[Senate Hearing 107-1047]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1047
NOMINATION OF NORMAN Y. MINETA,
TO BE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 24, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
92-791 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois RON WYDEN, Oregon
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada MAX CLELAND, Georgia
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Ann Choiniere, Republican General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 24, 2001................................. 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 42
Statement of Senator Boxer....................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Statement of Senator Breaux...................................... 52
Statement of Senator Brownback................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Statement of Senator Carnahan.................................... 57
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Statement of Senator Cleland..................................... 67
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 62
Statement of Senator Edwards..................................... 73
Statement of Senator Ensign...................................... 47
Statement of Senator Fitzgerald.................................. 54
Statement of Senator Hollings.................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 8
Statement of Senator Kerry....................................... 40
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 48
Statement of Senator Smith....................................... 61
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 55
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 36
Statement of Senator Wyden....................................... 65
Witnesses
Dreier, Hon. David, U.S. Representative from California.......... 11
Mineta, Norman, Y., Secretary-Designate, Department of
Transportation................................................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Biographical Information..................................... 20
Appendix
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 77
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 78
The Air Crash Victims Families Group, prepared statement
submitted by A. Frank Carven III and Hans Ephraimson-Abt....... 111
Responses by Norman Y. Mineta to written questions submitted by:
Hon. Sam Brownback........................................... 106
Hon. Max Cleland............................................. 111
Hon. John Edwards............................................ 108
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 107
Hon. Trent Lott.............................................. 104
Hon. John McCain............................................. 79
Hon. Ron Wyden............................................... 111
NOMINATION OF NORMAN Y. MINETA,
TO BE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
The Chairman. Good morning. I want to first of all thank
Senator Hollings for his generosity during the 17 day reign of
terror while the Democrats were in charge of this Committee.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I want to welcome our new Committee members
as we meet today to consider Norman Mineta's nomination to be
United States Secretary of Transportation.
For the benefit of the members, we have a formality to go
through, but we can't do it until our Republican members are
here. So perhaps at some point, we may interrupt in order to
move forward.
Senator Stevens. Can I just make the motion now and we'll
distribute the ballots as they come in?
The Chairman. If that's agreeable to the members.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I move that John McCain be
the Chairman of the Commerce Committee for this Congress.
Senator Brownback. Second.
The Chairman. I thank the members and we'll distribute
ballots when they come in. I thank the members.
Senator Hollings. Mr. Chairman, let me recommend for
consideration, and you can take it up with the members, but now
that we've grown to 22 members, you know, in the Appropriations
Committee if we waited for opening statements for all 22, the
poor witness would never get to testify. So if we can just
forego those or the Chairman or Ranking Member or whatever or
if some Senator's got a particular interest, we always yield to
exceptions. What we try to do is convenience the entire
Committee, of course, and mainly the witnesses. Many of them
travel from afar and everything else. And then they sit for an
hour and a half and listen, you know what I mean? So I just
suggest that to you.
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like for the
members to consider that recommendation. I would like to if
it's agreeable to you sort of adopt it informally. Because as
you mentioned, there are some times where it's a burning issue
for a witness or of a particular interest to members of the
Committee. But perhaps we could informally adopt a general rule
that we do as they do on the far more dictatorial
Appropriations Committee that we restrict the opening
statements to the Chairman and Ranking Member, except for those
who might have a particular interest in the issue.
Senator Stevens. Well, it is a little a more liberal than
that. The Chairman and Ranking Member make opening statements
pertaining to the bill. And members are then recognized in
order of seniority going down to make comments before we take
up amendments. But they are limited to very short statements.
We have a tradition of not more than a minute, minute and a
half. But it's just a tradition, Mr. Chairman. It is no rule.
The Chairman. I thank you. Mr. Mineta, I think it is
appropriate that you be the witness before our first formal new
convening of this Committee. Because you as a Democrat I think
are significant of the new Administration's bipartisanship and
bipartisan approach to governing in this new millennium. This
Committee has as you know because of your previous visits here
works in a bipartisan fashion as well. I want to welcome you.
We congratulate you on your appointment. We are pleased to see
you before the Committee again and would like to acknowledge
any of your family members who may be here. Would you like to
do that at this time?
Mr. Mineta. Senator, if you do not mind, I do appreciate
very much the opportunity to introduce my family who are here.
First of all, my wife Danny, my sister Itsu Mineta Moso-Oka, my
stepson Mark Brantner and my son David Mineta's wife Christine
Mineta. That's the whole family.
The Chairman. We thank you for being here, and we know how
proud you are of this fine and brave American who has served
our country with great distinction. We are pleased and proud
that he will continue to do so. We could not have done it
without your dedicated help and assistance and love and
affection.
The confidence that Mr. Mineta inspires is important
because the challenges he faces at the Department of
Transportation are more daunting than ever. Take aviation, for
example. As Chairman of the National Civil Aviation Review
Commission, Norm Mineta warned us just a couple of years ago
that we were fast approaching gridlock--that every day at an
airport would be like the day before Thanksgiving. In many
airports in America, we have already reached that point.
I believe we must come together immediately and put our
individual interests aside, to look into new ideas to ensure
that our aviation system can continue to meet consumer and
economic demands. Should we privatize our air traffic control
system? Should we auction or otherwise allocate slots at our
busiest airports? I cannot endorse any particular approach at
this point. Even so, my sincere hope and belief is that we can
best put gridlock behind us by focusing our energies on
capacity enhancements instead of plans to ration existing
capacity in the aviation system.
Another issue that Mr. Mineta and we face is funding for
Amtrak. It is high time for Congress and the Administration to
debate and determine exactly what is our national policy for
Amtrak. I have long fought Amtrak's continuous backdoor
attempts to seek substantial Federal funding, while claiming it
is nearly self sufficient. I will continue to do so. Yet if
Congress is going to continue to provide subsidies, I believe
we must own up to that fact in full view of the American
public. Mr. Mineta, I look forward to the Department's input on
this policy decision.
Again, congratulations. You are a living example of the
American dream, and we appreciate your dedication and service.
We intend to move your nomination forward as soon as possible.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senator from Arizona
First of all, I want to welcome our new committee members as we
meet today to consider Norman Mineta's nomination to be the United
States Secretary of Transportation. Congratulations, Mr. Mineta, on
your appointment to the transportation post. We are pleased to see you
before the committee again, and would like to acknowledge any of your
family members who may be here.
Norm Mineta has all of the right qualifications to serve with
distinction in President Bush's Cabinet. His long and distinguished
record of public service includes several years as a member of, and
then Chairman of, the House Public Works and Transportation Committee.
Chairman Mineta was widely renowned for his transportation expertise
and his hard work on the issues. It speaks volumes that the
transportation community and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle
continue to regard him with the utmost respect.
The confidence that Mr. Mineta inspires is important, because the
challenges he faces at the Department of Transportation are more
daunting than ever. Take aviation, for example. As Chairman of the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission, Norm Mineta warned us just a
couple of years ago that we were fast approaching gridlock--that every
day at an airport would be like the day before Thanksgiving. We have
nearly reached that point, and no relief is in sight.
I believe that we must come together immediately and put our
individual interests aside, to look into new ideas to ensure that our
aviation system can continue to meet consumer and economic demands.
Should we privatize our air traffic control system? Should we auction
or otherwise allocate slots at our busiest airports? I cannot endorse
any particular approach at this point. Even so, my sincere hope and
belief is that we can best put gridlock behind us by focusing our
energies on capacity enhancements instead of plans to ration existing
capacity in the aviation system.
Another issue that Mr. Mineta and we face is funding for Amtrak. It
is high time for Congress and the Administration to debate and
determine exactly what is our national policy for Amtrak. I have long
fought Amtrak's continuous backdoor attempts to seek substantial
federal funding, while claiming it is nearly self sufficient. I will
continue to do so. Yet if Congress is going to continue to provide
subsidies, I believe that we must own up to that fact in full view of
the American public. Assuming Mr. Mineta is confirmed, I look forward
to the Department's input on this policy decision.
Again, Mr. Mineta, congratulations. You are a living example of the
American dream, and we appreciate your dedication and service. I intend
to move your nomination forward as soon as possible.
The Chairman. Senator Hollings.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Hollings. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Trying to
set an example, I will just include my statement.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hollings follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator from South Carolina
Mr. Chairman, as you know, this is Mr. Mineta's third nomination
hearing before this Committee since last May. He is a veteran of the
confirmation process and I am certain that the former Secretary of
Commerce will make an excellent Secretary of Transportation given his
long history of work on transportation issues.
Mr. Mineta has the benefit of his recent experience in the
executive branch coupled with his 21 years of service in the
legislative branch. His knowledge and background will serve him well as
he moves through the confirmation process and into his new role as
Secretary of Transportation. Clearly he is up to the task, but we don't
want to downplay the host of challenges awaiting him at the Department
of Transportation. I would like to highlight a few of my concerns.
Aviation Issues
Competition
You and I have watched for many years as the airline industry has
continued to consolidate, and as air carriers created bigger and bigger
fortress hubs. In 1978, we had 5 air carriers with 68.6 percent of the
total U.S. market. Frank Borman warned us about concentration levels.
Today, with the recent American announcement, two carriers may end up
with 51 percent of the market, and the top 6 will account for 89
percent.
Look at the major airports in this country. Virtually everyone of
them is controlled by one air carrier. DOT, GAO, and the National
Academy of Sciences (Transportation Research Board), have cited serious
concerns with hub domination. We have had studies, more studies, and
hearings.
Last week, DOT put out another series of reports that made the
following findings:
In dominated hubs as a whole, 24.7 million passengers pay
on average 41 percent more than do their counterparts flying in hub
markets with low fare competition. It is reasonable to expect that with
the benefit of low fare-competitors another 25 to 50 million passengers
annually would travel in these markets.
Passengers in short-haul markets without low-fare carriers
pay even higher fares, or 54 percent more on average than passengers in
comparable markets with a low-fare competitor.
DOT specifically cited Charlotte, Cincinnati, Minneapolis
and Pittsburgh as having the highest overall fare differentials. In
total there are 17 cities where one carrier dominates.
With respect to TWA, it has been clear for years that the carrier
has faced bankruptcy. Senator Danforth and I spent a great deal of time
trying to be helpful to the airline. Under the antitrust laws, TWA and
American can make a legitimate case that TWA is in imminent danger of
failing, that it has no realistic prospects for a successful
reorganization, and that there is no viable alternative that poses a
less anti-competitive risk. However, that does not end the focus on
airline mergers. I know the committee will look at this issue in more
detail next week.
And I know you will hit the ground running--we have got to focus on
the lack of competition. We have got to restore the public interest in
reviewing what the airlines do--when they merge, when they fail to
provide service and when they use their market positions to give us
higher prices.
You will need to work with us on solutions. Mr. Oberstar has
suggested that we regulate prices when three carriers have 70 percent
of the U.S. market. I will take a hard look at that proposal, but I
want to focus on the hubs. I asked, as part of AIR-21 that airports
submit competition plans on ways to ensure that they do all they can to
increase the ability of carriers to enter concentrated hubs. I
understand that some of the airports have developed ways to change
their contracts with the dominant carrier, allowing more flexibility to
accommodate new entry. That is a start, but there is more that we must
do. I also know that hubs provide an efficiency network, and enable
small communities to receive more service, but, and it is a critical
but--at some point, the word efficiency becomes a monopoly. We can ask
the airports to do what they can, but ultimately it is your
responsibility, and this Administration's responsibility to protect
people from monopoly pricing in hundreds of small markets--a situation
that will only get worse.
FAA/Capacity/Delays
You will face the challenge of increasing the capacity of the air
traffic control system as a result of many factors. Everyone agrees
that we need more capacity, and that we have to build more runways. We
must figure out a better process, while respecting the environmental
concerns, but it should not take ten to 12 years to build new runways
or 5 years to redesign airspace. In addition, you need to quickly
modernize ATC's oceanic services but I believe, you know all of this.
Finally, I want to say, we all recognize that safety is the FAA's
first priority and that efficiency is critical also. This Committee
fought long and hard to improve the ability of the FAA to function. In
AIR-21, we set up a series of reforms and gave the FAA an additional
two billion dollars in fiscal year 2001 for new runways and new air
traffic control equipment. We must make sure that this remains a
national priority. Implement those reforms. Spend the money wisely.
Focus on what needs to, and can be done. You led the NCARC and made a
recommendation for a PBO. You now have it through AIR-21 and President
Clinton's Executive Order. We do not need, and should not undertake a
divisive debate on a new set of FAA reforms or on privatizing the FAA.
Use your existing authority wisely, Mr. Secretary, as I know you will.
Maritime Issues
There are few organizations in the Federal bureaucracy that are
more liked and better respected than the Coast Guard. Each year we add
to the Coast Guard'' s diverse missions in law enforcement, search and
rescue, drug interdiction, port security, and marine environmental
protection. Each year the men and women of the Coast Guard rise to the
new challenges we offer them. But there is a limit to what we can ask
without compromising their safety and security of the Nation. We have
made strides this past Congress ensure appropriations can support the
Agency'' s mission, but even after securing substantial additional
funding, budget shortfalls remain. These shortfalls, made chronic by
ever-tightening budget caps, will continue to undermine the agency'' s
operational readiness and the safety of its service members until we
come up with a solution.
We all have a vested interest in properly protecting the safety and
well-being of our citizens and our coastal resources. In particular,
coastal areas like my home State of South Carolina are most vulnerable
to cutbacks in service as Americans increasingly move to the sea.
Coastal populations increase by 3,600 people per day--a rate of growth
is faster than that for the Nation as a whole--and these folks are out
on the water, whether for business or pleasure. Acknowledging these
ever mounting pressures and the challenges we will face, we enacted the
Oceans Act of 2000 that will create a new national Commission on Ocean
Policy. I look forward to working with the new Administration during
the appointment process to ensure that the members of the Commission
are up to the task we set before them--including looking at how well
agencies like the Coast Guard are prepared for the coming century. I
would also commend the Department for its efforts evaluating our Marine
Transportation System through the NITS initiative, and would encourage
the SecretaryDesignate to continue this effort. Both of these
initiatives have a very important role to play if we are to formulate a
good ocean and maritime transportation policy.
I would also like to highlight my concern about the State of
security at U.S. seaports. Seaports are just as much a international
border as our airports, or our land borders, but we do not have a
coordinated policy to help us prevent against drug smuggling, cargo
theft, trade fraud, and potential acts of terrorism. Last year, an
interagency commission released a report on the status of security at
U.S. seaports, and rated security as poor to fair. Mr. Secretary-
Designate, we need your help in getting all stakeholders involved in a
solution which will give us greater protection. Maritime trade is
projected to double by 2020, and if we do not take prudent steps now,
we may be forced to confront major crises in the future.
Trucking Issues
One area that I am especially concerned about is the safety of
Mexican trucks. It is my understanding that in the next month a NAFTA
arbitration panel will likely issue a decision siding with Mexico's
position that the U.S. is improperly preventing Mexican trucks from
operating in the U.S. At that time, the DOT will need to address safety
issues in the context of possible international sanctions.
While NAFTA provided that Mexican trucking companies were to have
been granted operating rights to deliver international cargo throughout
the entire U.S. by January 2000, the Clinton Administration did not
open the border, citing safety concerns. I share some of their concerns
given the inadequate number of safety inspectors at the border and the
poor condition of many of the Mexican trucks that have been allowed in
the U.S. under limited circumstances along the border.
In 2000, there were 40 inspectors at the border, although this is
an improvement from the 13 inspectors in 1998, the DOT IG estimates
that a minimum of 126 inspectors are needed during operating hours to
provide two inspectors to each border inspection facility. In 2000, 35
percent of inspected Mexican vehicles were placed out of service for
significant safety violations, compared with 25 percent of U.S. trucks.
In addition, the DOT IG found that there were hundreds of Mexican
carriers operating improperly outside of the commercial zones.
If we do not have the ability to properly oversee the safety and
movements of Mexican trucks when they are only permitted to operate in
the U.S. on a limited basis, how can we have any confidence in their
adherence to U.S. safety and cabotage requirements if the borders are
opened.
In addition, I will be paying close attention to the new Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration. There has been widespread
criticism of the FMCSA regarding a lack of leadership at the Department
of Transportation, within the modal administration and with regard to
truck safety. There was no permanent Administrator during the first
year of the new agency's existence, although my former staffer, Mr.
Clyde Hart, was tapped for double duty, sharing responsibilities for
both truck safety and maritime issues.
NHTSA Issues
Harmonization
I am deeply concerned about persistent efforts by DOT to involve
the U.S. in international proceedings that are designed to facilitate
harmonization of safety regulations. Because U.S. safety standards
generally are higher than other countries' safety rules, harmonization
commonly leads to the lowering of U.S. safety rules and regulations.
This, of course, has the effect of compromising the safety protections
afforded to U.S. consumers. Accordingly, I am hopeful that the incoming
Secretary will work to make sure that U.S. safety standards are not
affected and compromised by actions of international bodies.
Additionally, I hope that the Secretary will work cooperatively with
Congress on this issue and will adhere to a practice of seeking
legislative approval for any action involving an agreement with a
foreign entity that has the effect of impacting U.S. safety laws.
Enforcement
I also hope that the new Secretary will demand stringent
enforcement of safety regulations by NHTSA. It does no good to have
regulations on the books if they are not enforced. We discovered how
harmful lax enforcement can be during the Committee's recent
investigations of the hazards associated with the Firestone tires that
were used on Ford sport utility vehicles. During that investigation, it
was discovered that NHTSA had received information from State Farm 2
years prior to the recall initiated by the companies in August 2000. At
that time, the tires had been linked to close to 100 deaths. Clearly,
NHTSA dropped the ball. Moreover, it also was revealed that of the more
than 99 million vehicles that have been recalled over the past 5 years,
NHTSA has not initiated a single one. That is not effective enforcement
in my view.
Other Issues
Last Congress the Senate approved a pipeline safety bill. I fully
expect the Committee to take up pipeline safety legislation early this
session. It is my hope that we can work with the Administration to
achieve a strong safety regime for interstate pipeline operators.
In addition, last Congress the Committee conducted a number of
oversight hearings on Amtrak. The issue of Amtrak funding will continue
to be a top priority as we work to see the provisions of the 1997
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act implemented, which requires that
Amtrak operate without Federal operating grant funds by the end of
fiscal year 2002. I look forward to working with DOT to address rail
passenger issues during the next few years.
Again, I am pleased with President Bush's choice for Secretary of
Transportation. Although you will certainly face many challenges, I
look forward to seeing you confirmed as Secretary of Transportation and
working with you in the future.
The Chairman. I do note the presence of Senator Ensign and
Senator Allen and Senator Carnahan and Senator Boxer. Our other
new members have decided not to attend. That is OK. Noted. But
we want to thank and congratulate our new members.
Senator Carnahan, I am told by the staff that we have
efforts under way to extend that side of the dais so that you
will not be subjected to sitting with the press. So, is there
anyone who would like to make an opening statement or comments
before we move to Senator Boxer and Congressman Dreier? We just
adopted a rule to make them very brief, OK? Go ahead.
Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator McCain. I would just
like to say that I am very pleased with the appointment of
Norman Mineta. When I was the Vice Chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board, Norm Mineta was the Chairman of
the Public Works Committee. And I think that his experience in
transportation is not only welcome, but it absolutely
necessary.
Because I think our transportation system in our country is
under the most trial that it has been in a number of years.
Certainly in the aviation sector, I want to say I am very
concerned about this new performance based organization for the
FAA. I hope that we will be able to monitor it closely and work
out kinks if we find them quickly.
I secondly hope that we will adopt a policy of an
intermodal system that works for our country. We are in vast
need of highway resources, especially in my State of Texas,
that has the highest number of highway miles and the longest
foreign border of any State in our country. And we are woefully
short in highway infrastructure. But also, I think rail should
be a part of our infrastructure in this country.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for letting us make short
opening statements. And I look forward to working with and
supporting the nomination of Norm Mineta.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
U.S. Senator from Texas
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Secretary Mineta.
Our national transportation system is at a crossroads. Our skies
are crowded and our Air Traffic Control structure is near the breaking
point. Our highway network, while among the world's finest, has serious
gaps where construction and maintenance have not matched population
growth. We have been too slow to implement alternative solutions, such
as intercity and commuter passenger rail, to the mounting problems of
highway congestion and air quality in our cities. Maintaining and
improving our national transportation network must be among our highest
legislative and administrative priorities.
I am extremely pleased that President Bush has chosen someone with
real handson transportation experience to head this critical
Department. During his years in Congress, Secretary Mineta spent years
focusing on these problems. As Chairman of the Public Works Committee,
he shepherded legislation that encouraged mass transit and congestion
reduction. He is battle-tested and unafraid to tackle big issues.
With the number of air passengers in the U.S. steadily approaching
one billion per year, I am particularly concerned about the State of
the nation's air traffic control system. Last month, the Clinton
Administration created a separate Air Traffic Organization within the
Federal Aviation Administration to deliver these services. While I
applaud the effort and initiative, I have some doubts about the
oversight of this so-called ``performancebased organization.'' Public
safety and the reliability of air travel are at stake and the flying
public must be assured that these interests are protected.
Another issue that will confront the Transportation Department is
the continuing inequity suffered by states such as Texas which do not
receive their fair share of Federal transportation funding. I have
areas along the Mexican border where there is virtually no
transportation infrastructure whatsoever. NAFTA is straining our
inadequate transportation system even more. We have madesome real
improvements in recent years, but so much more needs to be done. Texas
has three of the ten largest cities in the U.S. In between, we have
more miles of highway than California and the longest continuous
foreign border in America. Our population is growing at an incredible
rate. With all due respect to my colleagues, no State has
greater,transportation needs than Texas.
Yet the Department of Transportation has consistently shortchanged
my State in the distribution of discretionary funding. Excluding
formula funding, which is subject to a 91.5 percent minimum guarantee,
Texas receives about 50 cents for every dollar it 2 contributes to the
Highway Trust Fund. This must change.
I met with Secretary Mineta earlier this week and I was pleased to
find that we have similar opinions on many issues. One of these
concerns the need to maintain strict safety standards for Mexican and
Canadian trucks on American highways. Under NAFTA, we must begin
allowing these foreign trucks across the border, provided they meet
U.S. safety standards. Unfortunately, Mexico and Canada allow much
higher truck weights than in the U.S. These heavy, trucks can be an
unsafe mix with passenger vehicles on our high-traffic American roads
and if they do not meet all U.S. standards they present a safety hazard
to other drivers. Make no mistake, I support NAFTA and I welcome the
commerce brought in by these trucks, but we must keep our highways
safe.
I plan to support this nomination and I look forward to working
with Secretary Mineta.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. Anyone else?
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Inouye.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, as you have noted, Mr. Mineta
is an American success story and I ask that my statement be
made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
U.S. Senator from Hawaii
Six months and 7 days ago, I had the great privilege of introducing
the Honorable Norman Mineta, nominated by President Clinton for the
position of Secretary of Commerce. Today, once again, I find myself
deeply honored and privileged to present the same Honorable Norman
Mineta as President Bush's nominee to serve as Secretary of
Transportation. Secretary Mineta's service as Secretary of Commerce has
been outstanding and exemplary.
Although he was there only a few months, he made his mark. Duly
impressed, the Bush Administration has selected him to continue his
service to our nation.
Because of my presentation on Secretary Mineta on July 17, 2000,
just a few months ago, I will not repeat in detail his extraordinary
history, but simply to say that here is a person who was born on
November 12, 1931, and at the age of 10 was declared by this Nation to
be an enemy alien.
He was incarcerated in an internment camp in Wyoming for 1\1/2\
years, but his love for this country stayed intact. He rose above the
experience of this period of sanction and discrimination and began his
public service as a member of the San Jose City Council and
subsequently Mayor of San Jose, and 21 years in the U.S. Congress.
This is America's success story. This is the story of America.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to present President George W.
Bush's nominee to serve as Secretary of Transportation, the Honorable
Norman Y. Mineta.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Senator Brownback.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Brownback. Mr. Chairman, just briefly. And I have
got a full statement to put in the record. But I welcome
Secretary Mineta and look forward to approving him on this. I
will be introducing a bill shortly to try to truncate the
procedure by which runways, additional capacity at our airports
are put in place. I think it is important that we start the
process now of trying to increase the capacity. I think all of
us have sat for hours now on tarmacs at different airports. And
that is just part of what the public is frustrated about.
I just want to put that out there. Because I know you know
about those as issues. And I think we have got to really become
aggressive in this legislation session to deal with that. And I
look forward to working with the Secretary of Transportation
about that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback,
U.S. Senator from Kansas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome to the Commerce
Committee. I want to thank you for coming to visit me last friday; I
enjoyed our visit, and appreciate the time you took out of your busy
schedule.
I think this hearing will be a little less contentious than the
hearings I sat in last week for our former colleague on this Committee,
John Ashcroft. As you said when you were nominated, transportation
issues are not partisan, there is no such thing as a Republican or a
Democrat traffic jam, or Democrat or Republican airport congestion. I
couldn't agree more; one of the advantages of this Committee is the
opportunity to work across party lines on issues important to the
entire country. In that spirit, I welcome your nomination, and applaud
President Bush's choice of a distinguished and highly qualified
Democrat to head the Department of Transportation.
Mr. Secretary, there is little doubt in my mind, that the problem
of capacity in our Nation's aviation infrastructure is one of the most
serious and immediate problems you will face at the Department of
Transportation. We spoke last week in my office about this issue, and I
appreciate your thoughts and comments. Mr. Secretary, we are not
looking at a crisis down the road, we are looking a crisis right in the
face--we are there. Every member of the flying public knows this, and,
as the chairman of the Mineta Commission, no one knows this better than
you. Delays and congestion are only going to get worse, not better. It
is my belief that we can best provide immediate relief for our Nation's
air travelers by increasing capacity on the ground; by building more
airport runways, and by building them much faster than they are being
built today. THis is an emergency, and we need to take swift and bold
action. I intend to shortly introduce legislation that will do just
that, and i look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, as well as
my colleagues on this Committee, on this vital issue.
Mr. Secretary, I think you are already well aware of the importance
of aviation in my home State of Kansas. It may, however, come as a
surprise to you to know that aviation manufacturing is second only to
agriculture in Kansas in terms of jobs. Over 43,000 hard-working men
and women are employed in Kansas in aviation manufacturing, with a
total Kansas payroll of over $2 billion dollars, and Kansas supplies
purchased of over $1.1 billion dollars. It is estimated that $10 of
every $100 in earnings in Kansas results from the aviation industry. In
Kansas, the aviation industry accounts for 21.5 PERCENT of
manufacturing employment. Approximately $24 of every $100 earned in
manufacturing in Kansas is generated by the aviation industry. In the
Wichita metro area alone, the aviation industry makes up more than 60
PERCENT of manufacturing earnings. I would therefore like to invite you
to come to Wichita, Kansas, to visit Cessna, Learjet, [or as they are
now called Bombardier Aerospace], Raytheon Aircraft, and Boeing
Wichita, so that you can become more familiar with aviation
manufacturing.
There are a lot of exciting things happening in Wichita. Boeing
Wichita produces about 75 PERCENT of the next generation 737, and
designs and builds nascelles and nose sections for the 747, 757, 767
and 777 jetliners. In addition, Boeing Wichita Military Programs
include the airborne laser, updates on the KC-135 Tanker Program,
upgrades for the A-WACS AND B-52 Bomber, and performs maintenance on
air force one.
In addition to the famous Learjet 31A, 45, and 60, Bombardier
Aerospace in Wichita is the site of production of the company's newest
business jet, the Continental, a new super-midsize jet produced by a
consortium of partners from around the world. The Bombardier flight
test center in Wichita is the busiest civil flight test facility.
Cessna Aircraft Company, the pioneer of general aviation, has
maintained its worldwide headquarters in Wichita for over 73 years, and
produces four single engine piston aircraft in Independence, Kansas, as
well as the industry's most extensive line of business jets, the
citation series, in Wichita.
Raytheon Aircraft, the world's leading business and special mission
aviation company, has manufacturing sites in Andover, Salina, and
Wichita, and includes the Hawker and Beechcraft line of business jets,
as well as turboprop products including the 1900-D airliner and Beech
King air series, the most popular turboprop ever.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions i would like
to ask Secretary Mineta when my turn comes.
The Chairman. Welcome, Senator Boxer and welcome to the
Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I am just so delighted to be a
member of your Committee, Senator Hollings and you, Mr.
Chairman are great leaders on the issues that the Committee
focuses on. And, of course, one of them is transportation.
I will be brief and ask unanimous consent that my whole
statement appear in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Senator Boxer. And the reason I can be brief is because
know that our friend Norm Mineta is no stranger to you. I was
here introducing him when he was nominated to be the Commerce
Secretary by President Clinton. Now President Bush has made
this fine appointment.
I would like to ask unanimous consent that Senator
Feinstein's statement be inserted in the record at this time
[see Appendix].
The Chairman. Without objection.
Senator Boxer. She apologizes to you, Norm. She is in
another Committee at this time.
Briefly, I want to tell you that Norm Mineta represented
the Silicon Valley in the House of Representatives for 21 years
and I was happy to serve with him for 10 of those. During his
tenure, he was the Chairman of the Public Works and
Transportation Committee. So he already is very familiar with
the responsibilities of the Department of Transportation and
transportation policy.
As Chairman of that Committee, he was the principle author
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991. And that landmark legislation expanded traditional
highway legislation to include transit, pedestrian
improvements, bike paths. It took a bigger look at the needs of
our people.
His knowledge does not just stop at surface transportation.
He has extensive knowledge about our aviation systems, as has
been pointed out by Chairman McCain, from serving as the
Chairman of the Aviation SubCommittee and serving on the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.
Since leaving the House, Mr. Mineta has served on several
transportation related Federal commissions and advisory panels.
Mr. Mineta began his political career in 1967 when he became
the first Asian Pacific American member of the City Council of
his home town of San Jose, California which is as you know in
the heart of the Silicon Valley.
Just 4 years later in 1971, he was elected the Mayor of San
Jose, the first Asian Pacific American mayor of a major United
States city. While serving in the Congress, Mr. Mineta founded
the Congressional Asian Pacific American caucus and he served
as its first chair.
One area where I admire Norm so much, and I know so many of
you do as well, was his fight to ensure the passage of the
Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which officially apologized for and
addressed the injustices endured by Japanese Americans during
World War II.
Mr. Mineta and his family were among the 120,000 Americans
of Japanese ancestry forced into internment camps by the United
States government during the war. But even with this heavy
heart and this terrible experience, Mr. Mineta has devoted his
life to making this country the greatest that she can be. And
he has devoted his life to public service. I believe this is an
excellent choice and I want to say, Norm, I'm very proud of you
and look forward to working with you in this new capacity.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senator from California
I am very happy to be here today at my first hearing as a member of
the Commerce Committee to introduce Norman Mineta to be Secretary of
Transportation. Mr. Mineta is extremely qualified to be the
Transportation Secretary.
He represented Silicon Valley in the House for 21 years. During his
tenure, he was the Chairman of the Public Works and Transportation
Committee. He already knows the responsibilities of the Department of
Transportation and transportation policy.
As Chairman of the Committee, he was the principle author of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. This landmark
legislation expanded traditional highway legislation to include
transit, bike paths, and pedestrian improvements.
His knowledge does not stop at surface transportation. He has
extensive knowledge about our aviation systems from serving as the
Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee and serving on the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority.
Since leaving the House, Mr. Mineta has served on several
transportation-related Federal commissions and advisory panels,
including the National Aviation Review Commission and a truck safety
panel.
Mr. Mineta began his political career in 1967, when he became the
first Asian Pacific American Member of the City Council of his hometown
of San Jose, California. Just 4 years later, in 1971, he was elected
Mayor of San Jose--the first Asian Pacific American Mayor of a major
U.S. city. While serving in the Congress, Mineta founded the
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and served as its first
Chair.
One area where I admire Norm is his fight to ensure the passage of
the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which officially apologized for and
redressed the injustices endured by Japanese Americans during World War
II. Mr. Mineta and his family were among the 120,000 Americans of
Japanese ancestry forced into internment camps by the U.S. Government
during the War. Even with this experience, Mr. Mineta has devoted his
life to public service.
I believe that he is an excellent choice to be the Secretary of
Transportation.
The Chairman. Congressman Dreier.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Dreier. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
nice to be here. I want to say what a great honor it is for me
to have joined Senators Boxer and Feinstein over the past week.
And we're now introducing our third Californian for
confirmation. And I am particularly honored to be able to be
here on behalf of my friend and former colleague Norm Mineta.
We have heard talk about air safety which is something that
is of great concern to every single one of us. As a Southern
Californian, I have to say that we have a wide range of
infrastructure problems which need to be addressed. And that is
why I believe that Norm Mineta will in this position as
Secretary of Transportation do a superb job.
Last Saturday as we all listened to President Bush's
inaugural address, I was struck with the alliteration in which
he referred to the need for civility, compassion and character
and courage. And as we listened to the descriptions from our
colleagues here of Norm Mineta, obviously, he comes to mind
when we think of all of those words.
And I believe that if we look at the challenges ahead in
this new millennium, infrastructure, transportation issues will
be key at every level.
I am also very concerned about the globalization of our
economy and the fact that we are going to need to make sure
that we move goods and services that are coming in from all
over the world going to and from. And I believe that it is
essential that we focus on and improve our infrastructure so
that we are able to maintain our preeminence in this global
economy. And again, Norm Mineta will be in the forefront to
ensure that that happens.
So I am very pleased and proud as a Californian and as an
American to wholeheartedly recommend and encourage the
confirmation of our friend Norm Mineta. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We thank you, Congressman Dreier. And we know
that you and Senator Boxer speak for all Californians as well
as Americans in endorsing his new position in the Bush Cabinet.
Mr. Mineta, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MR. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY-DESIGNATE,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Mineta. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am
honored to find myself before you again, this time as President
Bush's nominee as Secretary of Transportation. And I would like
to ask unanimous consent that my full statement be made a part
of the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Mineta. I want to thank Senator Inouye, Senator Boxer,
Senator Feinstein and Congressman David Dreier for their taking
from their own valuable schedules to be here and to be
supportive of me and to introduce me to this wonderful panel.
I must confess that I was very surprised to get the call,
and to be offered this position by President Bush. After some
careful consideration and discussion, I decided to say yes to
the President's invitation to join his great team, and perhaps
I should explaining why.
Three decades ago when I was Mayor of San Jose, California,
and was focused on how I could improve the community where I
had been born and raised, I had the usual range of policy tools
that mayors use to try to improve their communities: city
planning and zoning authorities, economic development programs,
grants for housing, and so on. But what I found in practice was
that the tool that made the most difference in my community was
transportation. Nothing else had as great an impact on our
economic development, on the pattern of growth, or the quality
of life than transportation.
And what I have found in the years since is that this is
true not just locally, but also nationally. Transportation is
the key to productivity, and therefore, the success, of
virtually every business in America. Congestion and delay not
only waste our time as individuals, but they also burden our
businesses and our entire economy with inefficiency and higher
costs.
The bottom line is that transportation is key in generating
and enabling economic growth, in determining the patterns of
that growth, and in determining the competitiveness of our
businesses in the world economy. Transportation is thus key to
both our economic success and to our quality of life. And that
is why I said yes to the President's wonderful invitation.
I did so, however, painfully aware of the formidable
challenges that all of us now face in transportation. Let me
give you my sense of some of the most significant of all of
these challenges.
First of all the major challenges facing us is the
guaranteeing of the safety of the traveling public. And I
consider that to be the No. 1 job at the Department of
Transportation. We have an enviable transportation safety
record in this country--and in many modes we are among the
leaders in the world as it relates to safety. Even in our most
difficult category--highways, where 94 percent of all
transportation fatalities occur--we have shown in recent years
the ability to hold the number of highway fatalities flat,
despite significantly rising numbers of vehicles on the road,
thus improving the fatality rate.
Nevertheless, despite our generally solid performance on
safety, we need to recognize that we have reached that point by
constantly searching for the next best safety improvement that
could be made. We have to continue to do that, and we have to
do it in a way that gets for the public the greatest possible
safety improvement for each dollar spent.
Second, a central challenge for the Department is to close
the gap between demand for transportation and the capacity of
our transportation infrastructure. That gap is what generates
the traffic that all of us face on the highways, the delays
that we all experience on the taxiway or at the gate, the
inefficiencies that shippers face when their shipments are
jammed up at a rail bottleneck, a beltway traffic jam, or a
port operation struggling with constrained landside
transportation access. Congressional enactment of TEA-21 and
AIR-21 has put in place levels of capital investment that will
be important in resolving these jams, but there will be a need
for more than just the funding that is provided.
And nowhere is this more evident than in Air Traffic
Control. As Chairman McCain mentioned, in 1997, the National
Civil Aviation Review Commission, which I had the privilege and
honor to chair, warned that, due to rapidly growing demand and
a system that was just not keeping up with that rapid growth,
our nation's aviation system was approaching gridlock. And by
the summer of 1999 Americans faced skyrocketing air traffic
control delays. And we had the same experience in the year
2000.
And I need to be very candid with you on this point--we are
very likely to have a very similar--or worse--delay problems
this year as well. We simply have an air traffic control system
that, despite real improvements, has not been able to keep pace
with rapidly rising demand. At the highest demand times, and at
times when there are additional considerations, such as adverse
but routine weather, we find more and more often than not that
demand reaches or exceeds the capacity of at least part of the
system.
When that happens, the system quite rightly elects to take
that capacity shortfall as ground holds and other forms of
delay, rather than compromise safety. But even though that is
the right choice, it still imposes very real penalties on
passengers and ultimately on our economy.
It is essential that all of us first understand the origin
of this problem, and that is the dramatic growth in the number
of passengers trying to fly and shippers trying to move
packages by air. In the year 2000, we had nearly 215 million
more enplaned passengers than we did in 1991. 215 million more
people showing up per year than we did just 9 years ago is a
number nearly equal to the entire population of the United
States. Given the fact that it is impossible to expand air
traffic control quickly or airport capacity or airline
capacity, it is not surprising that the result is that
everything is crowded--not just the ATC system, but the airport
parking lot, the counters, the terminal corridors, the
passenger cabin, the baggage carousel, the customs checkpoint .
. . everything.
The challenge before us now is given that surging demand,
what can we do about the congestion and delay?
First, we have to recognize that airlines, airports, and
air traffic control are all struggling to keep up with demand,
and all are having problems, and all have significant work to
do in order to catch up. Each of those parties placing blame on
the others is not a solution. Each must instead get serious
about addressing its own part of the problem. And let's start
with our part of the problem--the Federal Government and its
sole responsibility for air traffic control. Let us make it the
highest priority of the Federal government to find better ways
to meet the challenges of air traffic control.
Second, let's not make an excuse out of the fact that there
is relatively little we can do that will have any big effect on
the short term. Let's take whatever steps we need to, no matter
how large or small, even if the payoff is not immediate.
Inaction is not a responsible option.
The only sure remedy for air traffic control congestion in
the near term would be a recession, which would suppress
demand. Who among us wants to advocate that to the American
people--or to the President--as our alternative to expanding
capacity?
Third, we have experienced in the past decade an
extraordinary leap in technology in our great country.
Dramatically new approaches to computing and software have been
developed. Computer power that was unimaginable a decade ago
not only exists today, it is cheap and it is common. A whole
new class of technology managers has emerged who are expert at
applying this new technology to complex real-world problems
throughout our economy. It is a point of enormous frustration
to me that we have not been able to put this new technological
power and talent to the task of modernizing air traffic
control.
Key positions in the ATC modernization effort, including
FAA Deputy Administrator and the new Air Traffic Organization
Chief Operating Officer position, remain vacant, despite heroic
efforts by Administrator Garvey. If confirmed, I will take it
as my personal assignment to get top quality people into these
positions.
Fourth, in the longer term, we have to recognize that the
pace of growth in demand and the pace of change in technology
require a degree of nimbleness that the traditional Federal
agency, for all its strengths, simply cannot keep up with. What
we have all adopted--the Congress, the National Civil Aviation
Review Commission, and the executive branch--is the concept
that we will keep the modernization and operation of the Air
Traffic Control system in the FAA, but we will give FAA many of
the attributes of a private entity.
We are building a hybrid, and this is still a work in
progress. And I want to commend in particular Administrator
Jane Garvey for her energetic commitment to change at FAA. But
we all need to recognize that this will not be a perfectly
smooth ride and the success of this approach is not guaranteed.
It is something we all have to make work.
Now, a third major area of challenge facing the Department
of Transportation is in the area of economic deregulation. We
have come to rely far more on the marketplace to regulate
transportation economics, and far less on government
bureaucracies. In general, under deregulation the result has
been to generate real benefits for more people than was the
case under regulation. Average airfares, for example, have
declined nearly 20 percent in real terms in the past decade,
and about 40 percent since the enactment of the Airline
Deregulation Act. Every business in America is more productive
and can offer its customers more for the money because of the
efficiencies that have resulted from a more market-oriented
system for the movement of freight. These are direct pocketbook
benefits to every citizen.
Nevertheless, we need to remember that these benefits rely
on actual competition in the marketplace. No industry in
America operates in a perfectly competitive market, but we need
to make sure that every industry, including every
transportation industry, operates in a market that is at least
as competitive as it needs to be in order to protect the
interests of consumers.
Now, this is simply not a case of government abandoning the
field and leaving the marketplace to do it all. We have an
affirmative responsibility to make sure that competition
continues to be sufficient to protect the interests of
consumers.
And the first of those responsibilities is one we have
already discussed here today, and that is the responsibility to
make sure that we have a transportation infrastructure adequate
to meet demand. Nothing so surely restricts competition as
inadequate infrastructure capacity. The result is not only the
increased costs that are associated with congestion, as we have
already discussed, but also the increased prices that come with
the scarcity artificially imposed by infrastructure
bottlenecks. It is the equivalent of double jeopardy for the
consumer.
Second, government needs to be the watchdog of competition,
not to determine any particular outcome, but to assure that
competition or competitive conditions continue to exist. Now,
that means government needs to work with the marketplace and
not against it, but it also means that there is a role for
government.
The fourth major challenge for the Department of
Transportation is that it serves in many ways as the nation's
first line of defense and serves a very important law
enforcement function. And I refer primarily to the officers and
to the staff and the men and women of the Coast Guard, which
accounts for 40 percent of the Department's personnel and some
of its most important functions. The task of keeping that
protective function of the Coast Guard is one that we will all
need to focus on in the coming months.
Let me close and turn to your questions with this thought.
If I am confirmed, you get me as I am, and I am probably well-
known to most of you. My style is inclusive. I want at the
Department of Transportation the greatest possible involvement
of all levels of government, the input of the private sector,
of all points of view, of all of those who are committed to
finding the solutions to the transportation problems that delay
our citizens and burden our economy.
And I want this to be a completely bipartisan approach. I
do not believe there is such a thing as Democratic or
Republican traffic jams or Democratic or Republican solutions
to those traffic jams. We all have the same interest in better-
working transportation systems, and the only way we will all
get there is by all of us working together. I don't know of any
other way to do it.
So again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for your
kindness in setting this time aside for this hearing. I am very
honored and humbled by President Bush asking me to join his
team. And I am now ready to try to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mineta follow:]
Prepared Statement of Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary-Designate,
Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am honored to find myself
before you again, this time as President Bush's nominee for Secretary
of Transportation.
I must confess that I was a little surprised to get the call, and
to be offered the job by the President. After some careful
consideration and discussion, I decided to say yes to the President's
invitation to serve in his Administration, and perhaps I should begin
by explaining why.
Three decades ago I was Mayor of San Jose, California, and was
focussed on how I could improve the community where I had been born and
raised. I had the usual range of policy tools that mayors use to try to
improve their communities: city planning and zoning authorities,
economic development programs, grants for housing, and so on. But what
I found in practice was that the tool that made the most difference in
my community was transportation. Nothing else had as great an impact on
our economic development, on the pattern of growth, or on the quality
of life.
What I have found in the years since is that this is true not just
locally, but also nationally. Transportation is key to the
productivity, and therefore, the success, of virtually every business
in America. Congestion and delay not only waste our time as
individuals, they also burden our businesses and our entire economy
with inefficiency and higher costs. The bottom line is that
transportation is key in gene-rating and enabling economic growth, in
determining the patterns of that growth, and in determining the
competitiveness of our businesses in the world economy. Transportation
is thus key to both our economic success and to our quality of life.
In short, three decades of experience tell me that transportation
is vital to our national wellbeing, whether measured as economic
growth, as international competitiveness, or as quality of life,
Congestion and inefficiency in transportation are not just inconvenient
and aggravating though they certainly are that--but they are also a tax
that burdens every business and every individual. We have to find ways
to lighten that load.
Given my views on the importance of transportation, and my belief
that I will be able to work well with the President and others in the
Administration, I said yes to the President.
I did so, however, painfully await of the formidable challenges we
now face in transportation. Let me give you my sense of some of the
most significant of those challenges.
First of all, guaranteeing the safety of the travelling public is
the number one job at the Department of Transportation. We have an
enviable transportation safety record in this country--in many modes we
are among the leaders of the world in safety. Even in our most
difficult category--highways, where 94% of all transportation
fatalities occur--we have shown in recent years the ability to hold the
number of highway fatalities flat, despite significantly rising numbers
of vehicles on the road, thus improving the fatality rate.
Nevertheless, despite our generally solid performance on safety, we
need to recognize that we reached this point by constantly searching
for the next best safety improvement that could be made. We have to
continue to do that, and we have to do it in a way that gets for the
public the greatest possible safety improvement for each dollar spent.
A few examples of the safety challenges we face:
A year ago Congress created the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, elevating a function that had previously had
been in the Federal Highway Administration. We need to make sure that
this is more than just a change in the organizational chair and that it
leads to improved safety and greater compliance with motor carrier
safety requirements. We must look at what needs to be done, in
coordination with the states, which do most of the enforcement work, to
achieve that goal.
A couple of months ago, Congress passed legislation
requiring significant new reporting on safety issues involving tires.
For that action to produce any real benefit for the public, we are
going to have to make sure that we have sufficient resources at NHTSA
to effectively use that data to spot adverse safety trends and to do
something about those trends if and when they emerge.
In air traffic control, we have long had one of the most
envied safety records in the world, due in large part to some very
dedicated individuals who work every day to achieve that result. But it
is simply not good safety practice, in my view, to have the
organization responsible for moving the traffic also be the
organization responsible for determining what the safety standards
should be and whether they are being met. While it is true that every
part of the organization has a safety responsibility, it should be a
separate unit of the organization that independently determines whether
the rest of the organization has met that responsibility. Combining
these two responsibilities, as we have traditionally done, in a single
unit simply puts too great a burden on the people who are attempting to
meet the very strong demands placed on them in this field. These two
functions should be in separate units in FAA.
Second, a central challenge for the Department is to close the gap
between demand for transportation and the capacity of our
transportation infrastructure. That gap is what generates the traffic
you face on the highways, the delay you experience on the taxiway or at
the gate, the inefficiencies shippers face when their shipments are
jammed up in a rail bottleneck, a beltway traffic jam, or a port
operation struggling with constrained landside transportation access.
Congressional enactment of TEA-21 and AIR-21 has put in place levels of
capital investment that will be important in resolving these jams, but
there will need to be more than just funding provided.
Nowhere is this more evident than in Air Traffic Control. In 1997,
the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, which I chaired, warned
that, due to rapidly growing demand and a system that was just not
keeping up with that rapid growth, our nation's aviation system was
approaching gridlock. And by the summer of 1999 Americans faced
skyrocketing air traffic control delays. We had the same experience in
2000.
And I need to be very candid with you on this point--we are very
likely to have similar--or worse--delay problems this year as well. We
simply have an air traffic control system that, despite real
improvements, has not been able to keep pace with rapidly rising
demand. At the highest demand times, and at times. when there are
additional considerations, such as adverse but routine weather, we find
more and more often that demand reaches or exceeds the capacity of at
least part of the system.
When that happens, the system quite rightly elects to take that
capacity shortfall as ground holds and other forms of delay, rather dm
compromise public safety. But even though that is the right choice, it
still imposes very real penalties on passengers and ultimately on our
economy.
We all understand that severe weather can require airports to close
or aircraft to be rerouted. But now we have reached the point where,
particularly during the high-traffic summer months, a routine line of
thunderstorms in Indiana can back up traffic from coast-to-coast. We
are often operating right at the capacity of the system, so it takes
relatively little to precipitate the aviation version of gridlock.
It is essential that all of us first understand the origin of this
problem, and that is the dramatic growth in the number of passengers
trying to fly and shippers trying to move packages by air. In the year
2000, we had nearly 215 million more enplaned passengers than we did in
1991. 215 million more people showing up per year than we did just nine
years ago is a number nearly equal to the entire population of the
United States. We only had about 450 million show up in 1991, so that's
nearly a 5O% increase in just 9 years. Given the fact that it is
impossible to quickly expand air traffic control capacity, airport
capacity, and airline capacity, it is not surprising that the result is
that everything is crowded--not just the ATC system, but the airport
parking lot, the counters, the terminal corridors, the passenger cabin,
the baggage carousel, the customs checkpoint. . . everything.
That surging demand is partly due to a surging economy, and partly
due to the fact that deregulation has made air travel more affordable
for more people--average airfares have declined in real terms by nearly
20% over the past decade, by nearly 40% since the Deregulation Act was
passed. People have more money and air travel on average costs less--
the result is that lots more of them show up.
The challenge before us now is, given that surging demand, what can
we do about the congestion and the delay?
First, we have to recognize that airlines, airports, and air
traffic control are all struggling to keep up with demand, all are
having problems, and all have significant work to do to catch up. Each
of those parties placing blame on the others is not a solution. Each
must instead get serious about addressing its own part of the problem.
And let's start with our part of the problem--the federal government
has sole responsibility for air traffic control. Let's make it the
highest priority of the federal government to find better ways to meet
the challenges of air traffic control.
Second, let's not make an excuse out of the fact that there is
relatively little we can do that will have any big effect in the short
term. Let's take whatever steps we need to, no matter how large of
small, even if the payoff is not immediate. Delay and/or inaction are
not responsible options.
The only sure remedy for air traffic control congestion in the near
term would be a recession, which would suppress demand. Who among us
wants to advocate that to the American people or to the President--as
our alternative to expanding capacity?
There are measures that are worth looking at, because they could
have some beneficial effect in the near term. They include such things
as:
Better utilization of radio spectrum. We add capacity to
the system by adding sectors, and every sector we add means adding more
radio channels in a given area. In some parts of the country, most
notably the Northeast, we are bumping up against the limits of the
amount of radio spectrum available to civil aviation. We should look
into technology that would allow us to get more channels into the
existing amount of available spectrum.
Better use of existing technology. In several areas, FAA
sometimes has a tendency to want to phase out an existing technology
because it believes that a newer and better technology will be
available in the near future. Sometimes the near future then turns out
to be not so near. An example is precision approach. The current
technology is Instrument Landing Systems. FAA is working on a GPS-based
replacement known as Local Area Augmentation System. It looks quite
promising, but it is several years from being ready, even if everything
stays on schedule. Meanwhile, a number of large airports, doing their
part to catch up with demand, are bringing major new runway projects
toward completion, Philadelphia and Phoenix recently completed new
runways. Denver, Detroit, the Twin Cities, Orlando, and Seattle are in
construction, and Cleveland, Miami, Houston, Atlanta, St. Louis, and
Charlotte are close to construction. In short, lots of concrete is on
the way. Yet many of these airports are being told that ILS's might not
be available from FAA when the new runways are completed, meaning we
would not have full use of this new runway capacity when it becomes
available. In a situation where we cannot keep up with demand, we
cannot afford to stop installing today's technology until tomorrow's
technology actually arrives and is ready to use.
Third, we have experienced in the past decade an extraordinary leap
in technology in this country. Dramatically new approaches to computing
and software have been developed. Computer power that was unimaginable
a decade ago not only exists today, it is cheap and it is common. A
whole new class of technology managers has emerged who are expert at
applying this new technology to complex real-world problems throughout
our economy. It is a point of enormous frustration to me that we have
not been able to put this new technological power and talent to the
task of modernizing air traffic control.
Key positions in the ATC modernization effort, including FAA Deputy
Administrator and the new ATO Chief Operating Officer position, remain
vacant despite heroic efforts by Administrator Garvey. If confirmed, I
will take it as my personal assignment to get top quality people into
these positions. I know the hi-tech industry, and I know that there are
talented people out there who are ready to prove their talent by
tackling one of the biggest technology challenges ever.
Fourth, in the longer term, we have to recognize that the pace of
growth in demand and the pace of change in technology require a degree
of nimbleness that the traditional federal agency, for all its
strengths, simply cannot keep up with. What we have all adopted--the
Congress, the National Civil Aviation Review Commission and the
Executive Branch--is the concept that we will keep the modernization
and operation of the Air Traffic Control system in the FAA, but we will
give FAA many of the attributes of a private entity. These attributes
have been provided by various actions over the past 5 years, and they
include procurement reform, personnel reform, a cost accounting system,
a COO, oversight boards that function much as a board of directors
might in a private corporation, and so on. We are building a hybrid,
and this is still a work in progress. We are, in some respects, in
uncharted territory, and this is in many ways an ongoing experiment. I
want to commend in particular Jane Garvey for her energetic commitment
to change at FAA. But we all need to recognize that this will not be a
perfectly smooth ride, and the success of this approach is not
guaranteed. It is something we have to make work. And we are going. to
have to keep in mind that we simply cannot afford the high cost of
having an air traffic control system that cannot meet the needs of this
nation.
Fifth, I have emphasized the management changes needed to make ATC
modernization work, but we should also understand that it will take
both improved management and adequate resources. Enactment of AIR-21
was a very notable and positive step toward an Air Traffic Control
system adequate to meet demand, but we need to make sure that we not
only enact it but also fully implement it.
Congestion is not only a problem in the air, it is a problem in
virtually every mode of transportation. I want to mention in particular
the problems we have in highways and transit. The Eisenhower Interstate
Highway System did an extraordinary job of knitting our country
together and making efficient nationwide highway transportation a
reality both for people and for goods. The result was a quantum leap in
the productivity and the competitiveness of our economy. But we are now
losing that productivity to specific bottlenecks in the system, and
gains made nationwide are too often being lost locally.
In the ISTEA legislation in 1992 we attempted to address this
critical problem, and it is something we are going to have to continue
to address. We recognized that effective solutions to these bottlenecks
would have to involve a high degree of local, metropolitan, and state
involvement in order to build the broad spectrum of support necessary
to overcome resistance and to get the problem solved. We also
recognized that this could not be a one-size-fits-all approach, and
that the combination of solutions needed in one location would not be
the same combination of solutions needed in another location. Every
instance requires its own mix of new highway capacity, better
management of existing capacity, Intelligent Transportation Systems,
transit, pedestrian improvements, and so on. To be effective in dealing
with these bottlenecks we have to be prepared to use whatever mix of
transportation alternatives will work, and we have to take a balanced
approach to all alternatives. We have to constantly be looking for what
works and what is the most cost-effective solution to the problem. We
simply do not have the excess resources to do otherwise.
TEA-21 has continued that approach, while providing badly needed
addition capital investment.
A third major area of challenge facing the Department is in the
area of economic deregulation. We have come to rely far more on the
marketplace to regulate transportation economics, and far less on
government bureaucracies. In general, under deregulation the result has
been to generate real benefits for many more people than was the case
under regulation. As I indicated earlier, average airfares, for
example, have declined nearly 20% in real terms in the past decade, and
about 40% since the enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act. Every
business in America is more productive and can offer its customers more
for the money because of the efficiencies that have resulted from a
more market-oriented system for the movement of freight. These are
direct pocketbook benefits to every citizen.
Nevertheless, we need to remember that these benefits rely on
actual competition in the marketplace. No industry in America operates
in a perfectly competitive market, but we need to make sure that every
industry, including every transportation industry, operates in a market
that is at least as competitive as it needs to be to protect the
interests of consumers.
This is not simply a case of government abandoning the field and
leaving the marketplace to do it all. We have an affirmative
responsibility to make sure that competition continues to be sufficient
to protect the interests of consumers.
The first of those responsibilities is one we have already
discussed here today, and that is the responsibility to make sure that
we have a transportation infrastructure adequate to meet demand.
Nothing so surely restricts competition as inadequate infrastructure
capacity. The result is not only the increased costs associated with
congestion, as we have already discussed, but also the increased prices
that come with the scarcity artificially imposed by infrastructure
bottlenecks, It is the equivalent of double jeopardy for the consumer.
Second, government needs to be the watchdog of competition, not to
determine any particular outcome, but to assure that competitive
conditions continue to exist. That means government needs to work with
the marketplace and not against it, but it also means that there is a
role for government.
For example, in 1984, all consumer protection and fair competitive
practices statutes at DOT with regard to airlines were set to expire by
law. I led the effort to amend the law to retain those statutory
authorities, and with them such consumer protection rules as the denied
boarding compensation rules, the CRS rules, the smoking rules, and the
notice to passengers about tariff conditions and the right to inspect
the tariff. I am pleased to say that with the support of colleagues in
both houses and on both sides of the aisle, we prevailed.
By the same token, I have been increasingly concerned in recent
years that in order to effectively use those authorities for the
genuine benefit of consumers, we need far greater ability to analyze
these complex industries and to better determine which proposed
remedies will, in the real world, benefit consumers and which, however
well-intentioned, will not. The analytic resources of the Department to
do this kind of work have been greatly reduced, and we have to reverse
that trend if we are to be effective in looking out for competition and
for the consumer. I have made this a personal priority, and have
discussed it with the President.
And a fourth major challenge for the Department is that it serves
in many ways as the nation's first line of defense and serves an
important law enforcement function. I refer primarily to the Coast
Guard, which accounts for 40% of the Department's personnel and some of
its most important missions. The task of keeping that protective
function of the Coast Guard up to the task is one that we will all need
to focus on in the coming months.
Let me close and turn to your questions with this thought. If I am
confirmed, you get me as I am, and I am well-known to most of you. My
style is inclusive. I want at DOT the greatest possible involvement of
all levels of government, of all points of view, of all those committed
to finding the solutions to the transportation problems that delay our
citizens and burden our economy. And I want this Department to be a
completely bipartisan department. I do not believe there is such a
thing as Democratic or Republican traffic jams or Democratic or
Republican solutions to those traffic jams. We all have the same
interest in better-working transportation systems, and the only way we
will get there is by all working together. I don't know any other way
to do it.
I thank you for your kindness in inviting me back yet once more,
and I am prepared to try to answer your questions.
______
Biographical and Financial Information Requested of
Department/Agency Nominees
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name: Norman Yoshio Mineta.
2. Position to which nominated: U.S. Secretary of Transportation.
3. Date of nomination: January 2, 2001.
4. Address: Not available to the public.
5. Date and place of birth: November 12, 1931, in San Jose,
California.
6. Marital status: Married to Danealia Darlene Mineta. Maiden name:
Danealia Darlene Hill.
7. Names and ages of children: David K. Mineta (son): 36; Stuart S.
Mineta (son): 30; Robert M. Brantner (stepson): 30; and Mark D.
Brantner (stepson): 29.
8. Education: San Jose High School, San Jose, California, 1946-
1949, Diploma; University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley,
California, 1949-1953, B.S.
9. Employment record: 1953 to 1956: U.S. Army, Military
Intelligence Officer, Korea and Japan; 1953 to 1966: U.S. Army Reserve,
Attained Rank of Major; 1956 to 1992: Mineta Insurance Agency, Owned/
Managed family insurance business, San Jose, California; 1967 to 1971:
City of San Jose, Member of City Council, San Jose, California; 1971 to
1974: City of San Jose, Mayor, San Jose, California; 1975-1995: U.S.
House of Representatives, Member, Washington, D.C.; 1995-1998: 1995 to
4/98 Senior Vice President and Managing Director, Transportation
Systems Services, Lockheed Martin Corp., Bethesda, Maryland; 1998-2000:
Vice President, Special Business Initiatives, Lockheed Martin Corp.,
Bethesda, Maryland; 2000-present: Secretary of Commerce.
10. Government experience: Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority Board of Review; Chair, 1987-1995, Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority Board of Review; Member, 2000 President's Advisory
Commission on Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders; Member, 2000,
Smithsonian Institution; Member, Board of Regents, 1977 to 1995;
Member, National Board; Member, Smithsonian Environmental Research
Committee; Chair, Asian Pacific American Advisory Committee;
President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection; Member,
Advisory Committee, September-December 1997; National Civil Aviation
Review Commission; Chair, 1997, U.S. Department of Transportation;
Unpaid consultant to Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation,
March-June 1999; Drafted Motor Carrier Safety Administration Report.
11. Business relationships: Santa Clara University, Santa Clara,
California; Members Board of Regents; Santa Clara, California.12.
Memberships: Japanese American National Museum, Board of Directors; San
Jose Chamber of Commerce; 1Center for Policy Alternatives, Board of
Directors; Eno Transportation Foundation, Board of Directors; Aero Club
of Washington, Board of Directors; Asian Pacific American Institute for
Congressional Studies, Board of Directors; Junior Statesman Foundation,
Board of Directors; History Museums of San Jose, Board of Directors;
National Japanese American Memorial Foundation, Board of Directors; San
Jose Museum of Art; Boy Scouts of America, Santa Clara County Council.
13. Political affiliations and activities: (a) Candidacies: 1969,
San Jose City Council (Appointed, 1967); 1971, Mayor of San Jose; 1974
and every 2 years thereafter, through 1994, U.S. House of
Representatives from San Jose, California. (b) Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee, member; Dukakis for President Committee, Co-Chair
Santa; Clara County United Democratic Committee, member; Democratic
Central Committee, Santa Cruz Country, member; Democratic State Central
Committee, member. (c) Itemize all political contributions to any
individual, campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years.
The following contributions were made by Mineta for Congress
political action committee:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Lot of Folks for Pat Federal........ 11/02/92 500.00
Williams.
A Lot of People Supporting Federal........ 5/09/97 500.00
Tom Daschle.
Abercrombie for Congress..... Federal........ 10/09/72 1000.00
Al Swift Campaign............ Federal........ 11/02/92 500.00
Alan Wheat for U.S. Senate... Federal........ 05/04/94 500.00
A Lot of Friends for Pat Federal........ 11/07/94 500.00
Williams.
Angelides for Treasurer...... Non-Federal.... 9/14/97 500.00
Anna Eshoo for Congress...... Federal........ 6/19/96 500.00
Anna Eshoo for Congress...... Federal........ 10/15/96 500.00
Barca for Congress........... Federal........ 7/12/90 500.00
Bonior for Congress.......... Federal........ 10/31/92 500.00
Boxer for Congress........... Federal........ 10/31/92 1000.00
Brennen of Governor/Maine.... Non-Federal.... 10/26/90 500.00
Bud Cramer for Congress...... Federal........ 9/28/92 500.00
Citizens for John Olver for Federal........ 05/30/91 500.00
Congress.
Committee to Elect Antonio R. Non-Federal.... 03/31/98 500.00
Villaraigosa.
Committee to Re-Elect Tom Federal........ 11/07/94
Foley.
Committee to Re-Elect Wayne Federal........ 10/26/90 500.00
Owen.
Congressman Bart Gordon Federal........ 06/03/96 500.00
Committee.
Congressman Jerry Kleczka.... Federal........ 01/09/96
Congressman Klidee Committee. Federal........ 11/07/94 500.00
Congressman William 0. Federal........ 05/15/92 500.00
Lipinski Committee.
Daniel K. Inouye in `98...... Federal........ 02/28/98 1000.00
Democratic Central Committee Political 10/30/95 2000.00
Santa Clara County. Organization.
Democratic Congressional Federal........ 03/14/89 3000.00
Dinner Committee.
Democratic Congressional Federal........ 03/27/91 3000.00
Dinner Committee.
Democratic Congressional Federal........ 09/19/89 1000.00
Campaign Committee.
Democratic Congressional Federal........ 02/05/90 5000.00
Campaign Committee.
Democratic Congressional Federal........ 10/26/90 500.00
Campaign Committee.
Democratic Congressional Federal........ 03/27/91 5000.00
Campaign Committee.
Democratic Congressional Federal........ 11/06/91 500.00
Campaign Committee.
Democratic Congressional Federal........ 04/06/92 5000.00
Campaign Committee.
Democratic Congressional Federal........ 09/23/93 5000.00
Campaign Committee.
Democratic Congressional Federal........ 05/17/94 5000.00
Campaign Committee.
Democratic Congressional Federal........ 01/24/95 5000.00
Campaign Committee.
Democratic State Central Political 05/26/92 4000.00
Committee. Organization.
Democratic Party, Santa Clara Political 05/22/94 500.00
County. Organization.
Democratic State Central Political 09/25/92 2000.00
Committee. Organization.
Don Beyer for Governor....... Non-Federal.... 09/07/97 500.00
Eshoo for Congress........... Federal........ 03/31/92 1000.00
Eshoo for Congress........... Federal........ 09/30/92 1000.00
Faleomavaega for Congress Federal........ 11/07/94 500.00
Committee.
Fifth Exploratory Committee Federal........ 10/20/89 1000.00
(Moffett).
Ford for Congress............ Federal........ 10/31/91 500.00
Friends of Bob Carr.......... Federal........ 10/31/92 500.00
Friends of Bob Carr.......... Federal........ 07/22/94 500.00
Friends of Daniel Akaka...... Federal........ 07/23/90 1000.00
Friends of Farr.............. Federal........ 11/07/94 1000.00
Friends of Jim Oberstar...... Federal........ 04/15/98 500.00
Friends of L.F.Payne......... Non-Federal.... 09/30/97 500.00
Friends of Mark Takano....... Federal........ 02/11/94 500.00
Friends/ Congressman George Federal........ 03/31/97 500.00
Miller Committee.
Hamburg for Congress......... Federal........ 11/07/94 1000.00
Hefner for Congress.......... Federal........ 10/26/90 500.00
Hoyer for Congress........... Federal........ 6/17/97 500.00
IMPAC 2000................... Political 05/07/90 10,000.00
Organization.
IMPAC 2000................... Political 06/04/90 25,000.00
Organization.
IMPAC 2000................... Political 05/07/91 10,000.00
Organization.
IMPAC 2000................... Political 07/10/91 10,000.00
Organization.
IMPAC 2000................... Political 09/30/91 15,000.00
Organization.
Jerry Estruth for Congress Federal........ 10/17/95 5000.00
Committee.
Keep George Brown............ Federal........ 10/26/90 1000.00
Keep Nick Rahall in Congress Federal........ 11/02/92 500.00
Committee.
Keep Nick Rahall in Congress Federal........ 03/13/98 500.00
Committee.
Kennelly for Connecticut..... Non-Federal.... 04/15/98 500.00
Les AuCoin for Senate........ Federal........ 06/24/91 1000.00
Les AuCoin for Senate........ Federal........ 06/26/91 1000.00
Lynn Schenk for Congress..... Federal........ 11/07/94 500.00
Mike Honda for Assembly `96.. Non-Federal.... 10/15/96 500.00
Moffett for Congress......... Federal........ 10/26/90 500.00
Nagle for Congress........... Federal........ 10/26/92 500.00
Nagle for Congress........... Federal........ 10/31/92 500.00
Pastor for Congress.......... Federal........ 09/17/92 500.00
Price for Congress........... Federal........ 03/25/96 500.00
Rahall, Nick (Keep Nick Federal........ 05/02/90 1000.00
Rahall/Congress).
Sam Farr for Congress........ Federal........ 3/13/98 500.00
Santa Clara County United Political 3/16/90 5,000.00
Democratic Committee. Organization.
Santa Clara County United Political 9/30/96 1,610.00
Democratic Committee. Organization.
Sawyer for Congress.......... Federal........ 11/07/94 500.00
Sherman for Congress......... Federal........ 10/09/96 500.00
Spratt for Congress.......... Federal........ 07/16/96 500.00
Studds for Congress.......... Federal........ 10/26/90 1000.00
Takano for Congress.......... Federal........ 06/15/93 500.00
Torricelli for Congress...... Federal........ 06/03/96 1000.00
Torricelli for Congress...... Federal........ 06/03/96 1000.00
United Democratic Campaign... Political 07/13/90 891.50
Organization.
United Democratic Campaign... Political 07/23/90 931.50
Organization.
United Democratic Campaign.. Political 08/15/90 2,464.50
Organization.
United Democratic Campaign... Political 08/31/90 2,812.50
Organization.
United Democratic Campaign... Political 09/13/90 2,113.50
Organization.
United Democratic Campaign... Political 03/29/93 500.00
Organization.
United Democratic Campaign... Political 03/25/92 1000.00
Organization.
United Democratic Campaign... Political 09/30/94 2,500.00
Organization.
United Democratic Campaign... Political 11/04/94 2,500.00
Organization.
United Democratic Campaign... Political 11/28/95 5,500.00
Organization.
Victory '90 Federal Account.. Political 10/24/90 4,000.00
Organization.
Vinich for Congress.......... Federal........ 04/20/89 1000.00
Washington State Democratic Federal........ 10/30/96 2,750.00
Party.
Washington State Democratic Federal........ 10/30/90 2,750.00
Party.
Wolpe for Congress........... Federal........ 10/26/90 1000.00
Woolsey for Congress Federal........ 12/21/93 500.00
Committee.
Yates for Congress Committee. Federal........ 12/29/89 1000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Honors and awards: Due to my retirement from Congress 5 years
ago, it is no longer possible to assemble a comprehensive list of my
awards and honors. The following is my best effort to recall some of
the awards and honors I have received over the years: Outstanding
Citizen, San Jose, CA, 2000; Aviation Achievement Award, Aero Club of
Washington, 1985; Industry Public Service Award. Air Transport World,
1987; Award for Extraordinary Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
1989; Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Medal, George Washington
University, 1995; Distinguished Service Medal, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, 1996; Hubert Humphrey Award, Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, 1996; Public Service Award, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1996; Glen A. Gilbert
Memorial Award, Air Traffic Control Association; 1996 Joseph P.
Hartranft, Jr. ``Doe Award'', Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,
1987; and Distinguished Service Award, American Public Transit
Association, 1993.
15. Published writings: Due to my retirement from Congress 5 years
ago, it is no longer possible to assemble a comprehensive list of my
published writings. The following is best effort to list as many of my
published writings as I can: ``Winning the Peace,'' Sun World/view
point--July 1991; ``Making Sense of the Census: An Opinion Editorial,''
The Rafu Shimpo, It Pays to Know--April 18, 1990; ``Congressional
Insight: Biotechnology and the Future,'' Details--May/June 1991;
``Mineta on Strategy: Government Should Help, Not Ignore, U.S.
Companies in World Markets,'' The Business Journal (Santa Clara
Valley)--October 16, 1989; ``Will there Be Life in Our Space Program,''
AD ASTRA Space Politics Forum--November 1989; ``Comments to Letter to
Gorbachev (Perspective),'' San Jose Mercury News--June 3, 1990; ``In
Cast of Oil Emergency,'' San Jose Mercury News--October 15, 1990;
``Time to Rebuild America,'' State Government News November 1991; ``Ice
Tea' is Working,'' ROLL CALL, Infrastructure Policy Briefing, June 29,
1992; ``Override Bush's Veto on the FSX,'' San Jose Mercury News,
Commentary--August 4, 1989; ``Defining the Federal Role in
Infrastructure Funding,'' Stone Review--April 1991; ``Trains, Planes,
and Automobiles--Getting from Here to There in the 1990s,'' TRAIL--
February 1991; ``ADA: A Matter of Civil Rights,'' Worklife--Fall 1990;
``National Transportation Systems--SOLUTIONS FOR THE FUTURE,'' DES--
October 1990; ``Penny-Wise and Pound-Foolish,'' ROLL CALL
Infrastructure Policy Briefing--July 23, 1990; ``Mobility Safety
Concern Congress,'' Roads and Bridges--December 1989; ``U.S. Airlines
Should Not Be Routinely Repaired Overseas,'' Scripps Howard News
Service--December 11, 1989; ``Infrastructure: The Federal Road Ahead,''
Stone Review--April 1989; ``Curing the Air Travel Crunch,'' Air and
Space--October/November 1987; ``Building the Future Today,'' U.S.
MAYOR--February 15, 1993; ``Looking To The Future,'' Heavy/Highway
Report--January 1993; ``Reinventing Superfund,'' ROLL CALL Environment
Policy Briefing--July 25, 1994.; ``Technology in Motion; Privacy at
Issue,'' San Jose Mercury News--September 4, 1994; ``The Flight Into
the 104th Congress,'' The Alliance (published by the Association of
Flight Attendants (SFO United Council 11))--March 20, 1995; ``In
Transit We Trust,'' San Jose Mercury News--March 17, 1995; ``Now, the
Point is `Nonpoint','' ROLL CALL Environment Policy Briefing--April 3,1
995; ``GOP Congress Must Exempt Infrastructure From Its Attacks on
Government Spending,'' ROLL CALL, Infrastructure Policy Briefing--May
8, 1995; ``The Wounds of War,'' People Magazine--December 14, 1987
16. Speeches: Provide the Committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated.
Due to my retirement from Congress 5 years ago, it is no longer
possible to assemble a comprehensive list of my speeches. However, I
have given approximately ten speeches in two areas: Asian Pacific
American Affairs and Federal aviation matters. I do not have copies of
these speeches readily at hand. I will attempt to provide copies of
these speeches if the Committee so desires.
17. Selection: (a) I assume I was nominated because of my long
record on transportation issues, because of my belief that
transportation is key to so much of our economic strength and quality
of life, and because of my commitment to transportation programs that
move us forward in those areas. (b) Please see my answer to Question F
(1) of this questionnaire.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate?
Yes.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government?
No.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation, or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association, or
organization?
No.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government office?
No.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable?
Yes.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associated,
clients or customers.
As an employee of Lockheed Martin Corporation, I received a salary,
certain stock options, retirement benefits, 401(k), and health
benefits. In addition, as a former Member of Congress, I am vested in
the Federal retirement plan and draw a retirement annuity.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships, which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
I retained stock and stock options with Lockheed Martin. I will
disqualify myself from participation in matters likely to affect these
interests, consistent with ethics regulations. I do not anticipate
these holdings creating a conflict of interest with my duties in light
of this recusal.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transactions which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
During the past 10 years, I have had no clients and only three
employers. I do not anticipate any conflict of interest being created
by any of my past activities. I will disqualify myself from
participating in matters concerning Lockheed Martin or organizations
with which I have served, as provided in ethics regulations.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat or modification of any legislation affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
Until October, 1995, I had served as a member of the US House of
Representatives continuously since January, 1975. I have been outspoken
in matters related to Asian Pacific Americans. I have also served on
Federal panels in public proceedings and have testified to Congress in
related matters. Presently, I am serving as Secretary of Commerce.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.)
I will consult with ethics officials of the Department of
Transportation and, if appropriate, divest myself of conflicting
interests, recuse myself, or obtain a waiver of conflict of interests
restrictions, if applicable.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position?
Yes.
D. LEGAL MATTERS
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a compliant to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details.
No.
2. 1Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority. for violation
of any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation or
ordinance, other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Have you or any businesses of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details.
I'm aware of none.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including please of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense?
No.
5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel, should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
None.
E. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines set by congressional committees for information?
To the limits of my powers, yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/ agency does whatever it
can to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from
reprisal for their testimony and disclosures?
To the limits of my powers, yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, to include technical experts and career employees with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the committee?
To the limits of my powers, yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so?
To the limits of my powers, yes.
F. GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS AND VIEWS
Please describe how your previous professional experience and
education qualifies you for the position for which you have been
nominated.
1. How have your previous professional experience and education
qualified you for the position for which you have been nominated?
Beginning with my experience as Mayor of San Jose, I came to
appreciate the importance of transportation in generating and enabling
economic growth, in determining the patterns of that growth, and
ultimately in determining the quality of life of our citizens. From the
time I arrived in Congress I have served on transportation committees
and played a major role in transportation issues and legislation.
During my 20-plus years in the House I served on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee (formerly the Public Works and Transportation
Committee), and chaired at various times both its Aviation Subcommittee
and its Surface Transportation Subcommittee. Ultimately I chaired the
full Committee. After leaving Congress, I served as head of the
Transportation Systems and Services unit of Lockheed Martin IMS. And
most recently, as Secretary of Commerce, I had responsibility for
programs with particular relevance for transportation, such as weather
reporting, trade and tourism, and ocean policy.
2. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated?
I believe transportation plays a key role in our standard of
living, and it does. so by being a primary factor in economic growth,
in the livability of our communities, in the public safety, and in the
competitiveness of our businesses in the world economy. To the extent
we can have safe and efficient transportation systems, we make real
progress toward all those goals. I cannot think of a better field in
which to serve the public interest.
3. What goals have you established for your first 2 years in this
position, if confirmed?
I intend to work on many issues, foremost among them:
Preserving and improving on generally strong safety
records in our transportation modes.
Building toward a transportation infrastructure which is
fully able to meet the demands of our growing economy and which can
contribute to that growth by providing greater efficiency in the
movement of people and goods. Strong economic growth in recent years
has given us greater demand in some modes than our existing
infrastructure can efficiently handle, most notably in aviation and
highways/transit. This inefficiency creates a drag on the economy that
burdens future growth. I would like to put us well on the path to a
transportation infrastructure fully and efficiently able to meet the
demand our present economy places and our future economy will place on
it.
Economic deregulation of transportation has been a major
contributor to improved transportation efficiency and therefore to
growth. Furthermore, in many instances, economic deregulation has
distributed the benefits of our transportation systems far more widely
in our society. I want to see economic deregulation and the.
competition that makes it work, continued and strengthened, and I want
to see its benefits even more widely distributed throughout our
society.
Our air traffic control system in particular has not been
able to keep up with the rising demands put on it. Where and when it is
not able to meet demand, we quite rightly take the penalty for that
shortfall in increased delays, rather than in a reduced margin of
safety. Nevertheless we pay a very large penalty throughout our economy
for those delays. We have simply not been able to bring to bear on the
problem of air traffic control the full technological advances our
society has generated in the past decade. I would like to put us well
on the path to accomplishing that.
Our surface transportation system nationwide is burdened
by bottlenecks and choke points of its own, often in and around major
metropolitan areas. We need not only to invest more in the
transportation infrastructure solutions. to those bottlenecks, given
the enormous size of the problem we need to invest in each instance in
the most cost-effective solution. That will sometimes be new roads,
sometimes transit, sometimes modifications to existing infrastructure,
such as HOV, coordinated signalization, and other applications of hi-
tech to the problem of more efficiently moving traffic. Above all we
need a balanced approach to these decisions, not automatically favoring
one solution over another, but looking for the best solution in that
particular location. And that inherently calls for full participation
in those decisions by local, metropolitan, and State officials. I would
like to further strengthen our balanced approach to solving these
problems, and to do it with full participation by all levels of
government.
4. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills?
I believe that I have the skills necessary to meet the
responsibilities of this position. However, I also realize that this
position carries with it high expectations across a wide range of
areas, and I am sure there will be humbling moments in the face of
great challenges.
5. Please discuss your philosophical views on the role of
government. Include a discussion of when you believe the government
should involve itself in the private sector, and what standards should
be used to determine when a government program is no longer necessary.
I believe that the proper test of what should be determined by the
public sector and what should be determined by the private sector is
what is in the public's best interest? And I believe that is a case-by-
case determination and a pragmatic issue, not one appropriate to
across-the-board or ideologically driven answers.
I believe that what the private sector, and the competitive market
in particular, does well for the public interest, it does better than
any other mechanism. But I also believe that it does not do everything
well for the public interest.
We, as policymakers and as citizens, are called upon to parse out
which mechanism best serves the public interest in each instance, and
that has always been the role of policymakers and citizens in our
country.
Let me give some more specific examples.
I believe that the national defense, and the decisions about the
use of military force and the size, deployment, and preparedness of our
military forces are decisions best made in the public interest when
they are made by the public sector. But I believe that decisions about
how best to manufacture the weapons and other materiel necessary to
support our military are best made in the public interest when made in
a competitive marketplace in response to public sector specification of
the military's needs.
I believe that in specific instances the marketplace does not take
us toward the public interest unless basic limits are set by the public
sector. In areas such as the environment or worker safety, unfettered
competition will reduce those areas to levels of protection well below
what is in the public interest. However, if the public sector then sets
limits of permissible behavior and allows free competition within those
limits, the private sector will make the best decisions through a
competitive marketplace as to how to produce products within those
limits. And the private sector will make the best decisions with
respect to how to comply with those limits, e.g., as a general matter,
the public sector should prohibit levels of pollution above a certain
level, but leave it to the private sector to determine how best to
reduce pollution to that prescribed level. In that regard, I support
the idea in the Clean Air Act that we should not only limit the amount
of pollution emitted in a metropolitan axea, but we should also allow
the competitive marketplace to reallocate those limited allowances to
pollute, so that we always get the greatest possible economic output
from the limited amount of pollution allowed. That example seems to me
to be a very appropriate blending of private and public sector
decisionmaking.
And I believe that in transportation in particular, the public
sector has a key role in determining the limits with respect to safety,
including, for example, the design and maintenance of aircraft, and
separation standards for air traffic control. But the basic allocation
of assets--where to fly the aircraft, when, and how to price those
seats--are questions where the private sector has done a far better job
(not perfect, but far better) of allocating under deregulation than the
public sector did prior to deregulation. And that is why I was an early
advocate of economic deregulation--not only in airlines but also in
trucking, buses, and to a large degree in railroads--and have defended
it since. I believe that the overall economic efficiencies economic
deregulation has brought to our transportation sector, and through it
to all sectors of the economy, all of which rely on transportation and
pay for it, have been a significant factor in the extraordinary
performance of our economy in the past decade. My particular concern in
this area is that it is not enough in transportation for the public
sector to simply say it has economically deregulated, it also needs to
make sure that the mechanisms are in place for there to be adequate
transportation infrastructure capacity in place (whether created by
private or public investment) so that a competitive marketplace is
realistic possibility. In that regard I worry in particular about our
investment in highway, transit, and air traffic control capacity,
particularly in light of the strong demand being created in these areas
by our strong economy.
6. In your own words, please describe the agency's current
missions, major programs, and major operational objectives.
The ten agencies and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics that
make up the Department have a broad range of responsibilities, but the
overarching objective is to maintain the enviable safety record in
transportation and to improve upon it. Additional major objectives
include providing for the efficient movement of people and goods,
improving through transportation the nation's economic growth and
competitiveness, and enhancing the quality of life. Under the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Department's stated
mission is to provide ``a safe transportation system that furthers our
vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the
American people.'' I agree with this mission.
Most of the Department's agencies have a long-established history
and a clear safety regulatory presence, such as the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) Federal Aviation Sub Regulations, the Coast
Guard's regulations for vessels and seamen, and the design standards of
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for the National Highway
System. One newly created agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, has substantial safety challenges to address, and
should receive the highest level of focus from the Department's new
leadership. Close coordination with the National Transportation Safety
Board is also integral to carrying out the Department's broad safety
duties.
Through the FAA, the FHWA, and the Federal Transit Administration,
the Department fulfills another national objective: assuring the
transportation capacity that allows our economy to perform at its best.
For example, the growing congestion in airline travel, particularly at
identified ``choke points'' primarily in the eastern portion of the
United States, calls for a combination of actions. My time as the
Secretary of Commerce has convinced me of the close relationship of our
economic well being, and the world's economic health as well, with
having the needed infrastructure in place, whether it is in the
communications, transportation, or energy sector. Having the capacity
at our borders to process the passengers and cargo entering and leaving
the United States is just a single case of where the Department has a
role in assuring the smooth functioning of our economy.
In terms of major operational objectives, it will be incumbent upon
the DOT and FAA leadership to coordinate action among government,
airport operators, and the airlines to bring to bear upon the air
traffic control system all the tools at our disposal to address the
congestion problems that have developed in the past 2 years. The
industry and air travelers deserve a heightened effort by the
Department.
The U.S. Coast Guard is an sub-agency of the Department whose
missions exemplify the breadth of the Department's responsibilities. In
addition to assuring the safety of vessels and seamen, the Coast Guard
enforces fishing laws, immigration along our water borders, and
environmental requirements under the Clean Water Act. The Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, enacted following the Exxon Valdez disaster, is just one
element of the Coast Guard's responsibilities.
7. In reference to question No. 6, what forces are likely to result
in changes to the mission of this agency over the coming 5 years.
Speaking broadly, the globalization of business alliances and trade
activities have an enormous impact on transportation activities, most
importantly in pressure on traditional bilateral arrangements, and on
issuing high standards .of safety internationally. For example, we are
seeing the beginning of a shift from a bilaterally structured civil
aviation world regime to a more multilateral approach. Not only are
airlines engaged in multinational alliances creating global system
networks, but the legal and regulatory regimes are moving from the
decades old bilateral system to multilateral pacts.
The ``digital revolution'' is reshaping transportation activity,
both governmental and private-sector, in ways that would have been
unimaginable just a few years ago. Much of this is exemplified in the
large and growing ``Intelligent Transportation Systems'' that Congress
wisely initiated at DOT in the early 1990s. Separately, the Department
of Transportation is also taking advantage of internet and other
technologies to simplify its business regulatory practices, such as by
allowing re-registration of motor carriers with a credit card at a
secure Departmental website across the internet. Making full use of
these ``digital tools'' is a challenge that will test the Department's
flexibility.
At the agency program level, new problems arise regularly, and
agency missions must adapt, as has just occurred in the case of tire
failure statistics generated in foreign countries that did not come to
the attention of the Department soon enough under existing statutory
authority. The recent enactment of the ``TREAD'' statute is an example
of how Congress and the executive branch must work together to keep the
Department's safety mandate working well. Another important safety area
in flux is ``code sharing'' by U.S. and international airlines and its
safety consequences. Code-sharing refers to a common industry practice
by which one airline offers service in its own name to a particular
city, but some or all of the transportation is provided by another
airline, which carries the first airline's designator code. While
codesharing allows airlines to provide more convenient and often
seamless service to travelers, the Department has recognized the need
to assure that passengers holding U.S. airline tickets, but traveling
on a foreign airline for all or a portion of their journey, are
provided with service that meets international standards of safety.
Last, I would note that the Department, like most other Federal
agencies, faces a severe challenge in continuing to attract a highly
qualified workforce to replace the significant percentage of
professionals and others who are eligible now or soon to retire.
Retention and recruitment of an able staff will be a major challenge
for the Department's new leadership.
8. In further reference to question No. 6, what are the likely
outside forces which may prevent the agency from accomplishing its
mission? What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency and why?
Based on my recent experience as the Secretary of Commerce and with
my background in transportation issues at the local and Federal levels,
I would continue to identify the same challenges as I have in the past
for leading a cabinet-level agency. The top three challenges are: (1)
maintaining focus and effectiveness in a world that is increasingly
globalized and interconnected, (2) continuing to effect change within
the Department, and (3) working with Congress to ensure the Department
has adequate resources. To this list, I would add the particular
challenge of air travel congestion, which must be a central focus of
the next Secretary.
As our world becomes more complex, a Department with the breadth of
responsibilities assigned to the DOT will inevitably be pulled in many
different directions. As I noted in my response to question 7, an
agency cannot continue to do business in traditional fashion. This is
an unending process, which I greet as an opportunity to do more for our
stakeholders, not less. To meet these challenges will require evolution
in how we do business and the tools we use. Change will raise concerns
from some stakeholders within and outside the Department.
Finally, to meet these challenges, the Department will need
adequate funding. I look forward to working with you on all these
fronts.
9. In further reference to question No. 6, what factors in your
opinion have kept the department/agency from achieving its missions
over the past several years?
The Department has strained against some key limitations, and has
done remarkably well given those limitations. They include:
A heightened challenge in attracting and retaining the
highly qualified workforce needed to do the job, particularly in those
fields, such as management of large hi-tech innovation and
implementation, which are in greatest demand in the private sector.
Capital funding necessary to keep infrastructure capacity
capable of meeting demand. Recent enactment of TEA-21 and AIR-21 have
relieved much of this limitation, but that assumes the funding levels
in those statutes are maintained.
Operational budgets have often struggled to keep up with
rising demand as well.
Resistance, internal and external, to making the kinds of
changes, particularly with regard to large operational responsibilities
such as ATC, to acquire more of the nimbleness, innovative thinking,
and responsiveness necessary if we are going to be able to keep pace
with rising demand for these services. This includes slow
implementation of such basic management tools as an accurate cost-
accounting methodology and the filling of new positions designed to
focus the management of these operations.
10. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency?
The immediate stakeholders in Department of Transportation programs
are the users of transportation and allied systems and the many
entities that combine together to provide transportation services. This
means every motorist and every air traveler, of course, but it extends
to motor carriers, airlines, marine operators, and all their employees.
It means State and local agencies that construct and maintain our
airports, highways, transit facilities and more. It means the
international bodies and foreign government agencies with which this
country interacts on formal and informal transportation policies and
issues. It can mean other Federal agencies that conduct transportation-
related operations, such as the Weather Service at the Department of
Commerce that operates aircraft subject to FAA regulation. But the
ultimate stakeholders in this Department are every business and every
citizen who relies on transportation to move people and goods
efficiently and safely. Transportation is a key cost element for every
business and for every citizen. The efficiency of the transportation
systems on which we all depend ultimately determines our productivity
and therefore, our standard of living. Therefore, ultimately every
business and every citizen is a stakeholder of this agency.
In drafting and updating its Strategic Plan and fulfilling the
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act, it has been
the tradition at the Department of Transportation to ``cast a broad
net'' in terms of seeking the viewpoints of its potential stakeholders,
and I would continue that philosophy because I believe it reflects
reality and it leads to the best results.
11. What is the proper relationship between your position, if
confirmed, and the stakeholders identified in question number eleven?
Clear legislative mandates, executive orders and departmental
guidance govern the proper relationship between the Secretary and
stakeholders in all these areas. That relationship is defined by
balancing the necessary access that any agency must provide to its
stakeholders with the clear legal and ethical standard of not allowing
special interests to dictate in any way the policy and operations of
the Department. I can assure you that I will continue my practice at
the Department of Commerce in adhering to both the letter and spirit of
those documents and other available guidance.
12. The Chief Financial Officer Act requires all government
departments and agencies to develop sound financial management
practices similar to those practiced in the private sector.
(a) What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that your agency has proper management and accounting controls?
This requirement of the Chief Financial Officer Act is valuable. My
time in the private sector has confirmed my view that Federal agencies
will benefit from taking a much more business-like approach to handling
their budgetary and capital resources. I know that this can be a
wrenching experience for Federal managers, but it is worth it. I am
aware that it is one of the top 10 ``management challenges'' identified
by the DOT Inspector General for action. Also, the Department's current
accounting system has a number of deficiencies and is not compliant
with current Federal requirements (i.e., standard general ledger). An
improved commercial product is being implemented to replace the current
DAFIS system. My responsibility would be to work with the Chief
Financial Officer and the Inspector General to put these reforms in
place rapidly.
(b) What experience do you have managing a large organization?
As Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee (then the Public Works and Transportation Committee) I had
ultimate management responsibility for the budget, personnel, and
workings of a major House Committee. Subsequently I was the head of the
Transportation Systems and Services unit of Lockheed Martin IMS, where
I had responsibility for budget, personnel, business plan, and results.
And most recently I have served as Secretary of Commerce.
13. The Government Performance and Results Act requires all
government departments and agencies to identify measurable performance
goals and to report to Congress on their success in achieving these
goals.
(a) Please discuss what you believe to be the benefits of
identifying performance goals and reporting on your progress in
achieving those goals.
I am accustomed to setting goals and measuring the performance of
myself and others against those goals, particularly in my managerial
experience in the private sector. This can be a useful process, first
at focussing attention and resources on agreed to objectives, and
second in measuring what works, what does not, what needs to be
modified, where additional resources need to be applied, and so on.
(b) What steps should Congress consider taking when an agency fails
to achieve its performance goals? Should these steps include the
elimination, privatization, downsizing or consolidation of.departments
and/or programs?
Congress should consider all those steps, and a number of others as
well, including whether the goals set were realistic, whether the
resources supplied were sufficient, whether uncontrollable external
factors prevented success, and whether any better alternative exists to
the approach taken.
(c) What performance goals do you believe should be applicable to
your personal performance, if confirmed?
I believe the answer I gave to question 3 above would serve as both
a list of major goals and as the yardstick by which I should be judged.
14. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you?
I have always taken the approach that supervisor/employee
relationships should be mutually respectful, cooperative, characterized
by open, two-way communication, and professional. I am not aware of any
employee complaints brought against me.
15. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress.
Does your professional experience include working with Committees of
Congress? If yes, please describe.
Obviously my professional experience includes working with
Committees of Congress. I was a Member of Congress for 21 years,
chaired four different Subcommittees, and chaired a major Committee in
the House. I clearly hold the view that Congress in general and the
relevant committees of Congress in particular are a central part of our
national decisionmaking.
16. Please explain what you believe to be the proper relationship
between yourself, if confirmed, and the Inspector General of your
department/agency.
While the Inspector General of an agency is, of course, an employee
subject to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary and
the Deputy Secretary, the position is a Presidential appointment that
requires a stated basis for termination. This and the indefinite term
of the office provides important ``insulation'' to the incumbent to
provide accurate and vital findings and recommendations about the
implementation of the Department's programs. In addition, the Inspector
General is statutorily directed to report directly to Congress about
activities semiannually. In my view, these provisions are needed and
valuable to assure a Secretary that the Inspector General is able and
willing to provide the best level of advice and recommendations. I
always considered this a great benefit at the Department of Commerce
and would expect the same to the case at the Department.
17. In areas under the department/agency's jurisdiction, what
legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? Please
State your personal views.
By legislative action, I assume not only enactment of laws but also
other forms of legislative action should be considered.
Clearly one of the most pressing problems facing the Department and
our Nation is putting the ATC system on a path that will enable it to
grow and modernize at a pace sufficient to keep pace with demand. The
traditional approach to ATC simply has not been able to do that, and we
have, as a result of various agency initiatives, legislative actions,
and the recommendations of the National Civil Aviation Review
Commission, taken a variety of steps toward modifying the way FAA
designs, builds, and operates the ATC system. This is an area that is
very much a work in progress, and the stakes riding on this effort are
very high. It is not yet clear exactly how far toward the solution the
steps already implemented, and those just being launched, will take us,
and how much more will need to be done to meet the goal. This is an
area where Congress needs to provide the resources, but may need to do
more as well--funding is a necessary, but not sufficient, part of the
solution. This is something we will all need to judge as we go along.
Reauthorization of TEA-21 and AIR-21, though not immediate
requirements, will increasingly occupy both the Department and
Congress. We need to judge what is working and what is not, and to
begin to formulate our views for the upcoming reauthorizations. In
addition, continuing to carry out the provisions of TEA-21 and AIR-21
in the time remaining until reauthorization should be a priority for
Congress.
Amtrak is an important near-term priority for Congress. Amtrak is
working toward the goal of covering its operational costs, but
essential to that is that the Federal Government will invest in the
capital requirements of the system. That is something that requires the
immediate attention of Congress.
And in general Congress needs to focus on the resources necessary
for the operational requirements of the department. TEA-21 and AIR-21
made real progress on the capital side of the budget, and for that
Congress is entitled to a well-earned sense of accomplishment. But it
takes continuing focus on the operational issues as well. These include
the FAA operations account, Coast Guard operations, strengthening the
department's ability to analyze economic regulatory issues including
mergers, making real the promise inherent in creating the new Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and making sure NHTSA has the
resources necessary to carry out the expanded responsibilities put on
it with the recent TREAD legislation. In addition, the Essential Air
Service program, for reasons of changing costs and structure in the
commuter airline industry, increasingly finds itself straining against
the limits of its current funding mechanism. This is an issue both the
department and the Congress will need to consider in the coming months.
18. Within your area of control, will you pledge to develop and
implement a system that allocates discretionary spending based on
national priorities determined in an open fashion on a set of
established criteria? If not, please State why. If yes, please State
what steps you intend to take and a timeframe for implementation.
The Department has responsibility for a relatively large amount of
grant spending, the largest portion of which is the highway program.
However, much of this spending, and a very high percentage of the
highway program, is essentially pass-through funding, with allocations
made directly to State or local governments, which in turn prioritize
the actual projects, so long as they meet the basic requirements for
eligibility. As a percent of its total grant spending, the Department
therefore has a relatively small percentage of funds over which it has
discretion. In addition, Congress increasingly earmarks even these
funds for specific projects.
I believe that because our transportation funds are inherently
limited, and because our economy so depends on our making cost-
effective investments with those funds we can invest in transportation
infrastructure, we have an obligation to spend those funds in the most
cost-effective way possible. The Department generally has publicly
stated criteria by which it makes these judgments, and we should
continue to work on these criteria to make them as effective as they
can possibly be. But if our transportation investments are to be truly
cost-effective, serious effort by State and local governments and by
Congress will also be required.
The Chairman. Thank you, very much. And we will, if it is
agreeable to the members, we will do 6-minute questionings. And
we will have a second round if necessary. Mr. Mineta, let me
just elaborate a second on your comments on aviation.
Obviously, we have been wrestling with these issues on this
Committee for many years, all of us on a bipartisan basis. I
believe that you have to now start thinking outside the box.
I do not know if it is auctioning of slots at prime times.
I do not know if it is privatization of the air traffic control
system. I do not know if it is regulations that will somehow
allow or make it easier for new entrants to enter and compete.
Clearly, there has been and we are facing consolidations and
mergers that are unprecedented which have significant
implications to competition. I do not know what these answers
are.
But I know that each one of these proposals is going to
offend some constituency, some major powerful force here in the
Congress and the United States. You are going to have to take
some of them on. The one thing that none of us disagree on is
that we are approaching and have reached in some cases--
certainly last summer's bad weather was a great example--of
gridlock in the aviation system.
Senator Stevens and I were just talking about why is it
that they will not expand an airport in some parts of the
country when it is clearly needed, when you must do that, and
then complain about the lack of air service and the gridlock.
So we are going to have to take on some pretty powerful
forces if we are going to reverse this trend which your
Commission deemed inexorable. Americans deserve better. And as
you made reference, sooner or later, it is bound to have some
effect on America's economy.
So I think one of our highest priorities working with
Senator Hutchison, Senator Rockefeller and others is that we
address this aviation issue and soon. The American people
deserve better than what they have been getting from their
government. And frankly, not just their Federal Government, but
their State and local governments as well.
During the last 2 weeks of Secretary Slater's service, he
awarded approximately $20 million in Federal funding to his
home State of Arkansas for various transportation projects.
Just last week he awarded $4.8 million in grants for Arkansas
Transit Airports and rural transportation studies. The previous
week, he awarded an additional $9 million in airport funding.
Frankly, I believe this action by the Secretary given the
timing raises questions about the justifications for such
funding as well as the motives for the last minute awards. What
assurance can you offer this Committee that under your
leadership the awarding of discretionary funding will be based
solely on merit rather than politics or other inappropriate
criteria? And that under your watch there will not even be an
appearance of personal or political favoritism in the awarding
of discretionary funding?
Mr. Mineta. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think in my years
of public service I have tried to approach issues based on what
is right, whether that be based on good science, whether it be
based on good public policy. And so to the extent that good
science or good public policy would direct that all those funds
go to California instead of Arkansas, that would be part of the
picture.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mineta. No, but seriously, Mr. Chairman, as I said , I
think if you look at my record over the years, it has always
been based on good policy, good science. And you will find that
to be the case in the future.
The Chairman. Thank you. But I do not think--well, I think
I have said enough.
Mr. Mineta. Mr. Chairman, it will go back to some of that
other portion that you mentioned and that is it may offend some
people.
The Chairman. Thank you. The astronomical costs of
transportation projects should be of top concern to the
Department. The cost overruns associated with the Boston
Central Artery Tunnel project, the so-called Big Dig, have
risen to $14 billion, the largest public project in the history
of this country. The original estimates were about $1.3 billion
when it began. And these costs obviously will continue to arise
before the project is completed. The Big Dig project must serve
as an example for all of us on the critical importance of
oversight of Federal transportation projects.
What actions will you take to ensure greater Federal
oversight on an all federally funded transportation projects
from airports to shipyards to highway projects?
Mr. Mineta. That probably would be very dependent on having
a schedule with time lines, both check points as they relate to
dollars as well as to the progress of a project. Many projects
get behind on the calendar and then that translates into
dollars. So to the extent that we can keep projects on
schedule, then it seems to me that it would follow that we
would be able to keep them on the dollar. So to that extent, I
would look to each of the modal administrators to make sure
that those schedules are kept--that projects are kept on
schedule.
The Chairman. Thank you. Amtrak and its many champions like
to tout Amtrak's ridership and revenue successes. The fact is
that Amtrak has been experiencing its largest operating losses
in history. The losses for fiscal year 2000 were around $943
million, up from $916 million in 1999 and $929 million in 1998.
Inner city and rail passenger ridership has remained
essentially unchanged. And ridership via other transportation
modes have vastly grown.
I believe we need to oversee Amtrak based on its actual
financial results and service demand if we are to effectively
carry out our responsibilities. What actions will you take to
ensure that Congress and the American taxpayers receive the
full story when it comes to Amtrak's finances?
Mr. Mineta. First of all, I will be looking at the ARC, the
Amtrak Reform Council. They will have to be determining the
self-sufficiency of the Amtrak system itself. And I believe
their time line is the year 2002. And so to that extent, I will
be looking at that, both in terms of the report that they will
be coming up with as well as the suggestions that are going to
have to come from the members of this Committee as well as
others who are involved in Amtrak.
I think Amtrak is just going to have to be evaluated in
terms of, ``is it a national rail passenger service?'' Or are
there selected routes that we ought to really make sure are
sufficiently operating in order to be a good service, but self-
sufficiency. Plus, the whole question of whether we have a
national rail passenger service is something that all of us are
going to think out collectively.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. There is hardly a public passenger
transportation system in the world that makes money. And that
is because the public demands it provide certain services that
are non-economical. If you had a wonderful Amtrak high speed
train between New York and Miami and it did not have to stop in
Columbus, South Carolina, Richmond, Virginia and 50 other
places, it would make money.
But you see, we politicians say, no. We want it to stop.
And that is not going to change and it should not change. We
have got to get service to these other communities. But do not
just look upon it like there is fraud or incompetence operating
these things.
Let us look very closely, Mr. Secretary. And you have got
more experience this minute than most Secretaries of
Transportation had after their 4 years of service.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. I know you. I have served with you on the
Washington Airport Commission and otherwise. So we are proud to
have you. And high speed rail, study it closely and show us how
we can economize. Yeah, if we want to leave out some of those
cities and improve that road map, we need alternative
solutions.
Otherwise, I want to answer the Chairman's question why the
communities do not build added runways or airport facilities
because they are no longer in charge. You see, when I practiced
law way back, the community of Charleston, for example, went
out into the county, taxed themselves in the city, built the
airport, got the tower up, went to Eddie Rickenbacker at
Eastern Airlines and said can we get the service?
And after negotiations, we came up to the CAB, the Civil
Aeronautics Board, and we said here is the service. Here is the
charges. And everybody worked together and we had pretty good
service. In fact, when I first got here, we had four airlines,
National, Eastern, Delta and Piedmont. And I had three direct
flights from Charleston or National Airlines. It is $34 one
way, $34 back, $68 round trip. Now all costs have gone up.
But do not give me this stuff about the average fares going
down. I had the Vice President of U.S. Air in my office on a
Wednesday, just like today, and asked U.S. Air how much a round
trip ticket for my wife to Charleston and Washington back on
Friday morning. $917.
So what you have had with money controlling the competition
is 85 percent of the small and medium sized towns of America
subsidizing those long hauls to California and down from New
York to Miami and then overseas and otherwise.
And more than anything else, if I have to go through
Charlotte, U.S. Air controls 85 percent of the landings and
takeoffs. There is no competition. U.S. Air controls the
airport at Charlotte, not the city of Charlotte anymore.
And we have got a bill in that we are looking at and we
studied it in a judicious fashion to see if we can break up
those hubs and get competition back again. There is no mystery.
Obertar says for you to start fixing prices. Maybe you want to
do that. But somehow, some way you have got to understand the
reality of the effects of pricing on the consumer. I understood
why you started choking a little while ago reading that stuff
about average prices.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. I mean, tell whoever is over at the
Department not to write that out for you to read anymore. I can
tell you that.
Otherwise, let us go quickly. Because San Jose does not
have a port. But we have tremendous seaports in maritime in our
country. And we just found out here in the past couple of
years, Senator Graham, myself and others, that there is no
security. Now, you know about airport security because you have
been in the business.
But let us say less than 2 percent of the containers coming
in--I have got the fourth largest container port in the United
States. If you go to Long Beach, New York, these other big
ports, less than 2 percent are even inspected.
I just got out of the country of Colombia. Rather than
sending the stuff up in flowers, they could easily just fill up
containers and send 10 in and only one would be inspected. And
the ports do not like it. They are in competition and they want
to move everything fast. In fact, the Port of Charleston has to
borrow the sniffing dogs from the county sheriff. They do not
have any security.
We know up in New Jersey that they have got a 25 mile place
where they are supposed to inspect. And the trucks that go
there to be inspected disappear. They never get to the
inspection. And it is a matter of terrorism. You know now from
the Cole blow up and explosion that they could well fill one of
those containers and blow up the Port of New York.
That is a serious problem and we have got to get your help
to work on that. And it has got to be done in a deliberate
measured fashion. Because the local communities are responsible
and they do not want to spend money. They do not want to do
that. They are competing to get the cargo in, move it in fast
and getting it out and not having it delayed for inspection.
But we are going to have to do it. Because I am convinced most
of the drugs coming in the country are right in those
containers.
Otherwise, I think I will just yield my time because I have
had the opportunity. I really am delighted to see you there.
But let us break up those hubs and get some kind of competition
back in the airlines and get the communities back.
We can politically allocate. I am in politics and in
office. And I know how to get my fair share up here. But
actually, the communities own those slots, not the airlines.
Now we have got the airlines to buy and sell the slots. They
should not own those. The communities built them. They are the
ones that built the facilities and everything else of that kind
and got the service.
And we ought to break that up. So the communities
themselves can open up and get added service, add facilities
there and everything else like that and bring back real
competition like we had before this so-called deregulation. I
would appreciate your comments.
Mr. Mineta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You want to revise your remarks about the
cost?
Mr. Mineta. That is right, the average cost. As it relates
to these other issues, like inspection at the ports, I would be
more than happy to look into it and to work with you on those
issues. I think most of those are either customs or DEA issues.
And I am not sure what the working relationship might be
between the Department of Transportation and Customs and DEA in
those regards.
Senator Hollings. You have got maritime and you have got
the security.
Mr. Mineta. Yes. I will take a look at that.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. I would remind our members and for
the benefit of our new members, the practice on the Committee
is to go from one side to the other by order of appearances so-
called early bird rule. Under that rule, Senator Stevens is
recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Mineta, we welcome you and welcome your nomination because we
know you so well. If there is any one place in the
Administration in this period of time that should be totally
and obviously bipartisan, it is your Department.
Without question, the problems that we have in
transportation now are enormous. I too am working on a bill
dealing with the aviation capacity as I indicated to you. It is
my judgment that we should have some way to get a certificate
of need--if we can devise the process to get it. If the need is
there, we will have a constrained period of review and limited
review as far as the courts are concerned.
Sea-Tac in Washington State has been trying to get another
runway for 20 years. But when Sea-Tac is jammed up, access to
Alaska is diminished. When Salt Lake City is delayed access to
Alaska is diminished. And Chicago the same way. We are a State
that totally depends upon aviation. More than 70 percent of our
people within the State who travel from point-to-point go by
air. And yet, we find that we are just absolutely dropping
behind.
I told you when we met about one staggering statistic. One
out of ten pilots who fly in our State will die in an aircraft
accident, 1 out of 10. And when we look at it--we have the
Commissions looking at it now, particularly NIOSH, National
Institute of Occupation and Safety and Health. We find that of
the 250 airports in Alaska, only 43 are paved. We have 70
without runway lights. Over 100 have no local weather
available. At Dutch Harbor, the No. 1 fish port in the United
States, the runway is 3,300 feet long and the jets, the 737s
land. I am told you cannot land in Dallas with a 737 unless you
use the 8,000 foot runway.
We are at a point now I think where unless our aviation
problems are solved, we will go downhill as a state. The same
thing occurs as far as many other things in our state, and
Hawaii too. We're offshore states. We are dependent upon
transportation.
I really think that what we need to do is find someway to
put that concept of eliminating the delays and finding some way
to increase the capacity of aviation as the No. 1 task for you.
I know you said safety. To me that is safety. The real problem
about it right now is how do we do that? You also have the
Coast Guard. You have the maritime considerations, the pipeline
oversight.
In the days when we were a territory, we used to call--no
ethnic slur involved--but we used to the call the Secretary of
the Interior the Great White Father. Because he had all of the
power over our state, over our territory.
I think now the power is over the growth of our State in
your Department. And I urge you to take a look at the role that
your department has played in the past as far as our State and
Hawaii. Hawaii has the same problem in terms of new capacity
for airlines.
What I would really like for you to do is to see if you can
get together a group of task forces that would work with our
Aviation Subcommittee, with the Aviation Subcommittee of the
House and see if we can come up with a proposal for this new
century of matching the airport capacity with the demands of
the future and not just try to catch up with what has been
delayed in the past.
We have a tremendous job to do. And I would welcome a
chance to work with you. And I am sure our Subcommittee
Chairman and Ranking Member of aviation would.
My only real question to you is with regard to the role
that you now play in terms of transportation, beyond aviation,
what is the major task that you have in the Department.
Mr. Mineta. As I mentioned, the overall one is really
safety. The other area would be to make sure that we have
sufficiency of financial resources to reflect the demands that
are being placed on all of the agencies. For instance, in the
area of Coast Guard, we are really adding more responsibilities
to them. And yet, at the same time, they have an aging fleet
and they have other new programs like the Deep Water Project,
that are really squeezing them.
And what I would want to do is to work with you and others
to make sure that the resources of the Department are really
adequate to meeting the kinds of responsibilities that we have.
I think to a very great extent there has been sort of I guess
you might say a mismatch in the sense of the load being put on,
but not enough on the financial resources. And I just want to
go through the departmental budget and see where those
shortfalls are and to try to help bring some proper balance
within the Department to those efforts.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, very much. Mr. Secretary,
recently when the U.S./Japan bilateral air agreement was
signed, it was hailed as a great step forward. However, because
of capacity constraints, we find that although our air carriers
have the authority to provide service, no slots are available
at Narita. And so all we have is a paper agreement.
Someone suggested that we should make it an international
policy objective to call upon the Japanese to open up Haneta to
our air carriers. So that the intent and the spirit of the
bilateral agreement can be carried out. Otherwise, it is just a
paper agreement which is not helping the balance of payment or
balance of trade. Do you have any views on this?
Mr. Mineta. Well, I think that that may be a solution, as
well as the fact that they are building other airports. They
have built the new one at Osaka. They have built the additional
facilities at Nagoya. And it seems to me--and having just been
there recently to discuss with them other bilateral issues
between the United States and Japan, I did see the model at
least of this new airport being constructed in Nagoya. Which,
with the bullet trained combination, is about an hour and a
half connection to Tokyo.
I know that Narita is constrained. There is also a great
deal of resistance to open up Haneta. Because that has usually
been used for domestic flights. But as you have indicated, that
used to be an international airport. And maybe they are going
to have to open it up to international flights. That is
something I would be more than happy to discuss with them. But
I know that it may be that they will want to spread that
traffic out to other airports in Japan as well. But I will
pursue that with them.
Senator Inouye. At least in the interim, if they would open
up Haneta, it would accommodate all carriers according to the
contract and agreement. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions
[see Appendix]. I would request that they be submitted to the
Secretary.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Mineta. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Inouye.
Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk
about the airport delay issue. It certainly has been discussed
already. But I would like to ask you what actions DOT can and
will take, not only to look at the over scheduling of airlines
at peak times at airports which cause delays even in the best
of weather conditions, but also the general over scheduling of
airlines period.
I understand that they are trying use the equipment as
efficiently as they can, but the number of delays from having
to fix parts on an airplane and the over scheduling at peak
times I think must be addressed. And I would ask you what you
would be able to do about that.
Mr. Mineta. Next question.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. I think we have gotten a pro here, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Mineta. The issue of over scheduling is one that I
guess it is like commuters. People go to work in the morning.
They go home at night. Airlines do the same thing. They are
reflecting the fact that people are going to want to be at New
York City in the morning and at 5 o'clock they are wanting to
return to Dallas.
And the fact that everyone is leaving at 5:10 or arriving
at 9:30 in the morning is one that we cannot tell people, ``I
am sorry. But do not commute between the hours of 7:30 and 9 in
the morning. Or at 5 to 6:30 in the evening.'' And it seems to
me that we are facing that same thing as it relates to
scheduling at airports.
Then the question, as you have indicated, is ``how do we
deal with the issue of trying to match capacity?'' Because you
do not want to suppress demand. And as was earlier suggested,
part of that I think is going to be in terms of the time it
takes to build new airports or to build additional runways.
Senator Stevens said at Sea-Tac it took 20 years to build
an additional runway. I think that what we ought to be able to
do is to try to shorten that period of time in order to have
that additional capacity and not try to suppress on the demand
side.
Because to me as we try to deal with airport delays by
acting on the demand side, I think that would really be the
wrong way to go.
Senator Hutchison. What would you do to streamline the
process for capital improvements?
Mr. Mineta. Part of it would be to make sure that, whether
they be environmental impact reports or other kinds of
requirements, that they run consecutively rather than
sequentially. There are State environmental impact
requirements, Federal, even regional impact. In the case of San
Francisco, I know that they are looking at building an
additional runway. Part of that is going to be requiring
construction in San Francisco Bay. At NOAA in the Department of
Commerce, we said to them about a month ago, we think we can
help you do the environmental impact report. NOAA deals with
coastal zone management. They are familiar with this approach.
Why not use NOAA? And we just contracted with or had a
memorandum of understanding between San Francisco and the
Department of Commerce relating to that. Try to do things to
shorten the time span so we do not go through multiple planning
requirements.
Senator Hutchison. I think you are certainly on the right
track for trying to compact those and have them run at the same
time. But I hope you will use the creativity and the knowledge
that you have to continue to look for other ways to determine
how much is really needed in that area, sort of a bottom up
review of the regulatory morass that we have in that area.
My last question in this round--and I will have a second
round, Mr. Chairman. But I have to tell you I am concerned
about the board that has been appointed to run the ATO. Not
that they are not all very good people. And I respect those who
I know, but I think some of the backgrounds of the people on
that board are not the technical backgrounds with the aviation
experience that I think we need if we are going to have that
very high area of responsibility for our air traffic control
system rest in that board.
I ask you if you think that the board needs to be looked
again. I realize they have terms. Do you think that board is
going to be able to do this job? And will there be a system in
which we can monitor, very carefully, the progress that is
being made?
Mr. Mineta. I will take a look at that. As I recall, when
the original MAC was setup, the MAC has a number of people who
are very knowledgeable from a technical perspective about
aviation. I think when they looked at formulating the board for
the ATO, that what they did there was to make sure that they
had good businesspeople rather than people who were technically
oriented.
Otherwise, if you have people who are some air traffic
control types, airline types, some local airport operator
types, they will sit there with sharp elbows and try to deal
with each other relative to the ATO. But I think the concept
was to make sure that you had good business people on the board
of directors on the air traffic organization.
Let them hire a very competent chief operating officer and
let that person and the staff then sort of weigh out the
various issues. Because if you get technical people in those
positions at the board of directors, all they are going to be
doing is trying to elbow each other. And I think, again, just
thinking out loud about this--I think the concept was to have
good people or good businesspeople, people who had a good sense
about business acumen rather than the technical.
Senator Hutchison. I hope you will monitor that.
Mr. Mineta. And as I said in my statement, the thing that I
intend to do is to jump into this whole issue of who is going
to be considered for COO of the ATO. That is something that I
will personally be involved with as well as the Deputy
Administrator of the FAA. We have not had one. We have had an
acting deputy at FAA. And we have not had a fully chosen person
there. To me, that is the No. 1 job, those two positions.
The Chairman. Senator Kerry.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, let
me second Senator Hollings' judgment about the amount of
experience that you bring to this. I think we are all just
thrilled that you have decided to take this on. And I do not
think you owe anybody an explanation about why. We are lucky to
get somebody with the amount of experience that you bring to
this.
And it was a delight to sit with you in my office and I
thank you for the time to examine some of these issues.
Obviously, you have just come into this with so much more
background and understanding which will allow you to I think
get off to a terrific start and we are all grateful for that.
If I could just--because we had time to talk and you have
answered a number of the key questions, I want to flag a few
things for the record if I can quickly.
I listened to Senator Hutchison talk about the needs, the
infrastructure needs, and every comment thus far has
underscored the degree to which we are behind the curve in
terms of our capacity.
Well, providing capacity costs money. And I think that we
are headed for an enormous collision here in the Congress at
the current rate, given the President's adherence to the
campaign. I mean, I think it is time to end the campaign and
start to govern. If you look at the numbers, CVO will come out
in a couple of weeks with the 10 year estimates on surplus. But
most people are talking about a $5.9 trillion figure, something
in that vicinity. When you finish with the Medicare set aside,
Social Security, inviolate interest payments, you are down to
about a $2.2 billion available sum of money available for tax
cut and everything else.
When you finish with inflation and with population growth
and with the amount of money that the military is going to come
in and ask for which we all understand is very significant, you
may be looking at this. A big fat zero for almost everything
else we have just been talking about here. And there are going
to be enormous pressures, not just within this Committee, but
within all kinds of Committees here.
The Coast Guard, for instance, we have been funding in a
supplemental budget every year. Despite the fact that there
were some 2,600 rescues, 10,000--I mean, an extraordinary
amount of increase in their requirements for drug enforcement,
fishing enforcement, not to mention the increases in
recreational boating and other things we look to them for. And
they simply cannot plan and function.
And I have talked privately with the leadership of the
Coast Guard. They hue the line when they come here because they
have to. But this is not a good situation. And I think you know
that.
Moreover, I listened to the Chairman with respect to
Amtrak. And I just want to say that in point of fact, only if
you include depreciation and capital expenses can you come up
with a notion that somehow they are not doing a better job.
Actual operating expenses in fact the losses have decreased
because there has been an increase in capital stock investment,
increase in ridership, the Acela train now coming on and so
forth.
We, it seems to me, are sort of locked into an absence of
common sense here with respect to some of these problems. The
marketplace in the air industry is not working properly. I have
prepared to join with Senator Wyden and others in reintroducing
the passengers' bill of rights. I was one of those who delayed
that last time and thought we ought to delay it.
But it seems to me that it is only by creating sort of a
shake up to the workings of the marketplace that were actually
going to get people to recognize some realities. Namely, take
LaGuardia. There are simply too many airplanes on the apron.
Why are there delays? Because they cannot move the airplanes.
They cannot fit. You can sit in one part of LaGuardia waiting
for traffic to come out, to move. It simply is too many
aircraft are being allowed in.
Now, the Chairman has suggested a number of different ways
we can approach that, but nobody has done anything. We have not
approached it.
Moreover, that is linked to how Amtrak does. Because we
have allowed the airlines to increase volume and deliver a
terrible service and create these pockets of monopoly which are
not competitive, where they make up for the subsidy to attract
more people than they really ought to be attracting in other
markets, we deprive other entities of an intermodal
transportation system from being competitive according to
market forces.
If prices in fact reflected the cost of tickets for moving
those numbers of people in and out of those places at peak
times, more people might say, oops. I better ride the train. Or
I need to take the bus. Or I need to find an alternative
method. And then the market might begin to adjust.
So I think there are some just fundamentals here that we
have to cope with. Amtrak cannot possibly be judged properly if
it is not given the capital grants and capital expense
investment capacity to be able to attract the ridership to take
people from point A to point B on time and comfortably in a way
that is competitive and decent.
So I just think all of us are relying on you to bring a
measure of common sense to this. You know, we can manage 5,000
aircraft in the air at one time in congested air space over
Iraq without a collision, but we are not able to provide
emergency relief through all of our technology to our own air
system. These are contradictions that I think most of our
citizens are simply tired of putting up with. And I think all
of us here are really anxious to work with you with a realistic
approach to all of this.
But unless we are prepared to invest, Mr. Secretary, in an
intermodal system and give local communities the flexibility
not to be locked into building a highway when they do not want
to or to having to increase automobile traffic when that is not
their first choice, but rather being able to keep the spirit of
what we did both in ISTEA and TEA-21, I think we are going to
have a very difficult time responding. And I simply wanted to
lay that out to you that we are really in need of a measure of
honesty, a lot of hard choices are put on the table
and all of us need to step back from some of the easy political
choice here and recognize that the long-term investment needs
of this country are being deferred and deferred and deferred.
And ultimately, the cost of that is enormous.
I finally might add the lost of productivity--the loss of
productivity for the hours of our businesspeople spent,
obviously, digitalization and Palms and the capacity to e-mail
from your seat has alleviated some of that. But nevertheless,
the loss of face time, the amount of--numbers of goods and
products that do not move expeditiously is costing this country
literally billions of dollars and countless percentage points
in productivity. And we cannot afford that either. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Do you have any response?
Mr. Mineta. What I would like to do, as I have mentioned,
is to be able to utilize the kind of technology revolution that
we have experienced and make it available and to utilize it in
whatever modes we are addressing to improve the intermodal
system. And I think that most of the systems we are using today
are still very, very old. When I think about the fact that we
have a new Washington Airport, the Ronald Reagan Airport, brand
new, the equipment that went into the tower was something like
26 years old. It makes no sense whatsoever. That is something
that we really ought to be dealing with across the board.
The Chairman. Senator Allen, welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be with you. Secretary Mineta, we very much enjoyed listening
to your remarks and your understanding of the importance of
intermodalism and how all passengers and cargo work together.
Also, I note that happily your recognition of the concept
of sound science. In my experience as Governor, and I think all
of us recognize here, that Federal transportation policy,
especially insofar as roads are concerned, are as much
environmental policy as they are transportation policy.
There are many things that we can discuss here and many
issues of concern. And I will go through some of them with you.
Open end fare, competitive bidding, teleworking and so forth.
Funding is important. Concepts such as the Public Private
Transportation Act which we passed in Virginia and other states
are emulating the matter.
I am just reading here on the Coal Fields Expressway which
will link West Virginia, Kentucky and Southwest Virginia
together. On Federal environmental studies needed on this
expressway's impact on the Indiana brown bat and a small world
Pagonia, two endangered species, could take up to a year to
complete State transportation officials stated.
Now, this is consistent with Senator Hutchison's concern
and what you are saying having these studies work concurrently.
A private company, Brown & Root and Repoca, are the ones who
will be using this private/public transportation method.
But if you do not run these studies concurrently, that just
delays this particular road project in Far South, West Virginia
which has high unemployment.
I look forward to working with you on the third crossing
and Hampton Roads which will be important for our port which
has nearly doubled its containerized cargo capacity. As well as
for the dredging of that port, not only for cargo but also for
our Navy.
Rail to Dulles is a project that I look forward to working
with you on. The Wilson Bridge, the tech way with the new
crossing of the Potomac, high speed rail is generally being
completed from Boston to D.C. And I do think high speed rail
should be an alternative we work together on. And I do think,
Senator Hollings, it ought to stop in Richmond as well as
Raleigh, Charlotte, Greenville, on down to Atlanta. And if it
does go on down to Florida, that is another matter. But I do
think that is an option we need to look at.
Now, a couple of questions I would like to bring up. And it
gets to where Senator McCain was talking about cost overruns.
Sometimes the way that the projects are contracted would end up
with cost overruns. And I would like to ask you do you favor
competitive bidding on Federal projects, open competitive
bidding on Federal transportation projects?
Mr. Mineta. Absolutely. That would be the way it is setup
to be done right now and that is the way it would be done in
the future.
Senator Allen. Well, it will probably get on your desk
fairly soon if you have not seen it yet. On the Woodrow Wilson
Bridge, our State of Virginia and Governor Gilmore have been
trying to make sure that we have full open bidding on that
contract.
The State of Maryland disagrees with the Commonwealth of
Virginia on that in this compact. And they want to have what
are called these PLAs which have a great deal of concern that
inhibits the ability of non-union contractors to do that work.
And I believe that your Administration has to approve that PLA.
I would hope you would not approve it. So that we could have
full and fair open competition for that project and thereby not
subjecting the taxpayers Federal or either states from overruns
or added costs from having lessened competition in that
bidding.
Mr. Mineta. I am sorry, the PLA is beyond Davis Bacon.
Senator Allen. This is a project labor agreement which
means that there is an agreement with the State of Maryland,
but there is a compact for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge between
Virginia, Maryland, and the District, the Federal Government
promised well over $1.5 billion on this.
Maryland wants a project labor agreement. That is contrary
to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We in Virginia do
not care to be hit with cost overruns because from studies
usually if you only allow union contractors to work, that means
that non-union folks cannot even compete for it or have to
increase their wage scales.
So as I understand it, at the last moment, the State of
Maryland, Governor Glendenning, and the State of Maryland asked
for Federal approval of that. As I understand it, in the last
days there was not enough time for that. So that has yet to be
approved by the Federal Government. And as I understand it, the
Federal Highway Administration has to review that. And I hope
you will review it in the concept of making sure we keep that
project in line as far as costs are concerned.
Mr. Mineta. This is my first exposure to that concept.
Senator Allen. There were a few articles today in local
newspapers on it. One other matter, Mr. Chairman, Secretary.
You were introduced as a gentleman from the Silicon Valley. And
I know you have lived around here and see Virginia as a Silicon
dominion. And I think we need to use technology to think
outside the box or outside the CPU as far as transportation
matters are concerned.
And President Clinton last spring had an opportunity to
sign an Executive Order on Federal workforce transportation,
but he stripped away a provision to expand opportunities for
Federal workers to telecommute from home. I think telecommuting
or teleworking is just a great idea to improve our quality of
life, reduce commute times as well as improve air quality where
people wherever possible and practical could work at home a few
days out of the week using a computer.
Now, the Federal workers in this area, as you well know,
the Federal Government is the largest employer in the metro
D.C. area. But unfortunately, not many actually telework. So I
think that some of the studies, and Congressman Wolfe on the
House side has worked on this extensively. Some studies
estimate as many as 470,000 workers could telework in the
Washington, D.C. area, including 270,000 Federal employees.
Now, if all of them were to telecommute, that would
eliminate 658,000 vehicle trips and more than 3.6 million
vehicle miles. So I would ask you to urge President Bush to
sign such an Executive Order to expand teleworking
opportunities for Federal employees in the Washington area.
And I would also ask you about maybe allowing at least
within your agency within the Department of Transportation, an
agency that has stated in its analysis of the original telework
Executive Order proposal, ``properly deployed, telecommuting
can be a valuable, simple, expedient and common sense addition
to the remediation of growing traffic congestion.
So I would ask you to look at what was stated by the
previous administration's Secretary of Transportation,
seemingly very favorable to it, at least doing it within your
agency and hopefully encouraging President Bush to do it for
all Federal employees. And I would like your comments or
insight on that.
Mr. Mineta. Well, let me, as you say, having represented
Silicon Valley for 11 terms, let me take a look at that and see
what we can come up with. Because telecommuting is a very
important and essential part of reducing the impact on traffic,
we should look into the question about other impacts on the
work ethic or the work relationships. But I know it is an
important approach and I'll take a look at it, not only as it
relates to the Department of Transportation, but also as it
relates to the total workforce.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Mineta. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Senator Boxer, welcome to the Committee.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Mineta, I have a number of questions.
I will not have time to ask them all. And I know that you
are not, I do not think, at this time prepared to answer all of
them because you need to obviously confer with the President
and others in the Cabinet.
So what I would like to do with the time that I have is run
through these and perhaps at the end save a little time so that
you can give maybe a general response. Some of these are
controversial. I am sure you are not surprised.
Let me say first that when Amtrak is brought up, many times
the fight is made for Amtrak by the folks in the Eastern part
of the country. And I want to say that it may be a little known
fact, and maybe it is my fault for not focusing on it, but now
that I am on this Committee, I will more focus on it, that we
have almost seven million passengers, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Hollings, in the year 2000 who rode on Amtrak.
And if I just list the cities that are involved, you can
see why it is so important to us: San Jose, I mentioned first,
Oakland, Sacramento, Auburn, the Pacific surf liner that goes
up the coast, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San
Diego. And then, of course, on the West Coast there are other
cities involved. But these are just the California cities.
Amtrak is very important to us. And I hope we do not have
to have a terrible fight over Amtrak. We almost had it at the
last session. I would think in this century looking ahead, Mr.
Chairman, in this global economy, one of the most important
things many of us believe is moving people and moving cargo and
moving our mail and getting things done.
And I think if we take a slap at Amtrak and we do not get
behind it, I do not think we can live up to being a world
economic leader. That is my own view. And so I want to ask you
in writing if you could answer your general feelings about
Amtrak.
CAFE standards. It is another very controversial subject.
But going through all the problems we are in our State with
electricity which I will not go into, very, very complicated,
deregulation, that no one seemed to be prepared for its
ramifications and so on.
The fact of the matter is we need to save energy. And when
I look at CAFE standards, that is a fairly simple way to do it.
I happen to be driving now a hybrid car. And I have never taken
that step before. Senator Bennet actually told me about his
hybrid car and I went out and got one. And it is 52 miles to
the gallon. It is a wonderful car. And it is a transition car.
And it runs just like a gas car. Just when you step on the
peddle, it is giving charge to the battery. It goes back and
forth.
So there are ways that we can do this without making any
sacrifice whatsoever. And I look at the SUVs and I see that
they are treated like light trucks at 20.7 miles per gallon
compared to 27.5 miles per gallon for cars.
If we were just to make that one change, Mr. Mineta, we
would save a million barrels of oil every single day. And we
would not have to debate drilling and ANWR and other things
because we could come in with all of that saved energy.
So I hope you are going to take a hard look at that. And
again, I am not going to put you on the spot today. But I would
love to get your thoughts in writing.
Traffic fatalities. We heard about the horrible statistics
in air fatalities in Alaska. But every year, we have to look at
the fact that 40,000 people are killed on our nation's
highways. That is 110 lives lost a day. It is really like a
large plan crash every other day. And so I think the whole
issue of traffic safety is one I want to get your philosophy on
and your thoughts. And one of the issues are rollovers. And I
know that lots of members of this Committee, the Chairman, have
taken great leadership on that. I want to work with you on
this.
We see that the SUVs, nearly two-thirds of deaths in SUVs
are as a result of rollover accidents versus 22 percent in
passenger cars. And there is a rollover standard, but it was
based on static measurement, not a dynamic test. So I am
interested in your view whether you would use the best science
to develop an accurate rollover standard.
Drunk driving. We are going to miss Frank Lautenberg, at
least I have to say I will. He worked so hard to pass the law
that encouraged the .08 blood alcohol content as the national
drunk driving standard.
If enacted in every state, 500 lives a year would be saved.
And I know that President Bush as Governor signed the .08 law.
Will he continue to support it? Will you continue to support
the .08 standard?
This last one I have to apologize to my colleagues because
it is about adult male crash dummies and it sounds terrible
that I am saying something about males. But the fact is when
first the new air bags were tested, they were not using the
children size replicas and the small people. I have a conflict
of interest in this--and they were tested against adult male
crash dummies who are generally larger than small women and
little children.
So I tried hard, although not on the Committee, I was able
to win on the floor of the Senate to make sure we have these
transportation tests with a variety of these dummies so that we
know that the air bag isn't decapitating people and we can make
it work for kids and for small people. I think it is really
important. And it is controversial because, of course, there is
always a group that opposes this. I wanted to know how you felt
on it.
I guess I had one more. I saw it today. Airlines and
Federal regulators at odds about how many hours a pilot can
fly. And there were issues about how many hours a truck driver
can drive. And this driver fatigue, be it in the air, on the
ground, is something I am very interested in. Again, Mr.
Mineta, if you could give me a more general answer.
So I have got the little orange light on. I will stop. And
maybe you want to make some response, but I look forward to
written answers on all these questions.
Mr. Mineta. These are all issues that I would be more than
pleased to work on with you and other Members of the Committee,
to deal with and try to come up with a workable plan.
Senator Boxer. Good. Well, we will submit these. And I
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Boxer. And we are
certainly not offended by your reference to male dummies.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. I did not want to goof on my first day
knowing our history, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And since your questions were so encompassing
and so illuminating, I would move at this time in order that
after the vote at 11:30, we could have the Senate move to
confirm Norm Mineta as Secretary of the Department of
Transportation, that I would ask for--I would move that we move
his nomination at this time, continue with the questioning
until every Member has been able to complete their question.
Senator Hollings. I second the nomination and also move
your be elected Chairman unanimously.
The Chairman. All those in favor, say aye. [chorus of ayes]
Those opposed? [no response] Then we will, as soon as we break,
Mr. Mineta, we will inform the majority leader that we have
voted. Now we will inform him so that when we go for a vote at
11:30, the recorded vote as I understand the schedule. The
Majority Leader I have been told will move your nomination at
that time. I understand by voice vote. Thank you, Senator
Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, very much.
Senator Ensign.
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And welcome to the Committee, Senator Ensign.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Ensign. Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve here.
I am still getting used to not only this Committee, but I think
I found the men's room a couple of times around here. So we are
fairly comfortable with that. That was I heard one of the more
important things to do on this side.
I have a couple of concerns. Obviously, being from a State
like Nevada, we have a little bit of Federal land in our state.
As a matter of fact, almost 90 percent of our State is owned by
the Federal Government.
And there is very important public lands highway funding
that is controlled obviously by the Congress and by you. It is
supposed to be, from what I understand, the funding is supposed
to be relative to the amount of public lands that you have in
your state.
But despite this Congressional direction, we have an
analysis that shows that Alaska, California, which should be a
concern to you and to others from your state, Idaho and Nevada
have been particularly disadvantaged to a total of about close
to $80 million since TEA-21 became effective.
As an example, for instance, Washington, D.C. received $4.4
million in fiscal year 2001, compared with Nevada at $439,000.
Kentucky with only one million acres of Federal land received
$2.3 million in fiscal year 2001.
Basically, this is the point I just wanted to raise--and I
would like you to look into it. And I do not expect obviously
an answer today, but just wanted to raise this as a concern.
That if a fund is set up for a particular purpose, it would
seem to me that it is only fair that it be used for that
particular purpose.
This is true especially in a lot of the western states
where we have huge tracks of Federal land and we have a lot of
roads, and increasingly, we cannot use that land because of
regulations and various things. And we cannot gain revenue from
those lands because property taxes are necessary to maintain
those roads. It is becoming more and more of a burden on states
like the States of Nevada and California.
And so I would ask you to look into the funding formulas
for that and maybe we can work together on possibly making some
adjustments in the future.
Mr. Mineta. I do not recall. Was that as part of the
computation for the distribution under the highway formula? Or
was this separate?
Senator Ensign. From what I understand, it was TEA-21.
Mr. Mineta. It is under TEA-21 as it relates to public
lands.
Senator Ensign. Yes.
Mr. Mineta. As part of the formula for distribution of
highway funds? Or just as a separate fund itself?
Senator Ensign. It is a separate fund, yes.
Mr. Mineta. All right. Let me take a look at that as well.
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Ensign. Senator
Rockefeller.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mineta,
we had a very good talk. You know my very, very strong
feelings, positive feelings, about you. Your knowledge of
aviation in and of itself I think is formidable. You probably
know more than anybody on the Committee about it. I am certain
you do. So I think it is a very fortuitous choice by President
Bush.
You mentioned in your opening statement--you used the word
bottlenecks. That is historic. I do not think that has ever
been done by somebody in the Department of Transportation in a
confirmation hearing before. And I just wanted to ask a
question.
There are about four railroads that carry 95 percent of the
products, bulk goods, et cetera in the nation. And from that,
they make 94 percent of the profits of all goods that are moved
by rail in this nation.
Traditionally, Secretaries of Transportation have looked
upon trucking firms, barges, airlines, railroads, et cetera, as
the area of focus for the Department. And they have paid far
less attention with respect to those who put on the railroads,
the consumers, the grain folks, coal folks, steel folks,
chemical folks. Everybody ships by rail and they have to.
And they also generally do not look at the effect upon the
consumer of what happens. You used the word bottleneck. We all
know that the Staggers Act said that 80 percent of all rails
would be deregulated, but 20 percent would not. And those 20
percent would be those that had a single--had all the
competition to themselves. There was no competition.
And in theory, those were meant to be still determined what
they could charge. But that is a long time ago and people have
forgotten about that.
The Service Transportation Board, the STB, is unknown by
most members of our society and by many Members of Congress,
what it stands for, much less what it does. But bottlenecks,
there are a number of us on this Committee who are very
concerned about that particular word. And the willingness of
those very few, 50 when I came here 17 years ago, four today,
of Class A railroads, that they will not share or allow each
other to get into competition. Because they want to control all
of the action.
Now, railroads alone are not subject to the same antitrust
laws as all the other forms of transportation. I am not
suggesting that we undo that here because I am aware of the
political realities. But I would like to know that you are
going to symbolize by the use of the word bottlenecks that you
are going to be thinking about end use consumers and people who
live and die by the railroads, and particularly those railroads
that have a single line into their place of business.
Mr. Mineta. There is no question that when you think about
the bottleneck that exists between the main line and let us say
the short line or to a manufacturing concern and their siting,
the main line railroads have something that no one else has and
that is pricing differential in terms of being able to deal
with that. And that is something I am going to have to take a
look at.
Frankly, my exposure to the rail side is probably minimal,
but it is something that I am going to have to focus on and I
intend to work with you as well as others who are involved in
that whole issue of ``captive shippers''.
Senator Rockefeller. And it is an interesting subject
because it effects every single person in the United States of
America, virtually every single one. And yet it is an issue I
have been working on for 17 years and have very little to show
for it. But it is an extraordinary problem, and somehow it has
bypassed the Congress' focus and the American people. You get
air congestion and it is on the front page of USA Today
everyday during the summer when people are traveling. This
problem is year round, constant and gets almost no attention,
including from previous Secretaries of Transportation.
Mr. Mineta. It is an area that the Surface Transportation
Board really deals in. And it is an area that I will be in
touch with Linda Morgan, the present Chair, about and get to
know more about and to work with the STB on that issue.
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, sir. Let me make one little
plug for something called the small community air service
development program. It was part of AIR-21. It was authorized
but not funded. It has everything to do with what Senator
Hollings and I are talking about and that is the possibility,
and hope, of small communities being able to develop innovative
approaches to improve access into their airports. And I just
ask you to note that and not respond to it now.
Finally, and then I will submit a couple of questions. We
have a lot of concerns about mergers and airlines and it is
very controversial. I happen to be one that supports the U.S.
Airway-United Merger, American just announced its involvement
with that merger. I have not decided whether I support the
American-United deal yet. But American is also buying into D.C.
Air.
D.C. Air has made a commitment to our part of the country
which is an extraordinary one. And that is to put regional jets
into markets within a period of 2 years after the merger is
approved, instead of all the turbo props--which can really hurt
large sections of rural communities--well, where U.S. Airway
commuter cover, impacting economic development possibilities.
And I do not look upon it so much as a merger as I do a
bail out in fact. In other words, U.S. Air is not healthy and
will not be healthy for long. TWA is not healthy and will not
be healthy for long. And therefore, is it a merger? Is it a
bail out? But that is very controversial. They wanted you to
know that. The reason that I make the statement----
The Chairman. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Rockefeller. May I finish my sentence? Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. The reason I say that is that unless we can work
these problems out so that there are regional jets as well as
hubs and spokes, rural America will begin to disappear even
more quickly than it is. And I believe that with all of my
heart and soul. That aviation is now more important than
highways in terms of business location decisions and will grow
more so.
So that I make that statement and ask for Secretary to be
Mineta's consideration of that. And we can talk about that
more. I do not ask for a response, sir.
Mr. Mineta. I look forward to working with you, sir.
The Chairman. Please, do you wish to respond?
Mr. Mineta. Other than to work with Senator Rockefeller,
sir, which I intend to do.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Secretary. Two question areas that I want to ask you about,
aircraft manufacturing and trucking, two areas. One I want to
invite you to Wichita, the center of general aircraft
manufacturing. You have been there once before. We would love
to have you there as Secretary of Transportation. We have got
Cessna, Raytheon, Boeing, Emartia, all have manufacturing
facilities there, aircraft. It is a wonderful industry.
A key concern that they have in working with the Department
of Transportation is the approval process, the certification
process, for new products that they bring out. I think you
would agree that the aviation safety is a major priority for
the Department of Transportation. Fortunately, manufacturers
have developed numerous new products that could lead to major
safety improvements in both commercial and general aviation.
However, they must go through an often byzantine FAA
certification process for these new products. I want to draw
your attention to that and then ask if you would make
streamlining the FAA certification process a priority so that
safer and more efficient products could be brought to market.
Mr. Mineta. I have no problem with streamlining at all.
That is something I think all of us would work toward. As long
as we are not sacrificing safety or environmental guidelines,
whatever. But there is no question that streamlining is going
to be something I am going to be looking at all the way through
the departmental functions. But I do not want it to be a
euphemism for throwing out regulations.
Senator Brownback. And I do not ask for it to be either.
But if that process can be reviewed and looked at for
streamlining, I think the same is going to be important as we
look at expanding capacity at our airports, particularly in
environmental streamlining. I think we do not change the
requirements, but if you can streamline the process so it can
be truncated, what we are looking at in the legislative
approach. And hopefully, we can work with you and the
Administration to get that done.
A second area is trucking. We have had some discussion on
that earlier and the hours of service issue was raised by
Senator Boxer. In my state, we move many of our products to
market trucking, railroads, aircraft, but also trucking. We
have a number of independent truckers, some major line truckers
too, Yellow Freight.
There is a great deal of concern about this hours of
service issue. I think there is a safety issue that should be
reviewed and should be carefully considered. But also the
impact, particularly in rural areas, of this hours of service
requirement can have a very adverse economic impact and not a
positive safety impact.
And I have had a number of groups, companies, independent
truckers, a number of people contact me. This rule is being
reviewed now in the process for implementation. And it could
have a significant impact, particularly in a rural area.
I would hope you would look at that and its impact I think
actually could be substantially different, urban versus rural
or long distances of trucking. And I hope you would take a
chance to review that before its implementation. I do not know
if you care to respond to that.
Mr. Mineta. Let me take a look at that. I was instrumental
in helping set up the Motor Carrier Safety Administration in
1999. So let me take a look at this portion of what they are
doing--whether or not hours of service are going to be
adversely impacting on let us say the local communities and
what part that plays in terms of safety versus the economic
impact.
Senator Brownback. If you could. Because particularly if
you are having to work out in a rural area and you are going
say driving a drilling rig, driving something that then you
work on, the way it is currently designed can have an adverse
impact, particularly in rural areas. And that is what I would
ask for you to look at if you would. Mr. Chairman, thank you
very much. And I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Secretary.
Mr. Mineta: Thank you very much, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Brownback.
Senator Breaux.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. BREAUX,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Breaux. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today. I remember our
long relationship that we had in the House of Representatives
and the 14 years that I spent over on the other side and your
enthusiastic support for my candidacy for the Senate which I
never quite fully understood until I realized that when I left,
you became Chairman over there. But for whatever the reason,
thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mineta. There was no other reason, sir.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. Have we voted yet?
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. Norm, thank you very much for taking this
job. I think that when you have had the experience and the
background and the training that you have, as well as to serve
in the Congress and to go out into the private sector and being
willing to come back into government service is truly a really
big sacrifice on your part. And I think all of us are going to
be much better for your willingness to serve in that capacity.
Let me deal with some questions along the lines I think
that my friend Senator Rockefeller was talking about. It seems
to me that in order to have competition which you spoke of, you
have to have competitors in order to compete. And it seems that
more and more, we have less and less. I mean, more and more we
have fewer oil companies because of consolidation. More and
more we have fewer railroads because of consolidation. More and
more we have fewer telecommunication companies. We have fewer
airlines. And I know a number of others are getting very
concerned about the consolidation of all of the industries in
this country that we are commanding to be competitive. And it
is very clear that if you do not have competitors, you do not
have competition.
So my question, I guess, is to you on behalf of this
Administration. What kind of concern is going to be expressed
about this problem of overall consolidation? And how would that
concern be expressed by you as Transportation Secretary? Is
this something we are going to hear about? Or are we just going
to talk about competition with no competitors out there to
compete?
Mr. Mineta. Senator Breaux, as you know, as it relates to
airline mergers, this really falls in the responsibility area
of the Department of Justice. And so to the extent that it is a
function of the Department of Justice, I would be using you
might call the bully pulpit in order to make sure that there is
as much competition as possible in the marketplace.
Senator Breaux. We all know that it is not your
Department's responsibility to approve or disapprove of the
mergers, but you have to run the Department that these people
play in.
Mr. Mineta. Absolutely.
Senator Breaux. And if all of a sudden you turn around,
you've got one railroad and one airline and we do not have any
competitors, you are not going to be able to do your job.
Mr. Mineta. Absolutely.
Senator Breaux. And I think with your background and
experience and knowledge in these areas, you have to be a voice
if you will, within this Administration to talk about
competition and how important it is. But you cannot run a
Department of Transportation if you do not have any players.
That is going to be one that is going to meet the needs of the
American public, particularly in the area of transportation.
I mean, it is happening in everything we do. Whether it is
communication, transportation, aviation, railroads, oil and
gas, energy production. And it is a very serious concern. And I
think more people are becoming really concerned about doing
something about. And I would hope that you would be able to
speak up on those issues.
Mr. Mineta. That is why I say I would be using the bully
pulpit in that function.
Senator Breaux. Let us talk a little bit about the natural
gas pipelines. The Senate in the last Congress passed by
unanimous vote--Senator McCain and a number of Senators on this
Committee worked very hard to compromise and get a natural gas
pipeline bill out. Senator Hutchison and I were working
together in a bipartisan fashion.
The Department has recently issued a final rule on pipeline
safety for petroleum pipelines for liquid pipelines. And it is
my understanding that the Office of Pipeline Safety is
preparing to issue a proposed rulemaking on natural gas
pipelines.
And I want to just stress the importance of the difference
between the two. I mean, what is good for oil pipelines does
not necessarily fit the mode for natural gas pipelines. The
whole concept of running a so-called pig through an oil
pipeline to detect any leaks is easy. But you cannot do that
with natural gas pipelines because they bend, they curve and it
just does not work.
So I guess my recommendation to you is that to make sure
when these rules come up--I hope Congress does this ourselves
and gives you some guidance. But make sure that the Department
officials understand the major difference and that you have to
have options available to get the job done. One size does not
fit all in this particular area. And I would encourage you to
be aware of that.
The final point is Coast Guard. I mean, my State and many
of the members around here are very dependent and at the same
time very concerned about the supplemental requests that the
Coast Guard seems to live on.
Right now our Coast Guard is in the far off Islands of the
Galapagos to try to help clean up a major environmental spill.
They are called on a regular basis to do this off our coast
lines in addition to drug interdiction and military law type
enforcement activities.
And we have submitted a $91 million supplemental. And I
would hope that you would be supportive of that supplemental as
it works its way trough the Congress including the integrated
deep water system project where we are trying to modernize all
these fleet of ships. I mean, some of them are really antiques
out there that we have given the Coast Guard more and more
responsibility and less and less equipment to do it. So this is
a big item under the Department of Transportation and it should
be given a great deal of support. I am hopeful that you are
going to be in a position to do that.
Mr. Mineta. I will, Senator. And I would hope also that I
could enlist the assistance of the members of the Committee
relating to '02 as it relates to the Coast Guard. Because as
the military pay increases are given, it impacts on the Coast
Guard. And yet, the Coast Guard transportation appropriations
does not go along with that same defense appropriations bill in
terms of what they get.
Senator Breaux. Would you recommend that they be included
in that type of proposition?
Mr. Mineta. Absolutely.
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mineta. I believe the impact in 2002 is something like
$38 million. So, again, just as you are saying the $91 million
in 2001 is important, so is that as we follow along with the
2002 budget.
Senator Breaux. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Breaux. And Senator
Breaux, it is our intention, unless there is objection, to put
the pipeline safety bill back on the first markup.
And I want to thank you and Senator Hutchison and Senator
Murray and former Senator Slade Gorton on this issue. This is a
very important issue. And it is very unfortunate that we did
not pass that bill through the Congress in the last session.
And so we want to thank you for your hard work on it. And
thanks for raising the issue.
I think you would agree, Norm, that it is a very important
situation. I think we are going to see an increased use of
natural gas over time rather than a decrease.
Senator Snowe, I had a request from Senator Fitzgerald if
he could ask one question. He is a brand new member of the
Committee. He is already usurping the members who have been on
the Committee for a long time. He was also late arriving.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. But we would be happy to let you ask the
question ahead of Senator Snowe.
Could I just say one other thing? We are going to continue
the questioning. Members who have not asked questions, please
go over and vote and come back. We are going to continue the
hearing. We are not going to break for the vote.
Senator Fitzgerald.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER G. FITZGERALD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had one
question for you, Mr. Mineta. And I was delighted to have the
opportunity to meet with you in my office. It did not take me
more than 2 or 3 minutes to determine that you had encyclopedic
knowledge about transportation in this country.
After your appointment, it was widely reported in the
Chicago area newspapers that the first question then President-
elect, now President Bush, asked you was what do you think
about the need for a third airport in Chicago. And so I wanted
to ask you did he indeed as you that? And if so, how did you
answer President Bush on that issue? How do you feel about the
need for a third airport in Chicago? Softball question.
Mr. Mineta. First of all, yes, sir. He did ask me about the
need. And my response is really it is a capacity issue. And the
question is how best to deal with that capacity issue as soon
as possible? And looking at it in terms of short range as well
as long range.
And so whether it is going to be an additional runway at
O'Hare or whether it is a third airport in Chicago, that is
something again all of us are still going to have to wrestle
with. I do not think anyone has that answer yet. And yet, it is
one I am going to get into very quickly. And it is one that you
and others are going to be involved in. And I am just going to
be working with all of you on that.
Senator Fitzgerald. I look forward to working with you on
that.
Mr. Mineta. Absolutely, absolutely.
Senator Fitzgerald. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman
And thank you, Senator Snowe. I appreciate the accommodation.
The Chairman. Senator Snowe.
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too want to
reinforce what has been said here today about you, Mr. Mineta.
As a former colleague from the House of Representatives I
certainly can attest to not only your ability, but your
knowledge on so many of the transportation issues because of
your position in the House. I am just delighted that you are
willing to accept this position within this Administration.
I first want to address the issue of airline service,
particularly to small- and medium-sized communities. My overall
concern is the constraints on the system. And I think one of
your most difficult challenges will be how to address under
served communities in this country.
It is one of the issues that we have been wrestling with on
this Committee. And in particular, Senator Dorgan and I had
asked for a report several years ago on the impact of
deregulation on smaller communities and as one who represents
Maine. I have seen that service diminish. And at the same time
we have seen rising fares.
In addition, recently we saw the lottery of slots at
LaGuardia to reduce the congestion at that airport. That was
understandable. But at the same time that we are trying to
factor in and integrate into our aviation system regional jets.
We are losing that type of service due to congestion.
One carrier was intending to provide regional jet service
from Portland, Maine, to LaGuardia, but those slots were lost,
even though there was an agreement with the FAA to allow those
slots to be available for regional jet service between our
State and LaGuardia.
So, if we are trying to encourage the incorporation of
regional jets and improved air service to smaller communities
across the country and yet we are having this enormous
congestion at airports, small communities stand to lose first.
It is a Catch 22. One carrier lost 70 slots at LaGuardia. So
immediately, we lost service from our largest community in
Maine to LaGuardia on a regional jet.
We are not only losing service, but we are also seeing that
even in terms of the type of equipment that will serve our
State airlines do not have the slots to provide jet service.
And this one carrier, for example, made a major investment in
regional jets to serve small communities, such as is in Maine.
So I think that you will have to examine many of the issues
regarding airline service to rural communities in the state.
Because we have seen diminishing service and that is not only
my statement. GAO certainly reinforced that notion from the
standpoint that many communities have benefited, but many
communities and states have not benefited from deregulation.
And certainly that has been true of my state.
So I hope that you will give this issue your highest
priority. Because I do think that we have to incorporate rural
states as a priority in our aviation system. We will never be
able to compete on an equal level with the more populated areas
of this country. Certainly in terms not only of population, but
in terms of the type of aircraft that those communities are
served with.
And so I hope that we find a way of incorporating smaller
communities in our aviation system development and design.
Because otherwise, we are going to see, I think, an erosion of
the kind of economic development in our states, in our
communities.
I do not see air service as a luxury. I see it as a
necessity and as an imperative. And therefore, I think we also
have to make sure it is part of our overall policy. And I would
urge you to give that your highest consideration as you are
developing your vision of the future of the aviation system.
In addition, I am very concerned by the Inspector General s
report concerning customer service and the rising consumer
complaints and with passenger dissatisfaction at an all time
high. Have you had a chance to review that report? How would
you respond to some of the issues that have already been
raised? And what can we do in the future to be able to address
many of these complaints that have been persistent and
consistent?
Mr. Mineta. I have that report. And, Senator, it is going
to be sitting on my desk in full view. Because I think it does
lay out very well the challenges facing the Department of
Transportation. I intend to use that as a guideline, as a
reference book in terms of what I am going to be doing.
Senator Snowe. I appreciate that. I hope you will give it
great consideration because it is one of the issues that
obviously has concerned us here on the Committee.
Mr. Mineta. Going back to your previous question, I am
wondering whether or not essential air service program is not
vital to making sure that there is service of small and medium
size communities. And part of the problem there is, again, a
funding problem. It has not been fully funded--what amounts
have been allocated to it are now being used up, and so we are
going to have to have replenishment or not replenishment,
additional funding available in the EAS program to really
benefit small- and medium-sized communities.
Senator Snowe. I will look at that issue as a matter of
fact as a way of incorporating maybe a policy with respect to
serving those communities.
One other question on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. As I understand it, there will be a
consolidation of the State director between Maine and Vermont.
I gather that is very unique and there is no other situation
like it in the country. Our State director has retired. But
apparently, there is an intent to consolidate that position
with New Hampshire.
I gather you can understand the problems associated with
the geography alone, especially in a State like Maine. It
represents more than Connecticut and Rhode Island combined in
terms of land area.
So this represents a significant safety issue. Would you
look into that? Because I think that would be the wrong
direction to take.
Mr. Mineta. I just assume that because of the Maine
director resigning that that has temporarily been given to
Vermont to oversee. I would assume that all we are doing is in
the process of looking for a Maine director. But I will take a
look at that. But I think it is only a temporary situation, but
I will take a look at that.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Carnahan.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEAN CARNAHAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Carnahan. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to
insert my lengthy opening remarks in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement and press release of Senator
Carnahan follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jean Carnahan,
U.S. Senator from Missouri
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you Senator Hollings. Let me just
start by saying how truly honored I am to be a member of this
Committee.
I would also like to say welcome and congratulations to Mr. Mineta
and his family. Mr. Mineta served the prior administration with
distinction and I am confident that he will do so again in the new
administration.
I am eager to work with you in the days ahead to address issues
such as our highway and mass transit systems--both of which are of
great concern to the people of Missouri. There is one specific issues,
however, that I would like to address this morning--the acquisition of
Trans World Airlines by American Airlines.
Mr. Chairman, I understand and share many of the concerns that my
colleagues have expressed with regard to increased consolidation in the
airline industry. Several of the recent high profile deals that have
been proposed may alter the structure of the aviation industry and thus
raise questions about possible reductions in competition.
I also believe, however, that we must recognize a fundamental
difference between the American/TWA transaction and the other airline
mergers that are currently under consideration. While we may be
initially inclined to view all of the current airline mergers in the
same light, we must consider the American Airlines' acquisition of TWA
independently of the other proposed mergers.
The primary difference with the American/TWA deal is that TWA is a
financially distresses firm and cannot be saved or revived without
intervention like that proposed by American Airlines. Unlike prior
financial difficulties at TWA, it is very clear that at this point, if
left alone, they would be forced to shut down and liquidate.
The current management team at TWA and TWA's employees have done an
outstanding job in recent years at turning the carrier into an
efficient, on-time airline. In fact, TWA's recent efforts to improve
service resulted in recognition within the airline industry for on-time
operations, fewest customer complaints and least lost luggage.
Unfortunately, however, the company's mounting debt and poor
credit, coupled with continued problems associated with a prior
separation agreement with Carl Icahn, caused irreparable damaged to the
airline. Ultimately, these problems became too burdensome to overcome,
even for one of the industry's most dedicated workforces.
Two weeks ago, however, American Airlines proposed to acquire
substantially all of TWA's operating assets. TWA's board of directors
approved.
Considering TWA's financial circumstances, American Airlines' offer
to purchase substantially all of TWA's assets represents the best
possible scenario for TWA customers, employees, and for the state of
Missouri. TWA employs approximately 20,000 people, over 12,000 of them
in Missouri. Furthermore, St. Louis' Lambert International Airport,
where TWA is headquartered, has an annual economic impact of $5 billion
on the region. Officials at American have assured me that they plan to
offer employment to substantially all of TWA's contract employees, to
maintain St. Louis' status as a ``hub'', and to keep TWA's maintenance
base in Kansas City--and I will be monitoring the situation closely to
ensure that they stand by their commitments. Only an arrangement such
as this one, in which TWA is sold virtually intact, will ensure
continued employment opportunities for TWA employees, and will enable
St. Louis to remain a hub.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, please let me reiterate that I too have
serious reservations about the increased consolidation in the airline
industry. Like all of you, I am concerned about fewer travel options,
higher fares and lower levels of service. However, as a Senator from
Missouri, I cannot overlook the damage--particularly the loss of jobs--
that TWA's closing would have on my state and on the nation as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that you, Mr. Mineta and the other members of
this committee will understand the different set of circumstances
surrounding the TWA/American Airlines deal when assessing this
acquisition.
Mr. Mineta, thank you for appearing here today and for your
willingness to continue your public service. I look forward to working
with you in the days ahead.
Thank you.
______
Press Release--Carnahan Focuses on American Airlines' Acquisition of
TWA at Confirmation Hearing for Secretary of Transportation
SAYS AMERICAN'S PROPOSED ACQUISITION IS ``BEST POSSIBLE SCENARIO'' TO
SAVE MISSOURI JOBS
Washington, DC.--Speaking today at the confirmation hearing of
Secretary of Transportation-designate Norman Mineta before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, United States
Senator Jean Carnahan focused on American Airlines' proposed
acquisition of St. Louis-based TWA, calling it the ``best possible
scenario'' to save Missouri jobs.
Said Carnahan: ``Considering TWA's financial circumstances,
American Airlines' offer to purchase substantially all of TWA's assets
represents the best possible scenario for TWA customers, employees, and
for the State of Missouri. TWA employs approximately 20,000 people,
over 12,000 of them in Missouri.
``Officials at American have assured me that they plan to offer
employment to substantially all of TWA's contract employees, to
maintain St. Louis' status as a 'hub,' and to keep TWA's maintenance
base in Kansas City--and I will be monitoring the situation closely to
ensure that they stand by their commitments. ``
The following is the text of the opening statement by Carnahan at
the confirmation hearing of Norman Mineta before the Commerce
Committee:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you Senator Hollings. Let
me just start by saying how truly honored I am to be a member
of this Committee.
I would also like to say welcome and congratulations to Mr.
Mineta and his family. Mr. Mineta served the prior
administration with distinction and I am confident that he will
do so again in the new administration.
I am eager to work with you in the days ahead to address
issues such as our highway and mass transit systems--both of
which are of great concern to the people of Missouri. There is
one specific issue, however, that I would like to address this
morning--the acquisition ,of Trans World Airlines by American
Airlines.
Mr. Chairman, I understand and share many of the concerns
that my colleagues have expressed with regard to increased
consolidation in the airline industry. Several of the recent
high profile deals that have been proposed may alter the
structure of the aviation industry and thus raise questions
about possible reductions in competition.
I also believe, however, that we must recognize a fundamental
difference between the American/TWA transaction and the other
airline mergers that are currently under consideration. While
we may be initially inclined to view all of the current airline
mergers in the same light, we must consider the American
Airlines' acquisition of TWA independently of the other
proposed mergers.
he primary difference with the American/TWA deal is that TWA
is a financially distressed firm and cannot be saved or revived
without intervention like that proposed by American Airlines.
Unlike prior financial difficulties at TWA, it is very clear
that at this point, if left alone, they would be forced to shut
down and liquidate.
The current management team at TWA and TWA's employees has
done an outstanding job in recent years at turning the carrier
into an efficient, on-tune airline. In fact, TWA's recent
efforts to improve service resulted in recognition within the
airline industry for on-time operations, fewest customer
complaints and least lost luggage.
Unfortunately, however, the company's mounting debt and poor
credit, coupled with continued problems associated with a prior
separation agreement with Carl Icahn, caused irreparable
damaged to the airline. Ultimately, these problems became too
burdensome to overcome, even for one of the industry's most
dedicated workforces.
Two weeks ago, however, American Airlines proposed to acquire
substantially all of TWA's operating assets. TWA's board of
directors approved.
Considering TWA's financial circumstances, American Airlines'
offer to purchase substantially all of TWA's assets represents
the best possible scenario for TWA customers, employees, and
for the State of Missouri. TWA employs approximately 20,000
people, over 12,000 of them in Missouri.
Furthermore, St. Louis' Lambert International Airport, where
TWA is headquartered, has an annual economic impact of $5
billion on the region. Officials at American have assured me
that they plan to offer employment to substantially all of
TWA's contract employees, to maintain St. Louis status as a
``hub,'' and to keep TWA's maintenance base in Kansas City--and
I will be monitoring the situation closely to ensure that they
stand by their commitments.
Only an arrangement such as this one, in which TWA is sold
virtually intact, will ensure continued employment
opportunities for TWA employees, and will enable St. Louis to
remain a hub.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, please let me reiterate that I too
have serious reservations about the increased consolidation in
the airline industry. Like all of you, I am concerned about
fewer travel options, higher fares and lower levels of service.
However, as a Senator from Missouri, I cannot overlook the
damage--particularly the loss of jobs--that TWA's closing would
have on my State and on the Nation as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that you, Mr. Mineta and the other
members of this committee will understand the different set of
circumstances surrounding the TWA/American Airlines deal when
assessing this acquisition.
Mr. Mineta, thank you for appearing here today and for your
willingness to continue your public service. I look forward to
working with you in the days ahead.
Thank you.
Senator Carnahan. You have certainly served this
Administration with distinction. And I am sure that you will
also do that in this new Administration. I am eager to work
with you in the days ahead in addressing some issues involving
our highways and mass transit.
But today I would like to draw our attention to two issues
that are of paramount importance to my home state. One of those
is the acquisition of TransWorld Airlines by American Airlines.
Preserving the more than 12,000 jobs and maintaining the hub in
St. Louis as well as the maintenance of space in Kansas City is
also of paramount importance to us. American Airlines in its
proposed acquisition of TWA's assets has pledged to keep
virtually all the jobs, the hub and the maintenance space.
Without intervention by American, TWA will be forced to close
its doors and liquidate.
Now, while I understand and I certainly share the concerns
of my colleagues that have already been expressed concerning
the consolidation in the airline industry, I believe that we
must recognize that there is a fundamental difference between
the American TWA transaction and the other airline mergers that
are currently being considered.
The primary difference with the American TWA Airlines deal
is that TWA is a financially distressed firm that cannot be
saved and cannot be revived without intervention like that
proposed by American Airlines.
Could you please share your views on whether this
transaction is distinct from other airline mergers that are
currently being considered?
Mr. Mineta. I think you are absolutely correct in the sense
that TWA's survival is going to require either American
Airlines or someone else to acquire them. And to see a turn
around of TWA in its present form would probably be very
difficult.
So to the extent that that acquisition in terms of the
marketplace I think would still have to be examined in the same
way by the Department of Justice. I personally have not really
looked at it yet in terms of the impact, in terms of the
competitive marketplace.
From a survival perspective, it is obvious that American
Airlines is a good response. But there are other factors that
will have to be looked at. And I have not gotten into it to
that extent.
Senator Carnahan. Well, certainly in Missouri, we do not
see it as a merger. We see it more like a rescue mission.
Mr. Mineta. I understand.
Senator Carnahan. My other question. I am sure you know
that Boeing Corporation employs more than 16,000 people in
Missouri. And as such, I am extremely interested in Boeing's
ability to compete on a level playing field. So it comes as no
surprise that I am very concerned about the $4 billion in
European government loans that are helping to fund a competing
project, the Airbus A380.
The 1992 U.S./EU Civil Aircraft Treaty provides that
government loans made on commercial terms are allowable only if
the project is proven to be commercially viable. If Airbus does
not submit proof as Boeing has requested that the A380 project
is commercially viable, what course of action would you pursue
in your new role as Secretary of Transportation?
Mr. Mineta. We touched on it when I was over at Commerce in
a small way. But the basic work on this issue will either be by
State Department or USTR. We will be involved from the
Department of Transportation's perspective. But again, that
subsidy is a very real issue. And I will just have to be alert
to that portion of it. I will take a look at it and work with
the USTR and the State Department in terms of the work with the
EU on that Airbus issue.
I dealt with part of that, not as it relates to Airbus, but
as it relates to subsidies when I was at Commerce. In the steel
industry when the steel companies that were owned by the
governments, whether it was UK or German or French, when those
companies were privatized, the question came up how much of
that new corporation is there as a result of the historical
subsidies from the governments of let us say Great Britain or
France or Germany? And to that extent, how much of that subsidy
would be counted in terms of determining the import duties and
capacity of the steel companies to be able to sell in the
United States?
And so to that extent, we got into the subsidy question.
And so just as you have indicated in this one, we would also be
looking at how much of a subsidy there is to Airbus from the
consortium of France, U.K., Spain and Germany that make up the
Airbus corporation. So we would be taking a look at that
portion of it.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDAN SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Hollings. And Mr.
Secretary welcome to this hearing in your behalf. I think it is
a wonderful thing that President Bush has selected you to head
this Department for more than the obvious reason that you are
so eminently qualified for it.
I have noted in my political career that Republicans and
Democrats approached pouring cement and cutting ribbons with
equal bipartisan enthusiasm. And so I think it is a wonderful
thing that he has picked such a fine man, a Democrat, to head
this agency, this Department, so important to all of us now
matter how we register politically.
Mr. Secretary, in the past, the Department and the
Administration have submitted budget requests for individual
projects which reflect the funding schedule in the full funding
grant agreement. Do you anticipate any change in that in your
Administration?
Mr. Mineta. I do not believe so. Again, I am not familiar
with all of the full funding agreements.
Senator Smith. It has to do with the planning that
different metros need to do.
Mr. Mineta. On that, I would say no difference at all.
Senator Smith. In both the ISTEA and the TEA-21, Congress
and the Administration have recognized the benefits of linking
land use planning and transportation capital investments. They
produced benefits like leveraging private investment, providing
predictability again, responding to local needs and reducing
energy consumption and air pollution.
As you think forward to the reauthorization of TEA-21, do
you anticipate that there will be opportunities to continue to
move in this policy direction and further reward communities
for making a commitment to better land use planning and
transportation coordination. I assume that the Bush
Administration and you will continue these policies.
Mr. Mineta. Given those kind of policy discussions that
would still have to ensue, that would be my personal direction
in terms of a recommendation and would continue that same
policy.
Senator Smith. I think you are very familiar with my State
as a neighbor to yours and how committed we have been for many
years now, for decades now, for land use planning, preserving
prime farm and forest land, managing our growth in a way that
reflects a higher quality of life. And that is really what I am
saying. Is there a benefit to communities, an incentive to
communities, to continuing that? And I think you are saying
yes.
Mr. Mineta. Absolutely. And I found that to be the case
when I was in local government and used that as a process and a
principle.
Senator Smith. As your neighbor to the north, we share a
very important highway corridor and that is, of course,
Interstate 5. There are places, choke points, on that important
interstate that I think warrant your attention and some
priority. One of them is at a point on I-5 that separates the
city of Vancouver, Washington, from Portland, Oregon. There are
two lift span bridges there that create enormous amounts of
congestion with the traffic on the Columbia River and the
traffic between these two cities where many Washingtonians
live, but then work in Oregon. And it is a constant bottleneck.
I think frankly it warrants a change, an improvement, if we are
to eliminate some of these choke points. I am hoping that there
will be an opportunity to address these kinds of specific needs
with you in the National Corridor Program. Can you give us that
assurance?
Mr. Mineta. I will take a look at it absolutely.
Senator Smith. And finally, Mr. Secretary, I would be
interested in your views on the appropriate balance between
passenger and freight mobility, whether you believe that the
Department of Transportation should allocate more planning and
resources to freight programs as well as passengers. What kind
of priority, in other words, will freight have? Like the Port
of Portland. Can they expect some attention from your
Department?
Mr. Mineta. Well, just as I think in the past, the
Department has been integrally involved in the Alameda Corridor
as a port clearance project. I think wherever there are those
kinds of bottlenecks, it seems to me we have got to take a look
at them. And port clearance is a very important but seldom
understood or even looked at priority. And yet, from an
economic perspective, it is very important. So port clearance
again is something I would be taking a look at and would be
involved in.
Senator Smith. I think Senator Wyden and I would both
welcome you back to Oregon as soon as you can come back and
look at our transportation needs. It is a real pleasure to meet
you the other day in my office. And I truly look forward to
working with you.
Mr. Mineta. I look forward to working with you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And, Mr.
Secretary, thank you for your public service. And I must say
that I am pleased and proud to cast a vote for your nomination.
I think you will do an excellent job.
I do want to talk to you about three areas just very
briefly. First, to ask you do you ever ride in a taxi? Probably
not anymore.
Mr. Mineta. I have. I remember that one experience.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you. How would you feel as a
passenger if you got in a taxi and said, you know, I have got
two destinations in mind. I want to check the price on each
one. I want to go three miles down the road. And they say,
well, that will cost you $5.00. And then you say I also want to
go 10 miles down the road. And he says, well, that will only
cost you $2.50. You would probably think the cab driver was
mad, would you not? I mean, stark raving mad. You charge half
price or almost half the price for going three times as far.
Well, Mr. Secretary, you come from California. I was
getting prices this morning just for fun. If you or I were to
get on a plane this morning, no advance purchase, and to fly to
North Dakota, Bismarck, it would be about $1,600. But if we
decided to go to your home in California, no advance purchase,
we could do that for about $600, twice as far, less than half
as much. Or if you and I planned our trip and we did a 3-week
advance or so, we could get a super saver, $560 to go to
Bismarck, North Dakota. To go to Los Angeles, $278. Less than
half the price. Or perhaps you wanted to go to Paris round trip
and plan 3 weeks in advance, $398. Again, Washington, D.C. to
Bismarck, $560, Paris, $398, Los Angeles, $278.
I describe these to you--these are this morning's prices--
just to say the system is broken, just flat out broken. And
those of us in rural areas of the country are paying prices
that are unjustifiable. And we are subsidizing the routes on
the heavily traveled routes between big cities pairs.
Everybody knows it. If you went into a taxicab and they
priced that way, you would think the person was just daft. But
it is the way it is priced everyday in this country for people
who travel in Fritz Hollings' part of the country or my part of
the country.
Senator Hollings. Amen.
Senator Dorgan. Now what we have is retrenched airlines
that have come back into regional monopolies of sorts that are
unregulated. So we went from regulated monopolies to regional
monopolies that are now unregulated.
And now we have proposals that suggest we should have
additional mergers. And we have not had many Administrations
that have seen mergers they do not like.
I mean, most mergers have gone through here very quickly.
We have U.S. Air/United proposed. We now have American/TWA, the
purchase of those assets. We will quickly in my judgment see
Northwest, Delta and Continental involved in the mix. We will
have three major airline carriers exacerbating the problem I
have just described to you.
And so in my judgment, all of this clogs the arteries of
the free market system. It just does not work this way. It
cannot work this way. That is one issue.
The second is the issue of the railroads. In my state, our
public service commission estimates that we are over charged
$100 million by the railroads. When I say railroads, I mean we
have one principle railroad. We have another service as well,
but one principle railroad. Overcharged $100 million. I am sure
you are aware that the railroad is the only industry in America
that I am aware of that is not subject to the antitrust laws.
You are familiar with that. I have introduced legislation
suggesting that any future merger proposals be subject to
Justice review and antitrust laws.
But we have also introduced in this Committee the Rail
Shipper Protection Act which no one has ever accused of
speeding through this Committee. In fact, it has had a minor
form of incarceration I suppose in the sense that we introduce
it and nothing happens. But a number of us on this Committee
feel very strongly that we ought to do something about this.
The rail industry is very much like the airline industry.
Pricing opportunities, if I can just give you one
additional example, allow the railroads to say that a bushel of
grain that is picked up in Iowa and goes from Iowa through
North Dakota to the West Coast is actually charged less, pays a
lower rate, than a bushel of grain that goes from North Dakota
to the West Coast.
So why is a bushel of grain that travels farther, through
our state, paying less? Because that is the way the system
works. The railroads tell us what they are going to charge. And
if we do not like it, tough luck.
Put a carload of wheat on the track in Bismarck and move it
to Minneapolis, you pay $2,300. The same carload of wheat from
Minneapolis to Chicago about the same distance, $1,000. Why do
we pay more than twice as much for hauling a carload of wheat
about the same distance? Because the company can make it stay.
We have no alternatives. No competition means monopoly pricing.
So I mention these three areas to you just to suggest that
we have a lot of work to do. The current system is broken. We
do not have free markets. We have increasing chokeholds on the
American consumer that relies--especially in states like North
Dakota--relies heavily on transportation needs. And we are
paying an outrageous amount of money for it and subsidizing
those in other parts of the country every day, in every way.
And we ought to fix it.
So I have not asked you a question. It has been good
therapy for me to be here, however.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. [continuing]. And be able to go through
this once again.
Mr. Mineta. And a learning experience for me.
Senator Dorgan. Well, would you just give me some comments,
your thoughts about this? My hope is that you will say we do
not need any more mergers. We do not need to go to three
airlines in the country. And my hope is that you will say I am
going to be a tiger on this issue of concentration in airlines
and rails and others.
Mr. Mineta. Well, in terms of how I approach the job, it
will be as an activist. And I will be actively involved in all
facets of our Department. Some of these, of course, are going
to have much more priority attention. And the other part of it
is from a personal perspective, there is a lot for me to learn
about some of these areas that I have not really worked on
directly. And rail is one area. Coast Guard is another.
But there are these areas that I will be spending a lot of
time on to learn more about and to be actively involved in.
This would be part of that whole program to be working with you
and others to educate me about those factors.
Senator Dorgan. Would you just give me just a small hint
philosophically? Are you restless? Do you not sleep well
because we see fewer and fewer companies and more and more
concentration? Can you just give me a hint of the philosophy
here?
Mr. Mineta. Sure. I mean, there is no question that as we
try to deal with letting the marketplace be the determinant,
the question is to the extent that there is less competition,
that there is concentration, then that becomes a very
disturbing factor. And the question is how to then deal with
it.
Since the Department of Transportation is not in the
position to approve or disapprove, what we really have is, as I
said earlier, the bully pulpit. And that I will be using
regardless of what the subject matter might be, whether it is
Coast Guard, airline mergers, rail, shipping, motor carrier
safety. These issues that have been brought up here today will
arise--sometimes where I have direct control, other times I
will have really not a handle on being able to do something,
but we will have the bully pulpit to also work with other
colleagues of mine on the Cabinet in working on these issues.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. If my
colleague would just bear with me one moment to ask would you
be open to the suggestion of imposing the restrictions of a
Justice review on future rail mergers? We have legislation of
that type we intend to reintroduce.
Mr. Mineta. I would take a look at that, Senator Dorgan.
Again, I am not prepared to make a judgment on that right now.
But it is something I would definitely take a look at and work
with you on.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Mineta, thank you and good luck.
Mr. Mineta. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, very much, Senator Hollings.
Norm Mineta knows that he is one of the people that I
admire most in public life. I am so pleased that you are at the
table, Mr. Secretary. You will be Mr. Secretary in a few
minutes. Because we are voting now on your confirmation. I will
make some quick questions so I can get over there and cast a
vote for you.
Mr. Secretary, to be--a newly published report that the
Department paid for deals with predatory pricing--predatory
practices in the U.S. airline industry. And I heard you respond
to Senator Dorgan who has done so much good work on this issue.
But this is on the Web site now, the Department of
Transportation. It outlines predatory practices in the airline
industry. I am of the view that there are few laws on the books
right now to deal with predatory pricing. And the ones that are
there are being honored more in the breech than the observance.
So I heard you say to Senator Dorgan you will use the bully
pulpit. This is top priority business. I mean, we are headed to
three airlines, fewer choices, higher prices. The many small
communities in Oregon cannot afford that strategy. And I hope
that you will make this a top priority.
The other area that I feel very strongly about is getting
an enforceable, legally binding, passenger bill of rights with
respect to airlines in place. I had my head handed to me in the
last Congress where I was the only vote in this Committee to
put one in place. And the airlines have just been in denial on
this.
First, they said there was not a problem. It was just
anecdotal. When we showed that there was a problem, they said
let us handle it voluntarily. When that was not working, they
blamed the FAA and various people in government. Is the
Administration open to working with us on a bipartisan,
enforceable passenger bill of rights?
Mr. Mineta. There has not been any specific discussion
about that, but I would assume that to the extent that the
industry's 12-point program becomes either a stumbling block or
fails the consumer test in terms of responsiveness, it seems to
me then the question comes up whether legislation is going to
be necessary.
Senator Wyden. How do you appraise the industry's voluntary
program?
Mr. Mineta. From what I have seen of it, again, there are
some aspects of it, I think where they have done well. Other
areas, woefully short in terms of what they ought to be doing.
Informing a consumer as to why a delay, for example. And I
think on that part of it, they seem to be doing relatively
well.
On things like lost luggage and getting it to you at your
hotel or to your residence after they find it, again, they may
be not doing as well. But I think when you look at the various
points of it, there are some places on a scale of 10 that are
probably doing eight. Others they are doing maybe a two.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Mineta, let me just say--and I think it
will be in that report that is right next to you--there are
just no plausible excuses for the airline industry's
performance on passenger service.
For example, the Inspector General recently noted that the
airlines know in a number of instances 3 or 4 hours ahead of
time that there is going to be a significant delay and they
will not go out and change the departure board. There is just
no explanation for not giving people timely, accurate
information about their travel options.
And I want you to know, both because of our friendship and
the importance of this issue to me, I am not calling for a
constitutional right to fluffy pillows on airline flights. But
I think we have got to give people accurate, timely
information. Because we have got businesspeople, for example,
wasting significant sums of money and time because they cannot
get information, for example, even about bumping. I am prepared
to say that airlines ought to be able to sell a ticket if
somebody knows that a flight is over booked. But to keep people
in the dark about their travel options the way this industry
has done is unacceptable.
So I hope that in addition to this question of anti-
competitive prices, I hope you will look at passenger service
issues as well. You are going to be a great Secretary dealing
with these transportation issues. And I so look forward to
seeing you at DOT and looking forward to your outstanding
service.
Mr. Mineta. I absolutely look forward to working with you,
sir.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
The Chairman. You can see Senator Wyden does not feel very
strongly about that issue, Mr. Secretary. I believe that there
is supposed to be a report, Senator Wyden, on what the airlines
have done that is supposed to be coming out, is it January?
Senator Wyden. The report is going to come out at the end
of next week. And I have got our bipartisan bill ready to
review with you.
The Chairman. So I believe that a lot of our actions will
be engaged by the results of that evaluation.
Senator Wyden. And the favorable comments from Senator
Kerry this morning were very welcomed. So I see a juggernaut
building in Committee. And I thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cleland.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX CLELAND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
Mr. Secretary, welcome. May I say since I represent the world's
busiest airport, Hartsfield, and the country's most delayed
impacted airport, and since I just voted for your confirmation,
we need that money for the fifth runway tomorrow afternoon.
[Laughter.]
Last year, Hartsfield handled some 78 million passengers
and this number is expected to jump to an incredible 100
million passengers just at Hartsfield in 4 years.
As you may know, Dallas Fort Worth, Chicago O'Hare and
Denver International Airports, they all have five runways. And
Hartsfield, the busiest airport in the world, has only four.
In 2005, with 100 million passengers expected and with just
four runways, it is projected that each flight at Hartsfield
will average 14 minutes of delay. And since I only have 15
minutes to get to vote, that leaves me 1 minute from Atlanta.
That 14 minutes of delay is double the current 7 minutes of
delay. With five runways though, it is estimated that
Hartsfield will be down to 5 minutes of delay per flight. This
is a dramatic savings.
This decrease in delay is significant and it will benefit
passengers not just in Georgia and in Hartsfield, but around
the country it will have a ripple effect. Because what seems to
happen in Hartsfield has a ripple effect all over the nation's
airway system.
We would love to be able to count on you and your
department to help expedite Hartsfield's critically needed
fifth runway and the money for it and would appreciate your
checking that out at your earliest opportunity.
Mr. Mineta. I will.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, very much. You are on record as
a supporter for advance technology applications in the
transportation industry. As you may know, former Secretary
Slater in the last 48 hours of his tenure chose to select only
two projects out of the eligible seven to advance the magnetic
levitation train, the Maglev deployment program competition.
Atlanta was a close third. The Atlanta to Chatanooga route
actually, not just Atlanta, but from Hartsfield to Chatanooga.
Because even with the fifth runway, it may be that we max out
so to speak Hartsfield maybe as early as 2010. And so we are
looking for continue growth in the southeast. And with Delta,
there is that great hub airline doing more and more globally.
We are looking for ultimately a secondary airport, a
reliever airport. If you could commute in effect from
Hartsfield to the Chatanooga Airport, by magnetic levitation
train at 220 miles an hour, I think that would dramatically
improve not only ground transportation in a massive growth
corridor in the southeast, but it would tremendously facilitate
relief at Hartsfield.
I just like to throw that plug in because it did seem to me
that--and I was told that Atlanta ran a close third. And as a
booster of that program, I would like for you to continue to
take a look at that corridor because it seems to make sense in
so many ways.
Mr. Mineta. What is the distance of that corridor?
Senator Cleland. About a hundred miles I think. It is about
an hour and a half by land by Interstate 75. May I just say
that I held a Senate roundtable I call it on rail and on a lot
of transportation issues in my state.
And Secretary Slater in looking at the many transportation
problems in Atlanta, Hartsfield, the interstate system, the
question of commuter rail, the question of rapid rail coming
down through the Carolinas via Amtrak and the magnetic
levitation train, all of these issues converging in effect on
metropolitan Atlanta having the longest commute of any metro
area in America and the most traffic gridlock of any area in
the Southeast.
Secretary Slater agreed to establish a DOT task force of
officials from the various transportation modes in DOT to work
with our newly created Georgia Regional Transportation
Authority. We now have locally a way to get a handle on all of
these forms of transportation to plan them better, to integrate
them better and to really move for the first time in our
history to a balanced transportation system.
I thought it was a good idea for the Secretary to like in
effect establish a task force to deal with this problem
regionally. So that we wouldn't be playing off one form of
transportation against the other and trying to run through six
or seven different offices in DOT just to try to get together
and even have a meeting.
So I would like for you just to take a look at that
concept. It might make sense for a huge growing metropolitan
area such as Atlanta. And if it works there, you never can tell
whether it might be a good idea for other major areas.
Mr. Mineta. Has the task force been formed?
Senator Cleland. I do not think so. I am told by staff they
have had one meeting.
Mr. Mineta. Let me take a look at that.
Senator Cleland. I think that is a wonderful way for us to
hook up with your great agency. May I say that I deeply
appreciate your willingness to serve in this difficult
capacity? You bring so much to the office that you are going to
hold. And it is going to be my pleasure and privilege to work
with you and I just cannot think of a better person to be in
your position. And we look forward to working with you on all
these issues that come before this Committee in terms of
transportation. And thank you for your service.
Mr. Mineta. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Cleland. Mr. Chairman, no further questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cleland follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Max Cleland,
U.S. Senator from Georgia
Mr. Secretary-designate, this is your third nomination hearing
before the Commerce Committee in less than a year. The last two times
you were approved with flying colors, and I have no doubt that you will
get equally high marks this third time around. You certainly have my
strong support and admiration.
As Secretary of Transportation, you will preside over a department
which will face monumental challenges on the ground, air and sea. In
the National Civil Aviation Review Commission's landmark report, you
said and I quote: ``Given the delay and congestion problems that
already exist, anticipated growth, without needed expansion of capacity
in the air and on the ground, will simply reach a point at which it
cannot be accommodated.'' That was in 1997, and many will contend we
have already reached the choke point. With 600,000 passengers a year,
with only 5 new runways in the last 9 years, our aviation system is
fast approaching gridlock.
In my state of Georgia, Hartsfield is pushing the envelope as the
busiest airport in the world. With 78 million passengers a year, it is
also the nation's most delay-impacted airport. In 2005, with 100
million passengers projected, and with only the current four runways,
each flight at Hartsfield is projected to average 14 minutes of delay.
This delay can be cut dramatically--to just five minutes--if Hartsfield
gets a desperately needed fifth runway. This is a dramatic savings in
time and dollars which will benefit passengers not just in Georgia and
the southeast, but passengers throughout the country.
Our gridlock in the skies is mirrored in countless highways across
this nation. The Department of Transportation recently projected that
traffic congestion in America will increase 400 percent on our urban
freeways and more than 200 percent on other U.S. roads in just the next
two decades. Metro Atlanta has become a poster child for urban sprawl
and congestion. It is the most traffic congested city in the South, and
its motorists drive more miles per day than drivers from any other
metropolitan area in the country. Fortunately, Georgia is beginning to
chart a new course. The State stands ready to flex hundreds of millions
of dollars from highway projects to transit projects. Georgia's
transportation planners are considering the potential of intercity
bullet trains, of light rail, and commuter rail lines serving downtown
Atlanta from corridors extending to Athens, Griffin and other key
points in the State.
Given the fact that two railroad tracks will carry 20 lanes of
highway in rush hour, we may be looking at a potential rebirth of rail,
not just in Georgia, but nationwide. How much we can tap this
transportation option will depend on the policies and resources
emanating from the Department of Transportation.
We all know that there are more questions than answers to our
nation's transportation challenges, and the solutions will not be easy
and they will not come quick. But I am looking forward to hearing how
you plan to address America's 21st Century transportation needs, and in
what direction you will lead.
The Chairman. Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary
the Department of Transportation has sought reauthorization of
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act for the last several
years without success. This is very important in the safety
arena. In Houston, Texas, we had a terrible hazardous materials
transporting truck accident that really endangered many lives.
It is my understanding that the stumbling blocks have come
primarily from dealing with exemptions for farmers and some of
the disagreements about authorization in the Department of
Transportation or Department of Labor and who handles what.
Will reauthorization of this act be a priority for the
Department of Transportation under your leadership?
Mr. Mineta. Let me take a look at that. Both that and
pipeline safety are I think going to be priority items that we
will be taking a look at. But hazardous materials and pipeline
safety, I believe are----
Senator Hutchison. And trucking. Everything hazardous----
Mr. Mineta. And the motor carriers, yes.
Senator Hutchison. But, of course, aviation, we had the
terrible accident in Florida which we all remember as well. But
just in general, this is a very important issue that will
become bigger and bigger. So it is my hope that you will try to
get that through. And we will certainly help you.
Mr. Mineta. I look forward to working with you on that.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. Five years ago, Congress
changed the definition of commercial motor vehicle to include
commercial passenger vans carrying nine or more passengers.
Last month, the Department finally issued the notice of
proposed rulemaking to apply most of the Federal Motor Carrier
safety regulations to these vans when they are carrying
passengers for more than 75 miles.
This is an important safety issue in a border State because
these vans sometimes called Camionetas operate across great
distances without proper safety regulations. Will you make the
timely adoption of the commercial van safety rules of priority?
Mr. Mineta. Let me also take a look at that with our
departmental folks and see where they are on it. Did you say
that the Department has----
Senator Hutchison. Yes, they issued the notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Mr. Mineta. OK. All right.
Senator Hutchison. So it is in the process. It just needs
to be finished.
Third, I have said this to the last two Secretaries of
Transportation and I am going to say it again. I live in a
State that has 3 of the 10 largest cities in America. And none
of my cities have direct access to Heathrow Airport. We also do
not have good access to China on non-stop flights. I would ask
that you look at all of our bilaterals and I would hope that we
would have a priority of fair and open skies when you are
dealing with the other countries in establishing more routes
and more potential destinations from Heathrow, China, Japan and
other places where we would like to have more access.
Mr. Mineta. All right. Fine. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. And last, Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to say in the earlier questioning, there has been a lot of
talk about Amtrak. And I just want to say that I believe all
modes of transportation have subsidies from taxpayers, capital
subsidies, not operational. And I think we should all strive to
make Amtrak self-sufficient operationally, but we should not
starve them and the capital needs that they may have.
When we see the overcrowded airports, the overcrowded
highways, there is just no question that we need to keep the
rail passenger capability to have an overall transportation
system in our country. I would just like to ask you if you are
also of the view that that is part of our overall intermodal
transportation system for our country and will it be a priority
for you to work with Amtrak. Will you try to make them as
efficient as they can be and go for operational subsidies
presumably to be lessened and eventually eliminated, but not
walk away from the capital needs?
Mr. Mineta. I think that is something that again looking
toward the work of the ARC, since they have got the charge on
operational sufficiency, I think I have got to wait on that
report as well and see the progress.
But part of it is really going to be this whole issue of
where do we take the kinds of limited financial resources that
are available and make them work? And I think that the issue of
operational subsidies is what is being looked at in terms of
the Amtrak Reform Council in terms of operational sufficiency.
The other piece of it that you are asking about in terms of
capital I think is one that has to be looked at. Because if you
view Amtrak from a capital perspective, then you conclude,
operationally, it is not going to be successful. So it seems to
me the two have to go hand in hand. And I have with the limited
knowledge that I have right now I am just going to have to
explore what it is that we are going to have to be doing to
make Amtrak work and become self-sufficient.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I thank you for that and I agree
with you that we cannot starve them with capital needs and then
expect them to be operationally sufficient. That is a downhill
slide. But I also would say that unlike the other modes of
transportation, if we lose the rail system, I do not think we
will ever be able to regain it. Because if we lose the railroad
tracks or they deteriorate or they no longer are going to be
able to be long enough to make sense, we will not be able to
buy the right of way to ever bring back rail.
So as we are looking at the long-term and the growth in our
country and the growth in the economy of our country, I just
would urge you to make rail a priority as a part of that
intermodal system rail will take some of the burden away from
highways and away from our airports. And if we fail to save
Amtrak and the railroads for freight, we are not ever going to
be able to recapture it. So I do not think it is quite the same
as the other transportation modes from that standpoint. And I
hope you will make it a priority. Thank you very much. And I
think you are very close to being the Secretary of
Transportation. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Mineta, let me mention to you some facts
about the Amtrak situation. I strongly recommend that you look
at the Department of Transportation Inspector General's report
on Amtrak. I strongly recommend you look at the GAO study on
Amtrak. You will find that the problem is not just lack of
capital. It is its continuing operating losses, something that
we were assured of would not happen by the year 2002 when we
bailed them out for the last time.
I strongly suggest you read the history of Amtrak. In 1971,
when Amtrak was formed in 3 years they would not need any
further infusion for operating costs of Federal dollars. Since
then, I have forgotten how many billions and how many
restructurings and how many times we have come to Congress.
There have been numerous efforts to back door this
Committee's authorization by sticking into appropriations bills
and tax bills. Well, they put in $15 million for them on the
agriculture appropriations bill so that they could use GSA
automobiles.
So I strongly recommend, Mr. Mineta, that you look at the
history of Amtrak, you look where we are going and you look at
that overall passenger ship has not increased in the last 10
years. Although it has increased in the northeast corridor. And
I think you will feel that any objective observer of Amtrak
will tell you what we are going to end up with. We are going to
end up with the northeast corridor and we are going to end up
with a far west of it. And that there is nobody that believes
that anywhere in between that you are going to have
economically viable train systems running for passengers.
So what I have continued to say is that we need a great
national debate on this issue. We need to debate in the
Congress and tell the American people that as other countries,
the Europeans and others, we need to continuously subsidize
Amtrak forever.
So that we will be providing this service to the American
people. Or we need to say, look. This is how much it--ask them
again, again and again how much do you need and give them. I
think we gave $3 billion the last time, three or four billion
dollars the last time that they were going to become
independent by some years in the future.
So what we need to do on this issue is not continuously
back door appropriations as they just attempted to do. The
Senator from Texas colleague, Senator Gramm, just blocked a $10
billion infusion to them that again was done without a hearing,
without any authorization, but was going to be stuck into the
omnibus appropriations bill, something that is incredibly
offensive to me as the Chairman of the authorizing Committee.
So I hope, Mr. Mineta, that you will look at the history of
Amtrak. There is no one who is more respected before this
Committee than the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation, Mr. Ken Mead. I think he will paint a very
different picture about the prospects of Amtrak ever being
independent even from operating costs, particularly with the
labor cost and obligations that they have in the future.
So I think it is an important issue. I think it is
important that the tax paying citizens from my State not be
asked to pay their tax dollars over an over again for a transit
system which has basically disappeared from our state. And I
think that perhaps in the spirit of patriotism, they should
subsidize a northeast transit system and one in the far west.
But at least they deserve the full and certain knowledge of
what is going to be expected of them. Since 1971, the promises
made about Amtrak consistently have not come to fruition and
that is a matter of record which by the way I will provide for
the record. Because some day you will be looking at these
proceedings. And at least the American people deserve honest
and forthright evaluation of how much it is going to cost them
in the future.
And again, I would ask you to talk to people who do not
have a vested interest in Amtrak, people who are observers and
experts on national transit systems. I think you will find that
their answer is pretty consistent. That we are going to have to
subsidize not just their capital expenses, but their operating
expenses for the foreseeable future.
Senator Edwards, have you had a chance to question? I
apologize, Senator Edwards. I did not know. My deep apologies.
I did not know that you had not questioned yet.
Senator Edwards.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN EDWARDS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman let me also tell you how excited I am about the
opportunity to serve on this very important Committee with you
as Chairman. I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Mineta, good morning or I guess it is afternoon now.
Let me join all the others who have gone before me in thanking
you for all of your service to our country, both in the House
of Representatives and as Secretary of Commerce, you played a
very important role in shaping this country and hopefully will
continue to play an important role. I think the President made
a terrific choice when he chose you.
I am going to be brief because it looks like I am the last
one. There are two or three issues that I am concerned about
which we can talk about another time. I will not take up time
today. Child passenger safety is something I have a great deal
of concern about, particularly as a parent of a 2\1/2\-year-old
daughter and an 8-month-old son. Drunk driving laws, truck
safety standards, those are all things that I would love to
talk with you about at length at some point.
I know you have had--and I apologize for not being here--I
know you have had some discussion already about airline
mergers. But I have a couple of fairly specific questions
having to do with the U.S. Air/United merger, proposed U.S.
Air/United merger, and how it effects my State of North
Carolina.
One of the things that we have figured out as a result of
this proposed merger is that Charlotte Airport has either the
highest or very close to the highest fares of any airport in
the country. They are a U.S. Air hub. There is very little
competition for U.S. Air in that market. And what I have
learned over time is that that is a fairly typical situation
with respect to hubs. It is difficult to attract quality
competition for any of these hubs.
But I guess first I would like to hear your thoughts if you
have any about the proposed U.S. Air/United merger. And second,
whether you have any notion about the impact, if any, that may
have on the situation that we have in Charlotte where the fares
are so high.
Mr. Mineta. First of all, as I indicated earlier, the
judgment on what is the outcome on these mergers is really in
the hands of the Department of Justice. To the extent we have
an input in it, I will use the bully pulpit from a competition
perspective.
As far as Charlotte, again, I am not familiar with the
Charlotte market. As I recall, was it not a hub for U.S. Air?
Is it still?
Senator Edwards. It still is a hub for U.S. Air, yes.
Mr. Mineta. But you say that it does have very high fares.
Senator Edwards. I think perhaps the highest in the country
actually.
Mr. Mineta. OK. That I am just not familiar with them. I
would have to take a look at it as part of this whole
examination, looking at Charlotte in terms of its hub function.
Senator Edwards. Any ideas about what if anything we can do
to try to increase competition?
Mr. Mineta. Well, I have always felt that today the
airlines are really not competing head-to-head. Hubs are. And
to the extent that you can generate traffic through your own
hub, people are going to fly let us say from Dulles to let us
say Los Angeles. And they are either going to go Dulles to
Atlanta to Los Angeles or Dulles to Denver to Los Angeles,
Dulles DFW to Los Angeles. I mean, they will look at various
combinations.
In terms of Charlotte, I am not sure where those
combinations might be. But again, it's whether or not Charlotte
offers alternatives--because you look at two groupings, in
terms of those who are destination passengers versus through
passengers. And does Charlotte become a destination airport
more than it is a through airport? And I do not know what those
figures might be.
Senator Edwards. I can tell you it is a much higher
percentage of through passengers.
Mr. Mineta. Through?
Senator Edwards. Yes, yes.
Mr. Mineta. Well, I would think then that through AIR-21
and other areas, we would have to take a look at what
opportunities there would be, not so much for how you get to
other airlines to come in, because that is a marketplace
function. And we really do not play a role in that.
Senator Edwards. I think even if we did play a role, it is
a very difficult thing to do with the hub. I think it would be
almost impossible to do no matter what. Although, I think we
should make an effort. What you are suggesting is that we find
other ways to create competition.
Mr. Mineta. I think under the present circumstances that is
the only way. Now, the competition really comes in different
ways. If there are ways that Charlotte can be attractive in
terms of a cost center to an airline, are there ways that
Charlotte can invite, be inviting, more inviting, to either
U.S. Air or to another carrier through gates that might be
available?
As I recall, in TWA's case, St. Louis Airport bought all of
the gates from TWA to make it more attractive financially for
them to survive. It seems to me there may be those kinds of
approaches that Charlotte as an airport might take. It might
apply for more Airport Improvement funding for whatever their
capital needs might be. I just would have to take a look at
Charlotte as an entity and see what are the alternatives that
might be available.
Senator Edwards. Well, we have a situation now, for
example, where U.S. Air flies out of Baltimore through
Charlotte to New Orleans and the fare is about $200, two
hundred and some odd dollars. If you get on that same airplane
in Charlotte and fly to New Orleans--in other words, you make
half the trip--it is $800 or $900. And I think that is the
direct result of U.S. Air having to compete with Southwest
Airlines in Baltimore. But there is no competition in
Charlotte.
I guess all I am asking is I hope you will help work with
me to find some creative ways to enhance competition if we
possibly can. Because it is the consumers that both of us are
concerned about.
Mr. Mineta. That is something again that I am interested in
looking at--I want the marketplace to function. But, on the
other hand, how do we enhance competition? And it seems to me
we can use AIR-21 as a vehicle. There are other ways in terms
of marketing efforts that can be done. And again, even there,
it is not going to be one-size-fits-all. Because again each
airport based on its configuration, based on its traffic, the
kinds of airlines that exist there, it will vary. Chicago is
probably one hub where you have two major airlines.
Senator Edwards. I think it is the only one, yes.
Mr. Mineta. And everywhere else where you have hubs, you
have a dominant carrier and that is it in terms of a major
airline.
Senator Edwards. Well, I hope you and I can work together
on this problem.
Mr. Mineta. Absolutely.
Senator Edwards. And I look forward to it. And welcome. I
think the President made a terrific choice.
Mr. Mineta. Well, thank you very much.
Senator Edwards. And I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Mineta. Absolutely.
Senator Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Edwards and welcome to the
Committee. I am happy to tell you that the vote on the floor is
completed and by a very narrow margin, 100 to nothing, you were
confirmed.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mineta. Well, thank you very much, Senator. Mr.
Chairman I just want to thank you for all the help and
support you have been to me personally, but to my getting
through this process. Thank you, very, very much.
The Chairman. Well, it has been a pleasure for me to do it
with you twice in 6 months.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And I mean that, your family and your friends
and America is honored by your willingness to serve. And we are
extremely proud of you. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Conrad Burns,
U.S. Senator from Montana
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support of the
nominee we have before us today. I have had the honor of Secretary-
Designate Mineta's friendship for several years. Earlier this week, I
shared several of my concerns with him.
Our nation's Federal Government is responsible to all the people
and that includes rural America. The nineties were a decade of
prosperity for Wall Street and the dot.coms., However, if you ask the
cattle rancher, grain farmer or small agricultural businessman, I
expect they would not agree they have benefited from this flourishing
economy.
Rural America has been all but forgotten by the Federal Government.
We pay taxes out in Montana and expect our return on investment.
That is why it is important this administration start fresh with an
increased emphasis on rebuilding rural America and the foundation
economies that sustained our Nation long before Bill Gates was born.
We are geographically challenged in Montana. Although we are the
fourth largest state, we remain one of the least populated states in
the nation. Transportation issues are very important to us.
The Essential Air Service (EAS) program is important to seven
communities in our state. Implemented upon enactment of the Airline
Deregulation Act in 1978, this program was developed to ensure small
communities wouldn't lose air service once airlines structured their
route schedules based on competitive decisions, rather than a federally
mandated charter.
There are 78 qualifying communities in the contiguous U.S. and
Hawaii and 26 in Alaska. It is important that we ensure the integrity
of this program.
Additionally, the funding formulas in TEA-21 and AIR-21 should not
be altered. I feel strongly about the work we did in the 105th and
106th Congress to ensure our nation's highways and airports have access
to badly needed construction funds. These two bills essentially doubled
infrastructure funding for highways and airports.
I encourage the Secretary-Designate to consider streamlining the
Department's environmental processes. Environmental regulations have
created a funding shortfall and slowed down the construction process.
More and more projects have become subject to judicial challenge by
environmental groups.
For example, the Beartooth Pass highway in Southern Montana is one
of the nation's most beautiful treasures. Providing access to
Yellowstone National Park's northeast entrance, this road climbs over
the Beartooth-Absaroke Wilderness peaking at 12,000 feet before
dropping down into the land of geysers and bison.
Facing a $40-$50 million reconstruction, this project has been
underway for over 3 years and nearly $10 million yet no construction
has taken place. Environmental assessment has delayed the project and
cost the taxpayers well over 20 percent of the total expected cost so
far.
It is my hope this Administration will approach this issue from a
perspective that will not only keep our environment clean and healthy
but also from a perspective that will reduce waste and delay on
projects important to safety on our highways.
The Transportation Secretary will also be asked to engage on other
transportation issues aside from highways and aviation. Rail
transportation is supposed to be the most efficient form of
transportation for bulk products like grain and coal, both of which I
have plenty of in my State of Montana. Deregulation in 1980 led to
lower rail rates across the Nation except for those pockets where
competition eventually disappeared due to consolidation.
The nation's railroads have followed the path of consolidation to a
point that they are actually able to monopolize entire regions. That is
the case in much of Montana and North Dakota which is subject to
extremely high rates charged by the BNSF railroad. Our farmers and coal
producers pay some of the highest rates in the nation. I urge my friend
to consider the transportation costs on these producers--they have no
other alternative.
Finally, I would like to urge the Secretary-Designate to consider
the status of slot-controlled airports across the nation. As my
colleagues are aware, last year, this body negotiated a bill to
reauthorize the FAA. That bill also contained a provision that gave the
DOT the authority to allocate additional slots at Reagan National
Airport, also known as DCA. I share the Chairman's opinion that we
should allow additional slots at DCA to serve the Western part of or
nation.
But I think we were all quite surprised when the allocations were
made last year. I think we all took it for granted that the outside-
theperimeter allocations would be made in a fair manner serving the
entire West. With the demise of TWA, I encourage the DOT to reassess
the decisions made by the last Administration when considering the
reallocation of those slots at DCA.
Congress mandated that the allocation of slots outside of the DCA
perimeter rule be based on which application offered the best
``domestic network benefits'' (ie, served the most communities). This
was intended to provide better service for small- and mid-size
communities. A very brief overview of the applications would certainly
convince any of my colleagues or the Secretary-Designate that this
requirement was not adhered to.
I encourage Mr. Mineta and his staff to review this statute when
addressing the reallocation of these or any other of these slots that
may be open to reconsideration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
__________
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator from California
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you my friend
of nearly 30 years and a native Californian--Norman Mineta--who has
been nominated by President Bush to serve as Secretary of
Transportation. I can think of no person more qualified to serve as the
head of this important department than Norman Mineta. He has been a
member of the Cabinet, a Congressman, a big-city Mayor, and a military
veteran. In truth, Norman Mineta, embodies the American dream.
BACKGROUND
A native Californian of Japanese descent, Norman Mineta and his
family were interned in the Manzanar Internment Camp during World War
II for 3 years. During this time, the Mineta family lost their home and
his father's insurance business.
After the war, Norman joined the U.S. Army in 1953 and served as an
intelligence officer in Japan and Korea before returning to San Jose to
enter politics.
In the early 1970s, Norman became the first AsianAmerican to be
lead a major U.S. city when he served as Mayor of San Jose, California.
He then served 20 years in the House of Representatives after being
elected in 1975. There he became the first Asian American to chair a
House Committee when he served as Chairman of the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation from 1993-1995.
In Congress, he was the key author of the 1991 Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act, which effectively shifted decisions on
highway and transit planning to local and State governments. The bill
also set aside funds from the Highway Trust Fund for spending on mass
transit and environmentally friendly projects such as bike paths.
Secretary Mineta also pushed in Congress for additional aviation
spending and was a longtime critic of Federal Aviation Administration
policies.
After leaving the House, he served as Vice President of Lockeed
Martin where he worked on ``intelligent highway systems'' aimed at
improving traffic flow without building new roads by using tactics such
as electronic toll booths.
And this past June, Norman Mineta was the first Asian American
named to a Cabinet post when President Clinton him as Secretary of
Commerce.
At the Department of Commerce, Secretary Mineta worked on bridging
the digital divide and traveled to dozens of U.S. cities to in an
effort to improve access to computers for all Americans.
His efforts focused on removing the barriers that have historically
kept minorities and the less fortunate from being able to utilize the
latest technologies in their effort toward self improvement.
This program included an effort to have companies donate computers
to thousands of schools and Native American reservations.
Secretary Mineta's second major project was to preserve our Oceans
and he urged the President to place sanctions on Japan for violating
international whaling agreements.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation owes much to the service of Norman Mineta.
Transportation is not a partisan issue. It is my sincerest hope the new
Administration will draw upon Norman's background and will grant him
the resources to apply that experience as an independent voice he deems
appropriate.
He is a true leader who will bring a bipartisan consensus to
American transportation. I have no doubt he will make us proud in his
new role as Secretary of Transportation.
__________
Responses to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John McCain to
Norman Y. Mineta
Question 1. In your view, what programs within DOT should be
eliminated, downsized or consolidated?
What specific steps will you take to effect those changes, and to
reduce waste and promote efficiency at the Department of
transportation?
Answer. Although I am new to the position of Secretary of
Transportation, I am familiar with most of its programs because of my
years in Congress, in particular serving on the former Committee on
Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives. I am
applying that experience to the process of developing the President's
first Budget Request. In this context, I am taking the opportunity to
evaluate which programs or activities of the Department might be
candidates for elimination, downsizing, or consolidation. At the same
time, I believe the Department is generally well served by its current
staff and organization, and it would be unfortunate to proceed on the
premise that waste and inefficiency are widespread. Instead, I intend
to combine the annual budgeting process with the analysis of the
Department's Inspector General of program deficiencies (in particular,
the identified management challenges) as my means for accomplishing
gains in this area.
Question 2. I know that you clearly understand the difference
between statutory and report language.
What steps will you take at the Department to ensure that the modal
administrations treat report language as it is intended, an expression
of Congressional interest, rather than having it be treated as a
Congressional mandate?
Answer. Let me assure you that I do understand the difference
between statutory and report language, particularly when it comes to
the naming of specific projects in report language. In such instances,
only statutory language is law; report language is not law but simply
an expression of Congressional interest. I will be sure that all of my
modal administrators understand this as well.
Question 3. On Monday, the Department of Transportation Inspector
General released a report on the top 10 issues facing the Department. I
urge you to pay close attention to these priorities identified by the
inspector General. The Committee would also appreciate your keeping us
advised of your progress on these items.
Answer. I take the management challenges identified by the DOT
Inspector General very seriously and will make continued progress on
them one of my top priorities. As has been past practice, I will
continue to report the Department's progress on these challenges, as
well as those identified by the General Accounting Office, in the
Department's annual Performance Report required by the Government
Performance and Results Act.
Question 4. What can the Department do to help our Nation continue
to be a world leader in developing transportation technology, including
intelligent transportation systems and improved safety technology?
Answer. I support a Department role in providing leadership
required for the transportation industry to become ``smart.'' The
technologies available today can help surface, air, and water systems
squeeze greater efficiency, productivity, and, most importantly,
greater safety out of existing and any future systems.
We have several approaches available: (1) strategic investments in
research, in partnership with universities and the private sector; (2)
technology application demonstrations in partnership with the public
and private sectors; (3) standards setting; (4) technical assistance to
help agencies through the initial learning curves of adopting new
technology; (5) training; (6) financial or other incentives for
adopting technology; and (7) regulation, when market forces are
ineffective and the benefit to the public is overwhelming. Each
approach is best exercised in partnership with both the producers of
technology and the ultimate users of the technology. All of them
require partnership with Congress in authorizing the funds and the
discretion necessary to exert the leverage.
ITS infrastructure is a case in point. Over the last decade
Congress has provided substantial resources, focused on a single set of
technologies. That authorization has allowed the Department, in
partnership with the industry, to carry ITS from a research concept to
the initial stages of national deployment, using virtually all the
approaches outlined. Having proven the safety and efficiency benefits
of these technologies in a number of State and local governments across
the country, I believe the next step will be a dialog with Congress on
establishing an institutional and programmatic structure that will
ensure that basic elements of ITS technologies, where appropriate, are
as much a part of the functional specifications of our road and transit
systems as proper pavement depth and shoulder width are today.
AVIATION
Question 5. Many of the predictions made in 1997 by the National
Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC) are coming true, particularly
those regarding gridlock in the aviation system. In addition, many of
the key Commission recommendations have been implemented, in whole or
in part, through law or executive order. Notably, the FAA will have
relatively stable funding for the next few years.
Given all the tools and resources that have been provided to the
FAA in recent years, including personnel and procurement reforms, what
will you do, if confirmed, to keep the pressure on the FAA to improve
its overall performance?
Answer. The mission of the FAA is to ensure safe, secure, and
efficient air transportation. Our first objective must be to preserve
and improve the strong aviation safety record. We must also increase
the capacity of the aviation system infrastructure. Because we have an
ATC system that is not always adequate to demand, and because we must
operate that system in a way that puts safety first, we have penalized
passengers and the industry with increases in delays. The economic
impact of these delays will begin to be felt throughout our Nation if
infrastructure and technological improvements are not implemented.
I will work with the FAA to ensure that appropriated Federal
resources are effectively used to improve and expand airway and airport
capacity.
The FAA is incorporating authorities provided by AIR-21 and prior
legislation to establish a performance based air traffic services
organization. AIR-21 established the position of Chief Operating
Officer (COO) for Air Traffic Services. The COO will sign an annual
performance agreement with the FAA Administrator which will provide a
mechanism to more readily encourage and evaluate effective performance
of air traffic services. In addition, the Management Advisory Council
will assist in assessing the FAA's performance. As Secretary, I will
support these reform mechanisms to the maximum extent possible.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL DELAYS AND CONGESTION
Question 6. The Department of Transportation Inspector General
released a report on Monday that, among other things, addresses the
high number of air travel delays. Ideas that have been considered to
ease congestion include lotteries of takeoff and landing rights, peak-
hour pricing, and technological changes. I am concerned that the first
two of these options focus on constraining existing capacity to reduce
delays, rather than expanding capacity.
What are your specific recommendations for the short term to reduce
delays, principally in bad weather?
Answer. As I indicated in my testimony, options for short-term
remedies are limited. Nevertheless, we should actively pursue those
options that we have, while also working on longer-term improvements.
During the Spring/Summer 2000 initiative, the FAA undertook several
operational tests to search for ways of expanding the accessibility of
the National Airspace System in the effort to reduce delays during
weather events. The tests, which saw limited success, will be expanded
or deployed this year.
The Tactical Altitude Assignment Program (TARP) addresses
congestion in the enroute, high altitude environment, and allows Air
Traffic Control (ATC) the flexibility to address constraints on a real-
time basis. When weather impacts the enroute environment, air traffic
is often displaced onto already congested routes. TAAP offers, to the
aviation community and ATC, a way to avoid delays by assigning aircraft
lower altitudes between city pairs. Reduction of enroute, high altitude
traffic, especially during weather events, is key in helping reduce
departure delays.
Low Altitude Arrival and Departure Routes (LAADR) deal with the
arrival and departure portion of the route of flight. Unlike TARP,
which deals with the entire route of flight between city pairs, LAADR
addresses issues of constraint near departure or arrival points. By
developing these low altitude escape routes, aircraft that would be
competing for higher altitudes are freed to avoid delays.
Waypoint tests were implemented off the East Coast of the United
States to help address airspace constriction as weather systems
encroached upon the eastern seaboard. The waypoints were designed to
utilize airspace through military areas. The tests, which were
successful, should enhance options during weather events.
The Bruin test, currently in operation, looks to expand route
availability through Canadian airspace. During the testing phase, the
FAA and Canadians will look at the impact on the airspace caused by
additional aircraft. The benefits, if testing results are positive,
should allow aircraft departing and arriving the New York Metro and
Boston airports additional routing options. Toronto Center has
established additional operational positions to help address the impact
of increased traffic.
The implementation of these procedures and others should enhance
the ability of the FAA to address constraints caused during the severe
weather season.
I understand the FAA's recent lottery for service to small
communities and by new entrants at LaGuardia Airport was intended to
reduce the extreme delays and congestion there that had a national
effect. The lottery was an interim measure, and we are examining
various administrative and marketbased options to reduce delays at
LaGuardia and at other airports, where needed.
How will you motivate the controller workforce to develop and adopt
new procedures that will allow for new technologies that enable more
frequent landings in bad weather?
Answer. Collaboration with bargaining unit representatives is the
most effective way to ensure that the workforce is involved with new
procedures from the development phase to implementation.
MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATION
Question 7a. When United and US Airways announced their merger, I
and many others said it could lead to further consolidation in the
airline industry. We seem to have been proven right. As you know,
American Airlines is attempting to purchase TWA and a part of US
Airways. If the Justice Department approves these transactions, the
structure of the domestic airline industry would be fundamentally
altered.
My view is that the Department of Transportation's main role in the
merger approval process is to ensure the competitive nature of the
resulting aviation marketplace. I would like your response and reaction
to a few specific ideas that have been floated to accomplish this
objective.
Would you be willing to appoint a senior DOT official, whose sole
mission is to ensure that all carriers have access on comparable market
terms to gates and facilities at all airports, since airports are
publicly funded facilities?
Answer. Airport access has been a priority for the Department of
Transportation. In late 1999 the Department released a joint FAA/OST
task force study ``Airport Business Practices and Their Impact on
Airline Competition''. One of the recommendations of that report, that
the Secretary should designate the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs as the Department's ``competition advocate'' for
promoting competitive access to airports, was adopted by Secretary
Slater. I will continue that designation. As I stated in my testimony
at my confirmation hearings, one of my highest priorities is to do all
I can to promote the expansion of the transportation infrastructure
which is fully able to meet the demands, of our growing economy and
which can contribute to that growth by providing greater efficiency in
the movement of people and goods. I intend to put us well on the path
to accomplishing that.
Question 7b. In international route proceedings, would you be
willing to consider the applicant carrier's record on domestic
predatory behavior as part of the public interest test that is part of
the route proceeding?
Answer. I am committed to domestic airline competition. However, as
a general matter, I believe that domestic competition issues should be
dealt with on their own merits and not linked to international route
proceedings.
Question 7c. Would you consider a very limited slot lottery at
Reagan National to reallocate no more than 5 percent of the merging
carriers' slots at Reagan National, a slot lottery that would ensure
that small community service is preserved under the reallocation?
Answer. The High Density Rule authorizes air carriers to buy, sell,
lease or trade slots, subject to FAA approval. In adopting the ``buy-
sell rule'' in 1986, the Department determined that market forces would
lead to the most efficient allocation of slots. Additionally, certain
slots were designated as commuter slots for use by commuter aircraft
only, in part, to ensure the preservation of small community service.
Also, the FAA notes that approximately 30 air carrier slots are being
used with commuter aircraft, many of which provide service to small
communities.
Under the High Density Rule (HDR), the FAA retains the right to
withdraw slots to ``fulfill the Department's operational needs, such as
providing slots for international or essential service operations or
eliminating slots.'' The HDR sets forth the process that applies in
withdrawing slots for operational need. All slots are assigned, by
random lottery with a withdrawal priority number for recall purposes at
each airport. This process does not provide for slots to be withdrawn
for operational reasons from a specific carrier. Finally, the HDR
dictates that the FAA shall withdraw slots from a carrier for failure
to meet the minimum slot usage requirement.
Question 8. United's service in the Northeast and on the East Coast
is minimal, and United would like to increase its service in this part
of the country. Are we at a stage in the airline industry where it is
necessary for an airline to merge with a competitor rather than invest
the resources needed to establish a presence in a new region of the
country?
Answer. I do not believe that is the case, although the
infrastructure problem does limit the ability of carriers to expand at
certain airports. United, for example, has a major expansion underway
at Washington Dulles Airport that will enable it to establish a
presence in many cities in this part of the country.
Question 9. If we indeed see further consolidation among the larger
carriers, do you think this trend could lead toward acquisition of new
entrant and low-cost carriers, as well?
Answer. That could happen. American Airlines recently acquired Reno
Air, a low-fare new-entrant airline that had successfully developed a
significant presence in the West. One of the reasons behind American's
acquisition of that carrier was to grow quickly in California, where
its presence lagged far behind that of Southwest and United.
Question 10a. What is your position on changing the limitation on
foreign investment in U.S. airlines, from 25 percent to possibly 49
percent?
Answer. This is a very fundamental issue for our foreign, defense,
and transportation policy. I am familiar with the divergence of views
in this area. Globalization of the airline industry and the growing
number of carrier alliances has begun to strain the decades-old
limitations on foreign investment in U.S. airlines. Nevertheless, there
are competing factors, such as our defense posture and the availability
of reciprocal opportunities, that must be considered in any change in
the current limit on foreign ownership of more than 25 percent of a
U.S. air carrier.
Question 10b. Do you think that changing the limit on foreign
ownership could benefit financially strapped U.S. carriers through
increased foreign capital, which in turn could increase competition?
Answer. Changing foreign ownership limits would certainly result in
new sources of capital for U.S. airlines, not only strengthening their
domestic competitiveness, but contributing to a more open international
aviation regime on a global basis. This potential benefit would have to
be balanced against countervailing considerations, such as those noted
above.
AIRLINE COMPETITION
Question 11a. In its recent report on competition, the Department
of Transportation stated that consumers and communities significantly
benefit from low-fare competition. The report then states that there
are few low-fare competitors in the market and many markets have little
competition.
Do you agree with those conclusions?
Answer. I have not yet had the opportunity to read the Department's
report carefully, but I am aware that there is fairly widespread
agreement that fares in some markets, particularly some of those that
involve network hub cities, are, often relatively high. This does
concern me, and I intend to examine this issue. I do, however, think
that it is important to keep this in perspective. There is also
widespread agreement that airline deregulation has proven to be a
remarkable success and that the development of hub-and-spoke network
systems of service has been an important factor in that success. While
I want to do everything I can to bring the benefits of deregulation to
as many consumers as possible, we must take great care that our efforts
to do this do not interfere with the benefits that deregulation has
brought to the vast majority of travelers.
Question 11b. What are some actions that the Department might take
under your guidance to inject competition into the marketplace? Would
you be prepared to report back to this committee on your plans?
Answer. We have an affirmative responsibility to make sure that
competition continues to be sufficient to protect the interests of
consumers. Very broadly, we must do two things to enhance competition.
The first is to make sure that we have a transportation infrastructure
adequate to meet demand. Nothing so surely restricts competition as
inadequate infrastructure capacity. The second is to increase our
ability to analyze the complex airline industry in order to use our
authorities for the benefit of consumers. This dynamic industry is
constantly undergoing change and we must be better able to detect
important issues as they evolve, and, where possible, develop remedies
that will, in the real world, benefit consumers. We need to be able to
identify ineffective competition, to understand why it is ineffective,
and to determine whether the government can take effective measures to
effect change that is for the good. We must be careful not to dabble
where we are not sure our actions are benefiting consumers.
Question 12. Under the last administration, the Department did not
act or was slow to act on complaints alleging anti-competitive
behavior. Under your leadership, will the Department be more aggressive
in responding to these complaints?
Answer. I intend to be very active in fulfilling our responsibility
to assure that airline markets are at least as competitive as they need
to be to protect the interests of consumers.
Question 13. In its recent report on competition, the Department of
Transportation discussed taking aggressive action to open up airport
facilities to make possible new and increased airline services and
thereby promote competition.
What actions to open airport facilities do you believe the
Department could take in order to promote competition?
Answer. In my nomination testimony before your Committee, I
outlined five broad areas to focus on in order to increase system
capacity and competitiveness. First, we have to recognize that
airlines, airports, and air traffic control are all struggling to keep
up with demand, all are having problems, and all have significant work
to do to catch up. Each must get serious about addressing its own part
of the problem. For our part, the Federal Government has sole
responsibility for air traffic control, and we must make it the highest
priority in order to find better ways to meet this challenge. Second,
we must take whatever steps we need to, no matter how large or small,
even if the payoff is not immediate. Delay and/or inaction are not
responsible options. Third, we must take advantage of an extraordinary
leap in technology that has come about during the past decade. Computer
power that was unimaginable a decade ago not only exists today, it is
cheap and common. This new technology has been used to solve complex
problems throughout our economy and must now be used to modernize air
traffic control. Fourth, we have to recognize that the pace of growth
in demand and the pace of change in technology require a degree of
nimbleness that the traditional Federal agency, for all its strengths,
simply cannot keep up with. We have adopted the concept that we will
keep the modernization and operation of the ATC system in the FAA, but
we will give the FAA many of the attributes of a private entity. Fifth,
I have emphasized the management changes needed to make ATC
modernization work, but we should also understand that it will take
both improved management and adequate resources.
The AIR-21 legislation also provided a new tool to use in opening
airport facilities to competition by new entrants. Airports of a
significant size that are dominated by one or two air carriers are
required to demonstrate to the Department, through a competition plan,
how they are making facilities available to requesting airlines. Only
after a thorough review of these plans may the FAA release grant funds
or approve applications for passenger facility fees at these airports.
We will review the implementation of these plans and encourage the
airports to maximize opportunities for access.
Question 14a. Can Reagan National Airport safely accommodate more
flights per day than are allowed by the current slot restrictions?
Answer. The air carrier and commuter hourly slot quotas in the
high-density rule were established in the 1980s (when the FAA was also
the airport operator), and the number of slots is not based entirely on
airport capacity. Included in the determination of the hourly quotas
were other policies such as airport development plans and environmental
concerns of the local community.
Question 14b. In other words, are the slot restrictions at Reagan
National needed as a safety measure?
Answer. Slot restrictions at Reagan National are not needed as a
safety measure. Safety would not be affected by changes to the number
of authorized slots. The FAA will continue to separate aircraft and
apply air traffic control procedures to ensure safety is maintained
regardless of the number of flights that are scheduled.
Question 15. In your view, is the perimeter rule at Reagan National
Airport an anti-competitive barrier to competition?
Answer. I view the perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport as
being distinct from other limits on competition, because it was imposed
statutorily in 1986 as part of the legislation transferring control of
National and Dulles Airports from FAA to regional control. As a
principal author of that legislation, I know that many balancing
factors went into the various limits imposed on the airport, in view of
community concerns and concerns expressed by surrounding jurisdictions.
Overall, I would not view that particular statutory limit as a barrier
to competition in the same sense that it might appear to be elsewhere.
Question 16. Some airlines have disputed findings by the Department
of Transportation and the General Accounting Office that carriers
charge so-called ``hub premiums.'' Do you believe that airlines that
operate fortress hubs charge relatively higher fares to customers who
travel to and from those hubs?
Answer. I believe that the evidence that some fares are relatively
high in many hub markets is convincing. But I also believe that in
dealing with that issue we must be aware that the development of hub-
and-spoke networks has resulted in enormous benefits for most
passengers and communities. In our efforts to deal with negative
attributes of the deregulated environment, we must be careful that our
actions do not harm competition in other areas.
Question 17. Is DOT adequately equipped to review airline
competition issues and, if not, what additional resources do you
believe are required?
Answer. As I indicated in my testimony before your Committee, the
analytical resources of the office that perform this function have been
greatly reduced, and we have to reverse that trend if we are to be
effective in looking out for competition and consumers. I have made
this a personal priority and will complete my assessment of our
resource needs in this area at an early date.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL MODERNIZATION
Question 18. It is no secret that the FAA has struggled with
modernizing the National Airspace System. There's been an alarming
history of cost increases and schedule slips and major shortfalls in
performance.
Given that the FAA sold the modernization program on the promise
that it would help to expand capacity to meet growing demands for air
service, when can we expect to see improved air traffic control
operation--that is, fewer delays, as a result of modernized equipment?
Answer. The FAA's modernization program has shown substantial
results. The FAA has completely replaced all of the outdated equipment
in the enroute centers. The Voice Switching Communication System
(VSCS), Peripheral Adaptation Module Replacement Item (PAMRI), Host
Computer Replacement, and Display System Replacement (DSR) have
successfully replaced their earlier generation counterparts, which
enhances overall National Airspace System performance. The tangible and
immediate result is that these centers now have fewer outages and
equipment related problems. This has had a direct impact on the number
of delays.
Additionally, several innovative programs in our Free Flight
Initiative are yielding substantial results in reducing delays.
Collaborative Decision Making (CDM), Center TRACON Automation System
(CTAS), and Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) applications have produced
measurable benefits. CDM has improved operational communication flow
between the FAA and the user community. CTAS, which is in initial
deployment, has shown marked improvement for Dallas-Ft. Worth, with
projected throughput increases above 10 percent. TMA provides traffic
management units with improved flight status, enhancing system
utilization.
While the cause of delays can be traced to several issues, as the
FAA continues to modernize its systems and capabilities, the delays
that were caused by aging equipment are starting to decrease.
Nevertheless, we continue to have these gains from modernization offset
by continued strong growth in demand. Keeping up with that demand will
continue to be a major challenge.
Question 19. In spite of the special acquisition authority Congress
provided to the FAA in 1996, the agency has not achieved its goals of
executing more timely and cost effective across-the-board acquisitions.
What steps would you envision to expedite the achievement of the
goals of the legislation and the promises made to Congress by the
agency in pursuit of the enabling legislation?
Answer. Since the beginning of procurement reform and the
implementation of the FAA's Acquisition Management System (``AMS'')
some 4 years ago, the FAA has achieved improvements in the time it
takes to complete an acquisition and at the same time has reduced the
costs of these acquisitions. Also, in the 4 years since implementation,
the number of competitively awarded contracts has increased, exerting
downward pressure on systems acquisition costs.
The FAA has reduced the time it takes to award contracts by 55
percent-from the time of the contracting officer's first action, to the
contract award. This number was determined based on an FAA program
evaluation conducted in 1999. It was subsequently confirmed in a GAO
Audit. As a result, there has been a more rapid and efficient fielding
of new systems necessary to modernize the National Airspace System.
This program has been carefully and continually monitored through
several different audits, including audits conducted by the GAO and an
outside auditing firm that reported directly to Congress. Each of these
reports found that acquisition reform at the FAA, and AMS in
particular, had met its goal, reducing the cost and time required for
acquisitions.
Question 20. The FAA is currently evaluating numerous issues
surrounding satellite-based aeronautical navigation (i.e., the Global
Positioning System and the Wide Area Augmentation System).
If the FAA cannot take advantage of the cost savings associated
with decommissioning ground-based navigational aids, will the agency
have the funds necessary to take care of its other important
responsibilities?
Answer. Yes. The FAA expects to have the funds necessary for
essential operations. The costs of developing WAAS will not crowd out
other investments or operating costs. The rate and extent to which
current groundbased navigation aids will be decommissioned are also
dependent on user equipage and acceptance.
Question 21. The FAA is investing millions of dollars annually in
efforts to harness satellite navigation for commercial aviation. In the
past year, the $2.9 billion Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
suffered significant technical problems and its future remains
uncertain.
Is it time to abandon the Wide Area Augmentation System and move
forward with other satellite-based systems?
If not, what needs to be done to get the effort back on track?
Answer. In December 2000, the WAAS Integrity/Performance Panel
(WIPP), a consortium of approximately 20 leading satellite navigation
and GPS technical experts, completed its feasibility assessment for
achieving Category I precision approach. This panel confirmed that WAAS
can achieve its original precision approach requirements, provided
planned enhancements are implemented.
In June 2000, the FAA also established an Independent Review Board
(IRB), with the institute for Defense Analyses acting as the ``agent''
to provide the FAA Administrator with an independent assessment of the
WIPP's technical findings. Preliminary results from the IRB indicate a
recommendation for the FAA to continue developing WAAS and the WIPP
activities. The FAA Administrator and I will review the IRB's
recommendations.
FAA STRUCTURE AND REFORM
Question 22. The FAA has efforts underway to reform its
organizational culture, to establish a culture with shared values,
goals, and to provide incentives that encourage employees to act in
ways that are more conducive to achieving the agency's mission and
goals. Even though major change efforts of this kind generally take
three to 5 years, it is questionable whether the FAA has made much
progress to date.
What additional steps must the agency take to change its
organizational culture?
Answer. FAA has made significant improvements under personnel
reform through streamlining of its human resource programs, increased
managerial flexibility, and improved focus throughout the agency on
corporate goals and objectives. However, reforms to FAA's personnel
system will take additional time to yield their full benefit potential.
In the interim, there are additional steps that the agency can make,
and is making, to further enhance its organizational culture.
Agency management is presently digesting the results of the FAA
2000 Employee Attitude Survey (EAS), which was distributed to all full-
time, permanent FAA employees (48,740) in September 2000 (of those,
24,466 usable surveys were returned). Shortly, FAA-wide initiatives and
action planning will begin.
In a related development, the FAA Administrator recently announced
the launching of a ``cultural assessment,'' starting in the FAA's
Southern Region. While EAS survey data are very valuable, they reveal
only how employees feel about particular issues rather than the
underlying reasons. A cultural assessment is designed to peel back the
onion some more to tell management why people feel the way they do, why
certain things work, and why others don't. Many organizations in the
public and private sectors are doing these assessments. Getting to the
``why'' of a situation will allow FAA management to do a better job
enhancing overall employee job satisfaction, which in turn encourages
employees to act in ways that are more conducive to achieving the
agency's mission and goals.
Question 23. Many countries across the globe, including Canada and
Australia, have embraced privatization to control costs and speed air
traffic control modernization.
What are your thoughts on this trend?
Would the privatization of oceanic air traffic control be a good
first step?
Answer. The international trend toward privatization has been
limited and gradual. For those countries that have moved away from
government owned and operated air traffic services (ATS), the
transition has been in stages rather than direct jumps to private
participation or privatization.
Privatization is not the only means for improving the efficiency of
the country's air traffic control system. For example, as suggested by
the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, which I chaired in 1997,
the establishment of a performance-based organization (PBO) can
effectively and efficiently encourage air traffic control
modernization. I was pleased to see that a PBO for air traffic services
was recently established. This, plus the recent establishment of an Air
Traffic Services Subcommittee of the Management Advisory Committee,
should enhance the ability of the FAA to control costs and speed air
traffic control modernization. I would like to see how the air traffic
services performance-based organization addresses modernization of
oceanic air traffic control before giving consideration to
``privatization'' of that activity.
Question 24. In the last several years, there have been many
proposals for the FAA to operate more like a business. Some have called
for privatization, others including the Commission you chaired, for a
performance-based organization.
What are the elements of a performance-based organization and how
would we judge its success?
What do we need to do first?
Answer. In its most basic sense, the elements of a performance-
based organization (PBO) are a discrete unit, providing a service, with
measurable results. A PBO for FAA Air Traffic Services is certainly a
discrete unit that provides a service with measurable results.
We will judge the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) now being
established by the FAA on its ability to improve safety, security and
efficiency of air traffic operations. Performance measures and cost
accounting should be used to evaluate the organization's success.
The first order of business is to select a COO and finalize a
performance agreement. I anticipate this being accomplished within the
next few months. We will work with the ATS Subcommittee of the
Management Advisory Council to finalize this action.
USER FEES
Question 25. There have been proposals to transition to user fees
for financing the U.S. air transportation system. Some countries have
taken this approach and rely on a combination of distance flown and
aircraft weight to establish user fees. User fees would be very
controversial in the United States, but it might be the right thing to
do in the long term.
Should the U.S. begin to transition to user fees?
If so, how quickly could this be done?
Answer. The question of possibly moving to more broadly based
aviation user fees is one of the more important aviation issues I
expect to address in the months ahead. By statute, the FAA may
establish user fees only where specifically authorized by the Congress.
In the area of air traffic control (ATC), where more than two-thirds of
FAA spending occurs, the only user fees currently authorized by
Congress are for ``overflights,'' which are flights that use FAA air
traffic control services but neither take off from, nor land in, the
United States. These fees have been in place only since August 1, 2000.
They were derived from actual cost information provided by FAA's new
Cost Accounting System, and are expected to generate revenues of about
$40 million annually, which is only about one-half of 1 percent of
total FAA spending for ATC. I strongly support the FAA's efforts to
develop the cost accounting system, which is not only an additional
management tool but can also be used in supporting user fees.
As the FAA Cost Accounting System is developed and implemented
throughout the agency, it can potentially be used to derive other user
fees. One of the key features of a user fee is that it allows users to
pay for only those services they actually receive. By better matching
the cost of service with system use, as cost accounting allows, the FAA
should be able to more efficiently provide ATC services to those who
request it. I also recognize that any user fee system must also be
flexible enough to ensure equity among users and encourage air traffic
modernization, thereby improving aviation safety. Additionally, any
user fees would have to be consistent with our international
obligations.
We are now moving to establish an Air Traffic Organization as a
Performance Based Organization under Executive Order 13180 of December
7, 2000, and are beginning to operate under a new and recently
appointed Oversight Committee.
Question 26. The FAA's budget has risen from $8.2 billion in 1995
to more than $12.5 billion in fiscal year 2001, largely due to the
airport improvement program and sharply rising costs of the FAA's
operations account. The operations account, which is salary driven,
represented nearly 60 percent of the FAA's fiscal year 2000 budget.
What measures are needed to control the FAA's operating costs and
what role will the Department play in that?
Answer. Choices will have to continue to be made between funds
needed for ongoing operations and those needed to make investments. It
is likely that the primary functions funded in the Operations account,
namely air traffic control, safety inspection, and security, will
continue to be manpower intensive activities that will require staffing
to keep up the growth and increased complexity of the aviation
industry. From fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2000, the safety-
related part of FAA's Operations-funded workforce increased by
approximately 1,000 while the remainder of the Operations workforce
declined by almost 400.
FAA has clearly been increasing its ``front line'' workforce and
reducing its administrative workforce. The safety workforce is highly
trained and, therefore, more costly than a typical government
workforce. I will encourage this trend of focusing on the ``front line
employees.'' I am also strongly supporting FAA's development of a cost
accounting system. FAA has recently begun producing monthly cost
accounting information for portions of air traffic service costs. This
information is now being released to the air traffic managers. We
expect to see what typically happens when cost data is published and
shared corporately--a level of awareness and competition between
regions or centers or towers based on the cost to provide air traffic
services. This internal discussion and competition will help us better
understand FAA's business and identify best practices. According to
experts from the private sector, this does not occur overnight, but I
expect to see benefits soon.
With a stronger focus on front line employees and a cost accounting
system, I expect to continue to place pressure on FAA to control its
operation costs. I want to make sure that the resources we receive are
spent in ways that are most beneficial to the users of the system and
the flying public.
Question 27a. In 1998, the FAA and the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association (NATCA) agreed to a new collective bargaining
agreement, which significantly increased controllers' salaries. In
addition, the agreement, which the FAA negotiated under authority
granted by personnel reform, called for productivity enhancements that
would offset the cost of higher salaries. It is uncertain, however, if
the FAA will realize any of these offsetting productivity enhancements.
Do you believe the FAA will realize the savings associated with
greater productivity, and what evidence do you have of that?
Answer. FAA continues to work with the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association to evaluate the agreement and expects to
realize partial cost offsets over the life of the contract through
initiatives such as the increased use of controllers-in-charge (CIC)
and the corresponding reduction in supervisors.
The expanded controller-in-charge effort is intended to provide
watch supervision for the continuous operation of a facility or area
where a supervisor is not available. Assignments of employees to CIC
duties are necessary to supplement the supervisory staff. This
initiative was implemented January 1, 2001, for all airport traffic
control towers and en route facilities.
Concurrent with the implementation of revised CIC duties, the
terminal and en route facilities have begun to move toward a 10:1
employee-to-supervisor ratio. The reduction of supervisory positions
will be accomplished through attrition.
In transitioning to the expanded CIC role while moving toward the
10:1 employee-to-supervisor ratio, it is of the utmost importance that
the Air Traffic organization maintain its current high standards for
safe and effective watch supervision. Therefore, the terminal and en
route facility managers are carefully monitoring this transition
throughout its evolution and will provide quality assurance direction
as needed.
Question 27b. What effect do you feel the NATCA agreement will have
on future collective bargaining agreements within the agency?
Answer. The NATCA agreement for air traffic controllers has been
cited by unions in other labor negotiations as a proposed baseline for
all FAA employees. The FAA has not accepted this premise. FAA will
negotiate each individual contract based on the workforce and their
needs.
AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Question 28. According to the Department of Transportation
Inspector General, in the last 5 years, only three new runways were put
into service at our 28 largest airports. Unfortunately, some of the
very passengers that are complaining about delays exhibit a ``not in my
backyard'' mentality and do everything possible to prevent new or
expanded airports to be built.
As Secretary of Transportation, what would you do to expand airport
capacity to help reduce delays and congestion, and how will you deal
with the local politicians and interest groups that are opposed to this
needed expansion?
Answer. I will expect to use the full array of measures to increase
capacity. This means using technological and procedural measures that
are directly under Federal responsibility and control, as well as
raising the visibility of the need for new runways and assuring that
the Department of Transportation takes appropriate steps to assist
local governments in planning and building runways.
Airport development is ultimately a local responsibility. The
Federal Government should--
Identify national system needs;
Provide financial assistance for excellent short and long
range airport planning;
Perform effective and efficient Federal reviews, including
safety, airspace, environmental reviews;
Provide financial assistance for runway construction; and
Provide timely air navigation procedures and equipment to
make new runways operational.
I think it is important for DOT/FAA to take steps to raise the
visibility of identified system needs to stimulate local governments to
address airport capacity shortfalls and for DOT/FAA to assure that
responsibilities and reviews within its purview do not provide a drag
on the process of achieving solutions.
There will continue to be legitimate differences of opinion on
airport expansion and the legitimate expression of other interests that
do not favor expansion. There are processes in place to evaluate
environmental impacts, to address community concerns, and to consider
options. These are valid and important processes that should not be
bypassed. We are examining the extent to which we may be
nonproductively extending the timeline on such processes.
Question 29. Some have suggested that certain airports are critical
to the national transportation system and the nation's economy and that
the Federal Government should be prepared to step in when reasonable
efforts to reach agreements regarding airport expansion with
surrounding communities have failed.
Would you be in favor of establishing a system of ``critical
airports?''
Could you foresee the Federal Government stepping in to move a
project forward that would improve the capacity of the overall airport
system?
Answer. I would be in favor of identifying critical airports that
should receive the highest priority attention for DOT/FAA support and
services that are necessary to plan, evaluate, construct, and operate
new runways. FAA already keeps a list of airports generating the
greatest number of hours of aircraft delay. If we can ``step in'' and
make a difference within the clear areas of Federal responsibility, we
should. However, we should not attempt to substitute the Federal role
for the local role. I would not favor ``Federalizing'' airports or
airport projects.
Question 30. Hub airports cannot be expanded infinitely, even under
the best of circumstances. At some point, doesn't there have to be a
natural shift of service to so-called secondary airports, many of which
may now be underutilized?
Answer. There has to be a market advantage for an air carrier to
shift to another airport from an existing base. Yet, while there are
strong economic advantages of centralization at a hub (including
maximizing connecting opportunities for passengers and making viable
air service to smaller communities), despite congestion, airlines have
been developing service at airports located near the major hub
airports.
Question 31. Airport development is key to expanding capacity. The
construction of new runways and maintenance of existing runways are
options for improving the capacity at existing airports. However,
airports face a challenge in building new runways. They must address
the potential environmental impact of aircraft noise and air pollutant
emissions that the new runway is likely to generate. Shortcomings in
the environmental process--including overlapping Federal and State
requirements and duplicative requirements under Federal law-add to the
challenge and can result in delays without necessarily providing
commensurate environmental benefits.
How does the Federal Government strike a balance between the need
to protect the environment and the need to expand the capacity of the
national airport system?
Answer. We need to keep environmental protections in place, but
streamline the way we go about them. This is the current subject of
intensive FAA review and discussion with the industry and with other
agencies that have environmental responsibilities. DOT/FAA will submit
an environmental streamlining report to Congress in April 2001, in
addition to undertaking administrative initiatives to make the
environmental process more timely and less burdensome. As your question
notes, communities are often concerned about the noise and air quality
impacts of expanding airports, which can be addressed through the
environmental process and noise abatement planning activities.
international aviation agreements
Question 32. What is your position with regard to the U.S./U.K.
bilateral, and what will you do to ensure that the United States is not
put at a disadvantage with respect to slots at Heathrow?
Answer. Replacing the restrictive U.S.-U.K. aviation agreement with
an ``Open-Skies'' agreement is a U.S. aviation priority. No
negotiations are currently scheduled because of U.K. unwillingness to
move forward until British Airways has finalized its commercial
strategy. We will look for opportunities to make progress with the
U.K., but will also concentrate our efforts on partners that are ready
for liberalization.
I recognize the importance to U.S. carriers of access to Heathrow.
I also recognize that Heathrow is a highly congested airport and that
it is critical for the slot allocation system to continue to be
transparent and nondiscriminatory. In an open skies environment, the
ability of U.S. carriers to establish a competitively effective
presence at Heathrow will be a key consideration if British Airways
seeks antitrust immunity.
Question 33. What are your views on cabotage, and do you believe
U.S. air carriers would be at an advantage or disadvantage if the
Congress changed the cabotage laws?
Answer. This is an important issue for both our domestic and
foreign aviation policy, as well as for the transportation parties
concerned. I am familiar with the divergence of views in this area.
Globalization of the airline industry, the growing number of carrier
alliances, and consolidation concerns, for different reasons, have all
spurred calls to reevaluate constraints that limit the markets that
airlines can enter. However, there are also important competing
factors, such as our defense posture, that argue against any change in
the cabotage prohibition.
I believe that U.S. airlines have shown both domestically and
internationally that they are effective, adaptable competitors. The
specifics of any ``advantage or disadvantage'' would depend on how
Congress changed the cabotage laws and the international response to
the change.
Question 34. If confirmed as Secretary of Transportation, would you
encourage the Congress to amend the Fly America Act, or do you support
the current law?
Answer. Code sharing and the growing number of alliances between
U.S. and foreign airlines have lessened the economic importance of this
issue. However, ``Fly America'' requirements continue to be a sensitive
issue in some of our international aviation negotiations, as well as
for the transportation parties concerned and the Department of Defense.
There is some scope under the Fly America Act for the United States
to offer access to Fly America traffic to our international aviation
partners in exchange for benefits for U.S. aviation interests. However,
there have also been competing considerations, such as our defense
posture, that have caused us to limit our use of the current
negotiating flexibility. There continue to be divergent views on this
issue that I want to consider further.
ADDITIONAL AVIATION QUESTIONS
Question 35a. As you know, under U.S. law, an ``air carrier'' must
be owned and controlled by U.S. citizens, but certain other
aviationrelated businesses, such as ``air freight forwarders,'' may be
owned and controlled by non-U.S. citizens. Some in the aviation
industry are concerned that foreign governmental entities, which may be
able to subsidize improperly the operations of their subsidiaries, are
obtaining authority to operate companies in the U.S. that compete with
private enterprises. The main fear is that such foreign-owned companies
will have an unfair advantage over U.S. competitors.
Apart from air carrier-related matters, does the Department of
Transportation review the ownership status of a company seeking a
license that will allow it to compete with private businesses?
Answer. Yes. For example, the Department requires that applicants
for foreign air freight forwarder licenses specify the ownership of the
company.
Question 35b. If a company seeking a license from DOT is owned or
controlled by a foreign government, does DOT consider whether that
company will have its operations in the U.S. subsidized by the foreign
government?
Answer. An application for a foreign air freight forwarder license
would indicate the percentage of any government ownership. If issues
were raised regarding whether licensing the applicant would result in
unfair competition, such issues would be included in our overall review
of the public interest.
Question 35c. What sort of public interest considerations are a
part of nonairline license reviews at DOT?
Answer. The statute (49 U.S.C. 40101) specifies the matters that
are to be considered in determining the public interest.
Question 36. In recent weeks, many consumer groups and low-fare
carriers have advocated a moratorium on airline mergers and asset
transfers in order to give DOT more time to review these transactions
What is your position on a moratorium?
Answer. I believe that airline consolidation is and will continue
to be one of the most important and most challenging issues for the
government to deal with. I want to take a little more time to examine
this phenomenon and consult with the Department of Justice before
reaching any conclusions about how we should proceed.
Question 37. As a Member of Congress, you were outspoken on the use
of computer reservations systems as competitive weapons against new
entrants. The Department has been attempting to complete its CRS
rulemaking for 3 years. Are you prepared to make this rulemaking a high
priority?
Answer. I fully recognize the importance of completing the CRS
rulemaking and the need to prevent efforts to use the systems in ways
that would prejudice airline competition and the ability of consumers
to obtain accurate information on airline services. Due to the
complexities of the issues and the major changes in airline
distribution that have occurred since the Department's last review of
the rules, however, making a decision on what rules should be adopted
will require some time. In the meantime, the existing CRS rules
continue to govern.
Question 38. Recently a significant number of airlines formed to
create a Internet site called Orbitz that would offer fares that would
only be available from Orbitz or the individual airline. The fares
would not be available from traditional CRS sources or other Internet
sites, such as Expedia or Travelocity. Many consumers have raised
concerns about the potential for collaboration among the airlines in
this venture. Do you have concerns about this issue?
Answer. The Department's staff has been informally studying these
issues to see whether the structure of Orbitz' operations may lead to
anticompetitive conduct. The Justice Department is also investigating
Orbitz' planned operations, and DOT will be discussing the issues with
the Justice Department. I will carefully review the results of these
investigations and then determine whether DOT intervention is
necessary.
Question 39. Do you believe CRS rules should be extended to cover
Internet sites like Orbitz?
Answer. The Department asked the parties in the pending CRS
rulemaking to comment on whether the rules should cover the use of the
Internet for the distribution of airline tickets. A number of parties
submitted comments arguing that new rules are necessary to prevent
Orbitz from engaging in conduct that would be anticompetitive or limit
the ability of consumers to obtain information on airline services and
fares. We will carefully consider their arguments along with the
counter-arguments made by Orbitz and other parties. We recognize the
importance of these issues and the issue of whether the rules should be
changed to cover Internet sales of airline transportation.
Question 40. Presently, there are 199 airports participating in the
FAA Contract Tower Program, which continues to enjoy bipartisan support
from Congress as a cost-effective way to improve air traffic safety at
smaller airports. The program also receives high marks from the
Department of Transportation Inspector General, National Transportation
Safety Board, airports, and aviation users as an important contributor
to aviation safety. Please provide the Committee your recommendations
for new steps the Department will support to assure that DOT and the
FAA enhance the current contract tower program, including the cost-
sharing program?
Answer. Two steps are currently under way to ensure the Contract
Tower Program will continue to be successful:
The recently awarded 5-year contract contains language
specifying a new monthly reporting system the contractors are required
to adhere to. This monthly report will allow the Program Office to
better track staffing levels in the individual towers, thus providing
enhanced oversight of program efficiency as well as system safety.
At the annual Federal Contract Tower conference, a more
comprehensive equipment list for towers entering the program was
developed and coordination with airport managers is in progress.
Questions 41-42. Last year, Congress passed the National Parks Air
Tour Management Act as part of AIR-21. This law governs many aspects of
the operations of air tours over national parks. Part of the law
requires the FAA and the National Park Service (NPS) to work
cooperatively on several matters, including the development of air tour
management plans (ATMPs) at each national park where there are
commercial air tours. ATMPs are to be developed over a 2-year period.
Apparently, neither FAA nor NPS has been able to allocate the funds
necessary to develop all the ATMPs within the timeframe set by
Congress. Are there any plans to address the resource needs associated
with development of ATMPs?
Answer. I hope that sufficient resources will be made available to
support this important initiative in a timely manner. To begin
cooperative efforts with the NPS this fiscal year, the FAA has set
aside $367,000 in fiscal year 2001 to cover startup costs for training,
travel meetings, development of draft ATMP procedures, and the purchase
of specialized mapping software/equipment to track air tour routes.
Question 43. In addition to providing adequate resources, what can
be done to ensure that the FAA does its part to act expeditiously when
developing ATMPs?
Answer. The FAA has assigned the Western Pacific Regional
Administrator to lead the agency's implementation of the ATMPs. Western
Pacific has the majority of the affected parks, and has the experience
of working on Grand Canyon air tour issues. The Regional Administrator
has developed a strong working relationship with the NPS' Soundscape
Office in Fort Collins, CO, their lead office. The agencies are putting
together an implementation plan and training for the local park and FAA
officials who will be responsible for the individual ATMPs. Focus will
be on the local effort, but a national team of experts from both
agencies will be available to facilitate local efforts, and develop
lessons learned as the process matures.
Question 44. As Secretary, what direction will you give to the FAA
to fulfill its duties with respect to managing commercial air tours
over national parks and working cooperatively with NPS?
Answer. I can think of no better example of direction than the
effort both agencies gave in their support of the National Parks
Overflight Working Group (NPOWG). NPOWG was a group of aviation,
environmental and Native American representatives chartered to find a
solution to the park air tour overflight issues. Recognizing that
agency interests may differ at times, the goal was for divergent
interests to find the common results that make both sides a winner in
the final analysis--a win-win. FAA and NPS worked with the NPOWG
representatives to define a process that will allow constituents of all
sides of the air tour issue to realize some measure of satisfaction.
Their process was the basis for the enacted legislation.
Question 45. What is your perception of the division of
responsibilities between the FAA and NPS with regard to determining how
commercial air tours impact the ground-based assets and resources of
national parks?
Answer. The development of ATMPs is a cooperative interagency
process. ATMPs are to be established by the FAA ``in cooperation with''
the NPS. The Act also establishes that the FAA is the ``lead agency''
and the NPS is a ``cooperating agency'' for purposes of compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations.
Under environmental law and other guidance, the lead agency supervises
the preparation and has the ultimate responsibility for the content of
environmental impact statements. The lead agency must use the
environmental analysis and proposals of cooperating agencies with
jurisdiction by law or special expertise, to the maximum extent
possible consistent with its responsibility as lead agency. So I
believe it's clear that although the FAA has the ultimate
responsibility for impact determination, any input from the NPS must
carry considerable weight and be recognized as such. Moreover, the Act
requires that both agencies sign the Record of Decision for an ATMP.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
Amtrak
Question 46. When Amtrak was created in 1971, it was expected the
corporation would become self-sustaining within 2 years. Yet 30 years
later, Amtrak has received $23 billion in taxpayer assistance--and it
is currently seeking billions of additional dollars, despite the fact
that just over 3 years ago, we enacted reform legislation intended to
reduce Amtrak's dependence on the American taxpayers. Given the fact
Amtrak was never expected to be funded like our highways or transit
systems, I find it disingenuous when I read about Amtrak crying
``poor'' and arguing its case by comparing its subsidies to other
transportation modes. Again, it was never the intent of Congress to
fund Amtrak infinitum. It was to be free of all Federal assistance
after 2 years.
What are your views on Amtrak? If appropriate, please differentiate
between your views about passenger rail service and that of Amtrak.
Do you believe that Amtrak should be the only provider of intercity
passenger service and high speed rail service?
Do you believe Amtrak will meet the statutory requirement that it
operate free of Federal assistance by 2003?
Answer. With the exception of my final few months of service in the
House of Representatives, railroads in general and Amtrak in
particular, did not fall under the jurisdiction of the committee on
which I served and was honored to chair, the Committee on Public Works
and Transportation (now the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure). Therefore, I want to qualify my response by saying
that I am less familiar today with Amtrak than with other modes of
transportation. I will be able to address Amtrak-related issues in more
detail in the future after I have had an opportunity to participate in
detailed policy discussions within the Department and with my
colleagues on the Amtrak Board of Directors and on the Amtrak Reform
Council.
I do believe that there is a role for intercity rail passenger
service in our national transportation system. I have been a longtime
supporter of a balanced transportation system that includes public
transportation where it can enhance overall mobility and address other
important public policy needs. I was one of the first supporters of
making transit, including commuter rail service, a partner in surface
transportation funding. While this is largely taken for granted today,
it was a radical concept in 1983 when we first included it as part of
what had traditionally been highway legislation.
The issue is whether and how the potential of passenger rail
service can be effectively realized. For example, states have made a
strong statement that there are specific intercity rail passenger
routes and services that are important to them and have provided
funding for these routes and services.
State financial support of Amtrak will total $162 million this year
which is about one-third the level of Federal support provided in
fiscal year 2001. In addition, states are independently funding
investments to facilitate improved intercity or high-speed rail
service.
The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act (ARAA) of 1997 was the
first real attempt by Congress to try to change Amtrak's focus to
behaving more like a private business, but such cultural
transformations take time. I look forward to working with Amtrak's
Board of Directors, the Amtrak Reform Council, the Department's
Inspector General and others to determine the progress that has been
made in transforming Amtrak into a business-like organization, and what
additional steps the Department can take in aiding this transformation.
Whether Amtrak should be the only provider of intercity or high-speed
rail passenger service is a complex issue that I would like to learn
more about.
Question 47. Amtrak and some of its supporters in Congress have
crafted a plan to provide Amtrak with $10 billion in bonding authority
that would be supported through a Federal income tax credit for the
holders of the Amtrak-issued bonds. The generated funding is expected
to fund ``high speed rail'' across the country, even though we have no
actual cost estimates for funding high speed rail nationally.
Have you had an opportunity to review Amtrak's proposal and, if so,
what are your views on the proposed bonding plan?
In lieu of the bonding proposal, what alternative funding
approaches could you suggest to provide long-term capital funding for
intercity passenger rail service?
In terms of developing a national, high speed rail system, has the
DOT determined the actual level of capital funding that would be
needed, and if not, when should we expect such information?
Answer. I have not yet had an opportunity to study in detail the
legislation recently introduced by 51 members of the Senate, including
the majority and minority leaders, that would create a program of
funding high-speed corridor investments through Amtrak-issued bonds,
with Federal tax credits in lieu of interest on the bonds. I will be
working within the Bush Administration to quickly develop our position
on this pending legislation.
A challenge facing intercity rail passenger service is the lack of
a reliable and dedicated source of capital investment. Intercity rail
passenger service, including high-speed rail, competes for Federal
funds with other important transportation investment needs, such as
replacement of the Coast Guard's deepwater assets or expanding RSPA's
pipeline safety program. The amount of uncommitted Federal funds
available for transportation today makes for some very tough tradeoffs
among worthwhile programs and projects. The so-called high-speed rail
bond bill would provide for high-speed capital investments a reliable
source of $1 billion annually that would not be in competition with
other transportation funding priorities.
The Department has no definitive estimate of the cost for
developing a national high-speed rail system. The Inspector General has
estimated that $1.39 billion will be needed in overall capital
expenditures (which would include a portion for high-speed rail) for
the fiscal year 2000-02 period.
Question 48. Do you believe the American taxpayer should continue
to subsidize Amtrak?
If so, to what extent and why?
If not, what should be done to eliminate the subsidy?
Answer. The intercity rail passenger service provided by Amtrak has
the potential to play an important role in a balanced national
passenger transportation system. As with all other components of that
national system, to achieve its potential intercity rail passenger
service will require continuing capital investment (as opposed to
operating subsidies) by the Federal Government, the states and other
stakeholders.
The challenge facing this Administration is that in an environment
of limited funds available for all modes of transportation, Amtrak must
compete with other critical transportation investment needs. In the
end, it will be about choices among competing worthwhile investment
priorities. Amtrak's current authorization runs through fiscal year
2002. That means that by October 1 of next year, the Congress and the
Administration need to act on the future of Amtrak. It is not too early
to begin the debate on the issues that have generated so much attention
and so many differing views for three decades. I look forward to
working with the Committee to try to develop a shared vision for the
future of Amtrak.
TRUCKING
Question 49a. Last January, after much debate, the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) was finally established. One of
the main reasons we worked to create a separate truck and bus safety
agency was because we found a lack of necessary leadership and priority
for truck safety when it was a mere component of the Federal Highway
Administration. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration never
nominated an Administrator to head up this new agency and it only
filled its associate administrator positions in the last month.
What action will you take to ensure the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration has the leadership it needs to help meet its
statutory mandates to improve bus and truck safety?
Answer. I believe getting leadership in place at the FMCSA is
critical. Recently we have made progress. Julie Anna Cirillo has
recently been appointed Assistant Administrator and Chief Safety
officer of the FMCSA, and we now have all Associate Administrator
positions filled. The next step will be to fill the top political
positions in the agency--the Administrator and Deputy Administrator.
Question 49b. In addition to the critical area of leadership, what
actions will you take to advance the previous Administration's goal to
reduce truck-related fatalities by 50 percent?
Answer. This year the FMCSA intends to issue a long-term strategic
plan to reduce truck and bus related fatalities and injuries. The plan
will establish targets for reducing fatalities and injuries and
identify specific approaches to improving motor carrier safety. Work is
well underway on this plan. Over the last 8 months, FMCSA has worked
with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal
Highway Administration, and the Joint Program Office to develop a long-
term strategy.
As directed by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999
(MCSIA), the strategy addresses the following goals:
Reduce the number and rates of crashes, injuries, and
fatalities involving commercial motor vehicles;
Improve the consistency and effectiveness of commercial
motor vehicle, operator, and carrier enforcement and compliance
programs;
Identify and target enforcement efforts at high-risk
commercial motor vehicle, operators, and carriers; and
Improve research efforts to enhance and promote commercial
motor vehicle, operator, and carrier safety and performance.
Question 50. As you know, the most contentious issue for the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration last year was its proposal
to revise the more than 60-year-old Federal hours of service
regulations governing the driving and on-duty time for commercial motor
carrier operators. The proposal was resoundingly rejected by both
industry and highway safety advocates.
How do you plan to advance the Department's efforts to revise the
hours of service regulations?
Answer. A thorough and complete evaluation of the 50,000 comments
is the next appropriate step, and this is underway. The regulatory
process can accommodate significant revisions to the original proposal
and provide additional opportunities for public involvement. We also
may need additional studies to address some of the comments received.
Question 51a. As you know, in December 1995, the Clinton
Administration delayed at the 11th hour implementation of the cross-
border trucking provisions provided for under the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Under NAFTA, the U.S./Mexico border states
were to be open to commercial motor carrier traffic. Yet for more than
5 years now, the Clinton Administration has remained relatively silent
on implementing NAFTA's commercial vehicle access provisions.
What can we expect from the new Administration in regard to
fulfilling our duties under NAFTA and addressing our crossborder
trucking dispute with Mexico?
Answer. The United States will continue to fulfill its
international obligations, without allowing a compromise in highway
safety, and will consult with Congress, State governments, and other
interested parties, as well as talking to the Mexican government, as we
proceed.
Question 51b. With regard to the cross-border trucking issue,
please provide to the Committee a list of specific safety conditions
and concerns that exist today that have not been addressed.
Answer. Over the past 5 years the Department has been working with
our Mexican counterparts to define critical safety areas in Mexico's
safety system that need improvement. While this work is not yet
completed, all elements of the department are in agreement that
substantial progress has been made and that this progress is continuing
in the following areas: (1) training Mexican inspectors and instructors
on U.S. safety inspection techniques; (2) developing electronic data
bases to exchange safety information on companies, drivers, and
vehicles; and (3) signing a memorandum of understanding on drug and
alcohol testing procedures. The Department has provided both technical
and financial assistance to Mexico to assist them in achieving these
improvements.
Question 51c. What role will you play in addressing US/Mexico
border crossing problems?
Answer. I believe that the United States has an obligation to meet
its NAFTA land transportation commitments, and that the Department's
role is to ensure that these commitment can be met with adequate
safeguards to prevent any compromise to our highway safety standards.
PIPELINE SAFETY
Question 52. This Committee worked long and hard during the last
Congress to develop comprehensive pipeline safety improvement
legislation. As a result of our bipartisan efforts, we unanimously
approved pipeline safety legislation last September. Unfortunately, the
House failed to approve a pipeline safety measure, so needed
improvements have not been implemented.
I am hopeful that this new Congress will act quickly to take the
overdue action necessary to improve pipeline safety before additional
lives are lost. While we have reintroduced last year's Senate-passed
bill, we will be eager to receive recommendations from the new
Administration to further promote pipeline safety.
When can we expect to receive input from the Department on
proposals to strengthen our pipeline safety policies?
Answer. I am aware of the Senate's interest in expeditious action
on this important safety issue. I consider pipeline safety one of my
top priorities and will work to develop an Administration proposal at
the earliest possible time. I look forward to working with you to enact
pipeline safety legislation during this session.
FREIGHT RAIL
Question 53. What are your views regarding the role of the Surface
Transportation Board, and what type of relationship do you hope to
establish between the Department and the Board?
Answer. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) performs a number of
essential functions that most likely can only be carried out by an
independent regulatory agency. It ensures, to the best of its ability,
that rates and services for captive shippers are reasonable, and that
carrier mergers, abandonments, and trackage rights agreements consider
the needs of shippers, communities, and the financial health of the
railroads. While organizationally and for administrative purposes the
STB is part of the Department of Transportation, the Board's decisions
are completely independent. The Department offers its views on policy
matters in STB proceedings, the same as other government agencies and
private parties.
I intend to develop a cooperative relationship with the Board to
exchange ideas and discuss matters of mutual interest (excluding ex
parte communications on matters in adjudication). It is our mutual goal
to see to it that the Nation has a competitive, efficient, and viable
rail transportation system.
Question 54. What are your views on the Surface Transportation
Board's proposal to revise its railroad merger rules?
Answer. I believe the Board's initiative to reassess the rules that
guide its merger decisions is timely. The railroad industry has
undergone significant changes in the last 20 years, and the Class I
rail sector has become more and more concentrated as a consequence. I
share the Board's concern with the implications of a merger ``end
game'' that could lead to two major transcontinental carriers serving
the nation. The potential risks and uncertainties of this industry
structure require that any new merger proposals undergo much more
intensive scrutiny.
The evidentiary phase of the proceeding on new merger rules ended
in early January, and we await the Board's decision in June. The
Department submitted comments that supported the judicious application
of competition enhancements and suggested ways to resolve the
operational problems that have characterized recent mergers. I expect
to review the Department's position on these issues in the next few
months.
Question 55. What is your general philosophy concerning the proper
role for the Department to address concerns raised by captive rail
shippers?
Answer. The proper role of the Department would be to consider the
concerns of captive shippers in the context of the overall DOT policy
for transportation in the nation. DOT will provide a forum for all
interested parties--shippers, railroads, communities, local governments
and private citizens--to express their concerns and suggestions for
rectifying problems.
MARITIME
Question 56. What can and should be done to address the relatively
high operational costs of American-flagged maritime carriers?
Do you support subsidies to offset the high costs of these
operations?
Why or why not?
Answer. The cost of U.S.-flag operations reflects America's high
standard of living and its business operating environment. This
includes the Nation's tax laws, employment standards, labor laws,
environmental protection laws, as well as ship construction and
operating laws and regulations. The U.S.-flag fleet competes with
shipowners operating in low-cost countries, including ``open registry''
or ``flag of convenience'' countries such as Panama, Liberia, or Malta,
which are essentially tax-havens and have minimal standards for vessel
operations. The merchant fleets of all traditional maritime countries
with high living standards, regulatory standards, and tax rates (such
as those in the European Union and Japan) have been in serious decline
as a result of the same cost and regulatory disadvantages suffered by
the U.S.-flag fleet compared with flags of convenience. There is no way
to compete with flagof-convenience countries without a blend of
government support and regulatory enhancements. The alternative path to
competitiveness would involve the adoption of U.S. standards that would
compromise our protection of the natural environment, safety, and our
national security readiness, and that would be unacceptable.
Programs such as the Maritime Security Program/Voluntary Intermodal
Sealift Agreement, cargo preference, and the Jones Act are the
principal means currently available to sustain U.S.-flag carriers.
Moreover, these programs and policies provide important benefits to our
economic and national security by ensuring the availability of a U.S.-
flag privately owned merchant fleet to carry U.S. domestic and
international waterborne commerce and to enhance sealift capability to
meet the unique responsibility of the United States as the world's only
military superpower.
Question 57. Following Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM,
changes were made to the operation of the Ready Reserve Fleet (RRF). In
addition, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) Program and
the Military Security Program(MSP) were created to ensure we could
better meet the demands of such a large scale military operation in the
future. Please explain how you view these programmatic changes.
Answer. The programmatic changes to the RRF and the creation of the
MSP/VISA programs have resulted in increased readiness, improved
capacity and the establishment of a core fleet of U.S.-flag militarily
useful commercial vessels and associated intermodal systems.
Significant programmatic changes to the RRF since the Persian Gulf
war have upgraded readiness and improved the overall composition of the
RRF to better meet DOD mission requirements. Thus, the RRF is
maintained in a readiness posture to assure its rapid availability to
provide critical sealift to the Department of Defense. Fourteen Roll-
on/Roll-off ships were added to the RRF, and the decks of 5 existing
Ro/Ro's were expanded.
Readiness has been significantly improved by the use of permanently
assigned 9 or 10 person crews on all high readiness vessels, required
to be activated in 4 or 5 days; systematic no-notice test activations
and regularly scheduled maintenance seatrials; outporting of all 4 and
5 day ships in close proximity to probable DOD loadports; development
of an automated data base system (MARTS) to record and prioritize
deficiencies, estimate costs associated with these deficiencies and
assist in preparing budget submissions; and the development and
expansion of a logistics support program to ensure all ships are
provisioned with adequate spare parts to enable continued operation in
contingencies. The RRF is the most costeffectively administered element
of the Government organic sealift programs, while adhering to the
highest readiness standards.
MARAD's MSP and VISA programs enable the U.S. commercial maritime
industry to readily assist DOD in meeting sustainment sealift needs.
These programs are meeting the statutory goals of retaining a core
fleet of militarily useful vessels under U.S. registry and providing
assured access to associated intermodal systems that support DOD
contingency requirements. MSP also contributes to maintenance of a
labor base of skilled American seafarers available to crew the U.S.
Government-owned strategic sealift fleet during emergencies, as well as
the U.S. commercial fleet. DOD estimates that the cost to replicate the
capabilities of MSP/VISA would exceed $12 billion for initial
construction, and $1 billion annually in operating costs. The costs for
providing trained crews and the supporting intermodal structure would
be additional.
Question 58a. Through much of the last century, our nation's
maritime policy was directed toward supporting our national defense
needs. While meeting our defense needs should and must remain a top
priority, changes in the global market and advances in the maritime
industry have clearly put new pressures on the industry that were not
contemplated during the development of many of the laws and regulations
that come together to form our current maritime policy.
What specific changes would you propose to bring our nation's
maritime policy in line with the maritime industry today?
Answer. U.S.-flag vessels compete globally on a quality basis,
offering premium service that assures timely and reliable
transportation to U.S. and foreign shippers at reasonable prices for
these services. U.S.-flag vessels cannot compete easily with lower-cost
competitors in the world market, despite the premium services offered
by U.S.-flag vessels, if their costs are substantially higher. If U.S.-
companies do not earn sufficient returns to cover costs and the
continuing investments required in this extremely capitalintensive
industry, these companies will not be able to keep pace, let alone
lead, in the world market. Given this marketplace reality, I will be
carefully analyzing and assessing the options which might be available
to us in the near term.
Question 58b. How would these proposed changes provide growth
opportunities for our nation's merchant marines and allow them to
compete better in the global market?
Answer. Policies that have focused on carrier operating costs and
made U.S. carriers more competitive have attracted or maintained
investment in the U.S.-flag fleet. For example, during the 1996-1999
implementation of the Maritime Security Program/Voluntary Intermodal
Sealift Agreement program (MSP/VISA), 14 vessels were added to the
U.S.-flag liner fleet in order to participate in MSP, and another four
were re-flagged under U.S. registry and enrolled as non-MSP, VISA
vessels. The addition of these vessels halted the evident decline in
the U.S.-flag liner fleet, and contributed to a nearly 30 percent
increase in average vessel carrying capacity. As part of my overall
review of our maritime policies, I will be focused on how we can
provide growth opportunities for our merchant marine and the maritime
workforce.
Question 58c. How would these proposed changes balance our defense
needs with our commercial needs in today's global market?
Answer. A competitive U.S.-flag international trade fleet of
militarily useful vessels crewed by U.S.-citizen mariners serves a dual
purpose of economic and national security. The presence of U.S.-flag
vessels in international trade promotes economic security by providing
American shippers with an alternative to foreign-flag operators. The
fleet also provides the U.S. Government with legal standing to protect
the interests of American businesses and consumers in international
negotiations over shipping and intermodal transportation. This fleet
also serves as a vital national security asset for executing the
Nation's forward defense strategy, with a central role in military
sealift during national emergencies and provides the pool of mariners
necessary to crew the government's organic fleet during contigencies.
As we move to shape our maritime policy in the years ahead, we will
remain focused on the unique dual role of the U.S. merchant fleet, and
our need to maintain both the economic and national security interests
of the Nation.
Question 59a. As you may be aware, I prefer to eliminate restraints
on U.S. businesses' competitiveness rather than provide subsidies that
remove incentives for businesses to find new ways to operate and
compete in the world market. I continue to believe that U.S. companies
are struggling to compete in the international maritime industry in
part because of the prevalence of subsidies by other flag-states.
What are your views on maritime subsidies?
Answer. Foreign government subsidies to national industries and
restrictions and barriers to free trade have hurt U.S. companies in
global markets. U.S. companies will continue to operate at a
disadvantage compared to foreign flag shipping lines as long as their
governments maintain policies that distort or restrict market access.
Question 59b. If confirmed, what change will you propose to help
improve the competitiveness of the U.S. maritime industry?
Answer. The Administration will press foreign governments to
eliminate practices which distort the operation of a free marketplace
for shipping services and remove restrictions and barriers on U.S.
companies so that they can compete fairly in the world market.
Question 60a. Regardless of exaggerated reports on the size of the
U.S. merchant fleet issued by the previous Administration, the Jones
Act fleet continues to face an uphill battle in meeting the needs of
our nation's domestic waterborne commerce. Most users of the domestic
water transportation system, except for those of our inland waterway
system, face high costs and lack of adequate service. This is not true
of our inland waterway system because operators in these areas face
competition from road and rail service not available to shippers in
areas such as Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
While I have attempted to bring about reasonable debate on the
issue for several years, domestic trade vessel operators and
shipbuilders who benefit from the barriers created by the Jones Act
continue to lobby for the status quo. As with other areas of our
nation's transportation system, it is important that we bring change to
the maritime industry that will allow for a more competitive
environment for the domestic maritime industry.
What are your views on the Jones Act?
Answer. I support the Jones Act. Like domestic rail and truck
carriers, domestic vessel operators incur ``U.S. costs'' to operate
under the same legal structure affecting tax, labor, immigration and
naturalization, and the protection of public safety and the
environment--as do all other American businesses. Many foreign-flag
carriers can operate at lower cost than U.S.flag shipping companies in
foreign trade, since the former can operate under lower international
safety and wage standards, and reduced or negligible tax burdens.
However, if foreign-based shipping companies seeking to do business in
the United States were required to comply with the same laws as
American companies, then the cost differential between U.S. and foreign
waterborne carriage would likely disappear.
Question 60b. How would you propose to improve competition in the
domestic market and bring about growth in the domestic trade?
Answer. Due to the geography of the continental United States,
waterborne transportation usually does not provide the most direct
routing for domestic shipments moving from an inland origin to an
inland destination. Expensive and time-intensive intermodal transfers
to truck and rail feeder carriers on circuitous routes are often
necessary to move shipments from land-locked originating points to
their final destinations. As a result, some shippers find themselves
dependent on rail and truck transportation, which move cargo at faster
speeds, but in smaller lots and at much higher cost for each ton-mile
traveled.
On the other hand, even with intermodal transfers, water transport
can be competitive for moving relatively low-value, time-insensitive
bulk goods because it is so cheap, as is the case in the inland river
and Great Lakes trades. For relatively high-value general cargo shipped
over 1,000 miles in oceangoing trades to Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and
Puerto Rico, large tug/barges, Roll-On/Roll-Off trailerships, and
containerships continue to be competitive against air carriage. In
recent years, tug/barges and even larger and faster containerships have
begun to compete effectively against rail and truck carriers in the
medium-distance (e.g., exceeding 500 miles) coastwise trades, as north-
south rail and highway corridors become increasingly congested.
I will be evaluating ways to encourage market entry by U.S. vessel
operators into the Nation's coastwise and oceangoing trades.
Question 61. The U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) has a
statutorily mandated deadline for the disposal of obsolete National
Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) vessels. MARAD currently has 114 vessels
awaiting disposal, of which 91 are targeted for scrapping and many of
which pose an environmental hazard to the waterways in which they are
now moored. MARAD has further been directed to report to Congress on
how it plans for disposal of these vessels.
What is the status of that report?
What is it going to cost the Federal taxpayer to dispose of these
obsolete vessels?
How long will it take MARAD to rid our nation's waterways of these
vessels?
Answer. A comprehensive report addressing all ship disposal options
is under development and due to Congress this Spring.
The cost of disposal will depend upon the specific method or
methods used as well as the competitiveness and capacity of disposal
facilities. Preliminary estimates based upon experience with the Navy's
pilot program involving few domestic shipyards suggest a cost range
from $2M -3M per vessel depending upon the size, condition, and number
of ships made available. However, if foreign dismantlers can be used
either for labor intensive cutting of decks and hulls after some ``pre-
clean'' in U.S. yards, or if entire scrapping can be performed
overseas, disposal costs would likely be significantly reduced. We are
in the process of examining all the options available.
If no systematic plan for disposal is undertaken, then exposure to
environmental cleanup liability will likely increase. Interim remedial
costs can be expected to increase as well. Four recent incidents at the
James River Reserve Fleet in Norfolk cost approximately $3.7M. These
costs were related to spill clean up, emergency fuel removal, and
temporary hull plate patching.
The statutory deadline for disposal of all obsolete vessels is
September 30, 2006. Even at a vigorous pace of disposal of about 15
vessels per year, it would take approximately 8 years for MARAD to
remove the current obsolete ships. Moreover, MARAD expects the current
inventory to grow as more obsolete ships are received from other
government agencies. Unless domestic ship scrapping/dismantling
capability expands, it may not be possible to dispose of the existing
ships domestically within the deadline.
Question 62. In the 1970s, there were 30 domestic ship scrapping
companies. Today, the Maritime Administration (MARAD) considers only
four companies to be viable, and concerns have been expressed regarding
those.
Does MARAD have the tools and personnel required to meet its
statutory obligation to dispose of these vessels in a safe and cost
effective manner?
What actions would you direct MARAD to take in order to draw
additional companies to the ship scrapping industry and reduce disposal
costs for the American taxpayer?
Answer. Before MARAD can precisely determine what resources will be
required to dispose of the obsolete vessels, the long-term program
course will have to be decided. Congress provided MARAD $10 million
through Navy's fiscal year 2001 appropriations to begin scrapping the
ships in the worst condition. MARAD is utilizing existing personnel
from other program areas and has engaged contractor support using a
General Agency Agreement to begin this effort. MARAD is also preparing
a comprehensive ship disposal report, as required by the National
Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2001, to be provided to
Congress by April 30, 2001. The report will identify program resource
requirements, including personnel, to implement a long-term program.
MARAD is also working with the Department of the Navy, which has
had a pilot program in domestic shipyards on-going for the past year.
Any action to draw more companies into the domestic disposal industry
would expand capacity, thereby permitting removal of more vessels in a
timely manner. However, a program to a scrap all or most of the vessels
in U.S. facilities would require a considerable funding commitment over
a period of years. I am assessing all options before I commit to a
single course of action.
Question 63. Over the past 2 years, the United States and China
have been negotiating a new bilateral maritime agreement.
Representatives from the U.S. Maritime Administration and their Chinese
counterparts recently met in Seattle. I understand some progress was
made toward resolving remaining differences, but a final agreement was
not reached.
What are your views regarding bilateral maritime agreements?
What should be done to ensure that our nation's maritime industry
does not continue to be subjected to needless discriminatory practices
because we can't reach agreements on maritime with our trading
partners?
Will you commit to reaching a bilateral maritime agreement with
China by scheduling high-level talks on the matter early after being
confirmed?
Answer. It has been the policy of the United States to conclude
bilateral maritime agreements only in rare cases where circumstances
warrant such action. In those cases, such agreements have helped to
strengthen market conditions. Our overriding objective is to assist
U.S. carriers' activities in China, where their operations are
significantly burdened by government restrictions, and thereby
improving competitive conditions for shippers as well. A new agreement
would help to minimize such restrictions.
Over the years, executive branch agencies working in parallel with
the Federal Maritime Commission, have achieved removal of a number of
restrictions that U.S. carriers faced in foreign markets--including
China -and we expect that this same approach would be the basis for
dealing with the PRC in the future.
The talks that the United States and China held in Seattle in
December were informal contacts. The U.S. side viewed these contacts as
a means of ascertaining whether a basis existed for negotiating a
maritime agreement that would ensure verifiable resolution of U.S.
carriers' problems in China. Ultimately, the U.S. team, which was led
by MARAD, concluded that the necessary basis was lacking and the matter
was not pursued further.
Thus, I intend to continue to explore the possibility of renewed
discussions with China in an effort to minimize trade restrictions
against U.S. companies.
Question 64. The Department of Transportation has recently released
a study requested by Congress in TEA-21 on the condition and funding
for highway connections to intermodal freight facilities, such as
ports. I find that these connections are in poorer condition and
receive less funding than other National Highway System miles, and that
local governments, which are often focused on passenger needs, do not
readily fund these types of freight projects that have beneficiaries
well beyond the local area. With projected cargo volumes expected to
increase dramatically over the coming years, will the Department, under
your leadership, consider ways to give priority to these potential
choke points?
Answer. Yes, the Department will consider ways to give priority to
connections to intermodal freight facilities. I will work with the
appropriate operating agencies, including MARAD, FHWA, and FRA, to
address this issue. As an initial step, the Department plans to engage
the various constituencies that are concerned with intermodal
connections to find potential solutions. I believe that the efficiency
and safety of the nation's freight system have important implications
for enhancing the nation's productivity and competitiveness in the
global marketplace.
During this year, we will be assessing current and future demands
on the system and the resulting capacity and investment implications.
The Department will hold a series of national freight forums to
identify problems and potential solutions for planning, financing, and
operating these important assets. This will culminate in a national
freight summit at the end of the year to explore policy recommendations
for reauthorization of our surface transportation programs.
Further, the Department will undertake several operational tests
this year to demonstrate the capability of ITS technologies to improve
the interoperability among the freight modes. The Federal Highway
Administration is also conducting a follow-up review of the intermodal
freight connectors in cooperation with our field offices, the states,
and MPOs to help advance solutions.
COAST GUARD
Questions 65-66. The Coast Guard has begun a significant
acquisition program to recapitalize its fleet of 93 Deepwater cutters,
200 aircraft, and the command and control system that link them
together. The project is estimated to cost $10 billion over the next 20
years.
The General Accounting Office has repeatedly stated concerns about
this project. In its most recent report, it said the Coast Guard had
answered many of its previous concerns, but that it was still.
concerned about the project's cost and management controls.
What is the Administration's position on the Deepwater project, and
how will it prioritize it with respect to overall Department of
Transportation funding?
Answer. The Deepwater Project is a priority, for the Department and
is one of Coast Guard's top two recapitalization initiatives. This new
century will bring greater challenges that the Coast Guard must be
prepared to face. We cannot meet the needs of the future with a Coast
Guard fleet from the past.
I appreciate the management challenges associated with an
acquisition of this scope. The Coast Guard has been responsive to the
GAO concerns regarding management controls and funding for this
project. The Coast Guard has addressed concerns tied to the life cycle
costs of our current operational assets.
Innovation and sound business practices will serve the successful
administration of the project. Taking a holistic approach, the project
is avoiding the piecemeal approach traditionally taken with government
acquisitions. Rather, the Deepwater Project is designed to provide a
widerange of surface, air, command-and-control and communications
assets to ensure interoperability between the Coast Guard, DOD and our
allies. The Department is addressing the funding issue within the
Administration. The Coast Guard is working diligently to manage the
project successfully.
Question 67. The Coast Guard's 2000 emergency supplemental
appropriation included $110 million to replace the 60-year-old
icebreaker Mackinaw. I understand the actual cost of this single ship
acquisition could be significantly higher than the appropriated level.
The Great Lakes cutter essentially breaks ice for 4 months per year.
While domestic ice breaking is a core mission of the Coast Guard, there
may be fewer expensive alternatives to building and manning a new
cutter, including a long-term lease agreement.
What is your position on such alternatives, and do you plan to
reevaluate the Great Lakes Icebreaker replacement plan?
Answer. The Coast Guard anticipates making an FY01 award to design
and construct a multi-mission icebreaker to replace USCGC MACKINAW and
has been appropriated funds specifically for this purpose. The total
estimated acquisition cost includes estimates for the design and
construction contract, project logistics and management, and previously
expended concept exploration expenses.
CONSUMER
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration/Tire Recall
Question 68. At the end of the last Congress, Ford and Firestone/
Bridgestone's recall of 6.5 million tires prompted passage of the
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation
(TREAD) Act. The TREAD Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to
undertake 20 separate studies and rulemakings to improve highway
safety. Some consumer groups have alleged that Firestone's recall of
ATX tires and some Wilderness tires was under-inclusive.
When will the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) conclude its investigation of the recall and determine whether
the scope of the recall was appropriate?
Answer. The Firestone recall covered all ATX and ATX II tires built
since 1990 of the P235/75R15 size and all Wilderness AT tires of that
size built at Firestone's Decatur, Illinois plant. NHTSA is continuing
its investigation into whether ATX and Wilderness tires other than that
size and/or Wilderness AT tires of that size from Firestone plants
other than the Decatur plant should also be recalled. To date over
400,000 pages of documents have been submitted by Firestone and Ford
Motor Company in response to NHTSA's requests for information (with
more to come). NHTSA also has contacted seven other tire manufacturers
for data to enable the agency to make statistical comparisons. Some of
that data has been submitted. NHTSA expects the remainder in February.
NHTSA has also begun the process of testing numerous tires
retrieved from the field. The agency has acquired some of the tires to
be tested and is continuing the process of locating and acquiring the
additional tires needed to complete the test program. Several tests and
evaluations will be conducted. The timing of the conclusion of the
testing program, and ultimately of the investigation, is dependent upon
the rate at which additional tires can be acquired and tested. After
reviewing the results of these tests and completing a statistical
analysis of the real-world experience of various types and sizes of
tires, NHTSA will decide whether to seek to expand the Firestone recall
to include additional tires. The agency anticipates making that
decision sometime this spring.
Question 69. In September of 2000, I asked the inspector General of
the Department of Transportation to review NHTSA's Office of Defects
Investigation and to assess, among other things, the adequacy of the
office's collection and analysis of data relating to defects and the
processes it uses for initiating investigations. I expect the Inspector
General's report to be published this spring.
Will you commit to me that NHTSA will carefully consider the
Inspector General's report and recommendations when undertaking the
internal reviews and rulemakings ordered in the TREAD Act?
Answer. I can assure you that NHTSA will carefully and thoroughly
consider the Inspector General's report and recommendations when
undertaking the internal reviews and rulemakings ordered in the TREAD
Act.
NHTSA has been working with representatives of the Inspector
General's office since they began their review, providing them with the
information they have requested and answering their questions about the
procedures used by the Office of Defects Investigation in opening and
pursuing investigations. The agency anticipates that the Inspector
General will make valuable recommendations for the improvement of its
procedures.
Question 70. Should NHTSA undertake to review regularly and update
all of its motor vehicle safety standards?
Answer. Yes, it should. In addition to NHTSA's activities with
respect to researching, preparing and adopting new motor vehicle safety
standards, the agency expends considerable effort to ensure that its
existing standards are up-to-date and continue to be effective.
NHTSA has rigorously evaluated its major programs as a matter of
policy since 1970, and began evaluation of the effectiveness of the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in 1975. The Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 and Executive Order 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' issued in October 1993, now oblige
all Federal agencies to evaluate their existing programs and
regulations. Previously, Executive Order 12291, issued in February
1981, also required reviews of existing regulations. Even before 1981,
NHTSA was a leader among Federal agencies in evaluating the
effectiveness of existing regulations and technologies.
Most of NHTSA's crashworthiness and several crash avoidance
standards have been evaluated at least once since 1975. A number of
consumeroriented regulations, e.g., bumpers, theft protection, fuel
economy and the New Car Assessment Program have also been evaluated.
AIRBAGS
Question 71. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21'' Century
(TEA 21), which was enacted in 1998, required NHTSA to improve the
protection afforded by airbags while reducing the risks they pose to
children and smaller adults. Last year, NHTSA issued an interim final
rule on ``advanced'' or ``smart'' airbags.
Is this rule adequate to protect small occupants in low speed
crashes and unbelted large occupants in high speed crashes?
Answer. The May 12, 2000, final rule culminated an exhaustive
effort by NHTSA to specify performance requirements leading to advanced
air bag systems. These systems will protect all sized occupants and
virtually eliminate unintended consequences such as injuries to
children and out-ofposition adults. To assure that the performance
requirements accomplish these goals, the agency has developed a
comprehensive plan to monitor advanced air bag technology development
and real world performance. The plan has seven emphasis areas:
Evaluate real-world performance of advanced air bags in
both low and high speed crashes;
Conduct research tests to evaluate the performance of
advanced systems (speed, size, out-of-position occupant performance);
Continue review, research, and evaluation of the
technology of advanced airbags;
Conduct biomechanics research on Injury Assessment
Reference Values versus real world injuries. Conduct additional
validation of dummies/injury criteria (especially for the neck).
Develop additional dummies as needed;
Monitor compliance testing to assure safe performance of
advanced systems; publish annual compliance margin reports; conduct
defect investigations as needed;
Monitor seat belt use. Monitor introduction/effectiveness
of technology to encourage seat belt use;
Monitor costs of advanced air bag systems.
I plan to keep Congress and the public informed as NHTSA implements
the plan.
PASSENGER VEHICLE COMPATIBILITY
Question 72. In collisions between small passenger vehicles and
light trucks or vans, including sport utility vehicles, passengers in
the small passenger vehicles are more likely to be seriously injured or
killed. The increase in the overall number of light trucks and vans on
the road could compound this problem. Some manufacturers are addressing
this issue, such as Ford, which recently said that over the next
several years it will lower the steel beams inside the front ends of
all Ford sport utility vehicles and pickups to the same height as in
cars.
Do you think the market alone will take care of this compatibility
problem?
Answer. The increased popularity of light trucks and vans (LTVs)--
pickups, SUVs, and minivans--presents a growing safety problem that
needs to be addressed. While LTVs account for about one-third of all
registered vehicles, they are involved in half of all fatal passenger
car crashes. The safety problem for occupants of passenger cars can be
attributed to some inherent design differences in SUVs and other LTVs.
Those differences are due to disparities in size (weight and height)
and stiffness.
Some automobile manufacturers have voluntarily introduced changes
to their light trucks and vans (LTVs) that will lead to improved
compatibility in crashes between LTVs and automobiles. The primary
focus of these changes has been to improve the geometric mismatch
between the frontal structures of the LTVs with those of the
automobiles so as to improve the structural interaction during a crash.
In addition to lowering the steel beams to minimize the geometric
mismatch, Ford also has introduced ``blocker beams'' (i.e., transverse
beams that connect the front rails) in some of their SUVs to improve
further the structural interaction in frontal crashes.
NHTSA is currently conducting research to identify vehicle features
that affect compatibility and to evaluate their effects in real world
crash performance. The agency is also using sophisticated computer
models to assess the safety effects of changes in vehicle size. While
the agency has identified a number of vehicle improvements to LTVs that
can be readily made to improve compatibility, the research program is
focused on what changes can be made to the entire fleet (i.e., both
LTVs and cars).
ROLLOVERS
Question 73. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
recently issued comparative rollover ratings for passenger vehicles
based on a static test. Some consumer groups and manufacturers have
criticized the adequacy of this rating, however, and urged instead that
NHTSA develop a dynamic rollover test that could, they claim, more
accurately predict a vehicle's propensity to roll over. The TREAD Act
requires NHTSA to develop such a test by 2002.
Will you commit to meeting this deadline?
Answer. Yes, I intend to meet all of the Congressionally mandated
deadlines contained in the TREAD Act, including the requirement that we
develop and carry out a dynamic rollover test program for passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less by November 1, 2002.
Question 74. While the TREAD Act directs NHTSA to initiate a
rulemaking to revise and update tire standards that have not been
updated in 30 years, the Act does not require NHTSA to revise other,
equally old and probably obsolete standards such as the roof crush
standard, despite 10,000 deaths per year in rollover accidents.
What action will you take to ensure that NHTSA adequately revises
the roof crush standard?
Answer. Although properly restrained, un-ejected occupants who are
injured by roof intrusion represent a very small percentage of
fatalities in rollover crashes, research shows that limiting roof
intrusion may be effective for these occupants. Accordingly, I will ask
NHTSA to investigate the potential benefits that may be gained by
stiffer roofs. I understand that the agency is making plans to have a
public discussion on this issue this spring.
These actions should be seen in the context of NHTSA's effort to
address the rollover problem with a multiple-phase program. First,
NHTSA has initiated a consumer information rollover-propensity rating
system. This will help consumers make smarter choices when buying
vehicles and ultimately reduce the number of rollovers. Partial and
complete occupant ejections account for 68 percent of the approximately
10,000 people who die each year in rollover crashes. Preventing
ejections may have a significant benefit in reducing rollover
fatalities. Public awareness programs such as Buckle Up America
continue, in an effort to increase seat belt use, which will reduce
occupant ejections and subsequent fatalities. Rulemaking and research
programs aimed at preventing occupant ejections include reducing the
number of door openings through improved door locks and latches and
investigating ways to prevent people from being ejected out of windows.
The agency is also investigating ways to enhance occupant protection in
rollover crashes through improvements in seat belts and padding.
DRIVER DISTRACTION BY IN-VEHICLE DISPLAYS
Question 75. Concern about the relationship between driver
distractions and accident rates has led some State and local
governments to try to restrict drivers' use of cell phones. Even as
this is occurring, manufacturers are introducing or proposing to
introduce cars that contain interactive video and audio devices, Global
Positioning Satellite displays, and fax machines.
What if anything should the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration do to ensure that these devices don't compromise safety?
Answer. Since 1991, the NHTSA has been researching the relationship
between distractions and driving performance. Using instrumented cars,
NHTSA has been studying the relative demands of different types of
systems, including cell phones, navigation systems, and audio system
controls. NHTSA is currently conducting two studies: one is
investigating the relative demands on the driver of voice and non-voice
technologies for tasks such as phone dialing, radio tuning, and email
retrieval; the other is comparing driver distraction as a function of
hand-held versus hands-free cell phone use.
As a result of the information gathered during these recent
activities, NHTSA is planning to undertake the following:
Continue research to understand the factors that affect
the willingness of drivers to use various technologies and to quantify
how drivers' use of technology affects their safety-related driving
performance. This research will utilize the capabilities of the
agency's new National Advanced Driving Simulator as well as
instrumented vehicles on actual roads.
Pursue consumer and public information efforts to help
convey the knowledge gained from research to the public.
Work with industry to support the development of test
procedures and guidelines that can be used to design equipment that
minimizes driver distraction.
Monitor products to determine how well manufacturers have
addressed the safety impact of new technologies prior to their
introduction into the market place.
Continue to encourage the development and deployment of
technologies that can address the safety problems caused by driver
distraction, such as collision warning systems and integrated driver
support systems.
CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL EFFICIENCY (CAFE) STANDARDS
Question 76. Because of appropriations bills riders, the Corporate
Average Fuel Efficiency Standard for light trucks has remained at 20.7
miles-per-gallon since model year 1996.
Should the fuel efficiency requirements for light trucks be raised?
Answer. As you point out, provisions in the DOT Appropriations Acts
for the last 6 years have prohibited the Department from conducting any
analyses to determine if the CAFE standards should be revised. However,
the fiscal year 2001 DOT Appropriations Act included language calling
for a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study on the effectiveness and
impacts of CAFE standards. The Department is funding this study and is
working closely with NAS to ensure its completion by July 2001.
We are hopeful that the results of the NAS study will provide
Congress and the Administration with the information we both need to
make a determination about any changes to the CAFE standards.
Question 77. The Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 gave vehicle
manufacturers that make vehicles that run on alcohol or natural gas,
either exclusively or in addition to gasoline, a credit toward the
manufacturers' corporate average fuel efficiency standard. The Act
required the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator and the Secretary of
Energy, to submit a report to Congress by September 2000 on the success
of the CAFE credit in promoting alternative fuel use. It also required
the Department of Transportation to decide by the end of this year
whether to continue the credit until 2008 or end it in 2004.
When do you expect the Department of Transportation to submit the
report required by the Alternative Motor Fuels Act?
Answer. The draft of this report has been completed. I hope to be
able to submit the final report as soon as we receive clearance from
the coordinating agencies.
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION
Question 78a. Given the recent discussions on the importance of
space-based assets on national security, along with a growing economic
reliance on communications satellites, do you believe the Nation has
the necessary space transportation infrastructure to support these
priorities?
Answer. Yes, current infrastructure for space launch operations is
sufficient for current demand and the U.S. commercial space
transportation industry has proven that it can conduct a significant
number of commercial launches (e.g. Iridium) while continuing to launch
civil and military spacecraft. However, industry and government agree
that modernization of the antiquated range infrastructure by the Air
Force (AF) is a priority as the current system is costly to operate.
These costs are passed on to the commercial user and decrease the
competitiveness of U.S. commercial space launch providers. Commercial
use of the launch range was greater than military use since 1998 and
the commercial industry is concerned that AF modernization proceed as
quickly as possible and that commercial requirements are considered.
If DOD and Congress choose to go ahead with proposed constellation
programs such as Discoverer II, or other unannounced commercial
constellations emerge, we believe that the U.S. commercial launch
industry and the Eastern and Western Ranges are capable of handling the
demand. Also, increased efficiency is expected when the new Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicles (Delta IV and Atlas V) will enter service in
2002.
Question 78b. How can commercial space transportation better enable
or promote the national security interests of the nation?
Answer. Commercial space transportation enhances U.S. national
security by reducing costs while increasing efficiency. The development
of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) which will be used for
both military and commercial launches included commercial industry
input and requirements from the FAA Commercial Space Transportation
Advisory Committee. The commercial industry sought changes, which were
accepted by the Air Force, that will decrease the time the vehicle
occupies the launch pad, decrease processing costs and allow
operational flexibility at the launch ranges. Recently, the FAA and the
Air Force signed a Memorandum of Agreement to work together to achieve
common safety requirements for military and commercial space launches.
This change will decrease the costs of commercial providers to meet
safety requirements. Just as commercial airlines, trains, and ships
support national security interests through transportation of goods and
services on a reliable and efficient basis today, commercial space
launch will support reliable, efficient operations including decreased
costs for the security of our Nation.
Question 79. In the Department's role as a regulator for commercial
space launches, given the expected increase in commercial launches and
activities, what priority do you intend to place on commercial space
transportation within the Department of Transportation vis-a-vis other
modes of transportation?
Answer. The Department has given a high priority to space
transportation and will continue to do so. The Office of Commercial
Space Transportation is a distinct line of business within the Federal
Aviation Administration and has developed a full program of regulatory
and commercial space development projects. The Associate Administrator
for Commercial Space has an active regulatory program that is fully
supported by the Department. They have completed new regulations during
the past 3 years for launch operations, launch site operations, reentry
vehicles, and financial responsibility for launch and reentry vehicles.
The Commercial Space Transportation Office's public/private
partnership, under which the government works smartly with industry, is
a strategy it plans to continue in order to foster the further
development and increased competitiveness of the U.S. commercial space
transportation industry.
Question 80. What needs to be done to ensure the international
competitiveness of the U.S. space transportation industry?
Answer. The recent extension by Congress, under the Commercial
Space Transportation Competitiveness Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-405, Nov. 1,
2000), of liability risk-sharing provisions ensures continuation for an
additional 4 years of the benefits of stable and predictable risk
allocation for commercial launch activities. Retention of the existing
risk-sharing regime has been considered critical to technology
development and international competitiveness of the U.S. launch
industry. Congress also directed the Department to conduct a
comprehensive study of the need to continue the program beyond 2004.
The Department is committed to conducting the study to include public
and government views on this important issue.
The Department has given a high priority to space transportation
and will continue to do so, as I outlined in my previous response.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Trent Lott to
Norman Y. Mineta
Question 1. Secretary Mineta, while much of the focus of the
Department of Transportation is aviation and highways, maritime
transportation is often an afterthought. With approximately 90 percent
of our Nation's international trade, and a significant percentage of
our domestic trade, carried by water, one of your most important jobs
will be to ensure our maritime infrastructure, our ports, waterways,
and maritime industry, are capable of meeting the transportation needs
of this new century. Much of this infrastructure is aged and in need of
refurbishment and modernization. Will you commit to work with the,
agencies within your Department (the Maritime Administration and the
U.S, Coast Guard) and in other Departments (the Army Corps of
Engineers) to ensure adequate funding is requested to meet these needs
and improvements in these systems are not slowed by unnecessary
regulations?
Answer. The Administration will work hard to ensure that the Nation
is served by an intermodal transportation system that is supported by a
modernized and efficient maritime infrastructure. We will work with
Congress to provide adequate funding and remove unnecessary regulatory
barriers to meet these vital infrastructure needs in a timely and cost-
effective manner.
Question 2. Secretary Mineta, the U.S. Coast Guard and the
Department of Transportation are nearing a critical decision with
regard to the replacement of the Coast Guard's deepwater assets. A
majority of the Coast Guard's aircraft and large cutters are nearing
obsolescence during the next decade. Implementing the Deepwater
Capability Replacement Program will require a significant increase in
the Coast Guard's Acquisition, Construction, & Improvement (AC&I)
budget, commencing in Fiscal Year 2002. Do you support the Deepwater
Program? If so, will you ensure the Administration requests adequate
funding for the program?
Answer. The Deepwater Project is a priority for the Department.
Obsolete and ineffective Deepwater assets will be replaced or
modernized to provide a highly integrated system that will provide
effective and interoperable assets for the next three generations of
Coast Guard personnel.
The Coast Guard has taken an active part in enhancing the
affordability of the Deepwater project in numerous ways, including
leveraging technology to reduce the number of replacement assets
needed, structuring the acquisition in phases, and adhering to the
principles of good project management as outlined in OMB Circular A-11.
Rather than replacing the assets on a one-for-one basis, the Project
follows a mission-based performance acquisitions approach that
describes the capabilities the service needs to perform its deepwater
missions. This approach will result in a truly integrated, cost
effective, and efficient 21St century Coast Guard. The integrated
system is a set of diverse yet complementary surface, air, command-
control-communications, surveillance, and shoreside infrastructure
assets that optimize mission performance while minimizing total
ownership costs.
Question 3. Secretary Mineta, the 104th Congress worked with the
Clinton Administration in a bipartisan manner to enact the Maritime
Security Program. The Congress has fully funded MSP every year. While
MSP stopped the erosion of the U.S.-flag commercial fleet, I am
concerned that this fleet, along with its intermodal capabilities, will
not be sustainable without further progress in improving the
competitiveness of the U.S.-flag fleet in the international market.
Without sufficient militarily useful U.S.-flag ships, and U.S.-citizen
crews to man them and the Ready Reserve Fleet, our Nation s ability to
transport and sustain our military equipment and forces will be
dependent on foreign-flag ships in a crisis. What will YOU do as
Secretary of Transportation to work with the Department of Defense to
develop a solution to this problem?
Answer. The downsizing of the U.S. military's presence overseas has
resulted in an increased reliance by Department of Defense (DOD)
planners on commercial vessel capacity to meet potential contingency
requirements. The Maritime Security Program (MSP) was designed to
preserve a core U.S.-flag liner fleet of militarily useful vessels
operating in international trade, that is available to support sealift
operations and which would also contribute to maintenance of a labor
base to crew the Government-owned strategic sealift fleet during
emergencies. The MSP is authorized through 2005, and is subject to
annual appropriation.
In anticipation of the MSP expiration, it is essential that we
begin now to assess what steps are needed to assure that we maintain
our ability to meet national security and economic interests beyond
2005. In the same context, the best means to sustain a sufficient
workforce of qualified mariners is to sustain long-term private sector
employment on U.S.-flag ships. The Department of Transportation,
through the Maritime Administration, is working with the Department of
Defense to develop solutions to crewing issues in order to assure
adequacy of qualified manpower resources in the future, and will be
considering various alternatives to assure the continuation of a U.S.-
flag fleet to meet sealift requirements.
Question 4. Secretary Mineta I recently addressed the U.S.
Conference of Mayors on railroad issues. While you may be familiar with
the efforts in the Congress to provide Amtrak with the ability to
obtain badly needed capital through a multi-year bonding authority, I
discussed a new proposal with the mayors. All across America, there are
cities and towns that grow up around railroad tracks. As motor vehicle
traffic grew in these cities, road-rail at-grade crossings increasingly
developed conflicts between trains and motor vehicles. Today, most
freight rail customers are located on the outskirts of cities and
towns. Especially in cities infrequently served by passenger trains,
downtown railroad tracks create traffic delays for both motor vehicles
and trains. In many situations, the best solution is to relocate the
railroad track, rather than close roads or improve their grade-crossing
signals. While TEA-21 included some innovative mechanisms to address
the problem of at-grade crossings, I believe current programs are
grossly inadequate. I intend to introduce legislation this year to
improve this situation. Will you work me to develop a better solution
to this problem?
Answer. I will be happy to work with you and all interested parties
to develop solutions to this nationwide problem. Both the Federal
Railroad Administration and Federal Highway Administration are working
with states and municipalities to address this growing crucial issue.
As motor vehicle and rail freight traffic have dramatically increased,
municipalities are experiencing significant increases in noise and
congestion, and concomitant declines in quality of life. Track
relocation projects are extremely costly. No specific TEA-21 programs
directly address this issue, although track relocation is sometimes
eligible for National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program,
or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program funding. I agree that
together, we must explore ways to enable states and municipalities to
more easily resolve this problem.
Question 5. Secretary Mineta, the Title XI shipbuilding loan
guarantee program is critical to the maintenance of an adequate
commercial shipbuilding industrial base in the United States. Foreign
shipbuilding subsidies crippled the U.S. shipbuilding industry. Without
an adequate U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry, we will be dependent
on foreign shipyards to produce the drilling rigs and platforms
required to maintain and develop our domestic energy sources and the
double-hull tankers required to protect our environment. Without an
adequate domestic shipbuilding capability, we can not reduce out
dependence on foreign sources for our Nation's energy needs. The Title
XI program was reinvigorated during the previous decade, which allowed
U.S, commercial shipbuilders to regain their feet. However, during the
past 2 years, the previous Administration reduced its support for the
Title XI program. I believe the Title XI program needs to be funded at
least at historical levels ($50 million annually), or more. How will
you support the Title XI program during your tenure as Secretary of
Transportation?
Answer. The Title XI program has been instrumental in helping the
U.S. shipbuilding industry become more competitive during the past
decade. Over the coming months, I would like to work with the industry
to evaluate innovative technologies and financing mechanisms, including
Title XI, to help American shipbuilders improve their competitiveness
and productivity.
______
Responses to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Sam Brownback to
Norman Y. Mineta
AIRPORT CAPACITY
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, over the past decade or so, overlapping,
duplicative, and time consuming environmental review processes have
hampered the ability of airports to undertake and complete capacity--
enhancing projects throughout the country. A runway project in Memphis,
for example, took nearly seven years to complete. Given the problems of
aviation system congestion that are sure to be compounded as travel
explodes to a projected one billion passengers annually, something must
be done to address this problem.
What role do you envision the Department playing in
helping to faciliate the completion of critical capacity-enhancing
projects in a more timely fashion?
Can the Department, in your view, play a more active role
in coordinating the environmental review process for these projects
with other Federal, State, and local entities, so as to ensure
completion in a timely manner?
Answer: We will examine DOT/FAA responsibilities to assure that we
are giving the highest priority attention to important capacity-
enhancing projects and that our reviews, requirements, and processes
are not providing a drag on the already difficult task of bringing new
runways on line.
DOT/FAA will play a more active role in coordinating environmental
reviews with other agencies to reduce overall review timeframes as much
as possible. There are specific laws and regulations in place that
dictate certain requirements and timeframes. These certainly will not
be ignored, and they place limits on completing all environmental
reviews simultaneously. However, we can do a better job of coordinating
reviews, and I will see to it that such coordination is one of our
priorities.
FAA-LABOR COSTS AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS--CONGESTION
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, the recent report of the National Civil
Aviation Review Commission largely ignored the independent audits
discussion of the importance of controlling costs.
Do you feel the labor agreements between the FAA and the
Air Traffic controllers, with its ensuing effects on other parts of the
FAA, has helped or hindered the process of controlling costs and
avoiding gridlock?
Answer: The current labor environment at FAA began with Congress'
enactment of FAA personnel reform provisions in the fiscal year 1996
Transportation Appropriations Act. The consequences of that statutory
change continue to play out at FAA.
In my view, the FAA must ensure that growth in salary costs has
been partially offset by cost saving provisions in the agreement. In
addition, part of the NATCA agreement is that the union agrees to
support FAA efforts to introduce new technology aimed at making
operational improvements. This more cooperative atmosphere should
enhance air traffic efficiency.
FAA CERTIFICATION PROCESS--NEEDS STREAMLINING
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, I hope you would agree that aviation
safety is a major priority for the Departnent of Transportation.
Fortunately, manufacturers have developed numerous new products that
could lead to major safety imrovements, in both commercial and general
aviation, however, they must go through the often byzantine FAA
certification process.
Would you make streamling the FAA certification process a
priority, so that safer and more efficient products could be brought to
market?
Answer: I understand the need for new technologies and the need to
integrate them into the cockpit as expeditiously as possible. The FAA
has already taken several steps to streamline the process of
integrating new technology into the general aviation and commercial
fleets but should review the process to see if more can be done. At the
request of the Administrator, the RTCA Select Committee on
Certification is addressing 15 certificationrelated recommendations
that were contained in the February 1999 report from the Task Force on
Streamlining Certification (RTCA Task Force IV). Solutions to all
recommendations have been developed in cooperation with many aviation
industry groups.
One of the outcomes of the work under way by the Select Committee
is the FAA's recent decision to establish a prototype ``designee
managed organization'' (DMO) for general aviation avionics. This
delegation is specifically designed to speed up the process for issuing
supplemental type certificates (STC), which are the official FAA stamp-
of-approval for alternations to aircraft. This DMO for general aviation
avionics is a prototype that will run from four to 6 months. Lessons
learned from this initial prototype could be expanded to other products
and possibly into the commercial aviation field.
Also noteworthy is the Certification Process Improvement or CPI, a
program jointly developed by FAA and its industry partners and
customers. The CPI concept advocates an up-front partnership between
the FAA and a certification customer or applicant, where roles and
responsibilities are clearly defined for a particular certification
project. A Project Specific Certification Plan (PSCP) is laid out and
agreed to by all parties involved in the project. This PSCP delineates
milestones and deliverables. The CPI principles, when properly
employed, help ensure that everyone's resources are maximized and
certification projects are completed in a timely and efficient manner.
I intend to build on these efforts, ensuring that we follow through
on any initiative that can improve the certification process.
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Norman Y. Mineta
Question 1. Mr. Secretary-Designate, there are a number of major
ship building construction contracts that are pending over at the
Maritime Administration. For a long time we had a surplus in the Title
XI account, but last year, we almost completely used all of the Title
XI funds. This program is vitally important to continue, and I would
hope that you will be committed to ensure that it is properly funded?
Question 2. Mr. Secretary-Designate, the last administration
established an overall study of the needs and future development of our
marine transportation system. This study, called the MTS study,
indicates that we will see a doubling of our maritime trade by 2020,
the study also set up a system for bringing in the private sector to
discuss the issues surrounding the expansion of trade. I would hope
that you would continue and encourage this MTS effort?
Question 3. Mr. Secretary-Designate, we enacted Maritime Security
Program to ensure that the United States has a substantial presence of
U.S.-flag ships in international trade, and to ensure that we can act
unilaterally as a Nation with respect to our economic and military
security. Other nations have similar programs. The Maritime Security
Program will be expiring in the next few years. I hope we can count on
your support in crafting new legislation to continue these policies?
______
Responses to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Edwards to Norman
Y. Mineta
Question 1. My State of North Carolina is still suffering from the
devastating consequences of Hurricane Floyd, one of the worst natural
disasters ever to hit the state. For 2 weeks more than 70 percent of
the State was flooded under two feet of water. As a result, thousands
of people saw their possessions destroyed or seriously damaged,
including their cars.
Around 75,000 cars were flooded by Hurricane Floyd, according to
AAA. I am very concerned that these cars are being rebuilt and sold by
unscrupulous individuals who aren't disclosing the damage. We know this
problem is occurring. In fact, the North Carolina Attorney General's
office has received a number of complaints from consumers on the
matter.
The problem is as follows: Assume that a consumer buys a used car
in North Carolina. North Carolina has strong laws that require car
titles to indicate whether the car was flooded or had been in a major
wreck. That way the buyer knows what he or she is getting into.
However, assume also that the buyer then takes the car to another State
that doesn't have these strong laws in place. When the car is resold
there to someone else, the seller isn't required to tell the new buyer
about the flood or wreck on the prior title. The title is essentially
``washed'' clean. The irony of this is that the car can then come back
into North Carolina with no indication it had ever been damaged. North
Carolina's strong laws have been circumvented. And, the critical point
is that these cars pose an unknown threat to their occupants and to
everyone that shares the road with them.
I suggest that the creation of a national data base either run by,
or overseen by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to keep track of
these flooded and wrecked cars, may be a solution to this problem.
Consumers would be able to go online, type in a vehicle's
identification number and obtain accurate information about a car's
history.
Would you be willing to work toward the establishment of such a
data base?
Question 2. During the last Congress, I cosponsored a bill authored
by Senator Feinstein that contains strong consumer protections and
would help put a stop to this serious problem. And last July, Senator
Feinstein and I sent a letter to Secretary of Transportation Slater
asking that DOT investigate the possibility of a study to examine the
correlation between prior vehicle damage and fatality and injury rates.
We have not yet received a response to this letter. However, I know you
want to improve vehicle safety.
Will you respond to our letter? Will you work with supporters of
the Feinstein bill to establish a uniform set of standards for titling
flooded and wrecked vehicles?
Given that President Bush as Governor of Texas signed .08
BAC into State law, will he continue to support the .08 standard?
Drunk Driving.--In 1999, 16,000 people were killed in the United
States as a result of drunk driving. The US DOT has a goal to reduce
drunk driving fatalities by 2005 to 11,000 per year.
How do you propose the US DOT work toward reducing 5000
drunk driving fatalities per year?
General Aviation California.--We are all familiar with airline
delays. The images of crowded airports with people spending the night
on cots or on the floor are becoming more common. As :a result, there
has been an interest in redesigning the National Airspace System in
order to create an aviation network that will work more efficiently.
The emphasis has been on the Northeast. However, we in California are
facing a similar crisis in our crowded airspace.
Are you going to direct the FAA to redesign the airspace
in California?
San Francisco Airport.--In the San Francisco airport, we have
extreme congestion, especially during times of poor weather and fog.
There is controversy in the area to build a new runway, which will take
at least 8 years and not solve the immediate problem.
Without runway expansion, what else can be done at San
Francisco to decrease the chronic delays and cancellations?
Rollover.--According to NHTSA, in 1999, 10,657 people died in
rollover crashes-almost 30 percent of all highway fatalities. Nearly
two-thirds of deaths in SUVS are as a result of rollover accidents
versus 22 percent in passenger cars. NHTSA recently carne out with the
first rollover standard. However, the standard was based on static
measurements versus a dynamic test that would be more accurate.
Under your direction, will NHTSA use the best science to
develop an accurate driving rollover standard?
CAFE Standards.--Today, Support Utility Vehicles (SUVs), mini-vans,
and other light trucks are about half of all new vehicles that are
sold. In 1975, when Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards
were. first adopted, they were only 20 percent of the market. The
current standard is 27.5 mpg for passenger automobiles and 20.7 mpg for
light trucks. SUVs are categorized as light trucks-instead they are
used as passenger vehicles.
As Secretary of Transportation, will you support increase
CAFE standards for SUVs?
Widening Roads and Gridlock.--One transportation myth is that
widened roads create excess capacity. However, the reality is ``induced
traffic.'' When roads are widened, more drivers take those routes and
development occurs around them. The result is the initial gridlock that
was eliminated returns to the roads in a few short years. A University
of California study checked 30 urban counties from 1973 to 1990 and
found that for every 10 percent increase in new lane-miles there was a
9 percent increase in traffic. We can't build more roads to end our
congestion problem.
How do you propose to reduce gridlock on our nation's
highways?
Increasine Transit Funding.--Every year during the appropriations
process, funding for the New Starts Transit program is extremely
competitive. There is not enough money for new transit systems. By
having light rail systems, people will be able to commute to work
without driving, which will improve congestion. Additionally, transit
is key for low-income workers-there would not be welfare-towork without
transit. 48 percent of the riders on Los Angeles County MTA's buses
have household incomes less than $15,000.
During the reauthorization of TEA-21, will the
Administration support expanding transit funding?
Transit Minimum Allocation.--In the transit debate, there have been
discussions on changing transit funding based on a state's need to
implementing a spending cap for each State or equally dividing the
funds between the states. This doesn't make sense to me. States have
different transit needs and should continue to be funded by need. For
example, in California, transit carries 38 percent of all trips in the
San Francisco Bay Bridge Corridor and 30 percent of all trips into
central Los Angeles. Without public transit in the Bay Area, San
Francisco would need to increase its freeway capacity by 50 percent.
Both drivers and transit riders would suffer without Federal transit
funding.
What is the Administration's position on how to fund
transit fairly?
Bigger Trucks.--Currently, there is a freeze on bigger trucks-both
in length and weight. Triple trailer trucks are involved in fatal
accidents 11 percent more than a single trailer trucks. As truck
weights increase from the current limit of 80,000 pounds, braking
ability of the trucks decrease.
Does the Administration support the current freeze on
bigger and heavier trucks?
Hours of Service.--Last year, DOT proposed anew rule on bus and
truck driver hours of service. It was alarming to me because it
increased maximum continuous drive time from 10 to 12 hours. In 1999
over 5,200 people were killed and 127,000 injured in crashes involving
large trucks. DOT research shows that driver fatigue may be a factor in
up to 15 percent of all heavy truck crashes.
Does the Administration support strong safety laws for
truck and bus drivers?
US Coast Guard: Support for Two Rock.--The only Coast Guard
training center on the West Coast is Two Rock. Almost every year, there
is some threat to close it down.
Will the Administration support keeping this training
center open?
US Coast Guard: General Budget.--The Coast Guard is an incredibly
valuable part of DOT. They have a broad mission that keeps growing.
With the firewalled transportation funds for both highways and
aviation, Coast Guard does not receive enough funding without
additional appropriation-either supplemental or defense.
Does the Administration support adequate funding for the
Coast Guard?
Amtrak.--Since 1997, Amtrak has operated under a Federal mandate to
become independent of Federal operating assistance by fiscal year 2002.
According to the Inspector General, it is a challenge for Amtrak to
reach that goal. We have all heard the importance of Amtrak for the
Northeast. Well, Amtrak is also very important for California to assist
in reducing our congestion problem.
Is the Administration going to support Amtrak and the US
having a national passenger railroad?
High-Speed Rail.--In California, our airports are extremely delayed
and congested. The airports are almost at their maximum capacity. To
ease congestion at airports, it is key that California have high speed
rail, which is very common in Europe.
What will the Administration do to support the development
of high speed rail outside of the Northeast?
Intelligent Transportation Systems.--The last Administration had
recently announced two intelligent transportation systems (ITS) goals:
(1) to equip 10 percent of new light vehicles and 25 percent of
commercial vehicles sold by 2010 with collision avoidance systems and
(2) to deploy signage and in-vehicle electronic warning to alert
drivers to hazardous situations.
Passage of the fiscal year 2001 NDAA, after the FY01 Transportation
Appropriation was enacted, significantly improved pay for military
personnel. The Coast Guard is mandated by to match these increases,
which created a shortfall of $36 million in its enacted budget.
After the Coast Guard's budget was enacted, the Department of
Defense adjusted its contract fuel costs. The impact on the Coast Guard
budget of this decision has been an additional budget shortfall of $28
million. Meanwhile, the Coast Guard currently has a $27M shortfall in
aviation spare parts funding, directly impacting aviation operations.
These three funding issues total $91million. The funding shortfall
will result in severe consequences and reductions to vital services
unless addressed.
Absent immediate relief, and to live within the fiscal year 2001
appropriation, the Coast Guard was recently forced to redirect
resources by curtailing operations nationwide. These reductions, which
will impact law enforcement, fisheries, and illegal migrant operations,
are necessary to cover the shortfall, which in large part were created
by circumstances outside the Coast Guard's control.
I know that DOD is presently putting together a supplemental
appropriations request, and I understand the Coast Guard's $91million
supplemental package will mirror the readiness needs that DOD will be
submitting in its supplemental request. What are your plans to address
and support the Coast Guard's immediate needs outlined in its fiscal
year 2001 supplemental request? Also, will you address the long term
problem of building Coast Guard funding needs into the budget process
rather than continually relying on emergency supplementals to carry out
critical operations and maintain basic services?
COAST GUARD #2
The Commercial Fishing Vessel (CFV) industry is one of the most
hazardous in the nation. On average 78 crewmember deaths were recorded
per year between 1992 and 1999. As you may know, the Occupational
Health and Safety Administration ranks commercial fishing as the most
hazardous occupation in the country. I'm sure you are familiar with the
book The Perfect Storm. While the storm depicted in the book may have
been a once in a lifetime event, I can assure that the Coast Guard
performs hundreds of such daring rescue operations each year in the
Northeast. Gloucester is but one example of the toll it has taken on
our coastal fishing communities. Since 1650 the sea has claimed an
estimated 10,000 Gloucester fishermen. During the 19th Century,
Gloucester would typically lose 200 fishermen annually--about 4 percent
of the city's population--to storms in the Gulf of Maine and the Grand
Banks. The Coast Guard's Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety program is
something I care deeply about. While the National Weather Service
provides timely and accurate forecasts so that we no longer have entire
fleets caught on the fishing grounds during a major storm, the tragic
statistics continue to roll in.
Last year the First Coast Guard District--whose area of
responsibility stretches from Maine to New Jersey--reported the death
of 13 commercial fishermen. In addition, the District reported saving
47 fishermen whose vessels had either sunk or caught fire. The Coast
Guard estimates that 23 of those fishermen are alive today because they
had a life rafts and immersion suits. The Commercial Fishing Vessel
Safety Program explains to fishermen the importance of having an
electronic beacon and life rafts and immersion suits. Fishing and
fishermen are something that we all care deeply about on this
committee, in these days of tight budgets can you assure us that the
Coast Guard will continue funding the Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety
Program?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden to Norman Y. Mineta
AVIATION--NOISE
Question 1. How will DOT coordinate with Congress and the aviation
industry regarding the ongoing international discussions regarding
Stage 4 noise standards?
Question 2. The Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) just
completed its meeting in Montreal on January 17th. CAEP 5 included
discussions on the Stage 4 noise standard. Although an agreement was
reached for no global phaseout of Stage 3 Aircraft, EU countries are
pushing for regional phaseouts. If one of the EU countries acted
unilaterally to implement a regional phaseout, how would you respond?
______
Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Max Cleland to Norman Y. Mineta
Question 1. This past December I chaired a Commerce Committee field
hearing in Atlanta on rail passenger service. Testifying at that
hearing, among others, were former Secretary Slater, then head of the
FRA Jolene Molitons, and Amtrak President George Warrington. Because of
Metro Atlanta's traffic congestion and air quality problems, Georgia's
transportation planners are looking more and more at options other than
cars for moving people: for example, intercity bullet trains, light
rail, and commuter rail lines serving downtown Atlanta from corridors
extending to Athens, Bremen, Griffin and Senoia.
What do you see as the role of the Department of Transportation in
assisting the development of regional commuter and intercity passenger
rail service? In your view, how can the Congress assist the U.S.
Department of Transportation in expediting the development of regional
passenger rail service?
Question 2. As you know from experience in your home State of
California, our metropolitan areas face challenges in transportation,
air quality, and traffic safety issues that involve all modes of
transportation--highways, inter-city and commuter rail, bus and rapid
transit systems, pedestrian and bicycle paths. Georgia's population
growth is double the national average, and metropolitan Atlanta is
struggling mightily to escape traffic gridlock and polluted air. At my
request, former Secretary Slater agreed to establish a regional task
force of U.S. DOT officials from the various transportation modes to
work with the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority and help cut
through red tape and provide immediate assistance to their efforts to
improve mobility and air quality.
__________
Prepared Statement of The Air Crash Victims Families Group\1\,
Submitted by A. Frank Carven III and Hans Ephraimson-Abt
Mr. Chairman: We respectfully endorse the nomination of the
Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, the outgoing Secretary of Commerce, as the
new Secretary of Transportation.
As bereaved families who lost their loved ones in aviation
tragedies we have worked with the Government, Congress and the
transportation industries to improve safety, security and the
relationships among all interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Air Crash Victims Families Group is an informal alliance of
``The American Association for Families of KAL007 Victims'', ``The
TWA800 Families Ass., Inc'' ``The Swissair 111 Families Association''
the ``EgyptAir990 Families Association and families as well as
survivors of other air tragedies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, you and your Committee have been extraordinarily
helpful in addressing our issues: the passengers assistance Acts of
1996 and 1997, last year the passage of the ``Death Of The High Seas
Act'' amendment--and hopefully this year, with the. Senate's Advice and
Consent the new ``Montreal Convention''.
In order to continue the improvements which were achieved over
three Administrations we need knowledgeable and experienced leaders in
our Government, able to address our common issues, most particularly in
the Department of Transportation.
Secretary Mineta brings with him the needed experience of an able
administrator in Government, Congress, business. and a record for the
public's concerns His record shows that he is uniquely qualified to
continue, carry on and improve the far-reaching policies of his
predecessors at the Department of Transportation: Secretaries Samuel
Skinner, Andrew H. Card, Jr, Federico F. Pena and Rodney E. Slater to
which he has already contributed in other positions.
We would welcome your Committee's confirmation of Secretary
Mineta's appointment as Secretary of Transportation.