[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] FY 2008 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ======================================================================= (110-6) HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ FEBRUARY 8, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 35-030 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, JERRY MORAN, Kansas California GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine Virginia BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TED POE, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California CONNIE MACK, Florida NICK LAMPSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Louisiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio HEATH SHULER, North Carolina CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania VERN BUCHANAN, Florida JOHN J. HALL, New York STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California (ii) Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DORIS O. MATSUI, California WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey BRIAN HIGGINS, New York GARY G. MILLER, California RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii Carolina HEATH SHULER, North Carolina TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin CONNIE MACK, Florida JERRY MCNERNEY, California JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of York Columbia CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., BOB FILNER, California Louisiana ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi TESTIMONY Peters, Hon. Mary E., Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation................................... 2 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 25 Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., of South Carolina..................... 28 Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 29 Mica, John L., of Florida........................................ 34 Mitchell, Hon. Harry, of Arizona................................. 42 Oberstar, James L., of Minnesota................................. 55 Walz, Timothy J., of Minnesota................................... 62 PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESSES Peters, Hon. Mary E............................................. 64 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Peters, Hon. Mary E., Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation: Responses to questions from Rep. Oberstar...................... 67 Responses to questions from Rep. Carney........................ 70 Responses to questions from Rep. Hall.......................... 75 Responses to questions from Rep. Brown......................... 79 (v) [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] FISCAL YEAR 2008 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ---------- Thursday, February 8, 2007 House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable James L. Oberstar [Chairman of the committee] presiding. Mr. Oberstar. The Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure will please come to order. Regrettably, I have just been notified from the floor that there will be a series of floor votes that could take as much as 25 minutes. I would hope that we would be able to get on with the Secretary's testimony right at the outset. I know all members have statements and pronouncements and points they want to make and flags they want to lay down, but we can do that in the course of the questioning. We are here to hear the Secretary's presentation, her first presentation before the full Committee, on the Administration's Transportation Budget, which for some of us is a great disappointment in many regards. There are other bright spots in it, but overall I have some real concerns about the short funding for transit, short funding for AIP, the under-funding of Amtrak. There are a number of other areas that others have concerns about. We also will have from EPA, Ben Grumbles and Susan Bodine, whom I welcome as former Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff members, and they are always dangerous when they go over to the other side. They know how the legislative side works, and then they take that expertise and go over to the executive branch. That will conclude my statement to welcome the Secretary. We really appreciate your time spent with us. I will yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Mica, for comments that he might make. Mr. Mica. Well, thank you, and I will try to be brief too and welcome Madam Secretary. I too did receive the President's budget. Hopefully, it is a good framework in which to start. Both Mr. Oberstar and I have questions and concerns. We have already discussed some of them. As you know, I am a big fan of mass transit, and I am concerned about some of the cuts that have been proposed. We want to keep the trust fund whole, and I think we are committed to that and try to get as many dollars as we can in there to get distributed to our States. Amtrak, while you have a lowball figure, I continue to encourage elimination of waste and hopefully better management, and we will look at that. There are other things that we will have questions about, the State revolving fund and some of the investments that you have in fact proposed and then also looking at some of the EPA funding provisions. I do have a lengthy statement, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that we put the entire, every morsel of choice words into the record. Mr. Oberstar. Every thoughtful comment by the Ranking Member will be included in the record, without objection, and my statement and those of other members. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. Madam Secretary, the microphone is yours. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to be here with you today to share the highlights of President Bush's fiscal year 2008 budget plan for our Nation's transportation programs. Transportation lies at the core of the freedom that we enjoy as Americans, the freedom to go where we want, when we want, freedom to live and work where we choose and freedom to spend time with our families. Our goal is to deliver a transportation system that frees people to make daily decisions, confident that they can reach their destination safely, without worrying about how they will get there or even if they can make it on time. To reach that goal, the President's budget requests $67 billion for America's transportation network. Nearly one-third of the Department's resources will be devoted to transportation safety. There is no acceptable fatality rate when our loved ones, our communities, our friends are at risk. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposes resources for equipping our Nation's airports and roadways with new safety technologies for targeting growing problems like motorcycle crashes, something I have had personal experience with, and for supporting aggressive inspections of trucks, tracks, and pipelines to ensure the safest standards are met. In addition to supporting our efforts to raise the bar on safety, the President's budget will help cut congestion and bring our transportation system into the 21st Century. For those who use our aviation system, it provides the framework for reforming our approach to paying for safety and technology improvements needed to keep air travelers, freight and pilots on schedule. We have put together a package that will tie what users pay to what it costs the Federal Aviation Administration to provide them with air traffic control and other services. Our plan puts incentives in place that will make the system more efficient, as well as more responsive to the needs of the aviation community. Without reform, we can all expect to spend more time waiting in airports or strapped in an airplane seat, sitting at the end of a runway. We will announce the full details of our aviation proposal soon. I can tell you that the budget targets almost $175 million for a 21st Century satellite navigation system that will replace the current dated air traffic control architecture and over $900 million for additional capital projects that will support this move to the Next Generation system. For travelers, this system is going to bring greater convenience and reliability, thanks to state of the art technology that can safely handle dramatic increases in the number and type of aircraft using our skies without being overwhelmed by congestion. For drivers stuck in traffic, the budget proposes a record $42 billion in funding for highway and highway safety programs. Our budget proposes resources to help move traffic on clogged highways and city streets, directing $175 million to support the comprehensive Department-wide congestion relief initiative that Secretary Mineta announced last year. This funding will help growing metropolitan areas that want to test leading edge solutions. It will help commuters get real-time traffic information, so they will know in advance if roads are congested and be able to make alternative transportation plans, and it will allow us to accelerate the development of travel corridors that will be key to moving freight and people without congestion in the future. Accessible and cost-effective transit projects also help fight congestion, and our budget provides $9.4 billion for transit programs. This funding includes $1.3 billion for major projects that will help provide commuter rail and other travel options in large urban areas, and another $100 million will support transit alternatives through the Small Starts program. Even as we make these investments, we realize that a business-as-usual approach to funding these programs is simply not going to work much longer. There is and will continue to be money coming into the Highway Trust Fund from gasoline taxes, and the revenues are growing every year, but so is spending and even at a higher rate. The bottom line is that we are spending more than we take in, and we have nearly run through the balances that had built up in the fund. The highway funding problem is not going to go away, nor can we put it off until the last minute. As we go through this budget process, I look forward to working with Congress on solutions to these issues. In the long term, we need serious reform of our approaches to both financing and managing our transportation network to win the battle against congestion. Serious reform must include reform of the legislative process itself. The explosive growth of earmarks in recent years has hit transportation programs especially hard. I support President's call for transparency and a 50 percent reduction in earmarks in the coming year. As a former State Department of Transportation Director, I strongly support giving States freedom to set priorities and use Federal dollars where they know they will provide the maximum benefits. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to working with each of you and the transportation community to ensure a safe transportation system and to begin to break free of the stifling congestion. I also look forward to answering any questions you may have. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to introduce our Assistant Secretary, Phyllis Scheinberg, who is here with me today. Thank you, sir. Mr. Oberstar. Ms. Scheinberg, welcome. Thank you for being here. Ms. Scheinberg. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Madam Secretary. It was a very succinct statement, remarkable. Ms. Scheinberg, you have no statement? No, OK, thank you. One question, your aviation user fee proposal, such as we know of it, by our calculations--we spent some time working over this--would raise $600 million less than the ticket tax is now raising and the other user fees. How can that be consistent with the Administration's argument that a user fee system is needed because there is a revenue crisis? Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, the $600 million difference that you refer to was based on the 2008 budget year. We would not begin collecting that tax until 2009, so it was a hypothetical example. The Assistant Secretary could certainly provide more details if that would be helpful. Mr. Oberstar. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. Madam Secretary, it is good to see you again. Thank you for being here. We are concerned. I am concerned, and I believe other members of the Committee would share my concern about cuts proposed in the Small Starts program. Can you explain the rationale for these cuts, New Starts and Small Starts? Secretary Peters. Mr DeFazio, yes, I would be happy to explain those. The overall FTA budget for the year is $9.4 billion as I indicated, and it is a reduction of $309 million below the fiscal year 2008 levels authorized in SAFETEA-LU. The problem is, sir, that we had difficult budget choices to make. We have made a choice to provide historic levels of transit funding and in this budget we have proposed funding every project that is ready to go. There are no projects that are sacrificed in our budget. That includes 11 existing full- funding grant agreements, two pending agreements and two proposed agreements. We have also set aside $72 million in funding for 6 projects that are not yet ready to be funded. We have also included $100 million for the Small Starts program. We believe that the new regulations will not be finalized until early 2008 which would make it difficult to award more projects. Mr. DeFazio. I guess if I could, I appreciate that, but it has been quite some time since we passed the legislation. Why can't we have the regulations for Small Starts sooner than that? Why would it take another year to get the bureaucratic regulations published? Congress expressed its will. We will be near the end of this highway bill before we get to that. Couldn't we move that up a little bit? Secretary Peters. Congressman DeFazio, I understand your concern, and I will do everything in our power to get those regulations moved up sooner. Mr. DeFazio. There are some in the transportation community that think the Administration doesn't like the idea of Small Starts and New Starts, and I would hope that that is not true. The $275 million you are saving, where is that going? Is that going to your new congestion whatever program, the one you are pushing communities to do? I have heard from communities saying well, gee, DOT has been out here. They have all this new money. They have got these new programs they want us to do for congestion mitigation. They want us to do time of day tolling and other things. Is that where that money is being moved to? Secretary Peters. Sir, that is not where that money is being moved. The money that we are using for the congestion initiative is money that came from inactive projects, projects that were as old as the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. Mr. DeFazio. OK. Then where did the $275 million from transit go? What are we dong with that? Secretary Peters. Sir, that is within the balance of our overall budget which includes some small portion of general fund monies. Mr. DeFazio. We are cutting an authorized program paid for by user fees in order to offset some of your administrative overhead costs that are reimbursed out of the general fund in order to provide the illusion of moving toward a balanced budget, is that correct? We are foregoing real investments in transportation in order to satisfy the green eyeshade trolls over at OMB who want to pretend they are providing us with a fiscally responsible budget. Secretary Peters. Sir, the reduction in the transit program comes from the general fund portion. Mr. DeFazio. So, again, we are cutting real programs that could provide transit alternatives for Americans at a time of escalating fuel prices, a time of concern over our dependency on imported oil, and we are doing all that to offset this general fund contribution in order again just to try and provide the illusion of fiscal responsibility. Secretary Peters. Congressman, the President has asked us to keep non-defense discretionary spending at or below 1 percent. We have actually allocated more money than that to the surface transportation and transit programs, but the need to have budget discipline this year is what led us to this level. Mr. DeFazio. Right, but again this is something authorized by the Congress and authorized to be paid for by a trust fund tax paid by the American people for a dedicated purpose, a purpose for which there is no shortage of demand out there in America, and we are cutting it. Bottom line, is that it is because the President says, well, we just can't. We don't have that money, and we are going to spend it somewhere else or we are going to use it for tax cuts for rich people. Secretary Peters. From the general fund portion, sir. Mr. DeFazio. My time is about expired, but I guess I have one other quick question about the fuel tax. I just had a State legislator in, a Republican State legislator. There is a big conference at the White House tomorrow to push privatization projects. I am concerned, and I raised this with you privately and I have raised it publicly, about the push toward privatization. It can be appropriate in some instances. In others, it might not be. But overall we have to protect the integrity of the national transportation infrastructure and its interconnected nature. We need to protect the public interest. I fear that, particularly that you have got a fellow from the Reason Foundation and you have got a staff person who has produced a one-sided document on this issue. I looked at the panel members. There is no balance. You are not talking about the fact that there is a way to do it right and another way that may not be in the public interest. I am very concerned about that, Madam Secretary. Secretary Peters. Sir, I understand your concerns. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Mica? Mr. Mica. Thank you. Again, welcome, Secretary Peters. We find ourselves, and I guess we have done this before, in one of our more unique funding situations and budget situations in that the fiscal year that started in October of last year, we have not resolved financing, at least Congress has not finished it with a CR. I have a question about the impact of the CR, the 2006-2007 CR, that we should be financing Government with now as far as your Department-wide responsibilities, are you going to be able to meet your goals as far as safety and programs? Secretary Peters. Congressman Mica, if the H.J. Resolution 20 includes some 2007 fiscal year levels of funding, we will be able to do so. If it is flatlined at 2006 levels, it would require drastic action in the Agency, particularly with regard to our FAA air traffic controllers as well as safety inspectors and other positions. What we would ask, in those areas that are held to the 2006 levels, is that we would have the flexibility to reprogram so that we may ensure that the highest priority needs are met. Mr. Mica. Because I think they are going to play a game of chicken at the end here for folks to try, from what I heard, to eliminate some amendments in the Senate and messing with it. You just testified the Administration doesn't want to see a lot of earmarks. This may be the biggest earmark in history, and you will also have discretion in how to distribute those funds if there are not specific earmarks, isn't that correct? Secretary Peters. Yes, sir, that would be correct. We would, however, follow Congressional guidance in establishing the programs. Mr. Mica. OK, because we did have a discussion, the Chairman and I, earlier about procedures, and I think that is going to be important. We don't have your whole FAA financing plan. If you can't tell us the plan, can you tell us the rollout schedule? Secretary Peters. Congressman Mica, we expect to roll out that proposal next week. Mr. Mica. Is that everything? Is that the PFCs? We got a little glimpse in here, and some of this does possibly look at user fees. Secretary Peters. It does. Mr. Mica. Do you want to talk about that for a minute? Secretary Peters. I would, Congressman, and if I may take just a moment to talk about the need for the change in system because that has been the subject of some discussion. The current funding structure for FAA has significant limitations. These limitations have resulted in less than optimal service. Many of us saw an article in the Washington Post this morning about significant delays in aviation travel. Safety of the program is and remains our highest priority, but there have been delays and a lack of reliability due to the capacity and the capability of the current 20th Century system, and these are only going to get worse as demand on the system increases. In just less than 10 years, the Nation's air space will be 30 percent more crowded than it is today, and by just 2012, FAA projects 23 percent more passengers will be flying. By 2025, commercial carriers will be carrying 1.4 billion passengers, which is an 87 percent increase. By 2012, FAA projects that aircraft handled by FAA en route centers will be 17.6 percent higher than in 2006. By 2025, demand will increase to 86.5 million aircraft, which is an 87 percent increase over 2006. Our current funding structure is largely based on the price of a ticket, and bears no direct relationship between the taxes paid by users and the air traffic services provided by FAA. In order to meet the future demand as well as some of the current demand, we need to transition to a dynamic 21st Century structure that ties use of the system to costs, a system that is equitable and a system that is responsive to growing demand. Sir, we have talked about user fees, but there are a number of policy considerations that will be addressed in the reauthorization proposal itself. I understand that people are concerned, and I understand the general aviation community is concerned. But I would ask that we have that discussion after the proposal is released so that we can look at the policy implications and decisions together. Mr. Mica. OK. Final question, to actually get us to deal with the aviation congestion, we have got to go to the next generation of air traffic control. For the new members, the acronym, and you will lots of these, is NGATS, Next Generation Air Traffic Control. The schedule for NGATS and then our preliminary discussions to date, we are looking at about a billion dollars additional per year in financing that for 18 to 20 years to keep up with it because you can never hire enough air traffic controllers to keep up with that as per the MITRE. I strongly recommend if you get a chance, and I think they are coming up here with a little display, you should see the MITRE study on NGATS. Could you respond quickly? Secretary Peters. Congressman, I think you make a valid point. Today's system is largely dependent on ground-based radar, and so as planes fly across the Country, they are tracked from one system to another based on the ground towers. The new system, which we call Next Generation, will be based on satellite technology and will allow planes to fly closer together, and land closer together without compromising the safety of the system. This system will require not only changes with the infrastructure within the air traffic control system, but also within the airplanes and the architecture that is part of that system today. So, as Congressman Mica said, this is a long-term, highly capital-intensive investment. We are developing a business plan for that investment, and we will be able to share it with you in the reauthorization proposal. But, as the Congressman said, this is a very significant investment that will move us into the 21st Century and allow us to be able to handle the type of aircraft traffic increases that I spoke to earlier. Thank you, sir. Mr. Oberstar. Ms. Johnson? Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think most of my questions might be for the second panel, but I will ask if by chance you are recommending user fees anywhere else because of the shortness of the budget. Secretary Peters. Congresswoman, we are not recommending user fees at any other part of our budget at this time. Ms. Johnson. Well, do you think you are going to have enough money to deal with the New Starts and all the projects that are ongoing considering the fact that the gas tax fund will, run out in 2009? Secretary Peters. Congresswoman, you make a valid point. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected already a $3.62 billion deficit in the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund for 2009. The Administration is recommending several steps to help mitigate that and protect the solvency of the trust fund. However, we still anticipate that a projected $238 million shortfall will occur in 2009. The two steps that we are taking: Our first, a new accounting procedure that transfers cash to the flex funding from the highway account to the mass transit account (MTA) when the money is needed for outlays as opposed to when the actual contract authority and obligation limitation are transferred it doesn't hurt the MTA because these outlays go out at a slower rate. The second, and probably the bigger recommendation that we are making is that the President's 2008 budget proposes not spending $631 million in revenue-aligned budget authority. These two mechanisms will reduce the anticipated shortfall to $238 million anticipated. But, as you said, Congresswoman, we really need to talk about what we are going to do for the transportation funding well before 2009. Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Petri? Mr. Petri. Thank you. Madam Secretary, there are a lot of areas that I would like to ask about, but there is one that my colleague, Mr. Duncan, who is not here right now, and I think you might want to expand on. It is kind of plowing new ground in a way, and that is the area of congestion pricing. What is the Administration's proposal and what are the implications of that? The ideas to get greater utilization out of infrastructure, something that the transportation professors talk about all the time but the people where the rubber hits the road, so to speak, and have to manage the system have trouble implementing. Could you talk about that and what the merits and problems are associated with what you are doing in the area of congestion pricing? Secretary Peters. Congressman Petri, I would be glad. Congestion pricing, or dynamic pricing as it is sometimes is known, is the differential pricing based on time of day and use of a system. Probably the longest going project in the United States today that uses congestion pricing is State Route 91, Riverside County in California. Their sytem does dynamically prices the system to keep the traffic free flowing at all times. On several projects in Southern California, we have seen a 40 percent greater through-put by using this congestion or dynamic pricing than we do with the same lane configurations on adjacent so-called free lanes. Congestion pricing can help us get more throughput out of our transportation infrastructure but also can keep that transportation infrastructure safer because it keeps most of the traffic moving at relatively the same speed of travel which is always safer than the dangerous stop and go that you sometimes see in congested areas. Mr. Petri. Could you explain it a little bit more concretely? How would people pay more at different times of day as mainly it would be commuters, I assume, going into and out of congested areas? Secretary Peters. Yes, in most cases, it is commuters. The way the system works is the tolls or the fees are charged electronically through a transponder that is mounted in the car. Signs approaching the entrance to these lanes would state what the price is at that time so people could make a conscious choice whether or not to get on those lanes. If they choose to get on the lanes, the price does not change during the time that they are on the lanes. The price only changes at the onset of the facility not during the time that you are on the facility. Mr. Petri. You would be using, in effect, HOV lanes for congestion pricing? Secretary Peters. Congressman Petri, that is where it works extremely well. Converting an existing high occupancy vehicle or HOV lane to what is sometimes called a high-occupancy toll lane uses the available capacity that is already there on an existing HOV lane. In many cases it can capitalize on existing infrastructure so that single-occupant drivers can use those lanes by paying the fees. The pricing structure helps keep the traffic moving or free flowing for the entire facility. Mr. Petri. Thank you. You may have mentioned this--I was distracted for a minute--the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System. I realize it is not a turning off one system and turning on a new system. The technology will be deployed in a sequential way and layered into the system, and a lot of people are working on it. Do you have some idea going forward the next 5 years and 10 years what the cost implications are? Is it going to be manageable within the budgets or will there be a surge? Can you give us some sense of what you are thinking in terms of the cost of the new system? Secretary Peters. Congressman Petri, we are looking at a variety of ways to pay for this system right now as well as developing a budget. We are looking at a variety of ways where we might be able to access funding, including possibly the private sector, to build and operate the system. That is all part of a business plan that we are developing and should get to you in the next few weeks, or the next few months rather, as well. A very important part of what you said, Congressman Petri, is the fact that this system has to migrate in over time. It isn't just flipping a switch and changing from the existing system today to the Next Generation system. As I mentioned earlier, it will involve changes not only to air traffic control infrastructure but to the aviation equipment itself. The airplanes, airports, et cetera will also have to be retrofitted with this equipment. We believe, sir, that this will indeed cost several billion dollars. As I said, we are in the process of developing a business plan and should have more firm information to you in the coming months. Mr. Petri. Thank you. I think the benefit is that it will improve safety and expand the capacity of the system enormously. Secretary Peters. Sir, it absolutely will. The truth is the existing system simply cannot handle the growth in aviation traffic that we are going to be seeing in the future. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Costello? Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Madam Secretary, welcome to the hearing here today. I share what I expect what many of my colleagues expressed, and that is I am concerned that the fiscal year 2008 Administration budget does not adequately meet the needs of our Nation for the expectation of investment in critical infrastructure, and specifically let me address a couple of issues concerning aviation. For the past several years, the Administration has proposed massive cuts in the AIP program. I have opposed those cuts for obvious reasons. When we look at airports, much of the attention is put on security. However, we have a capacity issue that we have to address to avoid costly delays in the future. My question has just a few concerns about the proposed budget for aviation. We have a hearing next week which will get into specifics, but I understand from an earlier question that you noted that your 2008 comparison for the proposal to the current tax structure was, you indicated, hypothetical, that it was hypothetical because the user fee structure would not be in place. We did a preliminary analysis of the analytical perspective accompanying the budget, and it indicates that the Administration user fee proposal will actually generate $900 million less in revenue than the current tax structure between the years 2009 and 2012. I just ask you, is that correct? Secretary Peters. Congressman Costello, I don't know if that is correct. I would be happy to look at the numbers with you and see if we could reconcile that, but I don't have that number with me today. Mr. Costello. My understanding is in response to Chairman Oberstar's question, you had indicated that it was hypothetical because the user fees would not be in existence in 2008. They will be if your proposal is enacted by Congress in that period of time. You have not run the numbers for 2009 through 2012? Secretary Peters. Yes, we have. If I may, I will ask the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs to answer that question. Mr. Costello. The question is our analysis shows it is about $900 million less during that period of time with the user fee system than the current tax structure, and I just want to know if that is correct. Ms. Scheinberg. I won't disagree with those numbers, but I wanted to say that the user fees in the future are now just estimates. Our user fee proposal will be directly tied to the needs and costs of the system. As the needs and costs go up, the user fees would go up. So, right now, we are not showing what would probably be the accurate numbers. Those numbers would be adjusted the closer we get to 2012. This is pretty much an estimate at this point. Mr. Costello. But you would not disagree. You would not quarrel with the numbers if your preliminary analysis says it is $900 million less than the current tax structure. You wouldn't have reason to doubt that. Ms. Scheinberg. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I wouldn't disagree if you say so, yes. Mr. Costello. Let me also ask, Madam Secretary. The issue of the general fund contribution, in the Administration, we have seen a reduction over a period of time now. I happen to believe in a robust general fund contribution because I believe it benefits everyone, the system does, and an efficient air transportation system benefits the economy. Let me ask your feeling about a general fund contribution. It went from about in the high twenties to 25 percent down to 21 percent and now I believe down to 19 percent. What is your feeling about a general fund contribution to support the system and the modernization program? Secretary Peters. Congressman Costello, we believe that a general fund contribution is important to fund those things that are inherently governmental functions, or those things that are in the interest of the public as a whole. Some of those things would include defense uses of the air traffic control system. We believe the general fund contribution ought to be equitable to inherently governmental or public use functions. Mr. Costello. The current projections that I have seen for the AIP program, and if these are correct in front of me, the President's proposal is $2.75 billion. You know and I know that under the current entitlement program for airports, when the figure falls below about $3.2 billion, then the primary airports that are entitled to a minimum of $1 million, that would drop down to about $650,000 and the non-primary airports would be cut out of the process, the entitlement process altogether. I wonder if you might comment as to how the FAA intends to address that if the President's AIP budget proposal is adopted by the Congress? Secretary Peters. Congressman Costello, our reauthorization proposal will contain changes to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) formula and passenger facility charges. Today we support a level, as you said, of $2.75 billion. This amount, based on our projections, will provide enough funds for us to meet the high-priority airport capacity, environmental, safety and security needs of the airport system. The proposed changes that will be contained in our reauthorization proposal will ensure that funds flow to projects that further National goals and airports that depend heavily on AIP to meet their capital financing needs. Mr. Costello. Last question, the Administration has been promising to deliver their proposal for the reauthorization of the FAA since last summer, and I have heard it was going to be June and then the fall and then the first of the year and now we are hearing next week. Will we get the Administration's proposed reauthorization plan next week and, secondly, will it be in one part or will it be divided up into three parts as we have heard? Secretary Peters. Congressman Costello, I do apologize. I can't speak for the past, but since I have been at the Department, it has been our target to get that proposal to you right after budget rollout which would be next week, and it is my expectation that we will do that. Mr. Costello. In one package or in parts? Secretary Peters. One package, sir. Mr. Costello. Thank you. Secretary Peters. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Hayes? Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, welcome. Secretary Peters. Thank you. Mr. Hayes. We appreciate the challenge and opportunity before you. The Department of Transportation is a tremendous contributor to commerce and employment and jobs and the overall health and well-being of the Nation, whether it is highways, rails, ships. Aviation is a particular area of interest to me, and I am sure you will get a couple of other questions about that going forward. Looking at aviation, and let me say up front that I think the idea of user fees is just very, very frightening and damaging to the potential for maintaining and increasing the aviation community's contribution to the whole process. Talk about increased congestion, that is a problem in the air and on the ground, but in the air it is three-dimensional as opposed to one on the ground. The FAA, in modernization, has almost doubled the air space with the advent of RVSM equipment and some other things that the community is paying for. My question becomes then as well look forward, we want to make sure that these tax dollars are getting the maximum effect. Now on increasing capacity, there are a number of obsolete systems. When I say obsolete, they still work but very few people use them, VORs and NDBs, those types of things. I hope and I would assume that going forward you all will look very carefully at the savings generated, kind of like cleaning out your closet, as we move into more technology-driven areas. Is that a big part of your planning process when it comes to what the FAA will ask for in the reauthorization? Secretary Peters. Congressman Hayes, it is. I think you make a valid point that some of these systems will no longer need to be used. The only difference, I would say, is the transition period. As Congressman Petri pointed out, we can't simply turn off one system and turn on another. So it will be a migration over time. But yes, we are calculating the cost savings from the systems that will no longer be used. Mr. Hayes. I appreciate that, and I will look forward with Mr. Costello and others to sitting down and talking about that in detail. If I fly from here to Concord--and under the rules, that is now questionable--there is only one VOR involved in that. The other one is still out there. There are a lot of things that could happen. The FAA has had some issues with recent audits. It is a big agency and has a lot going on. I hope we would make sure, particularly under the threat of huge tax increases on fuel and potential user fees, that we get that cleared up. I want the folks, particularly in the name of safety, to have everything that they need but making sure that those dollars are well spent and that we do not put undue strain, particularly on that segment of industry where hundreds of thousands of people are employed in building airliners and all the way from 747s all the way down to unmanned aerial vehicles. Any thought or is it premature since the final document is coming out next week, where is the whole user fee issue? Chairman Mica mentioned it earlier. What is the latest and greatest on that and can you give us a preview of what proposed tax increases on fuel there are and kind of how that is going to shake out? Secretary Peters. Congressman, I am at a bit of a disadvantage due to the fact that we don't have the reauthorization proposal out yet, and because some of those issues are being decided, I would not be comfortable talking about what the components of charges would be. I would be happy to talk with you next week. You obviously have much greater knowledge about the technical aspects of this than I. In fact, I think I have just about exhausted my technical capability here, but I do understand your concern about the audit and about responsibility for public funds. I think the issue is a very important one. Air traffic modernization has been on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) high risk list for years. Administrator Blakey and I take these issues very seriously, and we have been giving the programs and accountability for the programs very careful attention. Ninety-seven percent of FAA's major capital programs were on time and on budget in 2006, and that number will be even higher for 2007. Both GAO and the Department's Inspector General have noted FAA's improvement in major project management. Now in terms of calculating the fee, sir, it is intended that an advisory group would be structured and would work with Congress in determining what the actual fees would be. Mr. Hayes. We certainly, again, welcome you to the Hill and appreciate your efforts. If I have more knowledge that you do, it is got to be in very limited areas. So, again, thank you and we look forward to working with you and make sure that everybody wins at the end of the day. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Secretary Peters. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Ms. Norton? No questions. Mr. Cummings? Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, welcome. Madam Secretary, I wanted to ask you about two areas, water and Amtrak. The President has proposed significant cuts in the Environmental Protection Agency's budget for wastewater infrastructure. Cuts are also proposed for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund programs to mitigate runoff and programs to restore brownfields. The Targeted Watershed Grant program is proposed to be zeroed out. Obviously, these are also cuts that would target the safety of our water supply and cut the meager environmental protection programs we currently have in place. I just wanted to know what was the thinking behind those cuts? Secretary Peters. Congressman Cummings, I unfortunately am not qualified to answer those questions. I believe the witnesses on the second panel from EPA would be able to do so. Mr. Cummings. No problem. Let us go to Amtrak. You believe Amtrak ought to be privatized? Secretary Peters. Sir, I believe that the Nation needs an inter-city passenger rail service, but we need one that operates on a business model that is sustainable. Mr. Cummings. So I take it that, as you probably know, in the last few Congresses, there seems to have been an effort afoot by the Administration to move towards privatization, but even the Republican Congress has repelled that. You know that, right? Secretary Peters. Sir, I do. Having fairly recently come through the confirmation process, it became abundantly clear to me that there is support for the Amtrak program in Congress, albeit for the funding to be used responsibly. I have had the opportunity to meet with the Amtrak board, the chairman, as well as the new head of Amtrak, Alex Kummant, to talk about what they are doing. We have seen some progress in the last year by the Amtrak board and by management to control costs and to raise revenues. The President's 2008 budget for Amtrak recognizes that the corporation has made some necessary budget reforms, and we have included $900 million in our budget just as we did last year. We also are aware of the fact that Amtrak has some substantial resources in addition to the amount proposed in the President's budget. Those resources include approximately $2 billion in normal operating revenue as well as $250 million in State subsidies. One of the reasons we structured our proposal the way we did, allowing for $100 million for proposed inter-city passenger rail grant programs, is that it could be matched with State funds to gain another $100 million for the Amtrak program. The reason we feel that those State partnerships are so important is that over the last 10 years, ridership on inter-city passenger rail routes that benefit from State support and State involvement has grown by 73 percent. Ridership on Amtrak routes that are not supported by States has increased by only 7 percent. Mr. Cummings. Now you realize that both Republican and Democratic governors are looking for resources--and my governor, the Republican that was in there and now the Democrat in Maryland--are just screaming, just trying to figure out how they are going to deal with the responsibilities they have presently. Basically, what you are saying is that you want to put more, the President wants to put more responsibility on the States to give more to Amtrak, is that an accurate statement? Secretary Peters. Congressman, we believe that where States choose to do so and can provide money, which is then matched at a 50 percent level by this program, it can have very positive results. For example, Washington State, California, and a number of other States who already put money into commuter rail programs are putting money into Amtrak programs and seeing significant increases in ridership. Mr. Cummings. You have the belief that the Northeast corridor should be separated from the Amtrak system? Secretary Peters. Sir, I have not arrived at that decision. The Northeast corridor is very important, and that is one of the reasons that we put $500 million for capital costs in our budget, to help the maintenance and repair of capital infrastructure across the system, but particularly in the Northeast corridor. Mr. Cummings. Just very briefly, tell me about this. It seems like there has been built up this structure to plan basically to have private and public going against each other, I guess in some type of competition. Is that right? Secretary Peters. Sir, I am not aware of that. In fact, what I would prefer to see is public and private contributions working together for the greater good. I am not aware of an effort to contract out Amtrak nor has that been mentioned to me by the CEO or the board members with whom I have spoken. Mr. Cummings. You are not anxious to see it privatized, is that what you are saying? Secretary Peters. Sir, I am not sure that that is on the table as an offer. If it is, I would certainly want to know what the parameters of that offer were and whether or not it was in the public interest at the end of the day. Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Secretary Peters. Thank you, sir. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Graves? Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today and coming up and visiting with us. My biggest concern is with the FAA and with the new proposals, and I have got a real problem. We talk a whole lot about this funding proposal and how we are going to pay for this thing, but you stated yourself you are still working on the business plan for the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System. Is that going to be available next week with your funding proposal? Secretary Peters. Sir, the business plan will not be available next week. What will be available next week is the product that came out of the Joint Program Development Office. That office includes representatives not only from FAA, but from Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, NASA, as well as aviation stakeholders who have put together the parameters of the plan that will be included in our proposal. Mr. Graves. But we still don't know what it is we are going to have. We still don't know what the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System is going to be. Secretary Peters. We do not, sir. Mr. Graves. We still don't know what it is going to cost. We still don't know. We really don't know a whole lot about it except for a concept, but yet we are coming up with a funding proposal to pay for it. We talk all about congestion and how crowded the skies are going to be, but I am specifically talking to those GA pilots, those VFR pilots who are out there in Class D air space. They are not using this system, and if they are not using this system, then how can congestion be a problem? I have heard rumors of as much as a 300 percent increase in the gas tax in and the aviation fuel tax for these GA pilots. That is the word that I got, a 70 cent gas tax. Right now, what is it? It is about 22 or something like that. Now that is a horrendous increase if that is what the case is, and that is for pilots that aren't using the system. That is for pilots who aren't a problem with the system. I know pilots out there that have got thousands of hours, and they are operating strictly in Class air space. They are not going into Class B air space. They seldom cross through Class C air space. They are just not a drain on the system, but yet they are going to be taxed to help pay for this. Now I understand through the Aviation Trust Fund, what this money goes to. Truly, the Aviation Trust Fund, and Mr. Oberstar, I know can surely speak to this because he has institutional knowledge about everything when it comes to transportation. The Aviation Trust Fund was developed to build runways and infrastructure, not pay for operating costs. I understand GA has a role in that, and we have the whole reliever airport system to get GA off of the big airports so that the airlines can get in there and we don't have congestion. But now all of a sudden we are talking about safety in the system. We are talking about crowded skies. We are talking about a Next Generation Air Traffic Control System. That brings me to a whole other point, and that is new equipment. I can't afford the equipment that is being put in some of these airplanes now. The equipment is worth more than the airplane is in many cases, and now you are talking about a whole new system that is going to require new equipment. Just through certification costs and everything that is associated with that, I can only imagine what that is going to cost, and it concerns me a great deal for those GA pilots out there. Those are the ones that I am worried about. They can't afford a 300 percent increase in aviation fuel costs. I don't what it is going to be, and I am sure you don't know what it is going to be either. We will see next week what the proposal is going to be. More than anything else, I am venting, and I don't expect you to necessarily respond to it because I have a whole lot of questions next week and I have got reams of questions that I have about this system that we still don't know what it is and what it is going to cost and how we are going to use. Mr. Oberstar. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Graves. Yes, yes. Mr. Oberstar. The gentleman is not venting. The gentleman is just making a very profound, compelling statement that reflects the views on both sides of the aisle about the Administration's plan or non-plan or incomplete proposition. So when that proposal comes out next week, it better not just be a concept. It better be something very specific. Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, I understand. Congressman Graves, we do understand the concerns of the general aviation community. There are a number of policy considerations that will have to be made by the Department, working together with Congress, as this reauthorization prospect goes forward in the coming months. Those policy considerations will have a great deal to do with some of the concerns that you have expressed by the general aviation community. Again, in terms of the concept of Next Generation, what we want to do is work with you and work with experts in the field so that together we identify the correct technology because sometimes Government is a little behind the curve when it comes to the best available technology. That is something that we want to work together with you on. I know that Administrator Blakey will be able to address those issues when she appears before this Committee next week . Mr. Graves. In closing, I do want to thank you for coming up here, and I appreciate your answering our questions or talking about them. Secretary Peters. Thank you, sir. Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman for this very perceptive and compelling statement. Mr. Holden? Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I really don't have a question. I have a comment, but I welcome your opportunity to respond to it when I am finished. On your comment that you believe that earmarks should be reduced by 50 percent, I couldn't disagree with you more if I tried. Those of us on this Committee and particularly those of us from rural districts depend upon the opportunity to steer dollars to our districts for hazard mitigation, for congestion problems, for economic development, and quite frankly, our state DOTs do not have endless resources. We do not give them endless resources. The money naturally gravitates to the metropolitan areas. We need that opportunity to take care of those concerns that we have. The Chairman has been to my district two times. The former Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Highways, Mr. Rahall, was there once looking at projects. While you are thinking about reducing earmarks, I am just going to give you three examples of projects, two complete, one in progress right now that would still be on PennDOT's planning if it were not for my ability and Senator Specter's ability to earmark funds for these projects. In my home county of Schuylkill, Route 61 was deemed one of the most dangerous highways in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It was a four lane highway, not wide enough, no divider on it. Two highway bills ago, I earmarked $15 million. Senator Specter put a little bit on top of it. Now it is a four lane highway with jersey barriers, and there has not been a fatality there in six years. Route 222 in Berks County, one of the fastest growing counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, had the esteemed pleasure of being known as the Home of the Road to Nowhere. Route 222 is a highway between Reading, Pennsylvania and Lancaster, Pennsylvania which was two lanes in two fast growing counties. It would still be a road to nowhere if we were not able to earmark a sufficient amount of funds to have that complete. They are open and operating and safe. Chairman Oberstar was in my district in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, the City of Lebanon. Norfolk Southern comes through a city of 35,000 people 40 plus times a day. Since I have been representing that county, people have been killed by trains. The ambulance service, the fire service are separated when the trains are coming through from getting to the hospital, getting to the fire sight. As the result of an earmark, it is now a land acquisition. So earmarks are not a dirty word. It is an opportunity for us to help our districts, and I hope you will consider that. Secretary Peters. Congressman, if I may clarify, what the President is concerned about are earmarks that are not done in the light of day, those things that happen away from the decision-making part of Congress. We absolutely understand that while the Administration proposes, Congress disposes, and we will always follow the law. But what we ask is that those laws be made in the light of day so that your fellow members and the American people can know where those monies are going. I don't question your judgment, sir. Mr. Holden. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Believe me, they were transparent. We had six newsletters out on those projects. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman. He made a very powerful statement about the high priority member projects that are designated. Just for the Secretary's edification, although she was Federal Highway Administrator during the process of SAFETEA-LU, we circulated, then Chairman Young and I circulated a 22 point questionnaire to all members that they had to fill out and sign to identify projects in their districts that they would like to have included in the Transportation Bill. All of that was included in the Committee report. Those submissions by members were all vetted. They had to be included in the STIP, that is, the long-term Surface Transportation Improvement Program of their State, and a whole host of other requirements. The specific geographical location of the project, and their identification by member were part of our Committee report and part of the bill that went to the House floor and through conference and in the conference report. There is no night time designation and no night time fly by night operation in this Committee. It is all done in the light of day. Secondly, in the aviation reauthorizations, we have never during the time that I was Chair, during the time that Mr. Duncan was Chair, during the time that Mr. Mica was Chair, allowed in the reauthorization of FAA, any airport designation. There were hundreds of requests from members to have a tower, a runway, a taxiway, terminal improvements, all that sort of stuff. We kept it out. It is the appropriation process that is bad, and I can guarantee, Madam Secretary, that if they cross our line in this Congress, this Chairman is going to be on the floor and raise points of order. Secretary Peters. I understand, sir. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Coble? Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I arrived late because of another meeting, but I don't think this question has been put to you. The 2008 budget does not include any funds for the new Department of Transportation building in Southeast D.C. Two questions, when are you moving into the new building, and do you have sufficient funds in the 2007 continuing resolution to make the move? Secretary Peters. Congressman Coble, thank you for asking the question. If the 2007 H.J. Resolution 20 is enacted as it passed the House, we will have sufficient money to complete the new building, and we will be moving in beginning in approximately April of this year through the end of June of this year. In fact, I am very pleased to report that that project is coming in under budget and on time, should H.J. Resolution 20 pass both chambers of Congress. Mr. Coble. Good news, we don't hear that very often on this Hill, do we, Mr. Chairman? Secretary, let me ask you one final question. Do you believe that there are opportunities to move more cargo on our waterways as part of the intermodal transportation system, (a) and (b), what can be done to encourage greater or widespread use of our waterways as a means of addressing some of the congestion problems of other modes? Secretary Peters. Congressman Coble, I think you make a valid point. We are looking at more than doubling the freight transportation of our Nation just within the next 10 years. Estimates are that there will be as much as two and a half times the trucks on the road that you see out there today than trains. So, absolutely, using our inland waterways, using a concept called short sea shipping is something that we absolutely should look at. It is something that I am talking to our maritime administration about to determine where and how we might propose to you to make better use of the waterways. Mr. Coble. Thank you, Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Oberstar. I supplement the gentleman's inquiry by saying that this Committee, the Coast Guard Subcommittee actually will have a hearing on short sea shipping for the purpose of exploring wider opportunities to use our maritime inland waterways and the salt water as well as the Great Lakes coastal system to move goods more efficiently and at least cost and least environmental impact. Short sea shipping has been in practice in other countries. We have not used it, I was going to say sufficiently. We have hardly used it at all in the United States. The purpose of the hearing is to explore exactly the point of the gentleman's question. For example, containers that come into the United States from the West Coast to the Port of Vancouver by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway, the CN brings those containers, about a half million of them now, through International Falls on the U.S.-Canadian border in my district and then by rail down through the heartland of the United States. Those containers could be offloaded at Duluth, placed on a lake-size container vessel, moved past the choke point in Chicago where it takes as long for a container to move through Chicago seven miles as it does to move 1,800 miles from the West Coast to Chicago. Now we can relieve the congestion, reduce the cost and move containers more efficiently. We are going to explore that issue in the coastal regions, the salt coastal regions and the Great Lakes. Mr. Bishop? Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank you for your testimony. One of the goals that this Committee has adopted on a bipartisan basis is to examine the connection that exists between transportation policy and energy policy. The President in his State of the Union message in 2006 said that we were addicted to oil. The President is now acknowledging that human activity contributes to global climate change. It is imperative on all of us obviously to bend our policies in a way that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, reduces carbon emissions and so on. My question to you is really very straightforward. Does the Administration believe that increased reliance on mass transit is a means by which we can reduce our consumption on foreign oil and in the process thereby reduce carbon emissions? Secretary Peters. Congressman Bishop, mass transit certainly has a place in meeting the Nation's transportation demand, and with the right systems in place, mass transit can relieve some of the congestion that we are experiencing on our roadways today. Mr. Bishop. Then let me be more specific. How is it if the Administration shares that belief, how is it that the Administration can cut funding by $300 million below the level authorized in SAFETEA-LU? You made the point that what the Administration was trying to reach was historic levels of funding. I believe that is how you characterized it. Secretary Peters. That is correct. Mr. Bishop. I guess my question is: Is this the time that we can settle for historic levels of funding? We passed, on a bipartisan basis, a reauthorization bill that included a level of funding for mass transit that we thought was prudent. The Administration is now cutting that by $300 million. How can you justify that? Secretary Peters. Congressman Bishop, we recognize the importance of mass transit. We have funded overall transportation programs well in excess of the 1 percent limitation that the President has asked us to meet for non- defense discretionary spending. In crafting our proposal for transit this year, while mindful of that goal, we funded every project that was ready to go, every project that has a full funding grant agreement, that is pending or we believe will be at that point during the year. When SAFETEA-LU was passed by the Congress and signed by the President in August of 2005, it was a very different picture in terms of the health of the Highway Trust Fund and the Highway Account. We have to make tough choices, and those were the choices we made, sir. Mr. Bishop. I understand that. At the risk of being argumentative, the 1 percent cap that the President imposed clearly is an arbitrary number. I mean the Pentagon's budget is going up by 11 percent. We are spending more in that area because the President believes that that is a priority. The Nation believes that that is a priority. I guess what I and a number of us are struggling with is how are we going to move this issue, this issue of climate change and the way in which Government policy can impact our ability to bend that. How are we going to move that to a priority that eclipses some arbitrary 1 percent barrier? Secretary Peters. We believe that those systems are a priority, and we have allocated more than the 1 percent to those programs. I certainly understand where you are coming from, and I believe that we share those concerns. We will work hard with you to resolve these issues. Mr. Bishop. OK, thank you, Madam Secretary. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. I thank the gentleman. We have about 10 minutes remaining on this vote, and then we have 50 minutes of voting. I can't ask the Secretary to stay for an hour. We will go to other members and ask them to fire one question off, and I hate to do this, but then we will negotiate with the Secretary about a return encounter. Mr. Duncan? Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, in light of your statement, I will just go ahead and submit my questions for the record. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. As the former Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, you are entitled to a question. [Laughter.] Mr. Duncan. Well I am curious. I am curious about two things. One, the recission of these almost $8 billion in highway funds and what we are going to do about that and also are you making any recommendations about new ways to finance the aviation system? I am interested in both of those things, but that is two questions. Mr. Oberstar. All right, she can answer. She talks fast. Secretary Peters. Congressman, I am going to ask our Assistant Secretary to discuss the recisions. In terms of new ways to fund aviation, we are looking at new ways to fund aviation and trying to find ways to meet the increasing demand without putting any undue burdens on our aviation community, as Congressman Graves mentioned. When we get our proposal out next week, we will talk to you in more detail about those. Mr. Duncan. All right. Ms. Scheinberg. Sir, there are four proposed cancellations, as we call them. Two of them are from the Miscellaneous Appropriations Account, one is contract authority that correlates with the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), that we are proposing not be instituted in fiscal year 2008, and the fourth one is unobligated balances of contract authority, similar to what the Congress did last year and is doing in H.J. Res. 20. Our level is at $1.4 billion compared to the $3.5 billion that the Congress is proposing. These are similar to what has been done in the past, but we have four different pieces from the Highway Account. Mr. Duncan. I am concerned about that because our vehicle miles traveled keeps going up at three or four times the rate of the increase in population. Mr. Oberstar. Exactly. Mr. Duncan. At any rate, I could say a lot more, but I will let it go. Thank you very much for being here with us. Secretary Peters. Thank you, sir. Mr. Oberstar. That last point is so vital. Mrs. Napolitano? Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will make mine very brief also. We have been searching with great interest any of the increase in dealing with some of the transportation issues in Southern California which is where I am from, and I would like to submit a letter to you. It is not a question. It is rather we need congestion relief in California on that bottleneck of I-5, the Santa Ana freeway and also on the Alameda corridor east simply because that brings the economy to the rest of the Nation, and it is heavily impacting my district, not only because of the pollution but because of the building of the third rail and also add to that, out of 54 grade separations, only 20 are being geared for building or for setting up. The funding is not there, not even for those 20. Never mind the other 34. That is going to create not only a health hazard, a pollution hazard, more trains derailments because we have had five in my district in about a span of less than a year. I will give credit to Union Pacific, they are going through and putting down concrete ties and longer rails and upgrading which we have been having a big battle over because of those derailments. Those are the things I would like to submit to you. Also, I understand that you will be in Los Angeles. I invite you to my district to have a bird's eye of what we have. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. I will submit the letter to the young lady. Secretary Peters. Thank you, Congresswoman, and I look forward to the visit to your district. Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Boozman? Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to reiterate that I am very, very concerned about the Highway Trust Fund. We have got a situation where if you look at the tremendous inflation in our highway projects with the cost of steel, the shortage of concrete and things and you look at the last time we had an increase and you look at the purchasing power of those dollars, we have lost tremendous purchasing power and have not kept up that way. Earlier we had some of our truckers come in, and they were telling about how they had reduced fuel consumption by up to 25 percent in the last year by going straighter routes and things like that. We are looking at increasing the standards on fuel efficiency and things. We have got the strongest economy that we have ever had and not keeping up now when that dips back down. I guess really what I would like to know from you is you said that we need to get with you and work this out. Do we have a plan to get where we need to go and specifically what is that plan? Secretary Peters. Congressman Boozman, I also am very concerned, and I know the Chairman is as well. Right now we have a commission that was authorized by the SAFETEA-LU legislation, which I have the privilege of chairing, that is working very hard to come up with recommendations for you. Those recommendations are due in December of this year. Because of the very urgent nature of this situation with the Highway Trust Fund I am working within the Department, and within the Administration. We will work with you to try to come forward with recommendations even sooner if we can do that. You make a valid point about the cost of construction materials, sometimes approaching 13 percent growth in the cost of those materials, well in excess of the rate of inflation. Mr. Boozman. Mr. Chairman, do you think we possibly could have that group over to give us some preliminary as to what is going on with them, the commission? Mr. Oberstar. Oh, yes, we will. We have periodically in the past had a briefing with the executive director of the commission, and with Mr. Mica's participation, we will schedule another one. Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Lipinski? I would just say that while there are 4 minutes remaining on the vote, 338 have not yet voted, and it is a 2 minute and 38 second hike from here to the House floor. Mr. Lipinski. We have plenty of time there. I just want to quickly say I also have concerns, Madam Secretary, about Amtrak, rail infrastructure funding, transit funding. Focusing specifically on Chicagoland which I represent part of it, there are massive congestion problems in aviation, rail, highways. I certainly would invite you to come out there and see some of these and discuss more that we can do. On aviation right now, we are working on a remodernization project and rail, the CREATE project which I have been the leader on to reduce rail congestion. In terms of highway congestion, we have groups like Metropolis 2020, Metropolitan Planning Council. These are civil organizations, think tanks working on innovative ways to address highway congestion. I am just wondering what you could quickly say about the highway congestion initiative and how that may be able to help in Chicago. Secretary Peters. Congressman Lipinski, the congestion initiative can help you. Secretary Mineta established the Department's National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network last May before he left the Agency. I think that is a wonderful idea and have picked up on that. Accordingly our budget proposes $175 million to be devoted to this initiative. The money supports four programs that are consistent with the SAFETEA-LU legislation: $100 million for the value pricing pilot program, which complements the $12 million that was already in SAFETEA-LU for that program; $25 million to Corridors of the Future; $25 million for real time traffic information systems; and $25 million for intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and research and development which will disseminate technology more quickly. Certainly, we are very interested in working with Chicago, and I have had the opportunity to be there. By the way, the commission will be there this spring to see firsthand some of the challenges. When I was in the private sector, one of our main offices was in Chicago, I spent much time in the City and can understand what you are saying about congestion. Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I look forward to working with you and seeing you in Chicago. Secretary Peters. Thank you, sir. Mr. Lipinski. I yield back. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. Ms. Hirono? Ms. Hirono. Thank you. Madam Secretary, is it your Department's position to support New Starts mass transit programs' systems especially where the localities have made a commitment to the system by passing tax increases to pay for their share? Secretary Peters. Congresswoman, yes, it is. Ms. Hirono. Good, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Oberstar. The Committee will stand in recess, pending the seven votes, and we will reconvene within five minutes after the last vote for which I cannot set a specific time. Mr. Hayes, did you have a question at all that you wanted to ask? You are going to talk individually, all right. Thank you very much for being with us today. We will see if there is interest among members in having you come back at another time that would be convenient, but we thank you very much for the time you have given us today. Secretary Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. Mr. Oberstar. We hold you excused. We will ask our water panel to be patient. You can have a free cup of coffee over here in the lounge and make yourself at home. The Committee stands in recess. [Recess.] [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the committee stands adjourned.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]