<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:78074.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-323
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:
FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
OVERSIGHT OF THE PROGRAMS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
__________
MAY 10, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-074 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress
first session
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
HARRY REID, Nevada, Ranking Democratic Member
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Dave Conover, Republican Staff Director
Eric Washburn, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
RON WYDEN, Oregon
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 10, 2001
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 2
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 5
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 7
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 19
WITNESSES
Davis, Thurman, Sr., Acting Administrator, General Services
Administration................................................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Clinton.......................................... 56
Senator Inhofe........................................... 52
Senator Reid............................................. 58
Senator Warner........................................... 51
Dearie, Hon. Raymond J., District Judge, Eastern District of New
York, prepared statement....................................... 48
Mineta, Hon. Norman, Secretary, Department of Transportation..... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 38
Senator Reid............................................. 40
Senator Smith............................................ 37
Senator Warner........................................... 42
Roth, Hon. Jane R. Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Washington, DC........................................ 26
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 46
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:
FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in
room 628, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Warner, Chafee, Baucus, Reid, and
Smith [ex officio].
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The meeting will come to order.
Today, the subcommittee will receive testimony regarding
the President's budget for fiscal year 2002 for the Department
of Transportation and General Services Administration.
I do have a statement. Rather than go into detail in the
statement, I will place it into the record, because I want to
get started on this. We have an unfortunate thing today. We
have at the same time as this hearing, even though we timed
this one first, we set this one first, we have the Senate Armed
Services Committee where we have all three Service Secretaries
up for confirmation. So I am going to be going back and forth.
Senator Smith is on both committees also. So we will be trading
back and forth. I will be trying to get Senator Reid or Senator
Baucus or others who come along to Chair in our absence so we
can just keep this hearing going.
Let me just mention one thing, since I am the only
Republican here and confession is good for the soul, I would
advise both of my colleagues over here that one of the things
this President did was nobody knew who he was appointing for
the very top key positions. I did not have any idea that Norm
Mineta was going to be considered or was going to be interested
in this job until I heard about it. So I immediately called and
I said, ``Norm, do you remember in the years that you were in
the House the only Republican that came to all of your
fundraisers and considered you among their best friends?'' He
said, ``This must be Jim Inhofe.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. We are just so honored to have you in this
position. I would say to my colleagues who perhaps have not
worked as closely with him as I have, for the 8 years I was
over in the House, I have never worked with anyone who was more
dedicated and more committed and who worked harder than
Secretary Mineta. So we are delighted to have you here.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Today, the subcommittee will receive testimony regarding the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2002 for the Department of
Transportation and the General Services Administration. I understand
that in recent years it has not been the practice of the subcommittee
to conduct oversight on the Department of Transportation budget
request; however as we approach reauthorization of TEA-21, I believe it
is critical that we carefully scrutinize how the program is being
administered. Likewise, the subcommittee has a responsibility to make
sure that the stewardship of Federal real estate assets are being seen
to and we welcome the opportunity to hear from GSA and the Courts on
their space needs.
I want to extend a special welcome to Secretary Mineta because we
served together on what was then the House Public Works and
Transportation Committee. It was during that time that ISTEA
[Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act] was enacted and
Secretary Mineta was the chairman of the Surface Transportation
Subcommittee. It is very fitting that you are now administering the
second generation of ISTEA . . . I cannot think of a better qualified
individual.
With that said, I want to advise you that there are some areas of
the President's budget that has caused some concern with respect to
what appears to be a diversion of funds from the TEA-21 formula. I look
forward to hearing what you have to say about how this proposal will
protect the delicate TEA-21 funding balance . . . and I know I do not
need to school you on how delicate that balance is.
Also, as you are aware, the Environment and Public Works Committee
has been very concerned with the progress of environmental streamlining
implementation. Our disappointment with the proposed rule of last
summer has not necessarily been abated. I hope that in your comments
will give the subcommittee the assurances it seeks regarding this
important TEA-21 reform.
Finally, I want today's hearing to be the first of many
conversations we have over the next several month on laying the
groundwork for reauthorization. I have some new ideas on how I believe
we can ensure States have more money to spend on their infrastructure.
I appreciate my views may not be shared by others but I believe that if
we are going to continue to build on the progress that has been
accomplished by ISTEA and TEA-21, we need to not shy away from bold
ideas. Specifically, I want to explore the option of giving States the
opportunity to opt out of a portion of the Federal highway program by
keeping their gas tax dollars in the State and sending only that
portion to Washington that is needed to fund national priorities. I
recognized as someone who was taught at the feet of Chairman Bob Roe
and Congressman John Paul Hammerschimdt this is a radical idea but one
that I believe has merit and deserves discussion.
I am also pleased to have GSA Acting Administrator Thurman Davis to
discuss GSA's Public Building program and Judge Jane Roth to update the
subcommittee on the housing needs of the U.S. Courts. I had the
opportunity to visit with Judge Roth yesterday and she highlighted for
me the space requirements of the courts. As I told Judge Roth then, it
would be my goal to work diligently with the courts and GSA to address
those needs to the greatest extent possible.
With that, I will yield to Senator Baucus for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we all
have the highest regard for the Secretary. Each of us has known
him in different capacities, in different times, different
situations, but for a long period of time. And in each of
those, he has just been one super great guy. I first knew the
Secretary, I hate to admit it, it was a good number of years
ago, but we were both Watergate babies. We came to the Congress
together in 1974, and I might say it was probably one of the
best classes. We are very proud of our group.
Anyway, Norm and I worked on a lot of projects over in the
House, particularly on ISTEA, I might say, because he was very
active in the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act. Was Bud
Shuster the chairman then? I have forgotten.
Mr. Mineta. Bob Roe.
Senator Baucus. That is right, Bob Roe was chairman at the
time.
Senator Inhofe. How could you forget that?
Senator Baucus. Well, it is pretty hard to forget Bud
Shuster, too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. And then later on, he became Commerce
Secretary, Transportation Secretary. It really shows that a lot
of people have so much faith in Mr. Mineta in so many different
capacities, so many different ways. He was elected to Congress,
and then serving as Commerce and then Transportation
Secretaries, and in different Administrations. It is quite a
mark. I am thinking, frankly, of somebody from Montana years
ago who was in somewhat the same capacity, and that was Mike
Mansfield, former Senator representing Montana, who was
appointed by President Carter to be Ambassador to Japan. And
when President Reagan became President, President Reagan
recognized that Ambassador Mansfield was such a solid person
that he carried over Senator Mansfield to continue to be
Ambassador to Japan. I think he is one of the best Ambassadors
we have had to represent the United States of America. And Mr.
Mineta is in the same capacity.
Mr. Chairman, this hearing though is about more than
Secretary Mineta, so I will go on to the substance of the
hearing.
The very basic point I want to make is that I deeply
appreciate the ideas and the programs that the Administration
is suggesting to improve our highway system. They are a lot of
good ideas and I think that we should look at them very
closely. But at the appropriate time. I very, very firmly
believe that it does not make sense to open up TEA-21. If the
programs suggested are adopted, that would mean that our States
would receive about $430 million less in direct highway
funding. That is not something I think we should do.
I have worked very hard, as has Senator Reid, and I know
you have, too, Mr. Chairman, on these highway bills. They have
worked. They have worked well. I think because the highway
users and Members of Congress know that we are going to take
these up, spend a lot of time trying to figure out the
formulas, the provisions, and then enact them, and not reopen
these bills for another 6, 8, 10 years. And the same applies
here with respect to the current highway program. It is
working. It is working well. And if we start to reopen TEA-21,
then many other groups are going to come in and say ``Hey, what
about me? What about our program?'' And a lot of them are going
to be very worthwhile programs. But, again, they take money
away from the States under the formula.
That makes it difficult for States to plan. My State of
Montana has a devil of a time, I might say, Mr. Chairman,
trying to find the matching funds to match the Federal dollars
that Montana receives. And if it is on again, off again--that
is, if the amounts that Montana receives goes up and down like
a yo-yo--as a consequence of different programs that we may or
may not be enacting, that is, reopening TEA-21, it makes it
very difficult for States to plan. It also makes it very
difficult for contractors to plan. These jobs are not something
you put together in a week or a month or a year. They take many
years to plan. And not to belabor the point, but just to say
that I feel very strongly, having worked with Senator Chafee,
Senator Warner, in particular, Senator Byrd, Senator Graham,
and others as the principal architects of TEA-21, that now is
not the time. Next year would be the time to start looking at
programs when we do reenact the next highway bill in the
following year.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will stop at that point. I notice that
Judge Roth is in the audience. I do not know if I will be able
to stay for her testimony. But I have a very long association
with Judge Roth with respect to our courts and the courthouses
and the Administrative Office of the Courts, and certainly her
husband, Senator Roth. They are two wonderful people. I just
want to thank Judge Roth for the great progress we have made on
this issue of how we finance and plan courthouse construction.
I deeply appreciate the Judge's very good, hard work.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an opening statement before
Secretary Mineta speaks and then a separate one before our second
panel.
I am pleased that for the first time before the Transportation
Subcommittee, we will be hearing from our newest Secretary of
Transportation--Norman Mineta. Mr. Mineta is well known to many of us.
We had the opportunity to work with him not only at the Department of
Commerce but when he served as chairman of the House Committee on
Public Works during the development of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act or ISTEA. I welcome Mr. Mineta here this
morning.
I'd like to start off this morning by mentioning how much TEA-21
has helped our Nation address our infrastructure needs and our
employment needs. This is especially true in my State of Montana. TEA-
21 has been a crucial tool for us. The bill is not perfect, but it's a
very good bill that an overwhelming majority agreed upon, at the end of
the day. Along with Senators John Chafee and John Warner, I was
directly involved in drafting TEA-21 in the Senate. I consider it a
priority to make sure that TEA-21 is implemented intact until it
expires in 2003.
I must point out that the documents provided by the Department of
Transportation assert that the Bush Administration's budget proposal
actually funds TEA-21 intact. The Administration claims that their
budget funds the guaranteed levels for surface transportation as
prescribed in TEA-21. I do not agree. The Bush budget includes several
new statutory proposals which, if enacted, would change TEA-21 in
several fundamental ways. Taken together, these proposals have the
effect of prioritizing research programs and discretionary grant
programs at the expense of highway construction dollars to the States.
Under this budget, the States would receive almost $430 million less in
direct highway construction funds than they would under TEA-21. I
cannot and will not support proposals that would take critical highway
construction dollars, guaranteed by TEA-21, away from the States and
divert those dollars to other programs. When we enacted TEA-21 we said
that we were putting the trust back into the Highway Trust Fund, and
I'm not prepared to change TEA-21 in ways that would detract from that
promise.
I can understand why the Administration feels the need to fund
these programs. They have merit. They're good programs. In fact there
are additional programs out there that are meritorious. However, all
these worthy programs have one thing in common--they are not part of
TEA-21 or at least not consistent with the prescribed funding levels in
TEA-21. Any deviation, regardless of its merit, is outside the scope of
a bill that achieved a delicate balance. Any small change could open
the door to an even bigger one.
I emphasize that I don't reserve this criticism solely for this
year's budget proposal. I have been equally critical of budget
proposals in recent years that only loosely resembled TEA-21. In fact,
one thing I can say about this year's budget proposal is that it shows
some restraint. Past proposals by the Administration have called for
even fewer construction dollars to the States in exchange for other
programs. Thankfully, those budgets were not enacted.
I'd like to quickly mention two other areas in which I intend to
question the Secretary about after his statement. First is the concept
of repealing all or part of the Federal gas tax. Bad Idea. If the 4.3-
cent fuel tax is repealed, there will be terrible consequences to this
country again.
I am against repeal for two main reasons. First, any repeal would
undermine TEA-21 which is so important to economic development in
Montana and throughout the country. Second, repeal of the gas tax will
not reduce the price of gas at the pump.
On this subcommittee Senators Voinovich, Warner, Reid and I fought
repeal on the Senate floor on three separate occasions last year. On
each occasion, reason prevailed. There was no gas tax repeal. I hope
that we can count on Secretary Mineta to help us prevent repeal if this
issue comes up.
The next issue I'd like to speak about is environmental
streamlining. To your credit, Mr. Secretary, you have made repeated
statements regarding the need to streamline the process by which
environmental approvals are obtained to construct new runways for
airports. I applaud this initiative but I emphasize that equal
attention should be spent on streamlining the approval process for
highways. At present, the process for allowing highway projects to move
forward is painfully long. The rule that was issued last year missed
the mark. It is my hope that you will go back to the drawing board, as
they say, and issue a regulation that will help States expedite the
project approval process without and I emphasize without weakening
environmental protections.
Thank you for being here today Secretary Mineta. I look forward to
your remarks.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Baucus.
I should have mentioned that we will have a second panel
with Judge Roth, and I hold her in the highest esteem, as I am
sure we all do up here, as well as Thurman Davis, who is the
Acting Administrator of GSA. That will be Panel II.
Senator Reid.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. When you
talked about the ``unfortunate thing,'' I was surprised when
you talked about the unfortunate thing in your mind today was
the Armed Services Committee meeting at the same time we are
meeting. I thought you were talking about the budget we were
going to have to vote on.
Senator Baucus. We thought that was the confession of the
soul.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, we all hold Secretary Mineta in
the highest regard. I had the good fortune to serve with the
Secretary as a Member of the House of Representatives and
worked with him during the time that he was moving the last
transportation bill. Like you, when I first heard he was being
selected, I reached out to tell him that I hoped he would take
the job. He is certainly qualified to do so. As I have
indicated, and we have all indicated, there are few people as
well qualified to handle the job as Secretary Mineta. And it is
a difficult job that he has.
For example, Las Vegas has tremendous traffic problems with
their being the fastest growing area and the fastest growing
State. Just this week a new study by the Texas Transportation
Institute estimated that in 1999 traffic congestion cost $78
billion in just wasted fuel and productivity. And to no one's
surprise, the study confirmed that traffic congestion has
tripled since 1982, with the average person now spending 36
hours a year stuck in traffic. I have experienced this, as I
have indicated, in Nevada. We have growth that has changed the
traffic patterns in Nevada.
As the new ranking member on this full committee, I take
this issue seriously and look forward to working with Senator
Baucus and this most important subcommittee on the TEA-21
reauthorization process.
One issue that I find we may need to take a look at is
magnetic levitation. In this year's budget, there has been a
decision made not to fund this and not to have funding that we
have had in the past. I think, Mr. Secretary, this is something
you need to take a look at. I just left an appropriations
subcommittee hearing with Secretary Paige, who is the new
Secretary of Education. I am very impressed with this man
because he is saying we need to do things differently. I think
in transportation you need to take a look at doing things
differently. Carrying people 250 miles, we cannot continue
doing that with cars and with airplanes. It is so inefficient
to travel these short distances by airplane or by car. We have
to look at something else. And the only area that I think that
we can look--the highways are jammed, we cannot build more
roads, we cannot build more airports--we need to look at ways
of traveling on high-speed rail, and I think one of the ways we
need to look is with this magnetic levitation, which was
invented in this country but yet the technology, because of the
Federal Government dropping the ball as we did in the 1970's,
it is now being done in Japan and Germany.
So I would ask, Mr. Secretary, that you personally take a
look at magnetic levitation, high-speed rail, because I think
it is the only way that we can efficiently carry people for
these short hops that most of the passengers are now being
carried by car and by airplane. So I would hope that you would
do that and report back to the committee at the subsequent
time.
We cannot ignore transportation infrastructure problems
generally. I know that you know as well as anyone within this
Administration, if not better, that we cannot close our eyes
hoping the problem will go away. So I look forward to a
constructive year with this committee and this subcommittee,
and you have to be an integral part of that, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada
Thank you Senator Smith for holding this hearing. I would also like
to thank our witnesses on the second panel for coming Thurman Davis,
Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration, and Judge
Jane Roth. I look forward to working with both of you, and in
particular to discussing energy efficiency in Federal buildings.
However, today I will focus on transportation.
Welcome Secretary Mineta. There are few people better qualified
than you to lead the Department of Transportation and I am pleased that
President Bush made such an excellent choice in your appointment.
That said, you have a tough job ahead of you. The importance of
transportation issues is increasing thanks to growing public
frustration over delayed flights, congested roads, and overcrowded mass
transit facilities. Our transportation system is bursting at the seams
as demand overwhelms our infrastructure's limited supply.
Just this week, a new study by the Texas Transportation Institute
estimated that in 1999 traffic congestion cost $78 billion in wasted
fuel and lost productivity. And to no one's surprise, the study
confirmed that traffic congestion has tripled since 1982, with the
average person now spending 36 hours a year stuck in traffic. I have
experienced this trend firsthand in my home State of Nevada. Las Vegas,
the fastest growing metropolitan area in the country, has seen the
average traffic delay per person quadruple since 1982. In fact, one
related study showed Las Vegas to have the second worst ``congestion
burden'' in the Nation. And with continuing growth, this problem is
only going to get worse.
As the new ranking Democrat on the Environment and Public Works
Committee, I take my leadership responsibilities on this issue
seriously, Mr. Secretary, and I look forward to working closely with
you throughout the TEA-21 reauthorization process.
I would like to take this opportunity to raise one issue of
particular concern. Our needs in transportation are enormous and we
will have to find ways to address these needs while reauthorizing
surface transportation programs in 2003. A critical piece of the
solution will be more funding. We cannot solve our traffic problems
without more and better roads. We also cannot solve our problems
without substantially increasing our investment in mass transit to give
commuters another transportation option. And we desperately need to
invest billions of dollars in high-speed rail corridors across the
Nation, not to mention magnetic levitation. And this does not even
begin to touch on our aviation and coast guard needs. The bottom line,
Mr. Secretary, is that more budgetary resources are going to be
necessary to address our transportation problems, and I am concerned
that the budget proposal this Administration put forth does not leave
room for these needs in future years. I am concerned that once we pass
giant tax cuts, there just won't be anything left for our other
priorities.
Mr. Secretary, we cannot ignore out transportation infrastructure
problems. You know that better than anyone and I hope that you will be
a voice of reason within the Bush Administration, sounding the alarm on
this issue. We cannot close our eyes and hope this problem goes away.
We need to meet it head on.
Again, thank you for coming and I look forward to working with you
very closely on transportation issues over the next few years.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Reid.
Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Thank you. I would just like to welcome
fellow mayor and now Secretary Mineta. I look forward to your
testimony.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Smith.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. Let me just say welcome, Mr. Secretary, a
distinguished House colleague. I had the privilege of serving
with you for I do not know how many years, I think six at
least. Welcome. Good to see you here. How is it sitting in that
cabinet meeting with all those Republicans?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mineta. Fine.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Statement of. Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the
State of New Hampshire
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to extend a warm welcome to
Secretary Mineta on his first appearance before this committee as the
new Secretary of Transportation--it's good to see you again.
We are all aware of his vast experience with transportation issues
from his days as the House committee chairman. I do want to commend you
for the budget's full funding of TEA-21 guarantees. We all know how
important full funding is because highways are the backbone to all
other modes of transportation. For example, in New Hampshire the
Manchester Airport Access Road will serve the fastest growing airport
in the country. The project is expected to cost $75 million and
construction will be completed by 2004. Another project in my State is
the widening of I-93 in southern New Hampshire, which will cost $280
million. This project will include park and ride lots, and express bus
lanes serving travel to Boston, with construction beginning in 2003.
Being a small State, with a relatively small allocation of Federal
dollars, these major projects take a big chunk out of available funds--
so my State needs every penny it gets and more.
As you know, TEA-21 provides that annual funding reflects actual
gas tax receipts--RABA adjustment. Due to the strong economy, this
budget contains $4.5 billion more than what was estimated in TEA-21. I
am pleased that this budget restrains from significant diversions of
these funds to non-highway projects, as was the case in the past.
We are interested in taking a closer look at the new program
proposals that are contained in this budget, but this committee has
resisted any mid-course changes to TEA-21 in the past, and will
continue to resist it during this Congress. For now, we want to work
with you to be prepared to meet these needs in the next reauthorization
bill that we will be crafting over the next couple years.
With TEA-21's continued funding increases, one of this committee's
highest priorities is environmental streamlining. I was proud to have
co-authored the provision in TEA-21 to make sure project construction
is not delayed. I am working closely with Federal and State agencies in
New Hampshire on a pilot project, the widening of I-93. This project is
of the utmost importance to New Hampshire and me.
Over the next couple of years, this project will provide one model
for how to raise issues early, work together on solutions, stay on
schedule, and fully address all environmental standards. This issue
requires leadership from the Secretary, and from the Federal Highway
Administration.
I will certainly urge that the next Federal Highway Administrator
makes environmental streamlining a priority. I am pleased to support
the budget request for increased planning funds to implement
environmental streamlining.
The President's budget highlights the TEA-21 innovative financing
program. It provides $123 million to leverage up to $2.4 billion in
Federal credit assistance for about $7 billion in infrastructure
investments.
We need to become better at innovative financing, because we cannot
meet the Nation's tremendous infrastructure needs now and in the future
with our old institutional mold for laying down the interstate system.
I intend to continue my predecessor's efforts in this area by
introducing a bill to allow the private sector to take a more active
role in building and operating transportation infrastructure through
tax-exempt bond financing.
I believe that increased private sector involvement in
transportation infrastructure is imperative if we are to meet the needs
of the 21st century. I hope this bill will receive full support from
the Administration and my colleagues here on the committee.
Mr. Secretary, thank you again for coming here today, and thank you
Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Smith, I mentioned before you came
in that you and I both have this conflict with the confirmation
of our Service Secretaries, so you and I will be trading off
here.
I think it is kind of ironic, Secretary Mineta, that you
are certainly one of the two architects of ISTEA and now you
are coming in to administer the second generation. We are
looking forward to that. We are pleased to recognize you at
this time for any opening statement that you might have. If you
could confine your opening statement to 5 minutes or so, your
entire statement will be made a part of the record.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, before you leave, could I have
permission to submit my questions in writing to the Secretary
and have him respond in the next couple of days?
Senator Inhofe. Of course. During the course of this----
Senator Reid. No. I am going to have to leave. I will
submit them and ask the Secretary to get back to me.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. We will do that.
STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary Mineta. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Smith, members of
the subcommittee, it really is a great pleasure for me to have
this opportunity to be before you today and to have this
opportunity to work with you on the challenges that face our
Nation's transportation system.
First of all, I thought I was looking at a House committee
as I was looking at all of my former colleagues here. But I
have got to admit, the view is radically different from this
side of the table as compared to that side. But I do look
forward to working with all of you.
Transportation is key to our Nation's well-being, whether
measured as economic growth, as international competitiveness,
or as quality of life. A safe and efficient transportation
system is essential to keeping people and goods moving and for
cities and communities to be prosperous. Congestion and delay
not only waste our time as individuals, they also burden our
businesses and our entire economy with inefficiency and higher
costs. So, transportation is vital to the productivity and,
therefore, the success of virtually every business in America.
As a whole, the multi-modal transportation system of this
Nation works well in maintaining the strong economic
performance of the United States, and Congress deserves a great
deal of the credit for this sustained good performance.
Congressional enactment of TEA-21 and AIR-21 put in place
levels of capital investment that will help improve safety and
relieve congestion. The Bush Administration strongly supports
and is requesting full funding of the guaranteed levels for
surface transportation and for the authorized capital and
operating levels for air transportation as part of the
President's fiscal year 2002 budget.
The most fundamental challenge that we face is to get
everyone working together in a spirit of partnership to solve
these problems. So, as Secretary, I intend to devote the bulk
of my energies to working across party lines, reaching across
sectoral divides, and building consensus to achieve solutions.
Let me touch very briefly on several topics covered more
fully in my written testimony.
First of all, safety. Without a doubt, the United States
has an enviable transportation safety record. We lead the world
in safety in many modes of transportation. Working together we
can and will improve this record. Safety is the
Administration's highest priority in transportation. Our 2002
budget includes $7.3 billion for transportation safety
programs, some 7.5 percent above fiscal year 2001.
The Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget request
provides full funding for highway and highway safety programs
at the level guaranteed under TEA-21. We will continue to work
with State and local highway engineers and with the consulting
and construction industries to provide guidance on ways to make
the highway system safer.
And as it relates to motor carrier safety, we propose $400
million for 2002. That represents about a 49 percent increase
above 2001. That increase is devoted to enforcement and
infrastructure needs at our southern border.
Mobility.--When I took this job, I knew that a central
challenge for the Department would be to address the gap
between the demand for transportation and the capacity of our
transportation infrastructure. So I want to discuss, in
particular, the congestion problems that we have in highways.
Our latest Conditions and Performance Report to Congress
projects that by 2003 highway capital investment by all levels
of government will reach the level of our ``cost to maintain''
scenario. Now this scenario projects the investment required to
maintain the average physical condition of highways and bridges
at current levels, while still allowing for some comparably
attractive investments in capacity expansion.
Improving management of our resources.--While expansion of
our transportation system capacity is necessary, we also need
to make more efficient use of our existing infrastructure. The
search for new technological and innovative solutions to our
mobility challenges is well supported in the fiscal year 2002
budget.
Ensuring mobility for all Americans.--Despite the capacity
challenges we face, many of us take the tremendous mobility
options we have for granted. President Bush wants to address
the mobility gap for Americans who do not have mobility
options. The budget requests funding within the New Freedom
Initiative for two new programs relevant to transportation to
help integrate Americans with disabilities into the work force.
Streamlining the Environmental Review Process.--The
Administration's goal is to lessen the environmental effects of
transportation, and the budget includes $6.6 billion, an almost
8 percent funding increase, for these efforts. We are looking
at ways to make the process of environmental review more
efficient while ensuring environmental protection and concern
for public sensitivity about noise, air, and water quality,
other natural resources, and communities.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
the United States enjoys the safest and best transportation
system in the world. Nevertheless, we face safety and capacity
challenges. The funding requested in the President's fiscal
year 2002 budget, as well as the management and accountability
improvements that we will make over the next year, will help us
to meet these challenges.
So I look forward to working with all of you and with the
Members of Congress over the coming year to ensure that a safe
transportation system continues to support a strong economy and
improve the quality of life for all of the American people.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am ready to take your
questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We have had an
occasion to look at your testimony, your written submitted
testimony, and there are some things of great interest to us.
In there, you said, ``Slow decisionmaking does not translate
into better environmental results.'' I think this goes to the
heart of what we tried to accomplish in TEA-21. But I am
disappointed that there is still no reasonable guess as to when
the new Administration will be issuing a rule on environmental
streamlining. I wonder if you have any ideas on when we can
expect such a rule, and your thoughts on that issue. I think
probably environmental streamlining is a concern I have heard
more than any single concern that people are facing right now.
Secretary Mineta. Mr. Chairman, because of the capacity
challenges that we all face, trying to get projects from
initiation to completion in as short as possible time is really
a very large priority of our Department. It is a priority in
which I am vastly interested. So the whole process is one that
we want to address in a sensitive way that does not also impact
in a negative way in terms of the environmental concerns that
people have.
I think there are things that we can do in a departmental
and administrative way. As an example, in the aviation field,
when a decision is made to go ahead with a new runway--usually
there is an FAA local team that is put together to take a look
at that application. They look at it and nurture it, they go
through the process, package it up, and then send it to
Washington, DC, for the national FAA office to take a look at
it. And then the national team goes through the process and
deals with the issues. What I am now saying is, when we get
those applications for local projects and there is a local team
put together, that we superimpose on it the national team, so
that we are working simultaneously rather than consecutively in
order to cut down the time period.
I think the same thing with State environmental impact
reports and Federal environmental impact statements. We ought
to do those together so that they will be moving along in order
to be able to cut down the time period and be able to deal with
a lot of the mutual concerns at the same time.
Senator Inhofe. I think so, too. That will be music to a
lot of ears around the country. What you might be thinking
about, maybe for the record, is get as specific a time line as
you would be looking at right now in terms of how we have been
doing things and how we are going to be doing things in the
future. Because I think that is a very important thing. I know
that you are not prepared to do this right now, and you do not
have the help that you need yet, but if you could do that, that
would be helpful.
Secretary Mineta. I will submit that for the record.
Senator Inhofe. All right. That would be great. Mr.
Secretary, I want to say also that I came over from the House
to the Senate in 1994. Of course, I served with you for 8 years
prior to that time in the Transportation Committee in the
House, then I chaired the Clean Air Committee after I got over
here, and it was not until this year. So in that interim period
of time, 6 or 7 years, I was not really into the transportation
issues as much. I was shocked in terms of our infrastructure
needs, the congestion that is out there, and you mentioned also
the gap between demand for transportation and the capacity of
our transportation infrastructure. I am sure you are familiar
with the Society of Engineers, ``Report Card on the State of
the Nation's Infrastructure.'' So you are coming in at a time
that is going to be very difficult and at a time when we are
going to have to do some acceleration and meet these needs. Do
you have any thoughts about the changes that have taken place
just since you have been out and are assuming this new position
and how you are going to try to meet those increased needs?
Secretary Mineta. First of all, there are many areas I
think where, through the use of technology, we can improve the
use of the infrastructure we have. If I could use an example.
In New York they were doing manual toll collection. They were
doing 400 cars per-lane per-hour. Electronic toll collection
was introduced and at that point they were doing 1,100 cars
per-lane per-hour. Now that is up to close to 1,400 cars per-
lane per-hour. So by going to a technology solution, using
intelligent transportation systems, without additional lanes,
which you could not have built in New York City, they were able
to increase the through-put. I think there are a number of
things of that nature that we should be able to do in terms of
the use of technology, just by making better use of the
concrete that is already there.
Airports.--All the airplanes want to take off between 7
o'clock and 10 o'clock. They all want to land between 4 o'clock
and 7 o'clock in the evening. So we have this sort of two
periods in which we have heavy use of runways. And then you, as
a pilot, know, Senator, we have this vast period from let's say
11 o'clock until 3 o'clock in which there is not as heavy use
of that concrete. Is there a way that we can move some of that
traffic that is at the ``dumbbell'' hours and move them to the
``bar'' in-between in order to get more efficient use of that
concrete. I think that is what we have got to be doing without
having to resort to necessarily more concrete. More concrete is
still needed in many regions. But I think we also have to be
looking at more efficient use of what we have there already.
Senator Inhofe. You are probably aware, Oklahoma is the
first State to try this electronic tickets. It has worked very,
very well. So we were the leader there.
One last thing and then I will ask Senator Smith to chair
this meeting and recognize Senator Baucus. You have probably
seen that there have been some recommendations by the American
Road Builders and Transportation Association and other
associations to increase Federal gas tax. At the same time, we
hear people demanding that it be repealed altogether because of
the high cost of fuel. Do you have any comments about that?
Secretary Mineta. Actually, as far as any repeal is
concerned, Mr. Chairman, I would be in opposition to it. I
think that is where the Administration is. Given our needs in
terms of infrastructure, the continued income into the Highway
Trust Fund would be required, and there would be no thought
about repealing the gas tax.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. I felt it necessary to bring that up.
Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may followup on that, Mr. Secretary. I am quite
confident that the Administration would not be in favor of
total repeal. There is an issue last year, though, to repeal
part of it, not all of it but part, say the 4.3 cents. I am
wondering what the Administration's view on that might be.
Secretary Mineta. I do not believe that there is any
portion of it that is under consideration for repeal. Right
now, I think from what I understand it is the status quo--do
not increase it, do not repeal it. I remember when there was
some discussion in the past about whether or not the gas tax
should be a percentage of the cost of gasoline, so that it
would go up as the price of gasoline went up. But I have not
heard of any discussion of that recently.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that because I think it would
be a mistake, frankly, a big mistake to repeal any portion of
the Federal gas tax. First of all, as we all know, that means
fewer resources into the Highway Trust Fund and all the
consequences that would flow from that just as we are trying to
get more efficiency in our highways. Second, I am not sure it
would actually reduce gasoline prices. My hunch is that if
there were a partial rollback in Federal gasoline taxes it
would not be reflected at the pump. We would still have
virtually the same problems that we now have. But I appreciate
very much your response.
Could you give us a few more thoughts about environmental
streamlining. You said you are spending about $6.6 billion.
Everyone is for streamlining and virtually no one is for
degradation of the environment. So what more precisely do you
have in mind?
Secretary Mineta. Senator, in terms of some of the
specifics, as you know, there were regulations being proposed
last year, and then they were pulled back. We are in the
process right now of taking a look at that whole issue of
issuing the regulations for environmental streamlining. Right
now, it is a little premature for me to even get into this
thing because I am not really conversant on what specifics we
are going to be dealing with. This is something I prefer to
submit to the committee in writing.
[The information to be provided follows:]
We at the Department of Transportation remain convinced that a
coordinated set of initiatives can go far to expedite the completion of
important transportation projects, in the highway, transit, and airport
areas. DOT's goal is to reduce unnecessary delays in the environmental
review and permitting process, while protecting the environment and
complying with the more than 60 environmental laws enacted by Congress
over time. The support and cooperation of involved Federal agencies is
a prerequisite for reaching good transportation/environment decisions
more quickly. The Department has worked hard to gain interagency
cooperation through initiatives that include: (1) executing a national
Memorandum of Understanding with EPA, COE, DOI, Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, formalizing their commitment to work with us on
streamlining; (2) entering into programmatic agreements with other
agencies to allow groups of projects that meet certain criteria to be
processed in more streamlined ways; (3) participating in pilot
streamlining projects with State DOTs and Federal resource agencies;
(4) convening an interagency workshop for the HQ and field offices of
other Federal agencies to identify and address streamlining issues; (5)
developing proposed dispute resolution procedures through which we
would resolve disagreements; (6) developing procedures and models that
permit State DOT's to reimburse Federal resource agencies for
additional positions to expedite environmental reviews; (7) analyzing
data on EISs to ascertain causes of delays and areas needing attention;
(8) developing baseline performance information by which to gauge
progress in environmental streamlining; and (9) showcasing exemplary
environmental procedures and projects of State DOT's, as models for
other States and to build credibility with Federal resource agencies.
In response to the committee's specific inquiry, it is the case
that some steps would involve support from Congress; for example, fully
funding FHWA's request in the fiscal year 2002 President's budget for
$13 million for streamlining pilot projects, data collection, dispute
resolution procedures, and other deployment of streamlining;
communicating the importance of streamlining to Federal resource
agencies; supporting Administration efforts to use innovative methods
to finance the Federal staffing needed to expedite environmental
reviews and permit actions required by Federal laws; working with the
Administration to harmonize Federal environmental laws with NEPA, so as
to maximize opportunities for concurrent reviews; and working with the
Administration during the reauthorization of TEA-21 and environmental
laws, to find more efficient, effective and flexible mechanisms to
achieve national environmental goals.
Senator Baucus. That is fine. And knowing you, Mr.
Secretary, I know that you are going to have a very balanced
approach to all of this, and I mean look very closely, very
hard at any recommendation to make sure that it is fair, that
it is balanced. This country basically wants to have
everything. It is human nature to want everything. We want
streamlining, but we also want clean air, clean water, and do
not want solid waste dumped in the ground. So I urge you to
just make sure that there is no environmental degradation when
we do streamline.
One other question I have is with respect to section 305 in
the President's budget proposal for the Federal Highway
Administration. It basically says that none of the funds
appropriated in this act shall remain available for obligation
beyond the current fiscal year, et cetera, unless expressly so
provided herein, provided that not to exceed 5 percent of any
appropriation made available for the current fiscal year for
the Department of Transportation may be transferred between
such appropriations. My concern is whether that means that
funds, the 5 percent, could be transferred, say, from the
Federal Highway Administration to, for example, the Federal
Railroad Administration. What is contemplated by that section?
Secretary Mineta. I think we are saying within the modes.
We are saying within the modes, but we are trying to do some of
the things that we think are of priority interest. Most of it I
think, again, in terms of any deviation from the TEA-21 bill,
is related to RABA. And there, we have moved some funds around
in order to deal with new initiatives, or to deal with new
priorities such as trying to comply with the arbitration panel
of NAFTA on our having to comply with the NAFTA law on opening
the southern border.
Senator Baucus. Could you provide a more detailed
explanation for the record on that.
Secretary Mineta. Relating to section 305?
Senator Baucus. Correct. On what is intended, and what is
the point of the section, and what does the Administration have
in mind.
[The information to be provided follows:]
[Note: Please see the supplemental information on page 13.]
Senator Baucus. Finally, I would just like all of us to
think a little bit about, sort of the bigger picture, sort of a
nagging question; and that is, how do we plan the next highway
bill to address, for want of a better expression, all this
traffic congestion? It is just getting worse. You touched on it
with electronic pass-through systems, which I think are very
helpful. But I have a hunch that the problem is going to be
severe in the next several years. It is just getting worse and
worse. There is probably some mathematical equation where it is
going up arithmetically or geometrically or exponentially. I
just think that we have an obligation now to go the extra mile
and put a lot of really smart heads together to figure out, oh,
my gosh, what are we going to do--because these highway bills
tend to be in 6-year intervals--what are we going to do now in
writing the next highway bill that makes an honest, good faith,
solid effort to address additional congestion on our highways.
Secretary Mineta. Well, as you are so very well aware, most
all, I guess I would be safe in saying, highway transportation
planning is a bottoms-up approach; it comes from local
government, State government, and then, to the extent that
those plans fit into the national plan, those would then move
forward. But to some extent local authorities, when they are
planning for something, can only plan for current needs and not
build into it additional capacity because of the concern about
inducing growth. So, because of the sustainable communities
kind of philosophy that is prevailing today, when you build a
highway, by the time it opens, after you have completed
construction, it is probably very close to capacity. So we are
not in a position to build in a lot of extra capacity once the
project is completed.
And so to that extent, I think we are always sort of a day
late and a dollar short. On the other hand, growth is at this
rate [hand demonstration] and maybe the dollar amount is like
this [hand demonstration]. So the faster we go, the behinder we
get. That is, to me, a fact of life of trying to match
resources with needs, and needs are going to have to be
determined on a priority basis. So to that extent, I think we
have to be hard-nosed about making some of these decisions.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that. It is a question of
alternatives and choice. But with increased productivity and
increased efficiency and more creativity, we ought to be able
to somewhat address that problem.
Secretary Mineta. That is right. That is why I said
technology. Absolutely.
Senator Baucus. I would just encourage, and I know you are
anyway, but I just encourage all of us to give it a hard look.
Secretary Mineta. In ISTEA, when we first put in ISTEA, we
put in what was then known as ``IVHS,'' Intelligent Vehicle
Highway Systems. We put $600 million into ISTEA originally
because we were trying to kick-start this whole approach. And
most of it went into research and development. Today, what I am
more interested in is deployment, not more R&D. And what I am
also thinking about is--just as I hate to always use this
example--is ATIS, Advance Travel Information Sign. I do not
need that sign to say ``congestion ahead.'' I am already in the
middle of traffic going 5 miles an hour. What I need that sign
to tell me is how to get out of the jam I am in. Is there an
alternative way to go so I can avoid the congestion ahead? To
me, those are the kinds of things that would be helpful. And
that is where I think we have a lot more work to do.
There are ways that we are already saving a tremendous
amount of money utilizing intelligent transportation systems.
With sensors that are embedded in the road, highway departments
can deploy the sand trucks at one temperature, and as it gets
colder they will deploy the trucks to get out and spread
something else, and finally they get to the point of having to
get the trucks out there to spread the salt. I know in the case
of Minnesota, they have already indicated how many millions of
dollars that they have saved in terms of overtime, in terms of
supplies because of what they have done in terms of utilizing
intelligent transportation systems.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that. You might also just do
some studies on traffic growth trends, particularly around
cities, and be a bit provocative about it, get some people's
attention so that more people are thinking about trying to find
some solutions to all of this. I know that commuters' problems
are getting worse, not better.
Secretary Mineta. Absolutely.
Senator Baucus. And it is just something that we need to
address.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Senator Smith [assuming the chair]. Thank you, Senator
Baucus.
Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Secretary, we are going to be voting on
a tax cut in several hours. And in hearing some of the
testimony here about the infrastructure needs, certainly
Senator Inhofe mentioned that, the needs for infrastructure,
the decaying infrastructure around the country, and Senator
Reid talked about investment in Mag-Lev, you mentioned
increasing our intelligent transportation systems, I am sure
all that comes with a cost. Is there a part of you that wishes
we could devote some of this tax cut into what Senator Graham
from Texas calls ``non-recurring expenses,'' especially in
transportation, whether it is investment in mass transit or
some of the other needs I mentioned?
Secretary Mineta. Well, I think what we have submitted in
this budget is a matching not only of financial resources to
the needs that exist, there is also the question of ``is the
transportation industry capable of utilizing what is there?''
If there is a tremendous new sum of money going in, and just in
highways alone it is $33 billion in 2002 that is being
requested, the question about whether or not the industry can
absorb that amount without being sloppy at doing the work is a
concern.
Having been a member of the Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee of the Public Works and Transportation Committee
on the House side, the history of that subcommittee was it was
created right after the 1956 highway bill because of the graft
and corruption that occurred. I remember when I came to that
subcommittee in 1977 it had the largest staff of any of the
subcommittees. Professional staff at that point was made up of
27 retired FBI employees who did nothing but look at contracts,
looking at jobs across the country. I want to make sure, as we
have this infusion of new money, that we get a 10-sack concrete
job and that we not end up with a 7-sack concrete job.
So I am always trying to make sure that we are getting
value for the money that is expended. I want to make sure that
we are able to absorb the funding. I know the needs are there.
The question is, is the industry able to handle it, including
the State and local officials?
Senator Chafee. Is it fair to ask that if we could assume
that we were getting that 10-sacks of concrete instead of the 7
sacks, that we could manage that with increased resources for
some of these needs?
Secretary Mineta. I am not really sure at what level we do
not get the 10-sack concrete job. Right now, given the
tremendous increase in the amounts that are available, I think
given proper inspection of work force, I think we can handle
what is there now. At what point we get diminishing returns, I
have not really looked at. But that is an interesting question
and it is something I am going to have to know as we prepare
for the reauthorization of TEA-21. That is, how much more we
ought to be increasing levels to meet the demand that is out
there, how do we get capacity up, and how much more can we
increase, which is going to be based on that very question that
you are posing.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Mineta. Incidently, I just saw Jim Repass and he
said to say hello.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Chafee.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary. I want to, first of all,
commend you for your budget in that you refrain from trying to
divert any of the $4.5 billion in RABA funding, extra dollars,
if you will, due to the strong economy. In the past, we have
seen these funds try to be diverted away to non-highway uses. I
think you are doing the right thing. They were collected for
that purpose and I believe they should be used for that
purpose.
You mentioned you want to take a little more time on the
environmental streamlining, and several of us have asked you
questions about that, so I think you can see that it is a
rather high priority. I will not press you on it. I know you
want to take some time to think it through. But I think where
there was concern on a lot of our parts was that there seemed
to be, I think we had a hearing last fall with some of the
highway folks, and there seemed to be a little misunderstanding
about the streamlining, what we wanted to do with it. It seemed
to be confusing to some. It seemed like it was causing more
regulation and more concerns as opposed to less.
As one who participated in the drafting of those
provisions, I think it is clear that we were looking really to
provide some concurrency so that we do not have this delay
after delay after delay, a resolution dispute process, time
periods for review. I have been working on sort of a pilot
project on I-93 and we would be happy to submit some of the
information that we have, if we have not already done it at the
staff level, as to how that is working. It is amazing when you
find out that a number of the agencies and entities that are
involved in the building of a highway, whether it is fish and
Wildlife, the EPA, the DOT, New Hampshire DOT in this case, or
whatever, sometimes they do not all sit down together. And when
they do, it is amazing how fast things move along. So that is
really what the intent was. I would hope that we could work
with you to be sure that is really where we go on that specific
project.
Secretary Mineta. I would like to hear your results on that
pilot program on I-93. That would be helpful. I think part of
the problem when you have Corps of Engineers, EPA, National
Marine and Fisheries, there is really no, so to speak, lead
Agency and each is delegated their responsibilities. And so you
are sort of the tail waiting for the something else to happen.
So to try to say to another Agency, ``Hey, hurry up.'' ``Get a
life.'' ``Get over it.'' But you just cannot.
Senator Smith. I think you need a lead Agency. And speaking
for myself, having that be in your shop would not trouble me at
all. I think it is the place where it should be. But I do think
that it is amazing that sometimes you just do not know who goes
next and, therefore, there are delays that occur. Highway 101
in New Hampshire took 25 years to build--I think it was
probably even before your time in Congress and mine--it took 25
years to do just basically a few miles of highway. There were
several deaths, and largely due to all kinds of delays that
came about after the highway was laid out, there was very
little concurrency, frankly, and there were legitimate
environmental concerns that were addressed, but it just took a
long, long time to do it.
Secretary Mineta. While I was at Commerce, Mr. Chairman,
the whole issue of the San Francisco Airport and the building
of the additional runways came up. Part of the conversation was
whether or not they have to have some Bay fill in terms of the
runway. I said to the San Francisco Airport folks, ``Look, at
Commerce we have got Coastal Zone Management and we have got
National Marine Fisheries, can we at Department of Commerce
help you in terms of the environmental impact report that you
have to prepare for the possibility that you are going to go
into the Bay.'' I think there are those kinds of ways we can,
Department of Commerce, or EPA, or Department of
Transportation, we can work together to make sure that we try
to compress that time period.
Senator Smith. This is just using the pilot as an example.
We have had I think four meetings, if I am not mistaken, and it
has worked well. There does not seem to be any animosity or
clashing, just working through it. And it does seem to work.
I might just add a footnote on this. I do not know if you
have picked, you have not announced anyway, your Federal
Highway Administrator nominee. I would hope that when you do
that the streamlining issue could be important to that person
as well. Because I think you are hearing from a lot of members
that there is a lot of concern about that.
Secretary Mineta. Sounds like I am going to have to tatoo
``environmental streamlining'' on my forehead.
Senator Smith. I would ask another question. Let me first
of all say I think I understand what your view is because your
budget reflects it, but in your highlights, your innovative
financing program, this year's innovative financing provides
$123 million which we think can leverage up to $2.5 billion in
Federal credit assistance for maybe $7 billion or so in
infrastructure investments. I believe that innovative financing
kind of gets us out of the box a little bit, breaks the mold,
if you will. I commend you for that and I hope that we can move
forward to do more creativeness, if you will, in innovative
financing and getting the private sector involved in some of
these matters.
Secretary Mineta. Absolutely, the public-private financing.
And you folks were very instrumental in terms of TIFIA
financing, Garvey bonds, other kinds----
Senator Smith. Tax exempt bonds, right.
Secretary Mineta. Tax exempt bonds, other kinds of
financing mechanisms. And, again, we will keep exploring them.
The big thing is this whole issue of public-private
partnerships and trying to make sure that is encouraged.
Senator Smith. I see my colleague, Senator Warner, has
arrived. Senator Warner, myself, and Senator Inhofe are
juggling back and forth. We have the Service nominees for the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and so we have been going back and
forth. So I apologize, I am going to go back to the committee
where Senator Warner just came from.
Secretary Mineta. No problem.
Senator Smith. At this point, I will yield to Senator
Warner.
Secretary Mineta. Mr. Chairman, I am also very proud to be
a Service Secretary. I am Secretary for the Coast Guard.
Senator Smith. That is right. That is exactly right.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner [assuming the chair]. You know, Chairman
Smith, I am also serving on this panel looking at terrorism. We
had our distinguished former colleague and now Secretary before
us and he brought that up. I think it is the first time in the
23 years that I have been in the Senate that I have ever heard
anybody say that.
Secretary Mineta. Well, I am proud to be Secretary for the
Coast Guard, sir.
Senator Warner. Well, repeat it over and over again. I like
that. And I think the men and the women of the United States
Coast Guard appreciate that. They are always sort of struggling
and there is a lot of competition between the Services of our
great Nation, as it should be. But anyway, let me go to the
matters at hand here.
I was privileged some years ago, each of us in Congress has
a little apogee now and then, but I was at the right place at
the right time to be chairman of this subcommittee which you
are appearing before today when we enacted the 1995 and 1998
highway bills. And now we are up for reauthorization here
probably in 2003. But we as a committee have to bring to the
attention of our Secretaries of Transportation--and incidently,
you know, 60 percent of your budget comes through this
committee, pretty substantial part of your budget--we have to
bring to their attention the requirements of the Administration
to fulfill certain commitments by law which are in those
legislations.
For example, one of the most significant achievements of
TEA-21 was fulfilling the promise that gas taxes consumers pay
at the gas pump will be used to maintain and expand our network
of highways. At this time, with 2 years remaining on the
authorization of TEA-21, our first priority must be to ensure
that this important legislation is implemented. While there may
be some good ideas out there for new spending from time to
time, they must be considered during the comprehensive
reauthorization of TEA-21.
I want you to sort of check the balance sheets and make
sure that all of that money is not harbored. I know how we work
it in the accounting of the Government to offset deficits and
so forth. But it is law, it comes in at the gas pump, into the
Highway Trust Fund, and it is supposed to go out. One of the
landmark decisions we made was to eliminate the donee/donor
disparity between the States, so that we now have a floor of 90
cents on the dollar going back.
I have strongly stated during past appearances, that is
when other predecessors have been before this subcommittee, the
President's budget is not totally--and I say this
respectfully--consistent with TEA-21. We have your commitment
here this morning to go back and examine that. I would
appreciate it if you would provide for the record your response
as to agreement or nonconcurrence with my observation.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Statement of Hon. John W. Warner, U.S. Senator from the
Commonwealth of Virginia
I wish to join with other members in welcoming Secretary Mineta to
the committee. This is your first appearance before the committee, but
I hope you will make it a practice to come before the committee
regularly and call on us whenever we can work with you.
Mr. Secretary, I was privileged to be chairman of this subcommittee
for 5 years, during which time we enacted the National Highway System
Designation Act in 1995 and TEA-21 in 1998.
One of the most significant achievements of TEA-21 was fulfilling
the promise that gas taxes consumers pay at the gap pump will be used
to maintain and expand our network of highways.
At this time, with 2 years remaining on the authorization of TEA-
21, our first priority must be to ensure that this important
legislation is implemented. While there may be many good ideas out
there for new spending programs, they must be considered during the
comprehensive reauthorization of TEA-21.
So, Mr. Secretary, as I have strongly stated during past
appearances by your predecessors, the President's budget is contrary to
TEA-21, and I don't believe this is a wise course of action.
The President's budget proposes to spending Highway Trust Fund
dollars on programs not authorized by this committee. It proposes to
spending Highway Trust Fund dollars on special programs, that may have
value, but they have not been considered during the authorization
process.
The overall result of your budget proposal will be to reduce
critically needed transportation dollars to our States to fund these
new programs.
If we begin opening up TEA-21 now, in a piecemeal fashion, I am
concerned that the traveling public will suffer, that safety on our
highways will suffer, and that our States struggling to come to grips
with severe traffic congestion will suffer by changing the rules in the
middle of the game.
Mr. Secretary, I share these views with you and want you to know
that I am looking forward to working with you to develop the new
authorization bill in 2003. We should not, however, make major changes
now without consideration to all of the needs of our transportation
network.
Mr. Secretary, traffic congestion remains a complex problem for
most urban communities resulting in lost time and productivity in the
workplace, increased air pollution, and less time for people to spend
with their families.
The metropolitan Washington region, regrettably, is well-known for
the many problems resulting from this gridlock.
There are many important transportation projects on the drawing
board that will make a difference in reducing congestion--the new
Wilson Bridge, Metrorail to Tysons and rail to Dulles, extension of the
HOV network, and others.
The problem is that these projects won't happen overnight while our
congestion is worsening. The only thing we can do now is to provide
incentives to increase transit ridership and telecommuting.
Secretary Mineta. Well, first of all, let me respond to you
in writing. There are variations from TEA-21, admittedly. As
you have indicated, the President's budget fully guarantees the
funding under TEA-21 for the Highway program as well as for
transit. But to the extent that we are using some of the RABA
funds for other things, like compliance with the ruling of the
NAFTA arbitration panel that has ruled now that we have to
comply with NAFTA and open up the southern border, and to that
extent, we are using some of the RABA funds for infrastructure
needs for increasing the number of motor carrier safety
inspectors for the opening up of the border.
The President met with President Fox earlier this year on
March 22, it was our team from DOT, in conjunction with the
U.S. Trade Representative, that met with the Mexican officials
and set out a schedule for how to open up the border on the
first of January 2002.
Senator Warner. I think you and I will have a very friendly
but very thorough dialog on this, because I find in the
President's program that Highway Trust Fund dollars are being
spent on programs that have not been authorized by this
committee. That is a fairly blunt factual statement, which you
may address and come back to me on.
[The information to be provided follows:]
I believe firmly in the principle of honoring the provision of TEA-
21--primarily to provide for the highway and transit preservation and
capacity increases we so badly need. However, the President's budget
does request that Congress make minor realignments to meet newly
emerging needs, such as meeting our obligations under the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to open our southern border to
commercial vehicle traffic, under a comprehensive safety regime,
beginning in January 2002. I would also note the significance to
disable Americans of the President's New Freedom Initiative proposal.
Taken together, the increases would enable the Administration to
fulfill its commitments to increasing transportation safety, including
border-crossing safety, and improving the efficiency of our existing
infrastructure. The Department stands ready to work with the committee
to adequately fund the initiatives in question.
Under the President's budget, the amount of fiscal year 2002
obligation limitation distributed to the States would be about $427
million less than what would be received under a TEA-21 distribution
without the proposed modifications. This difference is attributable to
providing additional funding for the following initiatives: New Freedom
Initiative ($145 million); Border Infrastructure Improvements ($56.3
million); additional funding for the National Corridor Planning and
Development and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Programs ($30
million); planning and technology research and deployment and
initiatives critical to safety and infrastructure improvements ($25
million); additional funds for Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) operations and research ($45.6 million); full
funding of research and technology programs within the Federal-aid
obligation limitation ($39.1 million); and the net of adjustments for
differences between outlay rates for FHWA and FMCSA ($108 million) and
changes in the pro rata share computations resulting from the
initiatives listed above (an increase in obligation authority of $21.8
million).
Secretary Mineta. Right. That is right.
Senator Warner. This budget proposes to spend Highway Trust
Fund dollars on special programs that may have great value, Mr.
Secretary, but they have not been considered during the
authorization process by the Congress. So having been
privileged to serve in this body, I think you understand the
concern that we have as a co-equal branch of government and our
responsibilities.
The overall result of your budget proposal will be to
reduce critically needed transportation dollars to the 50
States. That is, again, a very blunt observation, but I do make
it. If we begin opening up TEA-21 now in a piecemeal fashion, I
am concerned that the traveling public will suffer, that safety
on our highways may well suffer, and that our States struggling
to come to grips with severe congestion on our highways,
particularly in the region which I am privileged to represent
in northern Virginia, will suffer likewise.
Now I share your views in many ways. And I share these
views with you most respectfully. And we will respond to the
submission I am asking you to make for the record today to take
me on, if you desire. I could not imagine a more desirable
person to wrestle with in the public before the press than you.
We will just have a grand struggle right out there on this
subject, particularly as summer comes on and highways get
congested and the pollution goes up. We will have at it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Now let's address this Metropolitan
Washington Region, because we have really got gridlock second
to none here. There are many important transportation projects
on the drawing board that will make a difference in the future
in reducing that congestion. Foremost among them, the new
Wilson Bridge, Metro/rail to Tyson's Corner, and rail/bus
service to Dulles, the extension of the HOV network, and so
forth. I will be working with you in the years to come on that.
But all this takes time. Right now, today, that congestion
exists and the responsibility devolves upon you and me and
others to see what we can do with interim measures to
alleviate, if only in small ways, this congestion.
So I bring to your attention two things. Your Department is
commended for being a leader among the Federal agencies and
departments in the promotion of the Transit Benefits Program.
Others are lagging behind that sector. I would like to call to
your attention and urge your active involvement in ensuring
that the Department complies with the current Federal law on
telecommuting. This year agencies are mandated to allow up to
25 percent of eligible workers to telecommute. And you are
thoroughly familiar with that.
Secretary Mineta. It seems to be working.
Senator Warner. As far as we know, the employees are not
abusing that. They are grateful to have that added time off the
highways. Hopefully, that time can be devoted to their families
and other needs to maintain lifestyle.
Since the Department decides which positions are eligible
for telecommuting, I urge you to allow those Federal employees
interested to do so to the extent you possibly can do it.
Recent studies have shown that workers who telecommute
occasionally show increased productivity. I believe it is also
good for retention of the Federal work force. And that is an
aging work force and on the rise. I do not know whether or not
we have the assurance that the high quality of young people
coming in can match the high quality of people that we have
today. Further, a study by George Mason University contends
that for every 1 percent of the work force that telecommutes
there is a 10 percent reduction in traffic. Now that is quite a
statistic, but there it is. And that is a distinguished
educational institution in our State.
Can you give us some thoughts on telecommuting from the
experience you have had in the brief time you have been there
in your Department and how you might encourage your fellow
department heads, secretaries to do likewise in their
departments.
Secretary Mineta. Senator Warner, probably the biggest
direct experience I had on that issue was at the time of the
Northridge earthquake in southern California. I remember where
I-5 and State Route 14 joined, that structure had come down.
And so we did two things at that time. One is, we put a
temporary rail line up into Palm Dale and Los Angeles. The
other was to set up a number of telecommuting centers. There
was no question that it had an impact on the amount of traffic
on the road.
In our Department, we have a lot of people across the
country, whether they be Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Railway Administration, people who are doing work out
of their homes, away from their offices because of the nature
of their responsibilities. So we are working at this issue of
telecommuting. We are going to be bringing more attention to
this on a departmental basis in order to utilize telecommuting
in urban centers where the gridlock is a lot more apparent than
it would be, let's say, in Resume Speed, IA. So we want to
utilize telecommuting as an alternative to commuting to a
workplace to do their work.
Senator Warner. That is very interesting. So that, in your
judgment, is a proven system?
Secretary Mineta. We are using it right now, and we intend
to expand on its use.
Senator Warner. We also have programs whereby employees in
the Federal Government can get some compensation if they resort
to carpooling and/or public transportation. Are you a supporter
for those concepts?
Secretary Mineta. In fact, we are going from the $65 a
month to $100. We are increasing the amount that is available
under law to our employees from the present level.
Senator Warner. Well, again, many of those initiatives have
come from this committee. We will keep working with you. I hope
you can come up with some short-term initiatives to help
alleviate this.
Secretary Mineta. These are areas in which there is no
silver bullet. For every community, there is a different
approach. There is no cookie-cutter approach to trying to deal
with transportation problems. Los Angeles is such a relatively
low density population center that extending light rail or
subways there would not have the same impact as it does here or
other regions of the country where you have higher densities
and you have concentrated movements of corridors of travel. I
think maybe in the San Francisco Bay area, again, you can
identify certain corridors. But there are some places in the
country where you have a lot of traffic, gridlock, but a cookie
cutter approach will not answer the question.
Senator Warner. I return to my observation about my view
that there is a disparity between your budget and the
requirements under law on the TEA-21.
Secretary Mineta. Admittedly, as I said, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Warner. Right. We understand that.
Secretary Mineta. The $427 million I know is a deviation
from TEA-21 requirements.
Senator Warner. We have, fortunately, in this committee a
chairman and a ranking member and others who have spent a lot
of years on the committee and have a good deal of a corporate
knowledge of transportation issues. And those were landmark
pieces of legislation. As such, they could be a deficiency
which you feel has to be addressed now. Now I defer to my
chairman and ranking member here, but if there were one or two,
if somehow we could package it up and not have it be viewed as
encroaching on the reauthorization of the highway bill in the
years to come, perhaps we might look at a quick legislative
fix. Maybe I am being a little presumptuous. When we did TEA-21
we did our best. But as you well know having served in the
Congress, sometimes our best in the years to come is disproven
by facts and experience. So take a look at it, counsel the
chairman and ranking member.
Secretary Mineta. I will. For instance, one of the
initiatives that the President has embarked on this year is
what is referred to as the New Freedom Initiative in order to
be able to give more transportation mobility options to those
who are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. So,
again, recognizing that there are $427 million in deviations
from TEA-21, $145 million of that was for the New Freedom
Initiative.
I recognize, having been chairman of an authorizing
committee, I recognize the prerogative that comes with that
responsibility.
Senator Warner. Well, we are fortunate on this committee to
have had the wisdom of a marvelous Senator John Chafee, whose
son proudly serves here today, and pushed entire new frontiers.
And he would be the first to say that we put them into law and
if somehow they are not working well, let's try a new frontier.
But we should never stand still in our efforts to work as a
Congress with a President to improve the transportation for our
citizens.
And I conclude with one other observation which relates to
the civil aviation side. I have the highest respect for Dan
Golden and what he has done. He is a man of remarkable
enthusiasm and vision, drive. But he and I have had an ongoing
debate for several years about the reduction of funding in the
NASA budget which is applied toward NASA's area of
responsibility for civil aviation.
It is very significant, Mr. Secretary, how the space
activity somehow I think has kept on going; indeed, I support
space. But if we cannot do our jobs every day here at home and
do them in a more efficient manner and maintain some quality of
life, all of which are being attacked by the congestion on
America's highways and in the airways, then it seems to me we
have got to go back and reevaluate have we made the proper
allocation between this Nation's dedication to space and this
Nation's dedication to just the every day mundane struggle to
get to and from work, be it on surface transportation or in the
airways.
I would like to have you provide for the record your
analysis of those expenditures out of the NASA budget as they
impact in your judgment on civil aviation, primarily in the
area of safety, and whether or not it would be wise for the
Congress to once again consider that allocation and give more
emphasis to the requirements today of civil aviation. Now this
is not a popular subject. But I have never sat around here
trying to be popular. Mr. Golden and I have had a very
respectful dialog as recently as just a few weeks ago when he
was before the Commerce Committee on this very, very point.
Because I am concerned as I visit and utilize these airports
and listen to my constituents. We have two major airports for
America serving the Nation's Capital, and I keep abreast of
those problems.
[The information to be provided follows:]
The U.S. Department of Transportation is heavily engaged with NASA
in the joint planning, funding, and execution of aviation research
programs in such diverse areas as advanced air traffic management
systems, aircraft noise and emission reduction, aircraft structural
safety, atmospheric hazards to flight, and aviation human factors.
Decreased aeronautics funding has caused individual NASA programs to
take longer to develop and to be concluded at reduced levels of
technical maturity. Effectively this has resulted in the Department and
industry funding the final stages of development. We have long been
aware of the reduced funding at NASA and have planned accordingly, with
the result that the attainment of the Department's Strategic Goals are
not at risk.
Senator Warner. So I thank you. And I thank you again for
continuing public service. You have a remarkable career and you
bring to bear on this office, as you have on previous offices,
a wealth of experience and leadership. Welcome.
Secretary Mineta. Thank you very much, Senator Warner.
Having served on the Science Committee on the House side, I am
very well aware of that. I remember when I used to talk to Dan
Golden about that same subject matter. He used to always say
that the ``A'' in NASA was very important. But after I left
Congress and I was with a private company, I would go back to
Dan and say that what is happening in aeronautics, because of
the fact that he had to keep putting money into the shuttle and
the International Space Station, it was draining money away
from aeronautics.
Senator Warner. That is it.
Secretary Mineta. And I said that if this continued, Lewis
Center, Langley, and Ames were going to get shut down because
the aeronautics budget was going down. Now just recently, in
terms of preparation for my testimony before the Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee, I took a look at the FAA-NASA
relationship on aviation research. It has gone down
tremendously. So that in terms of not only NASA's share, but
even our share at FAA on research and development has gone
down. I think, as I recall the figure now, I think we are----
Senator Warner. About 40 percent.
Secretary Mineta. I was going to say at less than 50
percent of where we were on the whole research budget. So when
it comes to aviation noise or other kinds of considerations, we
are really eating into the future prospects. But the only
problem is that those decisions get made at a higher pay grade.
Senator Warner. Oh, now do not beg off on that. You are now
the Secretary of Transportation.
Secretary Mineta. Yes, sir, but I am still staff.
Senator Warner. Do not use that anymore. You are at the
table.
Secretary Mineta. I am at the table, without a doubt.
Senator Warner. We may be a co-equal body but we are lowly
535. You are but one. You know the subject and I am so
heartened by what you tell me. Here is an aviator right over
here. I was talking about the disparity and the declining
budget in NASA toward civil aviation. I said to my friend Dan
Golden the other day in the Commerce Committee that the burden
of proof is on you to show that those reductions have not
contributed to the worsening situation that we see every day in
civil aviation, the congestion at the airports and all other
types of things. He respectfully accepted the question.
Secretary Mineta. I am very proud to be the Secretary of
the Department of Transportation. But I am only staff to the
President of the United States.
Senator Warner. I am not going to accept that, not from a
strong man like you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the witness.
Senator Inhofe [resuming the chair]. Thank you, Senator
Warner.
We will now excuse the first panel. We have a vote in
progress. I do not know whether you know that, Senator Warner,
there is a vote taking place right now. There is 10 minutes
left. So what we are going to do is excuse this panel. It will
take about 5 minutes to go vote. There is only one vote, so we
will be right back.
And, again, Norm, I am looking forward to working with you.
Secretary Mineta. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
Senator Inhofe. The hearing will come to order.
Welcome, Administrator Davis and Judge Roth. I note, Mr.
Davis, you are accompanied by Mr. Jenkins.
Let's start with you, Judge Roth, for opening remarks, and
then Administrator Davis. Ladies first.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE R. ROTH, JUDGE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, WASHINGTON, DC
Judge Roth. Thank you, Senator. Senator Inhofe, on behalf
of the entire judiciary, I would like to express our
appreciation for the authorizations of courthouse projects that
this subcommittee recommended and the full committee approved
last year.
For fiscal year 2002, President Bush's budget request
includes $216.8 million for courthouse construction projects,
and $130.3 million for court-related repair and alterations
projects. The subcommittee's letter to the White House in
support of funding for courthouse construction was very helpful
in achieving this result.
The Committee on Environment and Public Works has
previously provided authorizations for 11 of the 12 courthouse
projects in the President's budget request. Some of these
projects are on the judiciary's prioritized list for fiscal
year 2002 and some are from previous years and may need to have
their authorizations increased for inflation.
The Judicial Conference has, however, proposed 9 new
projects for fiscal year 2002 that were not in the President's
budget request, for a total of 20 project at a total cost of
approximately $665 million. These additional projects are
sorely needed. They include: Rockford, IL; Cedar Rapids, IA;
Nashville, TN; Savannah, GA; Fort Pierce, FL; Jackson, MS;
Austin, TX; San Diego, CA; and San Jose, CA. The Senate has
already provided authorizations for four of these projects,
although these resolutions may need to be increased due to
inflation. In past years, the committee has requested that GSA
provide written information on projects that were not included
in the President's budget. We urge the subcommittee to make a
similar request this year. I have attached a chart to this
statement that summarizes the judiciary's fiscal year 2002 plan
and the President's budget request. We have also provided the
subcommittee staff with a fact sheet on each courthouse project
that describes the current situation and the need for the
project.
We understand from GSA that three of the 20 projects might
be delayed until next year due to circumstances beyond the
judiciary's or GSA's control. GSA tells us that the delay of
these three projects will bring the total cost from $665
million down to $480 million. These projects, in Salt Lake
City, UT; Cape Girardeau, MO; and Orlando, FL, could be
authorized in a future year. Two other projects, Eugene, OR and
Little Rock, AR, are not ready for construction funding as
anticipated, but do need site and/or design money this year.
The Judicial Conference also supports construction of a
Federal office building in Atlanta, GA, to house the Court of
Appeals staff and potentially other Federal agencies.
The judiciary does not agree with OMB's unilateral decision
to eliminate small amounts of space that the judiciary needs
due to special requirements in some courts. Shortsightedly
making these courthouses smaller than needed will only
necessitate the judiciary returning to Congress to request
additions to relatively new courthouses at greater expense to
taxpayers. We hope you will authorize the projects based on the
requirements submitted by the courts. Details of these changes
will be provided to the subcommittee staff.
An example of the problems caused when a facility is built
smaller than needed is the Brooklyn, NY courthouse annex.
Additional funding is needed to build out a total of eight
courtrooms and eight chambers in the annex as planned and
authorized to accommodate the judges who will be working when
the annex opens and to permit the planned renovation of the
existing courthouse. The judiciary urges the subcommittee to
ensure that GSA constructs the necessary space. If this is not
done, the new building will be full on the day it opens, and
indeed the entire complex may not be able to accommodate the
court when the annex opens. In our view, responsible planning
and responsible spending justifies further action by the
subcommittee to complete this important project. I will submit
for the record a separate statement by Judge Raymond Dearie of
the Eastern District of New York--Judge Dearie is in the
hearing room with us today--that elaborates on the serious
housing problem that will be created if GSA does not build
enough space in Brooklyn.
In my statement, I have discussed how the judiciary over
the past decade has embarked on a number of programs to ensure
that courthouses are built only where needed to replace
facilities that are full to capacity and often aged, obsolete,
and lacking in security. Our long-range planning efforts,
prioritization of projects, and design guidelines have ensured
that our projects are needed, are functional, and are
economical.
But let me close by noting that the workload of the Federal
courts continues to increase, necessitating additional judges
and court staff. In the last 10 years, criminal cases have
increased 32 percent, civil cases 20 percent, and bankruptcy
filings 68 percent. Congress provided 9 new Federal district
judgeships in fiscal year 2000 and 10 more in 2001. The
Judicial Conference of the United States is currently
requesting that 54 more Article III judgeships be created. The
judiciary's problems are particularly acute along the southwest
border, where drug and immigration enforcement efforts have
caused the workload to more than double and where proximity to
the Mexican border magnifies security risks. Three of the
twenty courthouse projects requested for fiscal year 2002 are
located along the southwest border.
In conclusion, the judiciary asks that you authorize, in
accordance with the judiciary's stated needs, the new
courthouse projects on the attached list that have not already
been authorized or that need their authorizations increased.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee. I will be happy to take any questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Judge Roth.
Administrator Davis.
STATEMENT OF THURMAN DAVIS, SR., ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM JENKINS, ACTING
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have submitted a
complete statement for the record, so I will summarize if I
may.
Senator Inhofe. That would be great.
Mr. Davis. In the Public Buildings Service, our Capital
Investment and Leasing Program plays a key role in providing
the necessary resources to maintain current real property
assets and acquire new replacement assets. The capital programs
support several portfolio objectives: maximizing Federal
Buildings Fund income, minimizing the drain on unproductive
assets, preserving the historic and cultural assets placed in
GSA's trust, and managing other diverse responsibilities
integral to the management of the Nation's largest real estate
portfolio. All proposed projects are evaluated in the context
of the entire national portfolio. We consider three options
when evaluating our client Agencys' requirements. These
include: construction and acquisition of new facilities, repair
and alteration of existing facilities, or leasing space from
the private sector.
Our first capital program priority is the repair and
alteration of our existing inventory to ensure that its value
and condition does not decline. More than 43 percent of our own
buildings are over 50 years old and 51 percent are between the
ages of 21 and 50 years old. We are requesting a Repairs and
Alterations program this year of $826.7 million for an
increased emphasis on the overall maintenance and viability of
these assets. The highlights of GSA's fiscal year 2002 program
include: $370 million for the basic program; $400.8 million for
the construction phase of the Modernization and Alterations
program. Our annual Repairs and Alterations program is
approximately 2.5 percent of the inventory's replacement value,
which is roughly about $33 billion. That falls within the range
of a 2 to 4 percent of the private sector's practices.
To allocate the limited resources of the Federal Buildings
Fund for Repair and Alterations, we evaluate and rank our
proposals based on economic justifications, project timing and
execution, physical urgency, client/Agency needs, and
historical significance. By applying these criteria to our
decisionmaking process, we prioritize our major repair and
alteration projects and ensure that the most important projects
in our national portfolio are funded.
We are requesting a Construction and Acquisition of
Facilities program this year of $663 million. This includes:
$216.8 million for 12 Federal judiciary projects; $276.4
million advance appropriations approved in the fiscal year 2001
Appropriations Act for 4 Federal judiciary projects; $17.339
million for design and construction of six border stations; $34
million for the construction of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration facility out in Suitland, MD; $4.6
million for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations; and $2.8
million for the U.S. Census Bureau facility out in Suitland,
MD.
We recommend new construction where it meets the new
housing needs of specific Federal agencies or to consolidate
several dispersed agencies with economically feasible long-term
needs in a given location. PBS traditionally pursues
construction and ownership solutions for special purpose and
unique facilities, such as border stations and courthouses,
which are not readily available in the real estate market.
This concludes our opening remarks. We would be pleased to
take your questions.
Senator Chafee [assuming the chair]. Thank you very much,
sir. I am taking over the gavel for the time being. Thank you
for your patience all morning and enduring the recess. I will
be reading your testimony at the appropriate time. And if there
are any questions from the members, they will submit them in
writing.
So, since I just arrived, who is next?
Judge Roth.
Judge Roth. I have already gone.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. We all have spoken. So we have made all of our
opening remarks already.
Senator Chafee. Everybody has given their testimony?
Mr. Davis. Yes, sir.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much. Spend your money
wisely.
Mr. Davis. OK. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
With that, we will conclude the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it is a great pleasure
to appear before you today and to have the opportunity to work with you
on the challenges that face our Nation's transportation system.
Transportation is key to our Nation's well-being, whether measured
as economic growth, as international competitiveness, or as quality of
life. Three decades ago, when I was Mayor of San Jose, CA, I learned
that the tool that made the most difference in my community was
transportation. Nothing else had as great an impact on our economic
development, on the pattern of growth, or on the quality of life. What
I have found in the years since is that this is true not just locally,
but also nationally. A safe and efficient transportation system is
essential to keeping people and goods moving and cities and communities
prosperous. Congestion and delay not only waste our time as
individuals, they also burden our businesses and our entire economy
with inefficiency and higher costs. The bottom line is that
transportation is pivotal in generating and enabling economic growth,
in determining the patterns of that growth, and in determining the
competitiveness of our businesses in the world economy. Transportation
is vital to the productivity and, therefore, the success of virtually
every business in America.
As a whole, the multi-modal transportation system of this Nation
works well in maintaining the strong economic performance of the United
States and, more broadly, world commerce. This committee and the rest
of Congress deserve a great deal of the credit for this sustained good
performance. Congressional enactment of TEA-21 and AIR-21 put in place
levels of capital investment that will be important in improving safety
and relieving congestion across the board. The Bush Administration is
requesting full funding of the guaranteed levels for surface
transportation and the authorized capital and operating levels for air
transportation, as part of the President's 2002 budget, and we look
forward to working with Congress to enact these levels.
Still, we can, and must, do more. We must strengthen our commitment
to keeping safety our paramount concern, particularly at a time when
the national focus is on system efficiency, while trying to squeeze
additional capacity from the system wherever possible. Safety must
always be our highest priority in transportation.
The most fundamental challenge we face--and the most daunting--is
not just increasing safety, reducing congestion, or modernizing the
aviation system. These are enormous challenges, to be sure, but our
biggest challenge is to get everyone working together in a spirit of
partnership to solve these problems. We all created these problems, and
together we can solve them. So, as Secretary, I intend to devote the
bulk of my energies to working across party lines, reaching across
divides, and building consensus to achieve solutions. Working together
we can ensure the safety of the traveling public and manage the gap
between the demand for transportation and the capacity of the
transportation infrastructure.
safety
The United States has an enviable transportation safety record. We
lead the world in safety in many modes of transportation--but we must
constantly search for improvement. Working together we can and will
improve this record. Safety is the Administration's highest priority in
transportation. Our 2002 budget includes $7.3 billion for
transportation safety programs, 7.5 percent above 2001. Continued and
increased investments in highway safety, aviation safety, rail safety,
motor carrier safety, pipeline safety, and hazardous materials safety
are necessary and critical to the future success of our transportation
system as a whole.
Despite significant improvements over the past three decades,
traffic crashes continue to represent a leading public health problem.
Our highways claim more lives than any other mode of transportation.
Although the number of highway fatalities in recent years has been held
relatively flat, despite significantly rising numbers of vehicles on
our roads, preliminary data for 2000 reveals that the number of highway
fatalities increased slightly while the number of vehicle-miles
traveled remained essentially the same. And this occurred even though
seat belt use rose to a record high 71 percent. Over the coming year,
the Department will review our motor vehicle safety efforts, with
emphasis on identifying the most effective means to provide the public
with the greatest possible safety improvement for each dollar spent.
Highway safety improvements are critical to reducing these fatalities.
Success will depend on a balanced approach that addresses the
behavioral, vehicular, and roadway infrastructure and operations safety
problems and opportunities.
Within DOT, we are pursuing a multi-faceted agenda to improve
transportation safety that encompasses legislation, common-sense
regulations, driver behavior programs, enhanced law enforcement, and
infrastructure-based solutions. But safe transportation is a shared
responsibility. The Federal Government is but one player. To succeed in
addressing the safety issue, a combination of improved education,
enforcement, engineering, and emergency services is needed. The Federal
Government must take an active leadership role; the Department must
take an active leadership role. I take this responsibility very
seriously. I believe that, working with State and local governments,
public interest groups, industry, and private citizens, together we can
meet this challenge.
The Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget request provides full
funding for highways and highway safety programs at the level
guaranteed under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21)--$32 billion. This is an increase of $2 billion above the
fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The increased resources will allow us
to maintain our high-quality highway network, while achieving our goal
of improving safety.
The fiscal year 2002 budget also proposes that highway research and
technology programs be excluded from the proportionate obligation
limitation reduction, so that all contract authority provided by TEA-21
will be available for use. The Department will conduct appropriate
research and development programs that underpin behavioral, vehicular,
and roadway safety. The increased research and technology resources
will be used to carry out a comprehensive program aimed at reducing
fatalities and injuries through providing new technologies and tools to
highway agencies. Our efforts are focused on the types of crashes
considered high-priority, because of number and severity. These include
run-off-road, speed-related, intersection-related, and crashes
involving pedestrians and bicyclists.
The roadway can be designed, built, and operated in such a way as
to reduce the number and severity of crashes. The Interstate highway
system, one of the safest roadways in the world, is an excellent
example of safety by design. We will continue to work with the State
and local highway engineers, and with the consulting and construction
industries to provide guidance on ways to make the highway system
safer. We all have a vested interest in creating a safer, more
efficient, transportation system for the American people.
As you know, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) offers a
unique opportunity for greater public safety and it can enhance the
capacity of our emergency response system to save lives. For example,
we all know that telecommunications companies are working to improve
emergency notification systems--specifically wireless E-911--and we are
supporting this important work. We need a comprehensive end-to-end
system of emergency notification and response. The system should
automatically route emergency calls to the closest public safety
answering point and inform the dispatcher of the caller's location,
provide data about the severity of the crash, and notify the necessary
responders, as well as communicate this information to traffic
management centers. Such a system will also enable the judicious use of
emergency resources by responding with only that equipment necessary
for managing a crash. Further, a comprehensive emergency response
system will not only help to save lives at the time of a crash, but
also help to prevent other crashes in the future by providing data that
will allow us to build safer cars and roadways.
Although great progress has been made recently in increasing the
safety at highway-rail crossings, the Department is involved in
developing technology and procedures to continue that trend. Several
Department projects are being conducted that look at ITS as a means to
improve safety and mobility at highway-rail grade crossings. For
example, ITS technology is being developed to determine when an
obstruction is on the crossing and make that information available to
the engineer so he can take the proper action. With the recent
designation of high-speed rail corridors, more sophisticated warning
systems will be required for crossings on those routes.
The intelligent vehicle initiative (IVI) is aimed at preventing
crashes by fostering the introduction of driver assistance safety
products. This program will increase traffic safety by expediting the
commercial availability of advanced vehicle control and safety systems
that may be augmented by interaction with the infrastructure. In order
to achieve this, the Department must ensure that safety is not
compromised by the introduction of in-vehicle systems. A particular
interest for the IVI is the safety impact of combining multiple
systems, such as route guidance and navigation, adaptive cruise
control, cellular telephones, and in-vehicle computers. We will
investigate the impact that these systems may have on driver behavior
by measuring any changes in the level of driver workload and
distraction.
The second part of the Federal role in IVI, addresses our
responsibility for reducing deaths, injuries and economic losses
resulting from motor vehicle crashes. This role, which is a cornerstone
of the Department's mission, will be carried out by facilitating the
development, deployment, and evaluation of driver-assistance safety
products and systems aimed at reducing rear end, rollover, and run-off-
road crashes.
The President's 2002 budget also includes $400 million, 49 percent
above 2001, for motor carrier safety, with a total of $100 million, $88
million above 2001, devoted to enforcement and infrastructure needs on
our southern border. This increase is essential to allowing the United
States to honor the North American Free Trade Agreement safely and
responsibly.
mobility
When I took this job, I knew that a central challenge for the
Department would be to address the gap between demand for
transportation and the capacity of our transportation infrastructure.
Even though the physical condition of our infrastructure--the highway
and runway pavement conditions and the condition of our bridges--is
improving, the demand for the use of that infrastructure is increasing.
The gap between capacity and demand generates the traffic we all face
on the highways, at our airports, and at our ports. Congestion and
inefficiency in transportation are not just inconvenient and
aggravating--though they certainly are that--they are also a tax that
burdens every business and every individual. Congestion on our highways
and delays at our airports are increasing. We have to find ways to
lighten that burden.
The Nation's transportation system is complex and intertwined, and
congestion in any one mode--whether it be aviation, highways, or rail--
impacts the flow of transportation in every mode. Thus, focusing on
highway congestion merely shifts the bottleneck to aviation, rail, or
transit, rather than managing or eliminating it. Meeting the congestion
challenge will require working together to develop an intermodal
solution. We cannot focus our efforts on highway congestion or aviation
congestion; we must focus our efforts on transportation congestion.
I want to discuss, in particular, the congestion problems we have
in highways. Our latest Conditions and Performance (C&P) report to
Congress--the 1999 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Conditions and Performance--projects that by 2003 highway
capital investment by all levels of government will reach the level of
our ``Cost to Maintain'' scenario ($56.6 billion in constant 1997
dollars). This scenario projects the investment required to maintain
the average physical conditions of highways and bridges at current
levels, while still allowing for some comparably attractive investments
in capacity expansion. The Federal-aid highways funding levels proposed
in the President's 2002 budget, along with the projected investments of
our State and local government partners, should put us on track to
achieve this goal.
While we are pleased with the progress we have made, we are
predicting that congestion will continue to increase at current levels
of investment. The 1999 C&P report projected that maintaining average
travel time costs, or time lost by travelers due to delay, would
require an additional investment of $17.1 billion annually by all
levels of government. Reducing highway congestion will not be easy.
Addressing this problem will require a mixture of investments by all
levels of government to improve the operations and efficiency of our
existing facilities and the selective addition of new capacity. To be
effective in dealing with specific bottlenecks in the system we will
need to be prepared to use whatever mix of improvements is most cost
effective in each individual case.
There isn't a day that goes by without a metropolitan newspaper or
TV station reporting on the anger, frustration, and seeming futility of
congestion. FHWA's Highway Statistics reports that, from 1980 to 1998,
vehicle travel increased 72 percent while miles of public roads
increased only 1 percent. A recent Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)
study estimates the cost of congestion in just 68 urban areas has grown
from $21 billion in 1982 to $78 billion in 1999 (36 hours per driver
per year and 6.8 billion gallons of wasted fuel). This means that the
average length of the congested period increased from about 2 to 3
hours in 1982, to 5 or 6 hours by 1999. And this is no longer just a
phenomenon of the big city. The average length of congested daily
travel for small urban areas tripled between 1982 and 1999.
A report released by the Federal Highway Administration in
February, Moving Ahead: The American Public Speaks on Roadways and
Transportation in Communities, further confirms the highway congestion
problem. The report's survey results indicate that although 65 percent
(a 15 percentage point increase since the completion of a similar 1995
study by the National Partnership for Highway Quality) of the highway
travelers are satisfied with the major highways they travel most often,
there are several areas that require attention. For example, the
traveling public wants more operational improvements to traffic flow,
continued improvement in pavement condition, and more effective ways to
deal with or to decrease traffic congestion in work zones.
President Bush's budget request proposes full funding for the
transportation capital improvements critically necessary to solving our
capacity challenges over the long run. Highway, transit, aviation, and
rail infrastructure investments total $42.8 billion, 39 percent above
the average annual investment over the prior 8 years. This investment
is not the sole answer to our capacity constraints, but it will help.
It includes:
<bullet> A Federal-aid highway obligation limitation of $31.6
billion, almost 7 percent above 2001.
<bullet> An airport grant obligation limitation of $3.3 billion,
the level contained in AIR-21.
<bullet> Total transit investment of $6.7 billion, almost 8 percent
above 2001.
Improving Management of Our Resources
While strategic expansion of our transportation system capacity is
necessary, it is not the only answer to managing growth and congestion.
We need to make more efficient use of our existing infrastructure. The
search for new technological and innovative solutions to our mobility
challenges is well supported in the 2002 budget, with investment in
technology, research, and development proposed at $1.2 billion, 7.5
percent above 2001. The budget includes a total of $504 million for
highway-related research, 30 percent above 2001.
Highways are the very backbone of our Nation's transportation
system, and the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System did an
extraordinary job of knitting our country together and making efficient
nationwide highway transportation a reality both for people and for
goods. The result was a quantum leap in the productivity and the
competitiveness of our economy. But we are now losing that productivity
to bottlenecks in the system, and gains made nationwide are too often
being lost to lack of coordination among the affected parties.
Intelligent Transportation Systems and Operations can make a
difference in how we attack the congestion and productivity problems.
In the past, we have developed a number of strategies to help solve
particular operating problems. These include retiming traffic signals,
installing ramp-metering lights, creating high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
and high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, and initiating various management
activities to deal with single issue problems such as work zones,
parking, or access. With the advent of ITS, many of these techniques
can be used dynamically, or on the fly, to adjust to changing
conditions. These techniques are not new. But, while they have been
used, they were not being coordinated to reduce congestion.
We first became aware of this when we had to deal with unique
special events such as the Olympic Games in Los Angeles and Atlanta
and, of course, in Salt Lake City next year. Unusual demands were
placed on the infrastructure and transportation system. In order to
cope with these demands, various operational groups came together in a
truly coordinated effort to cope with these increased demands by
forming a ``Task Force.''
All the parts of the task force--ranging from transit, to first
responders, to tow truck operators, to media--worked together to
facilitate the smooth flow of vehicle traffic and pedestrians.
This concept is being further enhanced through our efforts in
increasing interoperability among communication systems for public
safety and by using ITS data gathering techniques and equipment to
provide managers with the most up-to-date information on all aspects of
a situation as quickly as possible. The new Traffic Management Centers
facilitate integration of the efforts of agencies such as police and
other municipal staff to more effectively respond to transportation
disruptions and public safety needs.
Effective solutions to transportation bottlenecks must involve a
high degree of local, metropolitan, and State involvement to build the
broad spectrum of support necessary to overcome resistance and to solve
the problem. We recognize that this cannot be a one-size-fits-all
approach, and that the combination of solutions needed in one location
will not be the same combination of solutions needed in another
location.
Every instance requires its own mix of new highway capacity, better
management of existing capacity, Intelligent Transportation Systems,
transit, pedestrian improvements, and so on. To be effective in dealing
with these bottlenecks we have to be prepared to use whatever mix of
transportation alternatives will work, and we have to take a balanced
approach to all alternatives. We have to constantly be looking for what
works and what is the most cost-effective solution to the problem.
Major action is underway at the Department to tackle surface
transportation congestion. Technology offers particular promise.
Federal research helps build stronger roads and bridges. With new
technologies and new, longer lasting materials that are easier to
apply, we can ``get in, get it done, and get out.'' The safer and less
disruptive that work zones are to the user, the better.
We are working closely with our partners in the urbanized areas to
develop regional architectures that will support ITS and operations
technologies. These technologies will be key in reducing travel delay
and improving mobility for the traveling public and the freight
industry. The technologies include: traveler information systems,
emergency response systems, electronic toll collection, traffic
responsive signal systems, and state-of-the-art transportation
management systems. The Bush Administration proposes $253 million in
ITS initiatives for 2002, a 32 percent increase over the current year.
The challenge now is to deploy the systems so that there is enough
information to say something more than: ``Congestion ahead.'' Wouldn't
it be great if, instead, that electronic sign told you: ``Take exit 34.
Left on Main. Go 3 miles. Re-enter highway.'' Now, that is an
intelligent transportation solution. This information would come from a
variety of sensors and input devices, including the Global Positioning
System (GPS), coordinated through a Traffic Management Center (TMC)
with multi-agency participation. That must be our management goal.
Other ways of using existing transportation facilities and services
more effectively can also relieve congestion. High occupancy vehicle
lanes, incentives for ridesharing, and other options are available for
more livable transportation systems. Telecommuting offers another
approach to reduce demand on capacity constrained highways by allowing
employees to work at home or at centers close to home.
One long-term strategy we are continuing to explore for highways is
value pricing. Several States have implemented value pricing on a pilot
basis on highways financed with the proceeds of tolls. The concept of
assessing relatively higher prices for travel during peak congestion
periods is the same as that used in other sectors of the economy to
respond to peak-use demands. For example, hotel rooms cost more during
peak tourist seasons. By using fees which vary by time-of-day and
location of use to manage demand and reduce congestion, system
performance is improved. It provides improved service to transportation
users, makes more efficient use of existing transportation capacity,
and reduces the need for future capacity expansion.
Nonetheless, in addition to maximizing our system capacity through
improved operations, we recognize that we must improve our capacity
with new facilities when appropriate. We may also be able to make
increased use of private sector roads and private funding of airport
capacity to bridge the gap between capacity and supply. We commit
ourselves to work with all of our partners and stakeholders in the
other modes, the environmental community, and others when instituting
new facilities. We are working very closely with the States, MPOs, and
local governments to integrate land use policies with the planning
process. These issues remain under the purview of State and local
officials, but we can serve as a technical resource to encourage
positive land use planning. In addition, we are committed to better
understanding and responding to the needs of the freight community, in
all areas of land use, transportation planning, and system operation.
If we are to balance the mutual goals of productivity, safety,
environment, and quality of life, we must consider both passenger and
freight concerns in the planning and program development processes.
I also must let you know that one of my priorities is to ensure
that the Federal Government gets what it pays for and that major
transportation projects are managed wisely and appropriately. I have
seen too many instances of large cost increases in transportation
projects that make the projects appear unconstrained and out of
control. We at the Department need to be in front of this, not behind
it! The Department has improved the oversight processes used to monitor
the progress of major transportation projects and identify problems
early, establish core competencies for project managers, and hold
project managers accountable for the quality of project oversight and
performance. I feel strongly that with the increased Federal investment
in transportation infrastructure in the past few years, we also need to
be especially aware of the potential for waste, fraud and abuse and
develop mechanisms to identify it early and prevent it. If we pay for a
10-sack concrete job, we should get a 10-sack concrete job, not a 7-
sack job.
We will not stand behind projects that are not justified. For
example, on April 4, 2001, DOT's Inspector General issued an Interim
Report on the Seattle Central Link Light Rail Project, recommending
that Federal funds and funding decisions for the Project be held in
abeyance until FTA and Sound Transit complete a specific set of actions
related to cost estimation, project scope, cost control, and until
overall financing plans have been addressed. I have accepted the IG's
recommendations, and FTA has begun implementing the actions identified
in the IG's report.
I know that the cost of the Central Artery Tunnel Project in Boston
is of concern to this committee. I share this concern. While there is
no guarantee that the cost will not further increase, Federal funds for
this project were capped at $8.549 billion last year. I have asked the
Department's Inspector General (IG) to look into the recent
Massachusetts Inspector General's report stating that the total cost
will exceed $18 billion. Although I have not yet received our IG's
report, I do not intend, at this time, to recommend any increase in the
Federal funding cap.
Because of concerns over significant cost and schedule overruns in
large scale transportation infrastructure projects, my predecessor
Secretary Slater created a DOT task force to make recommendations to
strengthen DOT's oversight of these large projects. The Department's
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have also reviewed
DOT's oversight of large scale projects, and made recommendations to
strengthen that oversight. The IG stated that there was a need to
identify and apply best practices to oversight of major projects and
find systematic solutions to problems. The General Accounting Office
recommendations for oversight of large highway and transit projects
included recommendations similar to the IG's regarding requiring more
refined cost estimates and finance plans. The DOT task force's
recommendations are now being implemented, and I will followup on this
implementation.
Ensuring Mobility for All Americans
Despite the capacity challenges we face, many of us take the
tremendous mobility options we have for granted. President Bush wants
to address the mobility gap for Americans who do not have mobility
options. The budget requests funding within the New Freedom Initiative
for two new programs relevant to transportation. These programs will
help Americans with disabilities by increasing access to assistive
technologies, expanding educational opportunities, and promoting
increased access into the work force and daily community life. From the
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), the Administration requests
$145 million for the transportation component of the New Freedom
Initiative. The proposal calls for the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) to administer the program on a reimbursable basis from the FHWA.
There is already a strong linkage between the highway and transit
programs under current law, as transit is an eligible expense of some
of the highway programs. In fiscal year 2000 for example, States flexed
$1.6 billion of highway funding for transit programs.
The transportation programs proposed for the New Freedom Initiative
are:
(1) $45 million to be used for pilot programs run by State or local
governments in regional, urban, and rural areas. These pilot programs
will be selected on the basis of the use of innovative approaches to
developing transportation plans that serve people with disabilities.
The Administration will work with Congress to evaluate the
effectiveness of these programs and encourage the expansion of
successful initiatives.
(2) $100 million to be used to establish a competitive matching
grant program to promote access to alternative methods of
transportation. Potential grant recipients include Centers for
Independent Living, Assistive Technology Centers, vocational
rehabilitation centers, and other community-based organizations that
seek to integrate Americans with disabilities into the work force.
The $145 million provided from RABA is the only component of the
New Freedom Initiative funded within the Department of Transportation
and is part of a much larger program that includes the Small Business
Administration, the Department of Education, and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Key proposals receiving funding in the
President's budget include $20 million for a new Access to Telework
Fund, to provide Federal matching funds to States to guarantee low-
interest loans for individuals with disabilities to purchase equipment
necessary to telework from home, and a $1 billion increase for special
education programs, including Part B grants to States both proposals
under the Department of Education.
The Administration believes that every American should have the
opportunity to participate fully in society and engage in productive
work. Unfortunately, millions of Americans with disabilities are locked
out of the workplace because they are denied the tools and access
necessary for success. Through the ``New Freedom initiative,'' the
Administration plans to help integrate Americans with disabilities into
the work force.
streamlining the environmental review process
The Administration's goal is to lessen the environmental effects of
transportation, and the budget includes $6.6 billion, an almost 8
percent funding increase, for these efforts. They include the Federal
Highway Administration's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) Program, Coast Guard's response to oil spills, and
our efforts to reduce airplane noise.
The CMAQ Program, in particular, is a highly flexible, innovative,
and successful program. This is a program that can make a difference in
addressing congestion in urban areas and, in doing so, we will assist
areas that do not meet Federal air standards to reaching their air
quality goals. CMAQ has funded valuable projects, such as alternative
fuels, transit, traffic flow improvements, auto emissions inspections,
ridesharing, teleworking, and bicycle and pedestrian projects. It's a
good example of a Federal/State/local partnership working together to
meet multiple goals and improve the lives of our citizens.
While ensuring environmental protection and responding to public
concerns about noise, air and water quality, other natural resources,
and communities, we are also looking at ways to make the process of
environmental review more efficient. Options include improving staff
resources, fostering interagency cooperation, and more intelligent use
of current streamlining tools.
Slow decisionmaking does not translate into better environmental
results. The important thing is to get the appropriate Federal and
State environmental safeguards identified early and built in as the
project progresses. Local cooperation is a key component of improving
the environmental process. Local officials must be our active partners
in this effort if we are to make significant progress. That means, for
example, that we have to deal with local problems of surface traffic
congestion and continue to reduce the problems of aircraft noise and
air pollution near airports.
I know how important environmental streamlining is for meeting the
transportation demands of the 21st Century, especially for highways and
transit under TEA-21. On May 25, 2000, the Department published
interrelated notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) in the Federal
Register. The proposed regulatory revisions reflected statutory changes
made by TEA-21 in the areas of: (1) metropolitan and statewide
planning, (2) consistency with the national ITS architecture and
standards, and (3) NEPA implementation for projects funded or approved
by FHWA and FTA.
The final rule for the ITS architecture and standards was published
on January 8, 2001, and went into effect on April 8, 2001. Regarding
the proposed NEPA and Planning rulemakings, I know that your full
committee held a hearing on September 12, 2000, to discuss them and
that significant issues were brought out at that hearing. I also
received and have responded to the March 20 letter from the leaders of
your committee and I appreciate the grave concerns expressed about the
NPRMs. I can assure you that this matter is of the highest priority for
the Department of Transportation and that most careful consideration is
being given to our options. I will be reviewing the NEPA NPRM, along
with the companion NPRM on transportation planning, to decide how best
to implement the congressional intent to reduce project development
time. I value your comments highly and I will keep this subcommittee
and the leadership of the committee fully informed.
Guiding projects through the planning and review processes faster,
while ensuring environmental protection, is a complex undertaking, with
conflicting interests among stakeholders. But it is one we must work on
expeditiously, because it is critically important to our transportation
system and our economy.
In addition to the proposed rulemakings, the Department is taking,
and has taken, other steps to streamline the environmental process for
highway and transit projects. FHWA and FTA have enhanced interagency
coordination by signing a National Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on
Environmental Streamlining between the Department and six other Federal
agencies. This formalized the agencies' commitments to expedite Federal
highway and transit projects while fulfilling their responsibilities to
protect the environment. Similarly, three regional MOUs have been
signed and some type of streamlining activity has been initiated in
about 30 States. A Federal interagency working group was formed and has
been meeting regularly to advance streamlining among the affected
Federal agencies at the national level and throughout the field
offices. The working group engages State transportation and other
industry and environmental interests in pursuing streamlining goals.
For example, this past November, the Department conducted a national
training workshop on streamlining for Federal agencies. Congressional
staff also presented their concerns to the group.
An environmental streamlining action plan has been drafted,
providing a blueprint for national and State level activities. The
action plan promotes the use of existing Federal Agency powers for
administrative delegation of authorities to States and pilot projects
to promote expedited reviews; encourages the use of flexible mitigation
approaches, such as wetland banking or compensation strategies that
promote investment in environmentally sensitive geographic regions, in
lieu of project site-specific mitigation only; establishes performance
evaluation measures, including the development of timeframes at the
project level; and specifies the development of a dispute resolution
system. The action plan is periodically updated and used to track
progress.
The Department expects to promote and provide technical support for
the expanded use of Federal agencies' existing administrative
authorities to achieve process efficiencies and concurrent, rather than
consecutive, reviews. This includes delegation of authority from
Federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to State agencies to act on
their behalf in carrying out Federal regulations, partnership
agreements for conducting concurrent reviews, and project agreements
for specific time commitments. The Department is also working to
address the TEA-21 requirements for elevation to the Secretarial level
of interagency disputes that are causing delays.
conclusion
In conclusion, the United States enjoys the safest and the best
transportation system in the world. Nevertheless, we face safety and
capacity challenges. The funding requested in President Bush's 2002
budget, as well as the management and accountability improvements we
will make over the next year, will help us to meet those challenges.
I look forward to working with this subcommittee and all Members of
Congress over the coming year to ensure that a safe transportation
system continues to support a strong economy and improve the quality of
life for all of our people.
______
Response by Hon. Norman Mineta to an Additional Question from
Senator Smith
truck safety at u.s./mexico border
Question. Mr. Secretary, the President's budget proposal requests
funding for increased motor carrier safety oversight and enforcement
activities and for building inspection facilities at the U.S./Mexico
border, but we have few details on how this money will be distributed.
I am concerned that opening the borders in full compliance with
NAFTA may be imminent, and yet under the previous Administration little
progress was made to ensure Mexican trucks entering this country will
comply with U.S. safety standards.
Can you tell us whether there will be a comprehensive
implementation plan to address the various near and long-term needs for
cross border truck safety before the border is further opened?
Response. FMCSA has prepared a comprehensive draft plan to ensure
that the NAFTA cross-border provisions are implemented effectively and
on time. To guide the development and implementation of the plan, the
FMCSA has established several teams to identify and implement the
various program activities that will be necessary to integrate Mexican
operations fully into our operating, safety, and enforcement programs.
Activities encompassed in the draft plan circulated for review include
very specific screening and monitoring procedures to ensure safe
carrier, vehicle and driver operations in the United States.
Here are some of major program strategies, activities, and
milestones planned or undertaken to date to prepare for the opening of
the Southern border.
<bullet> Rulemaking.--On May 3, 2001, DOT published in the Federal
Register proposed regulations governing the application process for
Mexican-domiciled carriers that wish to operate in the United States
and the process by which DOT will review the safety records of carriers
during the first 18 months of their U.S. operations. The new
requirements will ensure that carriers understand and are able to
comply with U.S. requirements. Final regulations will be published by
November 2001.
<bullet> Resources.--To support comprehensive State and Federal
motor carrier safety enforcement activities, the Department is
requesting $88.2 million in additional funds in its fiscal year 2002
budget. The request includes $13.9 million to hire an additional 85
Federal staff to perform safety inspections and conduct safety audits
of Mexican carriers. We have also requested $54 million to provide the
Federal share for new/modified State inspection facilities construction
(23 border crossings with truck traffic are currently without permanent
State inspection facilities). We have requested $2.3 million for
immediate Federal construction needs to provide areas to park vehicles
placed out-of-service. The Department is also proposing that an
additional $18 million be available to support the staffing of State
facilities and increase State motor carrier border inspection
activities. All Federal enforcement personnel will be hired and trained
by December 2001.
<bullet> Education and Outreach.--The FMCSA, in concert with the
border States, will be conducting a series of safety compliance
seminars to educate Mexican carriers and drivers on what they need to
know to operate in compliance with Federal and State regulations. The
seminars will include a very detailed explanation of new application
requirements. These safety compliance seminars are in addition to
ongoing efforts to translate and distribute educational materials to
Mexican carriers and drivers. The seminars will be conducted from
August to November 2001.
<bullet> Application Processing Procedures.--Procedures are being
developed to ensure that all applications are evaluated accurately and
consistently and only qualified carriers are approved to operate.
Procedures will be developed by September 2001. An application-
processing center will also be established by September 2001 to
specifically review, evaluate, and process new applications from
Mexican carriers.
<bullet> Safety Review Procedures.--To ensure the safe operation of
the Mexican carriers, the rulemaking requires that safety reviews of
each carrier's operations be performed. Within 18 months of receiving
authority, all Mexican carriers must submit to a safety review by
providing records to a Federal safety investigator and participating in
a review of its operating procedures. Procedures for conducting the
review will be in place by August 2001.
<bullet> Safety Data Bases.--The FMCSA will focus on improving the
information systems available to Federal and State enforcement
officials in order to verify application information directly with
Mexican transportation officials, automate the review of the
applications, provide real-time safety performance and other data to
Federal and State inspectors and effectively monitor the safety
performance of Mexican motor carriers operating in the United States.
All inspectors will have access to available U.S. and Mexican driver
licensing, carrier, and other safety data bases by January 1, 2002.
<bullet> NAFTA Coordination.--We will continue to work with Mexico
to increase regulatory compatibility between our countries, establish
cooperative agreements on the exchange of safety information, and
provide technical assistance to build compatible compliance and
enforcement programs in Mexico. The adoption and implementation of
comparable programs in Mexico will provide greater assurance that
vehicles entering the United States are already in compliance with
safety standards.
______
Responses by Hon. Norman Mineta to Additional Questions from
Senator Inhofe
work zone safety
Question 1. The historic Federal investment in highway improvements
provided by TEA-21 is resulting in a dramatic increase in highway
construction projects across the Nation. While this is good news for
the safety and efficiency of our highway and bridge network, it also
means more roadway construction work zones in the short term.
I have been concerned about the public safety threat posed by
roadway work zones to American motorists and the men and women of the
construction industry for some time. In 1999, 868 people were killed
and 39,000 injured in roadway work zone accidents. It has come to my
attention that a disproportionate number of work zone accidents involve
commercial motor vehicles. Specifically, in 1999 26 percent of these
work zone fatalities resulted from crashes involving large trucks--
while commercial vehicles only make up about 3.3 percent of all
vehicles and 7.5 percent of U.S. vehicle miles traveled.
The Federal Highway Administration was previously involved in the
National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse to help promote
solutions to work zone safety challenges by providing information about
a wide range of work zone safety technical and operational issues. With
the enactment of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act,
Congress provided substantially more Federal resources for commercial
motor vehicle safety activities, including some discretionary funds for
national priorities under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program.
Given the safety challenge posed by commercial motor vehicles
moving through construction work zones, wouldn't Federal involvement be
appropriate to help ensure we are doing all that we can to make the
Nation's roadways as safe as possible for all who use them? Also, do
you believe an information-based entity, such as the National Work Zone
Safety Information Clearinghouse, could play a valuable role in this
type of endeavor?
Response. Trucks are clearly over represented in work zone crashes,
and clearly warrant Federal involvement. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) have numerous efforts underway to address work zone safety and
operations, all focused on heightening awareness and developing
solutions for this issue. The two agencies continue to evaluate ways to
improve work zone safety for both passenger vehicles and large trucks,
and States, at their option, can use their Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program funds (both basic and high priority funds) for
public information efforts, including work zone safety enforcement
initiatives aimed at commercial vehicles.
The National Work Zone Information Clearinghouse certainly plays a
role in this type of endeavor. The industry/government partnership
created by the Clearinghouse focuses on compiling and making readily
available the latest work zone safety related information, for
researchers, business, industry, Government Agencies and the public,
and provides a forum for exchange and coordination of solutions and
ideas. As originally envisioned, the Clearinghouse is now successfully
operating without funding from FHWA, handling over 24,000 information
requests annually.
hours of service rule
Question 2. Clearly, there are significant problems with the
proposed rule regarding Hours of Service if only in the public
relations battle. What is the intention of the Bush Administration with
respect to the proposed rule?
Response. We are still considering the various options available to
us based on our analysis of the 53,000 comments received. Our decision
will depend on whether we need more information or additional comments
that would require a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, or
have the basis for issuing a final rule. The Department's fiscal year
2001 appropriations legislation prohibits the Department from issuing a
final rule before October 1, 2001, but allows other stages of
rulemaking to proceed. We expect to make a decision on our options this
summer and are committed to keeping you informed about whatever steps
we take.
Question 3. It has been suggested to me that the proposed rule as
currently drafted would actually put more trucks on the roads during
daylight hours thereby increasing the safety risk to the public. Is
this a concern and if not why not?
Response. The regulatory evaluation to the proposed rule discussed
the impact of both shifts in traffic to daytime and the increased use
of inexperienced commercial vehicle drivers. Because of uncertainty
regarding both the magnitude and consequences of these changes, we did
not attempt to quantify the safety impacts of these possible changes.
In recognition of the uncertainty, we asked anyone who may have
specific data on this point, to bring it forward so that we could more
accurately identify the impacts.
The FMCSA held three public roundtable discussions in September and
October 2000 to gather specific data on this issue. If our review of
the comments and additional analyses demonstrate that more drivers and
more vehicles may be needed particularly during peak daytime hours, we
could consider this fact as part of any subsequent evaluation and
subsequent changes in our proposal.
Question 4. As you and your staff are likely aware, Sec. 345 of the
1995 National Highway System Designation Act (Public Law 104-59)
granted limited exemptions under the Hours-of-Service regulations for
transportation of agricultural commodities and farm supplies,
transportation and operation of ground water well drilling rigs,
transportation of construction materials and equipment, drivers of
utility service vehicles, and snow and ice removal.
The language in this Section states: ``If the Secretary determines
that public safety has been adversely affected by an exemption granted
under this section, the Secretary shall report to the Congress on this
determination.'' To the best of my knowledge, Congress has not received
any such report. Is it your understanding that the Department of
Transportation has submitted a report to the Congress that examines the
vehicle safety performance of drivers of commercial motor vehicles
which transport agricultural commodities and farm supplies, drivers
which transport and operate ground water well drilling rigs, drivers
which transport construction materials and equipment, drivers of
utility service vehicles, and drivers of snow and ice removal
equipment?
Response. The Department of Transportation has not submitted a
report to the Congress that examines the vehicle safety performance of
drivers of commercial motor vehicles under Sec. 345 of the NHS Act.
Question 5. The language further states: ``The Secretary may
conduct a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether granting any
exemption provided by subsection (a) (other than paragraph (2)) is not
in the public interest and would have a significant adverse impact on
the safety of commercial motor vehicles.''
Again, has the Department of Transportation made a determination
that the exemption granted specifically to the drivers of commercial
motor vehicles covered under SEC. 345 is ``not in the public interest''
and ``would have a significant adverse impact on the safety of
commercial motor vehicles?'' If so, what research, evidence or criteria
has the Department used to satisfy this congressionally mandated two-
pronged test?
Response. The Department of Transportation has not made a
determination that the exemption granted specifically to the drivers of
commercial motor vehicles covered under Sec. 345 is ``not in the public
interest'' and ``would have a significant adverse impact on the safety
of commercial motor vehicles.''
Question 6. Does the Agency consider this rulemaking to be an
appropriate review of the 1995 National Highway System Designation Act
exemptions? lf so, what data supports such a sweeping deletion of the
exemptions across the board in almost all industries? Also, has the
Agency properly considered the costs to the economy of such sweeping
deletions? What data supports the sudden decision to remove tree
farming and timbering from agriculture?
Response. The FHWA received a petition on July 1, 1996, from the
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS) seeking rulemaking to
reevaluate the Sec. 345 exemptions. The NPRM granted the AHAS petition
and FMCSA is considering it as a part of the Hours of Service
rulemaking.
Although the FMCSA has not conducted specific monitoring programs
for currently exempted drivers, a significant amount of the sleep and
fatigue research evaluated in preparing the NPRM suggests that a 24-
hour restart provision, like that authorized by the Sec. 345, may not
be sufficient to overcome accumulated fatigue. We have at least six
such studies and we can supply additional information directly from the
public docket upon request. The FMCSA, therefore, proposed in the NPRM
a slightly longer break in the interests of public safety. The NPRM
would require drivers to take a ``weekend'' of at least 32 consecutive
hours, including two consecutive midnight to 6 a.m. periods.
The NPRM also proposed narrow definitions for significant terms
used in Sec. 345 that the statute does not define. The FMCSA has had
difficulty enforcing Sec. 345 when the carrier is operating outside the
broad conditions contained in Sec. 345. The terms farmer, agricultural
commodity, and farm supply have been ambiguous to FMCSA and our State
enforcement partners. In addition, Federal statutes are ambiguous
concerning whether tree farms and timber harvesting meet current
statutory definitions of a farmer and agricultural commodities,
respectively. See 7 USC 1a(4), 7 USC 499a(b)(4), 7 USC 608c(2), 7 USC
1428(c), 7 USC 1441, 7 USC 1631, 7 USC 1731, 7 USC 1736o(c), 7 USC
5602, 7 USC 7412, 12 USC 1141j(g), 15 USC 714, 21 USC 346a(a), and 42
USC 1755.
The regulatory evaluation to the proposed rule discussed the impact
of exemptions. Because of uncertainty regarding both the magnitude and
consequences of these changes, FMCSA did not attempt to quantify the
safety impacts of these possible changes. In recognition of the
uncertainty, FMCSA asked anyone who may have specific data on the
exemptions, to bring it forward so that FMCSA could more accurately
identify the impacts.
The FMCSA held three public roundtable discussions in September and
October 2000, and invited discussion of the question of exemptions,
including the proposed definitions of who is a farmer. Consistent with
our statutory mandate in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999 that ``the Administrator shall consider the assignment and
maintenance of safety as the highest priority,'' the Agency intends to
carefully consider requests for exemption that are supported by sound,
compelling safety data.
______
Responses by Hon. Norman Mineta to Additional Questions from
Senator Reid
gas tax
Question 1. Last year there was a serious effort in Congress to
repeal or suspend the gas tax. This effort was defeated in the Senate
because most Senators understood that suspending the gas tax would do
little to reduce gas prices, threaten critical highway, transit, and
aviation spending, and provide windfall profits to the oil companies
and OPEC.
Unfortunately, it now appears that there will be another effort
this year to suspend the gas tax. So far the Bush Administration has
refused to come out strongly against this shortsighted proposal. What
is your position on temporarily suspending the gas tax? Can we expect
President Bush to strongly oppose any effort in Congress to suspend or
repeal and portion of the Federal gasoline or diesel tax?
Response. Instead of reacting to short-term price fluctuations, I
believe that we can most benefit consumers by addressing the problem of
fuel costs through solutions that increase supplies and provide for
long-term energy needs. The President's energy plan offers such
solutions.
magnetic levitation
Question 2. I was very disappointed earlier this year when the Las
Vegas magnetic levitation project was not chosen as one of the two
finalists by the previous Secretary of Transportation. The Las Vegas
project provides the fastest and least expensive way to test this new
technology and begins the process of connecting two of our Nation's
fastest growing metropolitan areas--Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
I hope we can revisit this selection process with the new
Administration. In addition, I am interested in hearing of the new
Administration's commitment to the magnetic levitation program. Does
your decision not to include funding for this program in your fiscal
year 2002 budget request indicate a lack of interest?
Response. I appreciate your strong expression of interest in the
Department's role in future Maglev developments, and your support for a
Los Angeles--Las Vegas application of this technology. However, because
of my prior employment with Lockheed Martin Corporation, which was
involved in one of the two projects selected by former Secretary Rodney
E. Slater, I am recused from departmental decisionmaking on this
subject matter. I have advised Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson of
your interest in future advances in this program at the Department.
high-speed rail
Question 3. One component of our transportation system that has
been consistently under funded and underutilized is our passenger rail
infrastructure. Last year, despite strong support, the High-Speed Rail
Investment Act did not make it into the final budget package and many
of us in the leadership made commitments to the legislation's sponsors
that we would do our best to move the legislation forward this year.
Senators Joe Biden and Kay Bailey Hutchison reintroduced this
legislation earlier this year and now have 57 sponsors. Mr. Secretary,
I know that you understand the importance of providing high-speed rail
in selected corridors as a transportation option. Can you tell me if
the Bush Administration will be supporting passage of the High-Speed
Rail Investment Act?
Response. I support the principle embodied in the bill of providing
a dependable source of capital investment for high-speed rail
development that is not in competition with other transportation
funding priorities. I have not had an opportunity to discuss the
specifics of the legislation with its most important constituencies,
Amtrak and the States. Nor have I had a chance to discuss the funding
concept Federal tax credits in lieu of interest on the bonds--with
Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill. But I believe that finding sources
of funding for high-speed rail capital investments is important and I
will work within the Bush Administration to quickly develop our
position on the high-speed rail investment legislation.
dot building
Question 4. In November 1997, this committee authorized the General
Services Administration to procure a new headquarters building for the
Department of Transportation. Recent news articles have suggested that
there has been a delay in this procurement. Would you explain the
reason for this delay? What is the present status of this project?
Is it true that the Department of Transportation is housed in a
building where the lease has expired for over a year? What is DOT
paying for its current headquarters space and how does that payment
compare to market rates in the District of Columbia?
Response. In July 1997, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure passed a Committee Resolution providing GSA with
authority (in the absence of funding for Federal construction) to enter
into an operating lease for a headquarters building for the Department
of Transportation (DOT). In November 1997, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works also passed a Committee Resolution
authorizing GSA's procurement of a DOT Headquarters lease. The Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999,
directed GSA to enter into an operating lease to acquire space for the
DOT headquarters. Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-505. That Act
also provided that the lease meet the guidelines for operating leases
set forth in the joint statement of the managers for the conference
report to the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997, as determined by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
GSA issued the Solicitation for Offers (SFO) for the DOT
Headquarters lease procurement in November 1999. Phase I proposals were
received in December 1999. Five finalists were identified to compete in
Phase II of the procurement in March 2000, and their initial Phase II
proposals were received in June 2000. Following extensive discussions
with the offers and requests for revised proposals, GSA began
consulting with OMB in October 2000 with regard to the budgetary
scoring issues referenced in the Act. This process is ongoing.
It is important to note that while information regarding this
procurement has been widely reported in the press, including reports of
the purported winner, this information is entirely speculative and
premature. In fact, the procurement remains open and on-going pending
resolution of scoring issues with OMB and GSA's publication of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). We hope to reach
resolution with OMB on these issues in the near future and publish the
FEIS thereafter.
DOT is currently housed in predominantly two leased facilities, the
Nassif Building and the Transpoint Building. GSA's lease at the
Transpoint Building does not expire until May 15, 2003. With respect to
the Nassif Building, GSA's lease expired on March 31, 2000. Since that
time, a series of standstill agreements have been executed with the
building's landlord to provide the Government with the legal right to
continue to occupy the space. Under these agreements, GSA continues to
pay the landlord at the rental rate in effect as of the lease
expiration date, approximately $31,000,000 per year net utilities.
GSA is actively seeking to negotiate an extension to the lease
consistent with the committee resolutions recently passed authorizing
GSA's execution of an interim lease for DOT. Should an interim lease be
negotiated, the agreed upon rent would be retroactive to April 1, 2000
and we would be required to pay the difference between the rent we are
paying, $31,000,000 and the negotiated rent.
The incumbent landlord of the Nassif Building recently withdrew
from the procurement for the new DOT headquarters building, opting
instead to seek a 10-year lease extension. However, its interim lease
proposal is longer and more expensive than the one authorized by the
Committee Resolutions, which cap the annual rent at $37,851,057 (fully
serviced) or $34,890,093 (net utilities). We believe the prospectus cap
reflects a fair market rent for the Nassif Building.
______
Response by Hon. Norman Mineta to an Additional Question from
Senator Warner
dot building
Question. In November 1997, with close consultation with the
Department and GSA, this committee authorized GSA to acquire new space
for the Department of Transportation headquarters.
At that time, the committee was advised that the resolution
provided the executive branch all of the authority needed to accomplish
this goal. Given that the Department has been in a hold-over lease
status since before 1997--paying premium rental rates for a substandard
facility--we have been anxious for this important project to move
forward.
We have waited patiently as GSA and DOT went through the
procurement process, and as was recently announced in the press, a
winner has been selected. Yet, I would like to ask why no official
announcement has been made by GSA or the Department? It appears that
once again, no progress is being made.
Can you advise the committee about the status of this procurement,
and when a selection will be publicly announced?
Also, I would be interested in knowing if the Department's General
Counsel has expressed any concern about the Government's exposure to
litigation? The apparently successful offeror, having been identified
in the press, might have some reason to enforce his claim.
Response. In July 1997, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure passed a Committee Resolution providing GSA with
authority (in the absence of funding for Federal construction) to enter
into an operating lease for a headquarters building for the Department
of Transportation (DOT). In November 1997, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works also passed a Committee Resolution
authorizing GSA's procurement of a DOT Headquarters lease. The Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999,
directed GSA to enter into an operating lease to acquire space for the
DOT headquarters. Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-505. That Act
also provided that the lease meet the guidelines for operating leases
set forth in the joint statement of the managers for the conference
report to the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997, as determined by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
GSA issued the Solicitation for Offers (SFO) for the DOT
Headquarters lease procurement in November 1999. Phase I proposals were
received in December 1999. Five finalists were identified to compete in
Phase II of the procurement in March 2000, and their initial Phase II
proposals were received in June 2000. Following extensive discussions
with the offerors and requests for revised proposals, GSA began
consulting with OMB in October 2000 with regard to the budgetary
scoring issues referenced in the Act. This process is ongoing.
It is important to note that while information regarding this
procurement has been widely reported in the press, including reports of
the purported winner, this information is entirely speculative and
premature. In fact, the procurement remains open and on-going pending
resolution of scoring issues with OMB and GSA's publication of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). We hope to reach
resolution with OMB on these issues in the near future and publish the
FEIS thereafter.
With respect to DOT's current housing arrangements, the Agency is
presently housed predominantly in two leased facilities, the Nassif
Building and the Transpoint Building. GSA's lease for DOT at the
Transpoint Building does not expire until May 2003. With respect to the
Nassif Building, GSA's lease expired in March 2000. Since that time, a
series of stand still agreements have been executed with the building's
landlord to provide the Government with the legal right to continue to
occupy that space. Under these agreements, GSA continues to pay the
landlord at the rental rate in effect as of the lease expiration date.
GSA is actively seeking to negotiate an extension to the lease
consistent with the Committee Resolutions recently passed authorizing
GSA's execution of an interim lease for DOT. The incumbent landlord of
the Nassif Building recently withdrew from the procurement, opting
instead to seek a 10-year lease extension. However, its interim lease
proposal is longer and more expensive than authorized by the Committee
Resolutions.
Finally, as to concerns regarding litigation, this is a concern for
any action of this size and scope. However, the GSA project team has
carefully consulted with the GSA General Counsel to ensure that actions
are reasonable and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,
and continues to do so.
__________
Statement of Hon. Jane R. Roth, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to testify in my capacity as the chairman of the Judicial
Conference's Committee on Security and Facilities.\1\ Chairman Inhofe,
I look forward to working with you, Senator Baucus, the other members
of the Subcommittee, and your staffs in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Judicial Conference of the United States is the judiciary's
policymaking body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of the entire judiciary, I would like to express our
appreciation for the authorizations of courthouse projects that this
subcommittee recommended and the full committee approved last year.
Unfortunately, not all these projects have received appropriations yet.
We hope to get those much needed projects funded and moving ahead this
year.
fiscal year 2002 courthouse program
President Bush's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes $216.8
million for courthouse construction projects and $130.3 million for
court-related repair and alteration projects. The subcommittee's letter
to the White House in support of funding for courthouse construction
was very helpful in achieving this result. While the judiciary
appreciates the fact that some courthouse construction funding was
included in the Administration's budget request, the Judicial
Conference proposes 20 projects for funding in fiscal year 2002 at a
total cost of approximately $665 million.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The judiciary determined this amount by applying a factor for
inflation to previous GSA estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The judiciary supports the President's budget request for
courthouse projects. The Committee on Environment and Public Works has
previously provided authorizations for 11 of the 12 courthouse
construction projects in the President's budget request. Some of the
projects are on the judiciary's prioritized list for fiscal year 2002
and some are from previous years and may need to have their
authorizations increased for inflation.
There are also nine new projects not included in the President's
budget which the judiciary supports for fiscal year 2002: Rockford, IL;
Cedar Rapids, IA; Nashville, TN; Savannah, GA; Fort Pierce, FL;
Jackson, MS; Austin, TX; San Diego, CA; and San Jose, CA. The Senate
has already provided authorizations for four of these projects,
although these resolutions may need to be increased now to match GSA's
latest estimates due to inflation. In past years, the committee has
requested 11(b) studies for projects which were not included in the
President's budget. We urge the subcommittee to make a similar request
this year. I have attached a chart to this statement that summarizes
the judiciary's fiscal year 2002 plan and the President's budget
request.
We understand from GSA that three projects might be delayed until
next year due to circumstances beyond the judiciary's or GSA's control.
These projects, in Salt Lake City, UT; Cape Girardeau, MO; and Orlando,
FL, could be authorized in a future year. Two other projects, Eugene,
OR and Little Rock, AR, are not ready for construction funding as
anticipated, but do need additional site and/or design money this year.
The requests for additional site and design money for Eugene and Little
Rock are included in the President's budget request for fiscal year
2002.
The Judicial Conference also supports construction of a Federal
office building to house the court of appeals staff and potentially
other Federal agencies in Atlanta, GA.
some fiscal year 2002 courthouses have special requirements
The judiciary is in disagreement with OMB's unilateral decision to
eliminate small amounts of space which the judiciary needs due to
special requirements in some courts. Our planning guidelines are
intended to recognize that some courts operate differently from others
and handle different types of cases. For example, for some projects on
our fiscal year 2002 list, the judicial councils of the various
circuits have determined that a senior judge\3\ will need exclusive use
of a courtroom for longer than 10 years. Such special requirements
result in minor increases in square footage and minimal costs in the
long term. The judiciary plans to use these courthouses for decades
into the future; shortsightedly making them smaller than needed will
only necessitate the judiciary returning to Congress to request
additions to relatively new courthouses at greater expense to
taxpayers. We hope you will authorize the projects based on the
requirements submitted by the courts. Details of these changes will be
provided to subcommittee staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Senior judges are those judges who are eligible to retire but
who continue to try cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An example of the problems caused when a facility is built smaller
than needed is the Brooklyn, NY courthouse annex. Additional funding is
needed to build out a total of eight courtrooms and eight chambers in
the annex as planned and authorized to accommodate the judges that will
be working when the annex opens and to permit the planned renovation of
the existing courthouse. The judiciary urges the subcommittee to ensure
that GSA constructs the necessary space. If this is not done, the new
building will be full on the day it opens, and indeed the entire
complex may not be able to accommodate the court when the annex opens.
In our view, responsible planning and responsible spending justifies
further action by the subcommittee to complete this important project.
I will submit for the record a separate statement by Judge Raymond
Dearie of the Eastern District of New York which elaborates on the
serious housing problem that will be created if GSA does not build
enough space in Brooklyn.
the project backlog
Ten years ago, the judiciary, Congress, and the GSA embarked on a
construction program to replace court facilities. Some existing
courthouses are at full capacity with no room for expansion. Most are
aged and obsolete, cannot provide adequate security, and cannot
accommodate emerging technology. Due to a lack of funding, the program
is now seriously behind schedule. In fiscal years 1998 through 2000,
the previous Administration did not include any funding for courthouses
in its budget request. In fiscal year 2001, the Administration included
funding in its budget for only 7 of the 21 courthouses approved by the
Judicial Conference. Congress has appropriated funds for courthouse
construction only twice in the last 4 years. This has created the
backlog.
Delayed funding of courthouse projects can result in significant
cost increases. Although GSA has estimated that construction costs were
increasing an average of 3-4 percent for each year of delay, there have
been some situations where escalation factors have been significantly
higher. As a result, had the 20 projects the judiciary supports in
fiscal year 2002 been built when they were originally scheduled, the
projected costs would have been approximately $50 million lower than
they are today due to inflation.
need for new courthouses
In spite of these delays, the workload of the Federal courts
continues to increase, necessitating additional judges and court staff.
In the last 10 years, criminal cases have increased 32 percent, civil
cases have increased 20 percent, and bankruptcy filings have increased
68 percent. Congress provided 9 new Federal district judgeships in
fiscal year 2000 and 10 more in fiscal year 2001. The Judicial
Conference of the United States is currently requesting that 54 more
Article III judgeships be created. Furthermore, about 127,000 persons
are under the supervision of the judiciary's probation and pretrial
services officers. These officers need space to conduct drug testing
and to hold meetings with those under supervision.
Many of the courthouses in use today are more than 50 years old and
do not meet the needs of a modern-day justice system. A major problem
is security for the jurors, witnesses, court employees, judges and the
public. Oftentimes, the courthouses lack separate routes of circulation
so that prisoners are transported through the same areas and elevators
as judges, jurors and members of the public. Some courthouses do not
have holding cells adjacent to courtrooms or sally ports for bringing
prisoners into the courthouses in a secure manner. The courthouses
frequently have operational problems such as inadequate heating and
ventilation systems and electrical systems that are incompatible with
modern technology requirements. For example, in some older courthouses,
the infrastructure will not allow the wiring necessary for courtroom
technologies such as video evidence presentation systems, video-
conferencing systems, and electronic methods of taking the record,
which will streamline trials and improve the quality of justice.
A courthouse project is not proposed for consideration unless the
district's long-range facility plan indicates that there is no more
room for judges in the existing facility. Usually this determination is
made after all executive branch agencies and court-related units
(probation, pretrial services, and the bankruptcy court) have been
moved from the existing building. Therefore, the projects on the
judiciary's Five-Year Plan are urgently needed when they are placed on
the plan and delays only exacerbate operational problems. We have
provided subcommittee staff with a fact sheet on each courthouse
project that describes the current housing situation and the need for a
project at that location.
The judiciary's problems are particularly acute along the southwest
border, where drug and immigration enforcement efforts have caused the
workload to more than double and where proximity to the Mexican border
magnifies security risks. Three of the twenty courthouse projects
requested for fiscal year 2002 are located along the southwest border.
We have provided copies of a video on the southwest border court
problems to committee staff. I would like to have shown it to the
subcommittee as part of my testimony today, but time constraints have
made that impossible. I urge you, however, to take the time to view it
in the near future.
cost containment
The Federal judiciary, working with GSA, has taken many steps to
economize and ensure better management of the courthouse construction
program without sacrificing functionality. The courthouse construction
process has become increasingly rigorous, disciplined and structured
over the past several years as a result of these actions.
On the recommendation of the National Academy of Public
Administration, the judiciary began its long-range facilities planning
process in 1988. The objective of the planning process is to determine
the ability of existing facilities to meet the judiciary's projected
future space needs. The planning process was designed to provide the
judiciary with a systematic, a political method of identifying and
defining the need for new courthouse projects. In January 2001, the
General Accounting Office issued a very positive report to Congress
about the judiciary's long-range planning process. In May 2000, the
consulting firm of Ernst & Young, which was retained by the judiciary
to study the courthouse program, found that the facilities planning
process has been effective. The judiciary received GSA's Annual
Achievement Award for Real Property Innovation for the long range
planning process in 1998.
In 1993, GSA instituted a benchmarking process to evaluate the cost
of proposed new construction projects and to help identify potential
savings. Baseline benchmarks were established for Federal courthouses
based on industry data. The benchmarks are then adjusted for project
specific conditions such as costs for seismic construction and
geographic location. For example, a benchmark would suggest a range of
acceptable costs for a courthouse project in Washington, DC from $145
to $170 per square foot in 1993 dollars. The benchmarks have been
adjusted over time to incorporate security construction criteria
adopted by GSA subsequent to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma City and to accommodate technological advancements. GSA
uses benchmarks to compare costs of Federal construction with private
sector buildings and to compare courthouse projects nationwide.
Construction cost estimates are now based on the benchmarks.
In 1996, at the urging of Congress, the judiciary began
prioritizing courthouse construction projects against defined criteria.
The judiciary uses a scoring system to develop an annual, prioritized
Five-Year Courthouse Project Plan. Congress uses the scoring system and
the Five-Year Plan to allocate resources for courthouse construction,
funding permitting. Ernst & Young found that the scoring process was
logical and appropriately focused on facilitating judicial functions.
The scoring criteria take into account security problems; building
conditions; the number of judges affected by a lack of space; and the
length of time the facility has not been able to accommodate additional
judges.
Courthouse construction conforms to the U.S. Courts Design Guide,
which identifies the functional requirements for courthouses. The 1997
edition incorporates new criteria in response to economic constraints.
In 1997, a cost estimating consultant determined that these changes
would result in an average of 5 percent savings in the cost of
projects. These changes include: prohibiting the use of exotic
hardwoods; encouraging GSA's private sector design architects to
develop a selection of finishes that responds to construction cost
limitations, optimizes long-term value, and satisfies functional
requirements; defining in greater detail the amount of circulation
areas needed in order to limit this space; prohibiting architects or
court staff from adding spaces not contemplated in design; and
encouraging shared use of space common to all court offices, such as
conference and training rooms.
summary
The judiciary is truly grateful for the resources provided for the
courthouse construction program so far. However, recent delays in
courthouse funding have created a backlog of facilities that need
replacement. The judiciary has outgrown these facilities and they
suffer from serious security and infrastructure problems. Improvements
made to the planning process and design standards over the years help
to ensure that the courthouse program meets the judiciary's workload
needs in an economical and functional manner. Therefore, the judiciary
asks that you authorize, in accordance with the judiciary's stated
needs, the new courthouse projects on the attached list that have not
already been authorized or that need their authorizations increased.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you might have at this time.
______
Judicial Branch Courthouse Construction Program for FY 2002
(Dollars in Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Project (In Priority Order Approved by Project Phase on Judiciary's Recommended by Amount Requested
Judicial Conference) Plan the Judiciary in in President's
FY 2002 Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Previous Plans:
Brooklyn, NY............................... Design & Construct........... $32.000 $3.361*
Washington, DC............................. Construction................. 6.595 6.595
Buffalo, NY................................ Site & Design................ 0.716 0.716
Springfield, MA............................ Design & Construct........... 6.473 6.473
Miami, FL.................................. Construction................. 15.000 0
On FY 2002 Plan:
1. Fresno, CA.............................. Construction................. 121.2 121.225
2. Erie, PA................................ Construction................. 30.7 30.739
3. Eugene, OR.............................. Construction................. 75.2 4.470**
4. El Paso, TX............................. Site & Design................ 11.1 11.193
5. Mobile, AL.............................. Site & Design................ 11.3 11.290
6. Norfolk, VA............................. Site & Design................ 11.8 11.609
7. Las Cruces, NM.......................... Design....................... 4.1 4.110
8. Salt Lake City, UT...................... Construction................. 76.5 0***
9. Little Rock, AR......................... Design & Construct........... 75.0 5.022**
10. Rockford, IL........................... Site & Design................ 4.9 0
11. Cedar Rapids, IA....................... Site & Design................ 15.1 0
12. Nashville, TN.......................... Site & Design................ 14.3 0
13. Savannah, GA........................... Construction................. 46.5 0
14. Fort Pierce, FL........................ Site & Design................ 4.5 0
15. Jackson, MS............................ Site & Design................ 12.3 0
16. Austin, TX............................. Site & Design................ 8.5 0
17. San Diego, CA.......................... Design....................... 14.3 0
18. Cape Girardeau, MO..................... Construction................. 36.9 0***
19. Orlando, FL............................ Construction................. 71.3 0***
20. San Jose, CA........................... Site & Design................ 19.4 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Only a portion of this money is for the new courthouse annex, with the remainder to be spent on design of U.S.
Attorney space in the General Post Office. GSA's prospectus does not specify how the funding request is to be
divided.
**These funds are for additional site and/or design only and do not include construction money as planned. A
prolonged site selection process for the Eugene project and a change in design plans for the Little Rock
project resulted in their not being ready for construction in fiscal year 2002.
***GSA indicates these projects may not be ready for any additional funding in fiscal year 2002.
______
Responses by Judge Jane R. Roth, to Additional Questions from
Senator Inhofe
Question 1. There has been much confusion over the issue of sharing
courtrooms. We have a desire to make sure that courthouses are used to
the fullest extent possible and have surmised that sharing of
courtrooms only makes sense. However, I have learned over the years
that what seems to be a logical solution does not necessarily mean it
is so. I understand the sharing of courtrooms is one such case. Please
explain to the subcommittee what the current position of the Judicial
Conference is on courtroom sharing and how such a procedure affects the
function of the courts.
Response. The Judicial Conference policy, adopted in 1997, is to
provide one courtroom for every active district judge. With regard to
visiting judges and senior judges who do not draw a caseload requiring
substantial use of a courtroom, the policy requires that the circuit
judicial councils determine how many courtrooms a proposed facility
needs. The policy provides the following planning assumptions:
(1) If a senior judge will be provided with a courtroom, it will be
occupied by the judge for 10 years after taking senior status;
(2) It will take 3 years for a new judgeship to be established and
for the judge to begin work once a court's caseload warrants an
additional judgeship;
(3) A replacement judge will begin working 2 years after the judge
being replaced takes senior status; and
(4) Active judges will take senior status in the year they are
eligible.
Courtroom sharing occurs throughout the judiciary where it is
feasible. In particular, courtrooms are regularly shared by senior
judges who do not carry a substantial caseload. The comprehensive
assessment of the judiciary's space and facilities program completed by
Ernst and Young in 2000 found, for those projects for which data was
available, a 5:4 ratio of district judges to courtrooms in the Five
Year Courthouse Project Plan.
The judiciary has carefully considered the issue of courtroom
sharing and has concluded that further sharing of courtrooms would be
onerous. For an active trial judge, a courtroom is an indispensable
resource. If a judge does not have ready access to a courtroom, justice
will be delayed and in some cases, denied. A courtroom is integral to
the constitutional guarantees of the 1st amendment right of assembly,
5th amendment right of due process, 6th amendment right to a public
criminal trial, and 7th amendment right to a civil jury trial.
Courtroom scheduling is a dynamic part of a judge's case management
activities to control hundreds of cases. In our judicial system,
individual judges are accountable for the management of cases assigned
to them and for the movement of their dockets. Judicial experience
demonstrates that civil cases settle when courtroom availability is
assured. If it becomes clear that a courtroom may not be available,
settlements will be much more difficult to obtain. In addition,
priority must be given to criminal cases due to the short timeframe
established under the Speedy Trial Act. It is not possible to predict
accurately the length of trials, hearings or other proceedings or to
predict if a particular trial or proceeding will occur. The notice
requirements established by the due process clause of the Constitution
prevent one matter from being quickly substituted for another to fill
an unexpectedly available facility. Security concerns would also be a
major factor if criminal defendants were forced to be moved around the
courthouse or brought to courtrooms that lack holding cells.
The General Services Administration has estimated that it costs
about $1.5 million to construct a courtroom and its associated spaces
(including jury rooms, attorney conference rooms, public waiting rooms,
and prisoner holding cells). If a courthouse has a life expectancy of
30 years (a conservative figure), the cost of one courtroom is about
$50,000 a year. The cost to the system and to litigants will likely be
much greater than the savings that would be achieved by sharing. In
addition to new administrative costs that would be incurred by the
Government because of the need to juggle courtrooms, the last-minute
cancellation of even one civil jury trial due to the lack of a
courtroom can result in many thousands of dollars in legal fees and
expert witness costs for the litigants. Delays in criminal proceedings
would add costs for the Department of Justice's U.S. Attorneys and U.S.
Marshals. Given the expected continued growth of Federal cases in most
districts, sharing courtrooms would shorten the useful life of a
courthouse and simply escalate future costs for needed expansion of
courthouses that would be under-built.
Question 2. When I served as the ranking minority member on the
House counterpart to this subcommittee, there was real concern about
how courthouses were designed and planned. As your testimony notes, the
courts in consultation with GSA have developed a new process whereby
courthouse planning is done. Thank you for the effort and work the
courts have put into that process. How is the new system working? Is it
allowing the courts the flexibility it needs to address your unique
housing requirements?
Response. The judiciary's facilities planning process is working
very well. The goal of this process is to provide the judiciary and GSA
with a systematic, objective method of identifying and defining space
requirements. That goal is being achieved. Congress has been making
authorization and funding decisions based on the judiciary's planning
process for several years. Recent objective assessments of the process
by Ernst and Young and the U.S. General Accounting Office find that it
accurately represents the judiciary's space needs.
The judiciary's long-range facilities planning process examines the
ability of existing facilities to meet the judiciary's projected future
space needs. Historical caseload data form the basis for projecting
court space requirements. Projected numbers of judges and staff are
derived from these caseload projections. Available space in the
currently occupied buildings is then compared against projected future
space requirements to determine if existing buildings can house
projected judges and staff. If a district's long-range facilities plan
shows that a building cannot accommodate projected growth, the
judiciary advises GSA that there is the potential need for additional
space at a given location. The judiciary gives each new construction
project a score that reflects its relative urgency. The judiciary
scores projects based on four criteria: year out of space; security
problems; physical condition of building; and number of judges affected
by lack of facility space. The judiciary's Five-Year Courthouse Project
Plan lists the projects by score over 5 years.
Within the confines of the long-range planning process and the
scoring system there is sufficient flexibility so that each judicial
district can consider its own particular circumstances and needs.
Variations in court practices and the flexibility that courts have to
determine how to spend their personnel and other operating funds affect
the composition of their work force, which in turn, affects the court's
space needs. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts does compare
the personnel projections provided by local courts to its own
statistical data and discusses differences with the districts to help
them improve their predictions. These controls are in place to ensure
consistent application of the planning methodology.
While the long-range facilities planning process is essentially
sound, the judiciary is undertaking several refinements and
modifications that have been recommended by Ernst and Young to improve
the process further. These improvements should enhance reliability and
consistency, promote greater accountability, and potentially save
money.
__________
Statement of Hon. Raymond J. Dearie, District Judge,
Eastern District of New York
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
court in the Eastern District of New York, I appreciate the opportunity
to submit a statement regarding the Brooklyn, NY courthouse project
that is pending authorization before your subcommittee. When the
existing building was constructed more than 40 years ago, the planners
underestimated the anticipated growth of the court and built a facility
far too small for the judiciary's needs. Judges in the Brooklyn
Division have extremely heavy and complex caseloads, well above the
national average for district judges. Three new judgeships are
currently authorized by the Judicial Conference for the Eastern
District--at least two of those judgeships will be assigned to the
Brooklyn court. Moreover, senior judges continue to carry full
caseloads to ensure the court is able to fulfill its responsibilities.
The lack of foresight with the original building led to the need
for this latest new courthouse project. This project has involved
demolition of a large part of the former Federal building/courthouse
and the construction of a new courthouse annex on that site to house
all of the district court, followed by renovation of the remaining
portion of the building to provide space for future growth. It has
taken nearly 20 years to get this new courthouse annex planned,
designed and under construction. The construction funding for this
project was appropriated in fiscal year 1997. Unfortunately, it is now
clear that the new courthouse annex as currently planned will also be
too small and will not be able to house all the judges when it opens.
The current shortfall in space results from the fact that during
two separate procurement actions on the part of the General Services
Administration for the courthouse, the construction bids received by
GSA were above the funding level authorized and appropriated by
Congress. GSA chose to redesign the project, modifying some features of
the building and dramatically reducing the scope of the project by
first, entirely eliminating four floors from the building and second,
only shelling out an additional four floors. This last action means
that four floors (9-12) in the new building, which were originally
planned as space for eight courtrooms and eight chambers, will be left
as shelled space and unavailable for court use.
GSA bases the size of a courthouse on a 10-year projection of space
needs. Projecting out 10 years to 2012, the judiciary will need to have
34 courtrooms in Brooklyn. However, only 25 courtrooms (16 in the new
annex and 10 in the old courthouse) will be available in 2012 if GSA
does not build out the eight courtrooms and eight chambers planned for
the four empty floors in the new annex. Moreover, if the eight
courtrooms and eight chambers are built, not only will the total
project meet the needs of the judiciary for approximately 10 years, but
there will already be enough judges to fill the new annex upon its
completion in 2003.
As mentioned earlier, the second portion of this courthouse project
involves the renovation of the existing courthouse. GSA has requested
$3.791 million in this year's budget to design that renovation. The
original plan was for all the judges to move to the new annex upon
completion and leave the existing courthouse empty during the time of
its renovation. When the renovation is completed, the additional space
in that building will be needed for judges currently working and others
added to the court by that time.
Unfortunately, with the eight courtrooms and chambers cut from the
annex, GSA is now proposing to undertake the renovation with the judges
still occupying the existing building. It is clearly unworkable to
occupy the courthouse during the extensive renovation that is planned.
The noise and activity will make it impossible to hold court and the
removal of asbestos and PCBs required in the renovation will expose the
public and everyone in the court to hazardous materials. Last, there
will not be a sufficient number of courtrooms and chambers available
for the 28 to 30 judges who will need accommodation during the
renovation.
Certainly, the build-out of the eight courtrooms and chambers now
would be the most efficient and the most economic way to accommodate
space needs of the Brooklyn court. GSA's experience in Brooklyn has
made it clear that costs are rapidly rising in the local construction
market. The current estimate of $26 million to complete these
courtrooms and chambers now as part of the on-going construction
project will be significantly increased if GSA waits to do it later as
a separate project. Providing these rooms in the new annex will also
permit the judges to occupy the annex during renovation of the existing
building, thus saving substantial time and costs for the renovation
project, as GSA has recognized.
It is also important to note that the space shortages I have
described are all predicated upon the GSA completing the new annex and
starting renovation of the old courthouse on the dates currently
projected by GSA. Unfortunately, this project has a history of not
meeting target completion dates. For example, when the construction
contract for the new annex was finally awarded in October 1999, the
completion was planned for May 2002. I have been informed that the
completion date has slipped to January 2003. Any further delays in the
project will exacerbate the crowding that will take place as new judges
are scheduled to replace senior judges steadily through the next
decade.
The judiciary has been more than patient, as this project has
evolved. We have been working under very difficult circumstances,
managing an ever-increasing caseload in extremely overcrowded and
dangerous conditions. Brooklyn is the only place in the country where
the Judicial Conference of the United States has declared a judicial
space emergency. The means of ending the inconvenience to the public
and litigants and to permit the efficient operation of the court is
within our grasp. The logical solution is to proceed now with building
out the eight courtrooms and chambers which were planned for floors 9-
12 of the new annex and which are critically needed.
I strongly urge the subcommittee to act at this time to authorize
funding in fiscal year 2002 for the $26 million which GSA has indicated
would be needed to complete construction of all eight courtrooms and
eight chambers this year. On behalf of the court, I appreciate your
interest and will be happy to answer any questions about the serious
housing situation in Brooklyn that the subcommittee might have.
__________
Statement of Thurman Davis, Sr., Acting Administrator,
General Services Administration
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name
is Thurman Davis and I am the Acting Administrator, U.S. General
Services Administration (GSA). I am accompanied by William Jenkins,
Acting Deputy Administrator for the Public Buildings Service of GSA. I
am pleased to appear before you today to provide information on the
President's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Federal Buildings
program.
The Public Buildings Service manages space in approximately 8,300
buildings. Over 1,800 are Government-owned and 6,500 are leased from
the private sector. More than 400 of the Government's properties have
historic significance based on their age, building type, architectural
style, or involvement in culturally significant events. PBS customers
include all Federal departments, independent agencies and commissions,
the Judiciary, and Members of Congress.
Our Capital Investment and Leasing Program plays a key role in
providing the necessary resources to maintain current real property
assets and acquire new or replacement assets. The capital program
supports several portfolio objectives:
<bullet> Maximizing Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) income;
<bullet> Minimizing the drain of unproductive assets;
<bullet> Preserving the historical and cultural assets placed in
GSA's trust; and
<bullet> Managing other diverse responsibilities integral to the
management of the Nation's largest real estate portfolio.
All proposed projects are evaluated in the context of the entire
national portfolio. We consider three options when evaluating our
client Agency requirements. These include the construction and
acquisition of new facilities, repair and alteration of existing
facilities, or leasing space from the private sector.
repair and alteration
Our first capital program priority is the repair and alteration of
our existing inventory to ensure that its value and condition does not
decline. More than 43 percent of our owned buildings are over 50 years
old and 51 percent are between the ages of 21 to 50 years old.
We are requesting a Repairs and Alterations program of $826.7
million for an increased emphasis on the overall maintenance and
viability of our assets. The highlights of GSA's Fiscal Year 2002
Program include:
<bullet> $370,000,000 for the Basic Program;
<bullet> $400,781,000 for the construction phase of the
Modernization/Alterations Program;
<bullet> $6,650,000 for Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
Modernization; and
<bullet> $15,588,000 for the Removal of PCB.
The facilities under PBS's stewardship have a functional
replacement value of $33 billion, and the repair and upgrade of these
facilities is our top priority.
To allocate the limited resources of the Federal Buildings Fund for
Repairs and Alterations projects, we evaluate and rank our proposals
based on the following criteria: (1) Economic Justification, (2)
Project Timing and Execution, (3) Physical Urgency, (4) Client/Agency
Needs and (5) Historical Significance. PBS applies these criteria
while:
<bullet> Protecting the safety and health of tenants in owned and
leased assets;
<bullet> Altering vacant space in owned assets to relocate client
agencies from leased space into Government-owned space when available;
and
<bullet> Completing planned phased modernization projects (follow-
on phases of multi-phased projects).
When evaluating repair and alteration projects, we also closely
examine proposed project scopes to ensure that they meet client Agency
requirements and facility needs. We work to determine if any possible
changes in project scope can be made to realize cost savings, without
jeopardizing the project's goals. Refining project scopes may free up
additional funding for more projects.
By applying these criteria to our decisionmaking process, we
prioritize our major repair and alteration projects and ensure that the
most important ones in our national portfolio are funded.
new construction
We are requesting a Construction and Acquisition of Facilities
program of $663 million. The highlights of GSA's Fiscal Year 2002
Program include:
<bullet> $216,803,000 for 12 Federal Judiciary projects;
<bullet> $276,400,000 advance appropriation approved in the fiscal
year 2001 Appropriation Act for four Federal Judiciary projects;
<bullet> $17,339,000 for design and construction of six border
stations;
<bullet> $9,060,000 for the design of the FDA Consolidation,
Montgomery County, Maryland;
<bullet> $5,000,000 for the Southeast Federal Center remediation
site in Washington, DC;
<bullet> $6,268,000 for the site and design of a Federal Bureau of
Investigation in Houston, TX;
<bullet> $34,083,000 for the construction of a National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration II facility in Suitland, MD;
<bullet> $4,617,000 for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations;
<bullet> $2,813,000 for the U.S. Census Bureau in Suitland, MD;
<bullet> $5,900,000 for non-prospectus construction projects; and
<bullet> $84,406,000 for repayment to the Judgement Fund.
We recommend new construction where it will meet the new housing
needs of a specific Federal Agency or to consolidate several dispersed
agencies with economically feasible long-term needs in a given
locality. PBS traditionally pursues a construction and ownership
solution for special purpose and unique facilities (such as border
stations and courthouses) which are not readily available in the real
estate market. Our construction request includes funding for site
acquisition, design construction and management and inspection cost of
Federal facilities.
That concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and I will be
pleased to answer any questions.
______
Response by Thurman Davis to an Additional Question from Senator Warner
Question. In November 1997, with close consultation with the
Department and GSA, this committee authorized GSA to acquire new space
for the Department of Transportation headquarters.
At that time, the committee was advised that the resolution
provided the executive branch all of the authority needed to accomplish
this goal.
Given that the Department has been in a hold over lease status
since before 1997--paying premium rental rates for a substandard
facility--we have been anxious for this important project to move
forward.
We have wait patiently as GSA and DOT went through the procurement
process, and as was recently announced in the press, a winner has been
selected. Yet, I would like to ask why no official announcement has
been made by GSA or the Department?
It appears that once again, no progress is being made.
Can you advise the committee about the status of this procurement,
and when a selection will be publicly announced?
Also, I would be interested in knowing if the Department's General
Counsel has expressed any concern about the Government's exposure to
litigation? The apparently successful offeror, having been identified
in the press, might have some reason to enforce his claim.
Response. In July 1997, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure passed a Committee Resolution providing GSA with
authority (in the absence of funding for Federal construction) to enter
into an operating lease for a headquarters building for the Department
of Transportation (DOT). In November 1997, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works also passed a Committee Resolution
authorizing GSA's procurement of a DOT Headquarters lease. Congress
then fully authorized and directed GSA to enter into an operating lease
by statute. The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-505).
GSA issued the Solicitation for Offers (SFO) for the DOT
Headquarters lease procurement in November 1999. Phase I proposals were
received in December 1999.
Five finalists were identified to compete in Phase II of the
procurement in March 2000, and their initial Phase II proposals were
received in June 2000. Following extensive discussions with the
offerors and requests for revised proposals, GSA began reviewing the
budget scoring analyses based on the final proposals as evaluated with
OMB in October 2000. This process is ongoing.
It is important to note that while information regarding this
procurement has been widely reported in the press, including reports of
the purported winner, this information is entirely speculative and
premature. In fact, the procurement remains open and ongoing pending
resolution of scoring issues with OMB and GSA's publication of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement. We hope to reach resolution with
OMB on these issues in the near future. With respect to DOT's current
housing arrangements, the Agency is presently housed predominantly in
two leased facilities, the Nassif Building and the Transpoint Building.
GSA's lease for DOT at the Transpoint Building does not expire until
May 2003. With respect to the Nassif Building, GSA's lease expired in
March 2000. Since that time, a series of stand still agreements have
been executed with the building's landlord to provide the Government
with the legal right to continue to occupy that space. Under these
agreements, GSA continues to pay the landlord at the rental rate in
effect as of the lease expiration date. GSA is actively seeking to
negotiate an extension to the lease consistent with the Committee
Resolutions recently passed authorizing GSA's execution of an interim
lease for DOT. The incumbent landlord of the Nassif Building recently
withdrew from the procurement, opting instead to seek a 10-year lease
extension. However, its interim lease proposal is longer and more
expensive than authorized by the Committee Resolutions.
Finally, protests and lawsuits by competitors in any action of this
size and scope are a concern and certainly, the longer the process
takes, the greater the risk to the Government that such a protest or
lawsuit will be filed. Throughout this procurement, we have consulted
with our Office of General Counsel to ensure our actions are reasonable
and in accord with applicable laws and regulations. We are confident
that we have conducted a proper procurement to date and, intend to
continue doing so.
______
Responses by Thurman Davis to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Could you provide my office with more figures on the
work being proposed on the Muskogee, OK Courthouse? Your request for
$8,214,000 sounds a bit high to me. I cannot fathom how one could spend
that much money in Muskogee on an existing building. However, I
understand that the alterations may be rather extensive and I would
like to get more specific information on costs.
Response. The renovation of the 123,510 gross square foot Muskogee,
OK Courthouse includes the following:
<bullet> a complete upgrade/replacement of the mechanical, plumbing
and electrical systems;
<bullet> installation of a building-wide fire alarm and sprinkler
system;
<bullet> removal of lead based paint and asbestos;
<bullet> renovation of restrooms to comply with ADA requirements
and;
<bullet> renovation to the interior finishes primarily on floors
two through four.
This project reflects an extensive renovation and replacement of
the operating systems of a 1915 courthouse. The project is further
complicated by the fact that the building contains two District and one
Magistrate courtrooms that must remain in operation during the
renovation process.
Question 2a. There is a prospectus in the fiscal year 2002 GSA
Capital Investment Program requesting design funds for a 771,265 square
foot facility for the Bureau of the Census to be built at the Suitland
Federal Center. This includes reprogramming of design funds approved
last year for the renovation of Building No. 3, the current
headquarters of Census. This renovation will take place later, and
perhaps too late for its use by 2010, the next decennial.
Since GSA is asking for reprogramming of design funds for the
renovation of building No. 3, just what does GSA propose to do with
this building? Is the building really worth renovating?
Response. GSA does not intend to renovate FOB 3 as part of a plan
to provide long-term housing for Census, because financial analysis
shows that the total cost to the Government is less under a scenario of
all new construction. This scenario also meets the mission needs of
Census more appropriately and allows employees to vacate
environmentally contaminated areas more quickly. (New construction
accelerates occupancy by as much as 3 years.) Thus, GSA has requested
that the previously appropriated $5.2M design funds be reprogrammed to
allow use for design of new construction.
The all-new construction alternative proposes the construction of
two new buildings totaling 1.5 million gross square feet and 3,100
structured parking spaces on the Suitland Campus. The total development
cost for both buildings is approximately $340 million, $9 million more
than the combination (new construction/renovation) alternative.
However, once swing space and move costs are taken into consideration,
the all-new construction scenario is the most cost effective by
approximately $40 million.
GSA currently proposes the construction of two new buildings and
associated parking to house Census at the Suitland Federal Center. This
proposal modifies the request included in the fiscal year 2002
prospectus for $8,013,000 in authority to design one new building as
the first phase of the Census project. GSA has provided committee staff
with a change sheet indicating that $8,187,000 in additional design
authority is now required. The Department of Commerce will provide the
additional funds required for design.
Any future plan to renovate FOB 3 will depend on the identification
of suitable tenants and the analysis of the costs of redevelopment for
their occupancy.
Question 2b. What other Agency will be housed in this building?
Response. The future use of FOB 3 and the identification of
potential occupants depend on how the two new buildings now proposed to
accommodate Census are located on the Suitland Federal Center site.
From a master plan perspective, if two new buildings are constructed
proximate to FOB 3, traffic management issues may preclude certain
future uses of the building with implications for proposed tenancy.
Further analysis is needed to determine the most appropriate future use
of this building, and may evaluate adaptive re-use of historic elements
of the building in lieu of a complete renovation.
Question 2c. Are you contemplating an infill project to expand the
size of building No. 3?
Response. Complete renovation of FOB 3 is a sound investment only
if you include an infill project. The infill increases gross square
feet only 20 percent, yet increases rentable square feet almost 50
percent due to a new, efficient layout. Since renovation of FOB 3 is
not now being proposed to meet the phase 2 requirements of Census, any
future infill proposal would have to be evaluated in relation to
alternative tenancy and the overall development potential of the
Suitland campus.
Question 2d. If GSA proposes to renovate this structure for Census
after occupancy of the new building, what is the timeframe for design
and construction of renovations to Building No. 3?
Response. GSA does not intend to renovate FOB 3 as part of a plan
to provide long-term housing for Census. GSA now proposes to construct
two new buildings in proximity to FOB 3 to accommodate the total Census
housing requirement on the Suitland Campus. This proximity will
generate traffic management issues that may preclude renovation of the
building for certain uses. Further analysis and discussion will be
necessary to determine the most appropriate use of the building,
including suitable adaptive re-use of its historic elements.
Question 2e. Where is this renovation project on the priority list
for funding in the out years?
Response. GSA does not plan to propose the renovation of FOB 3 as
phase 2 of the project to meet the requirements of Census. The analysis
of alternative uses of the building will determine the scope, cost, and
priority of any future year funding request.
Question 2f. Has GSA considered other options, such as building two
buildings for Census, or building a larger facility to accommodate all
of Census employees, in time for the next census.
Response. GSA has considered different options to provide a more
suitable housing solution for Census. Analysis has shown that
construction of two new buildings is the Government's overall least
expensive solution. If construction of the two buildings were to begin
in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004, this scenario would allow
occupancy in December 2006. Census has stated that this would meet
their decennial census requirements. To construct one large facility
does not significantly impact timing or cost, though it would require
all funding up front. One large building also results in a structure
well beyond the current scale of existing Suitland structures, both on
campus and off.
Question 3a. The Administration is requesting over $84 million in
funding for the Judgment Fund Repayment. What is this fund and what
kinds of activities are funded by this fund?
Response. The Judgment Fund is administered by the Financial
Management Service of the Department of the Treasury. In 1956, Congress
enacted a permanent, indefinite appropriation (The Judgment Fund) for
the payment of final judgments which were ``not otherwise provided
for'' (31 U.S.C. Sec. 1304(a)). The Judgment Fund is available for most
court judgments and Justice Department compromise settlements of actual
or imminent lawsuits against the Government. Over the years, Congress
added several administrative claim awards such as judgments from Agency
boards of contract appeals under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. The
Act provides, in pertinent part, that.
a. Judgments.--Any judgment against the United States on a claim
under this chapter shall be paid promptly in accordance with the
procedures provided by section 1304 of Title 31.
b. Monetary Awards.--Any monetary award to a contractor by an
Agency board of contract appeals shall be paid promptly in accordance
with the procedures contained in subsection (a) of this section.
c. Reimbursement.--Payments made pursuant to subsections (a) and
(b) of this section shall be reimbursed to the Judgment Fund provided
by section 1304 of Title 31 by the Agency whose appropriations were
used for the contract, out of available funds or by obtaining
additional appropriations for such purposes.
41 U.S.C. Sec. 612. The request for $84.4 million represents
reimbursements that are due to the Judgement Fund for fiscal years
1997-2000.
Question 3b. If these funds are being used for cost overruns for
courthouse construction projects, what details can you provide?
Response. The funds are for the payment of final judgments, Justice
Department compromise settlements, and administrative claim awards.
Interest and attorney's fees may be included as well as considerations
of the risk and cost to the Government of trial. Claims may arise from
causes such as design deficiencies, differing site conditions, and
government caused delays that increased contractor costs.
Question 3c. Are these cost overruns a result of decisions by the
Judiciary, or are they a result of inflation in the construction
industry?
Response. Some may be a result of changes requested by the
Judiciary for changed requirements. Some are a result of unforeseen or
changed conditions discovered during construction. They are not a
result of inflation in the construction industry. Inflationary
pressures are more acute during the construction contract procurement
process (bidding). However, the contracts cannot be awarded without
sufficient funds. Therefore, this does not contribute to claims.
Question 3d. Please provide a list of each project, the original
construction and total cost estimate, and the overruns that each
project has experienced.
Response. The original estimated construction cost (ECC) and total
estimated project cost (TEPC), and the current ECC and TEPC including
the claims for fiscal years 1997-2000 are as follows:
[In Millions of Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Orig ECC Orig TEPC Curr ECC Curr TEPC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA, Boston, John Joseph Moakley U.S. $167,180,070 $222,820,000 $165,382,945 $235,044,000
Courthouse.........................
NY, New York, Joseph Addabbo Federal 83,301,000 92,765,000 113,661,753 126,089,341
Building...........................
NY, White Plains, U.S. Courthouse... 23,105,000 29,768,000 29,505,667 36,223,616
NJ, Newark, M.L. King, Jr. Federal 57,836,000 70,436,000 56,199,798 70,327,504
Building...........................
NJ, Trenton, Clarkson S. Fisher 25,939,000 30,143,000 43,027,298 43,527,298
Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse.........................
FL, Tampa, Sam M. Gibbons U.S. 68,058,000 84,564,000 61,956,840 78,462,840
Courthouse.........................
MN, Minneapolis, U.S. Courthouse.... 87,772,000 91,333,000 94,035,575 99,399,871
MO, Kansas City, Charles E. 96,755,000 112,181,000 104,261,000 119,717,000
Whittaker Federal Courthouse.......
CA, Los Angeles, Edward R. Roybal 137,198,000 150,046,000 161,201,860 180,413,111
Center and Federal Building........
OR, Portland, Mark O. Hatfield U.S. 115,483,000 133,810,000 116,856,400 136,708,400
Courthouse.........................
DC, Washington, FBI Field Office.... 57,690,000 102,111,000 65,216,192 100,788,929
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4. Last year only four courthouse projects were funded,
(Los Angeles, CA; Biloxi-Gulfport, MS; Richmond, VA; and Seattle, WA)
and four were ``Advanced funded'' (District of Columbia, Miami, FL;
Springfield, MA; and Buffalo, NY). What is the status of the four
projects that were advanced funded for fiscal year 2002?
Response. Washington, DC.--The proposed increased cost for the
Washington, DC Courthouse Annex reflects 3 percent escalation resulting
from the 1-year delay in receiving authorization necessary to award a
construction contract. A small additional contingency cost was also
included due to the very active construction market and the difficulty
GSA is now experiencing in awarding construction contracts of this
size. The design of the project is nearing completion and the
construction contract is scheduled for award in the second quarter of
2002.
Miami, FL.--In the 106th Congress, the Senate authorized the Miami
project with a level of funding appropriate for construction of 16
courtrooms in 2001. The House proposed a level of funding appropriate
for construction of 12 courtrooms in the Miami courthouse in compliance
with the U.S. Courts Design Guide, with no departures from the Design
Guide's provisions. Most of the projects approved by Congress for the
fiscal year 2001 courthouse construction program did not depart from
the Design Guide's provisions. A letter from the Florida congressional
delegation requested that the House authorize the full 16 courtroom
courthouse. A more recent letter, dated May 23, 2001, from the Chief
Judge of the Southern District of Florida to the chairman, subcommittee
chairman and ranking members of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure requested that the committee authorize a courthouse with
14 courtrooms and room to expand to a total of 16 courtrooms in future.
House authorization for a project that meets this request is currently
pending.
GSA did not request additional funds for the Miami courthouse
project in 2002 because we determined that a 12 courtroom courthouse
could be built within the $121,900,000 in the fiscal year 2002 advance
appropriation. If the number of courtrooms increases beyond 12,
additional funding will be required to offset the inflation escalation
and additional contingency requirements in Miami.
Springfield, MA.--Site acquisition is planned by September 2001.
Design completion is scheduled for May 2002. A site preparation and
excavation contract is planned for award in January 2002, with the core
& shell contract to be awarded in September 2002.
Buffalo, NY.--GSA initiated the site selection and the architect/
engineer (A/E) procurement in April 2001. Site acquisition and A/E
procurement will be completed when funds become available in fiscal
year 2002.
Question 5. What is the status of the Miami project? Will this
project be a 12, 14, or 16 courtroom project?
Response. In the 106th Congress, the Senate authorized the Miami
project with a level of funding appropriate for construction of 16
courtrooms in 2001. The House proposed a level of funding appropriate
for construction of 12 courtrooms in the Miami courthouse in compliance
with the U.S. Courts Design Guide, with no departures from the Design
Guide's provisions. Most of the projects approved by Congress for the
fiscal year 2001 courthouse construction program did not depart from
the Design Guide's provisions. A letter from the Florida congressional
delegation requested that the House authorize the full 16 courtroom
courthouse. A more recent letter, dated May 23, 2001, from the Chief
Judge of the Southern District of Florida to the chairman, subcommittee
chairman and ranking members of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure requested that the committee authorize a courthouse with
14 courtrooms and room to expand to a total of 16 courtrooms in future.
House authorization for a project that meets this request is currently
pending.
GSA did not request additional funds for the Miami courthouse
project in 2002 because we determined that a 12 courtroom courthouse
could be built within the $121,900,000 in the fiscal year 2002 advance
appropriation. If the number of courtrooms increases beyond 12,
additional funding will be required to offset the inflation escalation
and additional contingency requirements in Miami.
Question 6. What is the status of the Orlando, FL courthouse
project? How far along is the design of this project?
Response. In March 2001, GSA, along with representatives from the
judiciary, met with Congressmen Young and Istook to discuss this
project. The present design meets or exceeds all of the court's
requirements for safety and acoustics while also meeting established
requirements for energy efficiency. However, during that meeting it
became apparent that the court's needs changed since the design began
with regard to the number and shape of the courtrooms. While the court
has yet to confirm the number of each courtroom type (district,
magistrate, or bankruptcy) and the shape desired for these courtrooms,
GSA asked the design team to proceed with developing a revised plan for
the building. This revised plan will be based on the court's (recently
revised) projected number of courtrooms and limited information GSA
received from the courts concerning the shape of each courtroom type.
These revisions will not include dramatic changes to the building's
exterior.
The Design Development Phase of this project was approximately 50
percent complete when Congress and the court asked GSA to revise the
design to reflect new requirements. The design team is investigating
revisions to the design that will meet the court's needs. When this is
completed the design can again move forward.
Question 7. There are six projects on the Judiciary's priority list
for fiscal year 2001 that did not receive funding in fiscal year 2002
in accordance with the funding plan. (Miami, FL; Salt Lake City, UT;
Rockfort, IL; Cedar Rapids, IA; Nashville, TN.; and Savannah, GA.) What
is the status of each project?
Response. Miami, FL.--In the 106th Congress, the Senate authorized
the Miami project with a level of funding appropriate for construction
of 16 courtrooms in 2001. The House proposed a level of funding
appropriate for construction of 12 courtrooms in the Miami courthouse
in compliance with the U.S. Courts Design Guide, with no departures
from the Design Guide's provisions. Most of the projects approved by
Congress for the fiscal year 2001 courthouse construction program did
not depart from the Design Guide's provisions. A letter from the
Florida congressional delegation requested that the House authorize the
full 16 courtroom courthouse. A more recent letter, dated May 23, 2001,
from the Chief Judge of the Southern District of Florida to the
chairman, subcommittee chairman and ranking members of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure requested that the committee
authorize a courthouse with 14 courtrooms and room to expand to a total
of 16 courtrooms in future. House authorization for a project that
meets this request is currently pending.
The District Court for the Southern District of Florida is
currently evaluating its housing options for Miami to determine the
total number of courtrooms required there. GSA did not request
additional funds for the Miami courthouse project in 2002 because we
determined that a 12 courtroom courthouse could be built within the
$121,900,000 in the fiscal year 2002 advance appropriation. If the
number of courtrooms increases beyond 12, additional funding will be
required to offset the inflation escalation and additional contingency
requirements in Miami.
Salt Lake City, UT.--In 1997, $11,474,000 was appropriated for
construction of an annex to the existing Moss Courthouse. The annex
site contained historical structures (Odd Fellows Building and other
historic structures). There was heavy opposition from the City, the
historic preservation community, and the community at large due to
adverse impacts on the historical structures and the City redevelopment
plans. A second site across the street from the existing courthouse was
identified for a stand-alone courthouse. After initial support from the
City there were objections to building on the site from the City as
well as business organizations and Senator Bennett. The landowner was
also an unwilling seller.
Currently, the District Court for the District of Utah, Senator
Bennett, the city of Salt Lake and the historic preservation community
are in discussions regarding the site location for the proposed
project. GSA intends to submit a construction prospectus for funding in
fiscal year 2003.
Rockford, IL.--Following discussions with the Judiciary, the
requirements phase of the project has been completed. Based on the
Judiciary's prioritized funding plan for fiscal year 2002, the project
could not be funded with the level of funding available.
Cedar Rapids, IA.--Following discussions with the Judiciary, the
requirements phase of the project has been completed. Based on the
Judiciary's prioritized funding plan for fiscal year 2002, the project
could not be funded with the level of funding available.
Nashville, TN.--Following discussions with the Judiciary, the
requirements phase of the project has been completed. Based on the
Judiciary's prioritized funding plan for fiscal year 2002, the project
could not be funded with the level of funding available.
Savannah, GA.--The project is on hold pending resolution of
questions on the number of district courtrooms to be provided in the
existing historic courthouse and the new annex. The House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has not authorized the
project's construction citing the increased estimated project cost, and
construction funding has not been appropriated.
______
Responses by Thurman Davis to Additional Questions from Senator Clinton
Question 1a. I am very interested in the proposals included in the
President's budget request for two projects in Brooklyn, New York. (1)
a project in the building now under construction, and (2) a project to
renovate the existing building. These projects are needed to alleviate
a Judicial Space Emergency declared by the Judicial Conference in 1989.
It is my understanding that the plans for the new annex indicate
that only 12 district judge courtrooms and chambers and four magistrate
judge courtrooms and chambers will be built out at occupancy, resulting
in a total of 16 courtrooms and chambers. It is also my understanding
that funds have been included in the President's budget request to
provide for the build-out of three additional magistrate judge chambers
in this new building, that the court in Brooklyn does not find this
proposal acceptable, and that this request is being made without prior
consultation with the court.
The court believes instead that eight additional courtrooms and
chambers must be constructed, not just three chambers, for a total of
24 courtrooms and chambers. The court further believes that the new
building will not be capable of housing all the judges currently on
board, or that are reasonably expected to be on board, by the occupancy
date in 2003 if the Administration chooses not to build out the
additional eight courtrooms and chambers now.
Response. The construction prospectus, approved by Congress in
1996, describes the courts space needs in Brooklyn. The prospectus
called for a 10-year requirement for 17 courtrooms for 17 district
judges and 8 courtrooms for 8 senior district judges, for a total of 25
courtrooms in the new annex. In addition, the prospectus called for the
re-use of 10 courtrooms and an unassigned ceremonial courtroom for 10
magistrate judges, for a total of 11 courtrooms in the existing Celler
building. Overall, 25 courtrooms would be provided in the new annex and
11 would be provided in the existing Celler building, for a total of 36
courtrooms for 35 judges. The prospectus defined the 10-year
projections as the total space requirement 10 years from occupancy. At
the time the prospectus was approved, the date of occupancy was
projected to be fiscal year 2000.
The Courtroom Utilization Study, dated March 9, 2001, provided by
the judiciary, quantified the dramatic reduction in the requirements
for the Brooklyn project on which the current build-out is based. The
March 9, 2001, study projects 12 district judges, 7 senior district
judges (3 of which will exceed the 10-year eligibility for a courtroom
under the U.S. Courts Design Guide), and 9 magistrate judges, for a
total of 28 judges. The new annex construction includes build-out of 12
district judge courtrooms and chambers and 5 magistrate judge
courtrooms and chambers, for a total of 17 courtrooms and chambers. The
existing Celler building will contain 11 existing courtrooms upon
completion of the renovation project.
The courtroom eligibility model contained within the U.S. Courts
Design Guide assumes that Senior Judges will require a courtroom for 10
years after they become Senior Judges. The three Senior Judges
indicated above will not be eligible for a courtroom upon completion of
the Annex construction project. Therefore, 25 of the Judges will be
eligible for courtrooms in the 10-year period. There will be a total of
28 courtrooms, 17 in the new annex and 11 in the existing building when
construction is complete. During the phased renovation of the Celler
building, a minimum of two floors of courtrooms, or seven to eight
courtrooms, will remain available at any given time. Therefore, a total
of 24 or 25 courtrooms will be available for use during the entire
renovation period.
Question 1b. Can you please explain why the GSA budget
justification states that 21 courtrooms and chambers will be provided
in the new annex, rather than the 16 courtrooms and chambers that are
now under construction? Can you also please explain why the GSA budget
justification states that 21 courtrooms and chambers will be provided
in the new annex when there is a capacity in the building to construct
24 courtrooms and chambers?
It is my understanding that GSA's budget justification states that
the courthouse will meet the 10-year space requirements of the court
and that the site will accommodate the 30-year expansion requirements
of the court. Can you please explain how the current construction plan
meets these requirements? Can you please explain GSA's plans to address
the needs of the court after 2011, after which time it is believed that
the entire Brooklyn court complex will be fully occupied?
I understand that the capacity to build four courtrooms and
chambers for district judges and four courtrooms and chambers for
magistrate judges is available on floors 9-12 of the building now under
construction. Given the fact that it has taken almost 20 years to plan,
design, and construct a new building in Brooklyn and the complex nature
of this project, it seems that it would make good sense from a cost-
effectiveness and operational perspective to build out all of the
available courtrooms now, so that GSA will not have to come back to
this committee for authorization of courtrooms and chambers in the new
building in the future.
Response. GSA budget justification statement regarding 21
courtrooms was in error. It should have read. ``The new Annex will
provide 17 courtrooms and chambers.''
There is a requirement for 25 courtrooms within 10 years. The
capacity for 8 additional courtrooms in the new courthouse represents
built-in 30-year expansion capability. The construction prospectus
states that the balance of the District Court's 30-year requirements
can be accommodated by relocating executive and courts-related agencies
into leased space to provide additional space for the district court as
needed. This method of temporarily moving other tenants into the
courthouse is commonly used to provide expansion capability within
courthouses for the long-term needs of the judiciary. The other tenants
act as ``place-holders'' for future courtroom and chambers space,
allowing the judiciary to temporarily offset rent payments to GSA until
such time as the courtrooms and chambers are required.
Question 1c. Can you please provide information on the proposal
that GSA made to the Office of Management and Budget during this budget
cycle concerning the build-out of the eight courtrooms and chambers?
What is the estimated cost of the eight courtrooms and chambers based
on: (1) an open market government estimate, and (2) a bid from the
contractor now building the new courthouse? How much will these
estimates increase each year that construction of the courtrooms and
chambers on floors 9-12 is delayed?
Response. GSA had discussions with OMB regarding the construction
projects in Brooklyn leading up to the formulation of the
Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget request. The purpose of these
discussions was to determine the most appropriate method of
accomplishing the renovation of the Celler building following
completion of the annex project. The Administration concluded that the
judiciary space needs could be met without constructing additional
courtrooms at this time by utilizing a phased construction approach.
The estimated cost to build eight courtrooms and chambers is
$26,000,000. This estimate was provided by a contracted construction
management firm assisting GSA with the oversight of the project, and is
based on the open market estimate for New York City in 2003 dollars.
GSA uses an annual rate of 3.2 percent for escalation of construction
cost for future projects. We assume that the cost of the courtroom
build-out will escalate at approximately that rate if the construction
is put off to a future year.
Question 1d. The district court project in Brooklyn also
contemplates renovation of the existing courthouse, which has 10
courtrooms and chambers in addition to some makeshift space for
magistrate judges. I understand that on April 17, 2000, the court
stated it would not agree to a renovation while the building is
occupied. Instead, the court believes the building should be completely
vacated so that the renovation can be completed without exposing the
public to asbestos, other hazardous materials such as PCBs, and the
noise and other disruption associated with renovating a 40-year-old
building.
Is it true that GSA relocates Federal agencies during the period
that major renovations are taking place in other projects throughout
the country? If so, in the case of Brooklyn, will GSA ensure that the
court can be accommodated in the new building during the renovations of
the existing Celler building in order to ensure there are no
disruptions to court operations and that the public and court employees
are not unnecessarily exposed to hazardous materials during the
renovations?
Response. The judiciary is a particularly challenging client to
relocate temporarily because of its unique and expensive space
requirements; therefore, GSA intends to renovate the Celler Building in
phases. While it is clearly more convenient to renovate space in
unoccupied buildings, GSA has extensive experience with the renovation
of partially and, in some cases, fully occupied buildings. For example,
the Department of Justice main headquarters building in Washington, DC,
is in phase two of a three-phase complete modernization. In each phase,
one-third of the building is being renovated while the other two-thirds
is occupied. Similarly, in Brooklyn, by vacating two or more floors,
GSA can mitigate the concerns of noise and hazardous materials
exposures outlined in the question above. Excessively noisy work will
be performed during non-business hours, and floors under renovation
will be contained to prevent occupant and public exposure to hazardous
materials during the demolition phase of the renovations. During the
renovation, several floors of the Celler building will remain fully
functional and available for the court's use.
Question 1e. I understand that there is usually a premium cost
associated with renovating a building while it is occupied. Can you
please provide information on the difference in cost between renovating
the building when it is completely vacated versus completing the
project while the building is still occupied and in use? What premium
will the Government have to pay the contractor for renovating the
building if it were to be occupied by the courts during the renovation?
Response. There is a premium for performing work in an occupied
building; however, this cost is mitigated by the costs associated with
providing interim space for the court's needs. The proposed Celler
building renovation has an estimated construction cost (ECC) of
approximately $43 million. The GSA could save approximately $9 million
if the building was vacated prior to construction start. The $9 million
increase consists of a need to do a percentage of the renovation work
during off-hours, additional escalation of the project due to a longer
construction schedule, and multiple tenant moves associated with
swinging into and out of interim space while construction takes place.
This $9 million is more than offset by the $26 million required to
build-out the additional courtrooms and chambers in the new annex.
Therefore GSA has proposed that renovations take place while the Celler
building is partially occupied.
______
Responses by Thurman Davis to Additional Questions from Senator Reid
Question 1. Please detail for me the progress that GSA has made in
implementing Executive Order 13123. How much funding has GSA requested
in fiscal year 2002 to implement energy efficiency initiatives that
will help to ensure compliance with Executive Order 13123? What
specific actions does GSA plan to take in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal
year 2002 to improve the long-term energy efficiency of Federal
buildings?
Response. Pursuant to Executive Order 13123, GSA completes an
Annual Energy Scorecard identifying its actions to implement the
Executive order (Attachment 1). According to a recent DOE evaluation of
our scorecard, GSA is in full compliance with the Executive order
(Attachment 2).
There are no specific items in the fiscal year 2002 budget,
however, all energy related projects in the prospectus and non-
prospectus program will be carried out consistently with the Executive
order. GSA developed and submitted to the Department of Energy a fiscal
year 2001 implementation plan to implement Executive Order 13123
(Attachment 3).
Question 2. President Carter and President Clinton have both signed
Executive orders requiring the General Services Administration to look
first at downtown locations when considering where to locate Federal
facilities. However, despite these Executive orders, there seems to be
a growing tend toward Federal agencies leaving downtowns and locating
in new suburban developments.
We are facing numerous land and traffic problems resulting from
suburban sprawl. These Executive orders were meant to promote smart
growth and downtown redevelopment. I would like to know how successful
GSA has been at implementing these orders and accomplishing the goal of
keeping Federal agencies from relocating out of urban areas and into
the suburbs. Please provide specific information that shows GSA
compliance with the Executive order and justification for any cases
wherein GSA deviated from it.
Response. GSA, in coordination with the White House, in 1996
developed new implementing regulations (Interim Rule D-1, 41 CFR Part
101-17.205) for Executive Order 12072 concerning the location of
Federal facilities in urban areas. These new regulations require
Federal agencies to give first consideration to central business areas
when determining the delineated areas for their space requirements in
urban areas and to provide justification for any delineated area that
includes areas outside of central business areas. Furthermore, the
regulations require Federal agencies to communicate with local
officials regarding any action considering a delineated area outside
the central business area. GSA has successfully followed these
instructions by ensuring that: (1) Agency justifications are consistent
with the exceptions provided by the regulation and (2) that local
officials know about and are given the opportunity to provide
recommendations for and objections to any space action considering a
location outside central business areas. GSA is not aware of any
actions where it has deviated from the above mentioned regulations.
However, if you have questions or concerns regarding a specific space
action, please contact us.
Question 3. Please provide a copy of GSA's response to the recently
completed draft GAO report, ``Better Guidance and Monitoring Needed to
Assess Purchases of Environmentally Friendly Products.''
Response. A copy of GSA's comments to GAO Report, ``Better Guidance
and Monitoring Needed to Assess Purchases of Environmentally Friendly
Products'' is attached (Attachment 4).
Question 4. Please provide a quantitative and qualitative
description of the solid and hazardous waste disposed of annually from
GSA-owned or operated facilities, or where GSA has an agreement or
contract for waste management, including the method of its disposition,
i.e. storage, treatment, landfill, incineration, etc.
Response. GSA does not normally collect data on the total solid and
hazardous waste stream of all GSA-owned and operated buildings. Based
on GSA Recycling Program (GRP) data, provided by GSA's Regional
offices, the total solid waste stream for all GSA-owned and operated
buildings, excluding hazardous waste, was approximately 1,409,448 tons
in fiscal year 2000.
GSA does not receive any data for the solid waste stream removed
from delegated or leased buildings since the operation of these
buildings/locations are the responsibility of the delegated Agency or
the lessor. Should the committee wish us to request this data, we will
forward any further information to you upon its receipt.
Regarding the method of disposition of the solid waste, each
municipality has its own method for disposal of its solid waste, i.e.,
landfill, incineration, etc. The vendor contracted to remove the solid
waste from GSA's locations would dispose of it in accordance with each
local municipality's chosen method of disposal.
GSA has recycled approximately 43,411 tons of material from the
office waste stream nationwide in fiscal year 2000, representing
approximately 30.8 percent of the solid waste stream from those
locations. This figure represents the efforts of the GRP which
encompasses over 1,100 Federal office locations nationwide.
This material is sold to local recycling vendors and GSA receives
income from the sale of recycled materials as dictated by local current
market values. GSA received approximately $918,741, nationwide, from
the sale of this material in fiscal year 2000.
Finally, GSA generates hazardous waste occasionally during its
construction, repair, and other daily operations. Since this is not a
constant waste stream, GSA does not have an annual hazardous waste
total. Should the committee wish us to request this data from each of
our regional offices, we will provide this material to you upon its
receipt. When such material is generated, it is disposed of in
accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations.
Question 5. Please provide information on all GSA-owned, leased or
operated facilities' annual energy consumption, including motor fuel,
electricity, and natural gas, and the associated energy costs.
Response. Please see GSA's annual energy data report submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget in December 2000 (Attachment 5).
Question 6. Does GSA encourage distributed generation of
electricity from renewable energy sources at GSA-owned, leased or
operated facilities? If not, does GSA plan to develop this capability
or to incorporate such requirements into future new construction or
building retrofit specifications?
Response. Yes, GSA specifically encourages its 11 regional offices
to submit line item energy program funding projects that utilize
distributed generation technologies annually. Pending funding approval,
GSA will rank these projects according to life-cycle cost accounting
analyses and approve those which will significantly impact our Agency
energy reduction and/or improve our ability to compete for low cost
electricity in a deregulated electricity market.
<greek-d>