Senator Tom Carper
February 11, 2002
Committee on
Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on
Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Security
Federal Highway
Administration Budget
Opening Statement
I’d like to thank the chairman for holding this
important hearing today and for giving me the opportunity to make a statement
before his subcommittee on an issue that is important to all of our states.
When President Bush released his Fiscal Year
2003 budget one week ago today, the budget for the Federal Highway
Administration, particularly for the Federal-Aid Highway program, was one of
the more attention-grabbing pieces.
After three years in which states received more than $9 billion in aid
above the numbers projected in TEA-21, the program was cut by nearly $9
billion. As we all know, this cut came
as a result of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), which, for the first
time, was negative due to lower-than-expected revenue into the Highway Trust
Fund. This means that, under the
president’s budget, Delaware, for example, will experience a nearly $30 million
cut in federal highway aid in 2003, about 24 percent less than its 2002
allocation. Other states will see even
more dramatic cuts. At a time when the
economy is just beginning to recover from recession, when combined state budget
shortfalls are at $15 billion and many states are being forced to trim their
budgets or raise taxes, Congress should act to restore some of these cuts. That’s why I joined all of my colleagues on
the full committee in co-sponsoring S. 1917, the Highway Funding Restoration
Act, a bill that would raise federal highway aid next year to the 2003 level
called for in TEA-21.
In the coming year, I look forward to working
with my colleagues to fix RABA to ensure that, in the future, states are
provided with a steadier stream of highway funding. The Federal-Aid Highway program should not be as subject as it is
now to the ups and downs of the economy and the Highway Trust Fund should not
suffer from the nation’s increased reliance on alternative fuels. At the same time we are addressing these
issues, however, we must enhance the flexibility TEA-21 gave states in spending
their federal transportation dollars by allowing them the discretion to spend
at least a portion of their highway and transit funding on inter-city rail
projects. Just last month, in the first
hearing the full committee held on TEA-21 re-authorization, we heard from
representatives of the National Governors’ Association, the National
Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League
of Cities, all of whom expressed strong support for expanding the flexibility
built into TEA-21 to cover inter-city rail.
The mayors, in particular, released the results of a transportation
survey showing that increased funding for new inter-city rail projects was one
of their members’ top priorities. I was
pleased to hear several of my colleagues echoing the witnesses’ testimony that
day when they spoke about the desire among their constituents for passenger
rail service that can connect them to our growing national system. Allowing
states to spend at least a portion of their federal highway and transit dollars
on inter-city rail projects will significantly improve Amtrak’s ability to
build on its existing long distance routes and begin serving cities and towns
that currently have no passenger rail service at all.
In the last Congress, the full committee passed
S. 1144, a bipartisan bill that would have allowed the funds TEA-21 granted
states for the National Highway System, Surface Transportation and Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Programs to be spent on inter-city rail
projects. I hope to introduce similar
legislation shortly.
As I’m sure you all know, Amtrak President
George Warrington announced earlier this month that he would trim nearly 1,000
jobs and $300 million from Amtrak’s budget this year. He also announced that Amtrak will have to propose major route
reductions if it does not receive the necessary funding from Congress to pay its
operating and capital expenses. The
most likely candidates for route reductions are those routes outside the
Northeast Corridor that are not partially supported by states. In the coming year, I plan to work with my
colleagues to see that Amtrak is re-authorized, that its budget requests are
met and that a dedicated source of capital funding is created.
My bill will not solve Amtrak’s capital funding dilemma. What my bill will do is help states retain critical service by increasing the tools they have available to them to spend their highway and transit dollars more flexibly to retain critical service. Increased flexibility will not cost the federal government anything and will not require any state to fund inter-city rail projects if it does not want to do so. It will, however, give states the ability to give our constituents the transportation services they need. It is my hope, then, that, when the committee considers S. 1917, we can also act to give states the kind of flexibility our constituents and their governors, mayors and county administrators are asking for.