[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-823
IMPROVING AND REFORMING OUR NATION'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS TO
SUPPORT JOB CREATION AND THE ECONOMY
=======================================================================
JOINT FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 23, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-228 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 23, 2011
Mica, Hon. John L., U.S. Representative from the State of Florida 1
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 2
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., U.S. Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 5
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, U.S. Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 5
Brown, Hon. Corrine, U.S. Representative from the State of
Florida........................................................ 6
Shuster, Hon. Bill, U.S. Representative from the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania................................................... 7
Richardson, Hon. Laura, U.S. Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 8
Harman, Hon. Jane, U.S. Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 9
Chu, Hon. Judy, U.S. Representative from the State of California. 10
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., U.S. Representative from the State of
California, prepared statement................................. 113
WITNESSES
Knabe, Hon. Don, chairman, Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transportation Authority; and Los Angeles County Supervisor,
4th District, County of Los Angeles............................ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Villaraigosa, Hon. Antonio R., mayor, City of Los Angeles........ 20
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Czyzyk, Joseph A., chair, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Hunter, Robbie, council representative, Los Angeles/Orange
Counties Building & Construction Trades Council................ 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
McKim, Cindy, director, California Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS)..................................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Phillips, Kathryn, director, California Transportation and Air
Initiative, Environmental Defense Fund......................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Kempton, Will, CEO, Orange County Transportation Authority....... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Summary of Goals and Projects, December 20, 2010............. 63
Heminger, Steve, executive director, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission..................................................... 67
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and
Revenue Study Commission, January 2008..................... 74
Mayer, Anne, executive director, Riverside County Transportation
Commission..................................................... 82
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Brochure, The 91 Project..................................... 88
Statements:
Brummett, Ronald E., executive director, Kern Council of
Governments................................................ 115
Pringle, Curt, chairman, California High-Speed Rail Authority 120
Pulaski, Art, executive secretary-treasurer, California Labor
Federation................................................. 123
Knabe, Don, chairman, Metropolitan Transportation Authority.. 125
Leslie, Mary, president, Los Angeles Business Council........ 126
Hale, Debra L., executive director, Transportation Agency for
Monterey County, CA; chair, American Public Works
Association (APWA)......................................... 143
Lowenthal, Bonnie, chair, Assembly Committee on
Transportation............................................. 150
Rafter, Tracy, CEO, Rafter Group, Inc., Los Angeles County
Business Federation (BizFed)............................... 152
Foster, David, executive director, BlueGreen Alliances....... 155
Partners, BlueGreen Alliance................................. 156
Mayer, Anne, executive director, Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC), articles................157-160
Krause, Daniel, executive director; Stern, Ryan, board
member; Gimbel, Michael, member, Californians for High-
Speed Rail................................................. 161
Ham, Robert E., director of Intergovernmental Relations,
County of Imperial, CA..................................... 164
McKim, Cindy, director, Department of Transportation, State
of California.............................................165-175
Burns, Michael T., general manager, Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority..................................176-189
Dillard, Joyce............................................... 190
Styers, Paul, Con-way Freight................................ 193
Phillips, Kathryn, director, CA Transportation and Air
Initiative, Environmental Defense Fund..................... 194
Various transportation members and supporters, February 11,
2011......................................................198-203
Okerblom, Eilene, Santa Maria, CA............................ 204
Tietz, Tom, executive director, California Nevada Cement
Association...............................................206-208
Vandermost, Phil, vice president of Marketing & Government
Relations (on behalf of FP2, Inc.).............. 209
Lodge, Steve Chavez, director of Public Affairs, Hill
International.............................................. 213
Garcia, Rodrigo, vice president, Associated Professionals and
Contractors (APAC); chairman of the board, Hispanic
Engineers Business Corporation (HEBC).....................214-216
Hubsmith, Deborah A., director, Safe Routes to School
National Partnership....................................... 217
Mejia, Genaro, PE, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 219
Gosnell, Jim, executive director, West Coast Corridor
Coalition.................................................. 221
Fox, Andrew, P., mayor, City of Thousand Oaks, CA............ 223
Wang, Karin, vice president, Programs & Communications, Asian
Pacific American Legal Center; Porchas, Francisca, lead
organizer, Labor/Community Strategy Center and Bus Riders
Union; Walton, Gloria, executive director, Strategic
Concepts in Organizing & Policy Education (S.C.O.P.E.);
Henderson, Wade, president and CEO; and Blackwell, Angela
Glover, founder and CEO, PolicyLink........................ 227
O'Sullivan, Terence M., general president, Laborers
International Union of North America....................... 233
Lantz, Alexis, planning and policy director, Los Angeles
County Bicycle Coalition................................... 237
Natural Resources Defense Council............................ 240
Rothman, Roland (Rolly), Rothman Engineering, Inc.,
Professional Engineers in California Government............ 245
Cohen, Laura, western regional director, Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy................................................ 249
Gallegos, Gary L., executive director, San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG).................................... 251
Kemp, Jim, executive director, Santa Barbara County
Association of Governments (SBCAG)......................... 260
Diaz, Cesar, legislative director, State Building and
Construction Trades Council of California.................. 262
Greenwald, Peter, senior policy advisor, South Coast Air
Quality Management District................................ 264
Mesnikoff, Ann, director, Green Transportation Campaign,
Sierra Club................................................ 268
St. Amant, David, president and chief operating officer,
Econolite Group, Inc....................................... 272
The Labor/Community Strategy Center and the Bus Riders Union. 275
Giuliano, Genevieve, Ph.D., vice president, Research
Education and Training Reauthorization Coalition (RETRC)... 279
Friedrich, Tami, board member, Citizens for Reliable and Safe
Highways (CRASH) and California volunteer coordinator,
Truck Safety Coalition..................................... 282
Knatz, Geraldine, executive director, The Port of Los Angeles 286
Lindsay, Betsy A., president/CEO, UltraSystems Environmental. 295
Goldsmith, Russell, chairman, The Los Angeles Coalition...... 298
Spohn, Hon. Tim, city council member, City of Industry,
California, and chairman, board of directors, Alameda
Corridor-East Construction Authority....................... 301
IMPROVING AND REFORMING OUR NATION'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS TO
SUPPORT JOB CREATION AND THE ECONOMY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. House of Representatives,&I06Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure,
Los Angeles, CA.
The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 8.35 a.m. at the
Brentwood Theater, 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Hon. John L. Mica
(chairman of the House, Committee on Transporation and
Infrastructure) and Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works) presiding.
Representatives present: Representatives Mica, Shuster,
Brown, Napolitano, and Richardson.
Other Representatives present: Representatives Harman,
Hunter, and Chu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. MICA, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I would like to welcome you to a
joint hearing today of the U.S. House of Representatives and
the U.S. Senate. The committee in the House is the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; in the Senate, the
Environment and Public Works Committee. This is a meeting of
two full committees of Congress and a bicameral, bipartisan
hearing.
So with that, I would like to welcome you, get everyone
settled here, our witnesses, and Members of Congress.
I am Congressman John Mica and I chair the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
There are a few more folks coming in here.
The purpose of today's hearing is to take testimony and
listen to public comments relating to major transportation
legislation, reauthorization that will be considered by both
the House and Senate shortly.
Let me first say thank you so much to my co-partner in this
endeavor. We both have important responsibilities and I have
already had the pleasure of working with your U.S. Senator who
chairs the counterpart committee in the U.S. Senate. She has
been absolutely delightful to work with and most cooperative in
this new enterprise of the House and Senate working in an
unprecedented fashion. So I thank her. I am pleased to be in
her State. Let me yield to her first.
The order of business will be after hearing from your
Senator and my co-partner, I will introduce the members for a
brief opening statement that have joined us today, and Ms.
Boxer will recognize the witnesses that we have before us.
So with that, thank you again for hosting us here today and
for this unprecedented joint House/Senate hearing.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORINIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Chairman Mica. It is
indeed a pleasure to welcome you to California. The chairman
was saying he got stuck in some traffic since he has been here,
and I said, welcome to California, to Los Angeles. That is why
we are so happy to have you here. We did not set that up. We
get this at every hour. The other day I said, well, why is it
so crowded? It is 2 o'clock. We realized 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock,
1 o'clock--we have work to do when it comes to moving people
efficiently. That is what, of course, brings us together.
I want to thank all the other Members of the House who are
here. We are so thrilled to have you and all the witnesses. It
is a wonderful witness list. It shows how unified we are on
this issue of a robust transportation bill.
I know you are going to hear from Congresswoman Harman.
This is maybe her last official bit of responsibility as she
moves on to other challenges. But, Jane, I will miss you and I
welcome you here today.
Although colleagues in Congress differ on some issues--I
would say many--we all agree that we have to create more jobs.
We have to accelerate our economic recovery. We believe--all of
us coming from different parties and different places on the
spectrum--that now is the time to roll up our sleeves and get
to work on a transportation bill. The chairman and I agree it
ought to be a 6-year bill.
Surface transportation improvements will definitely create
jobs in the construction industry. Is Bettina here? Did we
bring those signs with us? Do we have people to hold them up?
Oh, OK.
I want to do something that is rather unusual. At one of
our hearings in Washington, Mr. Chairman and members, we were
told by one of the union representatives that we could fill 20
stadiums the size of the Cowboys stadium where the Super Bowl
was played recently with unemployed workers for a total of
nearly 2 million people. That created a very powerful image in
my mind. So when you are all out there--I know it is sort of
hard to do. If you could turn around and show the Members of
Congress what you are showing the audience; 20 of these. Look
at that. Each dot represents a human being. That is how many
unemployed construction workers we have. In California, we have
about 10 percent of those. So it is really a shocking thing,
and we wanted you to see it.
Thank you, all of you, who helped with that.
One of the most effective and far-reaching ways to create
jobs is to fix our Nation's outdated infrastructure, and we
need to do it to remain a No. 1 economic power. Our
transportation systems used to be the best in the world, but
investments have not kept up with the needs. We are falling
behind. Again, we have to move people. We have to move goods.
Now, Mr. Chairman and members, I do not know if you are
aware of this, but 45 percent of all containerized cargo
destined for the continental U.S. passes through our ports here
in California; 45 percent. That number is going up. Traffic
through west coast ports alone is predicted to triple by 2035.
Now, this means economic growth, and we are all for economic
growth. But we have to be prepared for it, and we expect that
freight handled by trucks is expected to double during that
same period.
These delays have a ripple effect across our Nation, and we
know that when the delivery of goods gets tied up, just like
you, Mr. Chairman, get tied up in traffic and I do, this is an
absolute cost of business and it is an absolute cost to our
health because of congestion and all the things that we face.
The time delays and the health problems that come from this are
just unacceptable. We foul the air we breathe. We create safety
concerns. The California Air Resources Board attributes 2,400
premature deaths to diesel emissions, and it estimates that the
health costs of diesel emissions could be as high as $200
billion by 2020.
So when you look at all these factors and you put them
together, it says to me--and I hope it says to everybody here--
we have to put aside lots of our differences and move forward.
By reducing congestion, we are going to improve air quality and
our public health. We are going to move traffic. We are going
to help business, and it is going to be a very smart thing to
do.
You may have heard that Chairman Mica and I decided to sit
side by side at President Obama's State of the Union Address
last month. The President was very happy to see us sitting
together. This may not seem to be a big deal to any of you, but
believe me, forever we have been sitting separate and apart,
Republicans and Democrats. But we decided to try something
different, and it was really good because we started to talk to
each other. We had already met in my office. We are truly
working together, and I am also working very closely with
Senator Inhofe, my ranking member on the committee.
Now, I will tell you, last week we had an amazing hearing,
Mr. Chairman. We had Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue
sitting next to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, and they
together sat side by side. Now, these are two guys who are on
the opposite sides of so many issues and opposite sides of so
many elections. They sat side by side with the same message. We
have to have a robust transportation system if we are going to
compete in the global economy.
In closing, I want to talk a little bit about why I am so
thrilled that you are here, Mr. Chairman, with members of your
committee and others, in Los Angeles. You are going to hear
from people today who have come up with a tremendous way to
leverage our funds, and that is the key. We all know what has
happened to the Highway Trust Fund. We know how tough it is to
keep the money flowing. So the notion of leverage is so
important.
When the mayor and the supervisor came and with them all
the labor and management all together, saying there is a way
that we can take Los Angeles transportation initiative where
people voted to tax themselves--a sales tax--for specific
projects, and if the Federal Government can step up to the
plate and frontload those dollars, we can begin to move forward
and complete all of these projects in 10 years rather than 30,
put all those people to work, get lower prices because right
now we know that you can get much better deals because of this.
The sad truth is we are in this recession. The construction
industry is down. When they came to me with this idea, I
embraced it immediately because it was really a no-brainer. How
smart is that?
So we are able to give Los Angeles in this first tranche of
funding the ability to get a $500 million loan, and the cost to
the Federal Government is $20 million. Now, why is it so cheap?
Because there is an absolute stream of funding that we can
count on at virtually no risk to taxpayers.
So we started looking at the TIFIA program. We used it. My
idea going forward--and there are many ways you could do this,
but I love the fact that TIFIA is already in the law and we can
expand it and move forward with this as a model.
So I want to thank my friends in Los Angeles in local
government because it is a brilliant idea. I really believe
this. The chairman and I are already discussing how we can make
this better.
So this is a joint hearing. By the way, this is a rare
moment. We do not do this a lot. It indicates our shared view
that there is an urgent need to improve the Nation's crumbling
transportation systems to get our economy back on track. I am
so delighted to be here today with my counterpart in the House,
and I look forward to hearing from him and from everybody here.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. Thank you so much. Thank you again for your
leadership in the Senate on this important issue.
I might add too that this is a series of hearings that we
planned, and we are going across the country. We have been in
Columbus, Ohio, Indianapolis, Chicago. We were up in Oregon,
over in Vancouver, Washington, Fresno yesterday, here, again
graciously hosted in a cooperative joint hearing with Senator
Boxer. We leave today. We will be in Oklahoma, Tennessee,
Arkansas, back in Florida. Then we have several more that we
plan to finish.
The purpose of the hearings and the series of hearings is
to solicit input from people who deal with the Federal
Government on transportation issues and seek their
recommendations. That is the reason we are here.
The first of the hearings we actually did in Beckley, WV,
and Mr. Rahall, who is the ranking Democrat, the Democrat
leader of the committee--in his hometown district. So we are
trying to make this a truly bipartisan, bicameral effort.
Thank you again.
The order of business, as outlined, we will continue with.
First of all, I ask unanimous consent that members not on
the committee be permitted to sit with the committee at today's
hearing, offer testimony, and ask questions. Without objection,
so ordered.
We are pleased today to have a very good turnout, some
members of our committee and some from the area.
Let me take first the liberty of recognizing one of the
individuals who is a great leader. I have been out in her area
on another project. But Grace Napolitano, Representative
Napolitano. I will recognize each of the members for several
minutes of commentary or opening statements. You are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a great
pleasure being here.
Talk about transportation. I left my house almost at
quarter of 7 this morning, and I got here late. So you
understand the issue that we have is very, very pronounced.
Part of what we deal with in our area, Mr. Chair and
Honorable Senator, is that we do not have enough mass
transportation for the working class in my area. You understand
that when you see people that are driving more and more cars
because they have to get to work or they have to get where they
have to go.
Being on this committee now for 12 years--well, for almost
3 years now--has been a great opportunity for us to be able to
see the inner workings, how do we work with the local entities.
We worked with Mr. Kempton, Mr. Knabe, and sometimes Mayor
Villaraigosa to find out how can we be more effective in
getting the funds to do the projects like the expansion of
Santa Ana Freeway which is a three-lane. It is called the
biggest parking lot in the sky. It just creates a lot of
environmental problems for the communities.
So there are many, many areas that we want to ensure, like
the movement of freight to the rest of the Nation that comes
out of the ports, 40-45 percent of the Nation's goods. Those
are the issues that we face at least in my area. I can tell you
that I see some of my adjoining members that also face these
challenges.
So I look forward to hearing some of the input, and thank
you again for being so generous and coming to our area. I just
wish it had been a little closer to my house.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Let me recognize another Californian who is a member of our
committee, new on the committee, but we are pleased to have
him, Duncan Hunter, the gentleman from California.
STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Duncan Hunter. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Boxer,
great to be here.
This is my first year on this committee. I got on it for
two reasons because I am from San Diego and there are two
things that we really care about. That is infrastructure and
water. I think those are two very important things that San
Diego shares with L.A. Water infrastructure. People want to
have clean drinking water,and they want it cheap. They also
want to not be in traffic all day long every day like we see
here in Los Angeles.
We also have an opportunity, I think, to expand the
maritime shipping lane, shipping things from San Diego, for
instance, all the way up to Washington State, relieving
congestion on the roadway and actually shipping goods north
along the coastline.
It is just great to be here.
What we need to learn how to do is obviously leverage
private dollars with public dollars. The furthest down that we
can push projects so that you are able to leverage them
locally, that is what is important and that is the way that we
are able to make sure that these projects are efficient and
effective and that they do not waste money because they have
oversight by people who actually have jobs on the line, and
that is private industry for the most part.
So it is great to be here. Thank you for having me and I
look forward to the testimony.
Mr. Mica. Thank you so much.
Now let me yield to the gentlelady from Florida. She is the
immediate past chair of the Rail Subcommittee and current
ranking member of that subcommittee in the House.
Ms. Brown.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORRINE BROWN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Mica and Chairwoman Boxer,
for holding this hearing today.
I also want to say that one date that you all had--me and
Mr. Mica talked about that during the opening of the session. I
made it quite clear that one date don't constitute a marriage,
but it seems like we are moving along in the right direction.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Brown. I am really happy about that.
Senator Boxer. I will be sure and tell my husband you are
not threatening.
Mr. Mica. I will tell Pat too. The bed is already crowded.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Brown. Let me just move on. I want to thank Los Angeles
for hosting this hearing--the mayor. I think Los Angeles is a
perfect place to have this hearing because you all have every
mode of transportation, and without the port in Long Beach and
the port in L.A., the United States would not have the goods
and services they need.
I arrived last night and I was in traffic for over an hour
just going from a short distance. So I understand the real
challenges that we face in this area.
I also understand that one additional lane will not help
us. We have to come up with ways to move people, goods and
services.
When I travel around the world, they always ask us about
our freight rail. You all have done some very innovative things
here with the port. I am always asking them about their high-
speed rail.
I have to tell you that it is very painful for me to be
here today because in the next couple of days you all will
probably benefit from the hard work that we have, and we will
lose our money for high-speed rail and you will probably
receive it. I am so distressed. But I know that you will
leverage it and you know that for every billion dollars that
you receive, it will generate 44,000 permanent jobs. So you
will be able to put some of those construction people to work
that my Florida with our Governor--no vision, no leadership.
I want to thank you all for having us here, and I am going
to leave as quickly as I can.
Senator Boxer. Could you tell us what you really think?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Brown. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Mica. Well, we can clean the record up a little.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mica. Do not forget we have to go back there, Corrine.
Let me yield at this time to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. He currently chairs the Rail Subcommittee in the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the House.
Mr. Shuster.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL SHUSTER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Chairman Mica and Chairman Boxer,
for having us to California.
I hail from Pennsylvania, rural Pennsylvania. People ask
why do you come to these big cities when you do not have the
kind of problems that Los Angeles and New York and other places
face. But people sometimes fail to realize that what happens in
the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach affects us
east of the Mississippi. I think the number is about a third of
what comes into the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach go east
of the Mississippi, end up in Pennsylvania in some of our
stores. So the movement of goods, movement of people affects
the entire Nation. So that is why I am here. That is why I am
on this committee, to try to improve transportation and the
infrastructure for all Americans because it does affect us.
Today I look out here. I know everybody here used a mode of
transportation or used the system today to get to where we are.
But even at home a housewife sitting at home feeding her
children, when she goes to get that milk out of the
refrigerator, it came from a farm. It went to the grocery
store. It got to the house. So every day we are affected by the
transportation system, and we need to make sure that we are
improving it.
I applaud Chairman Mica for this tour. We have been
together now for 5 days in about six or seven cities--I have
lost count--but going around the country, hearing the problems,
and making sure people understand that we are going to have to
do more with less. The dollars just are not there. But I think
what we have heard across this country, as we have traveled, is
that we can do things differently to speed up the process, and
when you save time, time is money. When we look at the way that
some of the States are able to use their dollars and use those
dollars five and six times as much, as opposed to when the
Federal Government gets involved, we have to streamline the
process. It was mentioned by Senator Boxer to leverage our
dollars with Federal dollars, State dollars and private
dollars. That is extremely important for us to do and
streamline the process.
So I appreciate you folks being here today in our panels. I
am looking forward to hearing what they have to say. We will go
back to Washington and try to make this thing work better for
all Americans. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
Let me yield to another Californian and a very
distinguished member of our committee. She was with us
yesterday in Fresno, so her second California hearing. Laura
Richardson, Ms. Richardson, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAURA RICHARDSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Richardson. Thank you very much. Madam Chairwoman,
Senator Boxer, and Mr. Chairman Mica, first of all I want to
say a special thank you for you coming to Los Angeles. You
could have gone to any cities in this State, but the fact that
you chose to come here--we appreciate it and the leadership
that you have shown.
I happen to be one of only two Democrats on the
Transportation Committee that actually represents Southern
California with Congresswoman Napolitano. So we have a
tremendous responsibility not only as Democrats but I believe
we are the only two members in Southern California who are
actually on the committee as wall. So we have a heavy lift, and
we look forward to all of your comments today.
Yesterday, as Chairman Mica said, in Fresno we got an
earful. We heard concerns about NEPA and CECWO, which I worked
on legislation on and look forward to working with the chairman
and the chairwoman on.
We also heard about utilizing funds, HMT, which have just
been wasted and not been fully utilized.
Then finally, having a national goods movement strategy,
which has really been a lifelong effort on my part that we have
devoted legislation on as well.
Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, all of
your concerns. Mayor Villaraigosa and County Supervisor Knabe,
you have been to us and you have talked about the 30/10, and I
think to hear it firsthand with these two very important
chairwoman and chairman is going to be critical to our success.
To Mr. Kempton, you know I view you as the guru of the
State of transportation that we can all learn from. So I look
forward to your comments.
Then finally, our new chair of the L.A. Chamber who happens
to be a businessman in my district of general aviation--I look
forward to hearing from all of you.
So as I conclude, I just want to say that this bill is a
bipartisan bill. It is a bicameral bill. We are here because we
want to get it done and we want to get these roads and bridges
and things taken care of.
Finally, to my colleague in Florida, Congresswoman Madam
Ranking Member Brown, we accept transplants from Florida
anytime. So you are welcome here.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you so much, Ms. Richardson.
Now, while she is not on the committee, it is someone I
have the greatest respect for. We came early together to
Congress, and she is leaving now. She will provide great
leadership where she is destined to go now, but I will tell
you, you could not have a finer Representative in Congress,
more intelligent, determined, and someone who has contributed
so much. She is the ranking member of the Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Intelligence and serves on Energy and Commerce.
But I am just delighted.
Did you not say, Ms. Boxer, that this may be her last
hearing?
Senator Boxer. Official.
Mr. Mica. Official hearing. I salute you, Jane Harman, and
recognize you.
[Applause.]
Mr. Mica. Jane.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Harman. Thank you all. This is true, that this is my
last congressional hearing, and I have to say that
participating in the first bipartisan, bicameral hearing in Los
Angeles is the best going-away present anyone could give me.
Chairman Boxer and Chairman Mica are the mass transit dream
team, and I predict that they will finally bring the Green Line
to LAX.
[Applause.]
Ms. Harman. In 2 minutes, let me just make a few points.
First, the 30/10 initiative is a brilliant idea. Our mayor
and his team deserve enormous credit for conceptualizing it.
With unemployment in the area's construction trades at almost
40 percent, this plan can create 165,000 jobs in Los Angeles
starting now.
But it is not just about Los Angeles. This initiative has
the power to transform infrastructure financing throughout the
Nation, creating a million jobs, good, high-paying, much-needed
construction jobs.
Second, the Government should not do this alone. We all
understand why printing more money and increasing the deficit
are dangerous. So what the Federal Government can do, should do
is help bring private money to the table. Public/private
partnerships, so-called P3's, are the way to bring about
innovative financing. I have discussed this with Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood in many meetings that I have had with him,
and he and his team are actively pursuing it. He and others
tell me that Los Angeles can be the template for the Nation.
There are several ways that this can happen. One is through
TIFIA grants. These grants were inspired by the successful
public/private partnership of California's Alameda corridor. I
applaud Chairman Boxer and Chairman Mica for your willingness
to explore expanding and adapting TIFIA. In my view, TIFIA
should be amended to make private capital investment easier.
There are also bond programs that could interest investors.
For instance, QTIP allows program financing to come directly
from private sources. The Federal Government's role is then to
provide a tax credit for all or a portion of the interest on
these bonds. I have heard that QTIP may be dead but wonder if
this private capital feature is well enough understood. This
gets me to my third point.
Let us get U.S. banks and investors involved in these
projects. Foreign banks often play a major role in public/
private partnerships, but there is no reason that domestic
banks should not play a major role. I know that some are
interested. Let us get them involved.
Finally, in closing, I believe no jobs program pending in
Congress is more important than making this innovative
financing a reality, and I hope that my successor, whoever she
or he or may be, is listening.
Senator Boxer, thanks for your personal comments and to
you, Congressman Mica, as well. I depart Congress on Monday
knowing that this issue is in good hands.
Mayor Villaraigosa, supervisor, and MTA Chair Don Knabe,
our local congressional delegation, including hopefully my
State of the Union date, David Dreier, Denny Zane, Maria Elena
Derazo, and many others have put together an incredible local
coalition here in Los Angeles. Working together on a
bipartisan, bicameral basis, it is sure clear to me that, yes,
we can.
[Applause.]
Mr. Mica. Thank you so much again for your comments and for
your service. We are truly going to miss you come Monday.
Let me introduce another Californian who is not on the
committee but has taken time to be with us. She serves on the
Judiciary and Small Business Committee, the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Chu. Welcome, and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Chu. Thank you so much, Senator Boxer and Chairman
Mica, for holding this very important hearing here in Los
Angeles and for inviting me to attend. Although I am not a
member of the Transportation Committee, transportation is one
of my highest priorities.
I truly believe it is one of the highest priorities for my
constituents on the entire Southland. It is so important that
here in November 2008 Angelinos overwhelmingly passed Measure
R. Can you imagine during a recession residents agreed to tax
themselves more?
Clearly we here in L.A. recognize the need for better, more
efficient transportation in the county's largest area. Measure
R will raise $35 billion and help complete 12 different transit
projects connecting millions across this county. Our region
desperately needs this investment. I am so proud that Angelinos
are ready and willing to pay for it.
But it is important for the Federal Government to recognize
all the work we are putting into building a truly 21st century
transportation system for the Nation's most congested county.
For decades, the Federal Government acknowledged the need for
public transit investment, but current policy only requires the
projects to put up a 20 percent local match, and that does not
take into account any previous local investments made in the
transit line. Areas that offered a greater match or have
invested more heavily in the system received no reward for that
work, and I think that is really a mistake.
Rewarding local investment would help projects like the
Gold Line Foothill extension which I understand Chairman Mica
personally visited with Chairman Dreier just a few months ago.
The county has invested $1.5 billion in building the first two
phases of the project which will have created 14,000 jobs.
After that, we will need a fraction of that amount to complete
a line that goes from downtown L.A. all the way out to the
county line.
But the 30/10 plan is truly important. Thanks to Mayor
Villaraigosa and Chairman Knabe, this is a great plan that will
allow us to complete 12 Measure R transit projects in 10 years
instead of 30. It will allow L.A. to leverage our local dollars
and speed up our construction by decades. With the Federal
Government's help to augment this serious investment in local
transportation, we can create over 915,000 private sector jobs
in just a decade.
Hopefully, we can come away from today's hearing with one
thought, that we can make our Federal dollars stretch further.
That is why the new authorization bill should recognize and
reward dedicated local investments like Measure R and help us
build projects like the Gold Line and complete the 30/10 Plan.
With the Federal Government's help, we will create jobs, reduce
construction costs, relieve traffic congestion, and eliminate
hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollution every year. This
type of reform will encourage other areas to follow our
footsteps. When local communities raise their own money, the
Nation and the taxpayers truly get the most bang for the buck.
So I thank you for allowing me here today and I look
forward to the testimony.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you.
I think that concludes our members.
Let me just make a couple of quick comments. First of all,
I thank again Senator Boxer for helping assemble the witnesses
and other members who have asked witnesses to come forward. We
have a pretty extensive two panels here. We are pleased to have
you.
In the previous hearings that we have held, I have asked
that individuals not read a written statement, but rather offer
to us the provisions they would like to see in or out of the
law and the legislation that we will be drafting.
When we leave here, on the House side--and Senator Boxer
has talked about what they are going to do on the Senate side--
we are going to draft legislation that will determine some of
the important components of, again, how our policy is set forth
for, hopefully, the next 6 years. Foremost in that, of course,
is the financing. If we had all the money in the world, we
would not have a problem. We probably would not even be here.
But we do not and we are in some tough economic times.
So we have to do a couple of things: first of all,
stabilize the trust fund. I do not know exactly how we will do
that, but it has to be done. The second thing is there is a
great deal of money not going out that is in different
accounts. Governor McDonnell of Virginia came in and found $1.5
billion. We need to find every dollar available for
infrastructure and good projects and get it moving. If it is
anywhere in the system or has not been expended, that is
another source of funds.
The other thing is there are programs that now work, some
of them well, some of them not well. The Senator and I have
already discussed TIFIA. I think Mr. Inhofe and others, Mr.
Duncan--if we have programs like TIFIA that work, maybe we can
even make them work better. So we want ideas specifically on
how we can do these things.
People ask for more money or raising taxes. In the rail
realm that Mr. Shuster and Ms. Brown have a say over, we have
$35 billion in a RIF account, sitting in a RIF account not
being used--Railroad Infrastructure Financing. So looking at
programs that we have now, I need your suggestions how to make
that work, if it is a good program, make it work better, and if
it does not work, make it work.
So financing is a key. Ms. Harman just spoke to public/
private partnerships. If we define those, give us the
definition of what we should have in the law that would make
the best possible relationship, not to give the store away to
the private sector or some corporation, protect the public
interest, but to make that work. If we are going to do
infrastructure banking, GARVEE bonds, revise Build America,
whatever it takes, we need those suggestions and we need them
post haste.
The other thing I will close with is the process. We have
heard it over and over--and I hear it in Washington. We just
heard it on the road. Projects that should take months are
taking years. The Federal Government gets involved and the
timeframe goes up dramatically.
Then the other problem we have is the cost escalates, not
to mention that the problem you also have with these mega-
projects is that the players change. We have a game-changing
situation in Florida right now with a new Governor. This would
have been a done deal, but now we are into our third or fourth
Governor. Governor Bush worked with previous Governors on some
things. You had Schwarzenegger who was a very strong proponent
of transportation infrastructure initiatives. So we have to
compress that time also, consolidate some of the programs that
we have.
So those are my points.
I am pleased to be here. I have a great partner to work
with. Ms. Boxer has already reached out in an unprecedented
fashion, and that is why we are here today.
So with that, let me yield the chair to her to take the
balance of the meeting, recognize our witnesses, and thank her
again and your staff. Everyone has been just great in helping
us put this together. Thank you.
Senator Boxer [presiding]. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you
again for your generous remarks. I do want to thank staff, your
staff and mine. They are phenomenal. These things look easy
when they come together, but there are so many parts to the
puzzle.
So we are going to get right to our witness list. We have
nine witnesses. It is a bipartisan witness list. It is business
and labor sitting next to each other. This is all good for the
message we want to send out of today's hearing.
So I would ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full
statements be included in the record. Is there objection?
[No response.]
Senator Boxer. Hearing none, that will be the case. We do
run a quick meeting here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. I would also say you can read your statement
or not read your statement, but the bottom line to us is you
give us great ideas. I mean, 30/10 came from you. So if you
have any more like that up your sleeve, this is the moment to
tell us.
So we are going to start. At the request of the mayor, we
are going to call first on Hon. Don Knabe, chairman, Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Los
Angeles county supervisor of the 4th District, County of Los
Angeles. As a former county supervisor, you do us proud. So
welcome, Mr. Supervisor, and please begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON KNABE, CHAIRMAN, LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERVISOR,
4TH DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Mr. Knabe. Good morning, Chairwoman Boxer and Chairman
Mica. It is my privilege to welcome you to Los Angeles County,
the largest county in the United States of America. We are
honored to have you here in this historic bipartisan effort of
transportation infrastructure.
So I would just like to outline a few things on our
perspective as it relates to the next surface transportation
bill.
But before I do that, just sort of a brief idea of why
there is congestion at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and 3 o'clock
of the organization that I am honored to serve as chairman. We
are the third largest public transportation agency in the
United States. We are responsible for all transportation
planning, coordination, design, construction, operations, bus,
subway, light rail, bus rapid transit, and the services for all
of our 10 million residents here in Los Angeles County in the
4,000 square miles. We partner with Caltrans and Metrolink to
support a very extensive HOV and commuter rail network. We are
also undertaking major improvements to our region's highway
system. We are a very important part of the Nation's goods
movement, as you know, and in my own district, I have the Ports
of L.A. and Long Beach, as well as the Los Angeles
International Airport. Our Metro service is about 1,500 square
miles of service. Over 200 bus routes, 75 miles of rail lines,
over 400 miles of carpool lanes that crisscross this great
county. We have over 9,000 dedicated employees and an annual
budget that exceeds $3.5 billion.
But as it relates to policy issues, I think--the mayor and
I were sort of commenting that our testimony might be redundant
because we have heard some very positive things from the
members that they were talking about.
First of all, we need to recognize the importance of non-
Federal investments in transportation. That is State, local,
and private. Every time we go to Washington, the Feds tell us
to come back with a revenue source. Well, the voters of this
county, Los Angeles County, have responded three times in the
last 3 decades to tax themselves for transportation
improvements, and these three taxes, taken together, amount to
about $1.5 billion annually. To date, the Federal Government
has really largely turned a blind eye to the local leadership
shown by this agency and local taxpayers, along with others
like us across the Nation. The current surface transportation
program neither recognizes nor rewards this kind of priority
policy or incentivizes other metropolitan areas to do the same
thing.
We worked very hard to put this program together. We have
been advancing, and we would like to continue to suggest two
very innovative financial concepts that would really help
leverage local transportation. We call them ``smart Federal
dollars,'' and we say smart Federal dollars because these funds
coming in an era of a financially stressed Highway Trust Fund,
as has been mentioned already this morning, make the most of
existing dollars.
We strongly believe that the smart, targeted, and
innovative financing mechanisms can achieve two national
priorities: minimize the impacts on the Federal budget and
maximize the generation of new private sector jobs,
particularly in the small business sector and particularly here
in Los Angeles County where we have an unemployment rate of
close to 12.7 percent.
A new Federal approach to financing, if it is incorporated
in the next surface transportation bill, will leverage projects
at the State and local levels that can achieve these
priorities. Our two priorities would be one that we have been
talking to all of you about. It is one of qualified
transportation improvement bonds and, two, the enhanced
Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act
program, TIFIA, which we have outlined in greater detail. I
will not bore you with all the details in our written
testimony. We believe this is a very sound approach, and the
fundamentals of this proposal offer a very reasonable and
prudent path for Federal policymakers who like all of us and
all of you are struggling to craft a strong and meaningful
surface transportation bill in a very demanding fiscal
environment.
It is very difficult to outsource a construction job or a
transportation project here in America. Whether that project is
a light or heavy rail project in Southern California or a
highway improvement in Montana, the Federal Government's
investment in transportation projects is an investment in
America.
So taken together, these proposals really, I think, hold
the promise of reinvigorating our Nation's infrastructure,
creating close to over 900,000 jobs nationwide without
burdening the Federal Government with a very large bill.
As you prepare to craft this new surface transportation
bill and reform what needs to be reformed, we truly believe
that both the House and Senate be mindful not to discard
programs with a proven track record, programs such as the New
Starts program have assisted many jurisdictions like Los
Angeles County to address congestion and environmental problems
while demanding a very significant non-Federal investment. If
you are looking for a model in the future, we believe this is
it. We should not be talking of eliminating this program. We
should be discussing creative ways to expand its approach and
how that can serve as a model for other parts of the Federal
program, and we are a willing partner in that. We need to use
the power of the Federal Government to help leverage Federal
and non-Federal sources of money.
I need to make it clear. I am not saying that we need a new
Federal program for loaning money or a new Federal
infrastructure bank. We here in Los Angeles County just do not
need the Federal bureaucracy picking winners and losers. That
just does not work for anyone. We need flexibility. We need
self-determination and the power to access federally subsidized
financing to make these projects possible.
Last, I want to make sure I say this. Our strong and
sustained support for leveraging local dollars does not in any
way mean that we want to diminish existing Federal assistance.
You have been a good partner. We continue to want to work with
you.
We appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this very
historic joint hearing and thank you for your time and
attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knabe follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.004
Senator Boxer. Supervisor, thank you very, very much for
that.
Next we call on Mayor Villaraigosa. We are delighted to see
you here, and we thank you for visiting us in Washington--you
and the supervisor and others--and giving us this 30/10
concept.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA, MAYOR, CITY OF LOS
ANGELES
Mr. Villaraigosa. Thank you, Madam Chair, Chair Mica, and
Members of Congress. I rarely come to a hearing where I see as
many Members of Congress as are present today, and I think
because there is an agreement, a bipartisan agreement, on this
issue of transportation investments and infrastructure. It is
not a Democratic or Republican idea.
By the way, Chairman Mica, I think I told you yesterday,
but for the rest of you, while it may be novel in the Congress
for Democrats and Republicans to sit together, the first thing
I did when I was Speaker of the California State Assembly,
because of the partisanship that we had there in Sacramento,
was sit Democrats and Republicans together. Both took umbrage
with that action. By the way, they have been doing it now for
13 years, and I am very proud of that because I think when
people sit together, they get to talk and they realize they
have a lot more in common than they do differences. Sometimes
in politics we spend a little too much time on the differences.
With respect to this proposal, let me say a couple things.
First of all, you all mentioned the traffic in this county,
and yes, it is true. We have the worst congestion in the United
States of America. But, as Chairman Knabe mentioned, the
taxpayers of this city and of this county, because we have the
worst congestion, taxed themselves a penny and a half over the
decades to investment in transportation infrastructure. In
fact, when we put Measure R on the ballot, it was the middle of
the recession. One ofthe Congress Members, Ms. Chu, was
actually in the legislature at the time. She knows we barely
passed the legislation to put it on the ballot by one vote in
both houses. I was there day after day trying to get those
votes. There was a great deal of opposition at the time,
interestingly enough, and yet, on a bipartisan basis across the
county, the people said they wanted to make these investments.
I think when you think about the fact that it was in the middle
of a recession that they did that, it shows that the taxpayers
of this county recognized that we have to address gridlock,
ngestion, the air quality that comes with it.
Now, the chairman asked and both chairs asked that we be
specific. I have a number of comments I was going to read, but
instead, I do want to focus on what I would like you all to
consider.
First, we have to increase the budget authority for the
TIFIA program, I would suggest, from $122 million to $375
million or higher. TIFIA has been a successful program. It
needs additional funding. When I was in DC at one of the
hearings that Senator Boxer chaired, Senator Inhofe delivered a
letter saying that we have to dramatically increase the TIFIA
program because of the leverage opportunities that come with
it.
Second, we need to increase the share of project costs that
TIFIA can cover. Right now, we can only use TIFIA for about a
third of the project costs. We propose allowing TIFIA to be
used for up to 49 percent of the project's cost.
Third, allow the DOT to make an up-front, conditional
credit commitment. This is like getting preapproval for a home
loan. It would allow DOT to preapprove projects to receive
TIFIA funding, provided they went through all the necessary
environmental clearances.
On that score, let me say something else that is not
related to TIFIA, but is related to accelerating programs. I
think we need to have a concurrent environmental review, not
consecutive. Let me tell you why. We actually have tougher laws
than the Federal Government here. So for us to have our
environmental review, then yours, it just adds time to a
project. That just does not make sense. It is the kind of thing
that we do, all of us, that just does not make sense.
Fourth, we need to allow the DOT to make a commitment to a
program of related projects. Currently the DOT can only make a
TIFIA commitment to one project at a time. Our change would
allow DOT to make a commitment to several related projects at
once.
Finally, we need to allow the DOT to offer a limited
interest rate hedge to projects that received an up--front
commitment, in other words, preapproval. Just as homeowners can
lock in on an interest rate and even buy down a point or two of
their mortgage interest, this would allow the DOT to use some
of the TIFIA budget to lock in an interest rate or buy down a
point or interest for projects that had received preapproval.
I want to acknowledge all of the Members who are here but
particularly Jane Harman, Congressmember Harman, who mentioned
30/10.
One of the things that we have said to the Congress when we
talked about the 30/10 plan, which would accelerate our transit
projects from 30 years to 10, and create 166,000 jobs here in
this area--by the way, the county unemployment rate is 12.5.
The city of Los Angeles is 14.5 unemployment rate. It would
create 166,000 jobs, save 10 million gallons of gas, reduce
carbon emissions by 500,000 pounds a year, increase transit
boardings by 77 million.
Now, if we did this across the country, because this is not
an earmark--this is a template for infrastructure investment
across the Nation--we would create 922,000 jobs, according to
the L.A. Economic Development Corporation, a nonprofit,
independent--it did not come from the Mayor. It came from a
nonprofit, independent organization that looked at what this
program could do across the country with the amount of money
that I am talking about in TIFIA. If we did a quality bond
program as well, that could add and leverage, at a time of high
deficits and debt, the money that we need for infrastructure
investment.
Finally, I want to say to both chairs, that we are in full
support. We need to stop extending and we need a
reauthorization bill that really addresses America's
infrastructure needs.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we
have a $2.2 trillion need over the next 5 years. For
transportation alone, it is $546 billion. So this is an
important way, another financing tool for us to create jobs,
get people to work, and importantly, leverage what localities
are doing.
Since we last talked, Madam Chair, both Chairs, Chairman
Mica, I now have 60 mayors behind this from the last meeting
with you in Washington. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has
unanimously come out in support of this effort, but 60 of them
have signed on and said, we want to participate. So there is--
and by the way, Republican and Democrat--broad bipartisan
support for this idea.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Villaraigosa follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.009
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mayor.
Now we are going to hear from the chair of the Los Angeles
Area Chamber of Commerce. I want to make sure, Joseph, I say it
right. Is it Czyzyk?
Mr. Czyzyk. You got it. That is right.
Senator Boxer. All right. Mr. Czyzyk.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. CZYZYK, CHAIR, LOS ANGELES AREA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
Mr. Czyzyk. Chairman Boxer and Chairman Mica and
distinguished Members of Congress, my name is Joe Czyzyk and I
am the chairman of the Board of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of
Commerce. We are the largest business organization in Southern
California. It is a privilege for me to appear here before you.
First, allow me to thank you for bringing this important
meeting here to our city, to Los Angeles.
Second, a quick word about our history, which is an
extensive one. It was the L.A. Chamber of Commerce back in 1890
that presented a resolution to Congress and hosted interested
Members of the House and Senate for a tour of what we
envisioned would become the Port of Los Angeles.
Today, our Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the
largest in the Nation and are the backbone of trade with Asia.
Our ports are a result of collaboration between business and
our Federal Government.
Let us not forget our LAX, the largest origin and
destination airport for passenger use and the second largest
air cargo airport in the United States, all built on a 1960s
structural model with only one major improvement in 1984, and
that was 27 years ago.
This morning, you will hear about ways to kick-start
vitally needed infrastructure projects here in Los Angeles
County and across the Nation. Together we can once again become
collaborators in improving our Nation's dated infrastructure.
You know this without me saying it: better transportation
drives jobs. Getting goods to market faster and people to work
more efficiently is critical to our Nation's economic recovery.
Here in Los Angeles, we are committed to reducing
congestion, repairing and modernizing our infrastructure, and
improving our environment and quality of life. With Measure R--
and you have heard a lot about it and you will consistently
throughout this day--in 2008, which the Chamber, our business
organization, fully supported--we fully supported a tax
increase, if you can imagine that. A Chamber of Commerce--and
worked to help pass, the region is committed to investing in
our transportation system.
In our city's history, businesses collaborated with our
local officials, the environmental community, and labor, a
coalition that again sits in front of you today united in
support for a program to accelerate the development of those
Measure R projects.
Our county's voters did their part by taxing ourselves. Now
Washington must do its part. Innovative financing tools from
the Federal Government will stretch tax dollars further without
any major impact to the Federal budget.
Of course, we have all been talking about TIFIA. So by
enhancing and expanding the current TIFIA program, the Federal
Government will meet the positive demand to finance
transportation projects and create much-needed new jobs. A
flexible TIFIA program is needed that can move forward
individual projects or a unified collection of projects. I am
told that an enhanced TIFIA program could see as much as a 33
to 1 return. So by investing $1 of Federal money, as an
interest-free loan against our infrastructure bonds locally, we
can put up to $30 to work.
Senator Boxer. Could you say that one sentence again?
Mr. Czyzyk. By investing $1 of Federal money, as an
interest-free loan against our infrastructure bonds, we put as
much as $30 to work.
As a business owner, that makes good sense to me. I wish I
had that kind of return in my business. This is the kind of
collaboration we need from Washington.
Specifically, the L.A. Chamber of Commerce recommends an
increase to the TIFIA funding cap to reflect current demand.
Existing funding is sufficient. The program is severely
oversubscribed and eligible, high-quality and creditworthy
projects are being turned away. Increasing the funding cap will
help projects from California to Florida. That was for
Congressman Mica's benefit.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Czyzyk. This will accelerate transit construction. This
will put people to work.
Our Chamber also specifically supports something that we
have not spoken about, an increase to the airport passenger
facility charge by $2.50 to help fund the needed improvements
for our other airport called LAX. Why not finance improvements
like the rest of the world by charging the users? After all,
that is how the sales tax system works, and it is fair. It is a
fair way to raise funds.
In conclusion, it is important to recognize that almost 45
percent of the goods that line the store shelves, supermarkets,
and car dealerships around the other 49 and a half States--and
the other half is Northern California--of this country have
been offloaded from aircraft using LAX and ships docking at our
two ports here in Los Angeles, then using our roads and
highways to be transported to the rest of America. Our
infrastructure has taken a beating, partially for being the
goods movement conduit for America. We have stepped up by
taxing ourselves to improve our infrastructure for ourselves
and, unselfishly, for the rest of America. Now we need help
from the Federal Government to get our infrastructure into the
21st century.
Our Chamber will be in Washington, DC. the first week of
May for our annual Access DC trip. We have partnered with the
mayor, MTA, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, and
other groups to continue advocating for these critical
infrastructure investments during our visit, and we hope that
many Members of Congress will welcome our visit, those that are
here as well.
Please remember we have collaborated successfully before.
We need to collaborate again.
Thank you for coming here, and I appreciate the opportunity
to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Czyzyk follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.011
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Czyzyk. We look
forward to seeing you in Washington, and maybe by May we will
have a draft bill out and we will start moving on it.
OK. Our next speaker is Mr. Robbie Hunter, council
representative, Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building &
Construction Trades Council. Again, members, this is labor and
business sitting side by side, and I think that is a very
strong message.
Why do you not proceed?
Mr. Hunter.
STATEMENT OF ROBBIE HUNTER, COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE, LOS
ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTIES BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
Mr. Robbie Hunter. Chairman Boxer, Chairman Mica, thank you
for coming to California. The Los Angeles and Orange Counties
Building Trades Council represents 150,000 construction workers
and apprentices in the Counties of Los Angeles and Orange
County. These trade workers work for privately owned
construction companies in this area.
For decades, there has been an absolute need for commuter
transit and high-speed rail systems for commuters and commerce
in California. There have been upgrades and modernization in
some regions such as the Alameda Corridor, but these are few
and have been less effective due to the lack of a real grid and
extended support system that would maximize their potential.
The political, business, and labor leaders of the County of
Los Angeles and the city have made the decision that they
cannot expect the Federal Government to fix the gridlock in our
county and city. As a coalition, we stand ready and able to
play the lead role in paying for and moving these projects
forward, hopefully with the help of your committee.
The building trades worked closely with Mayor Villaraigosa
on Measure R and the Chamber of Commerce. At this time, the
construction costs--and we would ask that this committee would
fund to the level of $375 million. At this time, construction
costs are running at 20 and 30 percent below projections, and
this would be an absolute time for the Federal and State
government and the county to take an opportunity here.
The building trades and the construction industry in
California--we are running at 40 percent unemployment. There is
nothing better as a stimulus----
Senator Boxer. Say that again so everybody hears that.
Mr. Robbie Hunter. The unemployment rate among construction
workers in California is running at 40 percent, and there is no
better stimulant than to put a paycheck in a construction
worker's hands on a public works project. Remember, these
construction workers are working for private companies who do
the lowest bid, and the only way they are going to get the next
bid is do it once, do it right with the best trained workforce.
We have the absolute formula to make the grid here in
California a success. We are asking for funding to move this
forward. We will repay that funding from Measure R. The
taxpayers and the political and business leaders and labor
leaders of this area are united, and we are asking for your
help and your support.
I have a lengthy testimony which I will not submit, and I
appreciate not having to read it out. So thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robbie Hunter follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.013
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much.
Ms. Cindy McKim, director, California Department of
Transportation, or Caltrans. We welcome you.
STATEMENT OF CINDY McKIM, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
Ms. McKim. Thank you. Chairman Boxer, Chairman Mica,
distinguished Members of Congress, it is my pleasure to be here
today representing the State of California. We appreciate your
taking your time to come here to our State to seek input from
us.
I think that I do not want to repeat some of the key
strategies that Mayor Villaraigosa and the others on the panel
have already discussed. Suffice it to say that at the State
level, we certainly recognize the need to invest strategically,
improve project delivery, reward efficiency, and expand private
investment and the ability to use new, creative financing tools
for our projects.
One of the key issues that we have had here in California--
we are facing a huge budget deficit, as you all well know, and
those kinds of budget deficits make transportation funding
extremely erratic. Nothing bleeds project delivery efficiency
than funding that comes in stops and starts. We certainly
encourage you to do whatever you can to get a reauthorization
as quickly as possible. The continuing resolutions are,
frankly, kind of hurting us significantly, both at the State
and local levels.
Many of the projects that our regional agencies, our local
agencies are implementing are funded by a variety of funding
streams. It is very rare these days to see a project that is
funded by only one funding stream. I wish that were not the
case because it would certainly make all our lives more
palatable. But at the Federal level, you can have several
different Federal programs funding the same project on top of
several State programs, on top of several regional and local
programs. It makes trying to chase those dollars and administer
those funds increasingly expensive and inefficient. One of the
things we really have to do is get on top of it.
One of the things that we are kind of struggling with is--I
think that Congressmember Brown mentioned the Federal Railroad
Administration not being able to get the funding out to
projects. There is an opportunity, I think, for the various
Federal agencies involved to kind of work more closely together
and not have to recreate the rules. I think one of the problems
we are seeing, particularly with the Federal Railroad
Administration, is they are struggling to create the processes
that the Federal Highway Administration or the Federal Transit
Administration already have in place. So let us try to break
down some of those silos.
We recognize at the State level we need to break down some
of those same silos here. Over the years, what we have done in
transportation is put band aid on band aid on band aid to try
to deal with issues as they come up. It has gotten so bad that
now the blob is so full of band aids, you cannot see what is
underneath. Perhaps the budget issues that we have confronting
us will give us a unique and unprecedented opportunity to kind
of close our eyes and pull the band aids off and come up with a
way that we can really ensure and reward efficiency and
streamline project delivery.
We need to have a system that does not discourage
investment in maintenance and operation. One of the
shortcomings from my perspective at the Federal level--excuse
me--at the State level is we spend a lot of time getting
projects built, funding the projects to get them built, and we
do not provide adequate recognition of the ongoing costs of
maintenance and operation. That is one of the benefits of
public/private partnerships, I think, as the way to be able to
demonstrate that managing a project through its life cycle,
funding a project through its life cycle will result in
improved efficiencies. I think anything that you can do to kind
of reward that behavior would be of benefit.
We have talked about goods movement. We absolutely need to
have a goods movement strategy that works better nationally
because that is a key problem for us.
The next authorization has the opportunity to streamline
project delivery. We appreciate Chairman Mica's commitment to
speeding up the time it takes to deliver Federal projects.
Again, I think that we have an opportunity to do that by kind
of breaking down those silos between the various Federal
agencies. Extended processing time for environmental
clearances, Federal permits and reviews adds to the cost of
projects and delay mobility. We need to try to get more of
those reviews and permits issued on a concurrent basis.
California, I would like to point out, is the only State to
have fully implemented the NEPA delegation pilot program, and
that pilot program has saved us years in delivering projects.
We would like to see that pilot program made permanent so that
we can continue to achieve those benefits for Californians and
get the projects out more quickly.
We also would like to work to develop programmatic advanced
mitigation for natural resource impacts, a more corridor-based
approach, rather than the kind of project-specific mitigation
strategies that we have had. The opportunity to do that
mitigation banking.
Thank you very much for your attention, and if there is
anything I can do to help in this effort, please let me know.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McKim follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.018
Senator Boxer. Oh, there will be. We thank you very much.
Ms. Kathryn Phillips, Director, California Transportation
and Air Initiative, Environmental Defense Fund. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF KATHRYN PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA
TRANSPORTATION AND AIR INITIATIVE, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
Ms. Phillips. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me to this.
Thank you for holding this in California. Thank you for making
such an effort to make it a bipartisan, bicameral effort. I
think that that is extraordinarily important especially today.
I want to note that I am representing Environmental Defense
Fund and speaking for Environmental Defense Fund, but we are
also a member of Transportation for America, which is a
coalition of more than 400 organizations dedicated to
transportation system improvements and to bringing our system
up to a 21st century standard. So while my comments do not
necessarily reflect everything that every member would believe
in, I think you would find that there is an awful lot of
consistency with what I say. But I am not speaking for T4
today, but there are a number of T4 members in the audience.
I want to share a few thoughts regarding freight
transportation policy and also talk a little bit about the
National Environmental Policy Act.
But before I do that, I also wanted to make you aware that
aside from my professional interests that informs my testimony,
I am also informed by having grown up in a car-dependent
Southern California town with a father who was a long distance
truck driver and a mother who did not have a driver's license.
So I understood very early on that a reliable freight
transportation system is essential to the economy--it was
certainly essential to our household economy--and that the
availability of good public transit can make or break access to
every sort of opportunity. It was the way I got to school.
So on to freight. As has already been mentioned, freight is
essential to our economy, so I will not belabor that. But I
will note that the Port of Los Angeles alone provides about a
million jobs in the Southern California region and 3 million
jobs nationally. So if you take that and you just multiply it
across the country where we have rail yards, ports, hubs,
corridors, trucking distribution centers, so on and so forth
and logistics, you will see how important freight is to the
economy.
But it also comes with some heavy environmental costs. It
produces about half the Nation's smog-forming nitrogen
pollution and more than a third of the fine particulate matter
pollution. It is the leading source of toxic diesel soot and it
is one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas
emissions.
I want to also emphasize it is not just a California
problem. It is something that we see all over the country.
Even as the freight system drives the economy, its
pollution saps the economy. There has already been a mention of
some of the costs. Economists estimate that in Southern
California conservatively not meeting Federal ambient air
quality standards costs about $22 billion just in the L.A.
Basin. In the San Joaquin Valley, it is about $6 billion
annually. Can you imagine? You add that up and that is more
than California's current budget deficit. If we had that money
just for 1 year, what would that do? So it is very essential
that we cleanup the air pollution. In this basin, freight
system emissions linked to the Port of Long Beach and Los
Angeles represent the largest single fixed source of air
pollution.
Meanwhile, demand is growing, and it is overwhelming the
freight system. Reliability, especially in urban hubs, is
uneven at best, nonexistent at worst, and studies show that
freight users cite reliability as a key attribute to their
transportation choices, sometimes more important than speed.
They also--and this is I think really important--recognize
the need to reduce the system's environmental impacts. We have
brought together members of environmental justice, mainstream
environmental groups, freight system operators, freight system
users, and we are all in agreement that you need to do
something to reduce freight's environmental impacts to ensure
that you can continue to operate freight without any kind of
community demands for stopping freight activity.
So our sense is that if we simultaneously focus on
simultaneously modernizing freight and reducing its
environmental impacts, we are going to have a win-win
situation. We have seen some of that happen at the Port of Long
Beach and L.A. where they have been able to dramatically--they
have come up with a really aggressive Clean Air Action Plan.
They have been already dramatically cut ports emissions, and
they are still looking to the future to do other port emission
reductions.
Now, the Federal Government clearly cannot pay for
everything and solve all of these problems of needed
improvements in the freight system alone. However, that money
that we do spend, that the Government spends, it can invest in
the freight system smarter and help ensure that national goals
for the economy and the environment are met through the freight
system because it both costs money if we do not address both
things simultaneously.
I have provided some written testimony that lists a lot of
specific things, but I just want to mention a couple of them.
One is if within the bill----
Senator Boxer. You need to summarize really fast.
Ms. Phillips. If within the bill we define project
eligibility for the Highway Trust Fund spending in a way that
emphasizes system performance outcomes, then we will be in a
better place.
I want to very quickly just talk about NEPA.
Senator Boxer. Your time has run out. What do you want to
tell us? What are the top three things?
Ms. Phillips. The top three things on NEPA is it is
important to remember it is a coordinating tool. It is not the
law. It is the coordinating tool. That is really important, and
when it is applied properly, it brings all the community
interests and all the planning interests together early.
Second, few people are interested in delaying good
transportation projects that simultaneously provide that better
system and the better environmental outcome.
Third, while some people have suggested that removing
environmental review requirements or scaling back the
requirements will significantly hasten project completion, this
is not borne out by the limited research.
Really what is needed is exactly the kind of thing that has
already been raised earlier, and that is, for agencies to be
brought in as early as possible in the planning process, the
community to be brought in as early as possible. Then we do not
encounter the kinds of conflicts in the end.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Phillips follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.027
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much.
Next, Mr. Will Kempton, CEO, Orange County Transportation
Authority, who has been so helpful to me personally over the
years. So we welcome you.
STATEMENT OF WILL KEMPTON, CEO, ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
Mr. Kempton. Thank you, Senator.
Chair Boxer, Mr. Chairman, members, it is a pleasure to be
here. I am Will Kempton. I am wearing two hats today. I am the
chief executive officer of the Orange County Transportation
Authority, but I am also chair of Mobility 121, which is a
regional coalition of business and transportation agencies that
support a common transportation agenda here in Southern
California.
Let me just say at the outset we know you have a difficult
task. I think you will hear from my colleagues here today
understanding that. You will have to balance expectations with
the fiscal facts of life, and that is a tough task in anybody's
book.
I will say at the outset that we do support early action on
a 6-year bill and immediate extension of an authorization
through the end of this fiscal year. We are happy to know that
both chairs are in concert on that point. It is going to
maintain current programmatic levels through September. It is
going to provide some certainty, and when you are managing a
capital program, you must have that certainty, as the Director
of Transportation indicated.
So as Mr. Shuster said, you are faced with doing more with
less, but I think there are some opportunities in this process
as well. We see three specific opportunities: a way to increase
leverage, a way to be more innovative, and certainly some
reforms.
Self-help counties, the counties in California that raise
their own local sales tax, pay for transportation, have raised
billions of dollars for transportation. That is an example of
leverage. Our 6-year plan that we have provided you copies with
in the testimony costs about $3.7 billion, but 70 percent of
those funds are coming from the local level.
Innovation. You have heard about expanding and
institutionalizing TIFIA. We agree with the specifics that
Mayor Villaraigosa outlined. The 30/10 concept, Build America
bonds, GARVEE bonds, innovative financing will allow you to
stretch dollars.
Now, reform. I want to talk a little bit more specifically
about reform. We have an initiative known as the Breaking Down
Barriers initiative. It is in concert with Administrator
Mendez' Every Day Counts initiative, with the chair's 437 Plan,
consistent with the President's executive order, and with the
House resolution 72, and we are coordinating with the
environmental community on that plan because we do not want
this proposal to eliminate or minimize environmental
protections. So we will be working with State and Federal
environmental groups to make sure that that is accomplished.
We have about 2 dozen specific changes which we are going
to be making available to you all in about 30 days as we
finalize those changes, but let me give you some examples.
First of all--you have already heard about this--extending
and expanding the NEPA delegation. Five States granted that
authority under SAFETEA-LU. Only California took advantage of
it. As Ms. McKim indicated, time savings of 10 to 14 months per
project. We have quite a database of projects that have been
approved under this process here in California.
Do not let the planning process delay project
implementation, as it did during the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. Why could we not get money out more quickly?
Because we had to go back through the Federal process to
qualify projects for those dollars. There are ways that we can
fix that and we will recommend those to you.
Compress and overlap the sequential activities. If you look
at a bar chart that shows design, environmental review, design,
right-of-way, et cetera, those activities can be overlapped to
save time. We want to employ a prompt action provision. We are
working with the environmental community on this, but some
defined requirements for project-level reviews. If you can sign
a partnership agreement between the regulatory agencies and the
sponsoring agency, you can waive that requirement because in
that agreement you will agree to schedule and other activities.
Practical design, doing things a little bit cheaper. It is
not so much an emphasis on standards.
Extend the pre-award spending authority that exists on the
transit side to the highway side so that you can actually begin
activities sooner.
These are all activities that can be done to improve
project delivery, to get jobs out faster. The emphasis of our
role is breaking down barriers so we can create jobs more
quickly.
Madam Chair, I am happy to answer any questions at the
appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kempton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.037
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Kempton.
Next we are so pleased to welcome Steve Heminger, executive
director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Welcome, Steve.
STATEMENT OF STEVE HEMINGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, METROPOLILTAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Mr. Heminger. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is wonderful to be
surrounded by all these Southern Californians.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Heminger. I am also wearing two hats, as Will is, today
because, as you know, I also served and was privileged to serve
as a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and
Revenue Study Commission which was chartered by Congress to
give you some advice on this subject a few years ago. I think
our advice is still timely and I wanted to briefly summarize
that report in terms of three R's like we learned in school.
The first is reform. The second is restructuring, and the third
is reinvestment.
I do strongly believe still that what we need in our
Federal transportation program is a comprehensive reform. It is
not a reauthorization. It is a new beginning, perhaps not a
blank of sheet of paper because you have heard today there are
several programs that are worth building on, but I think it is
time for an entirely fresh look.
Let me mention two examples. One of them is how we select
projects. We still have a system that pretty much measures in
terms of how many projects did we build, how much steel did we
acquire, how much asphalt did we lay. What we really need to be
looking at is outcomes. How much delay did we reduce? How much
economic growth did we provoke? How much environmental benefit
did we provide? hat is the shift we need to make.
Second, in terms of project delivery, I could not agree
more with the things that Will has said. The Minneapolis bridge
that I know Chairman Mica has used constantly, a project that
took 13 months instead of the typical 13 years, which is the
average for the Federal Highway Administration. We do not have
a process that is stopping bad projects. We have a process that
is making good projects that we end up building, cost more, and
take too long.
An example in the Bay Area. We had a bridge, a new
interstate bridge, the Benicia Crossing, Senator. We moved that
bridge three times in the design process because the different
Federal agencies could not agree where they wanted it. That is,
in my opinion, where the nub of the problem is. It is not NEPA.
It is not CECWO. It is the permitting agencies, and they need
to get on the same page. I think in this authorization, you
really need to read them the riot act.
Second, restructuring. I think you were aware that our
report I think surprisingly found that there are 108 separate
program categories in the surface transportation law, and I
think it is fair to say that if you have 100 priorities, you
really do not have any at all. Our recommendation was to
consolidate down to 10 programs. The President's proposal,
released a few days ago, consolidates. I certainly hope you
will head in that direction.
My testimony covers what I would consider the holy trinity.
In terms of my three favorite recommendations, one would be a
program focused on rebuilding America, on fixing the
infrastructure we have built, a second on global
competitiveness, on goods movement and freight, and a third on
metropolitan mobility which would focus on the economic engines
that drive this country.
Finally on reinvestment, this is where we really are in a
pickle. As you know, the main funding source for this program
is a user fee, but for some reason we called it a gas tax I
guess just to make people mad about it. So we have taken a fee
and called it a tax. Now, it is an excise tax which means that
if you do not adjust the rate, inflation and fuel efficiency
gives everybody a tax cut every year, and that is what has been
happening. But none of you get credit for the tax cut. All we
do is have less money to spend on infrastructure. So it is the
craziest darned system that you could think of.
The level of that investment that we have in the next bill
is obviously one of your most important policy decisions. I am
not going to sit here and lecture you or suggest to you what
the right number is. Our policy commission did recommend a
significantly higher funding level, and I think the case that
we made for it is still strong.
But what is undoubtedly true is that we get the
transportation system that we pay for, and we are not paying
much for it now and it shows.
So let me conclude, if I could, as the Northern Californian
maybe with a Hollywood reference. I would like to go back to
the introductory remarks, and I think you both mentioned that
you were sitting together at the State of the Union. I could
not help think about the ending of Casa Blanca, you know, this
is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. I certainly hope
you write us a beautiful bill.
Thanks very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heminger follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.050
Senator Boxer. I wish I looked like Lauren Bacall too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. You cannot always get what you want.
OK. Our last speaker--and certainly not least--is Ms. Anne
Mayer, executive director, Riverside County Transportation
Commission.
For the benefit of our visitors, we have what we call an
inland empire, and this is what happens. They get the results
of--you know, we get the goods coming into Los Angeles and Long
Beach and they go through the country through the inland
empire. Now that my home is in Riverside County, I see the
results of what that means. We have huge trucks beating up
Interstate 10. The smog is fierce. It is really tough.
I am really glad you are here because we sometimes overlook
the inland empire, but no more. So we welcome you, Ms. Mayer.
STATEMENT OF ANNE MAYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Ms. Mayer. Thank you very much. That was quite a welcome,
Senator Boxer. I appreciate your comments about the inland
empire.
Chairman Mica and members of the committee, we certainly
appreciate the opportunity to join you today.
I am Anne Mayer, the executive director of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission, and like some of the others,
I am also wearing two hats today. I am the chair of the Self-
Help Counties Coalition in California, representing the 19
counties who have voter-approved sales tax measures to fund
transportation programs.
We had a lot of conversation today about TIFIA, and I will
sound a little bit like a broken record, but I think this issue
is so very, very important it bears repeated emphasis. For
agencies like mine and others throughout the country, who have
projects ready to go and who have our own revenue streams, a
very simple message. expand and enhance the TIFIA program now.
This program is far too limited for the massive amount of jobs
that can be created and the mobility goals that can be
achieved.
A couple of specific recommendations. The first one is to
expand the size of the TIFIA program immediately. It has a
tremendous return. You have heard discussions today. For every
dollar that is invested, you can get 10 times that in return in
leverage of locally sponsored funding.
Also, allow up to 50 percent of the project costs to be
covered by TIFIA, including 100 percent of the preconstruction
costs. Raising this cap provides flexibility for agencies to
finance large projects.
Third, ensure that TIFIA loans are made based on
creditworthiness and on the project's contribution to regional
and national mobility systems. Southern California's
transportation network is extremely diverse and complex. Yet,
each piece is dependent on the other, and together all modes
function as a system that keeps our region's and Nation's
economy moving. TIFIA should be responsible to all of them.
While San Bernardino may need a truck lane, while Los Angeles
may need a subway, San Diego needs a border crossing, Riverside
needs a major highway improvement, if one of these projects
does not happen, our whole system fails, and when Southern
California fails, the rest of the Nation fails. TIFIA cannot
prefer one mode over another and must remain true to Congress'
original intent: a financial tool based on creditworthiness for
projects with major impacts on regional and national mobility.
The final recommendation for TIFIA is to allow TIFIA
applications to pay some or all of the credit subsidy. Jobs are
delayed when creditworthy projects--creditworthy and shelf-
ready projects--are rejected from TIFIA because the program
budget is too small. Self-help counties like Riverside have
revenue streams that can supply the credit subsidy for
otherwise worth projects.
I believe all of these reforms would have broad support and
benefit countless projects, but there is a very real example
right here next to Los Angeles in Riverside County that I would
like to highlight.
The State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project is a $1.3
billion extension of the Orange County 91 express lanes through
one of Southern California's most notorious corridors. With a
TIFIA loan, using design, build, construction, this project can
go to construction next year, putting those workers Mr. Hunter
talked about back to work again. 18,000 jobs can be created. $2
billion worth of economic output can be generated for
California. We could save millions of gallons of gasoline and
save commuters time. All of these can be achieved with a
minimal Federal investment in a TIFIA partnership. I call that
a good buy, but when a project like this will need to sit on a
shelf because only four or five projects like it will be
competitive in a program with probably a good three dozen
applicants in a TIFIA round, that is certainly not a benefit
for any of us.
This issue is important, not only to those of us in the
transportation world, but also to those in the communities we
serve. Today, the Riverside Press Enterprise had significant
coverage on TIFIA on the 91 project, an editorial, an op-ed
piece written in a bipartisan fashion from Assemblyman Jeff
Miller, as well as Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal. We can see a
great deal of bipartisan focus on getting these jobs, getting
people back to work as soon as possible.
Another issue that I would like to briefly mention is the
issue of goods movement. We cannot let that go unnoticed. I
would like to highlight H.R. 526 by Congressman Ken Calvert.
This bill is also known as the ON TIME Act and provides a
sensible means of providing needed funding for goods movement
projects. You talked a lot today about needing a national
freight policy and developing a goods movement program. This
bill, as submitted by Congressman Calvert, and other bills like
it by many other Members, have gone to the wayside. It is
important that a bill of this type move forward so we can
address our goods movement challenges throughout the county.
In closing, thank you very much for conducting this hearing
in Southern California, and I appreciate your leadership in
addressing transportation policy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mayer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.062
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
What we are going to do now is I have a comment and a
question. I only have one question and one comment. Then I am
going to turn the gavel back to Chairman Mica to conclude our
hearing. We have about an hour to question the panel, which is
good.
So my comment is, first of all, I am so proud of every
witness here. I just have to say you just make me so proud to
represent this great State. The leadership that has come from
this panel, believe me, is noticed.
I do not think anyone disagrees with this, but I want to
sum up my feeling about this opportunity we have to expand
TIFIA. Frankly, I think, Mayor, your number is way too modest a
number because if we are going to do this on a national scale,
we have to ramp it up dramatically. Chairman Mica and I were
discussing this.
I want to particularly address this to my Republican
colleagues who are here. The beauty of TIFIA is the projects
are selected by the local people. They are the ones that say,
we need this and we are putting our money behind our ideas. Or
in some cases, it will be the private sector that says, we are
ready to build this, we need to get a loan to do it. You just
heard from our Riverside County witness, Ms. Mayer, about this.
So the beauty of TIFIA is it is not Washington saying what
ought to be done. It is the local people coming to us with the
resources.
As I view the next bill, as we look at all the problems
that we face, I thought, Steve, you expressed it very well on
how it is a bizarre situation with our revenues.
I will give you another example. More and more of us are
driving hybrid cars, electric cars. We are not paying any gas
tax. We are paying nothing, some of us, because we never go to
the gas station or we rarely go. It is not right.
We have to figure out ways. I do not have the answers. I
have ideas, but every one of them is controversial because it
is a new idea of a user fee. But we are going to try it.
But let us be honest here. In complete candor, the best
thing is for us to leverage the dollars we have because that
does not fend off any protests or problems. The TIFIA program
is so underfunded. So I am looking at this and I do not think
there is any disagreement, is there, on the panel, that this
TIFIA program is something we ought to work on?
So my comment is I am going to call on all of you as we
rewrite this law. I am very excited about it.
Again, I want to thank all of you who came to me on the 30/
10 because without that, I would not have focused so much on
it.
The only question I have to Ms. McKim is this because the
chairman and I want to know a little bit more about the NEPA
delegation pilot program. I am assuming what we did in SAFETEA-
LU is say that we would have a pilot program so that the States
could carry out the goals of NEPA. Is that correct? Could you
tell us exactly how it worked?
Ms. McKim. The NEPA delegation gives Caltrans for the State
of California the approval authority that previously rested at
FHWA. One of the other speakers mentioned the CECWO program
here in California is extremely stringent already. So we
already have a lot of built-in protections. So what it does is
eliminates a duplicate process and enables us to have the
approval authority here. FHWA does periodic audits to make sure
that we are not ignoring the key provisions. So that is what is
resulting----
Senator Boxer. OK. So just to sum that up, Mr. Chairman, we
have something that we tried here in California--they all seem
to think it is good--that said as long as you carry out the
goals of NEPA, there is no point in having all these agencies
coming in. It seems to me in our bill we ought to look at that
as long as the State protections are strong because we do not
want to give it to a State that has absolutely no environmental
protections. But anyway, I think this is another area where we
could speed things up.
Anyway, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart and
I will turn the gavel back to you.
Mr. Mica [presiding]. Well, thank you.
What we will do is hear from members. I have maybe a quick
comment and then a quick question or two.
I think we have heard some great ideas. We need to take
them back. I have offered to buy the beer and pizza for the
members to sit down. Actually I have expanded that to diet Coke
too or Pepsi, whatever preference--but sit down and take this
and try to----
Senator Boxer. You are in California. What about a fruit
shake?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mica. If I replied to that the way my brother-in-law
who lives near San Jose refers to fruitcakes in California----
Senator Boxer. No, that was not what I meant at all.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. I said a fruit shake.
Mr. Mica. OK. I am sorry.
Senator Boxer. Get it straight.
Mr. Mica. I did not say it.
Senator Boxer. Yes, you did.
Mr. Mica. We will have that fruit shake.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Actually, I will tell you I have been most
impressed both in Fresno where we were yesterday and today with
the quality of the comments and the positive manner in which
everybody has approached our important responsibility here.
First, I have to take a little liberty. You do not mind if
I ask the mayor if he swears to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. You do, do you not?
Mr. Villaraigosa. We do.
Mr. Mica. Oh, good. Then I have one quick question for you.
You will continue to help me try to bring fixed transit into
the Los Angeles Airport.
Mr. Villaraigosa. I actually was going to read that in my
comments, but you told me not to read. But yes.
Mr. Mica. He said yes.
Mr. Villaraigosa. Part of Measure R does include connecting
the airport with the Green Line. In addition to that, Ms. Gina
Marie Lindsay and our airport commissioner are looking at what
we can do to address the people mover issue that you raised
yesterday. Yes, I am going to go to Miami to see Miami Airport
as well.
Mr. Mica. I must apologize to you publicly because I do
give him a hard time every time I see him on that issue. But I
think it is important. We have 68 million people landing there.
It is one of the most important aviation centers in the world,
if not the United States, and we have to make certain it has
the most modern transportation connections. I pledge to work
with you on that. That is out of order, but I wanted to say
that.
Then let me turn to Ms. Phillips and also Ms. McKim. On the
environmental, now Ms. Phillips, you said something about
removing or repealing or cutting back environmental protections
that we have and a lot of people have worked hard for and feel
so committed to, which I think is important. But do you not
think there is room, one, for, say, certification similar to
maybe we have with a pilot project where you have environmental
laws that are as strong, if not stronger than the Federal
Government and not necessarily going back maybe
precertification on the environmental front? Not every State
has that or locale. But where that exists, not sort of
reinventing the wheel and going back on the Federal process.
Could you agree to something like that?
Ms. Phillips. Yes.
Mr. Mica. No lesser standard.
Ms. Phillips. Yes, no lesser standard. I will tell you that
when Caltrans was having to do the State legislation to allow
it to accept the delegation, we opposed but then we lost, which
often happens. As Caltrans proceeded to implement that
delegation, they made a really concerted effort at various
points to reach out to us to make sure they were doing the
right thing.
Mr. Mica. Do you feel that has been satisfactory?
Ms. Phillips. I do think they have satisfied it. So I think
extending that program makes sense. I do not think you would
want to weaken it at all, but I think extending. I think
California has been able to demonstrate that it works.
Mr. Mica. Well, again, the other thing too is we have done
projects. For example, let me just close with this.
The replacement of the bridge that collapsed between
Minneapolis and St. Paul. I was on the floor with Mr. Oberstar
the day that happened, and people were killed. There was this
unsafe bridge that was built 40 years ago. We replaced that
bridge in 437 days. I stood on the bridge 2 weeks before it
opened and said if we could do this project, we could do other
projects within the same footprint.
Now, from an environmental standpoint too, what took place
there is we--and from reconstructing the bridge--first, we put
a safer bridge in. We did not have a safe bridge and people
were killed. Forty years ago, they did not give a hoot about
polluting the Mississippi River, mitigation, any of the
environmental concerns that we have today. We actually
replaced--and it would take 7 to 8 years, they told me, just to
go through the normal process to get that new bridge in place.
We replaced that bridge in the same footprint 7 to 8 years in
advance. That means that we actually improved the quality of
the Mississippi. We put in mitigation, environmental
protections, and a safe bridge 7 to 8 years in advance.
So there has got to be benefit to the environment to speed
these things up again in the same footprint. I would hope that
you would be willing to work with us to shorten the time, not
to shorten the requirements or dilute them in any fashion.
Would you do that?
Ms. Phillips. Yes, because I think one of the things that
we are very interested in is what Mr. Kempton has been talking
about, and we have been working closely with him, a number of
environmentalists. I think there is an opportunity here to have
reasonable discussions and to come up with common sense
solutions that still protect the environment and do not delay
projects that are going to have long-term benefits.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you.
Let me yield, if I may, to--let me see. We have Ms. Brown.
We will go to Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. Thank you very much.
I guess I have a couple of questions because I am very
interested in two things. I do not know whether or not we need
to develop in the bill a one-stop superfund process to expedite
projects, super projects. It seems like you all have done some
of this and you are talking about it. I would like to know more
about it. I am sure you are going to give us the information in
writing.
Mr. Mayor, I just returned from Salt Lake City, UT, and I
was very impressed with their commuter rail. You know, it is
just an hour and a half from here. I just left there
yesterday--and how they are moving people and how 46 mayors up
and down the coast that worked together on these projects and
how they were able to expedite them in less than 3 years. So
those are the kinds of programs that we are looking at, how can
we expedite it and unify it. Other countries have done it, and
we have to be able to do it so we can put people to work.
I want more information about your 30/10 Plan also.
Mr. Villaraigosa. Well, let me just say we have talked a
lot about infrastructure--and that is important--and
transportation and moving people and goods. The other very
important and maybe the most important aspect of acceleration
of these kinds of programs and leveraging Federal dollars are
the jobs that they create, you know, when you are looking at
nearly a million jobs, by the way, with just going to $375
million.
I just want to make it absolutely clear I used that number
because I heard that was the number that there was a lot of
discussion around. We would support a much larger program than
that. Please understand that. I want to be clear about that.
[Applause.]
Mr. Villaraigosa. As you heard, on a bipartisan basis, both
Chairman Knabe and I believe that some kind of transportation
bond program makes sense as well.
Finally, let me just say--30/10. What it was was an
opportunity for us. Initially we were talking about L.A., and
then we realized this has application--just in the county,
there are 19 donor--what did you call them? Self-help counties
just in California alone. Across the country, there are a
number of localities that have taxed themselves this way that
are putting their investments. So 30/10, which we called our
initial proposal for L.A., is actually the template for the
national program. We incentivized localities to put up their
own money and we leveraged that.
Senator Boxer. Do you understand now what it is, what 30/10
is?
Ms. Brown. No, I do not.
Senator Boxer. She still does not quite get it.
Mr. Mica. I do not either and that is going to be my
question.
Senator Boxer. Just go back to square one like when you
explained it to me.
Ms. Brown. I know all of you all understand it.
Mr. Villaraigosa. Sure. Basically what the 30/10 Plan was--
with Measure R, we are generating $40 billion worth of revenue,
tax revenue, over a 30-year period of time.
Senator Boxer. Explain what the Measure R was.
Mr. Villaraigosa. Measure R was the initiative to tax
ourselves a half penny to expand our public transportation
system, repair our roads and highways, street repair, $40
billion generated with a half a penny over a 30-year period of
time.
The 30/10 plan was an opportunity for us that we said, how
can we accelerate? Because what was happening--in fact, today
driving here I was on the radio, and people want to know, well,
when is the subway coming or when are you going to finish all
of these projects that you promised? My response is, ma'am,
this was a half penny sales tax, not a 10 penny sales tax. So
it is not going to be done in 15 years, but in 30 years.
So we came up with a plan that says let us accelerate the
public transit portion of this program by leveraging Federal
dollars through a loan program or a bond program that would
accelerate the projects. It would reduce the costs because, as
you heard, the construction industry today has a 35 to 40
percent unemployment rate, and because a lot of those projects
would have been built 20 years from now or 125, you are
building them in a 10-year period. So you are saving money
there on both counts, one, because of the high unemployment
rate. Projects are coming in about 25 percent less than they
used to. So that was the idea, and that 30/10 Plan became the
template for this.
Senator Boxer. Representative Brown, basically what we are
doing at the Federal level, Congressman and Congresswoman, is
we are frontloading this program for very little cost,
virtually nothing, $20 million for a half a billion dollar
program, because you know that the people have voted this
stream of revenue. Virtually no cost to us. So you leverage
this by helping them get out there and start it now. It is a
brilliant notion, if I might say.
Ms. Brown. Let me ask a question. Are you familiar with the
RIF loan program because we have $30 billion in that program
for transit type projects?
Mr. Villaraigosa. I am not familiar with that program.
Ms. Brown. OK, so no one is familiar with it.
Mr. Mica. It is rail programs and we have $35 billion in
the fund.
Ms. Brown. But that is a program that I would wonder how we
can leverage it because it is rail but it is rail transit type
programs. It is available to the city. It is low-interest.
Part of the problem, people have told me, with the program
is how long it takes to actually get it OKed.
Mr. Villaraigosa. That is actually true for the TIFIA
program as well, which is why I had some specific
recommendations about things that we could change, you know,
take it to 49 percent instead of 30 where I think it is
currently, cut some of the bureaucratic obstacles to connecting
multiple projects, that kind of a thing.
Ms. Brown. One person mentioned to me like one agency OKed
a study and then the other agency said, well, no I want the
Army Corps to do it. So that does not make any sense. We need
to streamline that process.
Mr. Knabe. Well, a couple of things within the TIFIA
process, even in allowing the Department of Transportation to
do an up-front master credit agreement or a hedge loan kind of
a situation for the bigger and larger projects would be a real
time-saver. I mean, that is half the battle.
Mr. Mica. A good suggestion.
Let me yield now to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank all of you for your testimony today. It is loud and
clear that the TIFIA--we need to address that as we move
forward with this transportation bill.
Also, I need to point out especially to my Republican
colleagues back in Washington that these jobs we are creating
by building infrastructure are not public jobs. They are
private industry jobs. A lot of times that gets lost on members
on my side of the aisle when we say we are creating jobs. Too,
the stimulus created a lot of public jobs, but private sector
jobs that are good jobs and building the assets in this country
are extremely important.
Mr. Knabe, you mentioned smart Federal dollars, and I do
not think you expanded on that. Can you tell me a little bit of
what you are talking about?
Mr. Knabe. Well, again, it was just basically a leverage
point. We have stepped up to the plate three times, and we are
saying the fact that--the mayor just mentioned it--we have an
opportunity, one, to create the jobs, two, to do a much better
job right now in the bid process because of the unemployment
and other opportunities out there. It is smart Federal dollars
because it is a very minimal expense to allow this to happen
because, as I said, every time we go back to Washington, they
say come back with a revenue source. We have come back. We have
Measure R, a 30-year payback. So we have this opportunity to
leverage those Federal dollars up front and pay you back. This
is a deal. You are going to love this deal.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Knabe. But, I mean, it is an opportunity that we have
said, look it. You know, we have done this three times, not
just once, not just the first time, but three times in 3
decades. It is a real inexpensive way for the Federal
Government to be our partner, and that is what we want to be
with you.
Mr. Shuster. In followup with what Ms. Brown said about how
do we--as Director McKim said about going to these different
sources, it is time consuming. You are chasing dollars. I would
like to hear specifically from the director and also from Mr.
Kempton on his experience as the Director of Caltrans and now
OTCA. I know you all have ideas and I would like to hear all
your ideas, but if you could just briefly talk about what you
see us putting into law to streamline that. What does it look
like to you? That is really what we are looking here for. I do
not want to put another layer of bureaucracy. I would like to
collapse the bureaucracy and make it simpler. So if you could
make a comment on that, and then, Mr. Kempton, if you would.
Ms. McKim. Well, I think the idea of consolidating some of
the programs and then borrowing what--one of the points that
Steve Heminger mentioned in his review, refocusing on
performance will be a key element.
One of the things that FHWA is trying to do is partner with
FRA. So it can be as simple as encouraging that partnership so
that FRA does not recreate a bureaucracy. That is probably a
bad word to use--so that they can use the same process that
FHWA already has. FTA has different kinds of funding mechanisms
except for the fact that their transit projects--they are very
similar to highway and heavy rail projects. So there needs to
be some consistency among the Federal programs in terms of how
they approach their oversight and administration of projects.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Kempton.
Mr. Kempton. Mr. Shuster, I would say the same thing.
Consolidation and flexibility are the keys. We have innumerable
scores of Federal programs, and I think you can make a judgment
as to which programs are best to be left, but consolidation
would be absolutely critical.
Then the flexibility. There are sometimes so many
restrictions that come with Federal dollars. One of our
colleagues from San Diego likes to say that for 20 percent of
the money, you get 80 percent of the rules. I think that ought
to be looked at as well.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. Again, I would encourage
all of you to submit your ideas because as we do this bill, it
is going to take all of us.
I would encourage Mr. Hunter. I appreciate you being here
today. We have heard from labor across the country, especially
the building trades, and we know you guys just want to build
stuff. We need you in this working through this process to make
sure that we are focused on getting the money out, building
things, and you need to have a seat at the table. As we move
this forward, let us make it about getting the money out,
streamlining, doing more with less, and creating jobs for the
folks in your labor union.
Mr. Robbie Hunter. Absolutely. In Los Angeles, we did a
bond with the school district, a $3 billion bond. You know,
often when people are taxed, there is a dam built in the mud
somewhere and no one sees it. We built those schools in the
communities and when the taxpayers here--they renewed with
three more bonds. We did $27 million worth of projects. The
last 23 schools that came in saved so much money, they built
three new schools with the savings because of the cost in
construction. We absolutely should take advantage of that at
this time.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Thank you all very much for coming
out today.
I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
I yield to Ms. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Chairman Mica. I have a lot of
comments, not necessarily questions. But just Ms. Mayer in
Riverside talked about the pollution and all of that that is
going through my district. I have roughly 50,000 trucks a day
going through my district, 160 Union Pacific and BNSF railcars
going through my district. Of that, 40 percent goes to the rest
of the country. So before Chairman Mica became the chair, then
Chairman Oberstar named it the ``corridor of national
significance'' because it is critical to the on-time delivery
of those goods to the rest of the Nation.
Now, Mr. Kempton, you talked about the agencies. I co--
chair, if you will, along with the ranking member, the
Subcommittee on Water and Power. There are 22 agencies that
deal with water in Washington. So somehow can you tell us what
you see--not now, maybe in writing to this committee and all of
us. What do you see that can be consolidated that would help
reduce the personnel handling, the different agencies handling,
the different steps that you have to do both in terms of saving
money, cost saving to the project managers, et cetera?
But understand when we are sitting in committee and they
come and give us reports, then you say, OK, what about the
other side? There are other agencies that may have jurisdiction
over that, and so then you have those big stumbling blocks that
we do not look at because you know about them. We may not. So
unless you point them out and suggest them to this committee,
there is no way that we can do it.
Do not forget we have budget cuts in Washington too. So
those agencies that are going to be serving you are going to
have reduced personnel to deal with it. So how do you tell us
where we may be able to consolidate and be able to address that
by recommending things that we with our legislation may be able
to address? Don?
Mr. Knabe. Every time you have a major project, there are
always related projects to that major project. If you increase
the eligibility to allow that under TIFIA, instead of having
one project per loan, being able to have that project and the
related projects in a consolidation for one application, that
would save huge amounts of time.
Mrs. Napolitano. If you would put that in writing, Don,
because that is something that we need to look at.
The other thing, Ms. Phillips, is how do we get the
railroads to become an active--how do we incentivize railroads
to become more proactive in helping fund some of things that
they benefit from? I would like that in writing because my time
is short. But those are things I would like to hear from you in
writing for us.
Supervisor Knabe, how long did it take for the 105 to be
built? The incentive, the cost cut?
Mr. Knabe. Well, I think the reason they named it the
Century Freeway is because said it took 100 years.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Knabe. But in reality on footprint and design and
redesign, it was close to 20 years, something like that. I
mean, it was just absolutely outrageous.
Mrs. Napolitano. But after Judge Ferguson lifted the
injunction, it took about 18 months?
Mr. Knabe. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Roughly. So that freeway was built.
Mr. Knabe. Lawsuits, everything.
Mrs. Napolitano. Correct.
Mr. Knabe. Now it contains our Green Line too that Chairman
Mica wants to go all the way to the airport.
Mr. Villaraigosa. It will go all the way.
Mr. Knabe. I heard the mayor.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Napolitano. All right, guys.
Mr. Hunter, one of the things that we know from looking at
other projects and being abroad in some of the other countries,
there are very few labor standards--building codes. That builds
a lot of insecurity and danger to a lot of the populace. I want
to be sure that those are built on time, right the first time.
If I remember correctly, it is build it right the first time.
You save money. You save time. Where we are earthquake prone,
that is a must in our area, especially in California.
The 30/10. How is that going to affect the revenue, as
Senator Boxer was stating, that there will be less revenue
because of the hybrids? How do we compensate for that? What do
we look at? How do we not tax them but be able to make sure?
They are using the roads. They are using out the highways. They
are creating some of that traffic congestion that we talk
about. So how do we look at being fair to the rest of the
driving public that is paying for those highway improvements?
Open new concepts. Within my area--I am running out of
time--we have an organization, a company that is dealing with
research and development with the Department of Defense to
build a blimp and be able to take cargo from the Army, whatever
Department of Defense's need is, to move it into inaccessible
areas, in other words, inside the belly of a blimp. Why are we
not looking at new innovative concepts that might bring relief
to that which we are now facing?
So, Madam Senator and Chairman Mica, there are a lot of
things I would like to have the illustrious panel give to us
as----
Mr. Mica. We are going to allow that too. I will yield to
Senator Boxer for a motion.
Senator Boxer. Yes. I would ask that the record be kept
open for 2 weeks so that our terrific witnesses here can get
their comments in.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
I would also invite members of the public that want to
submit recommendations. We could not get everybody up here
obviously. We jammed the stage as it is. But if you have
recommendations, the record will be kept open for 2 weeks. I
would ask that you submit them to the Senator or any of the
members who are in attendance or on the respective committees.
Let me yield now to the gentleman from California, Mr.
Hunter.
Mr. Duncan Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am new to
this committee, ladies and gentlemen. So I have some basic
questions. I hate to be the killjoy here, but what makes you
think California can afford anything, even doing less with
less? No one has talked about California's debt and what
happens to these bonds and what happens to the cent and a half
sales tax or half cent sales tax if that has to be
reprioritized and restructured if there is a restructuring of
California's debt obligations or if there is any kind of
Federal assistance, which I do not think that would be
forthcoming under this Congress. What would happen to any
projects started? How would California pay for them? Anybody is
welcome----
Mr. Villaraigosa. Yes. I can respond to that.
First of all, you are not a killjoy. That is an appropriate
question.
Measure R cannot be in any way--the revenues generated from
Measure R cannot be appropriated by the State in any way. This
was a taxpayer-approved half penny sales tax that the State of
California has no jurisdiction, no ability to appropriate that
money.
Mr. Duncan Hunter. What I am asking, though, Mr. Mayor, is
you are going to have to prioritize if California is unable to
do what it does as a State for Los Angeles. You are going to
have to reprioritize what is important to Los Angeles. You
might have to reprioritize that money going into shelters for
unemployed people or something else.
Mr. Villaraigosa. It cannot be used for that purpose.
Mr. Duncan Hunter. It is untouchable.
Mr. Villaraigosa. Untouchable. In fact, in the actual
measure, they identified the projects that you can actually
spend this taxpayer revenue on. So it cannot be invaded by the
State. You cannot even reprioritize it without a two-thirds
vote, and then it can only be used for transportation.
Mr. Knabe. I mean, the whole being, it required special
legislation just to allow us to put it on the ballot because we
had already maxed out our ability for a sales tax in Los
Angeles County. So it is untouchable by the State.
Now, the State has its other issues with transportation
bonds statewide. You know, there is always that little caveat
inside that says two-thirds vote of the legislature, we can put
it toward our debt, you know, kind of thing that we have to
deal with, but that is a separate issue. Within the confines of
that legislation, of Measure R, it is strictly for Los Angeles
County and strictly for prioritized transportation projects.
Mr. Duncan Hunter. So let us say the worst case scenario is
California has to restructure or do something with its debt
obligations and they are helped out by the Feds in some way in
that restructuring. You are saying that the local
municipalities, if they do it your way, would be safe from the
State----
Mr. Knabe. Measure R dollars.
Mr. Villaraigosa. If they wrote their initiative in the way
that we did, yes.
Mr. Duncan Hunter. The next question and last question to
Mr. Kempton and anybody else who would like to answer. If you
had to sum it up in basic speak for someone as simple as
myself, if you had to talk about how much time and how much
over budget as a percentage of an entire project in general
that environmental regulations in California cause, what would
that number be? Roughly. We will not hold you to it, except
everything you say is on the record.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kempton. Well, Mr. Hunter, we will just go with the 13
years if you escalated that over 4 percent or something in
terms of project costs, but I would stress it is not just
environmental regulations. It is the delivery process in and of
itself, and that is what we are trying to address with Breaking
Down Barriers. So just take the 13 years that it takes to get a
major project done, escalate the cost over those years, and
that will give you a sense of the time impacts from a dollar
perspective for projects. But again, it is not just
environmental regulations. It is delivery processes as well.
Mr. Knabe. Entitlements, everything. I mean, it is the
whole piece. Just being able to do concurrent environmental
reviews would save a humongous amount of time. Not changing the
regulations, just being able to do concurrent reviews would be
an incredible savings.
Mr. Duncan Hunter. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Chairman Mica, I just wanted to say to
Representative Hunter I am really glad that you posed this
question because as I talk to my colleagues in Washington, this
is so new and so different. It is a new way of thinking which
is very important for our committee because we know the stress
we are under in terms of revenues, and any new revenue source
is going to be--some people have signed a pledge, no new
revenue source. Other people say they are willing to look at
it. But it is going to be a terrible argument.
The beauty of this and the reason I am so happy you are
here and you asked this question is this is a measure that the
local people decided, and they went in the midst of a
recession, as was stated, and said, we are willing to tax
ourselves because we want these projects built. For us, because
we know there is this revenue flow which--you asked your
question. We know that no one can interfere with that revenue
flow. For example, for a $20 million cost to us, they are able
to get a loan of $500 million, and we know that money is coming
behind it.
So thank you very much for asking the question because if
we are going to write a bill here that has a chance of passing,
this is the type of program we are going to have to work on
because we do not have to get any new Federal taxes. We can
just deal with this and leverage. I think the centerpiece of
our bill will be leveraging.
Mr. Duncan Hunter. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Chairman, if I may. If you try to take the Chargers and
put them in L.A., I will vote no on everything. I am just
throwing that out there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shuster. Just a quick question on the vote for half a
penny.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Shuster?
Mr. Shuster. I know in Orange County they did it and it
passed by like 67 percent. What was the percentage?
Mr. Knabe. Almost 68 percent.
I mean, there are a lot of things on that ballot people
have to go through and vote no on. They voted yes on that.
But we realize how difficult your job is. Every time I get
in an elevator in Washington, I see these little name tags,
National Carburetor Association, National Christmas Tree
Association, you know, National Glass Association, and they all
have their little agenda. All that impacts when you are trying
to put together all this legislation. So we appreciate all you
do.
Mr. Mica. Those are not even our constituents.
Mr. Knabe. Exactly, right.
Mr. Mica. Let me yield now--patiently waiting--to the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the sake of the accuracy of the record, I want to refer
back to Ms. Phillips' testimony. In her written testimony, it
says that while environmental reviews make it extensive,
sometimes can be perceived to complete projects--in 2001, of
all the highway projects that received Federal funds, only 3
percent of those projects, accounting for only 9 percent of the
funds, actually required an EIS.
Further, her testimony says that neither Federal funds
funding transportation projects have been eligible for
categorical exclusions. Now, we have spent a lot of time
talking about the I-35, but I think it is important,
particularly for the public, that we are accurately telling the
whole story. I-35 was the first categorical exclusion. Further,
I-35 had full, 100 percent funding at the point when they
began, obviously due to the tragedy of what occurred. So I
think in addition to us talking about the NEPA/CECWO problems,
we also need to consider this whole thing of better utilizing
categorical exclusions as well.
Further in her testimony she stated that project redesign
is part of the problem, relocating businesses, project
complexity, lack of funding for the project, local objections.
The one I want to ask Ms. McKim, Kempton, or Heminger, whoever
would like to respond--let us spend just a moment on the
interagency communication problems because that is also
something we can work on. We have spent a lot of time talking
about NEPA and CECWO, but the interagency communication--or
give us more specific details about the permit problems. Which
agencies would really help us to better do this bill? So
whoever would like to chime in.
Mr. Heminger. Congresswoman, Steve Heminger just to start.
I do think you are putting your finger on it. As I said in my
remarks, I do not think the NEPA/CECWO issue is the big villain
because, generally speaking, in big projects in California, we
clear them through both. We run them simultaneously. I am sure
it adds some time. But the permit question is the real issue.
That is where a project can sit still for months while a permit
is issued.
Now, in the case of the Minneapolis bridge, I was up there
during construction. That project manager had half of his
permits in the first week. Now, that is probably an
extraordinary case.
But someone also on the panel mentioned that some of these
agencies may be seeing cuts in their funding and their
staffing. I think it would be a prudent expenditure of our
transportation funds to make sure that does not happen, to have
folks dedicated at those agencies to our programs to have
clocks on them. If they do not meet the clock, the permit is
approved or have some appellate process that if they do not
approve it within a certain period of time, it is kicked up to
some other level. There has got to be a reasonable way to get
through this better. These are all people of good faith. There
is no one in there who is trying to do a bad job, but there
simply is not a priority in those agencies for speed and for
consistency with many other Federal agencies that also act.
Mr. Kempton. I would add to that, and I agree with what Mr.
Heminger said. One of the recommendations in our Breaking Down
Barriers initiative is, in fact, prompt action which would
require a specific deadline for action by a permitting agency,
and that is where a significant amount of the problem comes
into play.
But again, we are dealing, in most cases I think, with
people who are concerned and want to do a good job. There are
resources issues, and we need to take better advantage of a
process that we have used here in California to a great
advantage, and that is actually providing the resources
agencies with staff, with consultants to be able to complete
the required work so that it gets done more quickly. That is
something that we can do and look to make more palatable as
part of this process as well.
I was asked at the Highway Subcommittee meeting last week
if I could summarize in one word what the problem is and I said
I could. It is trust. As we work more closely with these
agencies and develop a greater amount of credibility, that
trust factor will be less important.
Ms. Richardson. To your knowledge, are there any inhibiting
factors that would preclude us from doing a concurrent system?
It seems like everyone--the panelists agree. OK.
My next question has to do with existing right-of-ways.
Yesterday Chairman Mica and I were in Fresno, and one of the
things they talked about is some of these projects have to go
through a whole other approval process even though they are
building upon existing right-of-ways. Would there be any
objection to us reconsidering maybe framing those regulations a
little bit better if it is on an existing right-of-way? Ms.
Phillips or Mr. Kempton?
Then I have one last question.
Ms. Phillips. I think the ultimate outcome is the
performance and that is where we need to put the emphasis so
that if there is a way to address the existing right-of-ways to
ensure that you get cleaner air in the end, less water
pollution, more protection of open space and wildlife, then
there is room to negotiate and room to figure out improvements.
I think the emphasis in all of the transportation bill funding
needs to be on the outcome, on the performance.
Ms. Richardson. No but, Ms. Phillips, I am asking a very
specific question, and it was a big problem in Fresno. Let us
say, for example, Highway 5. It is already a highway. If we are
talking about a major resurfacing project or something that is
on the existing right-of-way, there have been issues of
completing that. Would there be a general objection to us
reevaluating those regulations specifically if it has to do
with an existing right-of-way?
Ms. Phillips. The kind of example you are using--I do not
see that there is an objection to that.
Ms. Richardson. OK. Thank you.
My last question, Mayor Villaraigosa and Supervisor Knabe.
One of the things in the bill included projects of national
significance. We are very grateful to the chairman and also
Chairwoman Boxer for being here.
Could you just allude very briefly why it is important that
we continue that section in the bill?
Mr. Villaraigosa. Well, I think it was mentioned. I mean,
we move 44 percent of all the sea-borne goods through our
ports. Our airport is the largest destination and arrival and
entry airport in the United States of America. If we were a
nation, this metropolitan area would be the 17th largest
economy in the world. The gridlock here and the air quality is
among the worst in the Nation. For all of those reasons and the
fact that we have a dedicated funding source, this is a project
of national significance.
Mr. Knabe. I would just add, I mean, just not only Measure
R but the whole issue of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, which are part of my district as well too. I sit on the
Alameda Corridor Authority. That was a project that was built
on time, on budget. But those trains go north. They do not turn
left to go in the ocean. They turn right and go right out
through your district and my district, and they are of national
significance. We knew during the port strike a while back, a
billion dollars a day of national economic impact to the United
States of America. A billion dollars a day. That is a big
number. So I think we have to be able to maintain those
projects, and they are of national significance and they do
deserve a little bit better treatment I think.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady and the witnesses.
Our last member. Again, we are so pleased with her service
and her friendship over the years. I am pleased to recognize
Ms. Harman.
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Chairman Mica. I was sitting here
thinking that you and I and Congresswoman Brown were all
elected in the same year in another century when the world
seemed a little simpler and safer than it does now.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Harman. I am going to leave it to you much younger
colleagues to figure all this out.
But I want to observe what an excellent hearing this is.
All of the information has been substantive. There have been
specific ideas put forward, as you requested, about improving
TIFIA and other programs.
That leads me to ask one question, mindful of your time and
everyone else's time. But it is in relation to the issue I
raised in my brief comments, and that has to do with P3,
public/private partnerships. I do not think we had enough
conversation about that.
President Obama has been talking about the fact that the
private sector is ``hording'' would be a tough word, but at
least holding onto about $2 trillion in capital which is not
being invested at least presently into worthy activities.
Congressman Shuster pointed out that the jobs we are talking
about here are private sector jobs. That is worth underscoring.
Private sector jobs, not public jobs.
My question is, do we not have an opportunity here to cause
U.S. banks and others to part with some of that $2 trillion--I
am sure we would take a small percentage--to leverage the
Measure R revenues, which our taxpayers on an overwhelming
bipartisan basis have volunteered, to build these private
sector jobs? Is TIFIA a best way or the QTIP program which has
to do with bonds or some new bond program, an additional way?
But bottom line, should we not focus more on public/private
partnerships as the way to get this done fast?
Mr. Villaraigosa. Without question, Congressmember Harman.
We have been meeting over the last 18 months as we put together
the 30/10 Plan with investment banks, and very importantly,
across the world, investment banks and public/private
partnerships are working with government to build the
infrastructure that they need and that we need here in the
United States. I said it is a $2.2 trillion need. We were at
Lazard in November, I believe, and they are very interested. So
is J.P. Morgan. Almost all of the investment banks see the
opportunity that comes with a public/private partnership, again
leveraging local dollars with Federal dollars to move projects
and accelerate them as we speak.
Mr. Knabe. Well, I would only add that I think if you could
within the surface transportation bill build in the legislative
relief necessary to do P3 projects. I mean, the problem we
had--we just did, as Congresswoman Richardson knows, the new
courthouse in Long Beach where we came together, county/State.
But we did not have legislative relief, and it took forever. So
if the legislative relief to encourage, incentivize P3 projects
could be in this transportation act, that is one major step
forward that you do not have to go back and fix the problem and
create and go back through another legislative process to pull
it off.
Ms. Harman. I am sure you agree, Mr. Czyzyk, that local
businesses, local banks might find a huge opportunity to earn
an appropriate return helping put Los Angeles construction
workers and U.S. construction workers back to work.
Mr. Czyzyk. The business community has always been willing,
for years, to enter into these public/private partnerships.
There have been some reluctancies on the side of government and
sometimes the arrangements have not been as good as they
perhaps could have been. But there are existing public/private
partnerships that exist today in other names. For example, most
airports around the United States are built--the terminals are
built with airline dollars, and it is quite simply where an
opportunity is given to an airline or to another business to
develop a facility, given 30 years to do that, and then the
facility is turned over lock, stock, and barrel to the
government authority. That in itself is a form of public/
private partnership, and that could take place on our roads and
highways as well.
There was some contemplation a few years ago of building a
separate lane on the 710 Freeway that could have been financed
in a private/public partnership type of arrangement, although
because of the inability to come to an understanding between
the investors and the government agencies at the time, it did
not happen.
But with the willingness of all three elements to work
together--and when I say the three elements, I am referring to
government, labor, and business--these public/private
partnerships can happen. I cannot speak for all the banks, but
there is a few trillion dollars that is out there that can be
invested. If there is a willingness on the part of the
constituents to do it, I am sure that a lot of infrastructure
improvement can be made in that regard.
Ms. Harman. So just let me conclude, Chairman Boxer and
Chairman Mica.
I obviously leave Congress with this issue in good hands.
We are going to extend the Green Line to LAX and we are going
to leverage private money and we are going to do it right now
on a bipartisan basis. I just want to thank all my colleagues
for the honor of serving with them over the years.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you.
[Applause.]
Mr. Mica. Thank you again, Representative Harman.
As we conclude here, I think everyone has had an
opportunity for participation. As I said, we welcome from those
who could not be on the formal panel with us to submit for the
record their ideas, suggestions, recommendations through their
Representative or Senator.
I cannot again thank Senator Boxer enough for her
hospitality in hosting us today and her leadership in the U.S.
Senate on our first public effort here together, an example
hopefully we are setting to draft and complete for the country
probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that
will affect our economy in the future. So thank you again.
I opened and let me hand you the gavel, if you would have
any comments. I will yield to you, and then if you could please
close the joint hearing.
Senator Boxer [presiding]. Well, this is a very important
moment in time, given where we are in our country and all the
problems we face and the rancor, that we are here together, Mr.
Chairman, with colleagues from both sides of the aisle. It
really is an important signal that we are sending, and I hope
the people of Los Angeles feel very proud because what really
brought us here is the just amazing leadership this community
has shown on this critical issue. As I leave here, I think what
we have gotten from this incredible panel--and I am sure, Mr.
Chairman and members, you are getting ideas from all over the
country, and I am very anxious to hear from you about all the
different ideas that you have learned. But I feel that I have
been given a very solid road map on how to proceed.
I am going to keep in my mind a couple of things, the first
one that I thought Jane Harman laid out so beautifully. We can
leverage. At this tough time when we have very tough financial
problems, we can leverage dollars from the private sector, from
local government, from State government, from wherever it
comes. We can do it at very little risk, at virtually no risk
to the taxpayers. So leverage is to me the centerpiece of what
we are going to do together.
The second thing I will keep in my mind--and I hope
everybody will--is those unemployed construction workers and
also the businesses that they formerly worked for who have very
little work right now. We have a housing crisis and it is not
yet fixed. Let us put it that way. Some tough times still
remain in that front. So what are we going to do with
essentially 20 stadiums filled with unemployed construction
workers? I thank Mr. Hunter for being here with the Chamber of
Commerce, labor and commerce together.
So I think if we keep in our minds the way to do this
efficiently, the way to stretch our dollars, the way to be
fiscally responsible and still meet our demands that we have on
us for a top-notch transportation system and the unemployed
workers and the construction businesses that need us to act, I
think we are going to come out with something very, very good.
Look, there will be some tough patches ahead, and we are not
going to agree on every single thing. We know that. But I think
on the big issues, we do agree and we do see eye to eye.
So with that optimism, I close this hearing and I thank
everyone for attending and I thank our excellent panel.
[Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5228.253