[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 26145-26146]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              LET THE STATES PLAN TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 14, 2000

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, as most Americans know, Members of 
Congress are frequently successful in attaching extraneous pieces of 
reauthorizing legislation to appropriations bills. These attachments 
are called ``riders.'' These are last-minute attempts to pass 
legislative language that typically has not been subject to the 
standard deliberative process in committee and on the floor of the 
House. The FY 2001 Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations 
bill is no exception.
  This appropriations bill contains a rider that could potentially have 
a negative impact on many of the 21 counties I represent in the 4th 
District of Colorado. It could adversely affect safety on Colorado 
Interstate 25, and would go against a fundamental position the Colorado 
Department of Transportation has consistently held firm. Termed the 
``Ports-to-Plains Corridor,'' this route is part of the national plan 
to facilitate transportation of goods from Mexico to the central West.
  The Ports-to-Plains Corridor was given a designation as a high 
priority corridor in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
Act of 1998. The language designates, ``the Ports-to-Plains Corridor 
from the Mexican Border via I-27 to Denver, Colorado.'' It is my 
understanding Members of Congress and Senators from Texas, New Mexico, 
and Colorado negotiated a plan to attach language into the Fiscal Year 
2001 Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations bill designating 
the Ports-to-Plains Corridor route from Laredo, Texas, to Dumas, Texas. 
It is also my understanding proponents of this route designation have 
previously attempted but failed to attach this language to the FY 2001 
Transportation Appropriation bill and the FY 2001 District of Columbia 
Appropriation bill. Unfortunately,

[[Page 26146]]

there are many problems with this truncated designation.
  Mr. Speaker, in Colorado's Fourth Congressional District, city 
officials, county officials, and constituents in Baca, Prowers, Kiowa, 
Cheyenne, Lincoln, Kit Carson, Elbert, Arapahoe, Adams, Washington, 
Yuma, Morgan, Logan, Phillips, and Sedgwick counties have been in close 
contact with me since 1998 as we planned, along with state and federal 
offices, where the Port-to-Plains corridor would run through these 
eastern plains counties of Colorado. The economy on the eastern plains 
of Colorado, heavily dependent upon farming, ranching, and businesses 
associated with agriculture, is struggling as the farm economy across 
the nation currently is. Obviously, the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor 
would aid in the rejuvenation of this struggling agricultural economy 
as more commerce would be moving through the area, thereby creating 
opportunity for new business and jobs on the America's high plains.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned there is a strong possibility the Ports-
to-Plains Corridor could bypass eastern Colorado by proceeding 
northwest from Dumas, Texas, through New Mexico, and onto Interstate 
25. Should proponents of the rider be successful in attaching the 
language to the FY 2001 Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriation 
bill, there is a good chance eastern Colorado would not be included in 
the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor. Obviously, I cannot vote for a bill 
possibly allowing a tremendous economic plan for so many of the 
constituents I represent to slip away.
  There are other problems with this premature designation. The four 
affected States, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, are 
participating in a federally funded highway study entitled the Ports-
to-Plains Corridor Feasibility Study. The study is being conducted by 
independent consulting firm Wilbur Smith Associates. The Texas 
Department of Transportation initially contracted Wilbur Smith 
Associates to conduct the study which was funded by the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA). The Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma 
departments of transportation sit on the Ports-to-Plains Feasibility 
Study Steering Committee so as to maximize communication and 
opportunities between the four states.
  According to Wilbur Smith Associates, the purpose of the study is to 
``to determine the feasibility of highway improvements between Denver, 
Colorado and the Texas/Mexico border, via existing IH 27 corridor 
between Amarillo and Lubbock, Texas.'' Wilbur Smith Associates has 
diligently kept the public informed by public meetings. ``Two series of 
public meetings will be conducted for this project. . . . The second 
series of public meetings to be held around mid-January 2001 will 
present findings of the detailed evaluation of alternatives,'' 
according to Wilbur Smith Associates. The Transportation Subcommittee 
on Appropriations crafted the Ports-to-Plains
  Wilbur Smith Associates informs me the target completion for the 
draft report is March 2001, while the target completion date of the 
final report is April or May 2001. Mr. Speaker, why proceed with route 
designations before the study to determine the best route is completed? 
I would encourage the Congress to slow down and allow Wilbur Smith 
Associates to complete this federally funded highway study before the 
federal government is allowed to supersede local and state authority, 
and preclude suitable public input.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the only highway study being conducted 
regarding the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor. The Colorado Department 
of Transportation (CDOT) will soon conduct its own study entitled ``The 
Eastern Colorado Mobility Study.'' According to CDOT, the ``purpose is 
to identify the feasibility of improving existing and/or building 
possible future transportation corridors and inter-modal terminals in 
eastern Colorado that will enhance the mobility of freight services 
within and through eastern Colorado.'' While the Eastern Colorado 
Mobility Study will be a comprehensive study, it will incorporate the 
Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor. According to the Project Manager at 
CDOT, it has selected a consulting team, but the contract has not even 
been finalized. Mr. Speaker, again, why designate even a portion of a 
major trade corridor when the studies designed to plan the corridor 
have not even begun? For the Record, I will submit with these remarks a 
letter from the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of 
Transportation requesting no specific highway segments in Colorado be 
designated. The rider designating the specific route through Texas most 
likely will have an effect upon Colorado, so in order to uphold the 
wishes of the State of Colorado, I cannot condone a premature specific 
designation.
  There is another matter at stake which potentially supersedes all 
others, and this is the issue of safety. The Colorado Department of 
Transportation has consistently and strongly opposed a route 
designation which would result in heavier traffic on Interstate 25. 
CDOT opposes more truck traffic on I-25, particularly between the 
congested I-25 segment of Pueblo and Fort Collins. Mr. Speaker, I 
hereby submit Colorado Resolution TC-798 for the Record, crafted by the 
Colorado Department of Transportation, detailing CDOT's specific 
position on this safety issue. Again, there is no way I can vote for 
the Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations 
bill when it contains a provision that would cause a severe safety 
hazard along the most congested interstate and contradict the Colorado 
Department of Transportation's adamant position.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I understand there is language regarding 
the Ports-to-Plains Corridor mandating the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) submit a route recommendation to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Environment and Public 
Works Committee, and the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee should Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico not reach a 
unified consensus by September 30, 2001. While I understand obtaining 
route consensus between the involved states is an arduous task, I 
believe the September 30, 2001 deadline will be difficult to achieve 
considering the magnitude of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor. 
Furthermore, I am concerned the FHWA's decision might not be the most 
appropriate one, and possibly would go against the relevant state 
departments of transportation studies and agreements. Highway planning 
should be determined by local governments and state departments of 
transportation, not dictated by a few. Mr. Speaker, It would be most 
prudent for Congress to withdraw this unwarranted rider included in the 
FY 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriation bill.

                                                State of Colorado,


                                 Department of Transportation,

                                          Denver, CO, May 9, 2000.
     Hon. Robert Schaffer,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Schaffer: CDOT is very interested in the 
     Borders and Corridors Program for Colorado and certainly 
     would like to have a designation. However, there are several 
     north-south corridors in eastern Colorado under 
     consideration. It is difficult to determine at this time 
     which corridor would best serve the interests of the people 
     of Colorado as well as appropriate connections with 
     neighboring states. The Transportation Commission needs to 
     make a policy decision on this issue before proceeding with 
     any official designation. CDOT is initiating a Feasibility 
     Study to determine the best corridor for the state and 
     provide a connecting corridor from the Texas Ports to Plains 
     Transportation Corridor to the Heartland Express Corridor. 
     This effort will be underway later this year.
       Therefore, we would request that no specific highway 
     segments in Colorado be designated until the Feasibility 
     Study has been completed.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas E. Norton,
                                               Executive Director.

                                  ____
                                  

     From: Cavaliere, Dianne
     Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000
     To: Phillips, Joel
     Subject: Ports to Plains Resolution

                        Resolution Number TC-798

       Whereas, Ports to Plains was identified in TEA 21 as a 
     ``High Priority Corridor'' in the ``Borders and Corridors'' 
     Program; and
       Whereas, CDOT supports this program as a long term corridor 
     optimization program for trade and commerce pursuant to 
     NAFTA; and
       Whereas, the Ports to Plains program coincides with the 
     Transportation Commission's policy for Management of the 
     Transportation System by ensuring partnership with local 
     governments, as well as other states, in order to facilitate 
     the movement of people, goods, information and services; and
       Whereas, CDOT is committed diverting traffic from congested 
     segments of I-25 through infrastructure improvement in 
     eastern Colorado and views the Ports to Plains program as an 
     opportunity to pursue such goals.
       Now, therefore, be it resolved that CDOT supports the Ports 
     to Plains Feasibility Study (sponsored by TxDOT) and the 
     pursuit of Federal discretionary funding for Ports to Plains 
     through the ``Borders and Corridors'' program.

     

                          ____________________