[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E90]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE PROCEDURES FOR ISTEA REAUTHORIZATION

______

HON. THOMAS E. PETRI

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Thursday, January 9, 1997

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Nick Rahall, the ranking
democratic member of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Bud
Shuster, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, and James Oberstar, the committee's ranking democratic
member, I would like to outline the subcommittee's procedure for
identifying items of concern to members as it takes up the
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 [ISTEA]. This legislation authorizes over $150 billion for our
nation's highway, transit, motor carrier, safety, and research programs
for 6 years and is due to expire on September 30, 1997.
The importance of the surface transportation system cannot be
overstated. There is ample evidence documenting the link between
careful infrastructure investment and increases in this nation's
productivity and economic prosperity. For instance, between 1980 and
1989, highway capital investments contributed almost 8 percent of
annual productivity growth. A recent study demonstrated that the costs
of highway investments are recouped through production cost savings to
the economy after only 4 years. Another study concluded that transit
saves at least $15 billion per year in congestion costs.
Despite the critical importance of our transportation systems to our
Nation's economic health, investment has fallen short of what is
needed. The Department of Transportation estimates that simply
maintaining the current conditions on our highway, bridge, and transit
systems will require investment of $57 billion per year from Federal,
State, and local governments, an increase of 41 percent over current
levels. To improve conditions to optimal levels would require doubling
our current investment to $80 billion per year. Meeting these needs
will require a variety of strategies, including better use of existing
systems, application of advanced technology, innovative financing, and
public-private partnerships. It is our goal to develop a bill that will
meet these needs and maintain this world class system.
Reauthorization is the top priority of the Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation. In the second session of the 104th Congress, the
subcommittee held a series of 12 ISTEA oversight hearings and received
testimony from 174 witnesses. The hearings gave many interested
Members, the administration and affected groups the opportunity to
testify and present their views. There was strong interest in these
hearings and they covered the programs which need to be reauthorized in
this coming bill. We would be happy to make copies of these hearing
transcripts available to any interested Members.
We anticipate that the bipartisan legislation we develop this year
will be based largely on the information obtained at last year's
extensive programmatic hearings. As we begin this process, we would
like to offer Members the opportunity to inform the subcommittee about
any policy initiatives or issues that Members want the subcommittee to
consider including or addressing in the reauthorization of ISTEA.
Members having such specific policy requests should inform the
subcommittee in writing no later than February 25, 1997.

Many Members have already contacted the subcommittee to inquire
about, or to request, specific funding for critical transportation
needs in their districts. With the convening of the new Congress, we
anticipate that these requests will continue. Therefore, if you are
intending to request funding for these projects, we will require that
the request include the information set forth below. Although the
subcommittee has not yet decided how such requests will be handled, the
information provided will allow the subcommittee to thoroughly evaluate
each request as we determine the appropriate action to take in this
regard. Any requests should be submitted no later than February 25,
1997. Such submissions should be in writing and must include responses
to each of the 14 evaluation criteria listed at the end of this
statement.
We will also be holding a series of subcommittee hearings in late
February and early March at which time Members and local officials will
have an opportunity to testify on behalf of those requests. While these
hearings are intended to give Members an opportunity to present
information about specific project needs, it is not necessary for
Members to testify.
We look forward to working with all Members of the House as we
prepare this important legislation which will set the course for our
Nation's surface transportation programs.

Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria, Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation

1. Name and Congressional District of the primary Member of
Congress sponsoring the project, as well as any other Members
supporting the project (each project must have a single
primary sponsoring Member).
2. Identify the State or other qualified recipient
responsible for carrying out the project.
3. Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid funds
(if a road or bridge project, please note whether it is on
the National Highway System)?
4. Describe the design, scope and objectives of the project
and whether it is part of a larger system of projects. In
doing so, identify the specific segment for which project
funding is being sought including terminus points.
5. What is the total project cost and proposed source of
funds (please identify the federal, state or local shares and
the extent, if any, of private sector financing or the use of
innovative financing) and of this amount, how much is
being requested for the specific project segment described
in item #4?
6. Of the amount requested, how much is expected to be
obligated over each of the next 5 years?
7. What is the proposed schedule and status of work on the
project?
8. Is the project included in the metropolitan and/or State
transportation improvement plan(s), or the State long-range
plan, and if so, is it scheduled for funding?
9. Is the project considered by State an/or regional
transportation officials as critical to their needs? Please
provide a letter of support from these officials, and if you
cannot, explain why not.
10. Does the project have national or regional
significance?
11. Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely
to encounter, any significant opposition or other obstacles
based on environmental or other types of concerns?
12. Describe the economic, energy efficiency,
environmental, congestion mitigation and safety benefits
associated with completion of the project.
13. Has the project received funding through the State's
federal aid highway apportionment, or in the case of a
transit project, through Federal Transit Administration
funding? If not, why not?
14. Is the authorization requested for the project an
increase to an amount previously authorized or appropriated
for it in federal statute (if so, please identify the
statute, the amount provided, and the amount obligated to
date), or would this be the first authorization for the
project in federal statute? If the authorization requested is
for a transit project, has it previously received
appropriations and/or received a Letter of Intent or has FTA
entered into a Full Funding Grant Agreement for the project?

____________________