money--to build affordable 
housing so that people that want to stay in this neighborhood 
can stay in the neighborhood. That's what Livable Communities 
is all about.
    Senator Bond. Mr. Secretary, I have the highest respect for 
Congressman Cleaver. A former mayor I've worked very closely 
with. I don't know what's going on in Kansas City. But, when 
did it become the responsibility of the Federal Department of 
Transportation to build sidewalks?
    Secretary LaHood. When you all put it in the----
    Senator Bond. I think that----
    Secretary LaHood. No. When you all put it in the 
transportation bill for the amenities for neighborhoods, 
whether----
    Senator Bond. This is----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. Its streetscape or medians, 
or whatever it is, you all did it. I was a part of it. I was a 
Member of Congress that did it, too.
    Senator Bond. To go in and be building sidewalks, when 
there is a--there are such transportation needs. You--I know 
that heel-and-toe is transportation, but what I'm saying is, 
there are other priorities that I think come ahead of that. And 
I just question how much money is going to be spent on 
sidewalks, when we need highways and we need bridges. That's 
where--and I--any--this is a----
    Secretary LaHood. Senator, if you look at----
    Senator Bond. It's a question of priorities.
    Secretary LaHood. If you look at our portion of the 
economic recovery--you all provided $48 billion--the lion's 
share of it went to highways--$28 billion; $8 billion for 
transit, $8 billion for high-speed rail, $1.5 billion for so-
called TIGER grants, $28 billion for highways. That's----
    Senator Bond. That is----
    Secretary LaHood. That's your priority.
    Senator Bond. Well, unfortunately----
    Secretary LaHood. That's where the lion's share of the 
money went.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. It was a drop in the bucket--out 
of $787 billion----
    Secretary LaHood. I'm talking about----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. That was far too little--no, but 
I'm--I think we might be on the same side, on that one. I think 
it was far too little, because we could have used a whole lot 
more for highways and bridges.
    But, my problem is that every dollar we're spending in that 
stimulus bill, and a lot of other things we're doing, is going 
on the deficit. We are borrowing from our children and our 
grandchildren. And I am kind of embarrassed to tell my son 
and--if he and his wife have children, tell my grandchildren--
``Oh. I'm sorry. We've been spending--we spent your--we spent 
on your credit card.'' And I think there is a growing 
realization that we need to get these deficits under control, 
and spend only on things that we can justify to our children 
and grandchildren. That's the problem.
    And high-speed rail, again--I don't know if you saw it, but 
the Wall Street Journal had a--had an article by Wendell Cox, 
on January 31 called the ``Runaway Subsidy Train.'' Did you see 
that?

                            HIGH SPEED RAIL

    Secretary LaHood. No, sir.
    Senator Bond. I'll give you a copy of it.
    Secretary LaHood. Okay.
    Senator Bond. It's very critical, and I think raises 
questions that need to be answered. It says, ``Proponents claim 
that high-speed rail is profitable, but this is off the mark. 
Internationally, only two segments have ever broken even--Tokyo 
to Osaka and Paris to Lyon.'' And they did that because they 
had $4 gasoline--equivalent of $4 gasoline and highway tolls of 
$40 to $100, respectively. If that--if you want to make it 
profitable, you have to have those kinds of tolls.
    It--the question that I have, generally, about high-speed 
rail is what's going to be the total cost? I know that--let's 
see, I guess the estimate in California is that--let's see--
California high-speed rail, Los Angeles to San Francisco, $40 
billion to $60 billion. Totally taxpayer subsidized taxpayer 
money. Same time, we've got airlines flying there that are not 
flying on the--they're not being subsidized by the taxpayer 
dollar. The people who drive on the roads are paying taxes that 
not only pay for roads, but also help subsidize high-speed 
transportation. I want to know what the total cost of all these 
wonderful high-speed rail plans are and what is the 
justification. How is it going to be--how are we going to know 
that these are valuable? There seems to be--there are many, 
many questions about why--whether some of these routes are 
going to be much faster than when the trains were, back in the 
1930s and 1940s. I know we got $34 million in Missouri. That's 
nice. That will probably provide some amenities, like extra 
sidings for trains to--freight trains, or even passenger 
trains, if needed, to pull off so they can get passed. But, 
what are the projections for ridership between St. Louis and 
Kansas City? How many billions of dollars is it going to cost 
to build a high-speed rail through there? Can we justify that 
to the taxpayers--not just to Missouri, but to the Nation--for 
what we'd have to spend? These are questions I think we have a 
responsibility to ask when we are working in a deficit 
situation.
    And even if--you know, always glad to see money in 
Missouri. But, before we continue to spend that money, I want 
to make sure we're spending it properly. That's the big concern 
I have. Are we spending it properly?
    I'll give you that and--we had another couple of Wall 
Street Journal editorials that I think----
    Secretary LaHood. You want me to answer these for the 
record, Senator, or----
    [The information follows:]

    Ensuring proper use and distribution of funds remain high 
priorities for the Department of Transportation. As the Department 
moves forward in the development of each of the State corridors, we 
will be working with our State partners to develop reliable cost 
estimates for programs to develop specific high-speed rail corridors 
recognizing the challenges associated with predicting costs for 
projects that might span decades. We will also be looking for the 
States and other interest parties to become part of both the planning 
and corridor development process.
    Each program will include several projects. As we move to project 
level decisions that involve commitment of funds for construction, we 
will be refining cost estimates, refining ridership and benefit 
estimates, and refining commitments from stakeholders and interested 
parties. In this merit-based competitive program, those corridor 
projects that move to construction are the ones that are expected to 
generate the largest benefits to the U.S. taxpayers.

    Senator Bond. Oh, I----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. Do you want me to answer 
them?
    Senator Bond [continuing]. Well, yes, answer these for the 
record. Or, I mean, if you've got any comment----
    Secretary LaHood. Okay, all right.
    Senator Bond. I'll let you----
    Secretary LaHood. I know you want to go to another 
committee meeting, so I'll answer them for the record for you.
    Senator Bond. Okay. And if you have any comments on my 
comments, I'd welcome those now. I mean----
    Secretary LaHood. Of course, I have comments. Yes. I didn't 
know if----
    Senator Bond. Good. No, I----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. You wanted to go on to 
another hearing, or not.
    Senator Bond. But, this is important, so--but I mean----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. For these things I gave you, if 
you may want to look at them and have----
    Secretary LaHood. Okay.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. Indepth comment, but----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. You--I want to let you----
    Secretary LaHood. No, look it----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. Have an opportunity----
    Secretary LaHood. Senator, you know----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. For anybody who's still 
listening, I want you to make sure you have your time to----
    Secretary LaHood. Sure.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. Express your view.
    Secretary LaHood. I appreciate that.
    Senator Bond. Sure, no. That's----
    Secretary LaHood. No, I appreciate that.
    When President Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway 
bill, nobody knew where all the lines were going to go, and 
nobody knew how we were going to pay for all of it. So, I'm not 
going to sit here and tell you I know where all the money's 
going to come from for high-speed rail. I know this: Americans 
want high-speed passenger rail. We did not have one of the 13 
regions turn us down in their opportunity to receive some of 
the $8 billion. There are so many people around America that 
want good passenger rail transportation. I can tell you, when 
the announcement was made in Missouri, there was a big hue and 
cry that went up. I didn't hear one word of criticism about it 
from your Governor or any of the elected officials there, 
because it's going to connect opportunities for people.
    You know this as well as I do, Senator. If you build it, 
they will come. The interstate system is an example of that. 
What an economic engine the interstate system has been for 
places all over America. What's happened in Europe and Asia, 
their governments have made a huge investment and these 
corridors have become a huge economic engine everywhere that 
they are.
    I can cite chapter and verse. You build a transit line, you 
build a busline, you build an interstate or a--improve a 
street--you build it, and they will come.
    I know this. There's going to be a lot of private 
investment. We had a meeting with all of the companies that 
build train sets, not only in Europe, but in Asia. And we had 
them come to the Department, and what we said to them----
    Senator Bond. Oh man, they--I mean, they--they love it. 
They're the ones who are going to build it. They're going to--
yes, that--they're----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, but they're also going to make an 
investment of some of their money, because they know this is an 
opportunity to get into the high-speed, inner-city rail----
    Senator Bond. Yes, right.
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. Business in America.
    Senator Bond. Now, they're going to make some money off of 
it, but how much----
    Secretary LaHood. They're going to invest----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. Is it going to cost--how much is 
it going to cost----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. The money too, Senator.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. The taxpayer?
    Secretary LaHood. They're going to invest a lot of money, 
too, Senator----
    Senator Bond. And where they do----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. The way they have in 
Europe----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. They're going to invest in----
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. And in Asia.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. Where they get some money out of 
it.
    Secretary LaHood. The----
    Senator Bond. I--I've talked to the people who are building 
toll roads, and they love it, because they know they are going 
to make money. But, here, as I said, two rail--two high-speed 
rail lines are profitable--I will--as Governor, I supported 
Amtrak. I started subsidizing Amtrak, and we could--the State 
of Missouri, I think, is still subsidizing Amtrak. But have 
they come in large numbers? No. I've--I rode it, and I've seen 
how a few people are on it. We have Amtrak from--between Kansas 
City and St. Louis. Yes. I'd like to see that. But, am I 
willing, on the thought that they will come, to spend billions 
of dollars more? I haven't seen it, so far.
    And to make that into a high-speed----
    Secretary LaHood. Well, you were willing to put----
    Senator Bond [continuing]. Rail----
    Secretary LaHood. As Governor, and certainly, as a Senator 
here, you've been willing to stake a claim on the idea that if 
we build a bridge between Illinois and Missouri, people are 
going use it.
    Senator Bond. I will put a whole lot more money on that 
one----
    Secretary LaHood. I know you will; you already have.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. Than on spending billions on--
spending billions on high-speed rail. You and I both need that 
bridge. We want you----
    Secretary LaHood. The principle is that----
    Senator Bond. We want you Illinois people to come over and 
watch the Cardinals. We're not----
    Secretary LaHood. Well, I'm looking forward to being with 
you to dig the first spade of dirt. But, I'm----
    Senator Bond. Yes.
    Secretary LaHood. Senator, you know this. When that bridge 
is built, people are going to use it. You build it and they 
will come. I don't think you would have staked a claim to that 
unless you thought people were going to use it and that it was 
needed. And I can----
    Senator Bond. We've seen the projection----
    Secretary LaHood. The same principle is true for high-speed 
inter-city passenger rail.
    Senator Bond. I'm sorry, I believe we have an experience 
with the highways. We know how important they are. We have a 
good track record. The track record, unless you're looking at 
Tokyo to Osaka, or Paris to Lyon, is not that good. So, I just 
would like to know the total estimated cost, where the funding 
is going to come from to ensure the things you are starting 
now, and what commitment, by State, localities, and private 
companies, are going to meet the required need, before we 
invest--before we commit to--I don't care whether it's St. 
Louis to Kansas City, St. Louis to Chicago, Chicago to 
Milwaukee, or Portland to Seattle--how much is it going to 
cost? What do you project the ridership? How much is that 
ridership going to be per person? Sometimes those numbers are 
pretty scary, because it's the taxpayer dollar that we're 
putting at risk. Well----
    Secretary LaHood. Those are all very good questions----
    Senator Bond. Yes.
    Secretary LaHood [continuing]. And I'll do my best to 
answer them.
    [The information follows:]

    The administration's support of the high-speed rail program 
highlights the significance that this intercity passenger rail 
initiative is expected to have on American way of life and our economy. 
This initiative will help relieve congestion, is environmentally sound, 
and ultimately promotes more livable communities across the country. 
Although the cost of a national high-speed rail system is unknown at 
this time, the closest analogy that we can make is the Interstate 
Highway program, which began in 1956. DOT did not estimate the cost to 
complete the Interstate System, but the benefits to the United States 
were immeasurable.
    The $8 billion appropriated under ARRA, as well as the $2.5 billion 
that was appropriated in fiscal year 2010, and the $1 billion requested 
in fiscal year 2011 President's budget, are reflective of the 
administration's commitment to advance the building of the 
infrastructure necessary to make high-speed intercity passenger rail 
transportation a reality. These resources are the down payment for this 
long-term infrastructure effort. We are working closely with the States 
and the rail industry to develop preliminary estimates and longer-term 
infrastructure requirements and plans. We commit to keep the 
subcommittee informed as we validate requirements and assemble more 
tangible plans.

    Senator Bond. Good, good. And I--and I--those are--that's 
what I'm asking, because this is not like--we all know what--
when you build a highway, when you build a bridge--and you and 
I know that a good friend of ours, when I was fighting for the 
highway bill and I proposed a bridge, he complained that there 
was a--``You should not be using highway money to build a 
bridge.'' Well he happened to come from a very dry State, and I 
explained to him, ``In the Heartland, highways don't work 
unless you have a bridge across the river.'' So, I fought--I've 
fought that battle. I know----
    Secretary LaHood. I know.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. That battle.
    Secretary LaHood. I know.
    Senator Bond. I know it from both sides. That's why I raise 
it.

                             CYBER SECURITY

    Now, I've got a very--one very serious question that we are 
not going to discuss at length in a--in an open hearing. You've 
got $30 million for cybersecurity. I'm not going to ask you to 
go into the threats. I'm on the Intel Committee, and I know 
what the threats are. Do you have a plan for how that money is 
being spent?
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir. I'll be happy to come up and 
brief you on that.
    Senator Bond. Okay.
    Secretary LaHood. I'd like to do that.
    Senator Bond. We would like--I think Chairman Feinstein and 
I, on the Intel Committee, are also----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. On Appropriations. If you would 
arrange to send your staff up--is the plan completed?
    Secretary LaHood. It is.
    Senator Bond. And who was responsible for preparing it?
    Secretary LaHood. We have hired a very, very experienced 
person to deal with this issue.
    Senator Bond. Has it been completed, in cooperation with 
other agencies?
    Secretary LaHood. Absolutely. It's being coordinated with 
other agencies, of course.
    Senator Bond. Has it--have you coordinated with NSA?
    Secretary LaHood. Of course.
    Senator Bond. Okay. Let me just say--I was hoping that they 
would be here, but my--all right. Lewis Tucker, on my staff, 
and David Grannis, on Chairman Feinstein's staff, would like to 
work with you to prepare a full staff briefing, and then we 
would like to have an opportunity--Brian Smith, from the Budget 
Office, in the Intel Committee. This is a very, very important 
investment, and we want to work with you on it to make sure----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. It is done--that the money that 
you need is available, that it's well designed, and it's----
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. Well carried out, because this 
is----
    Secretary LaHood. We will do it.
    Senator Bond. No further comments on that one, here, but 
just know that we appreciate how serious it is.
    Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Bond. And we'd work with you to make sure it's 
done. At this time I would ask the subcommittee members to 
submit any additional questions they have for the record.
    [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

    Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget request includes $4 billion 
for a new agency at DOT--the Infrastructure Fund, or I-Fund. This 
proposal goes beyond the TIGER program that we funded in the Recovery 
Act and the regular 2010 bill. The I-Fund would not only evaluate 
project applications, but it would also look for projects to fund, 
whether or not the project even considered applying to DOT.
    Giving this authority to DOT would be granting the Department an 
unprecedented amount of discretion over taxpayer dollars.
    Senator Bond and I are both responsible for making sure that DOT 
conducts its programs with a fair and open process.
    Mr. Secretary, how would this kind of authority be consistent with 
running the Department with transparency and accountability?
    Answer. At the Department of Transportation, we are absolutely 
committed to accountability and full transparency, and the operations 
of the National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund (NIIFF) 
would be handled in the same manner. The Infrastructure Innovation Fund 
would take a relatively small portion of the overall Federal 
expenditure for transportation infrastructure and focus on funding 
projects of national and regional significance that help us achieve our 
national goals, such as economic competitiveness and livability. The 
ability to dedicate a portion of Federal transportation resources to 
fund these projects through a merit-based process, based on performance 
and outcomes of the projects, is an important part of our overall 
approach to address our most critical transportation infrastructure 
needs. We have been clear about the criteria we have established to 
evaluate these projects and about the analysis that we expect 
applicants to prepare to support them. We would be happy to work with 
you and your staff to develop appropriate ways of achieving the 
transparency and accountability that we all agree will be essential in 
this program.
    Question. Why should such an ambitious program be considered before 
we even know what is in the administration's reauthorization proposal?
    Answer. The Department has committed to releasing principles for a 
reauthorization bill as soon as they are ready. We hope to use the time 
between now and the end of the year, when the current extension of the 
surface transportation program runs out, to make progress in developing 
long-term legislation. The I-Fund's merit based evaluation process will 
be an important part of our overall approach to address the most 
critical transportation infrastructure needs. Every project selected 
through the TIGER discretionary grant and the National Infrastructure 
Investment (TIGER II) grant process will require specific performance 
measurements so we can track actual outcomes against the estimates 
provided in the submitted applications. This will provide a new 
knowledge that will help inform the Department's other surface 
transportation programs, as we work to better identify the highest-
priority needs, and how to address them, through the Reauthorization 
process.
    Question. In any competitive program, there will always be 
questions about how funding decisions were made. And the TIGER program 
was the Department's first experience running a discretionary program 
of that size.
    Mr. Secretary, as you go through the process of awarding TIGER 
grants funded in 2010, how will you ensure the Department follows a 
fair and open process?
    Answer. DOT has made a significant amount of material available to 
the public about the criteria used to select projects, description of 
the process used to evaluate applications and list of the applications 
received. More than just making information available, DOT has 
aggressively reached out to the Congress and public to answer questions 
about the TIGER process, through webinars, conference calls and face-
to-face meetings.
    The fiscal year 2010 appropriations act provided $600 million to be 
awarded by the Department of Transportation for National Infrastructure 
Investments (``TIGER II Discretionary Grants''). To ensure a fair and 
open process, the TIGER II Discretionary Grants will be awarded on a 
competitive basis by measuring grant applications for eligible projects 
against the selection criteria specified in the program's Federal 
Register notice (an interim notice was published on April 26 and a 
final notice was published on June 1).
    The ``Primary Selection Criteria'' include:
  --Long-term Outcomes.--The Department will give priority to projects 
        that have a significant impact on desirable long-term outcomes 
        for the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region.
    The following long-term outcomes will be given priority:
  --State of Good Repair.--Improving the condition of existing 
        transportation facilities and systems, with particular emphasis 
        on projects that minimize life-cycle costs;
  --Economic Competitiveness.--Contributing to the economic 
        competitiveness of the United States over the medium- to long-
        term;
  --Livability.--Fostering livable communities through place-based 
        policies and investments that increase transportation choices 
        and access to transportation services for people in communities 
        across the United States;
  --Environmental Sustainability.--Improving energy efficiency, 
        reducing dependence on oil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions 
        and benefitting the environment; and
  --Safety.--Improving the safety of U.S. transportation facilities and 
        systems.
  --Job Creation & Economic Stimulus.--While the TIGER II Discretionary 
        Grant program is not a Recovery Act program, job creation and 
        economic stimulus remain a top priority of this administration; 
        therefore, the Department will give priority (as it did for the 
        TIGER Discretionary Grant program) to projects that are 
        expected to quickly create and preserve jobs and stimulate 
        rapid increases in economic activity, particularly jobs and 
        activity that benefit economically distressed areas.
    The ``Secondary Selection Criteria'' include:
  --Innovation.--The Department will give priority to projects that use 
        innovative strategies to pursue the long-term outcomes outlined 
        above.
  --Partnership.--The Department will give priority to projects that 
        demonstrate strong collaboration among a broad range of 
        participants and/or integration of transportation with other 
        public service efforts.
    The Department will give more weight to the Long-term Outcomes and 
Job Creation & Economic Stimulus criteria than to the Innovation and 
Partnership criteria. Projects that are unable to demonstrate a 
likelihood of significant long-term benefits in any of the five long-
term outcomes will not proceed in the evaluation process. For the Job 
Creation & Economic Stimulus criterion, a project that is not ready to 
proceed quickly is less likely to be successful.
    Pursuant to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations act, the Department 
will also strive for an equitable geographic distribution of funds, an 
appropriate balance in addressing urban and rural needs and investment 
in a variety of transportation modes.
    The June 1, 2010, notice published in the Federal Register provides 
additional guidance on how the Department will apply the selection 
criteria.
    Question. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 mandates that 
railroads implement positive train control over large areas of their 
track by the end of 2015. Such widespread use of Positive Train Control 
will require a large investment by the public sector, as well as 
significant investments by the Federal Government. Mr. Secretary, what 
are you doing to make sure that railroads are able to meet this 
mandate?
    Answer. The Department has taken a number of steps to assist 
railroads in meeting the December 31, 2015 mandate. The Federal 
Railroad Administration (FRA), in partnership with its Railroad Safety 
Advisory Committee (RSAC), published a final rule on January 12, 2010, 
that addresses the requirements of the Positive Train Control (PTC) 
mandate.
    A critical step in achieving PTC implementation was the requirement 
that each applicable railroad submit a PTC implementation plan (PTCIP) 
by April 16, 2010. Each PTCIP was to map out: (1) the railroad's lines; 
(2) the lines meeting the criteria requiring PTC; (3) the manner in 
which the railroad will provide for interoperability within its PTC 
system of movements of trains of other railroad carriers over its 
lines; and (4) implementation of PTC on its line segments prioritized 
by areas of greater risk to areas of lesser risk. FRA received 40 
implementation plans and has assembled a team of subject matter experts 
and is on target to complete the review and approval of the plans 
within 90 days. To support railroads during their PTC system testing 
and implementation phase, FRA's PTC Specialists will oversee the 
testing and implementation and otherwise address PTC-related issues. 
The PTC Specialists will be further supported by FRA Signal Engineers 
and Specialists, as well as a small cadre of Senior Engineering staff.
    To minimize duplication of effort by railroads and vendors, and 
facilitate PTC system certification, FRA established a process where 
railroads may share common PTC system information. For example, 
railroads using the same PTC product only need to provide railroad-
specific information necessary to certify the PTC product on their 
property.
    To address technical issues and facilitate interoperability, in 
fiscal year 2010, FRA is targeting the $50 million available under the 
Railroad Safety Technology Grant Program to address common PTC 
interoperability questions. This decision maximizes the utility of 
these limited resources by making investments in projects that benefit 
the railroad industry, verses using these grant resources to procure 
PTC equipment for few individual railroads.
    Finally, FRA is supporting the railroads and their suppliers by 
actively participating in meetings, reviewing draft documents, and 
providing feedback on the implementation of PTC. FRA, with the support 
of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, has crafted regulations that 
limit the scope of PTC implementation to a level consistent with 
enhancing the safety of railroad employees and the general public. 
Individual stakeholders may have strong feelings regarding the most 
appropriate way to achieve this goal. Consequently, FRA has provided 
mechanisms to allow individual railroads to demonstrate that the 
railroads' proposed actions provide an equivalent level of safety for 
employees and the public.
    Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget request redirects $200 million 
from the regular highway program, and puts that money into livability 
grants that would help transportation planning organizations.
    I understand the need for these planning grants, but I also believe 
that we need to invest in our Nation's highways. This past year, 
Senator Bond and I worked hard to provide an increase of $600 million 
for the Federal highway program.
    I don't know if that is something we'll be able to do again this 
year. The budget resolution hasn't been developed, and the subcommittee 
does not have its allocation yet.
    Mr. Secretary, can you please explain your decision in funding 
livability grants out of the highway program?
    Answer. The President's budget marks a bold new way of thinking 
about investments in our transportation infrastructure and will become 
a key component of the administration's future surface transportation 
proposal. The President's budget requests $200 million to fund a 
competitive livability program within FHWA, which is compatible with 
the legislative intent of the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). This 
benefits State and local governments, helping to modernize outdated 
planning and regional models and improve data needed to make 
transportation investment decisions. Because of competition for scarce 
resources, sometimes innovative solutions can take a back seat to the 
more pressing needs of maintenance and repair. By targeting some 
investment funding, DOT hopes to demonstrate that smart investment up 
front can save communities tax money over time by strengthening 
communities and lowering infrastructure costs.
    The $200 million request to leverage a proportional takedown from 
funding authorized for FAHP activities is a wise and much needed 
investment that will allow for the better leveraging of public funds 
for future transportation investments. This program will provide 
transportation practitioners with the tools, resources, and capacity 
they need to develop transportation systems that provide transportation 
choices, save people money, protect the environment, and efficiently 
move goods.
    Question. The Department is also requesting a new office within the 
Office of the Secretary. You are also requesting additional OST staff 
to work on livability issues, but they would not be a part of this new 
office.
    Congress is working on the reauthorization of most transportation 
programs. This legislation will also take a look at the Department's 
overall structure.
    Mr. Secretary, why is it necessary to create a new office at this 
time?
    Answer. The Partnership for Sustainable Communities and the DOT's 
livability initiative are a high priority for this administration. 
Because this is a new emphasis for the Government, however, there is 
substantial analysis and policy-making required to remove barriers and 
align the Federal programs and funding requirements to support the 
principles of livability. The Livable Communities Program within the 
Office of the Secretary will house full time employees that support 
this initiative. The Office will coordinate livability programs across 
DOT's operating administrations and assess the effectiveness of various 
programs in supporting livability. It will also assist in coordinating 
interagency efforts for the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, 
lead in developing metrics and performance measures for livability, and 
assist in the selection and management of grant and technical 
assistance programs for seeking greater input and buy-in from the 
public.
    Question. Mr. Secretary, you have spoken many times on the topic of 
livability. Often, you talk about the importance of giving our 
communities a variety of transportation options. And how people 
shouldn't be forced into driving a car wherever they want to go.
    But the biggest initiatives in your budget for livability don't 
focus on funding specific projects. Instead, your new initiatives are 
about giving planning organizations access to better data and 
analytical tools, supporting public outreach efforts, and providing 
technical assistance.
    In the end, different communities will have their own definition of 
what is livable. For some it's a traditional road that just happens to 
include room for bicycles and pedestrians. For others, it's nothing 
short of a new transit line.
    How important is the planning process to DOT when it evaluates the 
livability of a transportation project?
    Answer. A livable community is one with transportation choices, 
housing choices and destinations located close to home. Because 
coordinating transportation with other investments like housing, water 
infrastructure and economic development initiatives is at the heart of 
creating a livable community, a strong planning process is essential to 
generating the sorts of projects that improve livability. However, 
these kids of comprehensive planning efforts require good data, tools 
and staff, and often this is difficult for struggling communities in 
difficult budget times.
    USDOT is, therefore, proposing to provide communities with the 
resources necessary to take a comprehensive look at their land-use 
decisions in conjunction with their housing, transportation, and 
environmental infrastructure plans. The result will be projects that 
provide a higher return on investment to the Federal taxpayer.
    Question. What standards is the Department using now to judge the 
livability of transportation projects?
    Answer. While the Partnership is working to determine performance 
measures that can be used for livability projects, the current 
standards used are those listed in the Notice of Funding Availability 
(NOFA) for TIGER and TIGER II grants. The livability of transportation 
projects is judged by: enhanced mobility by creation of more 
transportation options; improved connectivity; increased accessibility 
to economically disadvantaged populations, non-drivers, senior 
citizens, and persons with disabilities; and the result of a planning 
process which coordinated land use and transportation planning 
decisions and involved community participation in the project.
    Question. DOT's budget request includes $527 million for new 
initiatives that would support community livability.
    In addition, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is 
requesting $150 million as part of the administration's sustainability 
initiative. This request builds on the funding this subcommittee 
provided HUD for fiscal year 2010.
    Mr. Secretary, I am glad to see that over the past year, DOT has 
worked hard to coordinate with HUD and the EPA on matters of livability 
and sustainability. However, it is still unclear how your livability 
requests fit with the work that HUD started this year.
    Can you explain to me how your new initiatives on livability will 
work with HUD's ongoing livability program?
    Answer. In the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the three agencies 
divided up the roles in order to reduce overlap and redundancy and save 
taxpayer money. The focuses of the agencies represent which agency will 
act as the lead on this topic. DOT's program will focus on capacity 
building. The goal is to increase capacity at all levels of government 
to integrate transportation, housing, economic development and water 
infrastructure investments in urban and rural communities. The funds 
could be used to improve modeling and data collection, provide 
training, fund household transportation surveys, and support 
organizational changes to better reflect integrated planning.
    On the other hand, HUD's program has a focus on planning. Their 
goals are to improve regional planning efforts that integrate housing 
and transportation decisions, and update land use plans and zoning 
codes. They will be able to award funds to housing, transportation, and 
environmental stakeholders who are focused on planning efforts.
    Without the support to build institutional capacity to do the sort 
of comprehensive planning that HUD is promoting, communities may simply 
find an outside contractor to develop the plan without having the 
internal capacity to implement it and adjust it in the long term. DOT 
and HUD's programs rely on one another to reach the highest levels of 
success.
    Question. The relationship between DOT and HUD is an important one, 
and Federal departments should coordinate and work together--whether 
it's on livability or any other issue area. But we need to make sure 
that this relationship is sustained by more than the force of 
personalities.
    Mr. Secretary, what are you doing to make this new relationship 
between DOT and HUD something that will live beyond the current 
administration?
    Answer. Ensuring that this Partnership continues in the long-term--
beyond the term of this administration--is a top priority. We are 
working together to institutionalize changes that will support this 
priority. We have begun this effort by creating offices at DOT, HUD, 
and EPA to head up the important work of encouraging livable 
communities. Our initial goals include joint NOFAs for planning grants 
and joint funding application review, evaluation and award processes. 
We also have been identifying institutional barriers and addressing 
them, such as HUD's ban on multi-family housing on a cleaned up 
brownfield or replacing the New Starts cost-effectiveness review for a 
more broad cost-benefit analysis that includes economic development, 
housing and environmental impacts.
    Question. The DOT budget request includes $1.1 billion for the 
FAA's effort to modernize the air transportation system--called 
``NextGen''. And an essential part of NextGen is the replacement of 
radar surveillance with satellite-based technology.
    However, for this program to work, each aircraft that uses the air 
traffic control system must be equipped with compatible technology. The 
FAA has mandated such equipage by the year 2020, but there is no 
guarantee that airlines will be able to meet this mandate.
    Mr. Secretary, your budget proposal includes no funding to support 
NextGen equipage.
    Do you believe that the airlines can afford to meet the mandate on 
their own?
    Answer. The FAA has not currently mandated any NextGen equipage by 
aircraft owners and operators. We are in the final stages of 
considering industry comments on a proposed rule that would mandate 
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) ``Out'' in certain 
airspace by 2020. The final rule is expected to be published soon. ADS-
B is one of several components of NextGen and is capable of 
broadcasting (``Out'') and receiving (``In'') information regarding the 
location of other aircraft. Equipage mandates generally require 
following rulemaking procedures, including cost benefit analysis and 
public comments.
    The administration has been exploring various options to 
incentivize NextGen equipage prior to any mandatory due dates. The 
primary focus of our work has been to accelerate equipage above that 
which may occur naturally. Operational incentives for early adopters 
(``best equipped, best served'') could help to alleviate concerns 
regarding the financial ability of aircraft owners and operators to 
equip their aircraft with NextGen technologies in the near-term.
    Question. Secretary LaHood, I appreciate the work we've done 
together to promote sustainable communities and address climate change. 
As you may know, about one-half of the emissions in my home State of 
Washington come from the transportation sector--which is much higher 
than the national average. So it's really important to me to work to 
address this important issue.
    That's why I created the Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and 
Energy Reductions in the Recovery Act. The program was such a huge 
success and we were able to include fiscal year 2010 funding as well.
    Secretary LaHood, can you tell me what lessons have been learned in 
establishing this new program?
    Answer. There is a great deal of interest and demand for such 
programs and assistance. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 
received over 560 project proposals and reviewed more than $2 billion 
in applications for the $100 million made available through the 
American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Forty three 
proposals were selected from across the country as part of a nationwide 
competition, which rated projects on such factors as readiness to 
implement, applicant capacity, degree of innovation and national 
applicability.
    We also learned that there are a wide variety of technologies or 
operational efficiencies that can be implemented to reduce the energy 
and/or greenhouse gas emissions of our transit agencies. For example, 
among the projects funded within this competitive environment, Alabama 
will replace gasoline and diesel buses with electric hybrids, 
Massachusetts will construct wind energy generation turbines and 
Vancouver, Washington, will install solar panels at transit facilities. 
Ultimately, there are many innovative ideas that need to be researched 
and actions that can be taken to assist our transit agencies become 
more efficient as well as sustainable.
    Question. What lessons have been learned from projects selected for 
Grant Agreements?
    Answer. Due to the great variety of selected projects, we are just 
now beginning to understand some of the challenges we will need to 
address going forward such as how to more accurately calculate and 
document energy use and savings claims. We have learned, for example, 
that transit agencies need help measuring their carbon footprint, and 
that the source of their energy is ultimately a factor in moving the 
country forward toward sustainability.
    Question. Washington State is very appreciative of the $590 million 
you have approved for the NW High Speed Rail Corridor projects in 
Washington State. As a State, we've put a lot of investment into this 
corridor and these funds are going to help build on this to 
dramatically improve passenger service.
    Our State has nearly $280 million in projects that can turn dirt 
and put nearly 2,000 people to work during the 2010 spring and summer 
construction season. This includes a lot of work that is ready to begin 
within 60 days.
    However, Washington State DOT is waiting for approval from FRA to 
proceed, and it's unclear how long this approval process may take. It 
is very important we get these WA projects underway as well as others 
around the country and put people to work during this upcoming 
construction season.
    I'd like your commitment to have your staff look into this and work 
with the Washington State DOT on an acceptable schedule.
    Answer. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is working 
closely with Washington State DOT to implement these projects as 
quickly as possible. Among the things FRA is collaborating on is 
completion of the environmental review required under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws. These environmental 
approvals are necessary before FRA can complete and execute the grant 
agreement. FRA is also working with Washington to finalize the scope, 
schedule, and budget of each of the large projects planned as part of 
the anticipated $590 million in infrastructure improvements.
    The Department understands the urgency of beginning construction as 
soon as possible. As a result, FRA has reached out to Washington and 
the host railroads (BNSF and Sound Transit) to provide them guidance on 
the appropriate ways in which they might begin construction of certain 
projects in advance of the signed grant agreement with the goal of 
maximizing the likelihood that the State and host railroad could be 
reimbursed later with grant funds. FRA looks forward to continued 
progress in our productive on-going collaboration with Washington 
State.
    Question. Two projects in Washington State--the North-South Freeway 
in Spokane and the Mercer Street Corridor in Seattle--have been awarded 
TIGER grants recently.
    They are both great projects. The project in Spokane will create 
about 100 jobs--and the Seattle grant is the final piece required to 
finish a project that will create thousands of jobs.
    Would you please comment briefly on the role of infrastructure 
investment in supporting local and regional economies?
    Answer. Infrastructure spending has an immediate, primary, impact 
in creating employment in the communities while the infrastructure is 
being built. We estimate that the $48.1 billion in infrastructure 
investment funded by the Recovery Act will produce 523,000 job-years of 
employment, many of which take the form of jobs produced when increased 
employment at construction sites leads to increased spending at local 
and regional businesses producing consumer goods and services.
    In the longer run, transportation infrastructure investment helps 
to shape communities' economic options. Manufacturers of high-value, 
high-volume semiconductors or electronics depend on air shipments to 
move their products to markets around the globe. Commodity agriculture 
or raw materials producers depend on access to bulk freight 
transportation infrastructure. Manufacturers of complex, high value 
products like automobiles depend on multi-modal freight links.
    Equally important are the benefits that good personal 
transportation options can confer on communities in the era of a 
global, knowledge-based economy. Livable communities are better able to 
attract clusters of high-skill, high-paying knowledge-based industries 
and workers, to the benefit of residents, communities, and the U.S. 
economy as a whole. Building livable communities requires collaboration 
across levels of government and between the public and private sector.
    One of my highest priorities is to work closely with Congress, 
other Federal departments, the Nation's Governors, and local officials 
to help promote more livable communities through sustainable surface 
transportation programs.
    Question. In September 2009, the Department of Transportation 
Inspector General issued a Management Advisory to PHMSA raising strong 
concerns with the management and processing of special permits to 
transport hazardous materials. PHMSA developed an action plan and began 
a process to review the fitness of special permit holders to rectify 
the agency's fundamental failure to appropriately review: (1) an 
applicant's safety history; and (2) an applicant's proposed alternative 
safety packaging and transport plan.
    How many special permits have been reviewed to date? Of those 
special permits reviewed, how many have been suspended, revoked, or 
denied?
    Answer. From November 1, 2009 to May 11, 2010, there have been 
1,155 Special Permit applications reviewed. Of those reviewed, 10 were 
terminated and 12 were denied.
    Question. What is your projected caseload for the processing of 
special permit applications in fiscal year 2011?
    Answer. PHMSA expects a significant increase in the projected 
caseload of special permits and approvals applications in fiscal year 
2011 due to policy changes for trade associations.
    PHMSA is in the process of modifying (or terminating when 
appropriate) special permits and approvals granted to association 
members collectively. For any special permit issued to association 
members collectively, PHMSA has started the process of providing notice 
of modification or termination to the association and each individual 
member whose name and address is on file with PHMSA. This notice 
provides information for the individual members to determine whether 
the activity authorized by the special permit or approval will 
eventually be incorporated into the regulations or will continue to 
need a special permit or approval.
    When a special permit or approval is not incorporated into the 
regulation, the individual members must submit an application for a 
special permit or approval. This will result in an increase in the 2011 
caseload that could be up to 20,000-30,000 applications.
    As of April 2010, PHMSA has approximately 6,000 pending 
applications, which include applications received more than 180 days 
ago in addition to applications received less than 180 days ago. The 
6,000 applications on file are divided into 2 categories--Approvals 
(5,400) and Special Permits (600).
    Question. In the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2011, 
you are eliminating $900,000 for contractor support to assist in 
executing the agency's full-scale review of existing special permits to 
fulfill the IG's recommendations.
    With this proposed cut in funding, will you have the resources 
necessary to appropriately process the estimated 5,500 special permit 
holder's requests for approvals consistent with the new PHMSA action 
plan guidelines and Inspector General recommendations?
    Answer. PHMSA's 2011 budget request included $1.5 million to 
annualize 20 positions enacted in fiscal year 2010 in support of the 
special permits and approvals action plan to enhance management and 
oversight of this hazardous materials safety program.
    Question. The Department of Transportation Office of Inspector 
General is due to issue a second management advisory to PHMSA regarding 
the review and authorization of explosive classifications and 
insufficient oversight of the four labs authorized by PHMSA to examine 
and test explosives.
    When will PHMSA be providing its personnel with the necessary 
guidance for classifying and approving explosives?
    Answer. PHMSA has formed a cross-functional team to review all 
previous guidance, both formal and informal, and existing regulatory 
provisions for classifying and approving explosives. The team has 
developed a draft guidance manual that covers three separate audiences: 
(1) guidance for persons applying for an explosive classification 
recommendation; (2) guidance for the authorized explosive test 
laboratories for testing and examination; (3) Standard Operating 
Procedures for PHMSA related to approving authorized test agencies, and 
evaluating and approving explosive classifications. This guidance 
manual is under review and will be formalized by September 2010.
    Question. How many explosives classifications and approvals has the 
agency processed annually for the past 5 fiscal years?
    Answer. See table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          2010
                 Approval Type                     2005       2006       2007       2008       2009      (YTD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explosives....................................        733      1,626      1,752      1,930      1,681      1,364
Fireworks.....................................        505      5,201      4,933      4,599      2,579      2,265
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What processes and internal certifications will you 
develop to ensure that all authorized testing labs comply with PHMSA 
guidance for classifying and approving explosives?
    Answer. As of March 2010 PHMSA requires on-site inspections by 
PHMSA for all new and renewal approvals applications for all 
certification agencies. The on-site inspection will determine whether 
the certification agency, including explosive testing labs, is fit and 
capable of operating in accordance with the specifications outlined in 
the approval. The inspection will include review of the specific 
requirements and criteria under the requested special permit or 
approval, including:
  --Test procedures and equipment
  --Internal quality assurance/control measures
  --Spatial Requirements
  --Security policies/procedures
  --Personnel and subcontract qualifications
  --Employee training and certifications
  --Independent and impartial operations
    The four PHMSA authorized explosive examination laboratories were 
inspected between March and April 2010. The PHMSA inspection team found 
all four laboratories fit to perform the examination and shipping 
classification recommendation functions authorized under approval. Some 
minor violations related to training, marking, labeling, and reporting 
were noted, which the audit team determined not to adversely impact 
their fitness capability under the approvals.
    Question. How are you improving your oversight of PHMSA's approved 
explosives testing labs and who specifically will be accountable for 
the lab's safety reviews, fitness inspections, and regulatory 
compliance?
    Answer. The Special Permits and Approvals Office is responsible and 
accountable for certification agency oversight. PHMSA is developing 
more detailed application, inspection, reporting, and accountability 
provisions to ensure impartial and quality performance of the 
laboratories. We plan to require each laboratory to reapply under these 
new terms. These guidelines require an initial inspection from PHMSA 
staff prior to issuing the approval, and compliance inspections by our 
enforcement staff.
    Question. Please use the attached table to provide a complete 
listing by year of employees who received retention bonuses during the 
years 2006-2010. For each year, please include each employee's name, 
title, grade, salary, and retention bonuses.
    Answer. The information for fiscal year 2007-2010 is provided 
below. Data prior to fiscal year 2007 is not readily available due to 
FAA's conversion to the Delphi accounting system in 2006.
    Some employees have more than one entry for a given fiscal year. 
Since retention bonuses are calculated using base salary, if that 
changes during the course of a year then separate retention bonus 
amounts must be calculated against each separate base salary. Adding 
the multiple retention bonus amounts listed equals the employee's total 
retention bonus earned for that year. The amounts in the ``Salary'' 
column, however, are not additive.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Retention
           Employee Name                      Title                   Grade             Salary         Bonus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2007:
    BORO, THOMAS R.................  SUPV PERSONNEL          J.....................     $104,500       $8,068.20
                                      MANAGEMENT SPEC.                                   106,200       22,408.60
    CLAYTON, ROBERT J..............  SUPV PERSONNEL          K.....................      127,000       15,877.40
                                      MANAGEMENT SPEC.
    DIX, MARY E....................  DEP ASST ADMIN FOR HR   02....................      146,193        2,849.76
                                      MGMT.                                              148,678        9,660.00
    GIBSON, VENTRIS C..............  ASST ADMIN FOR HUMAN    01....................      155,653       11,592.00
                                      RESOURCE  MGMT.
    GOMES, GARY R..................  SUPV AVIATION SAFETY    K.....................      124,800          556.80
                                      INSPE.                 K.....................      124,800        2,153.28
                                     SUPV AVIATION SAFETY
                                      INSPECTOR.
    JUBA, EUGENE...................  SR VICE PRESIDENT FOR   01....................      164,100       11,592.00
                                      FINANCE.
    KERWIN, PETER J................  SUPV AVIATION SAFETY    K.....................      127,000       16,279.20
                                      INSPECTOR.
    MINIACE, JOSEPH N..............  DEP ASST ADM STRATEGIC  02....................      145,785        3,864.00
                                      LABOR MGT  REL.
    PUNWANI, RAMESH................  ASST ADMIN FOR          01....................      161,400       11,082.40
                                      FINANCIAL SERVICES.                                164,100       30,590.00
    RITMAN, ALLISON W..............  SUPERVISORY ACCOUNTANT  K.....................      127,000        2,771.20
                                     SUPV ACCOUNTANT.......  K.....................      124,792          674.48
                                                                                         127,000          519.60
    WILLETT, ANTHONY J.............  PROGRAM MANAGER.......  K.....................      127,000        2,771.31
    WILLIAMS, CLIFFORD J...........  AIRWAY TRANSPORTATION   H.....................       61,335       11,254.00
                                      SYS SPEC.
    WILLIAMS, HAROLD F., III.......  AIRWAY TRANSPORTATION   H.....................       78,657       14,433.00
                                      SYS SPEC.
                                                                                    ----------------------------
      Fiscal Year 2007 Total.......  ......................  ......................  ...........      178,997.23
                                                                                    ============================
Fiscal Year 2008:
    AMANN, GORDON K................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      110,711        3,527.82
                                      SPEC (C).
    ANDERSON, THEODORE H...........  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      148,960          920.16
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).
    ANGLE, THEODORE W..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122        3,268.44
                                      SPEC (T).
    AUSTIN, THOMAS P...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625        4,139.19
                                      SPEC (C).
    BACILE, MICHAEL J..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165        3,910.20
                                      SPEC.
    BAHLER, GARY C.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402        4,027.86
                                      SPEC (T).
    BALL, RANDALL R................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      140,319        3,445.26
                                      SPEC (T).
    BARBIERI, JOHN R...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165        3,910.20
                                      SPEC.
    BEADLE, MARK R.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       91,568        1,417.98
                                      SPEC (T).
    BERRA, PATRICK M...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       90,802        2,068.08
                                      SPEC (T).
    BIGGERS, JACK H................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165        2,346.12
                                      SPEC.
    BLACK, NELSON K................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       74,705        2,187.54
                                      SPEC (T).
    BLAIS, MICHAEL J...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,400        6,265.56
                                      SPEC (T).
    BLITTERSDORF, JEFFREY E........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814        1,908.90
                                      SPEC.
    BOELTER, TIMOTHY T.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402        4,027.86
                                      SPEC (C).
    BONE, MICHAEL D................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524        3,094.98
                                      SPEC (T).
    BORO, THOMAS R.................  MANAGER, LABOR &        J.....................      106,200        1,179.40
                                      EMPLOYEE REL BRACH.                                109,000       23,278.80
                                     SUPV PERSONNEL          J.....................      106,200        8,255.80
                                      MANAGEMENT SPEC.
    BOWE, JOHN R...................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402        4,475.40
                                      SPEC (C).
    BOYLE, DANIEL P................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524        4,088.88
                                      SPEC (T).
    BROKER, BARBARA A..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      119,178        3,797.82
                                      SPEC (T).
    BURTON, CARL JR................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      141,029          460.08
                                      CONTROL SPEC.
    BURZYCH, CRAIG A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402        1,342.62
                                      SPEC (T).
    BUSSE, JUDITH A................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      140,908          460.08
                                      CONTROL SPEC (T).
    BYRNE, JOHN J..................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      142,230        2,760.48
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).
    BYTHEWAY, DAVID L..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................      104,010        3,745.80
                                      SPEC (T).
    CARMICHAEL, DAVID L............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122        3,238.62
                                      SPEC (C).
    CARVER, STEVEN T...............  SUPV COMPUTER SPEC....  K.....................      115,015       21,187.20
    CATOE, RALPH D.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      102,216        1,995.48
                                      SPEC (T).
    CERAMI, JOSEPH S...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011        4,137.39
                                      SPEC (C).
    CLAYTON, ROBERT J..............  SUPV HUMAN RESOURCES    K.....................      130,000       24,096.00
                                      SPECIALIST.            K.....................      127,000       10,103.80
                                     SUPV PERSONNEL                                      130,000        6,024.00
                                      MANAGEMENT SPEC.
    CLEAVER, MICHAEL D.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      139,353        1,360.26
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      141,030        3,671.04
    COLFER, STEVEN L...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625        5,978.83
                                      SPEC (C).
    CONTRERAS, CARLOS..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      115,783        3,689.82
                                      SPEC (C).
    COPPA, MICHAEL F...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................      102,216        4,320.00
                                      SPEC (T).
    DOBRINICH, DAVID A.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      147,123          460.08
                                      CONTROL SPEC (T).                                  148,893        3,680.64
    DOEGE, BLANE S.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      125,928        1,719.60
                                      SPEC.
    DRESSLER, ROBERT K.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,788        5,651.88
                                      SPEC (T).
    DRISCOLL, CHARLES F............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402        4,922.94
                                      SPEC (C).
    DYER, STANLEY J................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      144,045        2,970.36
                                      CONTROL SPEC (T).
    EWING, MICHAEL L...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122        3,268.44
                                      SPEC (T).
    FRAWLEY, EDWARD J..............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      160,414        1,980.24
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      162,344        3,960.48
    FREDRICKSON, THOMAS E..........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      128,892        1,677.60
                                      SPEC (T).
    FUNKHOUSER, BRADLEY C..........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      120,954        1,574.16
                                      SPEC (C).
    GALASSINI, DEBRA A.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,788        3,912.84
                                      SPEC (T).
    GIBBS, BRENDA E................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165        3,910.20
                                      SPEC.
    GIBSON, VENTRIS C..............  ASST ADMIN FOR HUMAN    01....................      155,653        6,762.00
                                      RESOURCE  MGMT.                                    159,544        7,920.96
    GISH, EDMUND C.................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      164,168          920.16
                                      CONTROL SPEC (T).
    GOODNOUGH, DAVID W.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       90,802          609.96
                                      SPEC (T).
    GRATYS, JOHN G.................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      140,908        2,760.48
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).
    GRIFFIN, CHARLES W.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      118,733        1,249.38
                                      SPEC (T).
    GRIMM, CYNTHIA J...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      121,658        6,030.36
                                      SPEC (T).
    GROENE-BRASS, LISA C...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       92,617        2,109.66
                                      SPEC (T).
    GROFF, BRYAN W.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122        4,626.60
                                      SPEC (C).
    HAGEN, SHAWN C.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................       61,328          860.40
                                      SPECIALIST (T).
    HALL, MICHAEL A................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122        1,400.76
                                      SPEC (T).
    HASENPFLUG, JEFFREY D..........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      129,058        3,554.40
                                      SPEC.
    HOCKING, ROBERT G..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      110,605        4,738.60
                                      SPEC (C).
    HOFFMAN, ROBERTA S.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011        5,063.52
                                      SPEC (T).
    HORNER, WILLIAM T..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      125,405        4,080.60
                                      SPEC (T).
    HOUSE, MARK S..................  DIR FIN ANALYSIS &      02....................      144,848        4,830.00
                                      PROCESS REENGI-  NEER.                             148,469       18,812.28
    HURLEY, WILLIAM J., JR.........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       90,042        1,757.88
                                      SPEC (T).
    HYLAND, JOHN L.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      117,682        1,148.76
                                      SPEC (C).
    JEANES, JOSEPH A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      116,303        4,162.62
                                      SPEC (T).
    JONES, MELVIN B................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524        3,537.12
                                      SPEC (T).
    JUBA, EUGENE...................  SR VICE PRESIDENT FOR   01....................      164,100        6,762.00
                                      FINANCE.                                           168,200       19,802.40
    KERWIN, PETER J................  SUPV AVIATION SAFETY    K.....................      127,000        5,997.60
                                      INSPECTOR.                                         130,000          887.52
    KEYES, ROBERT C................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011        4,142.88
                                      SPEC (T).
    KHATCHERIAN, PAUL..............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      142,230        2,300.40
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).
    KOOS, MARK.....................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      135,543        1,380.30
                                      SPEC (C).
    KUHN, GEORGE W.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      111,843        3,564.00
                                      SPEC (C).
    KUZANEK, DWIGHT M..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,788        4,782.36
                                      SPEC (T).
    LADNIER, DARRYL A..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      113,300        1,105.92
                                      SPEC.
    LANGSTON, MILES H., JR.........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      125,405        2,448.36
                                      SPEC (T).
    LAWRENCE, TONY H...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      125,928          429.90
                                      SPEC (T).
    LEWIS, KEITH C.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      118,733        1,249.38
                                      SPEC (T).
    LIGNELLI, ROBERT J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122        4,089.96
                                      SPEC (T).
    LIZZIO, MICHAEL J..............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      131,855        2,300.05
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).
    LOVETT, STEVEN B...............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      142,837        1,394.28
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      144,556        3,762.72
    MARKS, ROBERT L................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,329        3,861.54
                                      SPEC (T).
    MATHEIS, ULRICH R..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625        5,059.01
                                      SPEC (C).
    MAURICE, LOURDES Q.............  CHIEF SCIENTIFIC &      03....................      138,516        5,777.28
                                      TECHNICAL ADVISOR.
    MCCONAHAY, KENNETH C...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122        2,693.52
                                      SPEC (T).
    MCCORMICK, MICHAEL J...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524        1,362.96
                                      SPEC (T).
    MIETH, DOUGLAS R...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625        4,139.19
                                      SPEC (C).
    MINER, MATHEW M................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122        1,400.76
                                      SPEC (T).
    MINIACE, JOSEPH N..............  DEP ASST ADM STRATEGIC  02....................      145,785        9,016.00
                                      LABOR MGT  REL.                                    149,430       21,122.56
    MISNER, JOHN E.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402        2,685.24
                                      SPEC (C).
    MOFFAT, JAY....................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,788        3,043.32
                                      SPEC (T).
    MOLLICA, ANTHONY J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       92,235          664.32
                                      SPEC (T).
    MORALES, DAVID A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     EH....................       70,600        1,378.44
                                      SPEC (T).
    MORRISON, ROBERT M.............  SUP ATCS (C/T-I)......  K.....................      130,000        5,640.00
    NASH, CHARLES F................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814        1,090.80
                                      SPEC (T).
    NELSON, BARRY J................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     EH....................       76,950        1,759.32
                                      SPEC (T).
    NEMCEK, RICHARD M..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402        4,027.86
                                      SPEC (C).
    NICHOLAS, ROBERT M.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625        5,059.01
                                      SPEC (C).
    OSEKOWSKI, CRAIG P.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      144,738          470.94
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      146,480        3,813.12
    PALLONE, MARK A................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      125,928          859.80
                                      SPEC (T).
    PARMAN, DENNIS J...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524        1,747.20
                                      SPEC (T).
    PASSIALES, JAMES J.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      127,548        2,709.72
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).
    PATT, LAWRENCE K...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524        4,997.52
                                      SPEC (T).
    PETRE, PHILIP J................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      127,159        2,482.56
                                      CONTROL SPEC (T).
    PRATT, THOMAS J................  SUPV AVIATION SAFETY    K.....................      127,000        1,864.28
                                      INSPECTOR.                                         130,000       18,642.80
    PUGH, DENNIS W.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814        2,533.68
                                      SPEC (T).
    PUNWANI, RAMESH................  ASST ADMIN FOR          01....................      164,100       11,270.00
                                      FINANCIAL SERVICES.                                168,200       31,353.80
    QUINN, GLENN P.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      127,032          447.48
                                      SPEC (T).
    RAWLINGS, KEVIN S..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       94,798        3,393.06
                                      SPEC (T).
    RAY, MARK A....................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      137,237        4,140.18
                                      SPEC (C).
    REGRUTO, SANDRA G..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       81,884        4,368.00
                                      SPEC (T).
    REINERT, KURT A................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       84,643        3,029.40
                                      SPEC (T).
    RHEA, RODNEY R.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814        1,908.90
                                      SPEC.
    RITMAN, ALLISON W..............  MANAGING DIR OF FINC    02....................       135,93        3,212.66
                                      RPTNG & CONTROLS.      K.....................      130,000          180.72
                                     SUPERVISORY ACCOUNTANT  K.....................      127,000        1,212.42
                                                                                         130,000          180.72
    ROESKE, DAVID W................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402        4,027.86
                                      SPEC (C).
    ROY, KIM A.....................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      127,032          447.48
                                      SPEC (T).
    RUIZ, DAVID R..................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524        4,997.52
                                      SPEC (T).
    SACKETT, GREGORY A.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      146,290          951.96
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      148,050        3,853.92
    SANOCKI, MICHAEL H.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011        5,984.16
                                      SPEC (T).
    SCOTT, ROBERT E................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      109,000        1,929.60
                                      SPEC (C).
    SEACAT, GARY D.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       92,617          301.38
                                      SPEC (T).
    SICKLES, STEPHAN J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122        4,202.28
                                      SPEC (T).
    SMITH, TERRY R.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,329          429.06
                                      SPEC (T).
    SNYDER, FREDERICK J., JR.......  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      125,568        1,435.32
                                      SPEC (C).
    SNYDER, THOMAS G...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814        1,636.20
                                      SPEC.
    STANKOWICZ, JOSEPH M...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625        4,139.19
                                      SPEC (C).
    STAROS, JOHN D.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LJ....................      128,572        2,731.32
                                      SPEC (T).
    STEINBERG, FREDERICK W.........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       84,550        2,577.12
                                      SPEC (T).
    STEINWEDEL, ROBERT P...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165        2,346.12
                                      SPEC.
    STRONG, ROBERT L...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      125,568          864.60
                                      SPEC.
    SWITCH, JAY M..................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165        3,519.18
                                      SPEC.
    TIGHE, GRACE...................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       93,531        2,738.88
                                      SPEC (T).
    TOTH, DANIEL A.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402        3,580.32
                                      SPEC (C).
    VANDERWEEL, PETER J............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      116,303        1,135.26
                                      SPEC (T).
    VELLA, ANTHONY C...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524        4,997.52
                                      SPEC (T).
    VERONICO, JAMES N..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011        6,435.94
                                      SPEC (T).
    WALSH, STEPHEN G...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       88,474        1,151.52
                                      SPEC.
    WAWRZYNSKI, DAVID B............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      125,928        1,324.98
                                      SPEC (T).
    WAZOWICZ, PAUL J...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011        5,976.23
                                      SPEC (T).
    WHEELER, DAVID A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      127,941        2,497.68
                                      SPEC (T).
    WHITE, LARRY D.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       92,617        1,205.52
                                      SPEC (T).
    WHITMAN, STEPHEN S.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      137,237        4,140.18
                                      SPEC (C).
    WIEGMANN, DARRYL L.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      143,599        1,380.24
                                      SPEC (T).
    WILLENBRINK, WAYNE C...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       93,531        3,347.52
                                      SPEC (T).
    WILLETT, ANTHONY J.............  PROGRAM MANAGER.......  K.....................      127,000        6,466.41
                                                                                         130,000       19,276.80
    WILLIAMS, CLIFFORD J...........  AIRWAY TRANSPORTATION   H.....................       61,335        3,310.00
                                      SYS SPEC.                                           61,337        1,324.00
                                                                                          63,226        4,279.41
    WILLIAMS, HAROLD F., III.......  AIRWAY TRANSPORTATION   H.....................       78,657        4,245.00
                                      SYS SPEC.                                           78,660        1,698.00
                                                                                          81,770        5,533.65
    WISHOWSKI, DONALD A............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      140,842        5,981.04
                                      SPEC (C).
    WITTMAN, MARK A................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      122,080        2,101.50
                                      SPEC.
    WOLVIN, MICHAEL S..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................      100,334        1,958.76
                                      SPEC (T).
    WYNKOOP, DOUGLAS J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      123,598        2,109.60
                                      SPEC (T).
    ZAROBA, PAUL B.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524        3,094.98
                                      SPEC (T).
                                                                                    ----------------------------
      Fiscal Year 2008 Total.......  ......................  ......................  ...........      719,405.04
                                                                                    ============================
Fiscal Year 2009:
    ALLEGRINI, KEVIN J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       68,424        3,583.68
                                      SPEC.
    ALLSOP, KEVIN L................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       93,531        6,121.74
                                      SPEC (T).
    ANDERSON, THEODORE H...........  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      148,960        3,220.56
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).                                  155,663       21,165.10
    ANGLE, THEODORE W..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122          466.92
                                      SPEC (T).
    AUSTIN, THOMAS P...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625       20,337.73
                                      SPEC (C).              LI....................      135,772          464.75
    BACILE, MICHAEL J..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165       16,858.32
                                      SPEC.
    BAHLER, GARY C.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402       19,792.56
                                      SPEC (T).
    BALL, RANDALL R................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      140,319       22,292.10
                                      SPEC (T).
    BARBIERI, JOHN R...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165       16,858.32
                                      SPEC.
    BEADLE, MARK R.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       91,568        4,099.62
                                      SPEC (T).
    BERRA, PATRICK M...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       90,802       10,068.36
                                      SPEC (T).
    BIGGERS, JACK H................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165       18,441.12
                                      SPEC.
    BINNER, ROGER A................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      140,319          993.24
                                      SPEC.
    BLACK, NELSON K................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       74,705       12,682.62
                                      SPEC (T).
    BLAIS, MICHAEL J...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,400       17,506.86
                                      SPEC (T).
    BLINK, CHARLES L...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       92,235        6,636.84
                                      SPEC (T).
    BLITTERSDORF, JEFFREY E........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814       13,683.72
                                      SPEC.
    BOELTER, TIMOTHY T.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402       19,792.57
                                      SPEC (C).
    BONE, MICHAEL D................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       20,897.58
                                      SPEC (T).
    BORO, THOMAS R.................  MANAGER, LABOR &        J.....................      109,000        7,351.20
                                      EMPLOYEE REL BRACH.                                110,800       23,917.20
    BOWE, JOHN R...................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402       19,335.42
                                      SPEC (C).
    BOYLE, DANIEL P................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       19,642.56
                                      SPEC (T).
    BRANNIGAN, TIMOTHY W...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       67,342        3,527.04
                                      SPEC.
    BROKER, BARBARA A..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      119,178       19,088.10
                                      SPEC (T).
    BROMLEY, DANA L................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       79,154        4,663.44
                                      SPEC.
    BRYAN, JEFFREY L...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      104,966        5,154.30
                                      SPEC.
    BURTON, CARL JR................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      141,029        3,220.56
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      147,375        3,310.30
    BURZYCH, CRAIG A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402       22,987.74
                                      SPEC (T).
    BUSSE, JUDITH A................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      140,908        3,220.56
                                      CONTROL SPEC (T).                                  147,248       20,319.36
    BYRNE, JOHN J..................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      142,230        3,220.56
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).                                  148,630       18,749.30
    BYTHEWAY, DAVID L..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................      104,010       15,799.32
                                      SPEC (T).
    CARGIULO, LUIS P., JR..........  HUMAN RESOURCES         I.....................       84,626        5,836.80
                                      SPECIALIST.
    CARMICHAEL, DAVID L............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122       20,761.38
                                      SPEC (C).
    CARVER, STEVEN T...............  SUPV COMPUTER SPEC....  K.....................      115,015        7,945.20
    CATOE, RALPH D.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      102,216       15,686.34
                                      SPEC (T).
    CERAMI, JOSEPH S...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011       20,346.93
                                      SPEC (C).
    CHAMBERLIN, MARK J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       86,141        2,256.00
                                      SPEC (T).
    CHIASSON, MICHAEL P............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        IJ....................      118,893        3,502.44
                                      CONTROL SPEC.
    CLAYTON, ROBERT J..............  SUPV HUMAN RESOURCES    K.....................      130,000       10,542.00
                                      SPECIALIST.                                        132,200       18,715.20
    CLEAVER, MICHAEL D.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      141,030        3,212.16
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      147,376       18,650.94
    COLFER, STEVEN L...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625       18,459.37
                                      SPEC (C).
    CONTRERAS, CARLOS..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      115,783       18,544.14
                                      SPEC (C).
    COPPA, MICHAEL F...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................      102,216       14,824.80
                                      SPEC (T).
    DOBRINICH, DAVID A.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      148,893        3,220.56
                                      CONTROL SPEC (T).                                  155,593       17,292.12
    DOEGE, BLANE S.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      125,928       20,766.60
                                      SPEC.
    DRESSLER, ROBERT K.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,788       17,450.46
                                      SPEC (T).
    DRISCOLL, CHARLES F............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402       18,878.28
                                      SPEC (C).
    DUNPHY, DANIEL P...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      110,732       18,817.68
                                      SPEC (T).
    DUTTON, RANDELL L..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      114,201        4,111.80
                                      SPEC.
    DYER, STANLEY J................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      144,045        3,465.42
                                      CONTROL SPEC (T).                                  150,527       19,157.28
    EWING, MICHAEL L...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122       21,616.32
                                      SPEC (T).
    FRAWLEY, EDWARD J..............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      162,344        3,465.42
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      166,959       21,618.78
    FREDRICKSON, THOMAS E..........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      128,892       20,628.72
                                      SPEC (T).
    FUNKHOUSER, BRADLEY C..........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      120,954       18,961.92
                                      SPEC (C).
    GALASSINI, DEBRA A.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,788       19,665.85
                                      SPEC (T).
    GIBBS, BRENDA E................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165       20,005.20
                                      SPEC.
    GIBSON, VENTRIS C..............  ASST ADMIN FOR HUMAN    01....................      159,544        6,930.84
                                      RESOURCE  MGMT.                                    164,011        9,159.48
    GISH, EDMUND C.................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      164,168        3,220.56
                                      CONTROL SPEC (T).                                  166,959       21,165.09
    GOODNOUGH, DAVID W.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       90,802       15,297.96
                                      SPEC (T).
    GOSS, NORBERT L., JR...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       74,501        4,876.50
                                      SPEC (T).
    GRATYS, JOHN G.................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      140,908        3,220.56
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).                                  147,248       18,749.30
    GREEN, JEFFREY S...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     EH....................       65,107        4,261.14
                                      SPECIALIST (T).
    GRIEST, DIANE L................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      159,567          920.16
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      166,747        8,985.10
    GRIFFIN, CHARLES W.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      118,733       20,563.98
                                      SPEC (T).
    GRIMM, CYNTHIA J...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      121,658       17,285.04
                                      SPEC (T).
    GROENE-BRASS, LISA C...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       92,617       13,605.30
                                      SPEC (T).
    GROFF, BRYAN W.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122       24,295.19
                                      SPEC (C).
    HABER, SELIM...................  GENERAL ENGINEER......  K.....................      132,200        4,539.36
    HALL, MICHAEL A................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122       22,599.24
                                      SPEC (T).
    HARDIMAN, MATTHEW J............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       67,342        3,527.04
                                      SPEC.
    HASENPFLUG, JEFFREY D..........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      129,058       20,105.28
                                      SPEC.
    HAYNES, DARRYL A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      130,974        5,014.02
                                      SPEC.
    HEINTZ, ROBERT B...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       68,970        3,612.48
                                      SPEC.
    HOFFMAN, ROBERTA S.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011       19,417.08
                                      SPEC (T).
    HOLDGATE, FREDERICK I..........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       85,520        4,479.36
                                      SPEC.
    HOLLAND, JEFFERY K.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      104,966        4,467.06
                                      SPEC.
    HORNER, WILLIAM T..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      125,405       17,593.33
                                      SPEC (T).
    HOTRUM, GLENN M................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      115,133       21,978.01
                                      SPEC (T).
    HOUSE, MARK S..................  DIR FIN ANALYSIS &      02....................      148,469        6,930.84
                                      PROCESS REENGI-  NEER.                             152,626        8,141.76
    HURLEY, WILLIAM J., JR.........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       90,042       13,817.04
                                      SPEC (T).
    HYLAND, JOHN L.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      117,682       18,065.64
                                      SPEC (C).
    IMUNDO, RICO F.................  SUPV TRAFFIC MANGEMENT  JJ....................      124,448        8,698.20
                                      COORDINA-  TOR.
    JEANES, JOSEPH A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      116,303       15,551.70
                                      SPEC (T).
    JONES, MELVIN B................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       19,553.16
                                      SPEC (T).
    JUBA, EUGENE...................  SR VICE PRESIDENT FOR   01....................      168,200        6,930.84
                                      FINANCE.                                           171,100        8,141.76
    KELLY, THOMAS C................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      164,740        8,740.19
                                      CONTROL SPEC.
    KEYES, ROBERT C................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011       20,340.76
                                      SPEC (T).
    KHATCHERIAN, PAUL..............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      142,230        3,220.56
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).                                  148,630       19,235.03
    KOOS, MARK.....................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      135,543       23,631.42
                                      SPEC (C).
    KRAKOWSKI, HENRY P.............  CHIEF OPERATING         1A....................      211,000       25,762.24
                                      OFFICER.
    KUHN, GEORGE W.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      111,843       17,512.20
                                      SPEC (C).
    KUZANEK, DWIGHT M..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,788        6,558.36
                                      SPEC (T).
                                     SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LH....................      122,788       11,780.10
                                      CONTROL SPECIALIST.
    LADNIER, DARRYL A..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      113,300       18,876.12
                                      SPEC.
    LAMBERT, DAWN E................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      132,494        2,344.50
                                      CONTROL SPEC.
    LANGSTON, MILES H., JR.........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      125,405       19,245.24
                                      SPEC (T).
    LASH, WILLIAM C................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      125,928       23,062.80
                                      SPEC (C).
    LAWRENCE, TONY H...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      125,928       22,082.58
                                      SPEC (T).
    LESTER, CRAIG S................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       90,802        2,972.40
                                      SPEC (T).
    LEWIS, KEITH C.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      118,733       20,142.60
                                      SPEC (T).
    LEWIS, TIMOTHY R...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      123,598        6,068.70
                                      SPEC.
    LICON, RUBEN...................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       23,162.28
                                      SPEC.
    LIGNELLI, ROBERT J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122       19,633.32
                                      SPEC (T).
    LIZZIO, MICHAEL J..............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      131,855        3,220.07
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).
    LOVETT, STEVEN B...............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      144,556        3,292.38
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      151,061       16,390.45
    MANCHESTER, RICHARD D..........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       68,424        3,583.68
                                      SPEC.
    MARKS, ROBERT L................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,329       18,550.38
                                      SPEC (T).
    MATHEIS, ULRICH R..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625       19,398.55
                                      SPEC (C).
    MAURICE, LOURDES Q.............  CHIEF SCIENTIFIC &      03....................      138,516        4,493.44
                                      TECHNICAL ADVISOR.                                 142,394        7,391.12
    MCCARTNEY, WILLIAM A...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       23,162.28
                                      SPEC (T).
    MCCONAHAY, KENNETH C...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122       21,228.84
                                      SPEC (T).
    MCCORMICK, MICHAEL J...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       22,432.56
                                      SPEC (T).
    MCKEE, DAVID C.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,329       22,435.92
                                      SPEC (T).
    MICHAEL, GLENN W...............  CAST OUTREACH PROGRAM   K.....................      132,200        9,951.36
                                      MGR.
    MIETH, DOUGLAS R...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625       20,337.73
                                      SPEC (C).
    MINER, MATHEW M................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122       23,055.72
                                      SPEC (T).
    MINIACE, JOSEPH N..............  DEP ASST ADM STRATEGIC  02....................      149,430        9,241.12
                                      LABOR MGT  FREL.                                   153,614        9,498.72
    MISNER, JOHN E.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402       21,163.99
                                      SPEC (C).
    MOFFAT, JAY....................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,788       20,114.46
                                      SPEC (T).
    MOLLICA, ANTHONY J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       92,235        1,992.96
                                      SPEC (T).
    MOORE, DIANNA H................  MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM  I.....................       63,698        7,525.44
                                      ANA.
    MOORE, GEORGE E................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       23,162.28
                                      SPEC.
    MORALES, DAVID A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     EH....................       70,600       10,603.92
                                      SPEC (T).
    MORRISON, ROBERT M.............  SUP ATCS (C/T-I)......  K.....................      130,000        5,640.00
    NASH, CHARLES F................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814       13,374.99
                                      SPEC (T).
    NELSON, BARRY J................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     EH....................       76,950       13,889.89
                                      SPEC (T).
    NELSON, MATTHEW F..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      114,418        5,243.28
                                      SPEC (T).
    NEMCEK, RICHARD M..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402       19,792.56
                                      SPEC (C).
    NICHOLAS, ROBERT M.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625       19,398.55
                                      SPEC (C).
    OSEKOWSKI, CRAIG P.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      146,480        3,336.48
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      153,072       18,142.81
    OTERO, CARLOS V................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        GJ....................       95,385        4,995.84
                                      CONTROL SPEC.
    PALLONE, MARK A................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      125,928       21,643.92
                                      SPEC (T).
    PARMAN, DENNIS J...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       21,546.42
                                      SPEC (T).
    PASSIALES, JAMES J.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      127,548        3,161.34
                                      CONTROL SPEC (C).                                  133,287       18,748.44
    PATT, LAWRENCE K...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       18,717.90
                                      SPEC (T).
    PETRE, PHILIP J................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      127,159        2,896.32
                                      CONTROL SPEC (T).                                  132,881          870.00
    PRATT, THOMAS J................  SUPV AVIATION SAFETY    K.....................      130,000        3,728.56
                                      INSPECTOR.
    PUGH, DENNIS W.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814       12,414.60
                                      SPEC (T).
    PUNWANI, RAMESH................  ASST ADMIN FOR          01....................      168,200       11,551.40
                                      FINANCIAL SERVICES.                                171,100       16,962.00
    QUINN, GLENN P.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      127,032       23,860.08
                                      SPEC (T).
    RABINOWITZ, BRIAN R............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       49,145        2,402.18
                                      SPEC.
    RAWLINGS, KEVIN S..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       94,798       16,090.15
                                      SPEC (T).
    RAY, MARK A....................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      137,237       20,343.60
                                      SPEC (C).
    REGRUTO, SANDRA G..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       81,884       12,531.12
                                      SPEC (T).
    REINERT, KURT A................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       84,643       14,089.09
                                      SPEC (T).
    RHEA, RODNEY R.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814       14,232.48
                                      SPEC.
    RITMAN, ALLISON W..............  MANAGING DIR OF FINC    02....................      135,933          755.92
                                      RPTNG & CONTROLS.
    RITMILLER, JOHN M..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524        1,833.60
                                      SPEC (C).
    RIXEY, WILLIAM S...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GC....................       33,700          147.12
                                      SPEC.                  GG....................       44,500        1,748.16
                                     AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GC....................       33,700          147.12
                                      SPEC (T).
                                     AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GG....................       44,500          194.24
                                      SPECIALIST.
    ROESKE, DAVID W................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402       19,792.56
                                      SPEC (C).
    ROY, KIM A.....................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      127,032       23,860.09
                                      SPEC (T).
    RUBIN, BARRY E.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      104,612        4,451.46
                                      SPEC (C).
    RUIZ, DAVID R..................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       18,502.42
                                      SPEC (T).
    SACKETT, GREGORY A.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      154,712       17,815.20
                                      CONTROL S.             KK....................      160,900          508.86
                                     SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      148,050        3,372.18
                                      CONTROL SPEC.          KK....................      160,900        2,544.30
    SANOCKI, MICHAEL H.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011       18,460.14
                                      SPEC (T).
    SCAVILLA, JASON R..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       49,373        2,586.24
                                      SPEC (.
    SCOTT, ROBERT E................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      109,000        2,701.44
                                      SPEC (C).                                          110,800       16,128.96
    SEACAT, GARY D.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       92,617       16,041.54
                                      SPEC (T).
    SECIA, PAULA E.................  AVIATION ASSISTANT....  E.....................       35,687        1,869.12
    SICKLES, STEPHAN J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122       19,797.72
                                      SPEC (T).
    SLOSEK, CARRIE A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       67,342        3,527.04
                                      SPEC.
    SMITH, TERRY R.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      122,329       22,840.98
                                      SPEC (T).
    SNYDER, FREDERICK J., JR.......  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      125,568       23,647.86
                                      SPEC (C).
    SNYDER, THOMAS G...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814       14,234.16
                                      SPEC.
    STANKOWICZ, JOSEPH M...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625       20,337.74
                                      SPEC (C).
    STAROS, JOHN D.................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      128,572        3,186.54
                                      CONTROL SPEC (T).                                  134,357       18,898.92
    STEINBERG, FREDERICK W.........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       84,550       14,271.84
                                      SPEC (T).
    STEINWEDEL, ROBERT P...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165       18,441.12
                                      SPEC.
    STRONG, ROBERT L...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      125,568       22,650.24
                                      SPEC.
    STYER, MICHAEL J...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       10,254.72
                                      SPEC.
    SUTPHEN, SCOTT S...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       89,675        3,815.76
                                      SPEC (T).
    SWITCH, JAY M..................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165       20,400.90
                                      SPEC.
    TIGHE, GRACE...................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       93,531       13,122.96
                                      SPEC (T).
    TOOREN, JUERGEN G..............  SUPV FOREIGN AFFAIRS    L.....................      150,327       10,828.48
                                      SPECIALIST.
    TOPHAM, PATRICK M..............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        GL....................       98,746        5,171.52
                                      CONTROL SPEC.
    TOTH, DANIEL A.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      126,402       20,249.70
                                      SPEC (C).
    VANDERWEEL, PETER J............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      116,303       18,615.54
                                      SPEC (T).
    VELLA, ANTHONY C...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       18,712.56
                                      SPEC (T).
    VERONICO, JAMES N..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011       17,982.62
                                      SPEC (T).
    WACHTER, MARK V................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GG....................       48,100        2,519.04
                                      SPEC.
    WALSH, STEPHEN G...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       88,474       15,028.93
                                      SPEC.
    WAWRZYNSKI, DAVID B............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      125,928       21,808.38
                                      SPEC (T).
    WAZOWICZ, PAUL J...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011       18,003.53
                                      SPEC (T).
    WEBER, GLENN M.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814        1,097.52
                                      SPEC (T).
    WHEELER, DAVID A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      127,941       20,052.10
                                      SPEC (T).
    WHITE, LARRY D.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       92,617       14,823.42
                                      SPEC (T).
    WHITMAN, STEPHEN S.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      137,237       20,343.60
                                      SPEC (C).
    WIEGMANN, DARRYL L.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      143,599       23,899.93
                                      SPEC (T).
    WILKS, RANDY O.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      123,598        2,427.48
                                      SPEC.
    WILLENBRINK, WAYNE C...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       93,531       13,119.24
                                      SPEC (T).
    WILLETT, ANTHONY J.............  PROGRAM MANAGER.......  K.....................      130,000        6,746.88
                                                                                         132,200       14,972.11
    WILLIAMS, CLIFFORD J...........  AIRWAY TRANSPORTATION   H.....................       63,226        1,728.23
                                      SYS SPEC.                                           65,692        5,160.98
    WILLIAMS, HAROLD F., III.......  AIRWAY TRANSPORTATION   H.....................       81,770        2,234.75
                                      SYS SPEC.                                           85,646        6,729.16
    WISHOWSKI, DONALD A............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      140,842       18,042.66
                                      SPEC (C).
    WITTMAN, MARK A................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      122,080       19,881.80
                                      SPEC.
    WOLVIN, MICHAEL S..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................      100,334       15,397.08
                                      SPEC (T).
    WYNKOOP, DOUGLAS J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      123,598       19,951.20
                                      SPEC (T).
    ZAROBA, PAUL B.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       20,004.30
                                      SPEC (T).
                                                                                    ----------------------------
      Fiscal Year 2009 Total.......  ......................  ......................  ...........    2,998,201.46
                                                                                    ============================
Fiscal Year 2010:
    ALLEGRINI, KEVIN J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       68,424        2,090.48
                                      SPEC.                                               70,477        2,467.20
    ALLSOP, KEVIN L................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       93,531       10,408.26
                                      SPEC (T).
    BINNER, ROGER A................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      140,319        3,476.34
                                      SPEC.                                              145,974        4,132.80
    BLACK, NELSON K................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       74,705        1,711.92
                                      SPEC (T).
                                                                                          77,715        2,040.48
    BLINK, CHARLES L...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       92,235        9,041.74
                                      SPEC (T).
    BLITTERSDORF, JEFFREY E........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814        1,920.66
                                      SPEC.                                               87,191        2,289.12
    BORO, THOMAS R.................  HUMAN RESOURCES         J.....................      110,800        7,552.80
                                      SPECIALIST (ER/LR).                                114,100       10,435.21
                                     MANAGER, LABOR &        J.....................      110,800        1,258.80
                                      EMPLOYEE REL BRACH.
    BRANNIGAN, TIMOTHY W...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       67,342        2,057.44
                                      SPEC.                                               69,362        2,428.16
    BROMLEY, DANA L................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       79,154        1,813.56
                                      SPEC.                                               82,344        9,179.40
    BRYAN, JEFFREY L...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      104,966        2,405.34
                                      SPEC.                                              109,196       11,143.44
    CARGIULO, LUIS P., JR..........  HUMAN RESOURCES         I.....................       84,626        6,809.60
                                      SPECIALIST.                                         86,742        8,024.00
    CERAMI, JOSEPH S...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011          464.62
                                      SPEC (C).
    CHAMBERLIN, MARK J.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       86,141        1,974.00
                                      SPEC (T).                                           89,612        2,352.96
    CHIASSON, MICHAEL P............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        IJ....................      118,893        2,724.12
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      121,865        3,199.68
    CLEAVER, MICHAEL D.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      147,376        3,376.80
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      151,944        3,989.28
    CONDLEY, GARY R................  FAA ACADEMY             02....................      146,505        8,014.00
                                      SUPERINTENDENT.
    DUTTON, RANDELL L..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      114,201        2,616.60
                                      SPEC.                                              118,803       12,967.44
    FLEMMING, JOHNNIE M............  DIRECTOR OF HUMAN       K.....................      132,200        2,884.80
                                      RESOURCES.                                         136,200       11,920.00
    FRAWLEY, EDWARD J..............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      166,959        3,562.02
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      171,133        4,132.80
    GIBBS, BRENDA E................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165        2,753.52
                                      SPEC.                                              125,008        3,282.24
    GOSS, NORBERT L., JR...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       74,501        8,291.10
                                      SPEC (T).
    GREEN, JEFFREY S...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     EH....................       65,107          178.49
                                      SPECIALIST (T).
    GRIEST, DIANE L................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      166,747       15,580.07
                                      CONTROL SPEC.
    GROFF, BRYAN W.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,122        3,297.84
                                      SPEC (C).                                          138,487        3,956.64
    HABER, SELIM...................  GENERAL ENGINEER......  K.....................      132,200        2,269.68
    HARDIMAN, MATTHEW J............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       67,342        2,057.44
                                      SPEC.                                               69,362        2,428.16
    HAYNES, DARRYL A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      130,974        3,190.74
                                      SPEC.                                              136,252        3,817.44
    HEINTZ, ROBERT B...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       68,970        2,107.28
                                      SPEC.                                               71,039        2,487.04
    HOLDGATE, FREDERICK I..........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       85,520        2,612.96
                                      SPEC.                                               88,086        3,083.52
    HOLLAND, JEFFERY K.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      104,966        2,405.34
                                      SPEC.                                              109,196       11,889.73
    IMUNDO, RICO F.................  SUPV TRAFFIC MANGEMENT  JJ....................      124,448       15,107.41
                                      COORDINA-  TOR.
    JEANES, JOSEPH A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     IH....................      116,303          761.40
                                      SPEC (T).
    JEFF-CARTIER, JOLAINA..........  HUMAN RESOURCES         J.....................       87,349        2,071.29
                                      SPECIALIST (LR).
    KELLY, THOMAS C................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      164,740          920.02
                                      CONTROL SPEC.          LK....................      164,740       14,260.30
    KRAKOWSKI, HENRY P.............  CHIEF OPERATING         1A....................      211,000       15,007.52
                                      OFFICER.
    LAMBERT, DAWN E................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        LJ....................      132,494        3,282.30
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      136,601        2,000.23
    LESTER, CRAIG S................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       90,802        2,080.68
                                      SPEC (T).                                           94,461        2,480.16
    LEWIS, TIMOTHY R...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      123,598        2,832.06
                                      SPEC.                                              128,579       13,120.57
    MANCHESTER, RICHARD D..........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       68,424        2,090.48
                                      SPEC.                                               70,477        2,467.20
    MCKEE, STEVEN W................  HUMAN RESOURCES         I.....................       93,300        9,156.00
                                      SPECIALIST.
    MICHAEL, GLENN W...............  CAST OUTREACH PROGRAM   K.....................      132,200        4,353.72
                                      MGR.                                               136,200        2,580.32
    MOORE, DIANNA H................  MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM  I.....................       63,698        4,052.16
                                      ANA.                                                66,437        3,645.12
    NELSON, MATTHEW F..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      114,418        2,621.64
                                      SPEC (T).                                          119,030       11,771.53
    NICHOLAS, ROBERT M.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625          464.75
                                      SPEC (C).
    OSEKOWSKI, CRAIG P.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      153,072          501.06
                                      CONTROL SPEC.
    OTERO, CARLOS V................  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        GJ....................       95,385        2,914.24
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                       98,342        3,442.56
    PARDEE, JAY J..................  DIR, OFF OF ACCIDENT    02....................      162,695        7,232.40
                                      INVEST & PREV.
    RABINOWITZ, BRIAN R............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       49,145        1,257.39
                                      SPEC.                                               52,469          915.53
                                                              LH...................       68,496          338.00
    RAWLINGS, KEVIN S..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       94,798        2,172.24
                                      SPEC (T).                                           98,618        2,589.12
    REINERT, KURT A................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     FH....................       84,643        1,939.56
                                      SPEC (T).                                           88,054        2,312.16
    RHEA, RODNEY R.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814        1,920.66
                                      SPEC.                                               87,191        2,289.12
    RITMILLER, JOHN M..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524        3,208.80
                                      SPEC (C).                                          134,744        3,849.60
    RIXEY, WILLIAM S...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       48,100        1,469.44
                                      SPECIALIST.                                         52,469        1,836.80
    RUBIN, BARRY E.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     JH....................      104,612        2,396.94
                                      SPEC (C).                                          108,828       11,134.56
    SACKETT, GREGORY A.............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        KJ....................      154,712        3,545.22
                                      CONTROL S.                                         161,365        4,132.80
    SANOCKI, MICHAEL H.............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011          465.24
                                      SPEC (T).
    SCAVILLA, JASON R..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       49,373        1,508.64
                                      SPEC (.                                             52,469        1,836.80
    SCHMITT, RICHARD A.............  SATCS, OPERATIONS       GJ....................       85,247        1,678.68
                                      SUPERVISOR.
    SECIA, PAULA E.................  AVIATION ASSISTANT....  E.....................       35,687        1,090.32
                                                                                          36,793        1,288.32
    SLOSEK, CARRIE A...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       67,342        2,057.44
                                      SPEC.                                               69,362        2,428.16
    SNYDER, THOMAS G...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814        1,920.66
                                      SPEC.                                               87,191        2,289.12
    STANKOWICZ, JOSEPH M...........  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      133,625          464.75
                                      SPEC (C).
    STYER, MICHAEL J...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      129,524       12,934.56
                                      SPEC.
    SUTPHEN, SCOTT S...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     HH....................       89,675        2,054.64
                                      SPEC (T).                                           93,289       10,156.92
    SWITCH, JAY M..................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      120,165        2,753.52
                                      SPEC.                                              125,008        3,282.24
    TOOREN, JUERGEN G..............  SUPV FOREIGN AFFAIRS    L.....................      150,327        3,989.44
                                      SPECIALIST.
    TOPHAM, PATRICK M..............  SUPV AIR TRAFFIC        GL....................       98,746        3,016.72
                                      CONTROL SPEC.                                      101,807        3,118.64
    VERONICO, JAMES N..............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011          464.62
                                      SPEC (T).
    WACHTER, MARK V................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GG....................       48,100        1,469.44
                                      SPEC.                                               49,543        1,734.40
    WALSH, STEPHEN G...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       88,474        2,027.34
                                      SPEC.                                               92,039        2,416.80
    WAZOWICZ, PAUL J...............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     LH....................      130,011           20.24
                                      SPEC (T).
    WEBER, GLENN M.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     GH....................       83,814        1,920.66
                                      SPEC (T).                                           87,191        2,289.12
    WICKS, EDWIN D.................  HUMAN RESOURCES         I.....................       93,300        7,518.40
                                      SPECIALIST.
    WIETHORN, MICHAEL R............  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      113,300          385.26
                                      SPEC.                                              117,866        3,213.60
    WILKS, RANDY O.................  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL     KH....................      123,598        2,832.06
                                      SPEC.                                              128,579        3,375.84
    WILLIAMS, CLIFFORD J...........  AIRWAY TRANSPORTATION   H.....................       65,692        2,007.04
                                      SYS SPEC.                                           67,334        2,357.12
    WILLIAMS, HAROLD F., III.......  AIRWAY TRANSPORTATION   H.....................       85,646        2,616.88
                                      SYS SPEC.                                           87,787        3,073.28
                                                                                    ----------------------------
      Fiscal Year 2010 Total.......  ......................  ......................  ...........      519,137.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Other than FAA, do any other offices within DOT provide 
retention bonuses? If so, under what circumstances and restrictions?
    Answer. Yes. The following agencies have provided retention 
bonuses: FHWA, NHTSA, FRA, PHMSA, SLSDC, OST, RITA, OIG, and STB.
    The Department of Transportation follows the guidelines in DPM 575-
1, Payment of Recruitment and Relocation Bonuses and Retention 
Allowances. Retention incentives are used to retain current employees 
with unique competencies that are critical to the Department's mission. 
In most cases, retention incentives are used to keep individuals who 
are eligible for and who have indicated they will be retiring. However, 
they may also be used to retain staff with unique and very marketable 
competencies who could otherwise earn a higher salary in the private 
sector.
    Question. The budget includes $24 million and 100 positions to 
establish a new Rail Transit Safety Oversight Program. This proposal 
follows on the heels of rail transit accidents in Boston, Los Angeles, 
San Francisco, and Washington, DC and supports the legislation the 
administration transmitted to Congress in December.
    In the meantime, however, what can FTA do within its current 
authority to ensure transit systems are safe, without new legislation, 
be it through training, technical assistance or other efforts?
    Answer. Even without authorization legislation in place, FTA could 
still take important steps to stand up its safety program if Congress 
provides the necessary funds, including:
  --Hiring new program staff (as opposed to field safety inspectors) 
        with special expertise in areas of safety, engineering, and 
        behavioral experts.
  --Undertaking research and demonstration projects in the area of 
        transit safety.
    Moreover, FTA currently is taking steps to strengthen State Safety 
Oversight Agencies (SSOAs). FTA provides stakeholder outreach 
(informational exchanges, best practices, lessons learned, program 
guidance) through a variety of efforts, including:
  --Two State Safety Oversight workshops per year including one for 
        SSOAs and one for both SSOAs and Rail Transit Agencies.
  --Two Safety & Security Roundtables per year co-sponsored by TSA and 
        attended by safety and security officials from the largest 50 
        transit agencies.
  --FTA's Safety and Security Web site, which contains resource 
        documents, program guidance, training course listings.
  --``Dear Colleague'' letters issued to industry stakeholders about 
        best practices.
    Question. Please explain the need for Federal regulation and 
oversight of rail transit safety. What information does FTA have on the 
current performance of the State Safety Oversight Agencies in 
overseeing safety on rail transit systems, including their safety 
standards, level of oversight, and ability to enforce compliance? What 
kind of enforcement actions would FTA be able to take?
    Answer. Concerning the need for Federal regulation and oversight, 
FTA does not have regulatory authority or the resources to oversee 
safety performance of transit agencies. This responsibility currently 
resides at the State and local levels. Without field verification 
audits, FTA cannot confirm that (1) rail transit agencies have adopted 
the appropriate safety standards for track, vehicles, signals and train 
control, operating practices, and electrification systems and (2) that 
the adopted standards are being implemented. Nor do we have the 
authority to require States and rail transit agencies to address 
critical safety issues, such as fatigue (hours of service), medical 
qualification (to include sleep apnea and other sleep disorders), 
incorporation of automatic systems and technology into track 
inspection, and information management systems to enhance communication 
between and across operating and maintenance departments regarding the 
reporting and analysis of safety hazards and concerns.
    In December 2009, FTA transmitted to Congress authorization 
legislation that would expand FTA's responsibilities to help ensure the 
safety of the Nation's transit systems. The legislation would allow FTA 
to create an oversight program focused on transit safety, with the 
ability to develop safety regulatory standards and with increased 
enforcement authority. We urge Congress to take up this important 
legislation as soon as possible.
    Regarding State safety oversight (SSO) agencies, FTA obtains 
information on the requirements, activities, and performance of the SSO 
agencies and the rail transit agencies from several sources including:
  --The SSO Initial Submission.--Made prior to entering the program. 
        FTA uses a checklist to review the initial submission and 
        corresponds with the SSO agency until all open issues are 
        resolved. At the current time, all 27 SSO agencies have Program 
        Standards that have passed the basic initial submission review 
        and approval process.
  --The SSO Annual Submission.--Made to FTA by March 15 of each year. 
        This report includes information on the personnel devoted to 
        implementing the SSO program, the training received that year 
        by personnel, the use of contractors to support the State's SSO 
        program, as well as the accidents that were investigated at the 
        rail transit agency.
  --SSO 3-Year Reviews.--Each State also submits any 3-year reviews 
        completed at the rail transit agencies in its jurisdiction. FTA 
        uses this information to develop its Rail Transit Safety 
        Statistics Report and to track the level of effort expended by 
        each State to meet 49 CFR part 659 requirements. Three-year 
        review reports also provide valuable snapshots of the rail 
        transit agencies and their activities to implement their System 
        Safety Program Plans.
  --Periodic Submission.--FTA has the authority to collect information 
        from the State safety oversight agencies periodically to 
        address special requests. Working with the States, FTA collects 
        information on specific rail transit agency issues in response 
        to publicly submitted complaints. For example, FTA has used 
        this authority to investigate complaints involving rail transit 
        agencies in Atlanta, Detroit and Memphis. In addition, FTA 
        works with the States to get information from rail transit 
        agencies in special studies, such as on fatigue management, 
        track inspection, on-site reviews and audits, or managing 
        safety in extensions and major capital projects.
  --Audit Program.--FTA audits each State no less than once every 3 
        years. As part of the audit process, FTA requests an extensive 
        list of materials that the State collects from the rail transit 
        agency, including the rail transit agency System Safety Program 
        Plan, hazard tracking log, all accident investigations 
        completed in the last year prior to the audit, all internal 
        audit reports, and any special studies or investigations 
        performed by the rail transit agency or the State. Each audit 
        report provides an in-depth look at how each State is 
        implementing 49 CFR part 659. As appropriate, in certain cases, 
        FTA can also make determinations regarding how well the rail 
        transit agency is performing specific safety functions, such as 
        internal auditing, hazard identification and analysis, accident 
        investigation and corrective action management. FTA does not, 
        however, conduct independent inspections to verify that track, 
        vehicles, and equipment are being operated and maintained 
        within specified standards. Nor does FTA review or approve any 
        standards adopted by the rail transit agency.
  --National Transit Database.--FTA compares the accidents and safety 
        information being reported by the rail transit agencies to the 
        Safety and Security Reporting Module of the national Transit 
        Database with the information being reported to the States to 
        ensure that States are notified of the accidents they should be 
        notified of and that information is reported accurately to the 
        NTD.
    Collectively, information received from these sources provides FTA 
with a reasonable picture regarding the level of staffing, expertise, 
training and activity being performed to carry out safety functions in 
the States and the rail transit agencies. Further, we have a strong 
analytic handle on the types and frequency of accidents occurring in 
the rail transit industry, their causes and the typical actions being 
taken to prevent recurrence. It is the information culled from these 
sources that has contributed to the administration's conclusion that 
the status quo is inadequate and is in dire need of reform.
    Question. FTA has requested $30 million in fiscal year 2011 for 
this new program. What does FTA project this program will cost in 
subsequent years and how does it plan to use these funds?
    Answer. As you know, the fiscal year 2011 budget includes $30 
million and 130 FTE to support policies and activities included in the 
administration's transit safety legislation, the ``Public 
Transportation Safety Program Act of 2009'' transmitted to Congress on 
December 7, 2009. We believe these resources will enable FTA to 
institute an effective regulatory system for the rail transit industry. 
Looking ahead, we will assess any potential additional resource 
requirements as part of the fiscal year 2012 budget.
    Question. What is FTA doing to help the Washington Metropolitan 
Area Transit Authority get back on track in terms of safety? Do you 
believe the Tri-State Oversight Committee as currently organized, can 
provide appropriate oversight of WMATA?
    Answer. FTA's greatest contribution has been the audit we recently 
conducted in December 2009 of both Tri-State Oversight Committee (TOC) 
and WMATA. This audit enabled us to identify priority actions to 
support both agencies in strengthening their safety programs. TOC and 
WMATA recently submitted their initial plans for addressing the audit 
findings and we believe positive steps are being taken as a result of 
our action. Moving forward, FTA has planned quarterly meetings on-site 
with WMATA and TOC to review their progress in addressing and closing 
our audit findings.
    In terms of technical assistance, through the Transportation Safety 
Institute (TSI) FTA has provided safety training, including training on 
internal auditing and hazard management on site at WMATA in late 2009. 
We are currently working with WMATA to schedule additional training 
deliveries for their employees in the next few months including the 
following courses.
  --Instructors Course for Rail Trainers
  --Current Trends in Transit Rail System Safety
  --Transit System Security
  --Effectively Managing Transit Emergencies
  --Transit Rail Incident Investigation
  --Transit Rail System Safety.
    In June, FTA is bringing a new Track Inspection Refresher Training 
Workshop to WMATA with three offerings. This 2-day workshop is designed 
to reinforce critical skills and safety practices of employees in 
WMATA's track inspection program.
    FTA has also participated with WMATA, TOC and the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) in supporting WMATA's Roadway Worker Protection 
Working Group to overhaul and improve WMATA's existing rules and 
procedures for protecting workers on the right of way.
    In terms of funding, the Passenger Rail Improvement Act of 2008 
authorized a special appropriation for WMATA of $150 million per year. 
Congress appropriated as much in fiscal year 2010 and FTA requested 
funding for fiscal year 2011. Under this program, the Secretary will 
use his authority to approve grants to ensure that available funds 
first address WMATA's most critical safety needs. Maintenance and 
repair needs are also addressed through formula grants funded from both 
the Urbanized Area and the Fixed Guideway Modernization programs. These 
grants are in addition to the $150 million appropriation.
    Regarding the Tri-State Oversight Committee's oversight, we 
recognize that the current three jurisdiction committee organization 
presents challenges to the TOC in effectively carrying out its 
important safety oversight mission. It has suffered from inadequate 
resources, lack of authority and lack of permanent technical staff.
    The Obama administration's Public Transportation Safety Act of 2009 
that was submitted to Congress this past December will address these 
and other shortcomings of the current SSO framework on a National 
basis.
    As far as TOC's current status, we appreciate that the Commonwealth 
of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia have 
come together to address some of the challenges TOC confronts with its 
current legal and organizational structure. In response to an FTA 
finding from the December audit, TOC jurisdictions have created a TOC 
Executive Committee. This committee recently had its first meeting, and 
took action with both the WMATA Interim General Manager and the WMATA 
Board to request monthly safety reporting and to ensure that WMATA 
follows its hazard reporting and accident notification thresholds. 
These are good first steps.
    In addition, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Maryland Governor 
Martin O'Malley and Washington, DC Mayor Adrian Fenty recently released 
a white paper documenting their proposal for enhancing TOC's existing 
authority and resources. Phase 2 of this plan calls on the 
jurisdictions to create a distinct legal entity--the Metro Safety 
Commission--that would have additional authorities beyond the existing 
program.
    The best long term solution to the problems faced by TOC and the 26 
other SSO agencies around the Nation are for Congress to take prompt 
action on the Obama administration's safety reform proposal.
    Question. In January, the Department announced it will now consider 
other important factors in addition to reduced commuting time when 
evaluating new transit projects. Cutting commuting times is clearly 
important, but this change signals a more holistic approach that 
considers the impact on congestion, the environment, and local 
economies. All contribute to making the places we live and work more 
vibrant and sustainable.
    When will the draft rule to be made public?
    Answer. FTA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(ANPRM) in the Federal Register on Thursday, June 3, 2010, asking for 
public comment on how to change the way major transit project proposals 
seeking Federal funding are rated and evaluated.
    Question. How will this change affect the importance of cost 
effectiveness when the Department considers future transit projects?
    Answer. Cost-effectiveness will continue to be evaluated as one of 
the six statutory project justification criteria, but will not be the 
only consideration in making funding recommendations. Through a 
rulemaking, FTA will develop measures for better capturing the 
environmental, community and economic development benefits provided by 
transit projects, including a revised cost effectiveness measure that 
will recognize these benefits. This Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRN) will invite feedback on what benefits should be 
included in the evaluation process and issues related to baseline 
alternatives, travel demand modeling, and New Starts and Small Starts 
streamlining. The New Starts and Small Starts projects funded in the 
fiscal year 2011 budget were selected using the current project rating 
criteria. The earliest any revised rating criteria could be utilized 
would be for the fiscal year 2013 budget.
    Question. What is the Department's opinion on allowing transit 
agencies discretion to use transit assistance funding for operating 
costs during these difficult economic times?
    Answer. Secretary LaHood has stated that DOT will work with Members 
of the House and Senate this year to see if we can allow transit 
agencies more flexibility to use a portion of their Federal funds to 
cover operating costs during these tough economic times. However, he 
has also stated that this cannot be open-ended, and that such 
assistance would be temporary, not the normal course of business.
    Question. What is the estimated capital needs backlog of transit 
systems?
    Answer. There is no one single estimate or a simple method to 
determine the capital backlog needs of the Nation's transit systems. 
That said, we know that transit agencies in general are facing 
significant funding shortfalls. For example, an April 2009 FTA report 
to Congress identified a $50 billion repair and replacement backlog at 
the seven largest rail transit agencies in the country. Moreover, when 
you expand the universe from the 7 largest rail operators to 690 
separate rail and bus systems, the estimated funding shortfall to bring 
the entire transit system in a state of good repair grows from $50 
billion to $78 billion.
    FTA is proposing to merge its Bus and Bus Facilities and Fixed 
Guideway Modernization programs into a new $2.9 billion Bus and Rail 
State of Good Repair program to better address the tens of billions of 
dollars in rail and bus transit assets that are in marginal or poor 
condition. The funding request represents an 8 percent increase above 
the equivalent 2010 appropriation, which is significantly more than is 
proposed for most other FTA programs--all in a budget that increases 
funding for the FTA by just 1 percent.
    Question. Transit rail passenger cars purchased across the United 
States are relatively unique. A few cars can be used on different 
systems, for example, Virginia Railway Express (VRE) can use Chicago 
Metra commuter cars, but many others are designed specifically for 
their systems' infrastructure and preferences. This uniqueness may 
increase the costs to procure transit rail cars as it results in 
smaller orders, sometimes limiting the economies of scale that could be 
obtained from larger orders.
    Has FTA considered supporting efforts to increase standardization 
in rail cars or new systems, to help keep the cost of transit rail cars 
down? Why or why not? Might this also have safety benefits?
    Answer. FTA is supporting the efforts of the American Public 
Transportation Association (APTA) in developing consensus standards for 
the North American rolling stock industry. APTA, as a Standards 
Development Organization (SDO), has developed standards for commuter 
rail cars, light rail vehicles, buses, and other rolling stock funded 
in part by FTA. While FTA encourages the use of these standards by our 
grantees we do not have regulatory authority to require their use.
    FTA's financial assistance has also enabled APTA to support 
development of rail car crashworthiness standards by another SDO--the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
    Conceivably standardization in rail cars and new systems, such as 
improved crashworthiness standards and crash avoidance systems, will 
have safety benefits, but there may be additional costs associated with 
achieving standardization, at least initially.
    FTA is statutorily prohibited from directly establishing transit 
vehicle standards. As a result, FTA has been unable to implement 
recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board related 
to transit vehicle crashworthiness, event recorders and other vehicle 
safety features. As a result of this limited authority to improve 
safety, Secretary LaHood delivered the Obama administration's 
legislative proposal entitled the Public Transportation Safety Act of 
2009 to the Congress this past December. We take this opportunity to 
urge Congress to take prompt action on this proposal.
    Question. Has FTA taken steps to support transit agencies' efforts 
through joint procurement, etc? If so, what are some examples of these 
steps?
    Answer. Yes, in addition to supporting the APTA standards 
development efforts, FTA has conducted research into joint vehicle 
procurements and procurement incentive systems for our section 5307 and 
5311 Formula Grants. Specification standardization and joint vehicle 
procurements have been promoted by FTA on a limited basis with mixed 
results.
    FTA recently completed a study for Congress that included an FTA 
concept for a shared procurement for FTA funded rolling stock. See 
FTA's Report to Congress on the Results of the Cooperative Procurement 
Pilot Program at: http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/
publications_11548.html.
    Based on the results of the five completed final projects, FTA 
found the following:
  --The additional Federal share allowed in the pilot program did not 
        sufficiently induce greater use of pooled procurement;
  --Savings from cooperative procurement are more likely to be realized 
        by agencies purchasing a small number of vehicles. Agencies 
        already purchasing a significant number of vehicles are less 
        likely to achieve savings through additional economies of 
        scale; and
  --Difficulties in forming consortiums, the administrative burden 
        placed on lead agencies and the reluctance of the other 
        participating agencies to relinquish control over the process 
        to the lead agencies pose considerable obstacles to the use of 
        cooperative procurements.
    In an August 2008 study, FTA addressed joint vehicle procurements 
in its Report to Congress on Incentives in Federal Transit Formula 
Grant Programs, http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/
publications_8674.html.
    Some of the findings from this report were the following:
  --Barriers and difficulties that contributed to the limited 
        implementation of these procurement systems include:
    --Transit Culture.--``Agencies Believe They Are Unique . . . The 
            agencies are justifiably proud of their corporate cultures 
            and heritage, and their pride may have many positive 
            effects. However, if the industry is to realize the full 
            benefits of standards, the systems must weigh their 
            traditions against the benefits of standards and make the 
            collective effort that is necessary to settle on safety 
            standards and adhere to economical design standards.''
    --Joint procurements involve significant administrative efforts 
            because the agencies must reconcile their requirements and 
            practices to each other's.
    --Conflicting legal issues, differing operating requirements, and 
            differing professional opinions must be resolved.
    Question. What other options or authorities might FTA consider 
seeking to reduce transit railcar costs?
    Answer. As mentioned previously, FTA has focused on developing 
standards and specifications to reduce the capital and operating costs 
of new rail vehicles. In recent years, FTA has funded APTA's efforts to 
develop technical requirements for the design and procurement of new 
LRV type vehicles. APTA is responsible for coordinating and managing 
this effort.
    Question. On September 10, 2009, FTA issued an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking on capital project management. FTA is considering 
whether to require some type of financial plan for all fixed guideway 
capital projects. Further, it is considering the extent to which it 
should use Project Management Oversight Contractors (PMOCs) to oversee 
projects other than Major Capital Projects (those costing $100 million, 
among other requirements). Finally, transit properties over time have 
indicated that Federal oversight can increase the time, and thus the 
cost, it takes to build a new rail transit line or extension.
    How will these potential changes impact the PMOC and FMOC budgets 
as well as the funds necessary to oversee PMOCs and FMOCs?
    Answer. Several items included in FTA's ANPRM on capital projects 
management were aimed at soliciting comments and suggestions from the 
industry on how to improve overall project management of major capital 
projects based on experiences to date. FTA is currently reviewing input 
provided by stakeholders as it prepares the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, and has not determined what additional oversight, if any, 
is necessary. Looking ahead, FTA will consider resource requirements 
for its oversight program as it develops its fiscal year 2012 budget.
    FTA oversight of public transportation systems is necessary to 
safeguard the taxpayer's investment. FTA has designed its oversight 
process to minimize the intrusion on grantees while protecting tax 
payers' dollars. One tool that has provided tangible benefits is FTA's 
risk-informed project management system, which assists grantees in 
identifying costly risks at a stage of development which subsequently 
allows grantees to mitigate those risks and avoid enormous costs. The 
latest innovation by FTA is the incorporation of the New Starts 
Engineering Workshop into our outreach program. This workshop is 
designed to provide a roadmap for prospective and existing capital 
project sponsors on how to prepare for FTA's project management 
oversight review process. FTA believes that outreach of this kind will 
assist the grantees in being better prepared to make quality submittals 
and shorten the time it takes for oversight reviews.
    Question. FTA is proposing that funding guidelines for major 
transit projects be based on livability issues such as economic 
development opportunities and environmental benefits, in addition to 
cost and time saved, which are currently the primary criteria. This 
would change how projects are selected to receive Federal financial 
assistance in the FTA New Starts and Small Starts programs. In making 
funding decisions, the FTA will now evaluate the environmental, 
community and economic development benefits provided by transit 
projects, as well as the congestion relief benefits from such projects.
    Will the proposed changes in economic development criteria increase 
the number of projects that may be eligible for New Starts or increase 
the back log?
    Answer. Because the New Starts program is a complex program and the 
new criteria under development have not been finalized, it is not 
possible to predict how potential changes to the evaluation criteria 
would impact the number of projects eligible for funding in the future. 
That said, the aim of making these changes is to more fully recognize 
the various types of benefits that are generated by investments in 
transit services and to ensure that all prospective projects receive 
due consideration.
    Question. How will FTA determine the value of the economic 
development opportunities and community and environmental benefits when 
making funding decisions?
    Answer. As announced by Secretary LaHood on January 13, FTA plans 
to use the rulemaking process to better capture in its evaluation and 
rating process the wide range of benefits New Starts projects can 
provide. On Thursday, June 3, FTA published an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register asking for public 
comment on how to change the way major transit project proposals 
seeking Federal funding are rated and evaluated.
    Question. In October 2008, FTA issued a report ``Transit State of 
Good Repair: Beginning the Dialogue'' highlighting the importance of 
maintaining the condition of our transit and the fact that much of 
existing bus and rail assets are in poor or marginal condition. The 
fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $2.3 million for bus and rail 
state of good repair program activities (along with decreases in fixed 
guideway modernization and bus and bus facility grants).
    How does FTA plan to implement this ``program'' and distribute the 
funds, and how would it differ from the way funds in the existing 
programs are distributed?
    Answer. Under the proposed State of Good Repair program, funds 
would be distributed by formula. Though the specifics of such a formula 
have yet to be developed, the goal would be allocate funds to both rail 
and bus transit systems by formula. FTA looks forward to working with 
Congress on developing the program as Congress begins work on 2011 
appropriations legislation.
    Question. How will this program help rail transit agencies replace 
aging transit car fleets?
    Answer. One of FTA's highest priorities is to maintain our Nation's 
transit assets in a state of good repair (SGR) so they can provide 
safer and more efficient service. This new focus will involve 
emphasizing the SGR activities in our existing programs, initiating new 
activities to address unique local needs, and providing analysis 
products that will help decisionmakers better understand their options 
for managing the condition of their aging infrastructure. Accordingly, 
for fiscal year 2011 FTA has proposed to merge its Bus and Bus 
Facilities and Fixed Guideway Modernization programs into a new $2.9 
billion Bus and Rail State of Good Repair program. The funding request 
represents an 8 percent increase above the equivalent fiscal year 2010 
appropriation, which is significantly more than is proposed for most 
other FTA programs. The fiscal year 2011 budget also requests $4.61 
billion for the Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program for allocation of 
funds to urbanized areas (UZAs) around the Nation for maintenance and 
capital investment in bus and rail systems.
    We also very much appreciate that in fiscal year 2010 Congress 
supported FTA using $5 million in research funding to help improve 
transit asset management practices. This critical funding will fund 
enhanced data collection, asset management, technical assistance, and a 
pilot SGR project. Because FTA is currently exploring how transit 
agencies should implement SGR practices, it has not determined whether 
having an asset management plan should be a necessary criterion for 
receiving Federal funds.
    Question. What is known about the effects of aging infrastructure 
on rail transit safety?
    Answer. Rail transit is statistically among the safest modes of 
transportation. A rail transit passenger is over 100 times less likely 
to be killed in an accident than is an automobile passenger. That said, 
FTA is aware that there is a backlog of rail transit infrastructure 
maintenance and renewal. FTA's previous study of the seven largest rail 
transit systems estimated a $50 billion shortfall, but did not 
correlate the investment shortfall to safe operations. There is an 
obvious intrinsic correlation and transit agencies must carefully 
manage their operations and maintenance to keep the system safe in 
spite of aging infrastructure. If done properly, this will affect 
frequently service before it affects safety. For example, track 
infrastructure may have more defects as it ages, but operations can 
continue safely at lower speeds. Given the extent that rail transit 
operators are relying on older equipment and capital stock, the need to 
enact transit safety legislation is all the more urgent.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Bond. Well, with no further questions, the hearing 
stands--is in recess.
    And March 11 at 9:30, we'll take testimony from Secretary 
Donovan on the budget request for 2011 Housing and Urban 
Development.
    [Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., Thursday, March 4, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. Thursday, 
March 11.]
