we need to put something back in the process so that the rights of states has real meaning, has real teeth. right now -- we go through the appropriation process. the states are all at the feeding trough trying to get more money and get more money and it's like now, don't send the money here ever and if we have the opportunity for citizens to recall their representatives and their senators, it creates potentially a whole new dynamic of putting states' rights back at the forefront. mr. akin: i know you are a proud resident of michigan. iowa would happen if you were the governor of michigan and someone came to you with the health care bill and the budget office said it was $1 trillion bill and when you looked at it

and you saw there was unfunded mandates for the state of michigan. you probably have an amendment in michigan, how -- wouldn't that make you frustrated if we're dumping the real cost of something down onto the states? . i think there was a movement in like 29 states or something where state legislatures were saying, no, we don't want it. and why? in the state of michigan we calculated or inher -- or inherited someone calculatehood that the unfunded mandate for medicaid alone was $700 million. and, you know, we go -- mr. akin: that's a huge amount for a state budget. mr. hoekstra: it's a huge amount for a state budget. but it happened to every program. you know, we promised health care for all, no child left

behind, no worker left behind, everybody has a job. we put a little bit of money into the pot and then we pass it onto the states and the states get it and they say, whoa, we thought you were going to pay for all this. that's been the biggest complaint about no child left behind, right? all of these mandates and you didn't give us the money to implement it. give us more money. no, don't give us more money. let us keep our money, get rid of the mandates and we'll run our own schools. mr. akin: that's a novel idea. it was interesting when we were looking at that no child left behind it was my first kind of introduction to insider ball in washington, d.c., and the department of education. and there were all of these programs in the department of education and each one was funded -- mr. hoekstra: over 600. we counted them. mr. akin: 600. mr. hoekstra: across the government there were over 600 and i think it was 650 different education programs and you say, why? mr. akin: what we attempted to do and i think you were part of

negotiating, trying to get this bill to be something that we could be proud of, and i think the deal was, how about we do this, how about we let the local superintendent of his school take a look at all 600 and some of these programs, take the money he could get for all of them and if he wants to, direct it all to one or two of his pet favorite programs that meet the needs of their individual schools instead of having the red tape of 6 00 different programs? -- 600 different programs? and that seemed like a pretty logical thing because each superintendent could take a about at their own school, their own needs and they could take the money and channel it in an effect of way. guess what the establishment down here said? mr. hoekstra: no, we don't trust them. mr. akin: exactly. we know more what we're doing than they do. mr. hoekstra: so what we do is we tell midland, we tell trafficer city, you will all run at least the portion of this money that you get from washington, you'll all run it the same way. and it's kind of like, wow --

mr. akin: weather the -- whether the program works or not. mr. hoekstra: these are three very different communities with very different needs and challenges right now. why are we trying to put them all into one straightjacket and don't we really trust the local officials? and more importantly, are you telling us you don't trust local parents to take ownership over their schools? dick army, our former colleague, used to say, you know, the people that i want running my schools are the people who know the name of my kids. that's the local fund. mr. akin: that paints a picture, doesn't it? mr. hoekstra: it paints a picture because if you come to washington and you ask, hey, do you know the kids over at, you know, fifth grade at south middle school or west middle school? and it's kind of like, what town? well, in hol land.

no, you know, and they've gone through consolidate dation and all of that, but the names of the schools aren't that important. what's important is, you know, you know the names of the kids at muss keegon heights, in bay city, mackinac, and the answer, no, as a matter of fact, i can't even find some of those places on the map if i have to look, is what you'll get from the education department. i've always wanted to go to the education department and start with the secretary. you know, mr. secretary, what state are you from? well, he's from illinois. he's from chicago. he's not far from michigan. he actually probably understands the midwest. and he understands large urban school districts and you say, ok, you got anybody in your office, the secretary ath or whatever that is from michigan? kind of like, no, i don't think so. then you go to the undersecretaries and do you have

anybody that's from michigan? you know, how far do i have to go down before i find somebody in a position of authority that is maybe from my state that may have a little bit of understanding of my state? now we have over nine million people living in michigan so that person might understand a piece of michigan. but not the whole state. and then you kind of go through and say, i wonder how long it would take me to find somebody from the second congressional district, i wonder how long it would take me to find somebody from my home town who understands that, you know, right now the community is facing a $2 million shortfall, that we've got issues with our public schools, the public schools are asking for, you know, a $70 million bond issue and, you know, that they would understand the challenges, and, you know, i don't think i'll find anybody from holland. to washington, our kids are a number at best. in holland, you know, it's erin.

they know the names of the kids. mr. akin: of course, that whole discussion suggested the founders are smarter than we found them for. there's nothing in the constitution that founds the department of ed cathes in the first place. it was more of a concession to the n.e.a. teacher's union and i don't know if they got a good deal anyway. mr. hoekstra: we worked with the n.e.a., the national education association, because we told them and we worked with them, barney frank and i, barney frank, one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, you know, we fought this issue and he came at it from a very different standpoint than where i did. from the right and the left, but we came together because we both saw the inherent problems with this bill and we had an amendment that we were hoping and if the n.e.a., if the national education association,

had joined with us and supported it, i think we would have passed our amendment and we would have a very different no child left behind framework than what we have today. but they were kind of neutral. they didn't take a position. which also tells something to our constituents. if you're not involved in the process, someone else will decide the future for you. what the n.e.a. found out is that they didn't participate actively in fighting this bill and now one of the -- i just talked to a group of students, i think it was monday morning, ormond, they were at one of the lunches, so there were 18 students there, they were there with their teacher, they were advanced placement -- a.p. students out of school, they were there at lunch and i said, i voted against no child left behind. and that always surprises a lot of the teachers in my district because they thought that i was

just, you know, lock step with president -- of course hoekstra voted for -- no, i didn't, it was a terrible bill. and the loudest applause comes from the n.e.a. member, the teacher, who, you know, because he has seen what it has done to his local schools. and we've just gone through and we're in the process of duplicating exactly what happened with no child left behind with this new program called race to the top and what is race to the top do? michigan, i've just kind of laid back a little, you know, people ask me, i say, you know, if i were you i wouldn't go for the money. but the state went for the money because it -- you know, had to do some refor other purposeses. the reforms were good but if the reforms were good, we should have done them anyway. we shouldn't have waited for washington to bribe us to do this. because now that we're involved in this race to the top process, we're also finding out, wow,

this is no child left behind all over again because what no child left behind does is it -- or ex cue me, what race to the top -- or excuse me, what race to the top does is same as no child left behind. it promised a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and now local school districts are starting to take a look at this and they're saying, oh, this isn't so good. no one told us that we're going to get x amount of dollars but that the imple -- but that to implement the mandates that come with race to the top it's going to cost us more than x. so actually, you know, we're going to get this federal money and we're going to get the mandate has come along with it and now to implement these mandates it's going to cost us extra money to do it when we're already being squeezed. sounds like no child left behind, sounds like health care.

mr. akin: the thing that surprises me, because i was a state legislator in the state of missouri for 12 years. it seems like the states never seem to catch up to the scams, you know? kind of like charlie brown. how many times are you going to pull the football away? it's like lucy trying to kick the football, i mean, charlie brown trying to kick the football, there's always a string on the piece of cheese and they say, come on, mouse, get the cheese and then they real the string in and they've been doing -- reel the string and they've been doing this for years. wouldn't you think it would be smart to say, i've seen this before, i really don't want you telling me how to run our school, i don't want you telling me how to do the things that our state knows how to do for ourselves far better, you can just keep your money down in washington, d.c., it is not a tempttation to us anymore and we're going to run a clean and efficient state where we really do things and our objective is going to be one of the top

performing states all across america and this is a competition where we're going to start right now by saying no to a whole lot of government red tape. mr. hoekstra: what you'll see again is the states becoming incubators of ideas. that missouri or michigan and we'll compete and you'll get some great ideas, we'll get some great ideas, you'll have some bad ideas and we'll have some bad ideas, we'll try them, some things will work, some things will not. and we'll be looking around at the other states and saying, hey, what are you doing that works? and when we find something that says, you know, your community is not exactly like ours, but, you know, if we kind of take what you've done, there's a lot of good stuff there and if we put that into place, into grand rapids with a few tweaks, we think that's going to help make our schools and grand rapids better. mr. akin: what's exciting is you're talking about that spirit of ingenuity that americans have.

even -- you know, one of the things people down here in the institutional part of our government, they think everybody's got to be a ph.d. and be an expert. what i've seen so many in americans, you have a little bit of common sense and you take that ingenuity and that can-do spirit and just get the red tape and the government chains off of them and let them start to solve their problems. mr. hoekstra: the other thing we will see is we will see that at a state level, you can respond. when something doesn't work, you change it. you and i are both very familiar that there's a key component of no child left behind that does not work. what is it? it says, we're going to measure this year's first grade class and their performance and we're going to compare it to last year's first grade class and their performance. i say, well, you know, had this could be 27 kids and this could be 27 kids but they may be very,

very different kids and as a matter of fact, you know, and i was looking at that and right after no child left behind passed, i went to one of my schools because they invited me to come in. and they said, and i knew where the school was and i thought that this was in a relatively stable neighborhood. and they were explaining to me some of their issues and they said, congressman, you know, we don't even have these 27 kids all year. we have 27 kids when we begin the year, we have 27 kids in this class when we end the year, but there may be 20 kids to 25 kids that have come in and out of this class and you kind of look and them and say, i thought this was a pretty stable neighborhood and they say, you don't understand, we have these types of things in the neighborhood and this is a very transient population. and so -- but that's how -- mr. akin: can any statistics mean anything when you've got the situation you're talking

about? i ran -- mr. hoekstra: but the standard has been in place for eight years. everybody knows it's wrong and it doesn't work. technology has moved to the point where it said, we can track johnny individually and if he moves from one school to another, you know, we can track his specific performance, we ought to be tracking the specific performance of every kid in the classroom versus a group of kids that in and out and all that, but after eight years, excuse me, what's the measurement? the same one that passed in 2001 that everybody agrees to or everybody agrees doesn't work but it's, what? it's implemented in all 50 states and it is the criteria that determines whether you are a good school or you -- only

washington can use these terms, or a failing school. for the teachers that are in this school that have a 70% turnover of kids in their classroom during the year, you know, they may not measure -- they may not measure up very well to the arbitrary standards that were put in place here in washington, d.c., but they have -- they may be some of our most committed and talented teachers because they're dealing with different kids in the classroom, you know, every couple of weeks a new child comes in, a couple leave and, wow, this kid has different skills than the two that have left. i've got to figure out exactly, you know, if this kid -- is this kid compelling in math? he's got great math skills but i have to help him in reading. you have to do a whole assessment but the current model doesn't allow for those kinds of differences.

. mr. akin: let's say a state would say we're going to try a different approach or has the government got them locked down? mr. hoekstra: absolutely. you and i both want accountability. but as technology changes and as teaching changes and as practices in the classroom changes, you know, i want missouri developing an accountability model. i want michigan developing an accountability model. i want illinois developing an accountability model. and i want to say here's what's working for us. we have problems in this area. we just don't appear to be getting it roofment. what are you doing? and then missouri will come back and say, we had those issues three years ago and here's what we did and this appears to make

our accountability system better, but here's where we are running into a problem right now. you have that learning going on. and you get together and you say, well, what is the best way to put in performance pay for teachers? how do you recognize the differences in a classroom where you begin the year with 27 students in a classroom and at the end of the year they have the same 27 students. how do you measure a teacher's performance versus a teacher who has a classroom with 70% turn over? how do you deal with that? that is the creativity that we need to be seeing going on across the country. someone sent me an email message tonight talking about the video learning, the high-tech learning and those types of things and there are people who are experimenting with that at a higher level, at the community

colleges, high schools and all that. somebody ought to try that and see what works. mr. akin: i couldn't help but think about what you're saying. you are getting me excited about this. if i were in missouri, they call it the show me state. one of the ways that would be pretty interesting and might change the paradigm quite a bit, if you want to give bonuses to teachers, why don't you let the parents of the students have a say on how their performance would be? if you think about back of all of your teachers you have had, i can't remember too much stuff that teachers taught me, but i can remember the people and the characters i respected because of the way they led their lives. and there were some that were treasures. they were state treasures and wonderful people. i still remember them today and sometimes i think i should have gone back and thanked them for

putting up for a little brat like me. and parents, here's an idea. because those parents know whether those kids are getting the real stuff or not. mr. hoekstra: i'm not saying bonuses are the way to go. but we ought to be working with teachers, with parents and with others to have these laboratories around the country. that doesn't mean that every class is a laboratory and you're trying the whole thing brand new. it means what you're saying is, every year, every month, every week, we're going to be focused on having continuous improvement. that if we can learn from other states and learn from other schools, learn from other countries, we're always going to be on the cutting edge of

improving our schools. right now, where are we? where do our superintendents look? where do our state education bureaucrats look? now they have to look to some old bill that was passed in 2001 that tells them how to run their schools. you won't find that in business anymore. you won't find businesses operating on a model that was in place in 2001. if they were still operating in the same practices, the same technology and all of these kinds of things that they were operating on in 2001. guess what? in 2010, they would be out of business. they could no longer compete. so whether it's education, infrastructure, the -- i also want -- you want to do the same thing with job training. i would like to give as a starter, i have bills to do this. it's kind of like highway money

goes back to the stits. the gas tax money. it doesn't need to come here. let the 435 of us here fight over one penny of gas tax, not a dollar of gas tax. then same thing with k-12 education, send us the money back. we'll get 35 cents of every dollar to put into the classroom and it's a win-win. send me 90 cents of every education dollar. you save 10%. i get 25 cents more going into the classroom. it's a win for all of us. get rid of the bureaucracy and paperwork. put the emphasis on the kids and do it with job training. i have bills in all three of those areas. the bottom line is if you don't do it, recall. mr. akin: recall. if you look at what the federal government was like when it was originally created, i recall

there are only four laws. one of the laws was against pier asy on the high seas. one of the laws was against counterfeiting because the federal government printed the money. there was a law against being a traitor or a spy to your country. all of those laws had in common that it was a federal authority at oppose todd something that could be handled by the states. the states have all the laws and whatever the different state laws were, all of your laws were at a state level. people somehow think that all of the intelligence moved to washington, d.c. and have all of these federal laws, statute books full and bureaucracies full of rules and regulations. somehow we have got to start taking this place apart and sending that authority to the state level. and with all due respect, gentleman, a lot can go to the local as well.

mr. hoekstra: if you look at michigan and probably the same in missouri and look at the state and say, my state this year is starting the year off or they're looking at their next budget year and we are going to have $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion deficit. and you look at it and say you have $47 billion budget. finding $1.4 billion in savings, 2%, 3%, that shouldn't be that hard. and then you start looking at the reality and say well, out of that $47 billion, 19 billion is direct money from washington, d.c. all right. well, that's off the table. then you look at it and say,

well, you know with the highway money we get that's part of that $19 billion, it requires that we have the state match and this money that we have for k-12 that comes from no child left behind, it controls some of the spending of the rest of the budget. and you start looking at it and saying, now i have a $1.4 billion deficit and i got maybe $11 billion that i can work with. and there are efficiencies that we can find in all of those areas if that money never left the state and we were given the authority. the other thing we talk about, the money comes from washington. but then what happens? that's not the end of the line. if the money comes from washington, -- actually, washington collects the money.

ok ok it came from my and your taxpayers. mr. hoekstra: it's gone and comes to this place here. we then decide what we're going to do with it. if our people in our communities want to get the money back, a lot of times what do they have to do? all of my school districts have what they call grant writers, someone they pay $35,000 to and there is a very good performance measure. do they get the grant. we are paying you $35,000 a year. if you get $36,000 in grants coming back to the school district, you have been a good investment. they have to apply for the money and they may not get it. a lot of times it's the competition to get the money. a lot of the competition or the application money is wasted. the money then comes back to the

state, goes to our local schools. we lose 35%. once it's in the classroom to build a turtle fence or bike overpass that we don't need, then we have to send a report back to washington telling them what we did with the money. i have always wanted to find the person who reads it. does anybody really read the report? and then every once in a while and perhaps too often, you'll find the next thing, the auditor going back to a local school district or local government agency and say, prove it. prove that you spent the money the way that you applied for and the way that you developed and moved it forward. mr. akin: there is plenty of work to do and it just needs some energy and innovation both in washington, d.c. but also at

the state levels. i wonder if the situation in michigan in terms of unemployment? hoiks mr. hoekstra: our problems are much more severe. we lead the country in unemployment and have done that for a number of years. the last unemployment number was 14.8%. for the last 12 to 18 months we have been in the 14%, 15% unemployment. mr. akin: wow. mr. hoekstra: that doesn't include the people that have stopped working. it doesn't include the people that are underemployed. and, you know, it doesn't include the number of people -- when i come here to washington i'm amazed by the number of people who are on the plane or as i'm talking to people in my district, the number of people i

run into who say pete, i'm in michigan. i'm committed to michigan. but, you know, i'm gone two weeks at a time from my wife and my kids because the only place i can find a job is somewhere else. i'm working somewhere other than michigan. some of them stay because they are so committed to michigan. others stay because obviously in a state that has declining population, by definition, you have a housing surplus, meaning that it's hard for them to sell their homes. the vision we have for michigan is to bring michigan back. michigan is a great state. missouri is a great state. if this is a great country and with the right kind of leadership at the federal level or the state level there's no reason why we ought to be enduring 10% unemployment at a national level or 15% at a state level. go back to the principles that we employed back in 1994.

accountability back to the american people. that's what the contract of america. i tried to get recall with the contract of america. i wish voters had the opportunity to recall their representatives and their senators. but what we did in 1995 and 1996 rkts we didn't increase spending, we didn't do a stimulus bill like that, we didn't do cap and trade, we didn't do health care or these massive government spending programs. we froze spending, we cut taxes and reformed government, we reformed welfare and did it with a republican congress and a democrat president. we were able to focus on what the american people wanted, what they needed and we had an air ave -- era of prosperity. but the formula is simple. give more money back to the american people. reform government and control spending. . sometimes a simple phrase is very effective.

you talked about, bring michigan back or bring missouri back. and, you know, the tragedy is that what you just said in a few sentences explains how to do it. it's not like this is that complicated. it has to be too bright to say, if you want jobs, you got to have some company that's going to provide the jobs. and you don't have to be too bright to say that you if you tax the hide off the guy who owns the little business, he's not going to have any money to build a new wing or buy a new machine tool or to add the new process to create the new jobs. it's not that complicated. but the trouble is, we get these people down here who are so institutional and they think, we know what to do, we're going to tax the rich guy and redistribute the money and somehow that makes the economy better. i mean, that stimulus bill, the whole logic behind it was totally flawed and yet what you've just said in a sentence or two, gentlemen, you put your finger on exactly what has to be done. and it's got to kill you to go back to michigan, you love your

state, you love the people in the state, and you understand what it takes to make it work and people are just tone deaf. i can see why -- mr. hoekstra: i don't think the people are tone deaf. i think people in the state think that we're going -- just like the federal government -- demonstrated in massachusetts. the people are not tone deaf. they think we are. and they know washington is. mr. akin: gentleman, that's the problem down here. washington, d.c., as an institution has become tone deaf and you've got solutions, you know what the solutions are, are you fix the problem in michigan, you can fix the problem in missouri, and it's as simple as what j.f.k. did, what ronald reagan did, what bush did, and that is, get off the spending, get off the taxing and give the american public a chance. mr. hoekstra: yeah. here's how we start our op ed, i like our title, of course, we helped write it, we call it storming the castle.

on january 19 the people of massachusetts stormed the castle of the political elite and toppled it to the ground. after months of abuse and neglect and being shut out of the par pets of the u.s. senate, they took a stand and sent a strong undeniable message to the democrat-controlled castle of american politics. enough is enough. i think that sums it all and that's where the american people are today. that's where grassroots america is today. that's where they were in 1993 and 1994. in 1993 and 1994 they got involved and when i meet with these folks, i do ask them the question, how different would this country be today if the involvement that we saw in 1993 and 1994, the insightful,

knowledgeable involvement, these people understand the issues, they know where they want to go, if that involvement had stayed, if the involvement we saw in 1993 and 1994 and the involvement that we're seeing in 2009 and 2010, how different would this country have been if they had stayed involved through that whole time frame and that's partly our responsibility by not, you know, motivating them enough and inviting them into the process. but, you know, if they'd been involved in the process, you know, we wouldn't be talking about whether we should have the passing legislation or passing a constitutional amendment that would give them the authority to have recall, to recall their federal elected officials. we'd already have it. it would now be working its way through the states. you know, i think it's so healthy to have these people involved in the process and be involved in a knowledgeable way because they do recognize that if they don't show up someone

else will run this country. they recognize that government is run by those who show up on election day. mr. akin: you know the interesting thing is, as you make government bigger, it makes the citizens smaller. and it's gotten to the point now where that government has got to be trimmed and i think people are ready to do it and i would like to just say that i appreciate your leadership these years and i've shared in the congress with you, congressman hoekstra, and for the fact that you consistently, before it was popular, you have always been in this position of trying to deconstruct the unnecessary elements of the federal government and i think that in a sense that you and i have seen a time where more voters are going to think, boy, i wish there were more congressman hoekstras in the way that they vote and the way they keep taking the tough choices regardless of political party, to do what's right and to send that decisionmaking back to

the local citizen, send that tax dollar, let him keep it in his pocket and keep the government small. mr. hoekstra: i thank my colleague, congressman akin. and, you know, this is a time where, you know, we've got the great state of michigan, the great state of missouri, the show-me state, you know, it's now time for this congress to show the people of missouri, to shee the people of america and show the people of michigan where we're headed and if we don't do it, guess what? they'll show us on election day and they will storm the castle by saying enough is enough. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. is there a motion to adjourn? mr. hoekstra: mr. speaker, i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the motion is agreed to. accordingly the house stands

>> this bill authorizes $955 million for cyber security. final passage is expected on thursday. also tomorrow, the chamber will continue -- consider amendments to the debt limit. live coverage of the u.s. house hear on c-span. in a few moments, transportation secretary ray lahood testifies before a subcommittee hearing. in about two hours, president obama met today with senate democrats. now, secretary lahood.

in his testimony, he was forced to clarify remarks he made about a recall for toyota cars and trucks. later, he said that honor should take their cars in for repairs. >> we have is our guest cabinet secretary ray lahood from the department of transportation. welcome, mr. secretary. welcome to the subcommittee. we're very happy to have you back again. i want to thank you for coming

before us to explain the president's 2011 budget request for the department of transportation. your entire leadership is in place. during this time, the department has taken a number of steps to transform and modernize the transportation system, and in particular, the recovery act provided you with an opportunity to rebuild infrastructure and transformative initiatives and new jobs. however this transformation has been hindered by complications that we traced last year, aviation authorizations, and the continued insolvency of the highway trust fund.

with a purse step in developing the reauthorization in their proposals. given the national and long term impact in changes to the authorization, the administration must exert great leadership in this area. and i will look forward to seeing the products of your store. -- tour. we are producing our national debt and sustain economic growth that produces good jobs for the american people. our challenge is to produce a bill that is fiscally responsible and yet does not stifle the momentum created from the critically important infrastructure investment that was made last year and will be continued to be made this year. the 2011 budget proposal before us request a total of $78

billion, roughly. i hope that is the largest difference that we have. i think your testimony suggested $79 billion, but we will not quibble about $1 billion. it includes a modest increase of $2 billion, a 2.5% increase from fiscal year 2010. the department of transportation budget request a significant new initiative. i am very pleased to see the inclusion of $527 million for the livable communities initiatives, as you and secretary donovan testified last year that transportation and housing are inexorably linked but for too long have been treated in separate spheres. i look forward to hearing more about the department boss plans to improve coordination with

other government agencies. additionally, i am a jew to hear more details about the infrastructure finance fund, which appears -- i am interested to hear more details about the infrastructure finance fund. the demand is emphasized for moving passengers and freight among multiple transportation modes. within aviation, i am pleased that the budget request continues the administration's commitment to the air transportation system. this is vital to our efforts to accommodate growth in air traffic and reduce delays by increasing efficiency of the

management of our airspace. the department must remain vigilant when it comes to the safety mission. the last time i was fatalities dropped below 40,000 was in 1992, which was the last time we face serious economic crisis. however, as the country's economy started to recover, americans saw significant growth in vehicle miles traveled, and we also saw steady growth in the number of highway fatalities. the latest figures show that i would fatalities in 2008 were slightly above 37,000, the lowest level since 1961. americans are driving less because of our current economic downturn. when people travel more, the dot will remain focused on continued safety and improvement across

the network. and in particular, the recent transit tragedy's in washington and other parts of the country certainly underscore the need for federal oversight for minimum safety standards. mr. secretary, we all know that you are entering a tough budget year. the infrastructure needs are great. many airports require basic maintenance. many communities are in need of additional highway capacity, and we must continue to seek alternative solutions such as high-speed rail that have the potential to transform the transportation network. i express my sincere hope that under your leadership, we could focus on comprehensive approaches that reduce congestion and improve mobility a safe next atrek protection system. in the last year, you've taken

significant steps in that direction and i look forward to working with you in maintaining that progress for fiscal 2011. now before you had your chance, i will turn this over to my ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i look forward to the hearings this year. we have a lot of work to do. mr. secretary, welcome on this very snowy day. always a pleasure to see you here at the subcommittee. i am going to keep my remarks to a minimum because we have nearly two hours to cover the $79 billion you have requested for fiscal year 2011 and inquire about plans for the almost $76 billion that you received just a few weeks ago. fiscal year 2010 provide some of our tight -- some oversight,

plus about $48 billion received under the stimulus bill. that's $270 billion, or 2.2 $5 billion per minute. so i guess we ought to speak fast to do some oversight. last year we were facing bankruptcy in the high what -- highway trust fund, the lack of authorizations for the service and aviation programs, and a bleak economic employment sigil -- situation across the country. we have a disturbing level of national debt, which we are all concerned about. i think we are all hoping some of the issues were going to be resolved last year. our states do not need another short-term repaving "stimulus" bill, and these bills will allow states to do the planning and

the need for real highway construction and maintenance. i think we need a real bill that would be helpful to get the ball rolling, if the administration would put forth the bill on paper to bring forth to the congress. i don't think we need any more listening sessions. we've all heard from our constituents at home and in the states. so as we embark on a new budget cycle, we look forward to working with you and the department. i had the pleasure of meeting with a number of your administrators and assistant secretaries, which i appreciate very much. i think we will of a good dialogue and resolve many of these issues. because we have such a short time with you today and a lot of ground to cover, the chairman is working on a schedule on a number of different topics this year. i like to make sure that we can get a commitment from you that we have the appropriate person from the department as witnesses as we look is these

different proposals that are out there so that we can do our homework, and if we get that commitment from you, that is important. >> you have it. >> to do the type of oversight that we need. thank you very much, my good friend, secretary lahood. i yield back. >> mr. secretary, the floor is yours. user -- your complete written statement will go into the record but the floor's yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and am delighted to be joined by the assistant secretary for the budget, chris, who has worked very hard with: the input in our budget together. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2011 budget request. i've traveled to more than 30 states, 65 cities last year, and i have seen firsthand how much

our citizens depend on a reliable transportation system to access jobs, health care, and other essential services. the president's request total $79 billion, 8 $2 billion increase over fiscal year 2010. the resources will support the top transportation priorities for safety on the road in in the air, making the community level and sustainable, and modernizing our infrastructure. safety is our number one priority it be it. distracted driving kills thousands of americans every year, and it is critical we continue to lead the charge. we're seeking $50 million for the national highway traffic safety administration to develop incentive-based grant programs to encourage more states to pass laws prohibiting the unsafe use of phone and texting while driving through the president also asked for 66

additional personnel assigned to highway and vehicle safety issues in the area of transit safety. we're seeking $30 million to establish a new transit safety oversight program within the federal transit administration. this program will carry out a comprehensive safety oversight strategy by establishing common safety standards nationwide as envisioned in the administration's transit safety bill. this is an important step for for rail transit and industry which has suffered recent accidents in washington, d.c., boston, and san francisco. this is unacceptable and we must put strong remedies in place as soon as possible. i am urging congress to pass this legislation this year. transportation must not only opposite -- be safe but contributed little and sustainable communities. thank you for your leadership on this committee, and its focus on

livable communities over the years. the president promises to -- we're seeking $527 million which will help the spirit together we're helping states and local governments make smarter investments in their transportation, energy, and housing infrastructure with better outcome for our citizens. our investment in high-speed rail has generated tremendous excitement around the country. it will go a long way to enhance mobility in many community. we seek $1 billion to continue the $5 billion, five-year pledge that congress made in this budget. i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and the committee for your leadership on high-speed rail so far. $2.5 billion you provided the department for high-speed rail

finance, combined with the $8 million we announced last year, brings us close to ushering in a new era of passenger rail service in this country. we must find new ways to fund infrastructure. we will establish a new finance fund. these first-year funds would be used to invest in multi-modal transportation projects that are crosscutting, based on funding, which will get away from the siloam mentality that has long hindered our ability to spot respond to local and regional needs. the president proposes to continue current spending with $42.1 billion for highways. this request includes $150 million to enable washington, metropolitan areas of faucets, to develop much-needed improvements.

it includes $1 billion for nextgen, to modernize our traffic control system. that is a 32% increase over 2010 levels. these bonds are essential for transitioning from a ground- based radar surveillance system to more accurate satellite-based systems. this is already in use in the gulf of mexico. we look forward to our success in this area. we're seeking $30 million to make more long-term investment improvements in the u.s. merchant marine academy spirit this has been a goal of mine from the very beginning. i want to make the merchant marine academy and the others, we have wonderful students there, over 900. they work very hard. we want to make sure that the facilities are there for them to accomplish their academic goals. and we just completed a blue- ribbon report which will --

which we will be happy to give the committee which outlines the great details of the needs at the merchant academy, and the reason for the $34 million. a look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we will follow the procedure of each of us and turned adding five minutes in a round of questioning. we now have one hour and 40 minutes to be able to do it least a couple of bryant -- round's write down the line. with that, mr. secretary, your budget request includes, as i and you have mentioned, $527 million for the livable communities program. it increases transportation choice to integrate housing and land usage to transportation decisions. i am pleased to see that you were working closely with hud

and with epa, and others, i understand. maybe you can say more about that in this effort. but i am curious, how actually -- what is your concept of how the $527 million that you are asking for here, which is a new item, important item -- how that is to be deployed over the period of the fiscal year for which we are working? >> we had a working group within the three agencies, the staff that his work together to gather to develop plans for the use of this money. we've also traveled around the country and look at places -- look at places were governors and mayors have put together plans for not only livable

communities but livable neighborhoods. when i was in one congressman's area and saw that the kind of transportation system that goes through neighborhoods, from downtown los angeles, to connect people to grocery stores and drugstores and good housing -- i mean, that is the kind of approach that we're really looking at in terms of where people want to live. some people may want to like to work. when i was in portland, ore., i saw over 100 people biking to work that day. there are all forms of transportation that americans are looking for. we know that people are going to have cars. they're going to want to use their automobiles. but we also know that people want to get out of congestion. they want different forms of transportation, whether it is bus, light rail, walking, biking paths, and other opportunities. we're working with hud to make sure that the kind of housing a

availability -- i would say that when we were in dubuque, and saw what they were doing in the millworks area, where they decided to come in with 1500 new employees, the takeover and old downtown department store and relocate these 1500 employees, and so what the mayor and the community leaders decided to do is to take this old mill work area and completely redevelop it. they are going to need transit and forms of transportation, so that people can walk to work. these are the kind of innovative approaches combining our resources with hud in epa to create the kind of neighborhoods and communities where people can attract business, attract jobs, and create the kind of housing style and transportation forms that people really want. >> will this be a joint request

from the three departments who have a role in this initiative? >> i think we will get to is looking at things that have worked around the country, and then making opportunities available for communities to want to attract new jobs, attract new business, and really create different forms of transportation. >> i have to comment, mr. secretary, the bicyclist that you saw, there were probably 2000 in the portland area. you go to copenhagen, some here may have been in copenhagen very recently, i very carefully checked into how they were dealing with their complex transportation system, and that roughly 2 million metropolitan area, they have about half a

million coming in by bicycles than half a million by cars, and half a million by bus and subway. the bus and light rail system. there are ways that their systems were very well. >> let me just say, when i was in detroit on this trip, what congresswoman kilpatrick, we had a meeting with stakeholders. they wanted this idea of creating more options with transit and bus. we're going to work -- they just elected a new mayor there. again, what -- our livable community would fit in with these kinds of things that they are talking about there. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. one issue that has come before us -- the situation with toyota. i am curious as to what -- if you could tell us what the department is doing, are they equipped to investigate and find out what happened? is there a computer problem or do we know exactly? >> as a result of our investigation, we know that toyota has determined to fix for the pedal problem that has cost acceleration. we also had complaints about the electronics. we will be investigating the electronic components that are in these cars to make sure that they are safe, and if they are not, to have toyota began taking a look at that.

we are in discussions with tokyo that -- toyota every day about the safety issues with their automobiles. the reason that they are where they are at today is because of our investigations and at our meeting with them, and one in minister ever went to japan and met with the toyota officials and told them in no uncertain terms, you need to get onto this. we've got a problem. you need to fix it, find the fix. as a result of that meeting, that began to take seriously the fact that they had some serious problems. .

>> is there any recommendation from the department -- we are road from the midwest and know what it is like to get on a slick road. whenever you slip it in neutral, is there any kind of discussion about putting out some -- if someone gets into a situation where the pedal does stick, may be putting it in neutral and applying the brakes? >> i think that divens has been put out. i have seen that, where they have -- ice have seen where that divens has been recommended. >> then you might lose braking power. >> we need to fix the problem so people will not have to worry about disengaging the engine or slamming the brakes on and

putting it in neutral. that is really our goal. my advice is, if anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it, take it to the toyota dealer, because they believe they have the fix for it. >> i appreciate it, and we will follow-up with you on that. it is obviously a tremendous safety issue for a lot of folks. getting back to the reauthorization, the current service program expires about 10 legislative days from now. is there a plan for the administration for an extension? >> we continue to ask congress to pass an 18-month -- we continue to try to find the money for that. we believe that gives us time to work with congress.

the $48 million that we had starting a year ago has been well spent. it has put a lot of people to work, thousands of people. resurfacing roads and bridges. the president encouraged passing a jobs bill. it is not that the president does not want a robust, comprehensive jobs bill. it is trying to find money to pay for it. it is not that the president does not want a comprehensive, robust build. it is trying to find money to pay for it. the 18 months gives us time to do that, and as we finish out this portion of our economic recovery and if the congress passes and other jobs bill, we have an opportunity to continue to make progress on these projects around the country. >> i mentioned in my opening statement about, is the administration going to put a

bill forward to discuss that? i know last year there were discussions going on just about every day at the white house, this is on the people's agenda. there is a real urgency. obviously we are not there yet. >> we are working on some principles, and we will continue to work with the committee on these principles. we are not in much disagreement with what the chairman has written. >> apparently my time is up. thank you. >> we will proceed in the order that people, members of the subcommittee came into the hearing room. ñi>> let me add my words of welcome. we are all scrutinizing the

budget, and a couple of things caught my attention right away. the department's continued commitment to level committees and high-speed rail development. i appreciate your leadership in prioritizing these items, given the strange physical environment in which we are operating. as you well know, the high speed rail request builds on the finding that the congress provided in the recovery act. i was pleased to welcome our epa administrator, lisa jackson, to during, north carolina last week to announce a major recovery act awarded to north carolina for further work on the raleigh to charlotte lead of the high-speed rail corridor. we have been laying the groundwork for this for about 20 years, but it has been slow progress.

there has not been a substantial federal revenue stream, and we have now changed that. we feel like our own investments, our efforts in building up this route have been rewarded. we are well positioned now to make use of the federal funds to finish the job, to get the raleigh to charlotte corridor where it needs to be. 90 mile an hour speeds, something over just two hours of travel time between those two points. we look forward to making this a reality. let me turn to another item, and that is the new starts program. this is another area where you have a broad vision and perspective to the department. i was happy to see the announcement last week that the department would alter criteria the previous administration had applied to this program.

they will broaden the criteria used to it in by late new starts and transit projects. rather than emphasizing only the projects that would need a minimum requirement for decreased vehicle miles traveled, the department will instead put greater emphasis on other criteria. as one who argue that the prior policy was penny wise and pound foolish, i applaud you for taking this step. we are all aware that this new flexibility will still apply to a finite resource, and the competition will be quite intense, maybe even more intense. it is still very important for states and cities to understand these criteria and how they can address them. another is an effort within omb to measure and quantify

benefits such as environmental benefits. we need to make sure these measurements are as straightforward as possible and are related in the real world to the kind of development we want to incentivize and reward, and that we can undertake. i wonder if you could provide any further clarification this morning regarding these new criteria, the new measurements, and any other insight about the features you will be looking for and the projects that would fare best under these new criteria? what is the timeline for rulemaking on the new criteria? >> thank you for that. you have said about as well as i could see it. the common complaint i heard during the time was being considered by the senate was, like did take 12 years to get a new start? back and forth on the economic aspect of it, without looking at other criteria.

we made a decision that we need to look at the whole comprehensive set of issues, and there will be good competition for this. what will get is a lot of good, creative opportunities, and it will allow communities all over the country to compete for dollars for good projects, whether it is light rail or busts or inner city passenger rail, or whatever. and do it in a way that reflects the values of the community in terms of move ability, internal opportunities. -- environmental opportunities. we believe it will get a lot of cars off the road and get people out of their automobiles and create opportunities in communities. you restated what we are going to be looking at. we are looking at a lot of different criteria.

we think this enhances a lot of opportunities around the country and in a much shorter period time. it will not take 12 years. >> can you give some indication of how you are going to firm these up so the community's know what they are dealing with, and also the explicit rule making that he will undertake. what is the time line on that? >> we are getting started with it right now. we want to implement this very quickly so that when our budget is approved by congress, we can begin as quickly as we possibly can. you have outlined what the criteria are, the changes we have made, and it is all very accurate. it is just a matter of implementing it as quickly as possible. >> you are doing a great job.

just a couple of housekeeping matters. >> the statutory requirement that was in the bill is set february 17. it will probably be a day or two before that. >> i wanted thank you on behalf of the state of ohio for the money for the rail project. in 2008, i was one of the authors of the rail safety improvement act. in that act, it mandates positive train control, of which i am a big advocate. it also indicates there is a baseline for routes and mileage. it will be effective as of projecting out through december

31, 2015. despite being cognizant, there are using the 2008 map. it may lead to over 8,000 miles on which there is no passenger traffic, being subject to positive train control. my question is why? >> i will have to get back to you on that. i will ask our fra administrator to visit with you about this. i do not know. >> i would appreciate your looking into it. you indicated there would be $42 billion for surface transportation and $10 billion for transit. the highway trust fund does not

generate $52 billion, so i believe the budget proposal calls for borrowing are taking $20 billion from the general fund to fill the shortfall. further, it is my understanding that by taking that money it will also reduce the contract authority to $9.5 billion, which i know has to be disconcerting to mr. obey. just by editorial comment, the problem with the stimulus bill was that it had some great stuff, but over half the jobs which the administration is taking credit for creating came from 8% of the funding, the stuff under your control. the other 92% of the funding created the other half of the jobs. the jobs bill that is being considered by the senate, in my opinion, repeats the same

mistake. has 25% funding for things that will actually create jobs. 30% of the people are out of work, not 10%. with no disrespect to the leadership in california, there are all kinds of things that have nothing to do with job creation. when mr. oberstar was working last year feverishly to figure out a way to get this done, and despite a horrendous whipping effort by my leadership against the three month extension, they got 85 republicans to vote for the extension and 84 against. on the belief that we need 86- year plan, i have to tell you, even though i have the greatest respect for you and the president, keeking this can down the road to march 2011 is irresponsible. this has to be worked out.

it is not like suddenly some light bulb is going to go on after listening for 18 months. we will bring republicans to the table. i get that the democrats are scared because of some of the election results. they do not want to have a tax increase on top of the other things going on, but the fact is, it is time for leadership on this issue. it is irresponsible, in my opinion, to not deal with this. early in your tenure, you made some observations about vehicle miles traveled, and i got the feeling you were summoned down to the white house and stopped talking about that, but it has got to be done. if we did this in a bipartisan way, will you help us down there? >> the administration is for an 18-month extension. we are going to work with

congress on that, and we believe that is the best path forward. i can show you many places around the country where our economic recovery plan put a lot of people to work. a year ago, a lot of those people were on unemployment, did not have jobs, and throughout the summer and fall and even into the winter, they are continuing working on these projects and will continue for the next six months spirit >> despite my fondness for you, i respectfully disagree. when you look at the jobs created in the construction sector, they work make work. people worked for a few weeks, and then they were out of work again. the unemployment rate in the construction trades is 30%. >> you mentioned earlier your

visit to los angeles. i want to thank you for being there and for touring the metro goal line right whallight rail. it began one month earlier than scheduled. it adds to the record that it had of being completed on time and on budget without a loss of any time injury, even though the construction team amassed the safety record of more than 3 million work hours. we are very proud of that project and we look forward to continuing to work in a strong partnership with you as los angeles continues to expand its rail network. >> is really a great project. it is a great example. i know you all worked hard on it, and it is a magnificent project for the people. >> we worked very hard to make

sure that the community was involved in that project. the results were very positive. >> everywhere i go, i talk about that project, how you really put a lot of different neighborhoods together with affordable housing and stores. it is a magnificent project. >> in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill, it includes funding for the human intervention in motivation study, which is a comprehensive education and training program for alcohol and drug abuse prevention in the airline industry. as you know, it was originally a substance abuse prevention program only for pilots. however, in 2010, i was very pleased that at my request, congress increased the funding for this very critical health and safety program to include a

program directly for flight attendants. can you give us an update on the status of implementing these two programs? >> i expect to be releasing this very soon. it is being reviewed by my office and we are about ready to release it. >> do you have the idea, will it be this month? >> it will be soon. >> hopefully this month. last week the national transportation safety board held a hearing on the september 2008 metro link collision near los angeles in which 25 people were killed. at that hearing, the board adopted recommendations that asked the federal railroad administration to require the installation of cameras inside all controlling locomotive cabs in order to verify that train crews are operating in compliance with safety rules and

operating procedures. in responseñiçóñi to the recommendation, what are the it plans to promulgate these new u%i ;ors inside locomotives? ñiwhat resources do you expect they will need inñi order toñi y out these recommendations, and how will you ensure the safety and protect employees' privacy? >> we are looking at the ntsb ñirecommendations, and this goes to our number one goal at the department that safety is uppermost in our minds in all forms of transportation. we will take very seriously the recommendations. i hope congress will take very seriously the idea that we are pushing a transit safety billçó ñith@v wexdñi think is criticalr our agency. the law prohibits us from getting involved in these kinds of safety activities with

transit programs. we think we need that kind of çó-/ainvolvement. we are going to review the recommendations. that is the answer to the question. this will be a priority, and we will look for waysñi to make the systems safe. >> as you are well aware, hundreds of transportation agencies are facing an enormous deficit at this time. the shortfalls are often an operating funds, which leads to layoffs in transit agencies at the exact time we are trying to stem the loss of good paying jobs in america. in los angeles county, the metropolitan transportation authority is facing a shortfall of at least 200 victim million dollars in operating funds at the end of 2011. --ñi $250 million in operating

funds. what are your views on giving some flexibility to the use of federal funds, at least during this time of crisis, for operating costs for a transit agencies? is there something that you and the administration are willing to consider? >> when you all passed the omnibus, you included a provision that allows for up to 10% of the transit funds to be used for operating. i believe it is incumbent upon us to try and be helpful in these transit systems. one of the ways we can be helpful is to allow some of the funds to be used for operation. it is silly to provide funds to buy buses and then we do not have the people to driveq them r

to operate the system. it is a good use for some of the money to be used for operations. >> mr. carter. >> recently in my office, i have had a parade of people come in on projects that were part of the stimulus, were supposed to be shoveled ready and ready to go, and they bump up against in purnell studies. -- against environmental studies. half a dozen projects have come in and said they are ready to go, but they cannot get the environmental studies done. they have a deadline have to meet, but in reality, txdot

holds back, knowing they are overwhelmed. once you come out with an environmental study, the environmentalists take you to court. by the time you get to that process, you have to have another environmental study. is a circular process that is delaying the construction of highways in my part of the world, and from what i enter stan, around the country. if we could go to binding arbitration, rather than going to the courthouse to resolve these issues once the internal studies have been done -- once the environmental studies have been done -- instead of bumping

up constantly what some would call radical environmentalists. >> if you want to do that, you will have to do it legislative ly. one of the things we have to abide by, under the economic recovery, part of the legislation said we have to follow the regular guidelines for constructing roads or resurfacing. part of that is environmental impact statements, which many of the states had completed all of these projects, and obviously some did not. if you want to seek that kind of remedy, i suggestion is it will have to be done legislatively. >> i understand that. i ask for your comment on binding arbitration, if we could

get a statute written. i would like your comment on whether you think that is a good idea. >> i have not got enough about it, but i will think about it and give you my opinion on it. off the top of my head, i would rather not say something that later on i might not know enough about. let me think about it, and i will get back to you. >> i would like to have some other folks join me in sponsoring that type of legislation. most of the high-speed rail is at the 110 miles an hour maximum. >> if you look at some of the regions, we allocated money to 13 regions around the country. in some of those regions, and in some parts of california and

other regions, the trains will go faster than 110. is a matter of using some of the resources to fix up freight rail lines and amtrak lines. in some of these corridors, trains will be going faster than 110. >> but most of them you envision going on existing tracks? >> it is a collaboration between the freight rail and amtrak. some will build some new infrastructure, but the lion's share will use existing track. either through the phrase or through amtrak. >> is their money available for studies to be done? >> we will be announcing some study money very soon. that was not part of the $8 billion, but we do have some money that we will be making available very soon for studies.

>> recent study by a french real company says -- we are excited of trying to get that project going. ñi>>ñr we will be making thoseñy allocations very soon. >> i appreciate your comments. çóçóçó>> thank you for being he. secretary. çóçóñrthis may be public inform, but we have heard a lot lately about the commuterñiñr airlinesd their safety records and lack of ñiñimaintenance, violations of s

and regulations and that sort of thing. ñiñiiçó would beñr surprised ife not paid attention toçkiñi that. >> airline safetyñi isñi a very we pay a lot of attention to it every day. our faa administrator traveled the country and held safety summons talking about the training of pilots on commuter airlines, fatigue issues, pay issues. we made some very strong recommendations to the airlines on this, even before the ntsb report came out yesterday. we also are right in the middle of a rulemaking that will require airlines to do certain things in terms of training, in terms of pay, in terms of schedules, and those kinds of things. that is our job to pay attention to these things.

we are on this. we know that there is a great concern. i met with families on two different occasions, so i know the heartache they are going through. this was a very tragic accident, but since that time, we have taken a number of steps voluntarily to get on top of this. we will have a rule making very soon on this. >> thank you for coming to michigan several times. michigan is the epicenter of much of the economic stress we find ourselves in. a year ago you said at that table and talked about rebuilding communities and all

of that. in michigan, we have been very happy with the support we have gotten. the recent neighborhood stabilization program, 12 cities came together in michigan and are now doing all those things, thank you for that. the chairman mentioned the tiger grants earlier. what is the status of the tiger grants? ñjyñ the statutory requirement s our before february 17. we will be right close to that date, and we are working with the white house on the rollout of those. let me just say that your leadership in detroit, particularly, in the meetings that we had, and since then has been extraordinary. we will continue to work with you, your staff, the ñrírññiñcóñoc9ñiourçó @9m%qñin

detroit in the next few days meeting with theñi mayor and meeting with theñi mayor and others to figureñie1ñiiáá= u$eçó kind of things that you all want to do their. there will be some good activity and some good planning that will continue as a result of the meetings that we had when we revers last year. on or before the 17th, you will be hearing the news about the tiger grants. >> on christmas, a young fellow came with a bomb on a flight that was about to land in detroit. s. aviation manager, how close are we? that gentleman was not on any watch list. any update on that? >> those kind of activities are done more for a homeland security. our job at the faa is to work

with airports and airlines. tsa is under the jurisdiction of homeland security. flying is safe. i can tell you right now, there are thousands of people in the air all over this country and all over the world. flying is safe. are there things we do? there are things we need to do. we will look at the ntsb regulations, but we will also continue to stay on top of these things, because as we know safety is most important. thousands of people aboard airplanes every day and get to their destinations safely. that is something i want people to know. çóit is thanks to the fact that there are people looking out to their safety, whether it is through the airlines themselves. >> we appreciate hearing you say

that. the other part is a high-speed rail corridor. the $8 billion just recently, and nowçó)i6 the 1i!illion in e bill. how does that fair today as we the apple? >> now that we have announced the $8 billion, thanks to your committee, we have $2.5 billion in our appropriation bill. we hope to continue to work throughout the next several months to get that money out the door, particularly for those communities who felt that they were disadvantage because they did not get as much as they wantedçó;ñi.

in believe we will be announcing some study money that some states need to do b.g.e. immediately we will be announcing some study money. america is getting into the high-speed passenger rail business, and we take seriously the fact that this committee added $2.5 billion in the appropriations bill. the president is requesting $1 billion in his budget, so we are on our way. high-speed rail is coming to america. i have had two conversations with the governor of michigan, and we will work with them on this. >> you are way better in that chair at this year than last year. what a difference a year makes. ii commend you on your knowledge of transportation. >> thank you.

>> mr. rodriquez. >> let me thank you for coming to san antonio and for reaching out throughout the country. we understand what the situation is in terms of transportation and the lack of it, and the fact that we look at other forms of transportation. i know you heard about port santonio and the importance of freight coming into santonio. -- into san antonio. ñiyou got a chance to hear from our mayor as we planned for the future. i gather that is the same

situation throughout the country. we know we do not have sufficient resources out there. i am hoping there is an attempt by yourself and the administration as we look at -- if it happens or not on a new stimulus package, trying to put these resources and transportation and infrastructure, and i would ask you to comment on that, if possible. i also want you to comment on the importance of safety on rail. i have a lot of small communities where those trains are going through, and were used to have one train a week, now we have one or two today, and how critical it is to put the resources there, not only in rail safety and improvementsñi. >> safety is our number one priority in all modes of

transportation. we have paid a lotúo] attention to what happened in california with the train wreck. some people were killed on the metro system. that is the reason we put forth this transit safety bill that we are asking all of you to pass, so we can really get into the oversight opportunity on these transit systems around america, which we have been prohibited from doing by law. someone needs to provide the oversight. that is the reason we put forth this bill. we really encourage you -- that steps up and shows that safety is a priority on the rail and the positive train control rule that we have out is another example of how safety is a priority. the work we have done with our faa administrator stepping up,

with the recommendations he made immediately after the helicopter hit the small plane over the hudson. the two arab traffic controllers were dismissed. -- the to air-traffic controllers were dismissed. ñiwe are notñiçó going to sit ad on our hands waiting for someone else to do these things. when we see violations, we will step up and take action. we need your help on this transit safety bill. >> let me ask you to follow up. >> we still have to complete the work that was started with the first stimulus money. we are just about ready to allocate all that money. we were pleased that the president asked congress to pass

another jobs bill that would provide us a substantial dollars so we can continue the progress we are making in putting people to work. >> as we talk about port san antonio for air and rail, we have a good number of 18 winners coming through there from mexico, coming and going. the importance of making sure the safety requirements and the resources being put in that area -- can you elaborate on that? >> every drug that comes across is subject to very tough safety standards. our people are they are checking the trucks and making sure the drivers have the proper licenses and that the vehicles are safe, even though the mexican truck program was suspended. we still are doing our work and checking these trucks that come across the border.

but as it becomes important that we continue to do that. >> first of all, i want to thank you for the excellent job you are doing and thank you for the hospitality you have always extended to me. as you know, the 20 miles of light rail we constructed has been in operation for one year. it has been a success. writer ship has succeeded all expectations -- ridership has exceeded all expectations. today we are in preparation to extend the line east from the downtown area in phoenix and

south. we think the south expansion and the west expansion will get to the people who will need the transportation because of their socio-economic level. we continue to work with the f t eight who is a great partner with us, and we thank you for the cooperation. hopefully february 70 that will have a chance to call you and thank you for the people mover. that is high on our list for the tiger brands, and hopefully we can get that accomplished. people are working, and with the additional grant, we will add more employment. i wanted to talk to you about

the livable communities that two or three years ago the chairman started this initiative. it is one we all support. every community is different. in the phoenix metro area, will have 20 malls and even within the 20 miles, there are differences. -- 20 miles. i would ask that you provide money for the planng in studies -- there are areas that have been studied and looked at, but in order to make them livable, we need to provide incentive grants to communities so that the actual -- whether it be the small business that will create jobs along with affordable housing, it becomes a reality.

that type of bread, give it -- that type of grant given to the various authorities might be able to make this a reality. i know you will create the office, but hopefully as this is being created, and even within 1 light rail line, there are different economic situations and opportunities, so that there is flexibility. i will give you example. this occurred in phoenix. there was a large apartment complex, privately owned, that went belly up. working with hud, we were able to have the city of thinks they get up -- is city of phoenix take it up.

that particular import -- a portenapartment unit is less th1 mile from light rail. it is projects like that that we have an interest in that we are looking for, that flexibility so that we can maximize the investment, expressly when you have light rail existing that will create the jobs and create the businesses and also make livable communities, so i make that request. >> first of all, your comment about your a light rail. if you build it, they will come. that is a great example of it. i was there when that system got started, and i know it is exceeding the ridership that everyone thought. they are comfortable and affordable and deliver people

where they want to go. on the livable community issue, we will certainly work with your folks to try and do things that will make sense for the neighborhood or the community. >> because of the economic situation at the state in arizona and the metro areas, the use of federal money to continue -- is a great relief. if you can continue that, we would really appreciate it. >> i think that congress will continue it. it is important when it is hard to operate these transit systems.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i apologize that i could not be here earlier. i thoroughly enjoy the time we spent together last year in new york. for you to take that trouble in your first year to go up there was really commendable. you were very supportive of the long-term infrastructure improvements, and the administration was supportive of those programs. you know that the st. lawrence seaway is important not just to the region but to the maritime ports of the great lakes that depend on international commerce, including home town of

toledo, ohio. in the 10 year asset renewal program, i note is not funded at a level necessary to ensure completion of the projects along the seaway. the budget included an estimate for 2011 of 18.4 million to complete the renewal projects. the submission received earlier this week only includes $15.7 million for 20 projects. there appears to be a gap there, and i have three questions. why did the administration reduced this the way asset renewal program budget by almost $2.8 million, or 15%? 3will the reduction require additional years to be added to the program, and finally, what

reassurance is there that similar reductions will not be made to the program? >> my general comment is, when we were together, you know that we have a commitment with the st. lawrence seaway that is very important. i will let my budget assistant secretary answer the specifics, but i want you to know we are committed to the st. lawrence seaway. it is very important. >> the request is $15.6 million, which would complete the three- year structural rehabilitation of the bridge that goes over to canada as well as upgrading locks, which is what they tell us they need, and that can be

accomplished in fiscal year 2011. we continue assessing what they can actually spend, as their construction season is constrained up there because of the weather. mì(lc@&c+ is enough for their needs in 2011. >> the 2010 budgetñr included an estimate of $18.4 million for 25 projects. ñryour but jack -- your budget s only covering 20 projects. you are saying that the seaway authority has said that they do not need that additional funds in 2011? >> they told us that is the funding levels they need for the projects they can undertake in 2011. >> when the department of transportation submitted its

budget to omb, that is what the seaway administration asked for, or did omb cut it? >> i would have to review it. i do not recollect right now what the seaway authority asked for. >> i would be interested in any detail at your office could provide of which projects were anticipated in the prior budget and what has happened with your 2011 budget request. >> we will do that. >> again,ñliñr i am sure you mut have asked about high-speed rail in your questioning. the first projects that have been identified by the administration will really not go into the northern corridor of ohio. did you cover that, steve, in

your questions? >> i did not. >> where we really need the administration's help is in the higher speed corridor that would be pittsburg, cleveland, chicago, that has to go through indiana. for some reason, the state of indiana was not able to provide a match for planning in the northern part of indiana, and that has put on hold our ability to move that high-speed rail corridor. they claim they did not have the match. perhaps the secretary could get to the bottom of this. as above got, i want to work with the hoosiers -- as a buckeye.

the more traveled corridor will be the pittsburg, cleveland, toledo, a chicago court or, and we cannot do it without indiana coming to the table. >> i would say that indiana is interested in this project. we will be making some planning grant awards here very soon. we will be working with indiana on this. part of the dilemma in some of these states is the legislature was not able to pass the batch money. that was true in about three or four states around the country. it is not for a lack of leadership on the part of governor daniels, but maybe the timing was not right. we are on top of this. we know is important. i will also tell you that the reason ther three c's was funded

was because of the strong support from the governor and the ohio delegation. >> we will start the second round and continue in the same vein. mr. secretary, you had proposed here one of your big initiatives is the national infrastructure innovation and finance fund. this appears to be combining the proposal for last year's in destructor funds beat the infrastructure funds that was proposed at that time for $5 billion. we moved some of that money around to do a bunch of other things including the money for tiger that went into the 2010

bill and such. the high demand for the tiger program has clearly been established by the response to that set of funding opportunities. it certainly demonstrates the great need for investment in the infrastructure, especially projects moving passengers and freight, including ports and rail and transit air and highways. last year, we never got legislation for an infrastructure bank, and is not an authorized item. it is a major item. do you have a sense of when we will get a proposal for the infrastructure bank, as you have

proposed it this year? >> i am not going to refer to it as the knife, but i will offer to it as the infrastructure fund. we will be proposing authorization language very soon, and we envision this. when you see the authorization language, it is an opportunity to find all of projects including rail, ports, and maritime. >> does it plan to incorporate lessons you learn from the process of going through the tiger grant process?

the lessons learned in that process, or they already being included? >> we have received a lot of very creative proposals from all rahm country. we have seen there is a lot of creative thinking, a lot of creative juices flowing. we think that what we would propose in an authorization bill is a multi modal, taken from some of the creative things we have seen come in from around the country under tighter. -- under tigher. >> when people respond to a notice of funding availability, it depends -- the responses you get depend on the capacity on

the part of the folks who are making those applications. some have very great needs and not very great capacity. others have a great deal of capacity to put forward and maybe have even stronger needs if they have that capacity. the heavy thought about how one takes into account that there are places that have great need but not so much in the way of capacity to accomplish that, to help them? >> we have travelled around the country and we have relationships with enough of these stakeholders to know who these people are and what their capacity as, and how they can really utilize the money. our people work with stakeholders day in and day out. we have developed a lot of relationships as a result of tighter, and the proposals we

have received -- our people are pretty good at making judgments about these. >> are we alsoñi being good at helping them with technical çóassistanceçó? >> absolutely. itçóñr is one of the waysñi weñe broken down the silos. we have transit people working with real people and working with highway people. these proposals we have receivedñi really have allowed s to get all our people working ñrtogether, reviewing these and talkingñr about then and tryingo get some good technical assistance to people. . .

you have to go on a cash management plan at that point. by august 20, we go in the negative. i assume that there will need to be another infusion of general funds into the trust fund to keep that operational. i would like to know how much will you need. last year in your testimony that what was going to be asked for was going to be offset. that was an assurance we were given. it didn't happen.

how much will we need to make up the difference in the trust fund and what do we tell our states when they can't plan more than six months down the road? that's a problem. there is no long-term planning because there is no certainty out there for the states today. >> you want to give them the figures, chris. i'm going to have chris give you the figures and i'll tell you the other part. >> the highway trust fund will need $9 million to stay fiscal, $8 million for highways and $1 million is for mass transit. we provide the congress weekly updates of the status. as we get closer to the summer, we'll have a more precise estimate of what that figure is. our highway people are in communication with the states all the time in terms of what their plans are.

so it's not as if we're not providing technical assistance and it's not as if they don't know at some point congress is going to pass an authorization bill, a transportation bill. there are no secrets in these states about what they want to do. and we're talking to them and we're working with them and some of the stimulus money has been used to fund things that they would have maybe ordinarily done under an authorization. >> i think the problem is they don't know -- they probably believe that we'll keep the commitment we have at the current baseline levels, but the fact of the matter is, if we're talking about a $4 million or $5 million to increase, they cannot plan for it today. the money is not authorized. there is no plan. i have the table of how we are

going to go into the negative and $8 billion for highways, another billion for mass transit coming out of the general funds which we're going to have to borrow to do that. we have all the requests here from everybody for more and more of these projects. i mean, we're at a point where there has to be some certainty out there and i think you would be able to -- it's not just the states. local communities would be able to plan if in fact we had the certainty. i don't see any effort really to do that. i mean we're kicking a ball down the field again. i don't know if there is a question in that, ray. >> it doesn't sound like it. but it's very, very frustrating to the people that come into my office every day and want to know what's going on. i haven't seen anything moving. last year when i started talking about that and mentioned that i didn't see any

reauthorization done for last fiscal year or this fiscal year or going into next year and if you heard the thud, that was jim oberstar falling down outside. how can we move the ball? tell us. i don't see the administration coming forward with,(lan. >> the president has asked congress for an 18-month extension in order to -- >> starting when? >> starting with when we requested it, i don't know, maybe six months ago. it was probably, i don't know, i can get you the date, but it was probably six months ago, whenever we asked for it. we're not going to try and start the clock today. we're going to start it from when we made the request. >> and my concern is you're going to start a new congress in march of 2011, that will be

a new congress and lord knows what's going to happen. that really kicks it probably another year down the road. that's the problem. and the states are just pulling their hair out. the local communities, there is no certainty, it's just very frustrating to a lot of us who would like to see, who have the great demands for these projects and to be able to plan long-term and you simply can't do it. >> well, having been in the seat that you're all in, if you can figure out $400 billion to $500 billion how to pay for it, we'll work with you on that, but where are we going to find $400 billion to $500 billion? >> that's why we're looking for your suggestions, also. it's got to come from both sides. >> i think the administration actually should have some proposals also. >> i think the point is made. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. >> mr. rodriguez. >> thank you very much and once again, mr. secretary, thank you. i have also a great -- probably have one of the biggest rural districts in the nation in west texas and we have a good number of small airport relievers that provide resources and we're trying to enhance it in that area. i would ask in terms of some comments and in terms of the importance of those reliever airports throughout the community and including in for example, in san antonio, we have a small one that provides 150,000 in terms of the resources that are allocated in that area for you to comment on them. >> sure. those airports are very important and we have a program that can be helpful to some of the smaller airports and that program will continue.

they're an important part of it and we know with the downturn in the economy, the use of those airports like every airport around the country has been diminished somewhat. but we will continue to work with the smaller airports and do what we can to be helpful. >> we have asked -- well, we have been looking at moves towards the new technology on airports. where are we at on that? >> well, we have a significant request in our budget that the president sent up for next -generation technology. we just implemented a next-jen system in the gulf of mexico. i'll be happy to have someone come up from the f.a.a. and brief you on our plan for next-generation technology. we want it implemented. we're working with the airlines. it's going to be very costly for the airlines -- you can put

it in the airports, but then the airplanes have to have it, too. we're trying to really mesh the two of these together and so we have had lots of discussions with airlines about this and how they're going to pay for it and so forth. but we think we have an opportunity to really get the next-generation technology sooner than most people think. >> i also wanted to follow up on -- i know there has been a great deal of dialogue and collaboration, and i want to congratulate ouren that, regarding the livable and sustainable community initiatives. would you elaborate on the mechanics of how this initiative will work and how communities will be able to get access to these resources? >> if our budget is approved, we have shared resources between h.u.d. and e.p.a. and the department of transportation in a program called livable communities. we have a working group between the agencies that have been

working over the last year to really begin once the budget is approved, to really begin to work with communities. we know there are neighborhoods around the country, communities around the country that want to do more with light rail, with transit, with street cars, with walking paths, with biking paths and all of these fit into the definition of livable communities. so once our budget is approved, we would be off to the races with these communities and neighborhoods in trying to help them implement the kind of dreams that they have for other ways to get around the communities and neighborhoods other than automobiles. >> i gather then there will be noticed out later on in the near future how to go about -- >> this is a part of our budget. once our budget is approved, we have relationships, again, with these folks around the country that we have been out and visiting. they have heard about this program. we have talked about it for a year and once everything is signed, sealed, and delivered

as far as the money, then we'll start making -- accepting proposals. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr.çóçó chairman. mrniçó secretary, i want toñi commendñi you for the fundñr formerly known as knifed and come up with a cautionary. i think it's agreat idea in the future. we have proposed, it was $17.5 for projects of regional and national significance and the footprint and requirement was that each project had to be half a billion dollars or more. we knew we might not get one. there are 30 or 35 projects around the country that were going to be built and real projects. in ohio, the interbelt in cleveland, the bridge that connects ohio to kentucky, all of those are $1 billion projects.

a funny thing happened on the way to the regional project fund. it went over to the other body and they pirated it, they took $200 billion here and there, $50 billion here and there. just to take the one that i'm interested in, the interbelt, it's a $1 billion project. i would hope that and i know that given your integrity that you will protect the integrity of this fund and make sure that it really builds america and doesn't satisfy a bunch of parochial needs. i am interested in the budget submission and the reason behind the proposed termination of the fund of $161 million. i'll tell you what concerns me. it's a dirty word around here, it's an earmark, but that fund is congressionally-directed spending. so i consider it to be a direct slap at the united states congress and the appropriations

committee and it will leave one bunch in town that is able to direct spending to specific areas and that's the administration. i wish it would reconsider that. if you have a comment about that -- >> do you know about that? >> go ahead and explain that, yeah. >> i'll let chris give you the bad news on this. >> those are the congressionally-directed projects in the appropriations bill and we don't terminate them. we're not rescinding them. we don't propose any new funding for that in 2011. >> so you continue the program but no money? i got it. we'll deal with that during the appropriations part. i don't want to be a one-note johnny, mr. secretary, but again, the figures 30% unemployment among civil engineers, the sand and gravel guys, the asphalt people, the

concrete people, the laborer, the operating engineer and according to g.a.o., almost half of the stimulus funds that went through your department that did in fact create jobs went for repaving projects as i mentioned earlier. in ohio, the paper reported that the stimulus bill created or saved 13,000 jobs. of those 13,000 jobs, 11,000 were teachers. i like teachers. i think it's great, but that's not stimulating the economy. in ohio, it's pretty well publicized that over $1 million was spent on signs, not saying slow down construction zones saying that this project was paid for by the recovery act. so the signmakers are fully employed in ohio, but the people that build the highways are not. and it was further a requirement that the sign hadçó to be up before you could begin to put a shovel in the ground which seemed a little odd to me as well. we have a problem with unemployment, a job solved

that. the president talks a lot about health care. a job can solve that for a family. retirement security, a job can solve that. foreclosure problems, people losing their houses, a job can save that. i just have to tell you that i heard what you said and there are proposals, mr. oberstar has a proposal. we can find the money to fully fund, but it's going to take some tough choices. i'll be a bipartisan barber. this started with president bush. when he said we only had $256 billion over six years, that was crazy. because he wouldn't recognize and his bean counters wouldn't recognize that we had to enhance the revenue to the highway trust fund. it would have taken a nickel then. now it takes a dime. i get people don't want to vote for a tax increase or use the bonding authority of the united states, but if this administration continues to pump out stimulus bills that fund things like treatment for

sexually-transmitted diseases rather than dispute putting the operating engineers to work, shame on you. if the congress can't get a bill that gets the bill down, shame on us. i really hope, i went to mr. emmanuel after the state of the union address and said i'm ready to kick this can down the road until 2011 as a political decision, it's not an infrastructure decision that will rebuild america. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're going to stick closely to let the secretary get finished here and we're going to hold to the five minutes now quite closely ok. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the stimulus package did save a lot of teachers' jobs and school boards and school

districts are very thankful and cities have gotten some firemen and some policemen that stayed on the job and other people are thankful and the district i represent, jobs went for infrastructure and people are working. i was only saddened to say there was not a bipartisan bill, not because of my choice, but because of people that either felt it didn't go far enough, which may have been my colleagues reason for not voting for it or because they didn't want to spend the money. the reality is we have made attempts to create employment and thank god that people have stayed in a job and will continue to do it. i support infrastructure development and i will join the congressman. we have a friendly relationship that there is water treatment plants and bridges and all that and i agree with it. hopefully in a bipartisan

manner, he and i and others can work to get a jobs bill that creates more infrastructure but it's greatly needed. that is the reality today and for the future we need to work together. i guess both of us need to quit looking at the next re-election and look to the nextçó generati as i heard it in the state of the union. we're willing to do that. and i want to thank you for the emphasis on the budget on safety. i have to tell you that sometimes we overlook it. the whole taxing issue, the dis-- texting issue, the distraction for drivers is very important. adds people are driving and wanting to text and not text, but the whole issue of how people are not paying attention to their driving, it's very important. the issue i have -- it's not an issue, it's just a question,

with next-gen. i have to tell you that three years ago i was greatly disappointed because i saw a lot of disarray and confusion in how to get it going and it seemed like things weren't happening because some agencies weren't involved and probable the priority was not there. today you're telling me that there is a project over the gulf of mexico and it's becoming a reality. i can wait for the administrator for more specifics, but overall, is it underbudget and on-time? i guess that's my main concern because we can't spread it out like we have other programs dealing with navigation in the sky, so this is very important, but it's very expensive and so underbudget and on-time is a very big concern to me. >> well, we have a good plan. we have some very good resources in the budget that's

being proposed to all of you. we have people that think about this every day. as i said, we have had lots of discussions with the airlines last year about how they can pay for what they need to implement in the planes. we're pretty far along on this and we think we will have it sooner rather than later and there is a commitment from congress. there is a commitment from the industry and this is, if not the top priority, which is safety, it's right up there for us to implement this. and the white house is behind us on this also. >> i'm glad to hear that the airlines are involved in this. >> absolutely. >> the other is air traffic controllers. i remember sitting here in heargs when i was trying to discuss the screen and the mouse so hopefully they're involved. the other qui i have -- and i support you for the high-speed rail.

one of the disappointments i guess that i heard this morning is that they still will be using lines accommodating most hearings i sat through here, if you try to accommodate three partners or two partners, it's always that you're not going to have that speed that you're looking for above, even to get to 90 is quite a challenge. and so i just i hope you can resolve that issue. itçóñriñ; +kwú) a problem in current infrastructure, especially the rails. >> thank you. >> thank you, i'll try to get through this in five minutes, mr. chairman. first of all, mr. secretary, the largest transportation project in ohio1o

threes into the great lakes, interstate i-280 in the regions that i represent. shortly we are going to be solar powering the main pylon which looks like a large roman candle and i believe it will be the first such solar-powered major lighting effort in the united states of america. we would like to invite you out to help on this landmark occasion. >> thank you. thanks for your leadershipship in the community. >> thank you, it's taken many, many years. thank you for your openness to that. number two, i have two quick questions. one is the administration is about to make $1.5 billion in tiger grants funded through the recovery bill. and there is an additional $600 million that we provided in the regular budget in the f.y. 10 bill. do you anticipate recompeting the tiger grants for the new funding, the extra funding, or are you in the next two weeks going to roll out an announcement that spends the

entire $2.1 billion. the second part of my question is -- if ajo project scored hi in the initial round of scoring but is not funded, are you going to make those projects compete again? >> we're stat torl to make announcementsñv=9át $1.5 billion by february 17, which we will do. and then we will -- there will beñi competition for the initially -- additional money. i take your point on programs where we didn't have enough money but they're valuable programs or projects, you know, i'll get back to you on whether they can compete those funds. >> thank you. i will state the record and provide more detail that the top project in our regions which was the modernization of our shipyard was not able to be funded. and i talked with the secretary and you have been great in trying to explain what happened. it was a top priority of our

city, county, myself, our governor, everybody else but here is what we ran into. in the recovery act, there is a section, 601 a 8 that defines project if located within the bound "desperate housewives" a port terminal to include surface transportation, infrastructure modifications that are necessary to facilitate direct intermodel interchange transfer access into and out of the port. our state thought that a port project would be eligible, our shipyard would be eligible. what happened is once it got over to d.o.t., it then got administered by the highway administration. that is where we ran into difficulty. we will explain that, but we're hoping that in the new jobs bill, assuming the senate passes it, that if a project, our state d.o.t. director was in here yesterday and if a project is eligible for any d.o.t. program, it should be

eligible for the recovery jobs program. we ought to find out a way to do that and not have any stove pipe inside of d.o.t. tell us we can't do it. it seems there is a conflict in the law. we will try to clarify to the best of our ability, we wanted to make you aware of it. >> thank you. >> the final question that i have is just a request for information and that is are there any programs that usdot, authorities or funding to help urban communities, urban counties consolidate all of their public vehicle fleet maintenance and management to go green? is there anything in the law, is there anything in what you're doing over there because i think this would save us a great deal of money because we have state fleets, city fleets, county fleets and a transit authority fleets. everyone has their own garage. every garage leaks energy. the vehicles are not that

green. so i'm looking for any type of incentive program or demonstration program that might exist through d.o.t. that we might be able to look in, if it does not exist, create an authority to have it it exist. >> we'll get back to you on that. >> i thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. lay them for your -- latham for your final round. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, there are many states in the country that don't have large transit system like iowa. in our case we put about $60 million a year into the mass transit account with the gas taxes that we pay. we get back about $35 million in the formula. we still have tremendous needs as far as new equipment certainly as far as the systems we have. is the department doing anything to address the funding inequities for the smaller transit systems and like in the

state of iowa? >> well, we're -- our transit administrator is trying to work with states like iowa and why don't i get back to you with some of the specifics that he's been doing. >> ok. >> i'll have him come up and meet with you. >> great, thank you. as you know in the f.y. 2010 omnibus, there was a provision in there that authorized the use of heavy six-axle trucks on interstates. highways in maine and vermont, the committee didn't really have a chance to have a hearing or to really debate anything about that. and there is a lot of interest from other states obviously for the same types of provisions. i just wonder what your thoughts are on a country-wide pilot program that would allow states to increase the

allowable weight on the interstate and would you be in favor of considering such a pilot? >> our administrator for truck safety is working on this and we -- i'll get back to you with the specifics on what we're working on. >> ok. obviously, we have -- >> this is a very, very controversial hot topic and i'll, either i'll come up and brief you. >> let's get into one that is real easy. what about mexican trucks? mr. rodriguez -- >> we're working with the white house on a proposal. >> i know, we have had discussions between the two of us that this is, with nafta, it's a commitment that we made with nafta and to make sure that it has to be done in a very safe way, obviously. >> right. >> you're going to get back to

me again? >> no, i'm just going to tell you we're working with the white house on a proposal. once we have that, i'll be happy to come up and show it to you. >> is there any time line you're looking at? >> soon. >> soon? ok. in the interests of time, we have votes on the floor, so i will give back my time and i appreciate that, thank you, ray. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for being with us. i have a couple of just very quickies and we will close. if when we get around to passing this bill sometime later, some months later in the process, if it's in regular order, a limited number of months, and the -- if the economy looks like there is need, what would your thought being going above the 10% that has been allowed, several people have expressed an

interest of going above the 10% allowance for capital funds that go out by formula going to a higher percentage? >> i think that if you all decide to get into that kind of debate, we'll talk with you about it. i think you know where we stand on the principal of doing it and so if you all decided to do something else, we'll talk with you about it. >> the other thing that i hear several people mentioned it at one point or another is the steam lining of the processes. it is clearly the processes where one does planning and environmental work and design and finally at some point some 10 or 12 years later get to a construction on a project that people are concerned about. does the administration have any kind of preparatory work to

work directly with the t and i, that's an authorizing issue. we have to somehow streamline these processes for major capital programs. >> yeah, i mean we talked to the -- i talk to the chairman all the time and also we're working with her staff and so we'll continue to do that. >> i thank you for that. i just also want to thank you very much for the rail money out of the recent announcement a couple week ago announcement that involved connecticut and massachusetts and vermont in the connecticut river valley. that's a very valuable program that i think can, much of it can be delivered within certainly 2010 and 2011 and a large portion of the work will be done during this calderon

year -- calendar year that we are in. a good deal of time will be saved in the trip for people that are using that amtrak corridor. we greatly appreciate. >> thkts for your leadership in the area and the regions -- thanks for your leadership in the area and the region. >> a lot of members have said that you have come to your states. i haven't been with you in iowa and you haven't been with the chairman in massachusetts. we would invite you. >> i have been to iowa but i wasn't to your district. >> what? you didn't call? >> i spent a half a day in dubuque and that's when i learned about the new i.b.m. employees and the mill works area. whenever i'm invited, mr. latham, i will be in your district. whenever i'm invited, mr. olver, i'll be in your district. when mr. rodriguez invited me to san antonio, i came.

>> we'll see. finally, i just want to thank you for your very strong leadership in this field and really if there is a little bit of testiness that are coming from members who have great concerns, not with you, not in any kind of a personal way i am quite certain and i want to thank you for the steady communication with the subcommittee. it's very much appreciated. >> one of the values i bring to this job is i sat in those chairs. i know that when the congressman speaks, he speaks with great authority and great sincerity and i wouldn't question his motives at all. i know there is a great deal of frustration being expressed and so we have our job to do and we will continue to work with all of you on the way forward here. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> this hearing is adjourned.

>> you have been watching transportation secretary ray lahood on the fiscal year budget request. after the hearing, secretary lahood clarified his comments on the toyota recall saying car owners affected should not stop driving all together, but should bring their vehicles in for repairs. here is a look at what the obama administration has requested for transportation in their $3.8 trillion annual budget. in fiscal 2011, it calls for $79.2 billion in transportation spending, a 1% increase, $56.4 billion of that is mandatory

spending. and this budget request would create a fund for large transportation projects including funding for high-speed trains and improvements to the air traffic control system. >> coming up next on c-span, president obama's meeting with senate democrats, treasury secretary tim geithner testifying on capitol hill and a pentagon task force discusses hire recommendations for preventing sexual assaults in the military. >> cable television provider comcast has reached a deal with g.e. to take over media conglomerate nbc universal. the deal awaits federal regulatory approval. tomorrow a subcommittee looks at the merger and its potential effects on the media

marketplace. we'll have live coverage beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> watch c-span's "washington journal" for conversation, comments, and our calls about the day's public affairs. live daily from 7:00 to 10:00 eastern. c-span covering washington like no other. >> dan feedman of national journal's congress daily, senate democrats met with president obama at the museum. how did their question and answer session with the president go? >> it was pretty interesting. they were following in the footsteps of the house republicans which is not something senate democrats usually do. they televised as you guys know, the question and answer session and that probably made it quite different than it would have been had it not been televised. it was obviously aimed at television audiences. and obama basically gave them a pep talk. we can pass health care this

year. we can pass the financial regulatory reform bill. he took some shots at republicans for obstruction and for what he said was a record number of filibusters and he took questions then from senators and interestingly, all of the senators, almost all of the senators who were given a chance to ask a question by senate majority harry reid are expected to be in tough races in november. clearly he was trying to give them a chance on national television to say, hey, i asked the president this question and some of those particularly were questioned by blanch lincoln from arkansas were tough conviction. senator specter from pennsylvania asked about chinese export law or law that effects chinese export. it gave them a chance to show their constituents that they're asking questions they may be interested in. >> the senate democrats have been working behind the scenes on a jobs package. what's in that bill that they're crafting? >> there are going to be a whole lot of provisions in the

jobs bill. senator reid said yesterday that he is hoping to get an extension of surface transportation programs and that would be sort of a highway bill included in the jobs package. so that's infrastructure spending which is something the democrats have talked a lot about. they're talking about tax incentives for small businesses, things like higher expensing limits, allowing them to write off the cost of equipment more quickly. reid said potentially there is going to be a so-called cash for caulkers incentive which would be similarñi to the cash for clunkers bill. instead of paying for people to buy new cars or giving a credit for buying new cars, people would insulate their home better with the idea that would save energy and get some money out in the economy. there is a whole lot of other provisions that may or may not be included. >> what is the leadership's timetable for getting the bill to the senate floor? >> they're hoping to start

action next week. they are hoping probably, although not guaranteeing, because it seems like an uphill fight to get it passed before the recess for presidents' day, that is complicated by the fact that max baucus as we reported several weeks ago has said that he wants to mark up the jobs bill. so that means they had been hoping to bring it straight to the floor and they're still hoping to figure out a way to do that. the fact that the finance committee is going to have a mark-up which is going to take quite a while complicates that process. >> thank you. >> thank you. now here is president obama at that meeting today with senate democrats. from the museum in washington, d.c., this is an hour 20 minutes. [applause]

>> if i could get everyone's attention. i want to talk just for a brief minute about where we were privatizing social security, a couple wars that are unpaid for, trillions of dollars in tax cuts unpaid for. let's talk about not where we were, but where we are and i want to talk about to each of

you some of the things we have done to establish where we are. the first thing we passed with this new president was a lands bill, not very sexy sounding, but we had reviews, editorials all over the country, significant legislation, the most significant environmental legislation in more than a queafert a century. more than 2 million acres of wilderness, a thousand miles of wild and scenic rivers, 5,000 miles of trails and many other things affecting all 50 states without exception. lily ledbetter came to see me this week with a great smile and the tremendous energy. we passed the lily ledbetter legislation equalizing pay. [applause] >> we advanced a children's health insurance program now

covering more than 14 million children that can go to the doctor. [applause] >> something that poxle don't focus on very much, but it was one of my favorite things i the national service legislation allowing people to be involved in their community, receive a small stipend for doing that, and then have help to go to college. we did that. [applause] >> we did something with mortgage fraud. there are so many problems in housing. they would be so exacerbated had we not moved in and passed the laws to stop people from manipulating people who are in big, big trouble. credit cards, we talked a lot about what was happening with credit cards, but we did something about it. now exorbitant fees cannot charged and the fees no longer exist. as we go home, people may not realize the things we did, but

so important as it relates to credit in america today. tobacco, tobacco. both my parents smoked. all my family smoked. all started when they were kids, no longer. now the federal drug administration regulates tobacco, pretty good, we have been trying to do that for 60 years. [applause] >> economic recovery, job preservation, job creation, the story has yet to be told on that because about 60% of the money is still not out among the people of our country. health care. we did remarkable things on health care and we have so much more to do. i want to say to each of you senators, you democratic senators from maine to new hampshire to minnesota to louisiana and middle of this country, the dakotas and nebraska, how hard we worked together. there have been some good teams in the history of this country. most of them are noted for the

athletic teams. one of the greatest teams in the history of this country is this democratic team that you're a part of and i appreciate it very much. [applause] >> so now where are we going? well, we got a lot to do. the economy, we got jobs, energy, financial reform, health care, and we're going to move forward. why? because it's good politics and good for the country. behind all this that i talked about is the man from hawaii, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause]ñi >> thank you, guys. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. everybody please have mr seat. thank you. listen, you guys had to listen to me at the state of the union -- or at least pretend to listen to me. so i'll try to keep it

relatively brief, some opening remarks and then open it up for questions. first of all, i just want to thank harry reid. [applause] i recently said he's got one of the toughest jobs in washington -- managing an institution that by its very nature is, let's face it, you guys are a little difficult to manage. i've been a part of this caucus. i really don't think anybody could have done a better job under more trying circumstances than harry reid. and i think he deserves a huge round of applause . [applause] now, let me start by saying we always knew this was going to be a difficult year to govern -- an extraordinarily difficult year to govern. we began 2009 with a financial system on the brink of collapse, an economy bleeding nearly 700,000 jobs per month,

a $1.3 trillion deficit, and two wars that were costly in every sense of the word. we knew that solutions wouldn't come easily or come quickly. we knew that the right decisions would be tough and sometimes they would be unpopular. and we knew that we might have to make them sometimes without any help from our friends on the other side of the aisle. but we made those decisions. we led. those actions prevented another great depression. they broke the back of a severe recession. the economy that was shrinking by 6 percent a year ago is now growing at nearly 6 percent one year later. [applause] that's because of the work that you did. harry listed some of the work that you did on behalf of the american people, even under these difficult circumstances. extending health insurance to 4 million children, protecting consumers from getting ripped

off by their credit card companies and kids being targeted by big tobacco. some things that weren't noted or didn't get a lot of attention. you reformed defense spending by eliminating waste and saved taxpayers billions while keeping us safe at the same time. you gave billions of dollars of tax relief to small businesses and 95 percent of working families here in america. you did all this despite facing enormous procedural obstacles that are unprecedented. you may have looked at these statistics. you had to cast more votes to break filibusters last year than in the entire 1950s and 1960's combined. that's 20 years of obstruction packed into just one. but you didn't let it stop you. as harry mentioned, though, our mission is far from accomplished, because while the worst of the storm has passed, far too many americans are still hurting in its wake.

i know you've seen it back home in the shuttered businesses, the foreclosed homes. you have heard it from constituents who are desperate for work. and wqó+e seen it in the burdens that families have been grappling with long since this recession hit, issues that we have been talking about now for years, the burden of working longer and harder for less, of being able to save enough to retire or help kids with college expenses. the extraordinarily riding costs of health care.ñiñr those problems haven't goneñi away. it's still our responsibility all that's changed in the last two weeks is that our party has gone from having the largest senate majority in a generation to the second largest senate majority in a generation. and we've got to remember that. there was apparently a headline after the massachusetts election. the village voice announced that republicans win a 41-59

majority. [laughter] it's worth thinking about. we still have to lead. saving and creating jobs have to continue to be our focus in 2010. last year, we gave small business -- the engines of job creation -- tax relief, and expanded lending through the s.b.a. i don't know if you are aware that s.b.a. loans have gone up 70%, 80%, which, by the way, indicates the degree to which there is still huge demand among small businesses. some of the banks are saying, well, we're not lending because there's not as much demand out there. there are a lot of small businesses that are hungry for loans out there right now. and we've made progress but they're still struggling. so i've proposed additional ideas to help small businesses start up and hire, to raise wages and expand, and to get the credit they need to stay afloat. you've made some of these same proposals, as well.

we should put them into action without delay. [applause] we've invested in america's infrastructure, rebuilding roads and bridges, and ports and railways, and putting people to work strengthening our communities and our country. and as you know, the recovery act was designed so that a lot of that work is going to be taking place this year, not just last year. many of the projects you funded come online in the next six months. but we can do more, and we should do so without delay. through the investments you made in clean energy startups, we've not only helped put americans to work, we're on track to double our nation's capacity to generate renewable energy over the next few years. i've proposed additional tax credits that will promote private sector hiring and energy conservation. we should do that without delay. i think ideas like this should be pretty palatable to the other party.

they seem pretty common sense, pretty centrist. we should be able to hear their ideas as well. that's why i spoke to the republican caucus last friday. i think it was to the country's benefit that we had an open and frank discussion about the challenges facing the american people and our ideas to solve them. [applause] i got to admit, i had a little fun at that caucus. now, obviously, on some issues, we didn't agree. but on some, we did. and i'm reminded that when it came to health insurance reform in particular, i sought out and supported republican ideas from the start -- so did you. max baucus -- where's max? i think he can testify to spending a little time listening to republican ideas. so can chris dodd and tom harkin. you considered hundreds of republican amendments, and incorporated many of their ideas into the legislation that passed the senate.

so when i start hearing that we should accept republican ideas, let's be clear -- we have. what hasn't happened is the other side accepting our ideas. and i told them, i want to work together when we can, and i meant it. i believe that's the best way to get things done for the american people. but i also made it clear that we'll call them out when they say they want to work with us and we extend a hand and get a fist in return. last week, for example, you put up for a vote a bill i supported -- conrad-gregg fiscal commission. we were sure this was going to be bipartisan, only to see seven republicans who co-sponsored the idea in the first place suddenly decide to vote against it. now, i'm open to honest differences of opinion. but what i'm not open to is changing positions solely because it's good short-term

politics. and what i'm not open to is a decision to stay on the sidelines and then assign blame. i've little patience for the kinds of political calculation that says the cost of blocking everything is less than the cost of passing nothing. that basically says, if you lose, i win. that's been the politics in washington for too long, and the problem is it leaves the american people out of the equation. so i would just suggest to this caucus, if anybody is searching for a lesson from massachusetts, i promise you the answer is not to do nothing. the american people are out of patience with business as usual. they're fed up with a washington that has become so absorbed with who's up and who's down that we've lost sight of how they're doing. they want us to start worrying less about keeping our jobs and more about helping them keep their jobs. and they want to see their business done in an open and transparent way.

when we took back the senate in 2007, we did so in part because we made a case that we'd be better on ethics and transparency. and we backed that up by passing the most sweeping ethics reforms since watergate and by beginning to address earmark abuse. we should be proud of those accomplishments. but if we're going to erase that deficit of trust that i mentioned at the state of the union, we're still going to have to do more. that's why i've proposed that we work together to make all earmark requests public, on one central web site, before they come up for a vote. and to require lobbyists to discuss details of their contacts on behalf of their clients with the administration or with congress. that's why, working with people like dick durbin, who's been vocal on this for a long time, we've got to confront the gaping loophole that the supreme court recently opened in our campaign finance laws that allowed special interests to spend without limit to influence american elections. we've also got to get back to

fiscal responsibility. and i spoke about this at the state of the union. just 10 years ago, america hadpz a budget surplus of over $200 billion. remember, people were worried about what might happen with all these surpluses, and whether it would create problems in the financial markets. that was just a decade ago. after two wars, two tax cuts, prescription drug program -- none of which were paid for -- we faced a deficit of over $1 trillion, a debt over the next decade of $8 trillion, before my administration spent a single dollar. now, we can't change the past, but we can change the future. that's why i'm asking you to adopt a freeze in non-security discretionary spending for the next three years, starting next year. we're still having a tough time right now, given the economy is just starting to pick up steam -- but starting next year. that's why i'm grateful that

all of you restored the paygo rules that worked so well in the 1990s. i already mentioned the fiscal commission. we may not have been able to get the votes for a statutory commission, but we're going to -- i am going to appoint a commission by executive order, because it's important for us to take these issues seriously -- not just for us but for our children and our grandchildren. let me just wrap up by saying this. i know these are tough times to hold public office. i'm there in the arena with you. the need is great. the anger and the anguish are intense. the economy is massive and so, as a consequence, no matter what levers and buttons we press, sometimes it doesn't move as quickly as is needed to provide relief to so many of our constituents. in that kind of circumstance, i think the natural politicaló instinct is to tread lightly, keep your head down, and to play it safe.

i've said this before to this caucus. i just want to say it again. for me, it is constantly important to remind myself why i got into this business in the first place, why i'm willing to be away from my family for big stretches at a time, the financial sacrifices that so many of you have made, being subject to criticism constantly. you don't get in this for the fame. you don't get in it for the title. you get in it because somewhere in your background, at some point in time, you decided there was an issue that was so important that you were willing to stand up and be counted. you were going to fight for something. and you decided you were going to run as a democrat because there was a core set of values within the democratic party

about making sure that everybody had a fair shot, making sure that middle-class folks were treated fairly in our economy, making sure that those who were on the outside had a way in that led you to get involved in public service. and that's what we have to remind ourselves, especially when it's hard -- especially when it's hard. you look at an issue right now like health care. so many of us campaigned on the idea that we were going to change this health care system. so many of us looked people in the eye who had been denied because of a preexisting condition, or just didn't have health insurance at all, or small business owners in our communities who told us that their premiums had gone up 25 percent or 30 percent. and we said we were going to change it. well, here we are with a chance to change it. and all of you put

extraordinary work last year into making serious changes that would not only reform the insurance industry, not only cover 30 million americans, but would also bend the cost curve, and save a trillion dollars on our deficits, according to the congressional budget office. there's a direct link between the work that you guys did on that and the reason that you got into public office in the first place. and so as we think about moving forward, i hope we don't lose sight of why we're here. we've got to finish the job on health care. [applause] >> we've got to finish the job on financial regulatory reform. we've got to finish the job even though it's hard. and i'm absolutely confident that if we do so in an ope