I think most of us on the committee are concerned with the direction that the Federal Highways Administration seems to be taking in implementing the planning and environmental provisions of TEA-21. In particular, this hearing will focus on reaction to the Department's so-called "options paper" for Section 1309 of the bill.
Delivering better highways is a complicated task. But TEA-21 was drafted with the belief that the process was too complex. There was unnecessary duplication of effort. There was too much federal prescription. And as a result, there were greater delays and higher costs.
For example, prior to TEA-21, there were 23 separate factors that states had to consider in developing their transportation plans. For metropolitan planning, 15 factors had to be considered and analyzed.
Section 1309 was our attempt to streamline the environmental review and permitting process.
To identify early on the key issues, encourage early participation by all involved agencies, and establish a coordinated schedule for agency decisions and actions.
In short, we sought a simpler, more coordinated process, but -- and this is important one that did not diminish the thoroughness of the reviews or the opportunity for full public input into the decisions.
However, what the options paper suggests is a more complicated process, with additional federal requirements and less flexibility for the states. I believe that was neither the intent of Congress or the letter of the law.
I hope our witnesses today can shed more light on the flaws in the Department's approach so that they can be corrected before things are written in stone or perhaps concrete!
Mr. Chairman, let me note that the President of the Montana Contractors Association, Mitch Leslie, will be testifying on the second panel, representing the AGC.
Mitch has been very involved and helpful in Montana in ensuring that program delivery becomes a reality. I'm sure his comments today will add valuable insight to our deliberations.
Thank you.