NCSL represents the nation's 50 state legislatures, its territories and the District of Columbia. We consistently present to the U.S. Congress strongly held positions on the preservation of state authority, protection against unfunded federal mandates, promotion of fiscal integrity and development and maintenance of workable state-federal partnerships. During my testimony today, I will focus on the successes of TEA-21 and the concerns that legislators have as we look towards the coming fiscal years. As diverse as state legislators may be, NCSL's transportation policies represent unanimous consensus on issues that are the topic of today's hearing.
NCSL worked very hard with Congress last year for the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. In passing TEA-21, Congress proved that it believes in the economic importance of the nation's transportation system and that investment in that system is a good investment. Overall, the states are seeing increased funding, which translates into more investment in transportation. Thank you for that funding. It does make a difference. But it will only continue to make a difference if you don't retreat. Please continue to use transportation trust funds only for transportation projects. Protect the firewalls.
The spirit of TEA-21 is to give states additional flexibility and discretion and to simplify the transportation planning process, while maintaining the balance between the federal government and the states. The states unanimously support that vision. And we expect the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to implement that vision. For example, the environmental streamlining process was intended to reduce burdens on the states, without eliminating or compromising crucial environmental protections. States such as Kansas, Michigan, Idaho, Montana and Maryland are beginning to implement the environmental streamlining provisions in TEA-21, and we are optimistic that things will become easier and simpler. However, states such as these have not yet seen much difference in the process. Even though implementation is not yet complete, we are confident that the USDOT will resolve our doubts and show a desire to take actions in favor of less regulation. If this does not happen, we will have to ask Congress to take corrective measures to ensure the results that you originally intended.
In terms of flexibility, TEA-21 takes a giant step in the right direction. Increased state flexibility with funding from the core highway programs enables a state to use money in the most effective, most efficient way for the citizens of that state. State legislators from all over the country have said that they are already seeing more flexibility under TEA-21. However, there are areas that they would like to see increased flexibility, such as in Surface Transportation Program funds and National Highway System funds for public transit and passenger rail. Additionally, several states, including New Jersey, have concerns with the funding system for demonstration projects. While they are grateful for the authorization of such projects, they believe that the state needs to come up with too much funding early on. There is a specific federal payout over 6 years: 1st year 11%, then 15%, 18%, 18%, 19%, 19%. The problem is that the state has to find the funding upfront and seek reimbursement over 6 years. This makes it unlikely that the state will choose to implement this kind of project over others that provide more upfront funding.
We will look to you to further do away with unnecessary restrictions on how funding can be used to benefit system users. States are well aware that transportation is comprised of a variety of interconnected modes, providing a variety of transportation services. States continue to need flexibility to make federal programs suit their needs.
The states are pleased with the actions of the USDOT regarding the distribution of apportioned funds and trust that the discretionary funds will be distributed in a similar expedient and efficient manner. NCSL staff and members have had discussions with the USDOT staff responsible for several discretionary programs under TEA-21, including the Border Crossing and High Priority Corridor Program. Our discussions with those USDOT staff have made us confident that programs such as those will be administered quickly and efficiently, and it is our hope that other discretionary programs, including traffic safety grant programs will follow their lead and operate as efficiently.
States are encouraged by the innovative financing methods in TEA-21. Many states are utilizing their state infrastructure banks (SIBs) for leveraging funds. SIBs allow Missouri to continue using federal funds for assistance prior to issuing bonds for pre-construction costs and when assistance to projects whose costs are too small to justify a bond issue. Innovative financing methods like the SIBs and those authorized by the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act have the ability to assist states in significant ways. We encourage you to continue these programs, now and in future authorizations.
Most importantly, however, NCSL is concerned about the prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach Congress and the Administration have taken on issues in the area of traffic safety - more specifically, the open container rule and the repeat offender rule. It is important to note that NCSL and all the states are very much in favor of alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures. However, we believe it should continue to be within a state's authority to decide this issue, without the risk of a federally mandated penalty for the decision. States have been very aggressive in adopting drunk driving countermeasures. We oppose the provisions in TEA-21 and the subsequently issued rules that redirect a state's highway funding to an alternate category if the state fails to pass an open container law and also those that sanction the states for failure to pass a repeat offender law. Several states, including Ohio, Minnesota, Maryland and Montana have expressed doubts over the likelihood of legislatures passing such stringent laws and subsequently, the state's ability to enforce such laws, in light of the restrictive regulations issued by NHTSA. NCSL believes that a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best way to tackle the nation's drunk driving problem. Additionally, sanctioning the states for failure to pass a law is not the optimum way for the federal government to conduct matters with the states and a poor way to foster intergovernmental relations.
I represent a constituency that is reliant on efficient, accessible and safe travel for themselves and their goods. Congress has taken a step forward with the passage of TEA-21. This law has many encouraging programs and is finally starting to come close to the funding levels and flexibility necessary to rebuild and maintain our deteriorating infrastructure. The nation's state legislators ask you not to retreat. Keep your commitment to increased funding. Cut back on restrictions that prevent the states from administering safe and efficient roadways and travel. Work with us, not against us, to achieve the goals of a safe and efficient transportation system.