With my background as a local and state official, I bring a unique perspective to this issue. While environmental review is good public policy, I believe that there are more efficient ways to ensure adequate and timely delivery of construction projects, while still carefully assessing environmental concerns.
Congress recognized the frustration of the states and enacted planning and environmental provisions to initiate environmental streamlining and expedite project delivery. These programs are embodied in Sections 1308 and 1309 of TEA-21. Section 1308 calls for the integration of the Major Investment Study, which had been a separate requirement for major metropolitan projects, with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Section 1309 of TEA-2 1 calls for the establishment of a coordinated review process for the Department of Transportation to work with other federal agencies to ensure that transportation projects are advanced according to cooperatively determined time-frames. This is accomplished by using concurrent rather than sequential reviews, and allows states to include state-specific environmental reviews in the coordinated process.
Last year, I conducted two hearings as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure on streamlining and project delivery. During those hearings I stressed how important it is that the planning and environmental streamlining provisions of TEA-21 be implemented in a way that will streamline and expedite, not complicate, the process of delivering transportation projects. A year after these hearings and nearly two years after the passage of TEA-21, the Department of Transportation finally published its proposed planning and NEPA regulations on May 25, 2000. Frankly, I am very disappointed with how long it took to propose these rules, and I believe many of my colleagues feel the same way. More importantly, there is a lot of disappointment with the proposed rules in general.
I strongly believe these proposed regulations are inconsistent with TEA-2 1 and Congressional intent and do little, if anything, to streamline and expedite the ability of states to commence transportation projects. The proposed rules create new mandates and requirements, add new decision-makers to the process, and provide endless fodder for all kinds of lawsuits, especially with regard to environmental justice.
In Ohio, the process of highway construction has been dubbed: "So you Want a Highway? Here's the Eight Year Hitch." My hope has been that in the future we could say "So you Want a Highway? Here's the Five Year Hitch." I don't see that happening with the proposal we have before us. For that reason, I am willing to support a moratorium on the proposed regulations should any be attached to an Omnibus Appropriations bill this year.
I welcome each of the witnesses who have come to testify on the proposed regulations at this morning's hearing. I look forward to their testimony and answers to any questions that may follow.
Thank you.