[Senate Hearing 108-942]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-942
SAFE AND FLEXIBLE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2003
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 21, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-454 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Carolina, Ranking
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine Virginia
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada RON WYDEN, Oregon
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Robert W. Chamberlin, Republican Chief Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 21, 2003..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Brownback................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Statement of Senator Hollings.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 26
Statement of Senator Lott........................................ 23
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 1
Witnesses
Mineta, Hon. Norman Y., Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation; accompanied by Dr. Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;
and Annette M. Sandberg, Deputy Administrator, Office of the
Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation............... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Norman Y. Mineta
by:
Hon. John Breaux............................................. 48
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings...................................... 42
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 46
Hon. John McCain............................................. 33
Hon. Ron Wyden............................................... 53
SAFE AND FLEXIBLE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2003
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
The Chairman. Good afternoon. Today, we will hear the
Administration's proposal for reauthorizing the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, known as TEA-21, to welcome
our witness, Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta.
Few pieces of legislation receive as much attention and
interest on the part of every Member of Congress as the highway
bill, because highway and transit spending has far-reaching
implications for mobility, safety, and jobs. Every Member has a
stake in trying to ensure that his or her State gets its fair
share of available funds.
One of our priorities, or certainly mine, is to achieve a
more equitable distribution of funds for donor States like mine
under TEA-21. Through Fiscal Year 2001, Arizona has received
back only 87 percent of its share of total contributions to the
Highway Trust Fund, less than even the 90.5 percent minimum
guaranteed for the Core Highway program. This is due, in part,
to the ever-increasing practice of Congressional earmarking,
whereby appropriators direct funds to the States and localities
they choose instead of allowing the awarding of so-called
discretionary funds to be based on the merits of a particular
project.
Members may be interested to know that, according to the
Department of Transportation Inspector General, Congress
appropriated $18 billion in discretionary funding for highway
transit and aviation discretionary programs during Fiscal Years
1998 to 2002. Of that amount, approximately $11 billion--of the
$18 billion, $11 billion was earmarked. Interestingly, the
Administration's reauthorization proposal would discontinue
several discretionary programs.
I can certainly understand your written statement's
sentiments, Secretary Mineta, that, quote, Congressional
earmarking has frustrated the intent of most of these
discretionary programs, making it harder for States and
localities to think strategically about their own
transportation systems, unquote. The process is broken, and we
need to fix it.
The many issues pertaining to reauthorization of the
highway transit and safety programs cross the jurisdictional
lines of several Senate Committees, including Environment and
Public Works, Banking, Finance, and Commerce.
The Commerce Committee's primary role is the critical area
of surface transportation safety, including vehicle and driver
behavior programs under the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and commercial motor vehicle and driver safety
programs under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
both of whom are represented today in Dr. Runge and Ms.
Sandberg.
Clearly, we need to reexamine and strengthen our safety
programs. NHTSA's preliminary report for 2002 estimates that
the number of fatalities, 42,850--the number of fatalities,
42,850--increased to its highest level since 1990. Forty-two
percent of all fatalities were alcohol-related, and 25 percent
of all fatalities involved a rollover crash. Sixty percent of
vehicle occupants killed in crashes were not wearing a
seatbelt. It's worth repeating. Sixty percent of vehicle
occupants killed in crashes were not wearing a seatbelt.
However, one bright spot last year was a 3.5 percent decline in
the number of fatalities in accidents involving large trucks,
to 4,902 fatalities.
The Commerce Committee will move quickly in the coming
weeks to consider and report legislation to reauthorize both
these agency programs and, if a consensus can be reached, the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Program, which is partially
addressed in the Administration's proposal. It is our goal to
move out of Committee next month the reauthorization titles
under our jurisdiction and to be fully prepared for floor
action during the Senate's debate on the comprehensive
reauthorization legislation this summer.
Thank you. Senator Hollings?
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Hollings. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we
welcome Secretary Mineta and the witnesses. I only wish you and
I both had more influence.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. Where you get 87 percent return, I'm only
getting 86 percent return.
Otherwise, with respect to our so-called $726 billion or
$550 billion, whatever, tax cut, the revenues that we have now
that could create, as they say, some 190,000 jobs. The
Administration estimates that for every billion dollars in
highway construction, for example, it creates 47,000 jobs. So
you and I had the opportunity to really put some money to the
needs of the country with respect to not only highways,
bridges, safety, and, more particularly, rail. But we have a
chance to create millions and millions of jobs. Instead, we're
going the other direction.
It's only to be noted that President Lincoln put on a
dividend tax in order to pay for the war. We take the dividend
tax off to make sure we don't pay for it.
Thank you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you for that history reminder, Senator
Hollings.
Senator Hollings. The party of Lincoln.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Brownback, of bleeding Kansas.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Brownback. You know, I thought we won that war. Mr.
Chairman, thank you very much. I want to submit my full
statement into the record. I appreciate very much the Secretary
being here today.
The programs that we're going to be discussing, I think,
are vitally important and are a central function of government,
and I'm hopeful that we can do some of the things, like what
the Chairman is talking about, focusing more in on the formula
and less on the distractions on the side where people are
pulling funds away from the central functions that we're trying
to get done with TEA-21.
I think overall, TEA-21 has been an excellent bill; it
always could use some improvements, but I think we're going in
some of the right directions. I'm hopeful we can continue in
some of these positive directions.
One that we'll be watching, as well, that hasn't come up
yet, but I'm sure will, the ethanol tax credits. There are
different States that benefit in different ways on those.
Certainly my State's one of those, in that this is, I think, a
good policy and a good program that's helped to get an
alternative energy source moving forward, which we're going to
be considering soon, an energy bill, that one of the key
aspects of it is, how do we get more energy bases moving
forward in a broad set of categories, and here's one that we've
been working at for some period of time that I hope can
continue.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator from Kansas
As you know, Kansas is a large agricultural state. Encouraging
ethanol use throughout the country helps the ethanol producers in my
state. In the past, I have supported efforts that encouraged ethanol
use. This remains a priority for me and I hope that the Administration
will continue to support the use of ethanol and those programs that
encourage its use.
Additionally, Kansas has been one of the ``donee'' states in the
Federal Highway System. Throughout the TEA-21 authorization, Kansas
received an average of $1.07 for every one dollar put into the system.
I am committed to ensuring that Kansas remain a donee state. As
proposals are offered, I will be looking closely to see how Kansas'
Highway funding is affected.
On another note, I was pleased to see in your proposal some
attention given to the RABA mechanism. As we are all aware, there have
been major fluctuations in RABA predictions in the past. Unfortunately,
predictability has suffered under this mechanism and states are not
able to accurately plan their highway projects. I am pleased to see
that your proposal modifies the RABA calculation so that annual funding
level adjustments are less dependent on future receipts and more
dependent on the levels of actual receipts. It is critical that states
are able to more accurately assess what their funding levels will be,
particularly as states all across the Nation are suffering major budget
problems.
Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. As the Senate
continues to move forward on the transportation reauthorization
legislation, I will be watching closely those issues of particular
importance to Kansas. I appreciate your taking the time to be here
today. I look forward to offering a few questions.
The Chairman. Senator Inouye?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Secretary, it's good to see you again, sir.
I'd like to touch upon two of your new six programs
proposals in this reauthorization--it's of particular interest
to Hawaii--the Freight Transportation Gateways Program and the
Intermodal Passenger Facilities Program, your proposal on
Freight Gateway to establish a National Highway System set-
aside to fund intermodal connections and facilities.
I'd like to commend the Department for proposing this for
intermodal freight needs, because it will solve critical
bottlenecks in our Nation's transportation system. So I'm very
interested in working with the Administration to make certain
that the intermodal connections that are so vital to my State
would be eligible under this program.
With respect to proposed funding for intermodal passenger
facilities, your program is focused on capital grants for
intercity bus intermodal facilities and lists several modes of
transportation as eligible. I believe, however, that seaports
and ship facilities should be included as eligible expenses in
an effort to facilitate the flow of passengers at seaports.
And so I look forward to working with you to extend these
grants beyond the intercity bus industry and open this funding
to facilities and industry that will facilitate intermodal
passenger efficiency.
I'm certain you're aware, Mr. Secretary, that the
transportation security issues affect the State of Hawaii
directly. More than 95 percent of our goods are imported
through maritime shipping, and a disruption of this process
would cause a significant hardship for Hawaii's residents and
visitors. As we saw after 9/11, the economy of Hawaii is
especially dependent on the secure transportation network. So
I'm pleased to note that the security improvements would be an
eligible expense under both the Freight Gateways Program and
the Intermodal Passenger Facility Program.
The safety of the traveling public, obviously, is extremely
important to this Committee, as well as to the general public.
So as we move forward with the reauthorization, you may be
assured that we'll be paying particular attention to safety
issues. I look forward to working with you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Inouye.
Welcome, Congressman and Secretary Mineta. We're glad
you're here. We know you've had some health problems, and we're
very happy to see you're recovered and back in your usual
active role.
I also hope, perhaps, maybe after your comments, maybe we
could get a comment from Dr. Runge and/or Ms. Sandberg. This
issue of the number of fatalities being the highest since the
year 1990 is a very disturbing statistic, and maybe we could
have a couple of comments on that issue with your associates.
It's very disturbing, and alcohol-related, obviously, is
important, but, again, the failure of the use of seatbelts is
another issue that perhaps we could have some comments about.
Thank you. Welcome, Secretary Mineta.
STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED BY
DR. JEFFREY W. RUNGE, ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION;
AND ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Secretary Mineta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and Members of the
Committee, thank you very, very much for this opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the Bush Administration's
proposal to reauthorize our surface transportation programs.
Before I begin, I'd like to introduce our National Highway
Traffic Safety Administrator, Dr. Jeff Runge, and Acting
Federal Motor Carrier Administrator Annette Sandberg, both of
whom are here to assist me with any details of your questions.
Last week, I sent to Congress the Administration's
reauthorization proposal, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, or SAFETEA. This
6-year, $247 billion proposal is the largest surface and public
transportation commitment in American history, larger than
ISTEA, larger than TEA-21. But it builds on the successes of
the landmark legislation, ISTEA, which I coauthored during my
days on the other side of this microphone in the other body,
and its successor, TEA-21.
Our reauthorization proposal serves as a true blueprint for
investment for the future, supplying the funds and the
framework for needed investments to maintain and grow our
national transportation system while protecting the environment
for future generations of Americans.
In addition, our proposal places a central focus on
transportation safety. Although we have made improvements in
the rates of fatalities and injuries on our highways, the total
numbers remain intolerable, and they are rising. In 2002,
nearly 43,000 people lost their lives on our highways and
roads, and these are numbers that I simply will not accept. And
that is why I have challenged the dedicated men and women of
the Department of Transportation to dramatically reduce the
number of injuries and fatalities on our Nation's highways,
starting right now.
For the past year-and-a-half, this Department, with the
critical and timely help of this Committee, has dedicated
itself to improving transportation security for all Americans.
Faced with the scourge of terrorism, our Department responded
by creating unprecedented partnerships with the private sector,
Congress, interest groups, and Federal, State, and local
agencies. Together, we succeeded in decreasing the dangers of
terrorism through new and better technology, more personnel,
improved laws, and increased education.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to do the same with car crashes.
And this year, we are going to take the same passion, call on
similar partnerships, and build the same record of success
through enforcement, education, and engineering. Nothing would
make a greater difference in reducing injuries and fatalities
than to increase the use of safety belts everywhere in America.
If safety-belt use were to increase from the present national
average of 75 percent to 90 percent, which is an achievable
goal, 4,000 lives would be saved each year. We have a moral, as
well as an economic, obligation to immediately address the
problem of transportation safety.
The total economic impact of all motor vehicle crashes
exceeds $230 billion a year, a staggering figure, and that is
why President Bush and I have made saving lives an essential
priority for the Department and for the reauthorization of TEA-
21.
Our bill would improve safety by creating a new core safety
program consolidating and simplifying the safety programs that
are administered by NHTSA and providing new incentive bonuses
to reward States that achieve demonstrable safety results.
SAFETEA also increases funding for important commercial vehicle
safety hand enforcement programs and strengthens safety
auditing of new entrant motor carriers. Enactment of our
proposal would be an important step in reducing highway
fatalities and injuries and providing greater flexibility to
State and local governments.
Mr. Chairman, I also believe that the enactment of SAFETEA
would help strengthen the stewardship of Federal resources. The
American people and the Congress rightfully hold our Department
accountable for ensuring that Federal funds are used in the
most efficient and effective manner possible. Our proposal
would help ensure that every dollar that is spent yields the
maximum benefit in terms of the number of lives saved, reduced
congestion, and increased mobility. SAFETEA would establish an
oversight program for monitoring the effective and efficient
use of Title XXIII authorized funds with a specific focus on
financial integrity and project delivery.
Our Nation's transportation system faces significant
challenges in other areas, as well, such as congestion, project
delivery, freight movement, and intermodal connectivity.
SAFETEA would create a safer, simpler, and smarter Federal
surface transportation program by addressing transportation
problems of national significance, while giving State and local
transportation decisionmakers more flexibility to solve
transportation problems in their communities.
To accomplish all of these goals, SAFETEA calls for a
record Federal investment in surface transportation, spending
over $201 billion on highway and safety programs and nearly $46
billion on public transportation programs from Fiscal Year 2004
through Fiscal Year 2009. I firmly believe that our proposal
provides an excellent framework to tackle the surface
transportation challenges that lie ahead.
SAFETEA will help ensure needed repairs to our roads and
bridges. It will ensure that new transportation projects are
completed on budget and on time. It ensures the continued
growth of our Nation's economy without imposing costly new
taxes. And, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to say that SAFETEA
includes a strong program for protecting and preserving the
environment.
Our proposal funds our Nation's transportation
infrastructure needs in a fiscally responsible manner. SAFETEA
continues the funding guarantees of TEA-21 that linked highway
funding with transportation excise-tax receipts, and redirects
the 2\1/2\ cents per gallon of the general fund's gasohol tax
to the Highway Trust Fund. SAFETEA also improves highway
infrastructure performance and maintenance by dedicating an
additional $1 billion a year of Highway Trust Fund dollars over
and above each year's estimated receipts into the Highway Trust
Fund.
Obviously, the total size of the program is, and will
continue to be, a matter of debate. That debate should not,
however, be permitted to cloud a meaningful and necessary
discussion of the many programmatic reforms that are contained
in SAFETEA.
Moreover, any proposal that jettisons the important linkage
between tax revenues and spending in an effort to achieve
higher overall funding puts the landmark victory of guaranteed
funding at risk.
My written statement, which has been submitted for the
record, contains a much more detailed explanation of the
programmatic reforms that are included in our SAFETEA proposal.
It is my hope that you will give these proposals serious
consideration as the Committee moves to develop its version of
this legislation.
I would like to conclude by stressing the fact that the
Bush Administration is committed to securing approval of a
multi-year reauthorization bill this year, and I look forward
to working with all of you and with the Congress to achieve
that very important goal.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for having us here
today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Mineta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Administration's proposal to reauthorize our surface transportation
programs--the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2003, or ``SAFETEA.''
Nothing has as great an impact on our economic development, growth
patterns, and quality of life as transportation. This is equally true
at the national, State, and local levels. A safe and efficient
transportation system is critical to keeping people and goods moving
and cities and communities prosperous. Reauthorization will supply the
funds and the framework for investments needed to maintain and grow our
vital transportation infrastructure.
In addition to improving the quality of our lives and enhancing the
productivity of our economy, our proposed legislation seeks to place a
central focus on transportation safety. Although we have made
improvements in the rates of fatalities and injuries on our highways,
the total numbers remain intolerable, and they are rising. In 2002,
nearly 43,000 people lost their lives on our highways and roads.
Families are destroyed and promise is lost.
The economic costs are unacceptable as well. The total annual
economic impact of all motor vehicle crashes exceeds $230 billion, a
staggering figure.
For these reasons, the President and I have made saving lives an
essential priority for the Department and for the reauthorization of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Nothing
would make a greater difference in these numbers than to increase the
use of safety belts everywhere in America.
If safety belt use were to increase from the national average of 75
percent to 90 percent--an achievable goal--4,000 lives would be saved
each year. For every one percentage point increase in safety belt use--
that is 2.8 million more people ``buckling up''--we would save 250
lives, suffer significantly fewer injuries, and reduce-economic costs
by hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
We have a moral, as well as an economic, obligation to address
immediately the problem of transportation safety. The Bush
Administration is committed to reducing highway fatalities, and our
bill offers proposals to increase safety belt use and to take those
actions that can make the achievement of this goal possible.
Our proposals include creation of a new core funding category
dedicated to safety within the Federal-aid highway program. This new
category will increase visibility and funding beyond the current safety
set-aside provisions. We are also seeking to consolidate and simplify
the safety programs administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). This proposal will enhance the capacity and
flexibility of States to use Federal grants and their own funds to
improve safety. Incentive bonuses will reward those States that achieve
demonstrable safety results. Enactment of this bill would be an
important step, we believe, in reducing highway fatalities and
injuries, and providing greater flexibility to State and local
governments to use these funds consistent with a comprehensive
strategic highway safety plan.
Our Nation's transportation system obviously faces significant
challenges in other areas as well, such as congestion, timely project
delivery, freight efficiency, and intermodal connectivity. Our proposal
will create a safer, simpler, and smarter Federal surface
transportation program by addressing transportation problems of
national significance, while giving State and local transportation
decisionmakers more flexibility to solve transportation problems in
their communities.
SAFETEA calls for a record Federal investment in surface
transportation, spending over $201 billion on highway and safety
programs, and nearly $46 billion on public transportation programs,
from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2009.
These funding levels would be achieved by: (1) continuing the
financial guarantees of TEA-21 that linked highway funding with the
receipts generated by transportation excise taxes; (2) redirecting to
the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund the 2.5 cents per gallon
of the gasohol tax currently deposited in the General Fund; and (3)
dedicating an additional $1 billion a year of Highway Trust Fund
dollars over and above each year's estimated receipts into the Highway
Trust Fund to improve highway infrastructure performance and
maintenance.
Thanks in large part to the hard work of many of you and your
predecessors, SAFETEA builds on the tremendous successes of the
previous two pieces of surface transportation legislation. Both the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), a
bill with which I am proud to have played a role, and TEA-21, provided
an excellent framework to tackle the surface transportation challenges
that lie ahead.
ISTEA set forth a new vision for the implementation of the Nation's
surface transportation programs. Among other things, ISTEA gave State
and local officials unprecedented flexibility to advance their own
goals for transportation capital investment Instead of directing
outcomes from Washington, D.C., the Department shifted more of its
focus to giving State and local partners the necessary tools to solve
their unique problems while still pursuing important national goals.
SAFETEA not only maintains this fundamental ISTEA principle, it goes
further by giving states and localities even more discretion in key
program areas.
TEA-21's financial reforms have proven equally significant by
providing certainty, predictability, and of course, increased funding,
TEA-21 paved the way for State and local transportation officials to
undertake strategic transportation improvements on a record scale.
TEA-21 achieved this by reforming the treatment of the Highway
Trust Fund to ensure that, for the first time, spending from the
Highway Trust Fund for infrastructure improvements would be linked to
tax revenue. The financial mechanisms of TEA-21--firewalls, Revenue
Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), and minimum guarantees--provided
greater equity among states in Federal funding and record levels of
transportation investment SAFETEA maintains the core TEA-21 financial
structure, while moderating the wide swings in program levels that
resulted from the RABA mechanism.
The total size of the program is and will continue to be a matter
of debate. As that debate progresses, it should not be permitted to
cloud a meaningful and necessary discuss on of the many programmatic
reforms contained in SAFETEA.
The following are the major programmatic elements of the
Administration's proposal to reauthorize the Nation's surface
transportation program:
Creating a Safer Transportation System
President Bush and this Administration are committed to fostering
the safest, most secure national transportation system possible, even
as we seek to enhance mobility, reduce congestion, and expand our
economy. These are not incompatible goals. Indeed, it is essential that
the Nation's transportation system be both safe and secure while making
our economy both more efficient and productive.
While formulating the Department's reauthorization proposal, the
Federal Highway Administration and NHTSA came together on a different
approach to addressing the Nation's substantial highway safety
problems. Under that approach, States would receive more resources to
address their own, unique transportation safety issues; would be
strongly encouraged to increase their overall safety belt usage rates;
and would be rewarded for performance with increased funds and greater
flexibility to spend those funds on either infrastructure safety or
behavioral safety programs.
SAFETEA establishes a new core highway safety infrastructure
program, in place of the existing Surface Transportation Program safety
set-aside. This new program, called the Highway Safety Improvement
Program will more than double funding over comparable TEA-21 levels. In
addition to increased funding, States would be encouraged and assisted
in their efforts to formulate comprehensive safety plans.
In an attempt to make our grant programs more performance-based, we
have proposed a major consolidation of NHTSA's Section 402 safety
programs. Two important elements of this revised Section 402 are a
General Performance Grant and a Safety Belt Performance Grant. The
Safety Belt Performance Grant rewards States for passing primary safety
belt laws or achieving 90 percent safety belt usage rates in their
States. Any State that receives a Safety Belt Performance Grant for the
enactment of a primary safety belt law is permitted to use up to 100
percent of those funds for infrastructure investments eligible under
the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Also, States can receive
additional grants for improving their safety belt use rates. Any State
that receives a General Performance Grant for the achievement of
various other safety performance measures is permitted to use up to 50
percent of those funds for activities eligible under the new Highway
Safety Improvement Program.
Overall, this groundbreaking proposal offers States more
flexibility than they have ever had before in how they spend their
Federal-aid safety dollars. It would reward them for accomplishing
easily measurable goals and encourage them to take the most effective
steps to save lives. It is exactly the kind of proposal that is needed
to more effectively tackle the tragic problem of highway fatalities.
SAFETEA also provides increased funding for commercial vehicle
safety and research programs in order to enhance the quality,
stability, continuity, and uniformity of State commercial vehicle
safety and enforcement programs. In addition, our proposal expands and
improves safety auditing of ``new entrant'' motor carriers.
Simplifying Programs by Expanding State and Local Flexibility and
Improving Project Delivery
The President and I strongly believe that Federal transportation
programs must be simpler. This belief is manifested in two types of
proposals that appear throughout SAFETEA: (1) those that increase state
and local flexibility and (2) those that seek to increase the
efficiency of transportation project delivery.
As the successes of ISTEA and TEA-21 have shown, State and local
decisionmakers have the greatest capability to address State and local
transportation problems. SAFETEA continues this principle and expands
upon it The Federal Government should facilitate and enable State and
local transportation decisionmakers, but it is also in a position to
bring multiple States to the table in addressing regional issues, and
to take a proactive lead in areas of national concern.
The President and I believe that we can and must protect our
environment while improving the efficiency of transportation project
delivery, consistent with the President's Executive Order on
Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project
Reviews.
SAFETEA eliminates most discretionary highway grant programs and
makes these funds available under the core formula highway grant
programs. States and localities have tremendous flexibility and
certainty of funding under the core programs. Unfortunately,
Congressional earmarking bas frustrated the intent of most of these
discretionary programs, making it harder for States and localities to
think strategically about their own transportation problems.
SAFETEA also establishes a new performance pilot program under
which States can manage the bulk of their core formula highway program
funds on a performance basis, cutting across the programmatic lines by
which the Federal-aid highway program is normally structured. Under the
pilot program, States would work with the Department to develop and
meet specific performance measures that reflect both State and national
interests.
Public transportation programs would undergo a significant
restructuring under SAFETEA in an effort to make them more effective
and responsive to customer and grantee needs. Under that restructuring,
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs would fall under three
major areas:
Urbanized area formula grants, which would include the
current formula grants as well as formula Fixed Guideway
Modernization funding;
Major Capital Investments, which would broaden the current
New Starts program to include non-fixed guideway corridor
improvements, such as Bus Rapid Transit; and
State-Administered Programs, including the Rural, Elderly
and Disabled, Job Access and Reverse Commute, and New Freedom
Initiative programs. The Job Access and Reverse Commute and New
Freedom Initiative programs would be supported through flexible
formula grants to the States.
As with the highway program, the restructuring of FTA programs
includes shifting discretionary grant programs to formula programs and
merit-based funding programs. Funds from the heavily earmarked bus
discretionary program will be shifted to four different areas: (1) the
Urbanized area formula program; (2) the Rural formula program; (3) the
newly expanded New Starts program; and (4) Performance incentive
grants. Consistent with the bill's strong overall customer orientation,
SAFETEA also proposes a new performance incentive program that rewards
increased transit ridership.
SAFETEA will give communities the flexibility to choose less
expensive major transit investment alternatives, while ensuring that
all projects meet New Starts financial and project justification
criteria. This is accomplished by:
Expanding the New Starts program to include non-fixed
guideway corridor-based transit systems;
Eliminating the $25 million New Starts funding threshold,
making all projects seeking New Starts funds subject to the
evaluation criteria established in law; and
Simplifying the evaluation process for projects requesting
less than $75 million in New Starts funds.
SAFETEA also would promote independence and opportunity by
enhancing programs that serve our most vulnerable populations. For
example, SAFETEA--
Increases relative funding levels for rural formula programs
to assist the 40 percent of rural counties that have no public
transportation, especially since one-third of residents in all
rural communities are transportation disadvantaged;
Implements the transportation provisions of the President's
New Freedom Initiative by creating a stable and reliable source
of funding to States for community-based solutions that address
the unmet transportation needs of persons with disabilities;
Makes the Job Access and Reverse Commute program a stable
and reliable source of formula funds in every State to help
meet the employment-related transportation needs of welfare
recipients and other low income individuals. Currently, JARC is
a heavily earmarked discretionary grant program;
Sustains the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities formula
program to help meet the needs of these transportation-
disadvantaged individuals; and
Ensures a more coordinated and cost-effective approach to
meeting the needs of transit-dependent persons by (1) requiring
communities to develop a local prioritized project plan to
serve elderly persons with disabilities and low-income
individuals, which must be honored by States as they make
decisions about suballocating State-administered funds; and (2)
making mobility management an eligible expense.
We all know that it takes far too long to take a transportation
project from concept to completion, and this Administration is
committed to streamlining this process. Projects that were cutting edge
while in the concept stage too often end up turning into ``catch-up''
projects after years of delay. The Department has made great strides in
addressing those delays related to environmental review, including
better coordination during the environmental review process, and other
improvements that have resulted from implementing the President's
Executive Order on Environmental Stewardship that was issued last fall.
However, certain legislative changes are necessary. In the
environmental review area, SAFETEA provides a menu of solutions, all of
which should help reduce the time it takes for a sponsor to deliver a
transportation project. These include:
Strengthening the provisions of current law that establish
timeframes for resource agencies to conduct environmental
reviews and make decisions on permits;
Improving the linkage between the transportation planning
and project development processes;
Simplifying the processing of Categorical Exclusion
approvals;
Clarifying the legal standard under ``section 4(f)''
applicable to determinations as to whether a possible project
alternative is feasible and prudent;
Resolving the current overlap between Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and ``section 4(f)'';
Establishing an exemption for the Interstate Highway System
as an historic resource, unless the Secretary deems an
individual element worthy of protection under the National
Historic Preservation Act. The Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and the Federal Highway Administration are working
to achieve the objective of this section through an
administrative exemption, using a provision of the regulations
that implement Section 106. If we are able to make progress
towards such an administrative solution, we will advise
Congress that this additional legislation is no longer needed.
Providing for timely resolution of outstanding legal
disputes by establishing a six-month statute of limitations for
appeals on the adequacy of projects' environmental impact
statements and other environmental documents; and
Expanding the ability of States to provide Federal-aid
highway funds to resources agencies to expedite the
environmental review process.
While making the environmental review process more efficient,
SAFETEA also offers important proposals to protect and enhance the
environment. Those proposals include:
Revising the CMAQ program to better address the new air
quality standards;
Continuing a major emphasis on improving public
transportation;
Revising the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane provisions to
encourage the use of cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles;
Encouraging the active consideration and implementation of-
context sensitive design principles and practices in all
Federally aided transportation projects; and
Establishing a new Transportation, Energy, and Environment
program to carry out a multi-modal energy and climate-change
research program.
Each year, there are over 900 million visits to national parks,
forests, and wildlife refuges. Through our Federal Lands Highways
program we provide funding to maintain and responsibly improve access
to these areas. Because a substantial maintenance backlog has built up
in our system of park roads and parkways, we are proposing a
significant funding increase for the Park Road and Parkways Program.
Three hundred million dollars would be authorized for FY 2004, and a
total of $1.890 billion would be authorized over the six-year period,
to improve these roads. And, in support of the President's National
Parks Legacy Project, a new Federal Lands Transit Program would be
established.
The transportation planning process has become overly burdensome as
well. To address this problem, SAFETEA proposes the following:
Combining the long-range metropolitan transportation plan
and shorter term Transportation Improvement Program into a
single document;
Aligning the transportation and air quality planning
horizons for purposes of transportation conformity; and
Creating a single set of requirements applicable to both
highway and public transportation planning.
Making the Federal Transportation Program Smarter
The President has urged every Federal agency to be more results-
oriented, guided not by process but performance. In the context of
transportation, that means: using Federal surface transportation
programs to increase the efficiency with which people and goods move
throughout the transportation system; expanding innovative financing
options; enhancing operational capacity; rewarding grantees that meet
important, measurable goals; promoting a seamless system in which
different transportation modes are efficiently connected; and
increasing oversight and accountability to ensure large Federal
investments are being protected.
Recent estimates indicate that Import/Export Freight Tonnage could
double by 2020 and Domestic Freight Tonnage could increase by about 70
percent over that same period. International trade now comprises over
25 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product and is expected to rise
to one-third in less than 20 years. The days when trade issues could be
ignored as irrelevant to overall U.S. wealth creation are long gone.
Ensuring efficient global supply chains therefore becomes of
paramount importance for the world economy as manufacturing industries
respond to a growing goods trade through the implementation of just-in-
time manufacturing. Moreover, end products are increasingly comprised
of component parts being shipped from all over the world. As a result,
the container, by far the most popular means to transport cargo, takes
on heightened significance.
Through the implementation of sophisticated logistics policies to
manage massive numbers of containers, an inventory management
revolution is currently taking place that we must be very careful to
protect and promote.
The goal of linking production decisions to the shifting pace of
consumer demand that seemed elusive just 20 years ago is suddenly very
attainable. With it comes the even more elusive hope of smoothing out
business cycles. The ability to actually move freight quickly across
various modes of the transportation system, however, is the linchpin of
this revolution. The benefits attributable to dramatically lower
inventory costs and increased liquidity for businesses that do not need
to spend capital on unused inventory can be severely compromised by an
inefficient transportation system.
Although carriers and shippers are by and large private entities,
their financial health is inextricably linked to the health of public
transportation infrastructure. As a result, cooperation between the
private sector and government must be improved through an increase in
public-private partnerships. The United States, with the most vibrant
and dynamic private sector in the world, is unique in its lack of
private sector involvement in transportation infrastructure. In
addition to improving the overall addition of the Nation's surface
transportation network, SAFETEA specifically targets the capacity and
efficiency of the Nation's freight system by:
Establishing a National Highway System (NHS) set-aside to
fund highway connections between the NHS and intermodal freight
facilities, such as ports and freight terminals;
Expanding Surface Transportation Program (STP) eligibility
to include freight connector projects;
Continuing the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) and allowing rail freight
projects to qualify for TIFIA credit assistance;
Lowering the TIFIA program's project threshold from $100
million to $50 million; and
Expanding the availability of tax-exempt private activity
bonds to include highway projects and freight transfer
facilities.
While virtually every other industry in the world has gone through
a technological revolution, transportation still lags behind in the
area of technology deployment Our proposal continues to foster the
research, development, and implementation of Intelligent Transportation
Systems technologies but places a much greater emphasis on using these
technologies to improve the performance and operation of transportation
systems and motor vehicles in a way that directly benefits
transportation customers.
These technologies can be particularly effective in the
implementation of innovative demand management strategies. SAFETEA
provides more resources to expand capacity, but also provides new tools
to States and localities to manage existing capacity more rationally.
Our proposal would allow States to establish user charges on Federal-
aid highways, including the Interstate System, to improve these
facilities. It would also allow States to permit Single Occupancy
Vehicles (SOVs) on HOV lanes, so long as time-of-day variable charges
are assessed on SOVs for such access.
Despite their critical role in the surface transportation system,
intercity buses have been largely a ``forgotten mode.'' SAFETEA
addresses this anomaly by establishing requirements to improve
intercity bus access to significant intermodal facilities. Our proposal
also authorizes a $425 million grant program to fund capital
improvements related to such access.
Evasion of Federal fuel taxes is a serious and growing problem that
requires an equally serious Federal response. This has been, I know, a
major concern of Congress. SAFETEA reduces legal loopholes and
dedicates more resources to collaborative government-wide enforcement
effort. If we are successful in curbing fuel tax evasion, it has the
potential to increase resources for investment in the transportation
system.
Last, but certainly not least, our proposal strengthens stewardship
of Federal funds without treading on State prerogatives or creating red
tape. Increased accountability will ensure that every dollar spent will
yield the maximum benefit in terms of lives saved, reduced congestion
or increased mobility. These proposals include:
Requiring that project management plans and annual financial
plans be submitted for all Federal-aid projects costing $1
billion or more;
Requiring that annual financial plans be prepared for all
projects receiving $100 million or more in Federal-aid funds;
Establishing minimum cost-estimating standards in order to
provide more reliable and consistent project cost expectations;
Strengthening the Department's suspension and debarment
policies to prevent contractors from continuing to defraud the
government; and
Allowing States to share in monetary recoveries from Federal
fraud cases.
This legislative proposal builds upon the principles, values, and
achievements of ISTEA and TEA-21, yet recognizes that there are new
challenges to address. We urge Congress to reauthorize the surface
transportation programs before they expire on September 30, 2003. Any
delay would cause uncertainty and likely reduce infrastructure
investment at the State and local levels at a time when such investment
is particularly critical.
Finally, let me return to the subject of safety. For the past year
and a half this Department, with the critical and timely help of this
Committee, has dedicated itself to improving transportation security
for Americans. Faced with the scourge of terrorism our Department
responded by creating unprecedented partnerships with the private
sector, Congress, interest groups, and Federal, State, and local
agencies. Together we succeeded in decreasing the dangers of terrorism
through new and better technology, more personnel, improved laws, and
increased education.
We are going to do the same thing with car crashes. We cannot
ignore the deaths of 43,000 Americans each year and the thousands more
who are injured. This year, we are going to take the same passion, call
on similar partnerships, and build the same record of success through
enforcement, education, and engineering. Why? Because it is the right
thing to do--and we have the will and the ability to do it.
Last year, Congress gave my Department 36 mandates to improve
transportation security. I gave the people in my Department one. My
mandate was to find a way to meet every one of the 36 Congressional
mandates. They did.
Now I have given my Department another mandate: Dramatically reduce
the number of Americans killed and injured by car crashes.
If we succeed, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lives will be saved
and serious injuries reduced each year. And the futures of thousands of
our fellow citizens will be better secured. It is a mandate that I ask
this Committee and this Congress to join our Department and this
Administration in achieving.
Thank you, again, for giving me the opportunity to testify, and I
look forward to working with Congress to pass this legislation.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Dr. Runge, do you want to talk for a minute about this
issue of the increase in highway fatalities?
Dr. Runge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to address
that.
I couldn't agree with you more. I think your word was
``disturbing.'' The number 42,850 is an obscene number that we
should, indeed, not tolerate.
This goes to the very heart, the very cornerstone, in fact,
the very title of our proposal. We believe that we do know the
solutions to these problems, and we believe that, through the
bill, we can achieve significant gains.
As you said, there are some bright spots. Injuries, in
fact, are down for the second year in a row, to historic lows,
injuries that would otherwise be hospitalizable. And we believe
that we know why that is.
Another bright spot is child safety. Through the efforts of
the Congress and everyone in the Administration, child safety
has never been at a higher level than it is right now. In fact,
99 percent of infants are in child safety seats, and 94 percent
of toddlers.
So we see things going in opposite directions. We have a
group that is completely restrained in their vehicles, and we
have another group, as you well said, where 60 percent of the
fatalities are unrestrained.
Therefore, safety belts, I think you'll see, is a primary
part of the NHTSA part of the safety proposal. For the first
time, we are putting our money where our education has been, in
that the encouragement of States to pass primary safety belt
laws is a way that we know we can achieve significant gains.
The Chairman. Does that include advocacy that States adopt
laws that empower their law-enforcement people to stop
automobiles or other vehicles just for the reason of checking
on seatbelts?
Dr. Runge. Yes, sir. That is what we call either a standard
law or a primary law. That is exactly that intent. States that
have those laws are----
The Chairman. Ms. Sandberg, do you----
Dr. Runge. I'm sorry.
The Chairman.--agree with that?
Ms. Sandberg. Yes, sir, I do.
Dr. Runge. States that have those laws----
The Chairman. How do you think the States would react to
that?
Dr. Runge. Well, we currently have 18 States, and a 19th
that just passed their law, who have primary belt laws. They, I
believe, are very satisfied with those. Even the parts of the
population like minorities that were initially concerned about
things like racial profiling have realized huge gains.
The Chairman. Have we seen any results in these States
where those laws were already in effect?
Dr. Runge. We have, indeed. New Jersey----
The Chairman. I don't have the nomenclature down very well,
but you know what I'm saying.
Dr. Runge. Yes, sir. We've seen, consistently, an 11
percentage-point increase in States after they pass a primary
belt law.
The Chairman. Reduction in accidents, or what?
Dr. Runge. Well, even if crashes don't go down, fatalities
do go down. And I'll give you those numbers, by State.
Again, vehicle miles traveled have increased. Our rate is
staying level, even though fatalities have increased. But we do
believe that we know the solution.
The Chairman. Do you want to add anything, Ms. Sandberg?
Ms. Sandberg. Yes, very quickly.
As you pointed out, over the last several years--actually,
over the last 4 years, we've seen a decline in large truck
crashes. And last year, the 3.5 percent decline was the largest
decline we've seen in a decade.
The Chairman. Because?
Ms. Sandberg. Well, I'd like to say we would take complete
credit for that, but I have to give a lot of credit to the
States. We've seen an increase in the amount of money that the
Federal Government has given to States to focus on large
trucks, everything from focusing on the driver to the equipment
to the company.
And the proposal that you see here in front of you today,
we actually looked to close some of the enforcement gaps that
are there, as well as focus on the new entrants, who we know
are the biggest problem. And we're going to be working with Dr.
Runge and Mary Peters, specifically on this seatbelt issue,
because we know, in large truck--we have a study that's about
to be released that shows only 48 percent usage of drivers of
large trucks. And so we need to get to them, as well.
The Chairman. Senator Inouye?
I'm going to go vote and then come right back.
Senator Inouye [presiding]. On your seatbelt statistics, is
there any correlation on age? We hear so much about students
and teenagers. And, if so, is there anything specially done in
this bill?
Secretary Mineta. Your statement that there are age
differences is absolutely correct. The highest group that is
restrained are infants, toddlers, followed by small children.
And when we get to the teen years, it's the lowest of any
group. In fact, males between 15 and 34 are the least likely to
buckle their safety belts, and yet they're the most likely to
have a crash.
The thing that affects that part of the population the most
is not fear of death, but it's the fear of getting a traffic
ticket, which is why a primary belt law, such as you have in
Hawaii--and, by the way, congratulations on your over-90-
percent use rate--that's why a primary belt law is going to
have an effect on that part of the population.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, what do you think of the
proposal Hawaii has put up that you should extend the bus
funding, intermodal bus funding, to include port facilities and
cruise ships?
Secretary Mineta. Well, we had not considered the issue of
the cruiseline industry or the passenger side. What we were
trying to do is to deal with the intermodal connectivity
between ports and rail facilities, in terms of the gateway
proposal. And I'll have to study that, in terms of the impact
on the funding level that we have in this legislation if we
were to extend it to passenger and cruise ships.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, I'll have to go to vote, but
may I submit my questions for your response later?
Secretary Mineta. Absolutely, and I'll respond for the
record.
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much.
Senator Hollings [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, with respect
to the bill before us, it's entitled the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, and you call
it ``the largest public transportation initiative,'' in your
testimony. Within it, we have an authorization of $250 billion
over 6 years for highways. We've got millions in here,
billions, for transit programs. There's $25 million, actually,
for high-speed rail planning, but nothing for low-speed rail,
nothing for Amtrak.
Now, you and I have been going through this exercise, and,
you know, the Administration keeps giving me, either through
you or through Secretary Jackson, ``reform, reform, reform.''
You don't come before the Committee today with even a greater
number of deaths and say, ``Reform safety and then we'll
provide the money.'' So let's not talk about reforming Amtrak
and when we'll give you some money. We've been doing this thing
for two and a half years. Where is the money for this most
efficient, flexible transportation, or the largest public-
transportation initiative in the history of the country,
where's the money for Amtrak?
Secretary Mineta. Amtrak reauthorization legislation is in
the process of being put together right now, and I----
Senator Hollings. But we keep hearing that. That's what we
were told. You know, but when I was Chairman of the Committee,
that's what you told us. We reported out a bill from this
Committee by a vote of 20 to 3, and we held the bill up on the
floor, because you were going to submit something. That was
last year. Last year. You all were ready to submit something.
Do you believe that there ought to be a public passenger-
rail service in this country?
Secretary Mineta. Yes, indeed. And that's----
Senator Hollings. And how do you get it? You've got a good
man in Gunn. We did reform that part of it, I'll agree. But
that's been over a year. And we're going lose him unless you
give the money.
Secretary Mineta. No, but I think that with the
reauthorization legislation that we will have sometime this
summer, that we will be in a stronger position, in terms of
strengthening Amtrak and its services, in terms of intercity
passenger rail service.
Senator Hollings. We'll get it before August break?
Secretary Mineta. That is my hope, sir.
Senator Hollings. Well, I know you're an old-time
legislator just like me, and this is sort of embarrassing,
because we keep on studying it. We keep on talking about
reforms and everything else of that kind. And either we're
going to have a good public transportation--which would help in
the safety area, which is the principal interest, of course, of
this Committee. You get a good, nice Amtrak appropriation here,
where we can really start making some improvements and
everything else like that, there will be improved participation
and passenger service, and we'll take some off the highways
that are getting cluttered. You just can't pave all of America.
You and I agree on that. And I don't know of a single passenger
rail service in the world that makes a profit. Do you know of
one?
Secretary Mineta. Well, I think what we are contemplating
doing, of separating the infrastructure from the operation of
the rail system, would do that, would give the operating
company the possibility of making a profit.
In terms of what Germany, France, Japan do, they have the
Federal Government doing the infrastructure, and then they have
an operating company, that is not subsidized by the Federal
Government in those nations, operating the rail system. And so
the Federal Government there provides the rail-down support,
and the operating company does the balance. And they're
operating with a profit.
And so here we're envisioning doing something similar to
that with the rail infrastructure being held by the Federal
Government with capital assistance with the States on the
capital side on the infrastructure and an operating company
that would be non-subsidized by the Federal Government.
Senator Hollings. Well, at least that submission would give
us something to run with. But we only own about 750 miles of
that 22,000 miles. So you say we're going to really make
ourselves accountable for the 22,000 miles?
Secretary Mineta. Well, something as the compact of between
States and----
Senator Hollings. I know we're going to have the compact
between the States. In fact, the States are ahead of us. In
fact, they've got a $12 billion initiative out in the State of
California, your state----
Secretary Mineta. Oh, absolutely.
Senator Hollings.--and they're ready to go.
Secretary Mineta. Washington, Oregon, and California.
Senator Hollings. That's right, it works out there. So
they're way ahead of us. We can't get a billion to keep it up
and keep it going. There's one State that's got $12 billion,
and it's working, and it's your State. So I know you know
better. I know that. But when we're going to take over the
22,000 miles and--that's fine business with me if we can take
it over. You won't find a company that wants to operate, on a
private basis, any of these things. They might be doing that in
Japan or whatever it is if we look further. But we've looked
for those to operate right up in the Northeast, where they make
a profit, incidentally. In fact, we use the profits there to
keep the rest of it going.
Secretary Mineta. And, of course, in the Northeast, Amtrak
owns the rail, itself.
Senator Hollings. Well, that's the 750 miles----
Secretary Mineta. That's right.
Senator Hollings.--that's----
Secretary Mineta. Correct.
Senator Hollings. Yes, but we're talking about a national
rail system. You know----
Secretary Mineta. That's----
Senator Hollings.--our Chairman, Senator Hutchison, she and
I have emphasized that in previous hearings, that we want a
national system, not just a little bit here and a little bit
there, we need a national plan from the Department of
Transportation. And you're the Secretary, and I know you know
this subject, and I know you come from whence it works, and
they put up money to make it work, but we'll get every kind of
bill here, and we can't get any money. We can get it for high-
speed rail, but nothing for low-speed rail.
Secretary Mineta. Well, what we are anticipating, since the
other 22,000 miles you're talking about are owned by private
rail, would be the contracts with those private rail companies,
who generally are operating at 79 miles per hour, that we would
want to go up to 125, 130 miles-an-hour track capability.
Senator Hollings. You've got to get the road beds fixed for
that.
Secretary Mineta. That's right, and that's where we would
be paying the rail companies, in terms of improving the rail to
be able to have the trains be able to run at those sustained
speeds. The other thing----
Senator Hollings. Those are--the private companies would
still own the rail beds, and we'd be paying for it.
Secretary Mineta. Yes, sir. We would be taking the
improvement up to the speed that we would want our trains to be
running at.
Senator Hollings. Very good. So we appreciate it. The
sooner that we can get that, you know how it is, we'll be gone,
and another year will pass and then we'll get into next year's
election.
Secretary Mineta. Well, the Hollings rail reform
legislation will be here soon.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. No, I'm not like Thurmond. He had to have
it named after him before he'd move.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. Named everything but the ocean down
there, we used to say. The lakes and everything else.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. The Committee will be at ease, subject to
the call of the Chair, who will be back momentarily here from
his vote, unless, Dr. Runge or Ms. Sandberg, you've got
something to offer at this particular time.
Dr. Runge. Nothing about trains, Mr. Hollings. I'll sit
back and be at ease.
Senator Hollings. It's just--the question was asked--do you
agree or disagree? What accounts for the increase in highway
deaths?
Dr. Runge. Well, this year, I can say fairly safely that it
is reflective of the increase in the vehicle miles traveled on
the highways. The rate of fatalities in the late 1960s was
about five fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.
And so it has gone from 5 to 1.5 over that period of time. So
we are making progress, in terms of the rate, but the number is
what is so disturbing. We've hit a wall, where the numbers go.
But we believe that this public health epidemic has a cure, and
we're hoping to get Congress' support to encourage the States
to do what needs to be done to fix it.
Senator Hollings. Thank you very much.
The Committee will be at ease.
[Recess.]
The Chairman [presiding]. I apologize, Mr. Secretary.
You're very aware of the way that--the incredibly efficient way
in which we operate here.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. What are the principal differences between
the existing Corridors and Border Program and what you are
proposing, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Mineta. Well, what we have done is to separate
the Borders and Corridors Program and given emphasis to the
corridors. And what we would like to do is to develop, again,
the economic gateways that are present to be connected and,
through the Corridor Program, be able to deal with both the
northern border, as well as the southern border.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Sandberg, do you have anything more to report on the
opening of the border?
Ms. Sandberg. No, sir. We are still looking at the options
that we have. And, as I mentioned at the confirmation hearing
on the 8th, we have moved forward with the EIS, and the
Administration has not made a decision yet on the appeal to the
Supreme Court, but we're working on that.
The Chairman. Dr. Runge, the rollover accident issue in
SUVs, safety of SUVs, all of that stuff, do you have any
additional reports to be made on that issue? Have you reached
any more conclusions?
Dr. Runge. Mr. Chairman, you capsulized it exactly right.
You mentioned that 25 percent of all fatalities and a third of
occupant fatalities are, in fact, due to rollover. When I was
here in February, we were promising you a comprehensive report
from our innovative project teams. I'm happy to report that
they are ready for publication as soon as Mr. Secretary says
it's OK. To do so, we will be briefing him very shortly.
We have some potential solutions to the compatibility
issue. We understand what needs to be done with respect to
rollover. Those are very difficult to regulate, given the state
of the research that we have now, but we will be seeking to do
that research in order to support future initiatives in that
direction.
The Chairman. Good.
Were any other Members coming back? Does staff know?
Senator Breaux will be returning, so I would ask your patience
for a couple of more minutes while he returns.
And I guess, Secretary Mineta, I'd like to ask about the
railroad improvement projects. How would they be handled under
this program? In other words, would the railroads be eligible
to apply for funds so long as they agree to a 20 percent match,
or would these projects have to be supported by a local match
of the States?
Secretary Mineta. Well, the match would be a requirement.
That can be made up of private sources, as well as public
funding, as well. And so that it could be both public and
private sources of funding for the match.
The Chairman. Good.
I have no further questions, so I'm going to wait--could
you check on Senator Breaux? I hate to deprive Senator Breaux
of his opportunity to interrogate you, so----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--wait a minute and determine his whereabouts.
And how are you----
Secretary Mineta. He sat to my left on the Public Works and
Transportation Committee, and I----
The Chairman. We all have our crosses to bear.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Mineta.--and I wanted to Chair his Breaux for
Senate Committee so that I'd be able to move up one seat in
seniority.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. How are you feeling, sir?
Secretary Mineta. Very well, and I appreciate your concern
during my hospitalization and your cards and calls.
The Chairman. Well, we're very happy to see you back, and
we appreciate your service. And we're going to have to fight a
lot of battles in this reauthorization thing, and we appreciate
your early and very in-depth involvement in it.
You know, it's hard for me to explain to my constituents
this donor State issue, and I really hope we can make some
progress in that direction, because every State has their own
particular reason to get more money--older States, with aging
infrastructure, growth States, like yours and mine, with
dramatic new requirements--but it just is not fair what's been
going on over the last several years. And perhaps with the
elimination of some of these discretionary programs these
monies just wouldn't be diverted. Isn't that one of the
consequences of your proposal?
Secretary Mineta. Yes, sir, it is. The other thing, too, it
does give greater flexibility to the local and State people to
be able to direct their resources to what problems they see
facing them, because when you have categorical programs, it's
sort of one size fits all, and various States have individual
problems that face them. And so categorical programs limit the
ability of the State leaders to be able to direct their
resources. So by going to, let's say, from five programs in the
safety area to three, and block-granting it, it gives the State
people and the local people better ability to direct their
resources to where the problems are.
The Chairman. Thank you. You're very fortunate, the
Chairman of the Breaux for Senate Campaign is prepared for you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. Oh, boy, some truth to that, I'll tell you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for keeping it open. And
I thank my good friend, Norm Mineta.
The SAFETEA bill? SAFETEA?
Secretary Mineta. Absolutely.
Senator Breaux. Who in the world thought of that?
[Laughter.]
Secretary Mineta. Well, it was the same person who thought
up ISTEA.
Senator Breaux. ISTEA to SAFETEA, that's great.
Well, thank you. This is not a--the bill is not going to be
one that's going to be sunsetted over a short period of time,
like the tax bill.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. So we can depend on it for the whole
period?
Secretary Mineta. That's right.
Senator Breaux. Yes.
I was just wondering, in the areas of safety on which this
Committee has the jurisdiction over--and we note that we have--
with regard to safety, we have the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, which basically deals with truck safety. And
then we have the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, which deals with overall traffic safety. I
mean, we have two administrations dealing with safety. Has
anyone ever thought about combining the two and having an
administration within the Department that deals with safety
over the Nation's highways? I mean, why do we have to have one
that looks at--a whole administration that looks at truck
safety and another whole administration that does overall
traffic safety? Couldn't we combine the two and be more
efficient?
Secretary Mineta. Well, I think in terms of the nature of
the operation of private passenger vehicles and that of
commercial vehicles is different and ought to have that kind of
specialty addressing those two areas.
Senator Breaux. Well, I mean, one's a truck and one's a
car. But, I mean, I know that's different. But, I mean, other
than that, we're talking about safety on highways by things
that roll across the highways, and we've got two separate
administrations, and one does trucks and one does cars.
Secretary Mineta. But the safety of trucks is vastly
different from the safety of private passenger vehicles.
Senator Breaux. Well, we could spend a lot of time talking
about that. But, I mean, you've got a driver in each one of
them. You want them to be competent. You want them to follow
the signals. You want them to not be overloaded. But, for the
life me, just looking at it, I can't--I just looked at this,
and we've got an administration that deals with truck safety
and--it's one thing to have one person dealing with truck
safety and another person that deals with car safety. But do we
need an entire administration just for cars and an entire
administration just for trucks? I think somebody ought to look
at that. We're talking about efficiency in government, the fact
that we've got two separate administrations dealing with safety
on the roads, and one that can only talk about trucks, another
one only can talk about cars, to me, doesn't make a lot of
sense. Just a thought.
Secretary Mineta. We'll take a look at that, Senator.
Senator Breaux. Now, everybody in these two administrations
aren't going to want you to do that. If you ask them, ``Do you
think we ought to eliminate one of you,'' you know what the
answer's going to be, ``Oh, no, we can't do that, because we've
never done it before.'' But, you know, when you're talking
about efficiency in government, to me, for the life of me, I
cannot understand why we have one administration that deals
with truck safety and a separate administration that deals with
car safety. If we had bikes on the highway, we'd have to have
another administration for motorcycle safety. It's all safety,
and it's all by operators of vehicles on the same highways.
Anyway, just a thought. I think you ought to look at it.
The other thing that I wanted to get into in a way is the
safety thing. Back in 1999, on Mother's Day, in Louisiana, in
my State, 22 people lost their lives. It was a horrible
accident involving a motorcoach, a bus. And the bus driver was
fatigued. He had several serious medical conditions. He was
under the influence of sedatives. He was under the influence of
cocaine. The guy should have been in prison, not behind a
wheel. And after that, the NTSB made recommendations and moved
forward in this area, took steps to strengthen the medical
certification process, as I understand it.
And then 3 years later, in June of last year, four more of
our Louisiana citizens were in that horrible bus crash over in
Garland, Texas. The driver of that bus was fatigued. He was
under the influence of sedatives. He was under the influence of
cocaine. Same type of thing. The guy should have been in jail,
not behind a bus with innocent citizens in it. He also
falsified his medical certification records. This guy was a
criminal and we were letting him drive under some--for some
reason, a bus with people.
In July, the Department issued a final rule disqualifying
commercial motor vehicle drivers who have lost their licenses
after having been convicted of a traffic violation driving a
noncommercial vehicle, automobile. And I think that is a really
positive step that you all did. The final rule also
disqualified anyone who had been convicted of committing a
drug- or alcohol-related offense. Again, a real positive step
that the Department has made. But I think that more needs to be
done, because we still don't have the final regulation out on
rules regulating the medical fitness of commercial drivers.
And I'd like to ask you, or anyone, Ms. Sandberg, about
that. Why has that not been done? Because when the state
trooper stops a bus driver, for instance, they can check on the
commercial driver's license--any charges against it, any
violations against it--but they currently, as I understand it,
do not have the capacity or the ability to really check out
that medical certification. It could have expired. They don't
know that. It could have been falsified. They have no real way
of following that up. The guy could have been turned down by
five medical doctors and finally found some outlaw doctor who
just signed it for him. And there's not enough ability to
follow up on the commercial licenses certifying their medical
fitness. The rule has not yet been issued. I know you all tried
to make them work it out, but if they can't work it out, we're
going to have to do the rule without them.
Can anybody bring me up to date on that?
Secretary Mineta. Let me have Administrator Sandberg deal
with that.
Ms. Sandberg. Thank you, Senator.
Yes, we have been working on this specific issue, and out
of the NTSB recommendations that came out of that bus crash.
The first thing that we are doing right now, which is to--we
will have a notice of proposed rulemaking out by December of
this year that ties the medical certification to the commercial
driver's license. That's the key component there.
Senator Breaux. When is it expected?
Ms. Sandberg. We're expected to have the notice of proposed
rulemaking out by December of this year. And then we'll take
comment, and then we'll get the final rule out.
Some other things that we did out of those recommendations
from the NTSB was, one, change our medical certification
process so that doctors could understand what was required. And
then in this reauthorization proposal that you see in front of
you, we have a number of other provisions that strengthen,
specifically, the medical component. That's to put together a
medical review board, as well as certifying medical examiners,
so that we have the appropriate medical examiners actually
making the medical decisions on these individual drivers so
that they're not making improper decisions. For example, the
Louisiana crash, the doctor that certified that individual was
aware of some medical problems and went ahead and certified
that driver. That was one of the weaknesses the NTSB saw.
And so we have some provisions that are in this
reauthorization proposal that allow us to move forward to
tighten up those medical provisions.
And then the last is a component--and we're working through
the Department right now in looking at tying any positive drug
and alcohol test and having a database on that so that we can
identify any drivers that have had positive drug and alcohol
tests previously.
Senator Breaux. In your negotiations with the industry, did
they agree with this, or did--they were not able to agree with
this, or what was the--they couldn't work it out?
Ms. Sandberg. Industry agrees with this provision. They
would like to know when drivers have had previous positive
medical--alcohol or drug tests, because it's to their benefit
that they not put these people behind the wheel of their
vehicle, and so they are working with us on those specific
procedures.
Senator Breaux. It seems that the insurance industry would
also feel very strongly about that. If you're going to insure
my fleet of commercial vehicles, for heaven's sake, have people
who have not been convicted of driving under the influence or
with drug violations behind the wheel, because your rates are
going to go sky high. It should help them with their liability
rates with the new type of certification that this would
require.
I would just urge you all to do it as quickly as we
possibly can. I'm glad to hear that timetable.
I would say to my colleague from Mississippi, I was very
pleased to learn from the Secretary that the SAFETEA bill
proposal has no sunset provisions and that it's going to be
there straight through.
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. It has a sunset. It's immediate. Before you
leave, you might want to hear some of these comments, if you
could just stay a second more.
Mr. Secretary, it's good to see you again. How are you
doing?
Secretary Mineta. I'm doing well, sir.
Senator Lott. Good. We appreciate you coming back before
the Committee. And I know you're used to carrying a heavy load,
and I have to say, I think you've got one in this bill.
The first point is, do you remember what bill it was that
President Ronald Reagan had his veto overridden by the
Congress? The biggest one?
Secretary Mineta. I would say it was highway----
Senator Lott. Oh, highway bill, right. So I hope we're not
headed down that trail now, but----
[Laughter.]
Senator Lott.--I just want to emphasize that a veto threat
does not scare me at all on a highway bill, number one.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lott. Number two, for the folks with you and others
advocating SAFETEA, do you know what the best thing to do for
safety on the highways is in America? You know.
Secretary Mineta. Construction.
Senator Lott. You got it. Build highways. And I'm not
talking about a whole lot of new highways. Make the ones we
have safe. Four-lane them. Widen these bridges. Lay some
asphalt. Have a highway bill that's not diverting money on all
this extraneous stuff.
So, first of all, the $247 billion, 6-year bill is
inadequate. We're going to be way above that when we get
through.
Now, you more than double funding for highway safety, a 100
percent increase, while the core program only grows 4 to 9
percent. I think that's a problem. Do you really think you're
going to be able to eliminate highway discretionary programs?
You know we're not going to do that. We're going to have some
line items. In fact, you know who knew the most about the
highway needs in California, in your district when you were the
Congressman? You.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lott. Not the Secretary of Transportation or some
safety person or some other person. You knew where the greatest
crisis was. And so the very idea that you think we're not going
to have some earmarks, I think somebody's dreaming.
Now, having said that, for instance on your Borders and
Corridors Program, I'm really worried about that program,
because you split it--there are two elements I'm really
concerned about. One, you spend a billion dollars on planning.
You know, instead of putting that money into actual
infrastructure, actually building things, you're going to spend
a billion bucks over the life of the bill on planning uses, not
highway construction uses? And, at the same time, you don't
fund, for instance, remote sensing, which is one of the best
things you can use to plan the best, the safest, and the
environmentally best route. So you don't fund the remote
sensing program in here, or you don't authorize it.
Then you want to spend a billion dollars on planning. We
have one thing we're working on, along with the Gulf Coast of
Mississippi, to move the railroad off the Gulf Cost, which
dissects every town, and to run north of Interstate 10 or run
in with Interstate 10 to get over to New Orleans. So we've
gotten some planning money. They spent about 5 million bucks,
and they showed up with the most ridiculous thing I've ever
seen in my life. I could have written it out on a napkin at a
dinner table and had a better plan than they came up with, and
we'd blown five million bucks.
So I guess I'm just saying, just put a billion bucks into
this planning, it looks to me like it'd be better to cut that
way back and put a lot more of it into actual construction or
ready-to-go projects. I know you're an advocate of that. You
think that's one way to help the economy. Where we've got
these--you all have got a term for it--but you've got these
projects, you've already had the planning and the environmental
impact statement and all of that, and they're ready to be
built. That would be something that would really be good for
the economy and would help save lives. And then you also
eliminate--as a State, you define the borders program--you
know, you come up with a plan, basically, that eliminates
States like my own State of Mississippi, even though we're on
the Gulf of Mexico, unless you--let's see, I'm trying to
remember--who is it--the way you define it, only States like
Arizona, Canada, Idaho, those that border Mexico and Canada are
included, even though a lot of us have border and corridor
possibilities.
And then you also allow for our money to be spent to
construct projects in Canada and Mexico. Do I understand that
correctly? Can you respond to that, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Mineta. We have one on the Yukon Highway. That's
a continuation of a program that's existed with Canada for I
don't know how many years, but it's one that follows all the
way on up into Alaska.
Senator Lott. Is it so we can get from the Lower 48 to
Alaska?
Secretary Mineta. Yes, sir.
Senator Lott. It's not so----
Secretary Mineta. And there has been----
Senator Lott. It doesn't, for instance, over--it won't be
used, for instance, from Maine into Canada? I'm not picking on
Maine. It's just that I don't think the American people think
too much of the idea that we're taking our highway money and
spending it in Canada or Mexico. I hope that you think about
that.
Then you've got a $7 million, 6-year, blue-ribbon
commission to study highway safety needs and develop realistic
national safety goals for reducing highway fatalities. I want
to do that, too, but that's $42 million for a blue ribbon
commission to do more planning, and so forth.
And I understand that you take $1.5 million of funding out
of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the Transportation
Energy and Environment Program. Is that correct?
Secretary Mineta. That's correct. That's under a Clean Air
Act program to have vehicles at airports that are not emitting
air pollution, because there are so many tugs and tractors,
other kinds of vehicles at airports, and so that's the purpose
of that program.
Senator Lott. Well, I think you got my drift here. And I
know you well enough to know that you understand what I'm
saying and why I'm saying it. So rather than asking you five or
six questions based on what I was talking about there, let me
ask you to give me a generic answer. I'm not real impressed
with this. I think you're wasting tons of money, and we ought
to be building and repairing roads, building four-lane roads to
keep people from being killed on narrow two-lane roads, like my
father and like my daughter.
I can give you a school bus case, too. My daughter's
daughter is going to be riding a school bus soon to where
recently, because of a narrow bridge, you know, a truck scraped
the side of the bus spewing glass all into the bus onto the
kids. Now, you want to help make kids safer on buses, how about
some bridges that are not so narrow you can't have a truck and
a bus pass on the same bridge at the same time?
So give me something that makes me feel better.
Secretary Mineta. First of all----
Senator Lott. I'm a loyal supporter of this Administration,
and I'm a long-time friend of yours, but this is not pretty.
Secretary Mineta. Well, first of all, Senator Lott, this
bill is the largest infrastructure investment in surface
transportation by any administration. It's larger than ISTEA,
larger than TEA-21. And the $247 billion that's in this bill is
the largest investment in surface transportation projects.
Now, there's been a great deal of discussion about how
much, in dollars, is in this bill. But, by the same token, I
would hope that the programmatic reforms that we have in this
bill will not be overlooked because of the amount of money
that's in this bill. And we think that both because of the
emphasis on SAFETEA on safety that the programs that we have
here to reduce traffic deaths, to reduce traffic injuries, is
important at this time.
For a number of years, we've had the traffic deaths at
about 41-42,000. For the first time, this year we've broken
42,000. And so that's why the emphasis on safety, in terms of
reducing traffic deaths and injuries. The kind of economic cost
to the Nation is something that we can't afford to continue,
and so that's why the emphasis on safety in this legislation.
Senator Lott. Well, I hope that you will take a look,
again, at do we need a $1.42 billion or more for planning and
studying instead of actually doing something about it, even if
it's not building roads. Implement programs. I understand
experts need to take a look at things, but I would hope that we
would get that under a----
Secretary Mineta. Well, this is something----
Senator Lott.--little bit better control.
Secretary Mineta.--we'll be working with all of you, in
terms of developing.
Senator Lott. And will you take a look, also, and let us
know what we might can do, the best way we can work with you on
this Borders and Corridors Program? Because I can see that
we're not going to be inclined to want to do it the way you're
got it set up, and if you would give us some input, that would
help.
Secretary Mineta. Shall do.
Senator Lott. I promise you, Mr. Secretary, despite the way
I sound, I'm going to find a way to be an ally, I think. And I
certainly am not for the gas tax that's being advocated by some
in the House of Representatives. So then the question is,
``Well, how do you get to $320 billion,'' which is where we're
going to wind up being. It won't be easy, but there are some
things you can do, or we can do, working with you, you know,
that can get this number up. That's where we're headed. And I
think if the Administration drags their feet, we're going to do
it anyway, and it would help if the Administration would engage
us and try to help us do it in the most sensible way.
Secretary Mineta. Right.
Senator Lott. I can just let you write it, Mr. Secretary,
and then everything will be fine.
Well, I guess we're going to do a slow roll on you. I'm
glad to see you, again, Mr. Secretary. And I see Senator
Lautenberg is here. I thank you very much. Just remember how
you used to beat up the Secretary of Transportation when he or
she came before your Committee.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lott. Good luck, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Mineta. Thank you very much, Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, nice to see
you again. I'm not sure you're still Norman, but, listen, Mr.
Secretary, it's good to see you. And I promise to give you the
same treatment I would have had you come from our side of the
political aisle.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Just as nice. I mean, you know.
Senator Lott. He came from your side.
Senator Lautenberg. I know. I said I'm going to treat him
the same as I would have had he not.
Anyway, I'm glad to see we arrive at an important moment in
our planning and budgeting. And the Highway Reauthorization
Bill, on its 6-year renewal, manages to be one of Congress'
largest undertakings. And the Senate EPW Committee addresses
most of the subject matter. But Banking reports out the mass
transit title, and this Committee, Commerce, is responsible for
safety, Dr. Runge, and rail programs. And I've long been
interested in making our roads and highways safer.
During my first three terms, I wrote some bills, now law.
Increased the drinking age from 18 to 21. That was in 1984,
when President Reagan was in charge and Elizabeth Dole was the
Secretary of Transportation at the time. We established .08 as
the blood-alcohol standard for drunk driving, and that also
saves a bunch of lives. Increasing the drinking age, I think,
is estimated to be about a thousand lives a year of young
people, a thousand families that don't have to mourn the loss
of a child, and it's a really wonderful outcome.
And I wrote the ban on triple-trailered trucks from those
States that were not grandfathered. And we're still fighting
over that. It worries me that we're going to be dealing with
that again, but I think that good judgment will prevail and
we'll not permit them on roads that are not equipped for them
and where the menace is a very serious one.
The 1991 highway bill, titled ISTEA, and that was a long
time ago. ISTEA. We called ISTEA--the 1997 reauthorization that
was titled the Transportation Equity Act. We call that one TEA-
21. And I understand now we're going to be looking at the
SAFETEA. A lot of tea drinkers here. And the title may be
catchy, but I think it's a little bit of a misnomer, because I
don't see proposals in here that are going to enhance highway
safety. I'm afraid it's going to be diminished. And the
proposal that allows States to raise safety programs so they
can build more highways, I think, is misguided.
Last year, almost 43,000 people died in traffic accidents,
so the Administration's failure to take a leadership role here
is deeply disappointing, and I'd like your comments, Mr.
Secretary, and I'll be finished with my statement in just a
minute. And for it to take the position that if a State wants
to use Federal money for critical highway safety programs to
build more highways, it's disturbing.
Last week, I attended a press conference to remember the
15th anniversary of the Kentucky bus crash, an accident caused
by a repeat drunk driver, killed 27 people, mostly children,
and injured another 30. And since then we've had the equivalent
of another 10,400 Kentucky bus crashes. Last year, alcohol-
related traffic fatalities rose for the third consecutive year,
nearly 18,000 people died on the highways. And yet the safety
proposal has just $50 million for impaired driving control
programs, and that's less than current funding.
So I know that Dr. Runge, the head of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, is a staunch advocate of safety
programs, and we talked earlier in a hearing that this
Committee held earlier this year. I think Dr. Runge, it's fair
to say, supported .08 and the increase in the legal drinking
age. And the bill does have some incentive for States to pass
mandatory seatbelt laws. But I fear that there isn't enough
safety input on the Administration's bill. It falls short of
what we need to do as part of the reauthorization to make our
roads and highways safer.
The Administration's proposed funding levels for safety
programs are insufficient in making the funding fungible so
that it can be used for other purposes. The challenge is common
sense.
I'm working with Senator DeWine, from Ohio, on legislation
to improve highway safety, and I look forward to working with
my colleagues here on the Commerce Committee to get these
provisions incorporated into our segment of the reauthorization
bill that makes it way to the Senate floor.
And, Secretary Mineta, the Administration's proposal allows
States to flex their highway safety funding, allowing them to
dip into the safety funds to help build more roads, rather than
address behavioral problems like seatbelts and drunk driving.
Based on a recent GAO report, we see that when given a choice,
States are more likely to spend money on infrastructure than
addressing the behavior problem.
And I know that you're familiar with the problem, and as
we've heard it several times this afternoon, almost 43,000
people died on our roads. Why doesn't the Administration's
proposal take more of a leadership role in addressing these
safety problems, Mr. Secretary? We've seen it in the past, with
the establishing of national standards for seatbelt use, drunk
driving standards, like .08, open container. Is the Federal
Government moving away from a leadership role on the safety
issues?
Secretary Mineta. Not at all, Senator. This bill, first of
all, in terms of the amount of investment it makes in
infrastructure, in surface transportation programs, is the
largest investment by any Administration, larger than ISTEA,
larger than TEA-21. And the $247 billion is the largest
investment.
Now, at the same time, the emphasis is on safety, and we
have more than doubled the amount of money that's in the safety
program. And one of the things that we have done is to allow
flexibility at the State and local level in order to allow
those transportation leaders to be able to direct their
financial resources to where they think the problems are.
I think when you have categorical programs, it's sort of
one size fits all. But in terms of looking at State by State,
they're facing the various problems that vary from one State to
another. And what we have built into this program is the
flexibility of those States to be able to take the financial
resources that they have and direct them to the immediate needs
of those States.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, is it a question of either/or?
Either it goes to safety or to other needs? Building more
roadway and forgetting something about safety? There's one pot
there, and if it's to be used for more than one purpose,
obviously one is going to suffer. And if we had the sums that
we had last year devoted to it, we'd at least look like we're
as concerned about safety this year as we've been in the past.
And this is a long-term proposition. We're talking about a 6-
year reauthorization. I think that we ought to make certain
that safety isn't compromised in any way.
Look what we've done in the past. We've imposed penalties
for States that didn't comply, as you know. I'm sure that .08
now kicks into the penalty phase if States don't do it. One of
the States is my own, of New Jersey, has yet to pass the bill.
It's disheartening for me. We're talking a life-saving thing
and estimated to be perhaps 500 lives a year across the country
if all the States comply.
So I'm surprised that--given the choice. I mean, one
wouldn't do that in aviation, say, ``OK, you can build another
tower or do other things to improve the safety of the system.''
You wouldn't say, ``OK, well, it's a question of more volume or
safety.'' Doesn't that strike you as being kind of an anomalous
situation?
Secretary Mineta. But we also do have sanctions in this
legislation as it relates to a certain issue. Maybe Dr. Runge
could expand on this.
Dr. Runge. Senator Lautenberg, I want to just broadly
expand on what the Secretary said about not trying to paint all
States with the same brush. We also know very well what the
causes of highway deaths are. Two-thirds of the highway deaths
are the failure to use safety belts and impaired driving. So we
will not be able to pave our way out of this problem. I
couldn't agree with you more.
However, one of the things that is in the bill that is very
important, the underpinning of the flexibility, is every
State's development of a comprehensive highway safety plan at
which all people--not just road builders, but all stakeholders
in safety, must be at the table. And it would be based on
State-specific data.
You'll also see in our bill that we have $50 million per
year for States to improve their highway safety data so that we
can find out where those problems are in the State, whether
they are behavioral, whether they are infrastructure, and that
the money can be apportioned.
With respect to primary safety belt laws, New Jersey is a
classic example of why that is so important. I believe that
your State had, if my memory serves me correctly, nearly a 20
percentage-point increase in belt use over a few years
subsequent to the passage of your primary safety belt law.
So that's why you see our approach to sanctions, which is
real incentives, real money for incentives to go to States if
they do the right thing and pass a primary safety belt law.
With respect to alcohol, I know that's a particular concern
of yours, in fact it's not just $50 million a year; but, in
fact, there is another $340 million over the bill for incentive
grants to go to States who perform well. Their goals must be
aligned with the Administration's goals, our goals, of, for
instance, .53 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled. There will be benchmarks established for those States
to meet, in terms of alcohol fatality rates, in order to get
extra funding.
But there are some States that clearly have not right now.
There are States that couldn't get there if miracles occurred.
So we're going to try to bring those miracles to them. And that
is the $50 million that you see in alcohol grants are going to
go to States that have the biggest problems so that we are not
frittering away funds on States that don't have those problems,
but, in fact, directing them toward where it'll do the most
good. We want to get them to the point where they can qualify
for those incentive grants.
So that part is very directed, but the incentives, overall,
will align with our highway safety goals and will allow States
to do the right thing based on data.
Senator Lautenberg. It's interesting, my assistant just
handed me a note that says that GAO reported that States
overwhelmingly chose to use open-container repeat-offender
transfer funds for construction rather than behavioral
programs.
I think that tells you, first of all, that States are under
terrific stress, as we all know. I mean, it's just--the budgets
have gotten sour for, I think, every State in the country, and
they're all operating with deficits.
I wanted to ask Ms. Sandberg a question. You're aware of
that comprehensive truck size and weight study that your
Department completed August of 2000, and they found that--that
study found that longer combination vehicles, the LCVs, could
be expected to experience an 11 percent higher fatal crash than
single-trailer trucks. The study found also that longer,
heavier trucks cause a tremendous amount of bridge damage. They
say $319 billion for longer combination vehicles alone. We have
a lot of bridges, 2,350 in New Jersey which are either
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
Does the Administration take cognizance of this study? And
is it reflected in actions that have been taken?
Ms. Sandberg. We have been looking at the various studies
with regard to the longer combination vehicles. And I believe,
as I reported to the Committee before, Senator, we are not
looking, at this point, to lift the freeze on longer
combination vehicles. But we are looking at freight and freight
mobility as an intermodal issue inside the Department of
Transportation, because we do know that freight is going to
increase by 43 percent over the next 10 years. And as we look
at that entire issue, we need to look at how we move that kind
of volume of freight on the existing infrastructure we have via
highway, via rail, via shipping, and via air. And so we're
trying to take a holistic look at that entire issue inside the
Department.
Senator Lautenberg. OK, but you say you're not advocating
the release of bans on the LCVs.
Ms. Sandberg. There is nothing in this proposal that
advocates----
Senator Lautenberg. I don't know whether I'll be here 10
years from now, but we'll watch with interest to see what takes
place, because I think it's outrageous that States should be
asked to break the rules, their own judgment, in terms of
safety, and say, ``OK, we'll let these things go.'' If you've
ever seen--and I know you have--films of triples and how they
react in certain weather conditions, there's a menace out
there, and it just frightens the devil out of people who are on
the road in their cars with those. It's too bad we don't have
separate roadways.
Last, I understand, Mr. Secretary, that my colleague,
Senator Hollings, said something about intercity rail
transportation. And I understand that you promised Senator
Hollings an Amtrak proposal by the August recess. I think that
the Administration's surface transportation proposal, SAFETEA,
is a little short-sighted for not taking rail into account.
And I look forward to receiving your proposal, but I don't
know why it can't be understood that without rail, and without
support for rail, without support for an advanced rail system--
and you know--I think we worked together in your days when you
were in the Congress--on trying to improve Amtrak as the
principal high-speed rail service between cities so that it
could carry some portion of the load that we have on our
highways and in the air.
If Amtrak didn't operate in the Northeast Corridor, we
would have some 10,000 flights a year more than we have
between, let's say, Boston, Washington, and New York. And
Amtrak carries more passengers per year than all four aviation
companies, airlines, do in a year. All four combined from New
York carry less than Amtrak does in a year. My gosh, one
doesn't have to be a railroad engineer to know that we're in
trouble. We need reliable sources of funding, and I think we've
had them in the past, and I hope that we can get them included
in the future in a serious way. If we look at the subsidies
necessary to operate aviation, subsidies necessary to put into
our highway system that go behind the straight tax revenues, I
think we'd see that we make an investment in these things
because they're absolutely essential.
And I said last thing. There's one more last thing. And
that is it may be a disconnect from the subject at hand, but I
would tell you, Mr. Secretary, if we go ahead and privatize
FAA, we're going to be spending an awful lot more money than we
have, and I don't think we get the same value. And if you look
at the experience in the U.K. and Canada, it establishes the
fact that security on the cheap is not the best investment.
Thank you all for--I'm sorry to have kept you. And I came
in last, but you didn't have to, and I thank you for being
here, and thank you for your participation.
Secretary Mineta. Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta
Adequacy of Overall Funding Authorizations
Question 1. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) 2002 report
to Congress on the condition and performance of the Nation's highways,
bridges and transit concluded that average annual capital spending over
the next 20 years by all levels of government (in constant 2000
dollars) would have to be 17.5 percent larger than capital spending in
2000 just to maintain our highways and bridges. Does the
Administration's proposal include enough additional funding, as
identified by FHWA, to keep our roads and bridges maintained?
Answer. As you noted, the ``2002 Status of the Nation's Highways,
Bridges and Transit: Conditions and Performance'' report to Congress
(C&P report) focuses on the impacts of investment by all levels of
government combined over 20 years, rather than Federal investment
alone. The C&P report does not endorse any particular funding level,
and the proposed Federal-aid highway program funding levels are not
directly linked to any C&P scenario. Instead, the program size is set
at a level that the expected level of Highway Account revenues (from
current taxes and the redirection of 2.5 cents per gallon of gasohol)
can sustain and that will allow the maintenance of prudent cash
reserves in the Highway Account.
I would like to clarify the meaning of the ``Cost to Maintain
Highways and Bridges'' identified in the 2002 C&P report. This term
describes a level of investment at which future conditions and
performance would be maintained at a level sufficient to keep average
highway user costs from rising above their 2000 levels. It thus
represents a more ambitious target than simply maintaining the physical
condition of the infrastructure.
You correctly note that the C&P report indicates that capital
investment by all levels of government would need to increase by 17.5
percent above base year 2000 levels in order to reach the ``Cost to
Maintain Highways and Bridges'' level. The C&P report also indicated
that this difference would shrink to 11.3 percent over the 2001 to 2003
period, due in part to higher Federal funding levels in the latter
years of TEA-21. Further shrinkage of this ``gap'' will depend on the
level and types of Federal, State, local government, and private
highway investment over this period.
Question 2. FHWA also concluded that the cost to maintain and also
make improvements to the Nation's highways would require an increase in
average annual capital outlays of 65.3 percent by all levels of
government. To what extent would the Administration's proposal actually
fund improvements to our highway system?
Answer. The ``Cost to Improve Highways and Bridges'' scenario in
the C&P describes an investment level above which it would not be cost-
beneficial to invest. However, at this level of investment, major
indicators of highway physical condition and operational performance
would show considerable improvement over the 20-year analysis period.
It should be noted, however, that this level of funding is far greater
than historical national levels of highway and bridge investment and
represents the maximum level of investment if resources were
unconstrained.
All forms of highway capital investment represent ``improvements''
to the current state of the system. Pavement resurfacing and bridge
rehabilitation projects improve the quality of the existing
infrastructure; highway expansion and ITS projects improve the
operational performance of transportation system; other targeted
highway investments can help improve the safety performance of the
system. All of these types of investments are eligible activities under
the Federal-aid Highway Program.
Corridors and Border Program
Question 3. What is the rationale for requiring a 20 percent state
share for border projects? Is it fair to require states to help fund
what is clearly a national issue?
Answer. A central concept of ISTEA and TEA-21 was added flexibility
for State and local officials to determine how their Federally-
apportioned funds could best be invested. SAFETEA expands upon this
principle by giving states and localities even more discretion in key
program areas. For the border program, States have the authority to
determine if a border project is a priority for the States. If it is a
priority, then the state may apply for border program funds for that
project. By requiring a 20 percent match, we are ensuring that states
are making transportation decisions based on their needs and
priorities.
While projects adjacent to an international border clearly have
national implications due to improvements in the flow of international
commercial traffic, these projects are still considered to be standard
Federal-aid projects. Such projects generally benefit the State because
of increased efficiency and lessened congestion in the border area, and
may be even more beneficial to State interests than to national
interests.
Discontinuance of Discretionary Programs
Question 4. As you probably know, Mr. Secretary, I am opposed to
Members using the highway program to earmark funds for pet projects in
their home states. So I was very interested to learn that the
Administration's proposal would discontinue a number of discretionary
programs. How much earmarked funding or discretionary spending would be
discontinued in the Administration's plan?
Answer. Almost half a billion dollars annually in discretionary
programs are eliminated (valuing the eliminated discretionary programs
at the levels authorized in TEA-21 for FY 2003). In most cases, the
eliminated discretionary programs allowed increases in funding for the
core highway formula programs. In two cases--the Intelligent
Transportation Systems Deployment Program and the Transportation,
Community, and Systems Preservation Program--the discretionary programs
were converted to formula programs.
Question 5. How much would eliminating these programs improve
equity in the distribution of highway funds for donor states like
Arizona?
Answer. To the extent that the funds made available by the
elimination of the discretionary programs are used to increase the
funding for the core highway formula programs, they can improve equity
in the distribution of highway funds. The Minimum Guarantee calculation
captures funds distributed under the core highway programs (and under
TEA-21, the High Priority Projects Program), but does not include
discretionary allocations. The more that funds are concentrated in
programs that ``count'' in the Minimum Guarantee calculation, the
closer the calculation will be to the true return on contributions.
Donor States
Question 6. Under TEA-21, through 2001, Arizona has received back
only 87 percent of its share of total contributions to the Highway
Trust Fund. The Administration's proposal would maintain the so-called
90.5 percent minimum guarantee, which is not a guaranteed return on all
highway funds. Why should any donor state, particularly those receiving
less than a 90.5 percent return, support such a proposal?
Answer. TEA-21 greatly improved the equity of the overall
distribution of highway formula funds and did so in a balanced way. In
spite of this progress, the issue of return on contributions to the
Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund remains the most difficult of
all formula issues because it pits the national economy's need for a
strong, connected highway system in every State against the desire for
an equitable return on State contributions. Meeting both of these
competing goals is costly and a balance must be struck. We believe that
SAFETEA's greater concentration of funding in the formula programs will
help.
Question 7. What is the Administration's position on increasing the
minimum guarantee to 95 percent?
Answer. Regardless of any specific return on contributions, it is
important that highway funding be distributed so as to meet important
national needs and that the costs of providing the return on
contributions be within the means of the Highway Account of the Highway
Trust Fund.
Flexible Funding Pilot Project
Question 8. The SAFETEA proposal would establish a pilot program
that would allow up to five states to combine funds from various
spending categories and manage their highway programs on a systematic,
performance basis. What does DOT hope to learn from such a pilot
program and how long do you think it would take to determine whether
this kind of funding flexibility should be extended to an states?
Answer. We hope to test the ability of interested states to manage
Federal-aid highway funds on a performance-driven basis. In cooperation
with the Department, States will need to define goals, devise
strategies to meet those goals, and measure the success of those
strategies. Under the pilot we would also test the success of turning
over to the pilot participants some or all of those responsibilities
that normally rest with the Secretary of Transportation.
Given the long-term nature of highway projects, we would not
anticipate a full evaluation of the pilot until near the end of the
reauthorization period. This would position the Department and the
Congress to consider the success of the pilot and application of any
lessons learned in formulating future legislation.
Question 9. Why is the flexible funding limited to certain
categories of highway dollars? Why not allow states to use their
highway funds to meet the transportation needs of the state, including
transit or even intercity rail (Amtrak) service if that is a state's
transportation priority?
Answer. The pilot allows the consolidation and performance-based
management of the vast majority of highway formula funds. The
consolidated funds may be obligated for any purpose authorized under
title 23, United States Code, which would include significant
opportunities to use the funds for transit. We believe that it is
important for the pilot to test the performance-based management of
funds without the additional complication of doing so with funds
administered by multiple Federal agencies.
Treatment of Proceeds of the Sale of Property Purchased with Federal
Funds
Question 10. The Administration's proposal would allow Federal
funds to be used by states to help fund the expeditious acquisition of
``critical'' property needed for transportation purposes and threatened
by imminent development for other purposes. Notably, states would not
be permitted to retain the federal-aid share of the proceeds if a
parcel were sold or leased. I find this curious because FHWA has
concluded that in general, the proceeds from a sale by a state of
excess property are ``state funds'' regardless of the Federal
contribution to the original purpose. For instance, just this week, I
received a reply to my September 2002 letter on this subject, informing
me that DOT is permitting the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to apply
approximately $86 million in funds from the sale of a building
purchased with Federal aid to the cost of the notoriously over-budget
``Big Dig'' and not planning to count any of the proceeds against the
Federal spending cap of $8.5 billion. Let me also point out that this
position is also contrary to both the opinion of the DOT Inspector
General and the General Accounting Office (GAO). Shouldn't states
always be required to treat as Federal funds the portion of proceeds
from sales of excess property or facilities purchased with Federal
funds?
Answer. Section 1504 of SAFETEA would expand a provision of
existing law (23 U.S.C. 108(c)) that allows States to acquire critical
properties in advance of environmental review to protect the rights-of-
way of future transportation projects. Under current law, States may
acquire such property with State funds and obtain Federal reimbursement
when and if it is incorporated into the right-of-way after the project
receives Federal approval. Section 1504 would merely allow states to
request Federal funding at the time that such critical property is
acquired under very limited circumstances if it is offered for sale on
the open market. Because the property would be acquired before
environmental review of the project, it is important to ensure that
neither the State nor the Federal Government environmental review is
biased by the acquisition action. To eliminate financial considerations
from influencing the environmental process, the Federal funding should
be undone if the property is not used for the project. To accomplish
that result, section 1504 would provide that these critical property
acquisitions would be exempt from section 156(c) of title 23, United
States Code.
By contrast, section 156(c) normally applies to property acquired
after Federal project approval. Income may be generated by the sale or
lease of excess property or right-of-way airspace that is not needed
for transportation purposes. The provision is intended to encourage
States to realize the income potential of such property and to ensure
that the income is used for eligible transportation purposes. Before
the enactment of section 156, those goals were not being achieved.
Section 156 applies in many more situations than we anticipate would be
covered by section 1504 of SAFETEA. We believe that allowing states to
retain income generated by sale of excess property, so long as the
Federal share of the proceeds is used for title 23 eligible projects,
advances the purposes of title 23 and promotes streamlining, while
reducing administrative burdens.
Project Oversight
Question 11. The Administration's proposal includes new provisions
to improve FHWA oversight of major projects like the notoriously over-
budget ``Big Dig'' and the Wilson Bridge. How does the proposal compare
with the recommendations the General Accounting Office has made?
Answer. In GAO-03-764T (a statement for the record for the
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies,
House Committee on Appropriations), the General Accounting Office (GAO)
summarized cost and oversight issues raised in reports and testimonies
issued since 1995 on major highway and bridge projects and described
options that GAO had identified to enhance Federal oversight of these
projects. Section 1802, Stewardship and Oversight, of the
Administration's reauthorization proposal includes several provisions
intended to improve oversight of Federal-aid highway projects and
address the options described by GAO. We are also pursuing stewardship
improvements that do not require legislation, such as tracking cost
growth on all projects greater than $10 million and evaluating cost
estimating processes on a nationwide level in order to formulate
guidance; developing project management guidance and a project
management plan template; and developing a systematic risk management
program to guide agency stewardship.
One provision of our Stewardship and Oversight proposal in SAFETEA
would require the Secretary to establish an oversight program to
monitor the effective and efficient use of funds authorized under title
23, with a specific focus on financial integrity and project delivery.
Under this provision, the Secretary must perform annual reviews that
address elements of States' financial management systems and project
delivery systems. As part of the financial integrity oversight, the
Secretary would be required to develop minimum standards for estimating
project costs, and to periodically evaluate States' practices for
estimating project costs, awarding contracts, and reducing project
costs. States would be required to determine that sub-recipients of
Federal funds have sufficient accounting controls and project delivery
systems.
TEA-21 amended title 23 to require States to submit annual
financial plans to the Secretary for projects under title 23 with an
estimated total cost of $1 billion or more (major projects). Section
1802 of SAFETEA would further require States to submit a project
management plan for such projects. The project management plan would
document the procedures and processes in place to provide timely
information to the project decisionmakers to effectively manage the
scope, costs, schedules, and quality of the Federal requirements of the
project and the role of the agency leadership and management team in
the delivery of the project. The project management plan would be
developed at an appropriate early stage in the development of a major
project.
Another provision would require a recipient of Federal financial
assistance to prepare an annual financial plan for projects that
receive $100,000,000 or more in Federal financial assistance and that
are not subject to the requirements for major projects. These annual
financial plans would be available for the Secretary's review upon the
Secretary's request.
Other options described by GAO are addressed through the agency's
performance plan activities. For example, performance goals and
strategies are established for monitoring project costs. Also,
processes are established to track the progress of projects against
their initial baseline cost estimates.
Hazmat
Question 12. The Administration's proposal contains a number of
provisions addressing the transportation of hazardous materials. Why
does the proposal not go so far as to reauthorize the hazardous
materials transportation safety program which the Senate tried to
accomplish during the last highway reauthorization bill?
Answer. The Administration did not consider all provisions that
would go into a hazardous material transportation reauthorization bill
to be relevant or appropriate for consideration in the context of
reauthorization of the Highway Trust Fund and enhancement of surface
transportation security. The Department of Transportation is preparing
a hazardous materials transportation reauthorization proposal that it
plans to submit shortly to the Office of Management and Budget for
approval.
Freight Gateways
Question 13. One of the most important U.S. freight gateways is
Chicago. Nearly one-third of all rail shipments travel through Chicago.
but shipments currently take two days or more to move through the city
and. because of the delays. an estimated 18,000 trailers and containers
are off-loaded from railroad flatcars and trucked across town. How
could the provisions of SAFETEA be used to improve the movement of
freight. both by truck and by rail. through this and other critical
gateways?
Answer. The percentage of freight tonnage moved on our
transportation system is projected to increase over 70 percent by 2020.
In response to the future freight forecasts, as well as the challenges
confronting us today in gateway areas such as Chicago. the Department
included several provisions in SAFETEA that support freight mobility
and address congestion. security. safety. environmental, and quality of
life issues associated with freight transportation gateways.
Section 1205, ``Freight Transportations Gateways; Freight
Intermodal Connectors,'' would make publicly owned intermodal freight
transportation projects eligible under the Surface Transportation
Program (STP). This proposal would allow funding of publicly owned
intermodal transfer facilities, such as Chicago's rail yard, or
intermodal access to such facilities, and transportation infrastructure
modifications necessary to facilitate intermodal access to and from
ports. This section also encourages States and localities to adopt
innovative finance strategies for freight gateway improvements,
including new user fees and private sector investment.
As you note with the Chicago example in your question, many
gateways use locally owned connector roads between the gateway or port
and the nearest freeway(s). Many of these freight connector roads are
in disrepair and create bottlenecks and congestion. Section 1205 of
SAFETEA would dedicate funding for intermodal freight and Strategic
Highway Network connectors from funds apportioned for the National
Highway System (NHS). The amount of the setaside funding is determined
by the proportion of freight/STRAHNET connector miles in a State
compared to the total NHS mileage in the State, or 2 percent of funds
apportioned for the NHS in a Fiscal Year, whichever is greater. A State
may be exempted from the required set-aside by showing that connectors
in the State are in good condition and providing an adequate level of
service. In addition, SAFETEA would increase the Federal share for
freight and STRAHNET connector projects from 80 percent to 90 percent.
Most connectors are in local ownership and the match is often a problem
for local jurisdictions.
SAFETEA would expand eligibility for the Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program (TIFIA) to allow both
public and private rail projects to qualify for TIFIA credit
assistance. SAFETEA also expands the availability of tax-exempt private
activity bonds to include freight transfer facilities.
Opening of the Border
Question 14. If the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) proceeds with a full environmental impact statement (EIS) [as
required by the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco], how long do you expect the EIS will take to complete and
implement?
Answer. FMCSA recently issued its Request for Quotations and should
have a contractor on-board shortly to develop the programmatic EIS that
was required by the 9th Circuit Court for rules relating to the
operation of Mexican trucks in the United States. Until the FMCSA makes
that contract award to the successful vendor, we are unable to
speculate on the exact time-frame required to develop and implement the
EIS; however, an EIS of this magnitude is expected to take at least 18
months.
Question 15. What is the status of U.S.-Mexico negotiations to
permit U.S. inspectors to conduct on-site safety audits and compliance
reviews of Mexican trucking companies?
Answer. The Department developed a proposed Memorandum of
Understanding with Mexico focusing on the protocol for conducting
safety audits in Mexico by U.S. inspectors as well as the conduct of
similar functions in the U.S. by Mexican inspectors. That proposed
protocol was sent to Mexico some time ago, and we are following up with
the government of Mexico.
Question 16. Should the inspectors and auditors hired to inspect
trucks coming into the U.S. from Mexico be reassigned until there is a
date certain for the opening of the border?
Answer. Federal Border Inspectors hired and trained to conduct
vehicle inspections along the southwest border continue to effectively
and efficiently inspect commercial vehicles operating in the commercial
zones along the border. Reassignment of inspectors would detract from
improving safety along the border.
FMCSA also has hired and trained Safety Auditors to conduct safety
audits on Mexican carriers and has hired Safety Investigators to
conduct safety compliance reviews on Mexican carriers, and those
activities continue. However, due to the effects of the 9th Circuit
Court decision, the volume of safety audits and compliance reviews has
not approached the level anticipated.
Reassignment of Safety Auditors and Safety Investigators would not
be effective in the long term since they will be needed at the border
once it has opened for long-haul commercial vehicles from Mexico.
However, FMCSA is planning to expand training and improve the skill
levels of those staff through temporary training assignments in other
parts of the country.
FMCSA Administrative Budget
Question 17. The Administration's FY 2004 budget request for FMCSA
shows an increase of approximately $56 million in Federal
administrative expenses, to a total of $224.4 million. What is the
funding needed for and how do you justify such a large increase?
Answer. In the context of FMCSA's proposed FY 2004 account
structure, FY 2003 enacted Federal operating expenses and program
funding levels total $168.1 million. FMCSA's total request of $224.4
million for these activities in FY 2004 would be funded from the
proposed SAFETEA authorization for administrative expenses. The $56.3
million increase is comprised of the following adjustments to the base
budget and program increases/decreases:
Adjustments to Base ($000): $9,571
Personnel Cost Increase: $2,645
The total requested increase of $2,645 in personnel compensation
and benefits includes:
$826 to annualize January 2003 pay raises (4.1 percent
increase to FY 2003 salaries and benefits base for applicable
workdays in FY 2004).
$1,208 to fund January 2004 pay raises (2 percent increase
to FY 2003 salaries and benefits base for applicable workdays
in FY 2004).
$611 for other mandatory personnel costs.
Extra Work Day: $487
$487 to fund salaries, benefits and operating expenses attributable
to the extra workday in FY 2004.
Technical Adjustment for FY 2002 Emergency Supplemental: $3,000
$4.2 million was provided as part of the FY 2002 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriation to implement Section 1012 of the USA Patriot
Act, which mandates that a system be set up to conduct security
background checks of all CDL drivers who have a hazardous materials
endorsement or are applying for the endorsement. Funding was not
requested in the FY 2003 President's Budget. $3 million is needed in FY
2004 for program implementation.
GSA Rent: $1,777
This adjustment to base reflects GSA increases for rent
adjustments, lease expirations, and forced moves. The funding level
reflects an increase in space due to staffing requirements.
OST Support Services: $344
This adjustment to base reflects increases based on OST estimates
for services provided.
Inflation Adjustment: $1,318
The FY 2004 Federal Non-Defense Non-Pay Expenditure Deflator of 1.7
percent was calculated on selected FMCSA operations.
Program Increases/Decreases ($000): $46,705
New Entrant Program--Federal Operations: $16,200
Implementation of the New Entrant program will fulfill the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA), Section 210(a) mandate
for DOT to establish regulations specifying minimum requirements for
applicant motor carriers seeking Federal interstate operating
authority. This program is also required by Section 350 of the FY 2002
DOT Appropriations Act as a precondition to opening the southern border
to Mexican commercial vehicles.
A joint Federal-State funding mechanism is proposed including $16.2
million to support 32 FTE for Federal oversight and 67 contracted
safety auditors, as well as expanded MCSAP grant funding of $17.0
million for full year implementation of the program. Federal funds will
provide infrastructure costs and training of both Federal and State
personnel. The Federal-State split is needed as it is anticipated that
up to 30 percent of the States will not be able to use MCSAP funding
for this program due to incompatibility in State statutes and
regulations. FMCSA plans to move Federal contract audit costs to State
grants in the out years contingent upon the level of State
participation in the program.
Administrative Infrastructure: $10,423
To achieve the objectives of the President's Management Agenda and
meet the additional responsibilities placed on FMCSA, it is now
necessary to fully develop a comprehensive headquarters and field
administrative infrastructure. In order to provide FMCSA with the
necessary level of support, $10.4 million is required in FY 2004.
Competitive sourcing principles and practices will be used to acquire
these critical resources.
When FMCSA was first established, the rapid rate at which new
programmatic and management responsibilities would accrue to the agency
could not have been predicted. These new activities, like the opening
of the U.S.-Mexico border, exacted a toll on both FMCSA and FHWA's
administrative capacities. Each agency was inundated with ever
increasing workloads and heightened performance expectations. For FHWA,
the reimbursement level provided by FMCSA for key administrative
services was well below the level at which FHWA should have been
compensated in relation to the work being performed. FMCSA was being
supported by another agency for its work, a situation that cannot be
sustained in the long term. Consequently, FMCSA is requesting the
resources necessary to obtain and pay for administrative services
commensurate with its workload and performance targets. Only with the
resources needed to implement and sustain a comprehensive
administrative infrastructure, will FMCSA be in a position to
effectively manage for results.
Regulatory Development: $8,979
Regulatory Development is the cornerstone of FMCSA's compliance and
enforcement process. Without additional funds to promulgate all
mandated regulations, program performance will be compromised. FMCSA
requests $9 million in FY 2004 for new and expanded commercial motor
vehicle safety regulatory development.
The requested increase will support the development and
implementation of new and amended FMCSRs, and two new priority
initiatives: (1) a standing Medical Review Board to support the
development and implementation of performance-based commercial driver
qualification standards; and (2) a National Medical Examiner Registry
and certification program to upgrade the quality of commercial driver
medical examinations nationally. The funding will also provide the
agency with sufficient resources to operate the Waivers, Exemptions,
and Pilot Programs, which provide motor carriers and drivers with the
opportunity to request relief from specific FMCSR requirements. These
include the current vision exemption program, the planned diabetes
exemption program, and requests for exemptions for loss or impairment
of limbs.
Information Management: $4,157
In FY 2004, the Information Management budget requested increase is
$4.2 million. The requested increase reflects significant changes in
two major areas--Information Technology Infrastructure and the Motor
Carrier Management Information System (FMCSA's premier safety data
system).
In FY 2004, FMCSA will need to create an independent FMCSA
information technology (IT) infrastructure. This request provides for
procuring telecommunication lines for local and wide area network
support for each field office, setting up firewalls and creating
independent IT security systems, establishing a FMCSA e-mail system,
systematic procurement of upgraded hardware and software, creating
backup systems, and providing technical support for IT infrastructure.
The second area that requires a significant increase in the IM
budget request is improving the Motor Carrier Management Information
System (MCMIS). The MCMIS files are populated with vital roadside
inspection and traffic crash data by the States. In addition, MCMIS is
the repository for FMCSA compliance review and enforcement case data
and carrier registration data. Without the requested increase, the
efficiency and effectiveness of any FMCSA program that uses safety data
would be adversely affected. Both FMCSA enforcement staff and State
enforcement personnel rely on MCMIS to provide timely, complete and
accurate safety data. Without that data, enforcement staff will not be
targeting the correct carriers at the roadside or their place of
business. The increase will enable MCMIS to accommodate major new FMCSA
efforts, including New Entrants and Unified Registration System, and to
ensure that MCMIS data are properly secured.
HAZMAT Permitting: $2,000
FMCSA is requesting $2 million/13 FTE in FY 2004 to implement a
HAZMAT Permit program. 49 U.S.C. 5109 requires DOT to implement a
HAZMAT Permitting Program for certain carriers of extremely hazardous
materials. The program is intended to ensure that carriers transporting
these materials have sufficient safety and security measures in place
to accomplish that transportation without loss of life, injury, or
property damage. These additional measures are necessary due to the
possibility of catastrophic consequences if these materials are
released, either accidentally or deliberately. Currently there are more
than 2,700 interstate carriers that would be subject to the HAZMAT
permitting requirements. FMCSA estimates an equal number of intrastate
carriers will be subject to the permitting requirements.
Household Goods Enforcement: $1,008
In FY 2004, FMCSA requests an additional $1 million/7 FTE to
effectively fund and staff the household goods enforcement program.
These funds will be used to primarily establish a highly visible
enforcement program to reduce the number of consumer complaints filed
against household goods carriers and brokers and increase consumer
awareness to allow shippers to make better informed decisions before
they move across state lines.
Outreach & Education Program: $1,000
FMCSA requests $1 million in FY 2004 to continue and expand the
``Safety is Good Business'' and ``Share the Road Safely'' programs.
(Note: under TEA-21 $500K was provided annually under a NHTSA
reimbursement, which will not continue in FY 2004.)
Conditional Carrier Reviews: $1,006
FMCSA is requesting 8 additional Safety Investigators to further
reduce the population of carriers currently operating with a less-than-
satisfactory safety rating. FMCSA conducts 1,460 re-reviews annually,
but would have to conduct 2,840 re-reviews to include all less than
satisfactory carriers. The requested 8 investigators would facilitate
an additional 500 compliance reviews annually. This would bring the
overall annual effort to 1,960 compliance reviews focused on carriers
that have been previously identified as ``at-risk'' that continue to
pose a safety risk on our highways.
Research & Technology Program: ($73)
Inflation increases are not included for this program in FY 2004.
PRISM Operations Program: ($11)
Inflation increases are not included for this program in FY 2004.
Safety/Consumer Hotlines: ($4)
Inflation increases are not included for this program in FY 2004.
Adjustment for FY 2003 Enacted: $2,020
Includes adjustments resulting from the enacted across-the-board
rescission of 0.65 percent, Working Capital Fund rescission of $200
thousand, FY 2003 pay raise levels, and other technical adjustments.
Question 17. What is the justification for requesting $16.2 million
in new funds for Federal staff to administer the new entrants program,
but requiring the states to fund their portion--$17 million--out of
their existing Motor Carrier Safety grant money?
Answer. The President's FY 2004 budget for the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration includes funding for both the Federal new
entrant program and a State new entrant program. For the Federal
program, $16.2 million is requested to fund 32 program oversight staff
and to hire contract staff to conduct new entrant audits where states
are unable to fully conduct audits. The State program includes a $17
million request for MCSAP grants to States for 100 percent funding of
State staff to conduct new entrant audits. By including a separate new
entrant State program in the FY 2004 budget, States will not be
expected to use their existing MCSAP grant funds.
Household Goods Enforcement
Question 18. The Administration's FY 2004 budget request for FMCSA
requests funding for seven additional employees for household goods
regulation enforcement and compliance. Given that FMCSA is receiving
between 3,000 and 4,000 complaints annually, should more resources be
devoted to this effort?
Answer. The 7 FTE's requested in FMCSA's FY 2004 budget request for
household goods enforcement and compliance is consistent with our
reauthorization proposal. The 7 commercial investigators will begin the
process of reducing household goods complaints by concentrating on the
most egregious violators.
FMCSA plans to expand the New Entrant Review process by including a
commercial regulations HHG motor carrier component as a part of its New
Entrant Safety review process. The New Entrant review program will
utilize FMCSA's current field staff, which includes over 200 safety
investigators. This program will act as an effective deterrent, in that
all New Entrant household goods carriers will be contacted, within 18
months after beginning operations, to ensure that they have HHG
arbitration and other required programs in place.
FMCSA's coordinated enforcement efforts with other Federal and
State regulatory agencies have proven to be very effective means of
leveraging scarce staff resources to pursue rogue household goods
movers. FMCSA will, specifically, expand its referral and enforcement
partnering efforts with the OIG, which will increase DOT's HHG industry
oversight.
SAFETEA's Section 4006 proposes to expand mandatory arbitration to
include all household goods related disputes, including pricing, as
well as authorizing State Attorneys General to enforce the Federal
household goods statutes and regulations. FMCSA believes these actions
will further allow increased policing of the interstate HHG industry
without additional complaint handling and enforcement staff. This
complies with Congress' intent that FMCSA focus more on industry
oversight and enforcement actions against HHG carriers with a pattern
of egregious actions and not recovery of consumer overcharges or
settlement of individual consumer's complaints.
Given these strategies, FMCSA believes we have the resources to
adequately address the 3,000 to 4,000 HHG complaints received annually.
Global Warming
Question 19. What does DOT hope to accomplish through the
establishment of a $19 million energy and climate change program and
how would DOT efforts be coordinated with the work of other Federal
agencies?
Answer. This legislation codifies a small, ongoing, collaborative
DOT effort and guarantees that the research has stable, long-term
funding. Long-term funding is necessary to support DOT's role in the
President's Climate Change Research Initiative. Without guaranteed
funding, we cannot fulfill the CCRI products we have committed to
produce over the next 2-4 years that have been accepted through the
interagency process led by Commerce and released to the public.
Transportation accounts for more than one quarter of U.S. greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and is the fastest growing sector, therefore we
have a vital role in addressing climate variability and change
research. Our collaboration through the Climate Change Research
Initiative, under the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program,
ensures that our efforts complement the work of other Federal agencies
and that the CCRI considers transportation concerns.
Establishment of the $19 million energy and climate program within
DOT will ensure that the Department can continue essential research
into the relationship between transportation activity, climate change
and energy to ensure that the transportation sector can address its
role in climate change while continuing to provide for the Nation's
mobility needs. Continued DOT research on climate variability and
change will help determine future actions that are reasonable,
targeted, and cost-effective.
Research done by other agencies into transportation, energy and
greenhouse gases does not fully capture the needs of the transportation
community, including such important aspects as safety and
accessibility. DOT's continued research will complement, not duplicate,
the engine and fuel technology research efforts of EPA, DOE, and other
research institutions. DOT's understanding of transportation behavior
and systems management, such as congestion and value pricing,
transportation systems management, and travel demand management, will
be vital in developing the market-based incentives that are emphasized
in the President's program. DOT's research efforts into energy
efficiency and reducing greenhouse gases will continue to be
coordinated with those of other Federal agencies under the CCRI.
DOT is also the only agency conducting research into the potential
impacts of climate change and variability on transportation and
transportation infrastructure. Long lead times in the construction of
transportation infrastructure require advance planning and
consideration of potential climate change impacts. DOT's research uses
the existing expertise developed by agencies such as NOAA and NASA to
improve transportation decisionmaking.
Diabetes-CDL Exemption Program
Question 20. FMCSA has issued a proposed rule on the diabetes-CDL
exemption program which includes a requirement that in order to even
apply for the program, all candidates must have three years of
commercial driving experience while using insulin. In effect, the
three-year rule makes it impossible for almost anyone to qualify for
the program. For example, Arizona only has 15 drivers in its program.
Why does FMCSA support the three-year rule when FMCSA's own Expert
Medical Panel opposes it, and its inclusion would mean that very few,
if any, drivers will be able to participate in the diabetes-CDL
exemption program?
Answer. This is a complex matter. It is incumbent on the agency to
carefully weigh the potential safety consequences against the desire of
individuals to operate CMVs. A careful and conservative approach is
essential. We intend to issue a final decision on our diabetes program
this summer.
The 3-year requirement would be the first step in moving from an
absolute prohibition toward a more flexible standard. The 3-year
requirement is needed to ensure effective safety program oversight;
thorough screening of exemptions applicants and periodic monitoring of
their performance is the best way to ensure that allowing exemptions
from the diabetes standard is consistent with a high level of safety.
Any exemption program requires that we determine beforehand, that the
level of safety will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level
absent the exemption. As such:
The 3-year requirement is supported by the previous work the
agency performed under its diabetes waiver program in the mid-
1990s. Drivers in that program, who had 3 years of experience
driving while using insulin, had accident rates lower than the
National rate.
The 3-year requirement provides sufficient time to expose
anomalies in the driving record and enhance safety
predictability, while allowing the driver to develop a routine
for managing his or her condition and to demonstrate these
adaptive skills.
The agency will use the 3-year time frame to determine past
safety performance as a predictor of future safety performance.
FMCSA believes that its medical advisory panel's recommendation
that persons could be qualified to drive a CMV after a 1- or 2-month
period of adjustment to insulin use is inappropriate for CMV drivers,
given the complex demands of operating a large vehicle.
Diabetes is a chronic disease requiring constant control and
monitoring. CMV drivers, however, are frequently required to work long
hours and travel significant distances from home, often requiring an
overnight stay away from home. Because of economic pressures to arrive
at a delivery site on schedule, drivers may often have difficulty
maintaining a regular diet, exercise, and blood sugar monitoring
patterns necessary to properly manage their diabetes. Failure to
properly manage diabetes significantly increases the likelihood of an
adverse event such as loss of consciousness while driving due to
hypoglycemia (low levels of sugar in the blood).
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta
Rail
Question 1. SAFETEA would authorize almost $250 billion over six
years for highway and transit programs, including $25 million for high-
speed rail. Administration officials have promised to provide a plan
for Amtrak as well, but so far, nothing has been forthcoming. When will
the Administration provide a long-term authorization plan for Amtrak?
Answer. The legislative proposal is in final Administration
clearance. I hope to be able to transmit it to Congress in the near
future.
Question 2. How will authorization for Amtrak fit with the general
transportation authorization in SAFETEA? When we get done authorizing
highways and cutting taxes, will there be enough money left over to
provide real funding for passenger rail, or will we continue to just
talk about the wonders of passenger rail while we leave Amtrak to limp
along?
Answer. Intercity passenger rail has always been addressed in a
stand-alone legislation and not with programs funded primarily from the
Highway Trust Fund. The Administration proposes to continue that
approach. The ability to fund all meritorious needs is a challenge that
faces all forms of transportation. That is the reason the
Administration believes it is essential that intercity passenger rail
become a form of transportation driven by its fundamental economics. I
believe that with the reforms the Administration proposes the Congress
and Administration, in partnership with the States, can find the funds
necessary to result in a much improved intercity passenger rail system
that serves as an important part of our national transportation system.
Question 3. For decades now, we have invested billions of dollars
building a first-class highway system and a first-class aviation
infrastructure. We invest billions in transit systems, bridges,
airports, tunnels, and almost any manner of transporting our citizens
and their goods. It is plain that long-term, heavy government financial
support of transportation is not an alien concept, and Americans are
smart enough to realize that our transportation system needs and
deserves significant public investment. Why then does the
Administration continue to shove aside public support for passenger
rail when it is a necessary component of our transportation system?
Answer. The financial resources available for transportation are
not boundless. The public uses highways, aviation and transit to a far
more significant extent than they use intercity rail and contributes to
the development and maintenance of these forms of transportation
through user fees. Both these factors can help explain the relative
level of Federal financial assistance for highways, aviation and
transit when compared to intercity passenger rail. It should be noted
that despite the significant challenges facing the Federal budget, this
year the Administration has sought a greater level of financial support
for intercity passenger rail than was sought during any of the eight
years preceding this Administration.
Question 4. There are 28 states along the Administration's 10
designated high-speed corridors. DOT likes to boast that it supports
high-speed rail and is investing in its development. The
Administration's bill authorizes $25 million per year for high-speed
rail. That would work out to be just $2.5 million per corridor, or less
that $1 million per state along those corridors. South Carolina has
requested $10 [million] for statewide high-speed rail. Although the
funds will not necessarily be divided in equal parts among the 28
states, it would nevertheless be unreasonable to assume the South
Carolina would receive more than a fraction of the money it says it
will need to develop high speed rail there. What does the
Administration expect high-speed rail developers to accomplish with
such little funding?
Answer. The Administration believes that all intercity passenger
rail, including high speed rail, should be approached as part of one
decisionmaking process. Specifically, the States should incorporate the
planning for passenger rail into their comprehensive Statewide and
metropolitan area planning processes and make the fundamental decisions
on which projects or services are needed. The States, as they do for
other transportation programs (e.g., highways, and transit), will
assemble the resources needed to implement those plans including the
capital investment strategy, the operator, and the funding sources. The
Federal Government will participate in the funding the necessary
planning and in the capital investment. The program referenced in the
question is the planning component of this new Federal role. The
Administration expects that this level of funding will be of
significant benefit in helping States make sound decisions on which
intercity passenger rail, including high-speed rail, initiatives
warrant the State's attention and investment.
Highway Safety
Question 5. I am a little disappointed in the Administration's
proposal to allow States to flex 50 percent of money allocated for
behavior traffic improvements to road construction. That means that
States could use half of the funds allotted to things like seat belt
enforcement and drunk driving prevention to build more roads. The bill
would allow a state to move 50 percent of road construction funds to
behavioral improvements, but studies conducted by GAO show that rarely
happens. States tend to want to use as much as they can to build roads,
even though it is a proven fact that seat belt enforcement saves many,
many lives each and every year. Is it the Administration's intent to
grow the highway infrastructure at the expense of highway safety
programs?
Answer. The Administration has built flexibility into SAFETEA to
allow each State to utilize funding for programs it deems most
critical, based on a data-driven strategic highway safety planning
process. This would be a collaborative process, including the
Governor's Highway Safety Representative, the State Department of
Transportation and other stakeholders. The U.S. Department of
Transportation would approve the process.
Under TEA-21, States have demonstrated that funding flexibility has
not short-changed highway safety behavioral programs. Data in the
recent GAO Report (03-474) indicated only 31 percent of transfer funds
were used for behavioral programs, during 2001 and 2002. However, in FY
1998 through 2002, States used $405.9 of $552.9 million, or 73 percent,
of flexible incentive grant funding, from Sections 157 and 163, for
behavioral safety programs.
Port Growth & Infrastructure
Question 6. Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you a couple of
questions about your proposal to dedicate a portion of highway funds
for use on intermodal connectors. While I applaud you on recognizing
the need to set aside a portion of funds to address the infrastructure
needs required for cargo or freight movements, in Charleston, South
Carolina we have been wrestling with how, or if, we should expand our
port. The port has been growing at close to a 7 percent clip over the
past ten years or so, and it has been a boon to many of the industries
in the entire Southeast region. However, the problem in expanding the
port, hasn't been that there isn't enough business, we in fact are the
fourth largest container port in the U.S. The problem is we have too
many trucks operating in Charleston in the wrong places, and congestion
is the reason many in the area don't support port expansion. Your bill
provides dedicated funding only to build more roads in each state, why
don't we let the states decide if they want to mitigate the congestion
using rail and maritime, and help them do that?
Answer. The funds collected by the government from the users of the
highway system are generally used to support State programs to enhance
the highway and transit infrastructure. For the most part, this Highway
Account of the Highway Trust fund is to be used by States and
metropolitan areas for major highways. Even for these uses, however,
there has been a belief by many in the freight community that States
and local governments give too little priority to the needs of freight
movement.
For this reason, we included Section 1205, Freight Transportation
Gateways program and Freight Intermodal Connections program. This
program is intended to meet the specific problems you raise by
requiring that States maintain their intermodal connectors including
those to rail and maritime, at or above the requirements of the NHS. It
will facilitate and support intermodal freight transportation
initiatives at the State and local levels in order to improve freight
transportation gateways and mitigate the impact of congestion leading
in and out of these gateways.
It would require States to spend their National Highway System
funds on intermodal connectors based on the proportions of freight/
STRAHNET connector miles in a State compared to the total NHS mileage
in the State, or 2 percent of NHS funds apportioned for the fiscal
year, whichever is greater. A State may be exempted from the required
set aside by showing that connectors in the State are in good condition
and providing an adequate level of service. Finally, it would require
each State to designate a freight transportation coordinator to help
ensure that States are responding appropriately to the needs of the
freight community. In addition, eligibility for publicly owned
intermodal freight facilities is included in the Surface Transportation
Program (STP), and the TIFIA program now includes eligibility for both
publicly and privately owned rail facilities to help mitigate
congestion at our major ports, such as the Port of Charleston.
CAFE
Question 7. NHTSA issued its final rule to increase CAFE for the
light truck fleet by 1.5 mpg by 2007. While I appreciate the effort of
NHTSA waking up and trying to do something to improve the fuel economy
numbers that are dropping like a stone, the result leaves a lot to be
desired. Are there plans for NHTSA to take up a rulemaking to increase
the CAFE for passenger cars?
Answer. Secretary Mineta led the Administration's effort to improve
fuel economy, urging Congress in 2001 to lift a 6-year prohibition
against NHTSA revising CAFE standards. On April 3, 2003, NHTSA
published a final CAFE rule for model years 2005-2007. The rule marks
the greatest increase in fuel economy standards in 20 years, and the
first change since the mid-1990s. The 1.5 mpg increase (from 20.7 mpg
to 22.2 mpg) during this 3-year period more than doubles the increase
in the light truck CAFE standard that occurred between model years 1986
and 1996, when it increased from 20.0 mpg to 20.7 mpg.
No decision on when to undertake rulemaking on fuel economy
standards for passenger cars has been made yet. As recommended by the
National Academy of Sciences, NHTSA is presently examining possible
reforms to the CAFE system. Later this year, the agency will publish an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will outline specific
reforms the agency is considering.
Question 8. In your opinion, does NHTSA's current authority allow
you to do work in that area or will you need some additional authority
in reauthorization?
Answer. Congress set the MY 1985 passenger car standard at 27.5 mpg
and provided for the continued application of that standard, but gave
NHTSA the authority to set higher or lower standards. The agency
currently has the authority to revise the fuel economy standard for
passenger cars as long as it does so consistent with the statutory
criteria prescribed for establishing ``maximum feasible'' fuel economy
standards.
Question 9. I remember looking over some budget numbers for NHTSA
last year, and I believe that there was only $60,000 in the budget for
staff. I think you all stashed some poor soul in a closet with bad
lighting and called that the CAFE department. Now, the Administration
is asking for a whopping $250,000 for CAFE. That money would not cover
an automaker lobbyist's bar tab for six months, much less fund a part
of an agency that is supposed to undertake independent reviews of data
to make decisions on fuel economy. Do you think that $250,000 is
enough?
Answer. First, we should clarify that the current budget (FY 2003)
for CAFE is $1 million. For FY 2004, we requested an additional
$267,000 for a total budget of $1.267 million. NHTSA recently set new
fuel economy standards for light trucks that were based on sound
science and through the rulemaking process. The new standards will
ensure improvements in fuel economy without negative impacts on safety
and the economy. This demonstrates that NHTSA has both the expertise
and the funding necessary to develop CAFE standards and policy as
guided by the statutory criteria established by Congress.
Question 10. What was the CAFE budget when you all actually did
CAFE in the early 1980s?
Answer. In the late 1970s when the CAFE regulation was first
issued, the agency had an annual budget of approximately $8 million. In
the early 1980s, funding was drastically cut to a budget of less that
$0.5 million. As mentioned above, NHTSA's recent setting of new light
truck standards demonstrates that it has sufficient funding for the
CAFE program.
TREAD Act
Question 11. I have concerns about the development of the early
warning program. It is my understanding that filed lawsuits will not be
included in the reporting system, but these suits are what brought the
Ford-Firestone situation to light in the first place. Since these
filings are presumptively public documents, and a number of lawsuits
against a particular tire maker would definitely aid in detecting a
trend, why are they not being included?
Answer. Lawsuits are considered in the rulemaking and are included
within the definition of ``Claims.'' According to 49 CFR Part 579.4, a
``Claim'' is defined as including, among other things, ``a demand in
the absence of a lawsuit, a complaint initiating a lawsuit, an
assertion or notice of litigation, a settlement, covenant not to sue or
release of liability in the absence of a written demand, and a
subrogation request. . . .''
Question 12. Why has NHTSA reopened its confidentiality rules in
regards to the early warning system? If the intent is to restrict
disclosure of information from the early warning program, that is a
subversion of Congressional intent. It is the public that is injured
and killed by defective products and the whole premise of the early
warning notice is to put the public on notice, yet NHTSA wants to hide
information under this prospective rulemaking? Please explain the
rationale of making information from a WARNING system private.
Answer. NHTSA has not reopened its confidentiality rules with
regard to early warning data. To the contrary, NHTSA is in the process
of considering, through notice and comment rulemaking, the appropriate
application of those rules to the early warning data. NHTSA sought
public comment on the appropriate disclosure or nondisclosure of the
data to help guide this analysis. NHTSA anticipates issuing a final
rule addressing this issue shortly.
SUV Safety
Question 13. The working group headed up by the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety and the Alliance will be providing recommendations
for voluntary standards to improve rollover and other SUV safety
issues. Has this group actually included real input from safety groups
like Public Citizen and Consumer's Union? At last report, they were
excluded. I am very concerned that your reliance on this working group
may result in tepid standards that still put people in dangerous
trucks. Update me on the status of the group's work, who is involved
and at the table, and NHTSA's course of action if the recommendations
are not up to par.
Answer. In 2002, NHTSA Administrator Runge identified rollover and
vehicle compatibility as two of his highest safety priorities. NHTSA
formed Integrated Project Teams (IPT) specifically to examine these two
issues and make recommendations as to how we could most effectively
improve safety in these areas. We plan to share the IPT Reports on
Rollover and Compatibility with the public very soon via a Federal
Register notice.
Subsequent to NHTSA's formation of these teams, the vehicle
manufacturers asked the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
to chair groups of experts to make suggestions for ways the industry
could voluntarily improve safety in the areas of compatibility and
rollover. We welcome the automotive industry's acknowledgement that
rollover and compatibility are significant safety problems and their
commitment to develop what they believe are effective approaches to
addressing these problems. NHTSA was asked to send observers to both
the industry rollover and compatibility working groups. We declined the
opportunity to participate in these working groups because we believe
the government and industry will achieve the most effective solutions
if we proceed with parallel efforts. Thus, the Department has had no
involvement in the design and implementation of the working groups, and
has no knowledge of participation and input from safety or other
groups.
Our only meeting with IIHS and the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance) regarding these working groups occurred on
Wednesday, May 28, 2003. At that meeting, representatives of IIHS and
the Alliance provided an update of the compatibility working group's
progress. We were told that these working groups expect to announce
their results later this year. I have submitted for the record a copy
of the sheet we were given, and this sheet is also available in our
public docket for our Compatibility IPT. We told IIHS and the Alliance
that we expect to issue our Compatibility IPT very soon and encouraged
them to comment on it. While the Department looks forward to hearing
about the industry working groups' progress, our research work to
improve SUV safety is continuing independently.
See attachment for brief summary of the Integrated Project Team
Reports on Vehicle Compatibility and Rollover.
FMCSA's Reauthorization Proposal
Question 14. The limitation for administrative expenses for FMCSA
(their Federal operations) is significantly increased in the first year
of reauthorization (2004) by approximately 65 percent, with another 12
percent increase over the life of the bill. Then you look at the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program Grants (MCSAP), the core grant
program for the states to undertake their roadside truck and bus
inspection and other enforcement programs, it remains the same at
$164,500,000 in the first year of reauthorization with only a 10
percent increase over the life of the bill. (Based on a needs
assessment from its state enforcement members, the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance is asking for a 5 percent annual increase in each year
of the life of the bill.)
Given the fiscal crisis in most states today, why is there such an
increase for the Federal bureaucracy at the same time that the state
grant program is only marginally increased? Shouldn't there be a better
balance in the funding of the Federal and state motor carrier safety
programs? Aren't the real safety enforcement efforts carried out by the
states and don't they deserve more of an increase?
Answer. The majority of State safety enforcement efforts are
focused on roadside inspections that include both driver and vehicle.
Unquestionably, this is a major element in the overall commercial
vehicle safety program. The FMCSA budget request to fund such activity
falls under the $164.6 million Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Program
(MCSAP). MCSAP provides funding for States to hire, train, and equip
roadside inspectors.
While MCSAP is a significant component, there must be a strong
Federal safety program to review carrier operations, conduct
enforcement on non-complying carriers, and provide overall policy and
procedural direction on programs such as the New Entrant Program,
Commercial Driver's Licensing, and others. A strong Federal presence
provides leadership for national safety programs and promotes
uniformity of safety programs and enforcement for interstate commerce.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act strengthened
the State's role by significantly increasing MCSAP funding. This
enhanced State role has been brought forward into the FY 2004 budget
and SAFETEA. FMCSA believes its commercial safety program to be
appropriately balanced; with opportunities such as safety program
reauthorization, any changes to that balance between State and Federal
programs can be met.
______
Response to Written Questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta
Question 1. The Administration's proposed legislation provides
funding for intermodal passenger facilities as well as freight
transportation gateways. I am very interested in these new programs,
and would like to see how they might facilitate the flow of passengers
and freight at seaports.
I understand that the intermodal passenger facilities program is
focused on intercity bus intermodal facilities capital grants and lists
several modes of transportation as eligible expenses--however it is
critical that seaports and cruise ship passenger facilities be included
as an eligible expense. The Administration's summary of this program
indicates that seaports are eligible, however the language of the bill
does not include seaports as an eligible facility for funding. How will
the Department of Transportation ensure that passenger ship facilities
are eligible for funding under this program and are provided funding
for security measures that are needed at these seaports?
Answer. The Intermodal Passenger Facilities Program reinforces the
key role of seaports within the Nation's system of intermodal
transportation. Specifically, the Intermodal Passenger Facilities
Program would provide grants for that portion of an intermodal
passenger facility that is physically and functionally related to
intercity bus service. It would also assure intercity public
transportation access to seaports, strengthening the links between
cruise ships and ferries and the land-based transportation networks
that support them. And while security measures at passenger ship
facilities are not eligible for funding under this Program, such
measures are eligible for grants available through the Maritime
Transportation Security Act.
The Administration's SAFETEA proposal recognizes the importance of
passenger ferries, providing Federal capital funding for publicly owned
and operated ferries through the Federal Transit Administration's
Urbanized Area Formula Program, Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program, and
the new fixed guideway and fixed guideway modernization categories
under the section 5309 Capital Investments Grant Program. Such ferries
may also be eligible for Federal capital funding through the Federal
Highway Administration's Transportation Enhancement Program, Surface
Transportation Program (STP), and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Program (CMAQ). Finally, passenger ferries may be eligible for funding
through SAFETEA's 2 percent set-aside of National Highway System (NHS)
funds for projects on NHS routes connecting to intermodal freight
terminals.
Question 2. What methodology was used by the Department of
Transportation to determine that intercity buses are the backbone of an
intermodal passenger facility?
Answer. Given the overwhelming importance of highway and road
networks within the national transportation system, intercity buses
play a vital role in facilitating intermodal transportation. Throughout
the country, in every State and in most travel markets, the private bus
industry enhances the Nation's mobility by providing one or more of its
broad array of services: in regular route service between cities; in
commuter and shuttle markets; as an intermodal connector to air,
intercity rail passenger, and transit operations; and in charter, tour,
and sightseeing markets. Additionally, in much of rural America buses
serve as the only available public transportation option.
DOT's internal analysis demonstrated the breadth and depth of the
private bus industry. The industry's dozens of large carriers and more
than 3,000 small and mid-size carriers operate a total fleet of 35,000
vehicles. Its services provide direct connections at more than 200
intermodal terminals. It carries some 40 million passengers per year in
the intercity bus market alone (compared with Amtrak's 24 million rail
passengers), and it carries more than 500 million passengers annually
across its shuttle, commuter, charter, tour, and other markets. In the
process, it employs more than 150,000 people and generates $5 billion
per year in carrier revenues. Intercity buses are essential to
America's intermodal mobility. Consequently, the Department of
Transportation strongly supports the Intermodal Passenger Facilities
Program's provision of funding for intercity bus facilities.
Question 3. Freight transportation gateways and freight Intermodal
connections are extremely important to the economy of the State of
Hawaii as well as coastal communities throughout the United States.
They facilitate the transport of intermodal shipping containers from
one mode of transportation to another. This program enables a State to
invest in publicly owned intermodal freight transportation projects.
The Administration's language indicates that States and localities
would be encouraged to adopt innovative financing strategies for
freight gateway improvements, including new user fees and private
sector investment. Does the Department of Transportation support new
user fees for intermodal container transporters to pay for these
facilities and security?
Answer. The Administration recognizes both the importance of
freight gateway improvements and the often substantial funding levels
that these improvements require. Given increasing pressures on a
limited pool of Federal highway funding, the Department of
Transportation supports the use of a wide variety of innovative
financing strategies, including user fees, for freight gateway
improvements. The Administration also advocates local solutions to
local problems whenever possible. Accordingly, the Department of
Transportation supports user fees for container transporters or
handlers, providing that such fees are locally developed in consensus
with the freight community and that the fees expedite the flow of
commerce. Public port authorities may--and often do--incorporate such
fees into the tariff rates that they assess port users. In addition to
the Department's support for user fees, it should be noted that other
aspects of SAFETEA address intermodal connectivity, including the
dedication of a 2 percent set-aside of National Highway System (NHS)
funds for projects on NHS routes connecting to intermodal freight
terminals.
Question 4. Do you, Mr. Secretary, think that this restriction of
funds may discourage commercial investment in the development and
expansion of freight intermodal facilities and connectors?
Answer. The Administration does not think that the encouragement of
private financing will restrict the building or improvement of
intermodal facilities. By encouraging States and localities to consider
alternative financing mechanisms, the Administration hopes to expand,
rather than restrict, the total amount of funding available for the
development and expansion of intermodal facilities and connectors.
Additionally, in SAFETEA the Administration has proposed a number of
new financing tools to better support infrastructure investments,
including making highway and freight transfer facilities eligible for
private activity bond financing for the first time and broadening TEA-
21's successful ``TIFIA'' credit program. The Department views this
innovative financing approach to be a viable stimulus for private-
sector investment in freight activities.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Breaux to
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta
CDL Medical Certification
Question 1. In the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999,
Congress directed the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) to initiate a rulemaking to provide for a Federal medical
qualification certificate to be made part of commercial drivers'
licensing process. In a letter you sent me on September 24, 2002, you
said that the Department would publish the proposed rule in March 2003.
To date, this rulemaking has not yet been issued.
The Department has not been able to even propose regulations
integrating medical qualification certification with the commercial
drivers' licensing process in over three years. Yet the Mexican
government already has this combined program in place. When will the
Department issue the proposed rule to begin the process of establishing
a procedure combining medical qualification with CDL qualification?
Answer. A notice of proposed rulemaking will be published by
December.
Question 2. Will this rulemaking be issued as planned, or is the
Administration waiting to see what action Congress takes on SAFETEA?
Answer. Yes, the notice of proposed rulemaking will be published by
December as planned.
Question 3. According to your letter, the proposed rule combining
the medical certification process with the CDL issuance and renewal
processes would ``reduce the incidence of medical examiners improperly
certifying drivers who are not medically qualified to operate trucks
and buses in interstate commerce.'' How will the combining of the
certification processes change the behavior of medical examiners?
Answer. The notice of proposed rulemaking combining the medical
certification process with the CDL process would include provisions for
a national registry of medical examiners that have received training to
perform such examinations. This would ensure that medical examiners are
knowledgeable of driver qualification standards and guidelines and
understand the demands involved in driving a commercial vehicle.
The medical registry will permit monitoring for the current
licensing status of medical examiners on the registry, and can be used
to disseminate information to practitioners regarding medical standards
and guidelines relevant to the physical examination of commercial
drivers. A certification process that ensures all medical examiners are
qualified to perform physical examinations for commercial drivers would
reduce the incidence of medical examiners improperly certifying drivers
who are not qualified.
CDL Disqualifications
Question 4. Your letter stated that as of September 30, 2002,
commercial motor vehicle drivers convicted of traffic violations while
operating a car, which resulted in the cancellation, suspension or
revocation of the drivers' license, are disqualified from operating a
commercial motor vehicle. Also disqualified are individuals convicted
of committing drug- or alcohol-related offenses while driving a car.
That restriction has been in force now for almost eight months. How
many CDL holders have been disqualified as a result of this
prohibition?
Answer. To date, none. The States are currently developing and
passing their own legislation to implement and enforce the Federal
requirements. The States have until September 30, 2005, to comply with
the new requirements. FMCSA is also working with the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the States to
make the needed revisions to the Commercial Driver's License
Information System to accommodate the transmission and recording of
convictions for these new offenses in a noncommercial vehicle by a CDL
holder.
Question 5. What steps has FMCSA taken to ensure that States are
following this new rule by revoking the CDLs of disqualified
individuals or by reporting the individuals to FMCSA?
Answer. As mentioned above, the States are currently developing and
passing legislation to implement and enforce the Federal requirements.
FMCSA is providing technical assistance when requested in developing
and reviewing draft State legislation. FMCSA also has a contract with
the National Conference of State Legislatures to track each State's
legislation. Once the States start enforcing the new requirements,
FMCSA will include these standards in our CDL State compliance review
and oversight process to make sure they are being enforced according to
the Federal requirements.
Your letter stated that a driver who causes a fatality through
negligent or criminal operation of a commercial vehicle while driving
with a canceled, suspended, or revoked CDL is disqualified from
operating a commercial vehicle.
Question 6. If a driver has a cancelled or revoked CDL, isn't the
driver already disqualified?
Answer. Yes. However, a conviction for this new major offense of
driving a CMV while the driver's CDL is revoked, suspended or cancelled
or the driver is disqualified from operating a CMV, will add additional
time to the previous disqualification period.
Question 7. Shouldn't negligent or criminal operation of a
commercial vehicle be grounds for disqualification, whether or not the
behavior causes a fatality?
Answer. That is a question for Congress. The offense of ``causing a
fatality through the negligent operation of a commercial motor vehicle
. . .'' in 49 CFR 383.51(b)(8) implements the requirement in section
20l(a) of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 that states:
``convicted of causing a fatality through negligent or criminal
operation of a commercial motor vehicle.''
Question 8. Is operating a commercial vehicle with a cancelled,
suspended or revoked CDL a prima facie case of negligent or criminal
operation of a commercial vehicle?
Answer. There are two separate major offenses that were established
by section 201(a) of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.
The first is ``driving a commercial motor vehicle when the individual's
commercial driver's license is revoked, suspended or cancelled'' and
the other is ``causing a fatality through negligent or criminal
operation of a commercial motor vehicle.'' Some States may consider
driving after revocation, suspension, or cancellation of a license to
be prima facie evidence of negligence, but driving without a license
would not necessarily cause a fatality.
CDL Medical Examiners
Question 9. Under the Administration's proposed bill, SAFETEA,
FMCSA would initiate another rulemaking to set standards for medical
examiners to meet in order to be qualified to examine commercially
licensed drivers. FMCSA would also establish a medical review board to
provide advice to FMCSA and guidelines to medical examiners to use in
examining COL applicants.
It seems to me that we need some threshold health standards that
commercial vehicle drivers must meet to qualify for a CDL. Yet, the
Administration is proposing to establish standards for medical
examiners to meet to be qualified to examine commercial drivers. How
will the FMCSA determine that the medical examiners are qualified? Will
the examiners be tested by FMCSA?
Answer. FMCSA has adopted 13 physical qualification standards for
commercial drivers that are directly related to the driving function.
Commercial drivers in interstate commerce are required to meet these
standards and receive biennial physical examinations. Currently,
medical examiners, who could perform the physical examinations, are not
required to have specific training and do not need to demonstrate any
special or unique competence to commercial operations to medically
certify commercial drivers.
FMCSA would develop a certification program based on Federal
medical regulations and guidelines. The certification program content
would be established by rulemaking. A medical professional would have
to participate in training and pass a test in order to be included in a
national database of qualified medical examiners. However, decisions on
processes and procedures for establishing a national registry and
certification program for medical examiners are only speculative until
a rulemaking is completed.
Question 10. Qualified medical examiners will then have guidelines
to follow in qualifying (or not) a prospective commercial vehicle
driver. Guidelines are not mandatory, so it would follow that the
medical examiners will have discretion in deciding who is qualified and
who is not. Will this not lead to inconsistency among doctors? How will
FMCSA ensure that the guidelines are uniformly applied?
Answer. Detailed best practices guidance is issued periodically to
aid medical examiners in understanding the regulations. Medical
examiners routinely request this guidance to assist them in making an
evaluation of a commercial driver. The national registry of medical
examiners will provide FMCSA with a mechanism for disseminating this
information to all medical examiners. Making the same information
available in a timely manner to all medical examiners will facilitate,
if not ensure, consistency among examiners.
Question 11. How will CDL holders and applicants know which medical
examiners are qualified under the FMCSA program?
Answer. CDL holders would be required to obtain their biennial
physical examinations from a certified medical examiner on the national
registry. Decisions on processes and procedures for establishing a
national registry and certification program for medical examiners would
be made when the agency completes a rulemaking.
Question 12. Will the examiners have to be re-qualified, or will
they obtain a lifetime qualification to perform the medical exams on
CDL holders and applicants? Will the regulations include standards
under which qualified medical examiners become disqualified? If so,
will there be an appeals process for medical examiners that have been
disqualified?
Answer. A process for certifying medical examiners would include
procedures for both initial and refresher training sessions. A program
for a national database of qualified medical examiners would have
procedures in place to address the removal of medical examiners from
the registry and an appeal process.
Question 13. Your letter stated that FMCSA has revised the
certification form [medical examination report form] used by medical
examiners to include more medical advisory guidance to assist examiners
in making physical qualification determinations in order to ``ensure
that medical examiners are more knowledgeable of the physical
qualifications standards.'' How will this change ensure that medical
examiners use the guidance in examining CDL holders and applicants?
Answer. The revised medical examination report form, to the extent
possible, includes all relevant information necessary to conduct the
physical examination and certification of commercial drivers. It
contains the Federal standards, instructions to the medical examiner,
and medical advisory guidelines to assist the medical examiner in
determining the medical qualification status of commercial drivers. The
examination form directs medical examiners to FMCSA Internet reports on
specific medical disorders and includes an FMCSA telephone contact
number for questions. Easy access to the standards and medical advisory
guidance found on the medical examination report form will facilitate,
if not ensure, the use of this information.
Diabetic Drivers
Question 14. FMCSA has issued a proposed rule that requires
diabetic drivers to have three years of commercial driving experience
while using insulin in order to qualify for a diabetes exemption in
obtaining a CDL. This scheme would require a diabetic driver to drive a
commercial vehicle illegally for three years in order to qualify for
the exemption. In effect, the three-year rule makes it impossible for
almost anyone with diabetes to qualify for the program and a CDL. Why
does DOT support the three-year rule when FMCSA's own Expert Medical
Panel opposes it, and its inclusion means that very few, if any, of my
constituents will be able to participate in the diabetes-CDL exemption
program?
Answer. This is a complex matter. It is incumbent on the agency to
carefully weigh the potential safety consequences against the desire of
individuals to operate CMVs. A careful and conservative approach is
essential. We intend to issue a final decision on our diabetes program
this summer.
The 3-year requirement would be the first step in moving from an
absolute prohibition toward a more flexible standard. The 3-year
requirement is needed to ensure effective safety program oversight;
thorough screening of exemptions applicants and periodic monitoring of
their performance is the best way to ensure that allowing exemptions
from the diabetes standard is consistent with a high level of safety.
Any exemption program requires that we determine beforehand that the
level of safety will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level
absent the exemption. As such:
The 3-year requirement is supported by the previous work the
agency performed under its diabetes waiver program in the mid-
1990s. Drivers in that program, who had 3 years of experience
driving while using insulin, had accident rates lower than the
national rate.
The 3-year requirement provides sufficient time to expose
anomalies in the driving record and enhance safety
predictability, while allowing the driver to develop a routine
for managing his or her condition and to demonstrate these
adaptive skills.
The agency will use the 3-year time frame to determine past
safety performance as a predictor of future safety performance.
FMCSA believes that its medical advisory panel's recommendation
that persons could be qualified to drive a CMV after a 1- or 2-month
period of adjustment to insulin use is inappropriate for CMV drivers,
given the complex demands of operating a large vehicle.
Diabetes is a chronic disease requiring constant control and
monitoring. CMV drivers, however, are frequently required to work long
hours and travel significant distances from home, often requiring an
overnight stay away from home. Because of economic pressures to arrive
at a delivery site on schedule, drivers may often have difficulty
maintaining a regular diet, exercise, and blood sugar monitoring
patterns necessary to properly manage their diabetes. Failure to
properly manage diabetes significantly increases the likelihood of an
adverse event such as loss of consciousness while driving due to
hypoglycemia (low levels of sugar in the blood).
Accident Investigation
Question 15. Has FMCSA completed its investigation of the June 24,
2002, motor coach accident in Garland, Texas, which killed four
Louisiana children?
Answer. The bus crash referred to involved Rockmore's Discovery
Coaches and Tours Unlimited, Inc., which was domiciled in the Dallas,
Texas area. The crash occurred on June 24, 2002, just west of Terrell,
Texas. There were 5 fatalities, which included the driver and four
passengers.
FMCSA's investigation revealed that the driver had falsified his
medical certificate. It also revealed that the owner of the company did
not maintain driver qualification files and did not have drug or
alcohol testing programs in place. Enforcement actions were taken on
all three counts, and a fine of $1,990 was imposed. An additional fine
of $2,000 was imposed on the company for lack of proper operating
authority.
FMCSA then issued Out-of-Service orders to the carrier for the
Unsatisfactory safety rating it received, and later, Out-of-Service
orders were served to the carrier's attorney for failure to pay the
required fines.
The actual cause of the crash was not made clear, but police
records indicate that the driver may have been standing up to adjust
his sun visor. The investigation also indicated that the driver did not
obtain a full night's rest prior to the trip, and that he may have had
some type of narcotic in his system, although FMCSA was never able to
obtain the official toxicology reports.
Additional Questions on Reauthorization
Question 16. Louisiana is a donor state. I support increased
federal-aid funding to donor states and am a cosponsor of S. 1090,
legislation to guarantee equity funding for donor states. This
legislation proposes a 95 percent minimum guaranteed rate of return to
a state of its share of the total that it contributes to the Federal
Highway Trust Fund. How does the Administration's proposed SAFETEA
address this issue of equity funding for donor states and a 95 percent
guaranteed rate of return to achieve that goal?
Answer. SAFETEA continues TEA-21's guarantee of a minimum return of
90.5 percent on each State's share of contributions to the Highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund. TEA-21 greatly improved the equity
of the overall distribution of highway formula funds and did so in a
balanced way. The issue of return on contributions to the Highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund is the most difficult of all formula
issues because it pits the national economy's need for a strong,
connected highway system in every State against the desire for an
equitable return on State contributions. Meeting both of these
competing goals is costly and a balance must be struck.
Question 17. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development says the state has High Priority corridors Interstate 49
North and Interstate 49 South, Interstate 69, and Louisiana Highway 1
named in previous Federal legislation. How would the Administration's
proposed SAFETEA legislation fund these and other listed high priority
corridors as well as the Strategic Highway Network systems in the
states?
Answer. SAFETEA does not propose changes to the already-designated
high priority corridors or to the process for designation of additional
corridors. SAFETEA's Multi state Corridor Planning Program provides
funds for the multi-jurisdictional and multi-modal planning and the
planning for operation alternatives that improve mobility, freight
productivity, access to major marine ports, safety and security, all of
which are important to successful corridor planning. Construction
activities and operational improvements in the corridors would continue
to be an eligible activity under the core highway formula programs,
especially the National Highway System (NHS) Program and the Surface
Transportation Program (STP).
SAFETEA also provides specific support for the improvement of
freight movement with its freight gateways program and dedicated
funding for NHS freight connectors.
Question 18. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development says that I-10 is a major trade corridor as a result of
NAFTA and related trade. How does the proposed SAFETEA legislation
address the needs of trade corridors that have emerged due to the NAFTA
and related trade as has occurred in the case of Interstate 10?
Answer. The proposed SAFETEA legislation would result in almost 93
percent of Federal highway funds being delivered to the States through
the core formula programs. This would increase the flexibility
available to the Louisiana Department of Transportation to direct funds
to projects of importance to the State, including those on trade
corridors. The SAFETEA legislation would also result in streamlining of
project approval and implementation. This would increase the ability of
the Louisiana Department of Transportation to implement the projects
the State chooses to fund.
Question 19. How does the Administration's proposed SAFETEA
legislation address funding access for intermodal access routes to
ports, airports, and other similar facilities?
Answer. Intermodal access routes or connectors are short, but
important, highways that connect America's most important seaports,
airports, rail yards, and pipeline facilities to the National Highway
System (NHS). SAFETEA specifically addresses intermodal access to
ports, airports, and other similar facilities by:
Establishing a National Highway System (NHS) set-aside to
fund highway connections between the NHS and intermodal freight
facilities, such as ports and freight terminals;
Creating a Freight Gateways Program by establishing Surface
Transportation Program eligibility for privately owned
intermodal freight transportation projects.
Requiring each State to establish a freight transportation
coordinator position.
Expanding TIFIA eligibility to include privately owned
intermodal freight projects, reducing the minimum project size
from $100 million to $50 million and allowing groups of related
freight projects (each of which separately might not meet the
threshold requirements) to be considered for assistance.
Expanding the use of private activity bonds for highway and
surface freight transfer facilities.
Freight is particularly conducive to innovative
financing solutions because the revenue streams to finance
debt exist.
Freight and goods are moved largely by private
entities often operating on publicly owned infrastructure.
This creates tremendous opportunity to utilize public-
private partnerships.
Question 20. In terms of innovative financing and alternative
financing programs for highways, bridges, and related infrastructure,
does the Administration's proposed SAFETEA legislation expand the
existing authorized programs, and if it does, how does it expand them;
or, does it add new programs, and if it does, how would these operate?
Answer. A State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) pilot program will be
authorized with participation limited to no more than five States. The
program will complement the traditional Federal-aid highway and transit
programs by supporting projects that can be financed with loans or will
benefit from credit enhancements. A State may contribute up to 10
percent of the funds it is provided in Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009
for NHS, STP, Interstate Maintenance, the Bridge Program, and Minimum
Guarantee into the highway account of the SIB established by the State.
SAFETEA would reauthorize the Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit program by providing up to $2.6
billion annually for credit assistance. A total of $780 million of
contract authority would be provided to pay the estimated cost of the
credit assistance. Access to TIFIA would be increased by lowering the
project cost threshold from $100 million to $50 million and extending
eligibility to private rail freight projects. SAFETEA would also extend
eligibility to a group of functionally related freight projects, each
of which separately might not meet the project cost threshold. SAFETEA
improves the usefulness of the TIFIA line of credit, making it
available to a borrower in order to avoid (instead of simply respond
to) an event of default. Also, SAFETEA adds a requirement that the
total amount of senior project obligations must equal or exceed the
total amount of the TIFIA instrument. Other changes are primarily
intended to clarify or simplify the requirements in TEA-21.
The SAFETEA Private Activity Bonds provision is intended to
encourage additional private participation in surface transportation
infrastructure projects. The Internal Revenue Code would be amended to
include highway facilities and surface freight transfer facilities
among the types of privately developed and operated projects that can
utilize tax-exempt private activity bond financing. The new bonds would
be subject to the Internal Revenue Code rules that govern exempt
facility bonds, except that they would not count against a State's
private activity bond volume cap. Exclusion from the volume cap is
necessary to allow surface transportation infrastructure projects to be
advanced without displacing other types of projects eligible for exempt
facility bonds. The maximum aggregate amount of bonds that could be
issued under the provision would be $15 billion. The Secretary of
Transportation would allocate the $15 billion of authority among
eligible projects.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden to
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta
Diabetic Drivers
Question. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has
issued a proposed rule on the diabetes-Commercial Driver License (CDL)
exemption program which includes a requirement that in order to even
apply for the program, all candidates must have three years of
commercial driving experience while using insulin. In effect, the
three-year rule makes it impossible for almost anyone to qualify for
the program. Can you explain why the DOT supports the three-year rule
when FMCSA's own Expert Medical Panel opposes it, and its inclusion
means that very few, if any, of my constituents will be able to
participate in the diabetes-CDL exemption program?
Answer. This is a complex matter. It is incumbent on the agency to
carefully weigh the potential safety consequences against the desire of
individuals to operate CMVs. A careful and conservative approach is
essential. We intend to issue a final decision on our diabetes program
this summer.
The 3-year requirement would be the first step in moving from an
absolute prohibition toward a more flexible standard. The 3-year
requirement is needed to ensure effective safety program oversight;
thorough screening of exemptions applicants and periodic monitoring of
their performance is the best way to ensure that allowing exemptions
from the diabetes standard is consistent with a high level of safety.
Any exemption program requires that we determine beforehand, that the
level of safety will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level
absent the exemption. As such:
The 3-year requirement is supported by the previous work the
agency performed under its diabetes waiver program in the mid-
1990s. Drivers in that program, who had 3 years of experience
driving while using insulin, had accident rates lower than the
National rate.
The 3-year requirement provides sufficient time to expose
anomalies in the driving record and enhance safety
predictability, while allowing the driver to develop a routine
for managing his or her condition and to demonstrate these
adaptive skills.
The agency will use the 3-year time frame to determine past
safety performance as a predictor of future safety performance.
FMCSA believes that its medical advisory panel's recommendation
that persons could be qualified to drive a CMV after a 1- or 2-month
period of adjustment to insulin use is inappropriate for CMV drivers,
given the complex demands of operating a large vehicle.
Diabetes is a chronic disease requiring constant control and
monitoring. CMV drivers, however, are frequently required to work long
hours and travel significant distances from home, often requiring an
overnight stay away from home. Because of economic pressures to arrive
at a delivery site on schedule, drivers may often have difficulty
maintaining a regular diet, exercise, and blood sugar monitoring
patterns necessary to properly manage their diabetes. Failure to
properly manage diabetes significantly increases the likelihood of an
adverse event such as loss of consciousness while driving due to
hypoglycemia (low levels of sugar in the blood).