fund road and bridge improvements. a 34% increase over the previous authorization. the president's plan will modernize and simplify the highway structure by consolidating more than 55 programs into five programs. of course investing in our transit systems is another critical need. the president's budget includes $108 billion over six year for transit, 105% increase. it will prioritize projects that rebuild and rehabilitate existing transit systems and include an important new $45 million transit safety program, which we believe is critical. we've been talking to all of you about that for the last couple of years. and the president's budget provides $2.5 billion in 2013 as part of a $45 billion six-year investment to continue support of inner city passenger rail including construction of a national high-speed rail

network. second innovation as we rebuild we can no longer afford to continue operating transportation system the same way we did 50 years ago with outdated processes and financial tools that were made for yesterday's economy. the president's 2013 budget will invest in research technology that children and grandchildren will need to boost economic competitiveness. for example, the federal aviation administration, as you all know, is in the midst of the largest transformation of air traffic control ever. the 2013 president's budget request $15.2 billion to support faa programs. more than $1 billion of these funds will be used to advance the modernization of our air traffic system through next gen. the next generation of air traffic control technology which we've all talked about for a long time. so the use of satellite

surveillance and new methods of routing. pilots, planes and routing procedures next gen will change how america flies reducing travel time and delays. it the vital role research in decision making by moving research technology administration rita into the new office of assistant secretary for research and technology under the secretary's office. this change will provide a prominent centralized focus on research and technology, important to the president, department's operating administrations and research programs. third and finally keeping our transportation system safe will always be our top priority. consistent with this commitment, president obama has proposed a record level investment in safety. in fact, the president's proposal will provide $7.5 billion over the next six years

to the national highway traffic safety administration nhtsa, our safety administration to promote seat belt use, get drunk drivers off the road and reduce distracted driving. this will ensure it keeps dropping from traditional lows. double investments in highway safety infrastructure by promoting $17 billion to federal highway administration safety construction programs. the budget also will dedicate $4.8 billion to federal motor carrier safety administration. these dollars will ensure that commercial trucks and bus companies maintained high operational standards and are dedicated safety professionals can get high-risk trucks and bus companies and their drivers off the roadways. finally our safety focus must also include the transportation of hazardous materials in our network of pipelines. that's why the president's 2013

proposal requests $276 million for the pipeline and hazardous material safety administration to help ensure that families, communities and the environment are unharmed by the transport of chemicals and fuels on which our economy relies. so with that, mr. chairman, again, thank you for the last three years for allowing us to come and talk about our budget. it's a privilege always to do that. not every committee affords us this opportunity. so we're grateful to your committee for that. >> we think it's an absolute priority. i think senator sessions and i are joined in that, that transportation has got to be a priority. it's good for the economy. it is good for jobs and good for the competitive position of the united states. let me go right to that question. i've heard a number of rules of thumb for how many jobs created

for each billion dollars of transportation investment, investment in transportation infrastructure. do you have a rule of thumb that you apply. number of jobs created in the united states for every billion dollars worth of investment. >> let me just say this. you all gave us $48 billion in the economic recovery plan. $48 billion. we spent every penny of that. what we did, we created 65,000 jobs with 15,000 projects. we started the high-speed rail initiative that the president wanted. we started the tiger program. we gave $28 billion to roads and bridges, $8 billion to transit. all the money was spent the way congress said it should be spent. you haven't read any bad stories about any of the $48 billion you spent. what we did, we put 65,000 americans to work building roads, bridges, transit systems around america. now, if you use that as a

gauge -- >> how much could you have spent effectively? >> a lot more. >> let me just tell you, i argued strenuously for $200 billion. we had done a together before he was ever in office. he was at a distinct disadvantage. i remember that debate so clearly and the arguments being made it would take too much time. my argument was if you tell the

states there is this money, and right now with the economic downturn there was a lot of contractors available at favorable rates. did you find in that $48 billion you got -- >> we got bids below what we anticipated which gave us additional money. and also, jobs done way ahead of schedule also, because there was a pent up demand with contractors and availability of workers and the great partnerships that we have with the states, whether it's the governors or the state do thes or commissioners ready to go. and it worked very well. it really did. like i said, not one bad story written about any money -- any boondoggles, any earmarks, none of that. >> i would join you in saying i made several speeches in one of my prime concerns about the bill

was that it did not do enough for highways. our basic bill is about $40 billion a year. so to have $200 billion could have been a transformation -- transformative act for our infrastructure. but nobody would listen, moved forward as they did. but i thank you. you did say that at the time, mr. chairman. i thought you were right. >> i appreciate that. you know, as i look back, it's one of the things i regret the most was that i was not able to persuade certain people who had this idea. i know the economists. i've heard it 100 times. it takes too long to get infrastructure bought bloodstream. second question i wanted to ask you about, do you have any measures for how improved transportation strengthens america's competitive position?

>> well, we know now we are being outcompeted. your chart shows that by a lot of other countries. china is right now building roadways, airports, runways, high-speed rail, transit systems. i mean, 10 years ago that would not have been the case. today it is. we're being outcompeted by lots of other countries. you look what's going to be happening in brazil, particularly in rio, what they are going to be doing there with their infrastructure. we need to keep pace. we don't keep pace by extending the transportation bill. we keep pace by passing a five-or six-year bill which is a blueprint for what we do to put americans to work. build roads, build bridges, build transit systems.

that's what america has always done. congress has done that. >> i want to go back to my first question. you gave an answer. the thing that's in my head, i've been told many times for every billion dollars of road expenditures, it creates 18 to 20,000 jobs. is there some rule of thumb like that that you apply? >> you know what, senator, i'll get that for the record. i'd rather do that than say a figure that won't be accurate. >> next on my list, high-speed rail, $47 for high-speed rail. what is the status of high-speed rail? where is it being taken up in what are the prospects? what does that offer us in terms of enhanced competitive position, jobs, economic activity. give us your view of this expenditure of $47 billion. >> well, we start from the

premise that anybody that's ever gone to europe or asia or ridden the trains over there comes back and says why don't we have this kind of transportation in america. because we've never had anybody with the vision or willingness to put the money into it. president obama stepped up real early in his administration, put $8 billion in economic recovery plan, which jump-started our opportunity to implement high-speed rail, which, by the way, many of the states were way ahead of the federal government on. california has been working on high-speed rail for two decades. we know along the northeast corridor people have been using passenger rail for decades. and so what we did, we took the $8 billion and did like we do with all of our partners, we partnered with groups around the country that have been working on high-speed rail. so we've invested $3.5 billion in california. i just spent a week in california. i met with the governor. he's totally committed, on board. i met with stakeholder, people

in agriculture, met with malbusiness peopma small business people. they have a good plan. in the midwest they have a good plan. the governor of michigan, governor snyder has accepted almost a billion dollars for a connection to fix up the tracks between trial and chicago. the governor of illinois and the governor of missouri have a good plan. we've invested more than $2 million in the midwest. we just made significant investments in the northeast corridor. not just between washington and new york but further north in other states that want to get into the high-speed rail business. so the president had a vision. he put the money in the economic recovery. you all gave us some additional money. so totally we've invested over $2 billion. the important point to make here is, there are a number of companies that were building

high-spayed rail in california, illinois, along the northeast corridor that want to make investments i've said all along not enough money in washington to do all we need to do with private rail. we need private investment. the private investors are in america, california, illinois, along the northeast corridor, making investments, partnering with states in order to make the kind of invest men's to get -- this the next generation of transportation. for the next generation. this is what we're doing for our next generation. the next generation left us a state-of-the-art interstate system. thank goodness they did. took us 50 years to do it. what we're going to do for the next generation is give them next generation transportation, high-speed rail. >> i do think we need high-speed rail in this country. i've seen what other countries have done. i see what japan, europe has

done. we can't fall bin in that area either. anybody that travels to the northeast corridor knows we're way, way behind. let me briefly go to the question of funding. you mentioned overseas contingency operations. there's a fair amount of scepticism here with respect to that as a pay for. let me try to capture why there's scepticism. many believe, while we understand cbo says this is a savings. we understand that. here is what troubles me. it just strikes me that what we commit to war funding has very little with what we write down on a budget table. what we commit to for war funding as a nation is guided by the national security interest of the united states and it is very unpredictable where you're

going to have conflict, what that conflict is going to be and what it's going to cost. i understand cbo says if you cap overseas contingency operations because we're drawing down in iraq and afghanistan and that registers savings, i understand that. i've always been reluctant to use overseas contingency operation toss pay for something. i've always kind of considered that's a bonus bringing down deficits and debts. the group of six, we did not use oco as an offset. what's your position? >> my position is this. the last two years that i've and before congress, i have taken a heap of criticism for bringing proposals forward that aren't

paid for. that's over. the idea that the president didn't want to pay for these things over the past two years, we were criticized royally for that. by a bunch of people on this side of the capital and a bunch of peoploon the other side. so the president came up with a pay for. debate it, talk about it, figure it out, but no more excuses about no pay fors. we have one. we take the highway trust fund, which is $230 billion and we take half the money from the iraq, afghanistan fund and we pay for what we're talking about here. i'm proud of that. i'm proud the president came up with that. i'm also happy no one around here can criticizes us for not having to pay for it. >> all right. i've exceeded my time. senator session. >> well, you don't have a pay for in any realistic sense.

mr. elmendorf basically told us that at the hearing, there's no way to pay for the war. the way cbo scores if you have a million dollars for the war last year, they assume it's going to continue for it ten years. if you reduce that trend, then you've saved money under their scoring. but it's unrealistic in terms of the debt of the united states. there's no money there. no fund of money. it's not paid for. this money you're saying is going to be paid for from the war funding is going to be borrowed. it's money we're no longer borrowing for the war. instead of taking a deep breath and relax because we didn't have to borrow that money, you propose to spend half it on the roads. that's not common sense. it's the reason the country is

going brochlt i remember asking m -- going broke. i remember asking mr. elmendorf on the eve of the vote weren't we double counting $500 billion to justify the health care bill and make it look like it's going to make mo f the government instead of cost money for the government. he said, yes, you're double counting. i asked him, would he put it in writing. he worksaid he would put it in writing, put it out the next morning. he said we're double counting the money even though conventions of accounting would suggest otherwise. i suggest to you you may say you paid for this but it's not reality even though conventions of accounting might suggest that it is.

this is important. you indicate in your remarks that the road bridge improvements and construction represents a 34% increase increase over previous substantiation. that's a pretty increase level, is it not? at a time when the country is suffering. >> senator, america is one big pothole right now. we have not paid attention to our roads and bridges. we haven't. >> i know that. >> instead of motors for yachts we could fill a lot of potholes. >> i agree with you. i'm going to submit for the record how far deficient we are fixing up roads and bridges. it's significant. it's billions of dollars. we're way behind. >> with regard to california, i see now numbers coming in instead of the early estimates of 30 billion for this plan, it's going to be $100 billion

more. and this is a program that is being rejected by governors all over the country. we're not going to start out a massive nationwide high-speed rail program. it's debt on arrival. it's not going to happen. we're not going to have the money. we're not seeing any numbers that would adjust the traffic count that would justify such a massive program. maybe some areas of the country that could certainly benefit from high-speed rail and they need to be justified item by item. with regard to the 55 programs, i think that's a good step. but it's mainly your headquarters and in your administration as i understand it that would be improved. it could save money. i think that's important. but what i'm hearing is the real problem out there is the long arduous, expensive regulatory

federal planning processes that are driving up cost for our state, county, and local officials when they try to execute a project that is now from planning to cutting the ribbon as much as 13 years. the chairman made reference, i think, to some of that. how can we reduce that time. do you have any plans that you believe could actually reduce that time, any statistics that would back that up? >> yes, sir. on the highway side, we have a program called every day counts, which was implemented by our administrator victor mendez. implemented more than two years ago and does speed up highway projects. we've had lots of compliments and kudos from our partners around the country on that program. the transit administrator peter roggeoff just announced a way to

speed up new starts program. it's on our website. we reduce the amount of time dramatically from which somebody semis a new starts to when it's approved to when we cut the ribbon. both programs, certainly every day counts, has been in place. the new starts is just being implemented. i believe it will speed up dramatically the time in which we -- >> we certainly have seen them take too long. some of that is maybe unwise management by certain state and local governments. but i do hear a lot of complaints. i'm glad you're focusing on that. i think it would be a great way to get more highway capability sooner at less cost. that's one of the things that would make the taxpayer happy instead of spending more money. on the high-speed rail,

wisconsin, florida, ohio can give back money realizing its too costly for them to participate. florida, from tampa to orlando project, $2.4 billion was rejected by the governor. and they calculated there could be cost overruns as much as $3 billion. governor kasich in ohio rejected $385 billion for a passenger rail line to connect cincinnati and columbus and cleveland. the governor of wisconsin rejected $810 million to connect madison and milwaukee. it would be a $50 per head round trip, an 80-mile trip would cost twice as much as driving. california, 800 mile line will connect san diego -- to connect san diego to sacramento. $5 billion awarded for the first segment to connect madeira,

population 56,000 to bakersfield, population 388,000, basically in the california desert. estimated costs have grown from $33 billion in '07 to as much as $100 billion as estimated by the state review board. and the ridership numbers, according to the review board, to justify the projects, were overblown and costs alternative to the line were wildly exaggerated to make the line look better. i know it sounds good to have a nationwide high-speed rail project, but at this point in history, we don't have the money and we don't have the possibility of anything close to paying for that plan. i just would say to you that i think that's the reality you'll face in congress.

but we do i understand that there are traffic jams in cities. some cities can use mass transit. some cities could use improvements to their interstates. most of them could use high-speed interstate improvements throughout. i'll give you a chance to respond to that. thank you for your commitment to the program. we should have a person in this office that's committed to transportation. but i've got to tell you when you're talking about these kinds of increases, these kinds of programs when we're running the largest deficits in history, you've got to understand congress is not going to be table to agree to everything. >> well, having served in congress for 14 years, i know that i'm proud that during the 14 years, 5 of those years we had balanced budgets. thanks to the work of senator

conrad and others. and we still had priorities. you have priorities. one of the priorities is pay down the debt. that's what we did during that five-year period. but we still had priorities. one of our transportation priorities is implementing passenger rail. when florida turned back $2.3 billion, we had $10 billion worth of requests. some of that came from republican governors. one in michigan that we just gave almost a billion dollars to so he could fix up the tracks from detroit to chicago, so people can get higher speeds. we've invested in the northeast corridor, which a lot of people in this town use from washington to new york to get to higher speeds, to fix up the area. we're going to continue to make these invest men's because this is what america wants. they want the next generation of transportation. >> what was your to fix up --

fix up the -- >> detroit to chicago. >> northeast corridor. >> we've invested about a billion dollars, just recently. >> what will that do? >> it will get new canton area, new cars and get the tracks in a position where they could go higher speeds. >> the canton area. >> that's electrificatioelectri >> areas that are cost effective, do that and report to us and we'll see if it can be justified. what you're talking about is major rail systems, new ones across florida or some of these other areas. governors are running the cost totals. costs much higher than projected. cost and ridership below what's projected and it would be a massive, colossal area to try to build nationwide system right

now when it cannot possibly be justified in my view. >> mr. chairman, can i just say one thing? >> yeah. >> america has always been about vision, particularly when it comes to transportation. now, i'm glad that when president eisenhower signed the interstate bill there were a few vision areas here in congress and subsequent administrations, because what they did, they built large chunks of concrete that didn't really connect for a while, but there was a vision to connect america. 50 years later we have a state-of-the-art interstate system because of visionaries like eisenhower and members of congress. that's the kind of vision that president obama, some governors, some people in america have for getting to the next generation of transportation, for connecting our kids and grandkids so they can get out of cars, so they can get out of

congestion, so they can ride in a comfortable train that goes a decent speed. if we don't have that vision, we're going to really short-circuit our ability to get what other generations did for us. >> you've got a vision, just not connected sufficiently to reality in my opinion. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator. >> we're doing seven-minute rounds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> seven-minute rounds today because we have fewer members here so we can do seven-minute rounds and still get done by noon, which we've promised to do with the secretary. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you secretary lahood for being here. i join chairman and ranking member extending our best wishes to sam and your family. we're delighted he's safe in the embassy and hope he comes home safe and sound and soon. i appreciate very much your energetic supp