Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, that is right. As I have stated, the only limitation on the use of funds would be on activities related to the acquisition of lands for or construction of the project as originally authorized. It has always been our intention that by eliminating the funds in this way, the funds would be still available for the study and planning of a reasonable alternative. Amendment Offered by Mr. Fazio of California as a Substitute for the Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman I offer an amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].

Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], our colleague and chairman of the Corrections Advisory Group.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House the bill, H.R. 849, a bill to amend the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving relocation assistance associated with Federal projects and grants. The bill was introduced by our esteemed colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. Ron Packard, and is cosponsored by 25 additional Members. H.R. 849 plugs a loophole left open in last year's immigration reform bill. That bill prohibits illegal aliens from receiving Federal benefits. However, because the relocation assistance provided under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act is technically compensation rather than a benefit, the Department of Transportation has concluded that it cannot legally deny relocation assistance to aliens, even if they are present in the United States illegally. As a result, such compensation has been paid to illegal aliens in several instances. For example, one illegal alien who was relocated according to a Federal project was actually given $12,000 in federally funded relocation assistance. Mr. Speaker, this approach wastes taxpayer money and it makes no sense at all. Federal relocation assistance should not be given to those who are illegally in our country. H.R. 849 will correct this and make the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act consistent with last year's immigration reform bill. Working together with the ranking Democratic member on our committee, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Jim Oberstar, and the principal sponsor, the gentleman from California Mr. Ron Packard, we have crafted a bipartisan bill to correct this problem. As reported by the committee, H.R. 849 contains a general provision prohibiting illegal aliens from receiving relocation assistance. It also contains four important features which clarify the bill's intent and ensures fair and consistent implementation. First, the bill will require DOT to issue uniform regulations for the implementation of the bill and to require that eligibility determinations be made on a nondiscriminatory basis using only reliable evidence. Second, the bill contains a safety net provision that is consistent with existing immigration law. If an illegal alien can provide clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, he or she will remain eligible for relocation assistance. Third, the bill makes clear that by prohibiting relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, we do not intend to take away any other rights to compensation that an illegal alien might have under other Federal or State laws. Fourth, the bill directs DOT to provide training to other agencies on how to implement the provisions of the bill fairly and without discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and his staff for the cooperative way in which they have worked with us to craft this bill. This has been a truly bipartisan effort. I also note that the administration has reviewed the proposal and does not object to it. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] for sponsoring this legislation and bringing an important issue to the attention of the House. H.R. 849 is a good bill that plugs the loophole in Federal law. I would recommend an ``aye'' vote on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would just like to acknowledge the hard work and contribution of a number of people that took this concept and worked out a lot of the kinks, if not every single kink; there may be one or two more that we will be working out with the Senate before it goes to the President for his signature. Paul Rosenzweig of our committee, the able assistant to Mr. Packard, and Chris Peace and Cordia Strom of the Committee on the Judiciary all made outstanding contributions to getting this legislation in proper form.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 849, the bill just considered.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, we are privileged to have the Rev. LeeAnn Schray of Washington, DC as our guest chaplain today. Pastor Schray is the minister of the church my family and I attend during the weekends we are in the District of Columbia: the Georgetown Lutheran Church. This past year we have enjoyed getting to know LeeAnn and her husband, Bob Tuttle. Pastor Schray was born in Bethlehem, PA. She received her bachelor of arts degree from St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN, and her master of divinity from the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. She moved to Washington, DC in 1991 to take her first call at St. Paul's Lutheran Church, where she served as the assistant pastor. For the past year, she has been serving as the pastor for Georgetown Lutheran Church, and the Lutheran campus pastor for Georgetown and American Universities. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and privilege for me to welcome the Reverend LeeAnn Schray to the House lectern and to offer her our heartfelt thanks for serving as our guest chaplain.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the inclusion of provisions in this conference report to require the Census Bureau to conduct, as the Constitution says, an ``actual enumeration'' rather than using the statistical technique known as sampling. Following the 1990 census we had a debate over whether to use the number resulting from the actual enumeration or a number adjusted by sampling. This time the bureau does not even intend to try to count everyone. As I understand it, the plan is to try to count 90 percent of the people and estimate the rest. I oppose the use of sampling for several reasons. It would leave the census numbers open to political manipulation and would tend to undermine the public's confidence in the census. We have seen various administrations manipulate the FBI, IRS, and reportedly even the Immigration and Naturalization Service for political gain. Once we move away from a hard count what guarantee do we have that this or a future administration will not manipulate the census numbers for partisan gains? A member of the other body has recently stated that we should all support sampling since we all rely on something similar, public opinion polls, to get elected. The problem with this thinking is that we may use polls to guide us but we don't let them determine the winner. I would have no objection if the bureau uses sampling to determine where there may have been an undercount, and then goes back in and redoubles its efforts to count those people. That would be analogous to the way we use opinion polls. But to rely on sampling rather than a physical count is comparable to changing election returns if they are at variance with the polls. Sampling is said to adjust for undercounts in major cities. But once you estimate how many people are in a given city, to what wards, neighborhoods and precincts do they belong? How can State legislatures and school boards and city councils be apportioned if we don't know where these estimated people live? Is sampling really accurate enough to tell us if some small town has 3,300 people instead of the 3,000 from a hard count? When a State, such as Wisconsin, has hundreds of towns of such size, will sampling adjust for an undercount there the way it might in Los Angeles or some other major city? In 1990 an entire ward in one town in my district was missed. The community leaders pointed this out during the postcensus review and the mistake was corrected. For 2000 the bureau will not do a postcensus review, presumably because no one can know what mistakes were made since everyone wasn't supposed to be counted anyway. Will the undercount of Indian reservations, of which there are several in Wisconsin, be corrected? My understanding is that the bureau plans to do a hard count on Indian reservations. Yet native Americans were among the most undercounted in the last census. How then can it be claimed that the reason the bureau wants do use sampling is to correct for past undercounts? I do believe that it is appropriate to bring this issue up in an appropriations bill as the main argument of those supporting sampling is that it will save money. Well that may or may not be true but that can't be the only basis for designing the census. The cheapest possible census would be if the numbers were just made up altogether. We obviously aren't going to do that but the point is that saving money is not the one and only goal. Fairness is a goal and sampling is unfair to smaller communities and rural States. Following the Constitution, which calls for an actual enumeration, is a goal and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue. What happens if we complete the 2000 census using sampling to estimate 10 percent of the population and then the Supreme Court throws it out? Then we will have wasted the $4 billion spent on the original census not to mention who knows how much in litigation. Rather than saving money, sampling could end up costing the taxpayers two or three times as much money as a hard count if we have to redo the whole thing. I believe a greater effort should be made to reach all Americans to provide an accurate hard count. 50 percent of the undercount from the last census was caused by people never receiving the forms. Better mailing lists and better coordination with the Post Office and local governments can correct this problem. Approximately 32 percent of the undercount can be corrected through the use of easier to read forms and perhaps an 800 information number. The rest will have to be reached through better outreach. Instead the bureau plans to spend less money on outreach, figuring that sampling can make up the difference. I don't believe the bureau's plan will provide for the fairest and most accurate census. Also, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, however, about rescissions of trust fund moneys and additional transportation spending that is included in this bill and is unrelated to disaster relief. The bill rescinds almost $1.6 billion in contract authority, including nearly $900 million from the transit program. These rescissions were included in the House bill and were stricken by the Transportation Committee on a point of order. Yet this bill adds them back in. The spending provided for highways by the Senate goes beyond correcting any error and directs funding to specific States. This is unnecessary and I am opposed to this type of extraneous provisions in a disaster supplemental bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today's budget vote has unique significance to the reauthorization of ISTEA, since it locks in for the next several years the amount of transportation spending that we can include in a reauthorization bill. All Members representing donor States and donee States who have come to plead their case before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure should pay special attention to the budget vote later today. Donor States want more equitable highway formulas, and I know their frustration, because I come from a donor State. Donee States want to protect their current shares. Without more funding than is provided in the budget agreement, it will be impossible to satisfy all of the States, so both donor and donee States should be on notice that they will have to live with the ramification of today's budget vote for years to come. Support the amendment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure which increases funding for ISTEA, does not result in any cuts next year, and simply spends new revenues to keep the current $24 billion highway trust fund balance stable. The ISTEA reauthorization debate begins today. Vote ``yes'' on the Shuster- Oberstar amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] on behalf of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I think as we get into this discussion, we need to take a step back, take off the green eyeshades and look at what we are trying to achieve. Instead of counting beans, we should view transportation spending as an investment in our future. I believe that this budget assumes continued positive economic performance. Well, if we are to achieve that, we need to be sure that we can have an efficient transportation network that can support that growth. In these days of lower costs due to our strict, sophisticated inventory controls, business must be able to rely on our transportation system. Mr. Chairman, in order to move beyond the status quo and to start to meet our urgent transportation needs in the upcoming ISTEA reauthorization, we need the funding provided for in this amendment. Join the many States, cities and other public and private groups who support the goals of this amendment and vote yes for a better future for all Americans.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on March 6, the Christian Science Monitor printed a very perceptive and useful article on the Middle East peace process by Ralph Nurnberger, a fair-minded long-time expert in this area. For the benefit of my colleagues, I ask that it be reprinted in the Record at this point. [From the Christian Science Monitor, Thursday, March 6, 1997] Not a Heartbreak Hotel (By Ralph Nurnberger) The day before he left for his official visit to the United States, Yasser Arafat presided over the groundbreaking ceremony for a Marriott Hotel to be built on the beachfront in Gaza. This project says, symbolically, that the Middle East peace process might, finally, produce tangible benefits for the people in the area, especially through direct involvement of the private sector. The construction and later operation of this hotel will provide employment for hundreds of Palestinians. It will contain a modern commercial center to enable international visitors and Palestinians to conduct business as it is done elsewhere in the world. The project will include a self-contained telecommunications center for international calls, faxes, and e-mail as well as excess telephone capacity for the local market. This project will be the first major American private sector involvement in Gaza. The total investment will be approximately six times more than all other American investments in Gaza--combined! While diplomatic achievements are essential, the real test of the peace process is how it affects the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians. If substantive and visible improvements do not result, no international agreements can succeed. For the majority of Israelis, the key element is security. Israelis must feel safe riding buses, shopping in malls, and sending their children to schools. If random acts of violence occur, they must be assured that the Palestinian Authority will work with Israeli officials to find and prosecute the terrorists. peace dividends: lower incomes Although more Israelis have been killed through terror attacks since the Sept. 13, 1993, signing than in any comparable period, it appears that the Palestinians finally understand their responsibility to work with Israelis to enhance security concerns. The test for most Palestinians is whether the peace accords will result in an improved quality of life. Developing a thriving economy that provides new employment opportunities will not only minimize hatreds and tensions, but will also bring about the promise of a new life. Economic divergence exacerbates political and religious tensions. Since the first Rabin-Arafat signing, Israeli per capita income has increased from $13,800 to over $15,000, while Palestinian incomes have dropped by a third to under $1,200. Delays and reallocations of internationally pledged contributions, the reluctance of foreign investors to establish projects in Gaza and the West Bank, border closures, the slow pace of diplomatic negotiations, and difficulties encountered in setting up a viable Palestinian economy have contributed to growing frustration. Public infrastructure and services, including education, health care, sanitation, water, waste water disposal, and electricity continue to be inadequate. Despite a minor building boom, a housing shortage remains. While the Netanyahu government has eased some limits on Palestinians seeking employment in Israel, the numbers able to cross the borders are significantly below the 120,000 able to find daily work in Israel in 1992. Rather than growing to absorb these workers, the Palestinian economy has declined over the past two years. Thus, workers have fewer opportunities to find employment within Palestinian areas. The unemployment rate in Gaza, always high, is now estimated at approximately 50 percent, with the rate in the West Bank estimated at 30 percent. Unemployment is highest among young, single men--the most likely recruits for terror-oriented groups. big aid pledges, little follow-through The US hosted an international meeting on Oct. 1, 1993, at which $2.4 billion in assistance to the West Bank and Gaza was pledged. Most of these funds have not been delivered or have been diverted from long-term projects to emergency programs and costs of running the Palestinian Authority. The United States committed $500 million, of which $75 million annually for five years is managed by the Agency for International Development (AID). The other $125 million was to come from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to assist American investors through a combination of loans, loan guarantees, and political risk insurance. AID has assisted a number of worthwhile projects, including $12 million for construction of six housing units with 192 apartments in Gaza called Al Karam Towers. AID is also helping to improve uses of scarce water resources and assisting private sector economic growth through technical assistance, training, loans to local firms, and establishment of industrial parks. But AID funds have been diverted from long-term projects to help in establishing Palestinian self- rule. For example, AID committed $2 million to support local elections in the West Bank and Gaza, and to assist Palestinians in promoting more responsible and accountable governance. AID has minimized help for the agricultural sector, the one area where Palestinians could immediately develop profitable exports, especially under a new Free Trade Agreement with the US Allocating additional funds to farm exports would be cost efficient. OPIC made a major effort to seek private sector projects to assist or insure. But most private investors have avoided Gaza, so OPIC funds committed to date have been modest. Mr. Arafat would be wise to stress the solving of such economic problems as a prime way to reduce tensions, improve the quality of life, and enhance opportunities for peace. He should build on momentum from the hotel project and stress the need for private sector involvement in the Palestinian economy.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. As Members know, there has been a long debate over exempting certain industries from provisions of this bill. Construction workers and other seasonal employees, for example, often work on short-term projects and frequently change employers. As they move from job to job, it is unlikely these workers will ever be able to use comptime. It has been pointed out that violations of overtime requirements typically are more likely to occur in these types of employment situations as well. Making comptime an option in industries where the relationship between the employer and the employee is transitory may in fact make it easier for unscrupulous employers to avoid paying overtime wages. It is much better for both employers and employees to require, as this amendment does, that workers put in at least 1,000 hours over a 12-month period of continuous employment to be eligible for comp time. This amendment does that, and thus would ensure that an employee has a substantial relationship with an employer before the option of earning paid compensatory time in lieu of overtime wages can be made available. This requirement will also help ensure that any agreement to receive compensatory time instead of overtime wages is made on equal terms. By adding this important provision, I believe that this amendment would substantially enhance the protections of this bill, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on February 6, 1997, I introduced a bill, H.R. 647, to clarify and modernize the white collar exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act. I hope this bill will receive close attention during this session of Congress. The Fair Labor Standards Act is intended to protect workers with provisions like the minimum wage and the 40-hour workweek. As a result, any attempt to tinker with the FLSA is immediately perceived as an attack on these basic protections or at least is so portrayed by political opponents. It is apparent, however, that after a half century of hands-off politics, we are left with a law that is out of step with the times and needs improvement. Two recent developments have brought the issue to a head. First, disgruntled employees have begun to use the FLSA's salary basis test as a tool for seeking revenge and not for logically distinguishing exempt from nonexempt employees. They do this by claiming that anyone subject to a pay reduction for taking partial day leave is not paid on a salary basis and is therefore entitled to overtime pay, including retroactively. The problem would not be so bad if it were limited to a few individual overtime awards; but it is not. Instead, seizing upon a two-word phrase in the regulations, employees and their attorneys have argued that everyone theoretically subject to a technically flawed payroll policy is entitled to the same windfall--regardless of whether the flaw affected any particular employee's pay. Employers, of course, rarely issue separate payroll policies for different groups of exempt employees; thus, every employee, up to the top levels of the corporate boardroom, becomes an equally viable candidate for a large windfall. The potential overtime liability is as enormous as it is irrational. Furthermore, the FLSA's duties test is being applied on an increasingly arbitrary basis. Concepts like ``discretion and independent judgment'' have always been difficult to define. These ideas seemed manageable in the era of assembly lines and hierarchical management structures, but this has radically changed. Instead, technology has diversified job duties, service-based employment has proliferated, and even old-line manufacturing operations have moved to team management concepts. In this environment, employers can no longer rely on cookie-cutter paradigms in making duties judgments. Employers often have to guess--and too many are guessing wrong. Even the courts struggle to achieve consistency, reaching irreconcilable results in cases involving the growing ranks of quasi-professionals such as accountants, engineers, insurance adjusters, and journalists. The legislation I have introduced addresses these problems in three separate ways. First, it restores original understandings of the salary basis test by requiring the Department of Labor and the courts to focus on actual pay reductions rather than speculation as to potential deductions under some nebulous policy. The FLSA still will protect exempt employees from inappropriate practices, since regulatory provisions denying exempt status for employees experiencing actual salary deductions for taking partial day leave would remain unchanged. My legislation, however, will prevent employees from using a policy's theoretical application to extort huge overtime windfalls for company- wide classes of highly paid employees who never could have imagined themselves as nonexempt laborers. Second, my proposal will address perhaps the most confusing and indefensible requirement among the FLSA's duties tests: the attempted distinction between ``production'' and ``management'' workers. Under current regulations, for example, an administrative assistant might meet exemption standards simply by opening a management executive's mail and deciding who should handle it, because such a job is ``directly related to management policies or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers.'' On the other hand, employees with far more sophisticated, challenging, and lucrative jobs may be nonexempt simply because they work on production tasks. The regulations reasonably expect an administrative employee to exercise a certain level of discretion and independent judgment, and my legislation would not alter that requirement. There is no reason to think, however, that a production or management label on the object of an employee's discretion or judgment has anything to do with that employee's professionalism, or the need for FLSA protections. Therefore, my bill eliminates the requirement that the employee's exercise of discretion and judgment be ``directly related to management policies or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers.'' Finally, my legislation would create an income threshold that automatically exempts from FLSA scrutiny the highest paid strata of the workforce. This would directly reverse the trend toward questionable and irrational overtime awards for highly compensated employees. There is no reason that the FLSA, which was passed to protect laborers who ``toil in factory and on farm,'' and who are ``helpless victims of their own bargaining weakness,'' should ever be interpreted to protect workers making high five-figure or six-figure incomes. Yet, without considering the policy implications, courts are reaching such conclusions on an alarmingly frequent basis. A worker drawing a large salary must perform some valuable services for an employer. Why, then, should that employer have to satisfy a complex set of artificial and archaic duties tests to prove that the employee is valuable? A worker drawing a large salary also must possess considerable bargaining leverage. Why then, should employers be forced, regardless of the employee's needs or preferences, to calculate paychecks only in the inflexible manner dictated by Government salary basis regulations? The FLSA, in nearly six decades, has strayed from its laudable goal of protecting the poorest and weakest laborers from workplace abuses. The Department of Labor and the courts need to refocus their efforts. By directly exempting highly paid employees and by making long overdue adjustments to the salary and duties tests, my proposal goes a long way toward providing this new direction.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that Rear Adm. Luther F. Schriefer, U.S. Navy, retired on February 1, 1997, after nearly 37 years of honorable and distinguished service. Rear Admiral Schriefer served as the Division Director for the Navy's Environmental Protection, Safety and Occupational Health Division since November 1994. As the Navy's senior environmentalist, he was responsible for several key initiatives that have enabled the Navy to operate in harmony with the natural environment by achieving safe and environmentally sound ships, aircraft, and installations. He has testified before congressional committees to ensure that members and their staffs understand the Navy's impact on the environment, as well as the effects of environmental laws and regulations on the operations of our Nation's Navy. Prior to his assignment as the senior environmentalist, he was the Director, Inter-American Region, International Security Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense. He was the director of the Caribbean task force during the 1994 Haitian and Cuban crises. Prior to his assignment for the Secretary of Defense, he was the Commander at the Naval Base in San Diego. Rear Admiral Schriefer was assigned to numerous other commands over the course of his distinguished career, including Commander, Anti- Submarine Warfare Wing, U.S. Pacific Fleet at Naval Air Station North Island and Director Tactical Air, Surface, Electronic Warfare Research and Development (OP-982). He was selected for two commands at sea: the amphibious assault ship USS Belleau Wood (LHA 3) and the amphibious cargo ship USS Mobile (LKA 115). He also held three air commands: the Air Anti-Submarine Wing 1 at Cecil Field, FL, Carrier Wing 3 onboard the USS Saratoga (CV-60) and Air Squadron VS-22 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Intrepid (CV 11). He served his country as an officer at the VRC-50 Detachment at Danang Air Base, Republic of South Vietnam, and VS-28 on board the USS Independence (CV-61). Rear Admiral Schriefer has enjoyed several proud moments in his service to our country, including several exhilarating moments as a junior officer flying for our Navy resolving technical challenges associated with his aircraft's performance. He retires as the Navy's ``Gray Eagle,'' a term reserved for the senior aviator in the Navy. Rear Admiral Schriefer is a native of Oshkosh, WI. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1960 and was designated a naval aviator in October 1961. He studied naval communications management at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. He also attended the Naval War College in Newport, RI, and graduated in June 1971. He was awarded a master of science degree in international affairs from George Washington University. He is married to the former Sandra N. Swanson of Detroit, MI. The Schriefers have four children: Kim, Scott, Michael, and Kelly. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to a superb naval officer, an outstanding gentleman, and a real leader, Rear Adm. Lou Schriefer.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Nick Rahall, the ranking democratic member of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Bud Shuster, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and James Oberstar, the committee's ranking democratic member, I would like to outline the subcommittee's procedure for identifying items of concern to members as it takes up the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA]. This legislation authorizes over $150 billion for our nation's highway, transit, motor carrier, safety, and research programs for 6 years and is due to expire on September 30, 1997. The importance of the surface transportation system cannot be overstated. There is ample evidence documenting the link between careful infrastructure investment and increases in this nation's productivity and economic prosperity. For instance, between 1980 and 1989, highway capital investments contributed almost 8 percent of annual productivity growth. A recent study demonstrated that the costs of highway investments are recouped through production cost savings to the economy after only 4 years. Another study concluded that transit saves at least $15 billion per year in congestion costs. Despite the critical importance of our transportation systems to our Nation's economic health, investment has fallen short of what is needed. The Department of Transportation estimates that simply maintaining the current conditions on our highway, bridge, and transit systems will require investment of $57 billion per year from Federal, State, and local governments, an increase of 41 percent over current levels. To improve conditions to optimal levels would require doubling our current investment to $80 billion per year. Meeting these needs will require a variety of strategies, including better use of existing systems, application of advanced technology, innovative financing, and public-private partnerships. It is our goal to develop a bill that will meet these needs and maintain this world class system. Reauthorization is the top priority of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. In the second session of the 104th Congress, the subcommittee held a series of 12 ISTEA oversight hearings and received testimony from 174 witnesses. The hearings gave many interested Members, the administration and affected groups the opportunity to testify and present their views. There was strong interest in these hearings and they covered the programs which need to be reauthorized in this coming bill. We would be happy to make copies of these hearing transcripts available to any interested Members. We anticipate that the bipartisan legislation we develop this year will be based largely on the information obtained at last year's extensive programmatic hearings. As we begin this process, we would like to offer Members the opportunity to inform the subcommittee about any policy initiatives or issues that Members want the subcommittee to consider including or addressing in the reauthorization of ISTEA. Members having such specific policy requests should inform the subcommittee in writing no later than February 25, 1997. Many Members have already contacted the subcommittee to inquire about, or to request, specific funding for critical transportation needs in their districts. With the convening of the new Congress, we anticipate that these requests will continue. Therefore, if you are intending to request funding for these projects, we will require that the request include the information set forth below. Although the subcommittee has not yet decided how such requests will be handled, the information provided will allow the subcommittee to thoroughly evaluate each request as we determine the appropriate action to take in this regard. Any requests should be submitted no later than February 25, 1997. Such submissions should be in writing and must include responses to each of the 14 evaluation criteria listed at the end of this statement. We will also be holding a series of subcommittee hearings in late February and early March at which time Members and local officials will have an opportunity to testify on behalf of those requests. While these hearings are intended to give Members an opportunity to present information about specific project needs, it is not necessary for Members to testify. We look forward to working with all Members of the House as we prepare this important legislation which will set the course for our Nation's surface transportation programs. Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation 1. Name and Congressional District of the primary Member of Congress sponsoring the project, as well as any other Members supporting the project (each project must have a single primary sponsoring Member). 2. Identify the State or other qualified recipient responsible for carrying out the project. 3. Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid funds (if a road or bridge project, please note whether it is on the National Highway System)? 4. Describe the design, scope and objectives of the project and whether it is part of a larger system of projects. In doing so, identify the specific segment for which project funding is being sought including terminus points. 5. What is the total project cost and proposed source of funds (please identify the federal, state or local shares and the extent, if any, of private sector financing or the use of innovative financing) and of this amount, how much is being requested for the specific project segment described in item #4? 6. Of the amount requested, how much is expected to be obligated over each of the next 5 years? 7. What is the proposed schedule and status of work on the project? 8. Is the project included in the metropolitan and/or State transportation improvement plan(s), or the State long-range plan, and if so, is it scheduled for funding? 9. Is the project considered by State an/or regional transportation officials as critical to their needs? Please provide a letter of support from these officials, and if you cannot, explain why not. 10. Does the project have national or regional significance? 11. Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely to encounter, any significant opposition or other obstacles based on environmental or other types of concerns? 12. Describe the economic, energy efficiency, environmental, congestion mitigation and safety benefits associated with completion of the project. 13. Has the project received funding through the State's federal aid highway apportionment, or in the case of a transit project, through Federal Transit Administration funding? If not, why not? 14. Is the authorization requested for the project an increase to an amount previously authorized or appropriated for it in federal statute (if so, please identify the statute, the amount provided, and the amount obligated to date), or would this be the first authorization for the project in federal statute? If the authorization requested is for a transit project, has it previously received appropriations and/or received a Letter of Intent or has FTA entered into a Full Funding Grant Agreement for the project?