This Committee has held two hearings on the subject of environmental streamlining since the passage of TEA 21 in 1998. I am pleased that we are meeting this time to finally discuss actual proposed regulations. However, I am less than pleased about what I see in these proposed regs.
I remember working with Senators Warner, Graham, Wyden and Chafee and with the House members to come to a compromise on environmental streamlining provisions included in TEA 21. Those provisions are now Sections 1308 and 1309.
I had heard from my Department of Transportation and from others about how cumbersome a process it is to come to completion on a highway project. Everyone who worked on TEA 21 both the House and Senate, wanted to include a direction to the USDOT to streamline the planning and project development processes for the states.
We were very clear-The environment and the environmental reviews should NOT get short shrift! But, we need to find a way to make it easier to get a project done, eliminate unnecessary delays, move faster and with as little paperwork as possible.
I cannot over-emphasize that the planning and environmental provisions of TEA-21 need to be implemented in a way that will streamline and expedite, not complicate, the process of delivering transportation projects.
That is why Congress directed the USDOT to include certain elements in their regulations on Environmental streamlining.
We included concepts to be incorporated in future regulations like concurrent environmental reviews by agencies and reasonable deadlines for the agencies to follow when completing their reviews.
Certainly we did not legislate an easy task to the USDOT . Trying to coordinate so many separate agencies is like trying to herd cats. The whole concept of environmental streamlining -- that is, to make the permit and approval process work more smoothly and effectively, while still ensuring protection of the environment -- is one of the more-difficult challenges of TEA-21.
So I waited for the rules to come out. And waited. And two years after the passage of TEA21 I receive these.
I have to tell you Mr. Chairman. I'm very disappointed. I believe these regulations hit very far from the mark.
I have identified several problems with these regulations and I will let Jim Currie of MDT go into more detail, but I would like to mention just a few things that I see as real problems.
First- the raising of the planning process participants to the roles of decision makers. These regs were supposed to help the State DOTS get their jobs done better and more efficiently. Its one thing to add more participants to the process. More involvement is a good thing.
But its another thing to give them the authority to make decisions about how the planning process will work . This decision maker role is currently held by State DOTs and MPOs for a reason.
Second, like the old commercial asked-Where's the Beef?" I want to know "Where's the streamlining?" The basic elements of streamlining-the herding of the cats, so to speak is the only thing NOT in the regs. What statute was the DOT looking at when these rules were drafted? Certainly not Sections 1308 and 1309 of TEA 21.
These regulations are supposed to answer questions-but what is contained in these documents raises even more questions than before because they are vague where they need to be precise.
These regs make it even harder, if not impossible to come to a decision. These regs include initiatives NOT outlined in sections 1308 and 1309 and in many areas serve only to strip States of their authority.
I would also like to mention that the Montana Department of Transportation filed comments or wrote letters at every possible opportunity for the public record. As I read these proposed regs, I see that MDT's comments were either never read by the USDOT or simply ignored. I would like to hear from DOT today how it considered the comments they received on the Options Paper.
Let me close by saying that I believe the proposed rules would add significant requirements and uncertainty to planning and environmental review for transportation projects. In practical terms, they would increase overhead and delay -- and delay usually means increased project costs. These proposed rules could make it difficult for States to deliver their programs. Contracts won't get let and jobs will be lost.
I know this is a tough task. TEA 21 DOT to streamline a process while ensuring that we maintain a thorough planning and environmental review process. Adding requirements to the process is contrary to the course charted by Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I would have like to have seen representation from more groups affected by these regulations--like the environmental community, the MPOs, the highway Community and local governments. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to hear from them soon.
Regardless, I am very much looking forward to hearing from the panelists about their views on these proposed regulations.