Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D.

Full Committee Markup – H.R. 3550 –

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy of Users

March 24, 2004

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s committee markup.

Our transportation system has a direct and significant impact on the daily lives of all Americans. The United States has benefited greatly from having a strong transportation network, but we are approaching a crossroads. I am in hopes that our work on H.R. 3550 is one step closer to finding solutions to this impending problem.

Texas has experienced an increase in traffic over the past three decades, which is a result of unprecedented population and employment growth and the under-investment of federal funds to the state. In many ways, this is a silent crisis; rarely recognized by residents until they find themselves in an unbearable commute to work; or unable to make the necessary connections between home, work, and the countless other activities that our busy lives demand.

In Texas, our identified transportation needs outstrip available funding three to one. Texas has several specific transportation needs, such as increased funding, supporting international trade transportation, more efficient environmental processes, and expanding innovative financing techniques. The time is now to make necessary investments in transportation infrastructure.

Between 2000 and 2025, studies predict the population of Texas will increase by almost 9 million people. Ninety percent, or almost 8 million of them, will live in our metropolitan areas. The transportation system in Texas must be expanded to accommodate this projected population increase and related business growth.

Important transportation projects all over Texas are waiting in line for limited funding. Population growth, rising construction costs and increased transportation demands make this line a little longer every year.

The State of Texas has three issues it needs to address in order to achieve an efficient and effective transportation infrastructure system for the 21^st Century:

Ø First, the current pay-as-you-go funding system only covers about a third of our needs.

Ø Second, the state’s population growth is putting additional strain on our aging roadways, and

Ø Third, it takes too long to get roads built.

The solution to these problems was creating and implementing the Trans Texas Corridor. Last year, Governor Rick Perry signed into law House Bill 3588, the most significant transportation legislation in state history. We now need to do our job at the federal level.

As the only Texas Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs is the top priority for my legislative agenda in the 108^th Congress. Texas, in particular, provides federal officials with more transportation mobility challenges than any other state. It is essential that we work together to maximize the federal investment in the nation’s aging transportation infrastructure.

I believe we must make the necessary monetary investment today to support our transportation future in Texas, or we will sit in traffic watching our transportation infrastructure deteriorate to the point that it further impedes growth and economic development. As a Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I continue to work with you and our committee colleagues to find solutions in order to pass the TEA-21 reauthorization this year. I want to stress that I want a 6-year bill that gives maximum funding available without harming the deficit. I also want to ensure that Congress is able to revisit the funding amounts in the future in relation to the strength of the economy. I believe we must make the necessary investment to support our transportation future in Texas or we will sit in traffic watching our transportation infrastructure deteriorate.

I believe H.R. 3550 is bringing us closer to our policy goals in Texas to achieve our state’s goal of efficient and seamless transportation corridors. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for including Section 1501 addressing the streamlining of the design-build process. I also was pleased to see the inclusion of Sections 1603 and 1604, focusing on interstate system toll pilot programs.

The key to a 21^st Century transportation system is partnering private entities with the federal government and allowing large transportation systems to be built in a timely, sensible sequence.

In July 2003, I introduced H.R. 2864, The Reforming, Accelerating, and Protecting Interstate Design Act of 2003. The bill allows large transportation systems to be built in less time and saves money, by constructing roads in common sense increments, as they are needed.

Among other things, the bill would streamline and expedite project delivery by allowing an environmental assessment or analysis to be prepared simultaneously for several different elements of a project. It also expands states’ authorities to collect tolls on interstate highways and expands the eligible uses of toll revenues collected on those facilities.

I believe states should be granted more authority to deliver corridors faster. In exchange, we will give them enhanced accountability. I worked with the Committee leadership to streamline the federal design-build process and allow for a “rolling environmental process” for a multimodal transportation project. I believe the inclusion of Sections 1501, 1603, and 1604 are good steps in the right direction to address these concerns.

Our country’s leaders need to focus on the development of an efficient, seamless, intermodal trade and transportation system during this year’s reauthorization cycle. TEA-21 has proven to be a workable solution to many problems that plague the high priority corridors and border infrastructure of our nation. However, the program is over subscribed and under funded.

I was pleased to learn that the Committee leadership included Section 1301 – National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program, Section 1302 – Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program, and Section 1304 – Projects of National and Regional Significance. I believe the current programs do not fully address the problems created by the explosion of NAFTA trade traffic, and the funding has often been misdirected to non-border states and corridors lacking international significance. I believe the provisions included in H.R. 3550 will greatly benefit the state’s transportation infrastructure who are truly impacted by our country’s increase in trade traffic.

However, not all of my policy issues of concern were fully addressed in the Committee’s version of H.R. 3550. I believe we must ensure Texas receives its fair share of the nation’s transportation funding and can determine how best to spend it.

In Texas, our identified transportation needs outstrip available funding three to one. I support legislative language that would guarantee states at least a 95 percent rate of return on their contributions to the federal Highway Trust Fund.

I believe it is time for us to make our voices heard about the importance of securing increased funding for donor states’ much needed, aging transportation infrastructure. That is why I am supporting Congressman Mica’s amendment advocating for a 93 percent minimum guarantee scope to include High Priority Projects and Projects of Regional and National Significance. Instead of letting some states benefit at others' expense, the Mica amendment allows all states core programs to benefit by keeping in place the program scope achieved in TEA 21 (93 percent). Compared to the TEA LU scope (as introduced) of 80 percent, every state locks in millions of dollars in formula gains if the 93 percent scope is retained. The average state formula dollar gain is more than $300 million. A fair rate of return and changing the current minimum guarantee scope in H.R. 3550 is a necessary starting point.

I look forward to continue working with you, Mr. Chairman, and my committee colleagues to produce a bipartisan transportation reauthorization bill that will truly improve transportation infrastructure nationwide. We continue to work to produce a bill that adequately provides for our economic security, creates and sustains jobs, enhances safety, and continues to improve mobility for our nation’s citizens, especially those in Texas.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MICHAEL C. BURGESS, M.D.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,

and Emergency Management

March 18, 2004

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing about the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2005 budget request to fund the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) emergency preparedness and response capabilities.

I appreciate the willingness of Secretary Brown for testifying before our subcommittee today. I am concerned that the Administration’s FY 2005 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) emergency preparedness and response capabilities will not address the needs and concerns of the first responders on the front lines of the War on Terrorism.

It is my understanding that the Administration’s budget reduces funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program and port security grants. I have been told that the use of the Emergency Management Performance grants for personnel costs could be limited to only 25 percent of the total grant amount. In addition to a possible funding shortfall, this could result in a 60 percent reduction in professional emergency management positions which could affect the critical resources needed and used by state and local governments to effectively develop emergency preparedness plans.

It is also my understanding that the Administration’s budget request consolidates the FIRE Grant Program. It further includes language that would provide a preference for FIRE grant applications that address terrorism rather than traditional firefighting training and activity. I believe our country needs to continue to address the threats of terrorism, but we must also ensure we maintain resources available to first responders in our communities who confront traditional firefighting threats and incidents.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have met with several police, sheriff, and firefighting organizations in my Washington office. Their concerns are largely the same as mine:

1.) More local law enforcement funding is needed to meet the mandated needs of all first responders;

2.) Increased coordination between the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security on all first responder programs; and,

3.) Do not provide a specific preference for FIRE grant applications that address terrorism rather than traditional firefighting training and activity.

These concerns have also been expressed to me when I am traveling around my congressional district in North Texas. For example, the City of Plano officials expressed concerns in 2003 that because first responder funding continues to be decreased and the needs are increased, local jurisdictions will be faced with significant decisions about how to fund emergency preparedness in the future. Less federal funds, state budget crunches, and the local governments’ own budget woes mean that difficult decisions lie ahead in the years to come. I am concerned that the delay of counterterrorism equipment to firefighters and police officers as well as funding constraints will be the local government’s problem and the federal and state governments will not be held accountable. I believe that we need to truly assess the needs of first responders at the federal level to ensure that the state and local governments can execute essential homeland security operations.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing and I look forward to listening to your testimony, Mr. Secretary. I also look forward to working with you and DHS to find ways to sufficiently fund these important emergency preparedness programs in order for our communities’ first responders to execute the jobs they have been mandated to do – keeping our communities, families, and friends safe.