U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–415 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–573 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION: 

PROGRESS, CHALLENGES, AND NEXT STEPS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 7, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

JOHN E. WALSH, Montana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Republican Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 7, 2014 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Boxer .................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 15 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 17 

Statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................................ 19 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 22 

Statement of Senator Fischer ................................................................................. 23 

Statement of Senator McCaskill ............................................................................. 26 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 26 

Statement of Senator Booker .................................................................................. 30 

Article dated May 5, 2014 submitted by Hon. Cory Booker entitled, ‘‘Clock 

Ticking on Hudson Crossings, Albany Warns’’ by Dana Rubenstein ....... 31 

Statement of Senator Heller ................................................................................... 33 

Statement of Senator Scott ..................................................................................... 35 

Statement of Senator Blunt .................................................................................... 37 

Statement of Senator Ayotte ................................................................................... 40 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 45 

WITNESSES

Hon. Anthony R. Foxx, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation ............. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Anthony R. Foxx by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 57 

Hon. Edward Markey ....................................................................................... 63 

Hon. Cory Booker ............................................................................................. 65 

Hon. John Thune .............................................................................................. 67 

Hon. Kelly Ayotte ............................................................................................. 70 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 71 

Hon. Roy Blunt ................................................................................................. 72 

(1) 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

REAUTHORIZATION: PROGRESS, 

CHALLENGES, AND NEXT STEPS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D. Rockefeller 

IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. This hearing is going to come to order, 

which, in view of the way that we’ve been up until now, is actually 

asking quite a lot. 

Mr. Secretary, we’re incredibly happy to have you here. And I’m 

going to have a few words to say but, before that, I want to sort 

of buck up your spirits to know that there are some people up here 

who are fighting for what you want and what we need. 

So I’ll make my opening statements and I think Senator Thune 

will be a few minutes late, but when he comes in he gets to give 

his. Well, this is going to be a very, very important conversation. 

Until recently, this Nation was the global leader when it came 

to building the greatest bridges, the greatest interstates, the greatest tunnels and canals and ports and railways. From coast to coast, 

we’re reminded of those golden days of innovation and energy and 

vigor and innovation and investment that ultimately set our nation 

apart from the rest of the world. 

But those days of big ideas, bold ideas, bold investments and preparing for the future seem to be behind us. This nation, which once 

dared to dream, dared to lead, has retreated from the legacy of our 

predecessors. And it’s a shameful and sad thing to observe. And it 

need not happen. 

We’ve gotten into a rut. We’re unable to pass long-term funding 

transportation bills rooted in bold ideas. Instead, we’re now focused 

on the nickels and dimes of our deficit and mainly because of the 

high political costs associated with proposing any kind of revenue 

increases. In other words, you know, win the election; that’s what 

counts. Help the country; well, yes, if you’ve got time that’d be 

good. But don’t take any chances on the election. That thinking is 

deep and thick in this Senate and in this Congress. And it’s wrong 

2 

and it’s bad. It’s humiliating for the individuals involved and for 

the country as a whole, obviously. 

Sadly, this short-sightedness has left us with a broken and increasingly second-rate transportation system. I didn’t realize we 

were tenth in the world, overall. I just assumed we were second or 

third or first, but we’re not. This has left commuters sitting in traffic for hours, daily, wasting precious time. It has left us with shaky 

bridges that have compromised the safety of our traveling public. 

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that I’ve described this 

dismal state of our nation’s infrastructure. I gave a terrific speech 

yesterday in the Finance Committee, Mr. Secretary, but you missed 

it. Nor is it the first time I’ve expressed my dismay that we’ve 

grown accustomed to an ad hoc, short-term approach to funding 

our nation’s infrastructure. By which I mean future from one inadequate funding bill to the next without much care for the long-term 

implications of this negligent way of governing. 

Collectively, the Congress has shown neither the will nor, the 

saddest part, the courage to put aside differences and work to find 

a long-term solution. This hurts everyone; it impairs commerce; it 

has soured our ability to do big things; it has a bad effect on young 

people. You know, we talk all the time about science, technology, 

engineering and math, and then we don’t fund anything which 

those things can feed into and our ability to be a country that is 

innovating and investing and building projects that would define 

our future. That’s what we were. That’s what I grew up in in the 

1960s and the 1970s, but no longer. Not now. 

Nations around the world have come to realize, just as we once 

did, that in order to grow their economies and increase competitiveness, they have to invest. And, yes, we did sort of redo the Panama 

Canal. Are our ports ready for the bigger boats that are going to 

come through the Panama Canal? No. But, we glory in the fact 

that we did what Teddy Roosevelt did and doubled its width and 

all the rest of it and that’s sort of like the end of the problem. No. 

That’s the beginning of the opportunity, except, we’ve done nothing 

with it. 

So whether it’s the Panama Canal or building high-speed rail 

lines or adding capacity at ports, we all know the statistics of the 

state of our infrastructure are about as bad as it gets. And we 

know that and do nothing about it. We are unwilling to pay for 

what we so desperately need. 

Going forward, our economy, our global competitiveness and the 

safety of the traveling public will continue to suffer unless we 

change course almost immediately or as fast as can possibly be 

done by a relatively inept Senate. 

I’m a firm believer that the Federal Government has a huge and 

critical role to play in the upgrading of our nation’s infrastructure. 

Who in heaven’s name could dispute that? How do you think the 

interstates got built? How do you think the Appalachian Highways 

got built? How do you think bridges get built? I mean, it’s ridiculous. And when I say infrastructure, of course, what comes to 

everybody’s mind is roads. And they don’t think about ports. They 

don’t think about other aspects of all of this; trains and, all of that. 

They just think of roads. Well, if we could do our roads, that’ll be 

enough. 

3 

We need to lead. We need to create a coherent and unified mission for our Federal surface transportation programs. And in some 

places we need to grow those programs. This is not a partisan 

issue. Oh, it’s so easy to make things partisan. And sometimes it’s 

so stupid too, because it just isn’t true. This is a fundamental economic issue. It’s about our future. 

The Department of Transportation recently estimated that the 

Highway Trust Fund will run out of money in August and need an 

additional addition of general fund monies to get us through the 

busy construction season. Well, this is just another reminder of 

what we have already known, and that is what we have been discussing for years: We need more money for our infrastructure system. It’s the only way we’re going to begin to solve our problems. 

Now, they came up with this, what was this, new kind of money, 

which came in and went out of style in about two weeks. Bit something? What was it, Maria? 

Bitcoins, yes. I mean, I don’t know, maybe the Department of 

Transportation can get into that business and pay for it. But, otherwise, there’s no substitute for something called money. 

My colleague and friend, Senator Boxer, has already signaled 

that she is dead serious about passing a long-term transportation 

bill and I intend to support her every single step of the way. I consider nothing off the table. 

It is my hope that all of our colleagues will put aside their politics and their shortsightedness and join us in this effort. And I 

don’t mean to disparage everybody. I mean, there are people in this 

room who’d do anything for more transportation but there are too 

many who wouldn’t. 

Beyond dealing with repairs of our existing infrastructure, we 

are experiencing a fundamental shift in the transportation trends 

across the country. Vehicles are becoming more fuel efficient, young 

adults continue to drive less and public transportation ridership is 

at an all-time high. What this means is that we also need to 

rethink our approach to transportation investment. And it’s not 

just all called roads by definition of what I just said. 

Congress, the Administration, the transportation community and 

the American people need to put aside the politics. And I don’t 

mean Republican/Democrat so much as just that we can’t spend. 

We can only cut; we can’t spend. Even if it’s really, really important; we can’t spend anything. And part of that is timidity. We’ve 

got to put timidity aside. We’ve got to be able to break from the 

pack; do things which might take a couple of points off of our current standing in the polls. 

I, fortunately, am not running again. So I have no standing 

whatsoever in the polls but I still make this speech. 

None of the proposals, alone, will be the silver bullet for our infrastructure needs but we can conclude that the status quo is insufficient. The nation’s transportation system should be something 

that unites us, leads to growth in our economy and creates jobs. 

I’m glad to have Secretary Foxx here today to discuss the Administration’s proposal, which I applaud, that makes some bold 

changes in how to look at and fund something called ‘‘transportation at large.’’ I was pleased the Administration proposed significant new funding to keep the country moving forward and to also 

4 

allocate resources to where our transportation system sorely needs 

those resources; such as moving freight and improving rail service. 

I look forward to our discussion today almost as much as I do 

to the remarks of the Ranking Member and my esteemed colleague. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing today. 

I want to thank and welcome Secretary Foxx back to the Committee. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the Administration’s surface transportation proposal as well as other matters. 

There probably isn’t anything that’s more important in terms of 

our competitiveness as a nation than maintaining and improving 

our nation’s infrastructure. And states like South Dakota, where I 

come from, rely on a top-quality transportation network to connect 

the vast distances between our communities and to help deliver 

critical agricultural products and natural resources via truck and 

freight rail to markets across the country and around the globe. 

Also important is the safety mission of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, which not only conducts vehicle safety research but also administers various grants to keep motorists 

safe. While we are approaching the expiration of the most recent 

surface transportation bill, or MAP–21, that was signed into law 

just less than 2 years ago, like the Chairman, I am looking forward 

to working with many of our colleagues on both the Commerce 

Committee and also the Finance Committee to ensure that we continue to have a robust surface transportation program. 

I’m glad the Administration has released its first ever surface 

transportation reauthorization proposal last week, especially in 

light of the anticipated shortfalls that are facing the Highway 

Trust Fund. 

As many in this room know, the Highway Trust Fund is projected to become insolvent later this summer. This shortfall, which 

is already being felt, will lead to delays in highway and safety improvements and reimbursements to states and to the construction 

sector. 

This is particularly problematic for cold weather states, such as 

South Dakota, that have a shorter construction season and a limited window to make decisions regarding which projects to select, 

bid, and ultimately begin construction. 

As Congress works to reauthorize our Nation’s highway programs, the most important question we must answer is how we will 

pay for the program going forward. 

Since serving on the House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee during TEA–21, to our efforts with SAFETEA–LU, and 

most recently with MAP–21, I’m skeptical about the financing proposals the Administration has put forward to fund its $302 billion 

plan, especially the Administration’s reliance upon one-time revenues from so-called corporate tax reform. This aspect of the plan 

is unlikely to secure broad support in Congress and fails to provide 

a longer-term funding solution for these vital programs. 

5 

I’m also concerned by the Administration’s proposal to fund additional programs, including new programs on passenger rail and vehicle safety and an expansion of TIGER, through the successor to 

the Highway Trust Fund. In a time of limited revenue, it would 

seem to me unwise to make new promises regarding programs that 

have the potential to divert funding from the core mission of the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

Nevertheless, there are some provisions I’m encouraged by, including the fact that the Administration has recognized my call for 

extending the deadline for Positive Train Control implementation. 

As we’ve discussed previously in this committee, delays at the Federal Communications Commission and other unforeseen events 

since enactment of the PTC mandate in 2008, have prevented nearly all passenger and freight railroads from moving forward on implementation of this technology. 

Along with Senators Blunt, McCaskill and Pryor, I’ve introduced 

legislation, which is supported by other members of this committee, 

to extend the 2015 deadline in order to provide all railroads with 

a realistic time-frame for full implementation. 

There are now 14 bipartisan co-sponsors of this legislation, and 

I hope that our committee will address the PTC issue, yet, this 

Congress. 

Unfortunately, however, the Administration’s proposal does not 

include a straightforward extension of the 2015 deadline, something that I think is necessary especially given the delays at the 

FCC. I hope to see such an extension included in any final bill reported out of the Committee and I look forward to working with my 

colleagues and with the Administration on this important issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding the hearing 

and thank Secretary Foxx for being with us and for his testimony 

and look forward to discussing with him further what we can do 

to get a robust highway program up and running that secures not 

only the near-term needs that we have but also those that we have 

down the road well into the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Foxx, I would ordinarily call on you immediately, but 

we have the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee who is sort of a big enchilada in this whole thing. 

And she wants to say something I hope. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator, I’ll just take 2 minutes. First, to thank all the members 

of this committee who are really involved in helping us resolve the 

problems we face and, of course, the secretary. 

We’re going bust in the trust fund in August and everybody 

seems to realize this. And if that were to happen, our states have 

already told us, every one of our states, that they will stop funding 

any new projects. And so, it would bring about a terrible economic 

situation for our businesses and our workers. 

So what I want to tell you today is some good news. The ‘‘Big 

Four’’ of the EPW Committee, which consists of myself, Senator 

6 

Carper, Senator Vitter and Senator Barrasso, Senator Fischer’s a 

member, and there are some others that aren’t who are members, 

we’ve agreed on a proposal for a multi-year bill. It’s fiscally conservative in the sense that its current spending plus inflation, we 

don’t go ahead of ourselves there because we have such a shortfall. 

It’s $18 billion a year. 

So we’re going to have a press conference or a press statement 

tomorrow. We will be putting our bill out at that time. So I wanted 

to announce that because this committee, under you leadership and 

Senator Thune, has a huge obligation to write part of this bill; 

which doesn’t cross on our jurisdiction but you know the titles that 

you deal with. And also, of course, the Banking Committee has jurisdiction and also the Finance Committee has huge jurisdiction to 

figure out a pay-for to find that shortfall. 

So I just came here to thank you so much for doing this hearing 

today because every one of us, in each committee, has a lot of work 

ahead of us. And I will be there with you and Senator Thune, on 

this committee and all the colleagues, trying to reach a good agreement but quickly, because we don’t have a lot of time. 

And the Administration’s proposal, we’re going over it to see 

what we can get done in bipartisan way. And that’s my report. And 

I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today. I would like to welcome 

Secretary Foxx back to the Committee. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss 

with you the administration’s surface transportation proposal as well as other matters. 

Maintaining and improving our Nation’s infrastructure is absolutely vital to our 

country’s economic prosperity. States like South Dakota rely on a top quality transportation network to connect the vast distances between our communities and to 

help deliver critical agriculture products and natural resources via truck and freight 

rail to markets across the country and around the globe. 

Also important is the safety mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which not only conducts vehicle safety research, but also administers 

various grants to keep motorists safe. While we are approaching the expiration of 

the most recent Surface Transportation bill (MAP–21) that was signed into law just 

less than two years ago, like the Chairman, I am looking forward to working with 

my colleagues on both the Commerce Committee and also the Finance Committee 

to ensure that we continue to have a robust surface transportation program. 

I am glad that the administration released its first-ever surface transportation reauthorization proposal last week, especially in light of the anticipated shortfalls facing the Highway Trust Fund. 

As many in this room know, the Highway Trust Fund is projected to become insolvent later this summer. This shortfall, which is already being felt, will lead to 

delays in highway and safety improvements and reimbursements to states and the 

construction sector. 

This is particularly problematic for cold-weather states such as South Dakota that 

have a shorter construction season and a limited window to make decisions regarding which projects to select, bid, and ultimately begin construction. 

As Congress works to reauthorize our Nation’s highway programs, the most important question we must answer is how we will pay for the program going forward. 

Since serving on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee during 

TEA–21, to our efforts with SAFETEA–LU, and most recently MAP–21, I am skeptical about the financing proposals the administration has put forward to fund its 

$302 billion plan, especially the administration’s reliance upon one-time revenues 

from so-called corporate tax reform. This aspect of the plan is unlikely to secure 

broad support in Congress and fails to provide a longer term funding solution for 

these vital programs. 

7 

I am also concerned by the administration’s proposal to fund additional programsincluding new programs on passenger rail and vehicle safety and an expansion of 

TIGER—through the successor to the Highway Trust Fund. In a time of limited revenue, it would be unwise to make new promises regarding programs that have the 

potential to divert funding from the core mission of the Highway Trust Fund. 

Nevertheless, there are some provisions I am encouraged by, including the fact 

that the administration has finally recognized my call for extending the deadline for 

Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation. As we have discussed previously in 

this Ccommittee, delays at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and 

other unforeseen events since enactment of the PTC mandate in 2008, have prevented nearly all passenger and freight railroads from moving forward on implementation of this technology. 

Along with Senators Blunt, McCaskill, and Pryor I have introduced legislation, 

which is supported by other members of this committee, to extend the 2015 deadline 

in order to provide all railroads with a realistic time-frame for full implementation. 

There are now fourteen bipartisan co-sponsors of this legislation, and I hope that 

our Committee will address the PTC issue yet this Congress. 

Unfortunately, however, the administration’s proposal does not include a straightforward extension of the 2015 deadline, something which I think is necessary, especially given the delays at the FCC. I hope to see such an extension included in any 

final bill reported out of our committee, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the administration on this important issue. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing, and I look forward to 

Secretary Foxx’s testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. And your work is 

distinguished and aggressive and smart. You know the margins 

and how to work them. 

Mr. Secretary, no more speeches between us and you. Have at it. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and all members 

of the Committee, I want to thank you all for having me and to 

say a special word of thank you to Senator Boxer, to the Chair of 

the EPW Committee, for the work that you’re doing with folks on 

a bipartisan basis to help solve this problem. 

At the U.S. Department of Transportation safety is, by far, our 

most important mission. We take this mission seriously and we appreciate the attention this committee has and will continue to devote to this important subject. It’s an important one for all parts 

of our country and especially now. 

A week ago, in fact, one week ago this very hour, a train carrying 

crude oil from Chicago to Virginia derailed not far from downtown 

Lynchburg. The crash sent oil spilling into the James River and 

flames, stories high, ignited on the banks of that river causing the 

evacuation of a 20-block area. We’re fortunate no one was killed let 

alone hurt. Back in July, as you remember, an oil train crashed 

outside of Quebec killing 47. Something like that, unfortunately, 

could easily happen inside our borders too. 

We are at the dawn of an incredibly promising time for energy 

in America. Increased production is creating new jobs and more opportunity. But moving this oil is also creating more risk and greater danger. If America is going to be a world leader in producing 

this energy than we’re going to have to be a world leader in safely 

transporting it as well. So today I’ve taken further action to ensure 

that we are. 

8 

Today, I’ve released a safety alert advising shippers and energy 

companies to no longer use the DOT–111 tank car and to use a 

higher standard of car when transporting oil. This is consistent 

with my statements 4 weeks ago before the transportation appropriations subcommittee that, for purposes of transporting Bakken 

crude, the DOT–111 should be retrofitted or replaced. I’ve also 

signed an emergency order. It requires, by law, shippers and energy companies to identify the routes Bakken oil crude is traveling 

and to notify State Emergency Responders so they can work with 

communities that are along those routes. That way local police and 

fire departments can prepare. These are just the latest steps we’ve 

taken. 

Last week, we submitted a comprehensive rule to OMB that will 

address a variety of issues; new tank car standards, speed, proper 

classification, among others. The relevance to this hearing today is 

simply this: Even these safety measures will be insufficient if we 

do not prepare our rails, roads and communities by adding another 

important element, a first-rate infrastructure system. 

Over the next generation, we’re going to not just be moving more 

energy. We’re going to be moving more of everything; more people 

and more goods. By 2050, we’ll have to move almost twice the 

amount of freight that we currently do. And whether we can do 

that safely is more of an open question now than it has ever been. 

Mostly because we have struggled to maintain transportation funding levels in recent years. In fact, today I’ve sent a letter to all 

State Departments of Transportation. It warns them that if action 

isn’t taken, the Highway Trust Fund could become insolvent as 

soon as August. And if that happens, it will be near impossible for 

communities to keep their infrastructure safe and up to code. 

This is why we sent the GROW AMERICA Act to the Hill last 

week. Because, if we didn’t, if we don’t invest in our transportation 

system right now, it’s easy to see a future that is full of even more 

crumbling roads, bridges, broken track and chokepoints. You can 

actually see this right now. 

Last month, I was in Nashville where there are four bridges that 

have reached the end of their useful life. And one has been shut 

down three times since last summer because concrete crumbles and 

falls onto the roadway below where drivers drive. 

GROW AMERICA could fix a bridge like this and keep travelers 

safe. It would do so not only by making the Highway Trust Fund 

solvent but by growing our transportation programs to accommodate our growing needs. The other side of this wouldn’t just be a 

newer, safer, transportation system; it would be a transportation 

system that supports many thousands, if not millions, of new jobs. 

Both jobs in building our infrastructure and jobs in industries that 

are supported by it; industries like tourism and shipping. Especially shipping, because this includes the resources we need to 

strengthen America’s freight network. It would also modernize how 

we fund transportation. For example, GROW AMERICA streamlines the approval and permitting process so projects could be built 

faster and cheaper but with the same quality. 

We believe there’s room for agreement here, not just on the bipartisan reforms but also on funding, too. And we’re particularly 

encouraged that members of both parties, like Chairman Dave 

9 

Camp and Senator Boxer, have expressed their openness to progrowth business tax reform as a pay-for. 

So I’ll end my remarks there except to say that for more than 

half a century Congress has consistently recognized that as America grows so must our investment in transportation. And, in almost 

every case, each new surface reauthorization law has increased investment by 40 percent compared to the last law. And Congress 

has passed them with broad bipartisan majorities in both Houses. 

I see no reason why Congress can’t do so again. America does not 

need another crisis. After all, we all take the same oath, an oath 

to protect this country and its people. And that’s what investing in 

our transportation system does. It creates a sturdier, stronger, 

safer America. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Foxx follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the Administration’s proposal to reauthorize the surface transportation programs, called the 

GROW AMERICA Act. 

Transportation is a critical engine of the Nation’s economy. Investments in the national transportation network over the country’s history, and especially the last half 

of the 20th Century, have been instrumental in developing the world’s largest economy and most mobile society. However, before the end of this summer the Highway 

Trust Fund—which funds a significant portion of the construction and repair of our 

surface transportation system—is projected to become insolvent and just a few 

weeks later the authorities that underpin our surface transportation programs will 

expire. Without action, many States, tribal and local communities may be forced to 

slow or stop work on critical transportation projects that our Nation depends upon 

to move people, energy, and freight every day, putting jobs at risk and slowing investment in our future. This slow-down may happen well in advance of actual insolvency. Indeed, we have reports that many states are already re-thinking their investment plans due to the uncertainty coming from Congress. 

Additionally, it is critical that we boost infrastructure investment as we are not 

keeping pace with our growing economy, our growing population, and the traveling 

needs of the public. For example: 

• 65 percent of America’s major roads are not in good condition. One in four 

bridges need significant repair or cannot handle today’s traffic. 45 percent of 

Americans do not have access to transit. 

• By 2020, the Highway Trust Fund’s purchasing power will have dropped by 

nearly half since 1990, even though the country’s population is projected to increase 30 percent. 

• Bringing existing transit assets up to a state of good repair will require an 

annualized investment level of $18.5 billion through the year 2030, compared 

to the $10.3 billion currently being spent per year. 

The Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America Act, 

or GROW AMERICA Act, is a $302 billion, four-year transportation reauthorization 

proposal that provides increased and stable funding for our Nation’s highways, 

bridges, transit, and rail systems. The Administration’s proposal is funded by 

supplementing current revenues with $150 billion in one-time transition revenue 

from pro-growth business tax reform. This will prevent a Trust Fund shortfall for 

four years and increase investments to meet national economic goals. 

The GROW AMERICA Act will provide States, tribal and local governments with 

the certainty needed to effectively plan and start construction on projects that will 

support millions of jobs over the next several years. It will also enable more transformative transportation projects that will improve the Nation’s global competitiveness and mobility in communities across the country. Specifically, the GROW 

AMERICA Act will provide— 

10 

• $199 billion to invest in our Nation’s highway system. The proposal will increase 

the amount of highway funds by an average of about 22 percent above FY 2014 

enacted levels, emphasizing ‘‘Fix-it-First’’ policies and reforms that prioritize investments for much needed repairs and improvements to the safety of our roads 

and transit services, with particular attention to investments in rural and tribal 

areas. 

• $7 billion focused on car and truck safety measures. The proposal will also provide $7 billion for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to improve safety for all users of our 

highways and roads. 

• $72 billion to invest in transit systems and expand transportation options. The 

proposal increases average transit spending by nearly 70 percent above FY 2014 

enacted levels, which will enable the expansion of new projects that improve 

connectivity, such as light rail, street cars, and bus rapid transit, in suburbs, 

fast-growing cities, small towns, and rural communities, while still maintaining 

existing transit systems. The GROW AMERICA Act proposes a powerful, $5.1 

billion increase from FY14 enacted in investments to address public transit’s 

maintenance backlog to reduce bus and rail system breakdowns; create more reliable service; and reduce delays that make it harder for all commuters to get 

to work. The proposal also includes the innovative Rapid Growth Area Transit 

Program, which will provide $2 billion over four years to fast growing communities for bus rapid transit and other multimodal solutions to get ahead of the 

challenges caused by rapid growth. 

• Improve project delivery and the Federal permitting process. The GROW AMERICA Act will build on recent efforts to expedite project approval timelines while 

delivering better outcomes for communities and the environment. The proposal 

expands on a series of successful efforts by the Administration to expedite high 

priority projects and identify best practices to guide future efforts without undermining bedrock environmental laws or public engagement. Not only will important projects break ground faster, but the increased level of transparency 

and accountability will lead to delivering better environmental outcomes, as the 

proposal will improve interagency coordination by advancing concurrent, rather 

than sequential, project reviews and will improve transparency of project reviews and timelines through online ‘‘dashboards.’’ It will also increase flexibility 

for recipients to use Federal transportation funds to support environmental reviews, and help to integrate overlapping requirements. 

• Tools and resources to encourage regional coordination and local decision making. The proposal includes policy reforms to incentivize improved regional coordination by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), which are local 

communities’ main voice in transportation planning. The GROW AMERICA Act 

also strengthens local decision making in allocating Federal funding so that 

local communities can better realize their vision for improved mobility. Highperforming large MPOs will be granted control of a larger portion of funds 

under two Federal transportation programs—the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)—and these 

MPOs will also receive funds through a set aside under the new Fixing and Accelerating Surface Transportation (FAST) program. 

The GROW AMERICA Act will take critical steps to safeguard the traveling public. The Act addresses safety vulnerabilities on our transportation network— 

vulnerabilities that pose a potential threat to the health and welfare of all American 

workers and families. Specifically, the Act will— 

• Expand authority to protect the public from automobile defects. The Act will 

strengthen safety regulators’ ability to hold automobile manufacturers accountable for defects that can cost lives. 

• Take steps to improve truck and bus safety by streamlining the Federal truckand bus-safety grant programs to provide more flexibility for states to take fast 

action to address regional and evolving truck-and bus-safety issues. 

The U.S. transportation system moves more than 52 million tons of freight worth 

nearly $46 billion each day, or almost 40 tons of freight per person per year, and 

freight tonnage is expected to increase 62 percent by 2040. The GROW AMERICA 

Act will make critical investments to help improve the safe and efficient movement 

of freight across all modes of transportation—highway, rail, port, and pipeline. 

Without new investment, supply chains degrade, hindering job growth and harming 

retailers, manufacturers, and the millions of American consumers who need their 

11 

goods to be transported efficiently and affordably. Specifically, the GROW AMERICA Act will— 

• Provide $10 billion for a multi-modal freight program that strengthens America’s exports and trade. The GROW AMERICA Act will help make critical investments to improve the efficiency of the movement of goods throughout our 

transportation system and help accommodate future growth, in part through 

providing $10 billion over four years to establish a new multimodal freight 

grant program to fund innovative rail, highway, and port projects. 

• Align planning among the Federal Government, states, ports, and local communities to improve decision-making. The GROW AMERICA Act incentivizes states 

to collaborate and establish long term freight strategic plans that will help inform a National Freight Strategic Plan assembled by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation that will serve as the basis for how the Department can best 

support freight movement. Additionally, the GROW AMERICA Act will give 

shippers and transportation providers a real seat at the table for making investment decisions. 

The GROW AMERICA Act will expand economic growth, and create jobs and new 

opportunities for Americans. The President is dedicated to enhancing opportunity 

for all Americans and U.S. businesses by investing in transportation projects that 

better connect communities to centers of employment, education, and other critical 

services. Specifically, the GROW AMERICA Act will— 

• Support ladders of opportunity to the middle class. Today, 45 percent of Americans lack access to public transportation, limiting the options of many Americans to jobs, education and other necessities. The GROW AMERICA Act will 

provide improved access to safer and less expensive transportation options for 

millions of Americans in part by investing $72 billion in public transportation 

and expanding transportation options for millions of Americans. This proposal 

includes $2 billion for an innovative Rapid Growth Area Transit Program to 

provide new bus rapid transit and other multimodal solutions for rapidly growing regions. The GROW AMERICA Act includes $245 million for workforce development to enhance the size, diversity, and skills of our Nation’s construction 

and transportation workforce through collaborative partnerships with the U.S. 

Department of Labor, States, and non-governmental organizations. 

• Provide a significant investment to enhance safety and modernize our rail infrastructure to meet growing market demand. The Act will invest $19 billion over 

four years, including nearly $5 billion annually for high performance and passenger rail programs with a focus on improving the connections between key regional city pairs and high traffic corridors throughout the country. The Act will 

also improve rail safety and provide certainty to states and local communities 

by dedicating sustained funding to make the transportation investments necessary to improve our infrastructure and support our economic growth. The Act 

also builds on current investments to vastly improve the system in areas ranging from Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation to enhancing flexibility 

in financing programs that will better enable the rehabilitation of aging infrastructure. 

The GROW AMERICA Act will provide more bang-for-the-buck through innovative project finance and delivery improvements. In a time of tight fiscal and budgetary constraints, the President’s proposal includes a number of measures to ensure 

that the American public is getting the most out of Federal transportation infrastructure investments that lead to better outcomes for all Americans. Specifically, 

the GROW AMERICA Act will— 

• Utilize competitive funding to spur innovation. The proposal will provide $5 billion over four years—an increase of more than 100 percent—for the highly successfully TIGER competitive grant program and $4 billion embedded in the 

highway and transit requests for a competitive grant program called Fixing and 

Accelerating Surface Transportation (FAST). Modeled after the Department of 

Education’s Race to the Top program, FAST will reward States, Tribes, and 

MPOs that adopt bold, innovative strategies and best practices in transportation that will have long-term impact on all projects across the transportation 

programs. 

• Incentivize cost-effective investments. The proposal will strengthen the performance incentives to maintain safety and conditions of good repair, and expand research and technology activities in order to improve the productivity of our 

transportation systems, thereby increasing taxpayer return on investment. 

12 

• Provide $4 billion to attract private investment in transportation infrastructure. 

The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program 

leverages Federal dollars by facilitating private participation in transportation 

projects and encouraging innovative financing mechanisms that help advance 

projects more quickly. The GROW AMERICA Act calls for $4 billion in funding 

over four years, which could support up to $40 billion in loans for transportation projects. The GROW AMERICA Act will strengthen the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program by allowing the Department to reduce the cost of obtaining a loan in some cases, making RRIF more 

accessible to short line and regional railroads. The proposal will raise the cap 

of Private Activity Bonds (PABs) to $19 billion, making room for more projects 

considering a public-private partnership approach to be able to take advantage 

of this cost-saving tool. 

The Administration proposes to fund the GROW AMERICA Act through a progrowth, business tax reform, without adding to the deficit. The President’s Budget 

outlined a proposal to dedicate $150 billion in one-time transition revenue from progrowth business tax reform to address the funding crisis facing surface transportation programs and increase infrastructure investment. This amount is sufficient 

to not only fill the current funding gap in the Highway Trust Fund, but increase 

surface transportation investment over current authorized levels by nearly $90 billion over the next four years. When taking into account existing funding for surface 

transportation, this plan will result in a total of $302 billion being invested over 

four years putting people back to work modernizing our transportation infrastructure. We believe that a comprehensive approach to reforming our business taxes can 

help create jobs and spur investment, while ensuring a fairer and more equitable 

tax system that eliminates current loopholes that reward companies for moving 

profits overseas and allow them to avoid paying their fair share. While we are putting forward this pro-growth financing plan to encourage bipartisan efforts to support a visionary infrastructure plan, we are open to all ideas for how to achieve this 

important objective, and will look forward to working closely with this Committee 

and all Members of Congress of both parties on a solution that will invest in more 

job creating transportation projects. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

I’m going to ask the first question and, everybody, we’ll stay it 

at 5 minutes. And everybody is going to get a chance to ask what 

they want. 

We have closed down the government. We talked about fiscal 

cliffs. August 29, funding from the Highway Trust Fund stops. 

What will be the effect in our states in terms of projects? Number 

one. And, number two, in the instinct to plan for other continued 

needed projects? 

Secretary FOXX. Mr. Chairman, the short answer is that we will 

start to feel the effects of the Highway Trust Funds insolvency before August. June and July is primetime for State DOTs to start 

letting contracts. And facing the kind of uncertainty that is ahead 

of us, many of those contracts will not be signed which will mean 

work will not go forward. In some cases, projects will be slowed 

down and estimates are that we stand to lose about 700,000 jobs 

immediately as a result of this trust fund moving into insolvency. 

On the question of planning, I would say that is also something 

that has been a challenge for many State DOTs and local project 

sponsors. Congress, over the last five years, has passed 18 continuing resolutions and nine extensions. And the cumulative effect 

of these short-term measures has been that, at the state and local 

levels, the project pipeline is slowing. Folks aren’t spending the 

tens of millions of dollars it takes to even plan a project because 

they don’t know whether the project can actually get done. 

13 

And so, this will be more of the same if we continue to drift toward insolvency this summer, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. To follow up on that, we have been building 

something called Appalachian Corridors in Appalachia since 1965. 

And, we’ve got one Corridor, called Corridor H, which is not in the 

newspapers a great deal because not a lot is happening to it. But, 

if it connects up with I–66, as it can in about 50 miles, if 50 miles 

are completed, it will take two-thirds of the land mass of West Virginia, which is not very large, and change all of their economic 

prospects for the better. 

So, if we’re going to run out of money, the psychology of planning 

ahead disappears. Just like, if people don’t think that there is a 

place for them in some kind of industry, they don’t gear up for it. 

The psychology of planning and working is mixed in with the psychology of spending or not spending; right? 

Secretary FOXX. That’s correct, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Those are my two questions for the moment. 

Distinguished Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, the Administration’s proposal would increase 

funding for transit by 70 percent, for rail programs by 243 percent, 

but it would only increase highway funding by 21 percent compared to current levels. I’m wondering what the reason is for that 

discrepancy? We’ve always thought about the highway bill, the 

Highway Trust Fund, being principally about highways. 

Secretary FOXX. Sure. 

Senator, if you take a look at our proposal, it’s a $302 billion proposal over 4 years; $199 billion of it goes directly into highways. 

And we suspect that with the advent of additional discretionary 

competitive programs that a substantial amount of the additional 

spending will also go into highways. 

But there are reasons why we’ve taken the approach that we’ve 

taken. And, primarily, it is that our country is growing. By 2050, 

we’re expecting 100 million additional people and 14 billion additional tons of freight that we’ll have to move around this country. 

And, because of that, we’ve got to have a multi-modal approach and 

our proposal is a recognition of that. 

So what I would say is that, in absolute dollars, the lion’s share 

of this money is still going to go into our highway system, which 

we obviously have critical repair needs, critical new capacity needs, 

but it also recognizes that we have growth happening in our metro 

areas. We also have rural connections through transit and through 

rail that badly need to happen whether it’s passenger or freight. 

Senator THUNE. Since I’ve been associated with highway bills in 

the time I’ve been in the House and Senate, we’ve done three. This 

would be four. It has always been funded by the user fee. I think 

it was pointed out earlier, Senator Rockefeller and I, and some others on this Committee, also serve on the Finance Committee. We 

had a meeting on the Finance Committee last year in which a couple of the members on our side—some are more conservative members—expressed support for an increase in the user fee, in the fuel 

tax. The Administration has, in testimony in front of this Committee and others that I’ve been involved with in my time in the 

14 

Senate, by your predecessor that that’s something the Administration would not support. 

And the reason I raise that question is because the corporate tax 

reform that’s used to fund this proposal is really one-time revenues. It’s repatriation of funds. It’s not the long-term solution that 

we’re all talking about. It actually creates a steeper cliff at the conclusion that would have to be a filled up with a more permanent 

source of financing. So, the question I have for you: is the Administration open to or going to close the door on a user fee, a fuel tax, 

as a way of more permanently funding the highway program as opposed to something like this which is short-term or limited? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, I appreciate the question. 

And our proposal is our proposal. We believe that it strikes the 

right balance and actually adheres to many of the principles that 

we’ve heard articulated from members of Congress on both sides of 

the aisle. That is a desire not to raise rates and a desire to avoid 

adversely impacting deficits. This proposal, as we’ve articulated it, 

would accomplish that. And that is why we’ve put it together the 

way we have. 

At the same time, we’ve also said that if there are other ideas 

that emerge from the Hill, we would listen to those ideas. And 

that’s still true. I would point out, however, that the fuel tax has 

been on the table for quite a while. And even more so, if you look 

at the overall curve in the fuel tax, the curve is downward facing. 

And that’s because of more efficient vehicles and the fact that the 

tax itself hasn’t been indexed. So it’s a tool that has been available 

to Congress over the last several years. We will continue to keep 

our ear to the ground and to listen for other ideas that may 

emerge. 

Senator THUNE. But it is a tool. It has been available to Congress, but it’s very difficult to feature a bill passed by Congress if 

the Administration has taken a hard stand saying I’m not going to 

sign a bill or entertain a financing mechanism that includes a user 

fee in increasing the gas tax. I mean, that’s basically, in front of 

this committee, what position the Administration has taken. 

I’m just curious because at some point we’ve got to find a longterm solution. And there are some of us who come from rural states 

where toll roads and vehicle miles traveled solutions just don’t 

work. But I guess the purpose for the question is to find out if the 

Administration—if that’s a position they will still adhere strongly 

to, or if they are open to consider that as a potential way of financing the highway program into the future as it has been financed 

in the past. 

Secretary FOXX. Again, we believe our proposal meets a lot of the 

principles that many have articulated. We think it is the right way 

to go particularly given the urgency of the moment and the fact 

that we have, even the last heroic effort to get a reauthorization 

bill done, was a 2-year bill. That said, as I said before, our ears 

and our minds are open to what emerges from the Hill. We make 

no representations about how the Administration will ultimately 

approach what comes out but we certainly want to be in the discussion and at the table with you. 

Senator THUNE. You would not rule it out? 

15 

Secretary FOXX. We are listening to what Congress says collectively. 

Senator THUNE. That’s what your predecessor said except that he 

ruled it out. 

Secretary FOXX. At least we’re consistent. 

Senator THUNE. Except that he ruled it out. 

I have one more quick question, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I’m with you—— 

Senator THUNE. OK. 

The CHAIRMAN.—on the way you tried to pin him down there and 

he wouldn’t answer. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s called the influence of OMB. 

Senator THUNE. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’re better than that, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator THUNE. I can come back to this later. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, go ahead. 

Senator THUNE. Well, this has to do with what happens if we 

don’t fix this thing. And I hope that we do. We need a fix on this 

and I hope we can come up with a solution. 

But what, if any, consideration has been given to ensuring that, 

if we have to fund projects and you’re looking at how to distribute 

funds, that a large project in one state doesn’t affect reimbursement for others in other states? Is the fact that some states have 

shorter building seasons a factor that’s being considered in terms 

of how you look at that? 

Secretary FOXX. In the event that we do reach insolvency, sir? 

Senator THUNE. Right. 

Secretary FOXX. Yes. 

We, in the past, when this issue has been in front of the department, have basically worked with each state to identify what the 

great challenges are within that state. Invariably, there will be 

some states that have greater capacity to manage a short fall than 

other states and that will certainly be taken into account based on 

past history. And, our desire and our work will be to hold as few 

states harmless as we can based on the resources we have, but it 

will be a tough issue when there’s less money and almost no money 

to meet our obligations. 

Senator THUNE. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cantwell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today, and thank 

you for the Administration’s leadership on the proposal that you 

brought in to fill the Highway Trust Fund including $10 billion in 

dedicated Multimodal Freight program. We very much appreciate 

the fact that not only are you dedicating investments toward moving freight in America that you also are looking at ways to make 

sure that we prioritize this from a funding perspective. And so, we 

very, very much appreciate that. 

16 

And I appreciate it, in your opening statement, about the railcar 

safety issue. All across my state people are having this debate in 

our local communities. Practically every newspaper in my state has 

editorialized on the subject. I think the Spokesman Review probably said it best. One that said, ‘‘So, Spokane and communities 

across the Northwest are at the mercy of a lumbering Federal bureaucracy. We can draw up disaster plans. We can conduct drills. 

But, after that, we just have to cross our fingers and watch the 

trains go by.’’ 

And the reason why I brought the map up is because this is the 

train route. And as you can see, the train route goes through every 

major city in the Northwest. It would not be a totally different 

story, obviously, if it went through a more rural community but it’s 

hitting every urban center of our state. 

So this is a big issue for us and people obviously want to know. 

Today, you’re announcement will be helpful and giving transparency on emergency responders being able to access that information about what’s being carried and when. So that’s a positive 

step in the development. 

But I guess my question is, if people don’t comply with the previous voluntary standards that you set out or this response, is 

there any penalties for not responding to that if you’re a shipper? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, let’s take both. 

The safety advisory is not law. And that is what we are issuing 

today; to urge not using DOT–111s for the transport of Bakken 

crude oil. 

Senator CANTWELL. And when should they be phased out? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, we are under the rulemaking process, currently. We submitted to OMB last week a comprehensive approach 

to this. The rule is still under review but, what I would say is that 

we are moving as expeditiously as we can to provide certainty to 

the communities you just talked about as well as to industry. And 

as soon as that rule is out our position on the timeline will be 

known. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I would just say this: I think my communities are thinking you’re thinking more about industry than 

thinking about communities. And that is, if you look at what previously happened with the incidents and, now, what just happened 

in Lynchburg—and I get that this is a challenging question at 

where to draw the line. But, if we know that we want to get rid 

of these carriers that we don’t think are a safe transport vehicle 

for the Bakken oil and we think it’s unsafe, than we should come 

up with a date in certainty. 

Making it voluntary, in my opinion, isn’t going far enough. And 

to think now, from the Lynchburg situation, that one of the cars 

that may have derailed or exploded might even be a newer car, 

which may pose a question to us; is the newest car going to be safe 

enough? 

Again, for these communities in my state, huge populations, a lot 

of transportation going through there. Just knowing that they’re 

coming through there isn’t going to be enough. And so, I would 

urge, DOT to—when you look at the, what is it, 8,000 percent increase and the amount of product now being carried. So what’s 

17 

happened is an explosion of product being carried through this area 

and not the right response in safety regulations. 

And so, we’re urging a mandatory date for getting rid of these 

DOT–111 cars and a mandatory rule on safety. Because we just 

think it’s too much for people to ignore the voluntary agreement 

without policing with so many people at risk as we saw in Canada 

and as we saw in Lynchburg and as we’re seeing in other areas. 

So I thank you, though. I thank you for your responsiveness. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

And, Senator, rest assured that we agree with you. The voluntary measures that we’ve undertaken, by virtue of the call to action that we did with industry a few months ago, were intended to 

be interim steps until a rule was actually promulgated and finalized. 

And, again, we’re working as hard and fast as we can to get that 

done. We know the certainty matters. And it is because communities across America have had concerns about this that we issued 

the emergency order which is binding on the industry to notify 

communities as to what is moving through their communities when 

it comes to this order. 

Senator CANTWELL. Will your rulemaking be done by the end of 

the year? 

Secretary FOXX. It is my intention that it will. And I hope to 

have it done sooner than that if we can. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Secretary FOXX. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

But I did want to bring up the fact that we lost Jim Oberstar 

this week. Congressman Oberstar died in his sleep and suddenly. 

And, as you know, he loved transportation. And he talked about it. 

The CHAIRMAN. He loved transportation so much, and I apologize 

to my colleague—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN.—he came, several times, to West Virginia Appalachian Regional Commission meetings to help. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And he had nothing to gain from it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And for those members that never worked 

with Jim, he’s Minnesota, Northern Minnesota, Congressman; 47 

years of experience in transportation, 11 as a staffer and 36 as a 

Member of Congress. So, anyone that drives over roads and bridges 

this week should think of Jim. And, mostly, anyone that goes on 

the bike trails. 

He was ahead of his time, Secretary Foxx, and really visionary 

about bike trails and how much Americans would use bike trails. 

So we miss him very much in our state. And his funeral is tomorrow. 

I wanted to talk with you, just following up on Senator 

Cantwell’s questions, on rail. I know she talked about some of the 

18 

safety issues and other things but one of the things that we’re really concerned about right now is the service delays and interruptions. We have so much use of rail in the upper-Midwest with oil 

and with other energy sources that some of our agriculture producers are really having issues with accessing rail. And I wanted 

to make sure you were aware of that as well as some of the pricing 

issues. 

Secretary FOXX. Yes, I am. 

And I know that the Surface Transportation Board has developed 

some preliminary covenants with industry to try to release some of 

those bottlenecks. But this is also underscoring part of what I said 

at the outset, which is that we have growing freight activity in this 

country. And without substantial, new, more robust investments in 

infrastructure, we’re going to find ourselves more bottlenecks, more 

congestion and more delays. And that is one of the reasons why a 

substantial investment today is so important. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

And I would echo what some of my colleagues talked about with 

the Highway Trust Fund and how important that is. I know that 

Senator Boxer has been working on that. 

I brought up trails and I worked hard with several of my colleagues to ensure that the Recreational Trails Program was preserved in MAP–21. As you know, Recreational Trails is a foundation for our state trails across the country. And I recently sent a 

letter with Senators Risch, Burr and Shaheen and 20 other senators, urging the program’s continuation in the next transportation 

reauthorization bill. And I wanted to get your thoughts on our TP 

program and its importance to trail users. 

Secretary FOXX. Well, I was in Indianapolis just a couple of 

weeks ago. And this is a city that has managed to develop substantial trails that are starting to bring population into the city. And 

that population is using the existing grid networks within that city, 

leveraging existing investments in infrastructure, so that they’re 

avoiding some of the green-filled development that can sometimes 

result in loss of environmental integrity in an area and also add 

cost. 

And so, we’re seeing in this country a resurgence of these types 

of investments that improve quality of life that attract population, 

leverage existing infrastructure and help communities grow. And 

it’s a very important part of the life of communities across America. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And we appreciate it, by the way, your visit 

to Minnesota; not to go from Indianapolis to Minneapolis but that 

was the second state you visited. And we do want to invite you 

back in June for the opening of the Central Corridor Light Rail; 

something Mr. Rogoff has worked very hard on, that links Minneapolis and St. Paul. So check your calendar for that. 

And also, as you and I discussed, some of the really needy transportation programs and projects across our state, including Highway 10 and Anoka, but I just wanted to end, in my last minute or 

so here, to ask you about NHTSA. 

Senator McCaskill chaired a hearing that I’ll never forget, the 

hearing about the GM recall and what was happening there. And 

we have a woman in Minnesota, Natasha Weigel from Albert Lea, 

who was just going down the road and basically stalled out. And 

19 

her car went 70 miles per hour and veered off the road, slammed 

into a grove of trees. She was killed, her friend driving the car was 

killed, and one of the things that I realized, as I went through the 

evidence and listened to the hearing, was just that you had over 

200 complaints to NHTSA about this ignition problem. And when 

I heard about how it was first viewed as a problem with the airbags, there was, nevertheless, a lot of evidence there about the ignition switches. 

And I remain deeply concerned about NHTSA’s ability to spot 

these trends. How do we fix it? Do you think 11 staff members are 

sufficient to review the more than 40,000 vehicle safety complaints 

NHTSA receives every year? 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you for the question. 

And, obviously, the GM recall issues remain under investigation 

by NHTSA. I have also asked our Inspector General to do a selfdiagnosis on this to assure ourselves that we’re either doing everything we can to catch these things early or if there are additional 

steps that we need to take going forward, that those steps will be 

taken so that this type of activity doesn’t happen again. 

But, having said that, NHTSA is an agency that has had, over 

the last 7 years, 1,200 or so recalls affecting 95 million vehicles. 

And we, as an agency, have prided ourselves on the effectiveness 

of our safety standards, which set the standard for the world quite 

frankly. If there’s a better way, going forward, to prevent the types 

of injuries and deaths that have occurred in this situation, we will 

find it. And that’s our mission as an agency. And we always endeavor to get better. And if we can, we will. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, how many people have been killed in these rail accidents? In the most recent ones? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, in the most recent ones, we have not had 

deaths in the U.S. but in Canada there were 47. 

Senator JOHNSON. Those are all oil, transporting oil; correct? 

Secretary FOXX. That’s correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. There’s another way of transporting oil; isn’t 

there? 

Secretary FOXX. There are many ways. Yes, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. I mean, what’s the most efficient; pipelines? 

Secretary FOXX. There are lots of ways. 

Senator JOHNSON. Has there been anybody killed in a pipeline 

accident recently? 

Secretary FOXX. There have been people killed in pipeline accidents. 

Senator JOHNSON. Recently? Forty-six? 

Secretary FOXX. I have to ask our PHMSA Administrator. 

Senator JOHNSON. Is the Administration at all, considering—I realize Keystone XL Pipeline is a different issue—but are we considVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\93415.TXT JACKIE
20 

ering other pipelines to take some of the burden off the rail system? 

Secretary FOXX. We are modal-agnostic at DOT. If there is a 

mode to move something, we try to make sure the safety standard 

is met. So, however it moves, our job is to make sure it moves safely. 

Senator JOHNSON. But would part of your job, also, would be to 

make sure it moves as safely as possible and cost effectively for the 

economy? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, our job is to ensure that however stuff is 

moving it’s moving safely, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. I believe I’m correct that most of the capital 

expenditure for freight rail is actually paid by the freight companies themselves, the rail companies themselves; isn’t it? 

Secretary FOXX. If you take out the cost of the infrastructure 

that they ride on. 

Senator JOHNSON. So educate me on that. So what does the Federal Government pay in terms of infrastructure on the freight rail 

system? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, it depends, for the short line rail systems 

we have historically provided support to ensure that the track is 

safe. The Class 1 railroads tend to self-fund their track more so 

than the short line railroads do. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, out of your proposed budget here, how 

much would be spent on freight rail systems? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, we would propose to put $19 billion into 

rail. 

Senator JOHNSON. That’s primarily passenger rail; right? 

Secretary FOXX. Primarily passenger rail but, because in many 

cases passenger rail and freight rail are running on the same track, 

there will be benefits to freight rail as well. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

I was a little confused because you seem to be making the case 

that a lot of the increase in spending here is about the increased 

rail traffic for freight, but it’s really the freight companies that, the 

rail companies, that pay for that themselves. 

Secretary FOXX. Well, a lot of the—— 

Senator JOHNSON. I mean to a great extent. It’s primarily their 

capital expenditure. 

Secretary FOXX. There is no substitute for predictable, sustained, 

Federal investment in our infrastructure system. And, when it 

comes to non-Class 1 rail, we have some significant safety and efficiency needs in rail. 

Senator JOHNSON. Current transportation spendings are, what, 

about $45 billion? 

Secretary FOXX. Roughly. 

Senator JOHNSON. And the gas tax revenues are about $34 billion? So we’ve got about $11 billion per year deficit? 

Secretary FOXX. I think it’s closer to about 15. 

Closer to $18 billion, sir. Sorry. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

So what is the outlay, then, versus the revenue? 

Secretary FOXX. I would say we are generating about $34 billion 

through the gas tax. And so, if you add, about $52 billion. 

21 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. The number I have, about $45 billion. 

OK, so you’re going to propose increasing that to about $75 billion per year. You know, so you’re going to be spending more than 

about a $40 billion deficit? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, we’re trying to both address the shortfall 

in the Highway Trust Fund but also to increase investment in our 

Nation’s infrastructure. 

Senator JOHNSON. I understand. 

By the way, that’s a top priority. 

Are there any discussions within the executive branch there, 

interagency, about prioritizing the spending as opposed to looking 

at increasing taxes? Because I actually think infrastructure spending is a high priority of government. Who else is going to do it? 

States and the Federal Government? 

Any discussion in terms of taking, you know, for example, some 

of the GAO reports where you have duplicated programs and 

maybe take some of that lower priority spending, some of the duplicated spending, and allocate that toward transportation spending 

in infrastructure? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, it’s an interesting question that you raise 

because we have had experience in this Administration, in the 

DOT, with improving the efficiency by which projects move through 

our permitting process. 

Senator JOHNSON. I do know there are about 55 duplicated programs in DOT. Have you analyzed those? And have you canceled 

any of those programs? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, we are working as hard as we can to ensure efficiency. And there are efficiency provisions in our proposal 

that focus on streamlining and making sequential permitting processes more concurrent. 

Senator JOHNSON. But, I mean, specifically to Senator Coburn’s 

wastebook, are any of those duplicated programs within the Department of Transportation, have any of those been eliminated? 

Secretary FOXX. I’d have to take a look, sir, and respond back to 

you. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK, I appreciate that answer. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary FOXX. Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

I warn members that we have a 3:45 vote or two. And so, we 

want to get everybody included. 

Senator Markey to be followed by Senator Fischer. 

It was Senator Fischer followed by Senator Markey, but he came 

in at the last moment; reclaimed his place. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m sorry, Senator Markey. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh. 

Senator FISCHER. Who are we going with here? 

The CHAIRMAN. He actually came in. 

Senator FISCHER. Oh, OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

22 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to raise some concerns about what is not 

in the Administration’s transportation bill proposal. And what is 

not in the Administration’s transportation bill is a single measure 

that would prevent a car company from keeping a dangerous safety 

defect for a decade in the future from being public. 

We have seen so many reports about how GM treated consumers 

who complained that their cars shutdown on their own even after 

GM knew it had a problem. At the time that Benjamin Hear was 

killed in a Pontiac G5 in December 2009, GM had conducted five 

internal studies into the ignition switch problem. But GM still told 

his mother that the accident wasn’t related to a safety defect. 

So it should be clear to everyone here that it is much more difficult to cover up evidence and dismiss consumer complaints if the 

evidence is publically available. That is why I introduced the Early 

Warning Reporting System Improvement Act along with Senator 

Blumenthal to greatly increase the information made available to 

the public about potentially defective vehicles. 

Our bill calls for automobile companies to automatically provide 

NHTSA with copies of the documents that first made them aware 

of a fatality involving their cars and for NHTSA to make those documents available to the public. One way to illustrate just why our 

bill is needed is to look at what GM provided to NHTSA, when 

NHTSA took the unusual step for NHTSA of asking for more information about some of the GM Cobalt fatalities it learned about. 

I’d like to submit this document for the record. This is a document tracking this relationship between GM and NHTSA on the 

Cobalt issue. 

[The information referred to is contained within Committee files. 

Also available at www.markey.senate.gove/imo/medic/doc/Request 

toGMfromNHTSA2007NHTSA-MARKEY%202.pdf] 

Senator MARKEY. By the time NHTSA did ask for more information, what GM submitted to NHTSA in 2007 proves that GM knew 

that the contractor NHTSA used to investigate the accident that 

killed two Wisconsin teenagers was doing so because of concern 

that the airbags had not deployed. Even more shockingly, GM also 

sent NHTSA a February 2007 analysis and reconstruction report 

done by the Wisconsin State Patrol Academy that found that the 

ignition switch had turned the engine off at the time of the crash 

preventing the airbags from deploying. The report also references 

other reports of similar problems that the Wisconsin investigators 

uncovered. 

We already know what happened next. Nothing. NHTSA didn’t 

begin a defect investigation; GM didn’t recall the vehicles; and 

these documents remained secret for years. They’re being released 

publically. Publically, for the first time today; this report that I 

have in my hand. If they had been automatically provided to 

NHTSA, and if NHTSA had made them public, consumers, our 

auto safety experts, could have identified these defects much sooner 

and prevented additional deaths and injuries. 

Secretary Foxx, will you support the language that Senator 

Blumenthal and I are asking to require the documents that first 

23 

alerts automakers to a fatality involving their vehicles be provided 

to NHTSA and made publically available? 

Secretary FOXX. Senator, I will certainly take a look at the bill 

and I will also offer our team to provide technical assistance to you 

and to Senator Blumenthal should you wish to enter that conversation as this proposal moves forward in Congress. 

Senator MARKEY. Conceptually, do you have any problem with 

the information being made public when an accident occurs that 

leads to a fatality that the information be sent to NHTSA? Do you 

have any problem with that? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, I think in the past there’ve been several 

challenges including not the least of which being individual privacy. But, I think there’s some promise to what you’re proposing 

and I would offer what I’ve just said, technical assistance, and I’ll 

take a look at the bill. 

Senator MARKEY. If the privacy issues are overcome and it’s just 

generic information that’s passed on, would that then alleviate 

your concern and could you then support? 

Secretary FOXX. I understand what you’re driving at. I think it’s 

a laudable goal. I look forward to taking a look at the bill. 

Senator MARKEY. So you’re not making a commitment? 

Secretary FOXX. I’m not making a commitment right now, sir. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. 

Well, I think, obviously here, that we’ve had a huge problem at 

NHTSA and we’ve had a huge problem within the auto industry. 

If this information had been made public, we could’ve avoided this 

entire mess that GM is going through right now. And I think it’s 

imperative for the Administration to provide this information from 

the auto industry to NHTSA so that it is there in the public domain so that we can avoid this catastrophe which is effecting hundreds of, if not more, families all across our country. 

And I think that we cannot allow automakers to keep the very 

same accident report details secret in the future. And I just wish 

that we were hearing a more affirmative answer from the Administration on this. I just think that we cannot go through this whole 

situation and not have an answer for the American people. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, Senator Markey. And you can include me in that group. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Fischer. 

I’m sorry. I apologize. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do thank you 

for holding this—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Markey has been here for 112 years. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. He has a lot of seniority. 

Senator FISCHER. But on this committee I think I have seniority, 

too. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FISCHER. But I do thank you for holding this hearing. 

24 

Senator MARKEY. I am called junior for the first time in 40 years. 

I love it. I love it. 

Senator FISCHER. Good deal. Thanks. 

Good to see you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary FOXX. Good to see you, Senator. 

Senator FISCHER. I know you’re aware of the issues that we were 

having in Nebraska with the Federal Highway Administration and 

also with the whole NEPA process. 

I don’t know if you’ve heard the updates on where we are there 

but, you know, the concern was just the process causing a higher 

cost, more time, projects not getting done. 

I would like to tell you, though, that the Acting Administrator, 

after meeting with me and we went over a lot of these different 

problems and issues, traveled to Nebraska; had meetings; things 

are moving along; we’re forming an action plan; and some things 

are moving forward. So I wanted to keep you up to date on that. 

And I hope we’ll continue to see that cooperation between the Federal and state government so that we can monitor the situation 

and make sure we continue to move forward and are able to accomplish the goals we all have, making sure that these big infrastructure projects are going to be completed and cost effective in, also, 

a timely manner. 

So thank you. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

Senator FISCHER. As you know, agricultural truck drivers as well 

as retailers and wholesalers, as they’re delivering these farm supplies, they’re currently granted an exemption from the hours-ofservice rules if they’re operating within that 150 mile radius. And 

that’s been very helpful for folks that are planting and harvesting. 

And if they didn’t have that exemption, they would have to have 

the cost of a larger fleet of trucks, we’d have to see more drivers 

and I think we’d see some missed production opportunities as well. 

Do you believe that that’s important to maintain that exemption 

on the hours-of-service for agriculture? Are you confident that we 

can maintain that? 

Secretary FOXX. I believe that, in the situations where we’ve 

made exceptions, they’ve been necessary exceptions. And that’s buttressed against our overall goal of assuring that we are adhering 

to the highest level of safety. And as situations emerge, we will 

continue to try to do the best we can to strike the right balance 

and that’s always what our goal is. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. I hope you will look at that in a serious 

manner. I think it’s important to keep that 150 mile radius there 

for these individuals so they’re able to continue to provide those opportunities down the road. 

So thank you very much. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

Senator FISCHER. With tolling—— 

Secretary FOXX. Yes. 

Senator FISCHER.—and the GROW AMERICA Act, it would lift 

the ban on tolling on the interstates. If we look at the details of 

tolling and what a proposal on that would look like, would the 

states be responsible for the setting up of that infrastructure? Are 

25 

we going to see the tolls just be paid to that segment of road where 

the tolling takes place? 

I think we’ll see additional stress on parallel highways when you 

have tolling on an interstate system out there. But, in my opinion, 

it doesn’t always meet the goal of how we finance our highways 

and roads and especially if the money is only going to be used for 

that segment of highway that’s there. Also, I think the truckers, 

those small business people, the independents that are out there, 

they really are hit hard on toll payments because a lot of times 

they pay that out-of-pocket. I would assume that your department 

is going to look at all those impacts before a final ruling is put out 

on that or a final proposal is put out? 

Secretary FOXX. Yes. Let me talk about this for a second, if I 

might, Senator. 

Our proposal on the tolling issue is actually more limited than 

has been widely reported. Essentially, tolling, under our proposal, 

only becomes available if a Governor of a state requests it. And, 

even then, it has to be approved by the department. 

And we believe that having the tool available is useful. But, as 

you point out, it is not a wholesale solution to the transportation 

challenges we face. Moreover, we are not endeavoring to draw out 

the revenue from tolls into the Federal system to pay for our bill. 

And I just wanted to make sure I was very clear about that. 

But to your point, tolling can be a useful tool. But, as we look 

at the overall infrastructure deficit and, in particular, the challenges that are upon us over the next couple of months, that is not 

the solution to the urgent problem that we’re talking about right 

now of the Highway Trust Fund. 

Senator FISCHER. And I agree. 

I guess I wasn’t implying that the tolls would go to the Federal 

Government but my understanding is they are used for that specific segment of highway where the tolling takes place. 

Secretary FOXX. That is correct. 

Our proposal would make it available, again, under the conditions I just talked about where the desire would be to better maintain the facility on which the toll is charged or to address congestion in the particular area that we were discussing. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. 

And have you been in any kind of conversations with truckers 

and the effect that any tolling would have on them? You know, when people have a take-home pay of, maybe, $40,000 or $50,000 a year when they are these small businesses, that’s 

going to be significant for them. Have you had any conversation 

with them? 

Secretary FOXX. We have engaged in discussions with a variety 

of stakeholders. We will continue to do so as we move toward a bill. 

And I just would say that this is evidence of the overall challenge 

of investing in our nation’s infrastructure at the scale that we need 

to which is that, in order to do it, we have to, in my opinion and 

in our opinion, have a variety of tools available to get there. In 

some cases there will be tools that will be relatively incremental, 

but in other cases, as is in the case of the Highway Trust Fund, 

we need a big answer there. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, sir. 

26 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, my boss, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator McCaskill—— 

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Senator MCCASKILL [presiding]. Thank you. 

Senator FISCHER.—are you the Acting Chair? 

Senator MCCASKILL. I am Acting while Senator Rockefeller is 

out. The votes haven’t begun yet, but he has gone over there to 

vote and he’ll come back as soon as he has voted. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you for being here today, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for 

your able beginning and your work as Secretary. I’m proud to have 

voted in favor of your confirmation and I know you’re taking the 

lead on many of these transportation issues. 

I want to join in the remarks, fully, made by my colleague, Senator Markey. He and I have introduced a bill and, because I’m lacking in time, I’m not going to repeat a lot of what he said, but I do 

hope very deeply that you will, as promptly as possible, endorse our 

bill. And that you will also continue to cooperate with the investigation underway by the consumer protection subcommittee of this 

committee very ably and energetically being conducted by my colleague, Senator McCaskill. 

I want to ask you, first of all, were you as alarmed as I am, and 

even appalled, by the latest news of the recall announced with regard to 56,000 Saturn Auras for gear shift cable defects that apparently began as many as a five or 7 years ago? 

Secretary FOXX. We’re always alarmed to learn of defects, particularly, ones that have been out there for a while. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And that one comprised a roll-away hazard that literally caused crashes and injuries that were documented, that came to the public’s attention, only within the last 24 

hours. I find that not only alarming but appalling. 

Secretary FOXX. And to speak to that, that’s one of the reasons 

why, in our proposal, we do have additional tools around imminent 

hazard. We also would increase the penalties for things like timeliness issues from $35 million to $300 million to ensure that the 

level set is there for deterring untimely recalls. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And let me ask you about the GM recall. 

And my view is that NHTSA really was almost complicit in its laxity and lapse of oversight during the years, in fact an entire decade, when these defects should have prompted the government 

watchdog to be awake and active in preventing the accidents and 

deaths and injuries that occurred. 

GM issued a special order that’s mentioned in a letter that you 

wrote to me and Senator Markey on May 6. And I ask, Madam 

Chairman, that it be made part of the record. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Without objection. 

[The information is retained in Committee files.] 

27 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. In response to our letter to you, you noted 

that GM, as a result of your special order, has issued a new interim guidance to consumers. Is that correct? 

Secretary FOXX. That’s correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Only as a result of your special order did 

GM issue its new notice. And, in that notice, it gave consumers, 

what I regard frankly, as the height of confusion. Because, in that 

April 30 notice, it said, ‘‘If your car is jostled or jolted, it’s possible 

for the key to move from ‘run’ to ‘accessory’ especially if you have 

a heavy keychain,’’ indicating that jostling or jolting the vehicle 

could cause a danger. And then, in the next paragraph, it said that, 

‘‘Tests show the vehicles are safe to drive if you take everything off 

your key ring and drive using only the ignition key.’’ 

Thereby, completely negating the warning about jostling and jolting the vehicle being a source of extraordinary risk; as I have said 

repeatedly. Would you commit to me to ask GM to ask for a clarification of that notice to consumers? 

Secretary FOXX. I will certainly take that under advisement and 

pass your comments along to GM. I would also point out that we 

are in the midst of an investigation of this matter. And my belief 

is that, as that process moves along, we have an opportunity to 

beef up not only the interim guidance but also the ultimate outcome for consumers. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, the ultimate outcome here is going 

to be continued crashes and potential deaths or injuries unless action is taken now. So I urge you to order GM to clarify this order. 

Now, you note in the letter, and the letter states, ‘‘In appropriate 

circumstances, NHTSA may require a manufacturer to advise owners not to drive their vehicles until a safety related defect is remedied.’’ 

That’s a quote from the letter. You have authority to order GM 

to advise owners not to drive their vehicles. I can’t imagine a case 

more appropriate for that kind of order than this one. Would you 

agree? 

Secretary FOXX. We’ve taken extraordinary measures in this instance, based on our data-driven processes, to look at the interim 

guidance that GM has offered. And, based on the data that we 

have reviewed and, frankly, taken some extraordinary steps to 

have our engineers basically recreate some of the testing that was 

done by GM in the course of developing their interim guidance, 

NHTSA has assured me that what GM has proposed as interim 

guidance, which is effectively folks not using other keys on a 

keychain, but putting the single key in the ignition and using the 

vehicle, that that remedy is a remedy that can be relied upon until 

the recall is completed. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Will you commit to making that data and 

information and testing public right now? 

Secretary FOXX. I will work with NHTSA to make as much of it 

available as we can. And if there’s—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Why would you not make it? 

Secretary FOXX. If there’s a reason why it can’t be, we will certainly make that known to you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I’m going to ask that that information, all the testing, both GM’s and NHTSA, be made available 

28 

publicly right now so that we can all be aware of what has been 

done to satisfy NHTSA’s obligation, which frankly was unfortunately neglected in the past, well before you took office. I also am 

going to ask that GM’s tests and information be made public. Evidently, they’ve been submitted to you. Mary Barra, the CEO to 

GM, committed to make them available to us but still has not done 

so. 

Secretary FOXX. Well, I will say again, something I’ve said before, which is that NHTSA, over the last 7 years, has issued more 

than 1,200 recalls affecting 95 million vehicles. The body of evidence is that it’s an incredibly effective organization. 

As I’ve said before, if there are ways to improve the work that 

NHTSA does, we will find a way to implement reforms and improvements, including perhaps some of the recommendations that 

you’ve mentioned today as well as Senator Markey. I haven’t had 

a chance to look at all of the text of your bill, for instance, but I’ve 

committed to doing so and hopefully we will have more dialogue. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I very much appreciate your answers to my question. I hope you’ll be responsive to the specific requests that I’ve made. 

I thank the Chairwoman for her indulgence. I’m over my time as 

it is but, also, for her great work on this issue. Thank you. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Secretary, for being here. It’s 

good to see. 

Secretary FOXX. It’s good to see you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I want to drill down a little bit on the 

NHTSA issue. And I want to talk about the budget. 

As you know, within NHTSA, there is the safety defects investigation component of NHTSA. Now, I don’t think anybody would 

argue that over the last decade this has become a more complex, 

a more demanding area, than ever before because not only do you 

have the traditional safety defects to be concerned about, you now 

have a whole other layer of technical advancements where, in 

many instances, you have computers driving cars. Computers that 

are much more integrated into every function of an automobile, to 

say nothing of the next generation cars that are all electric and so 

forth. 

What is really disconcerting to me is how stagnant the budget 

has been for safety defects investigations. That it has really been 

essentially flat-lined for a decade. Now I know that this budget was 

prepared before the proverbial whatever hit the proverbial whatever on GM but, having said that, the notion that we are looking 

at $10 million in a relatively small staff, and we’re asking these 

people to do a really heavy lift. You know, there’s no question that 

we’ve got Monday morning quarterbacking going on about why 

NHTSA didn’t find this. And I will give NHTSA credit, they have 

not been ‘‘Oh, poor us.’’ But, frankly, nobody has even asked for 

more. It’s not as if this has been a request that’s been made and 

turned down. 

So would you like an opportunity to revisit the budget line for 

safety defects investigations and look and see whether or not you 

actually have the resources you need to do this? 

29 

Secretary FOXX. We would be happy to take that request and 

submit back to you a response, Senator. I think it’s a great question that you ask and it’s something that we are certainly aware 

of; the staff constraints that we have. And I would love to have an 

opportunity to come back to you on that. 

[Information requested follows:] 

We appreciate the opportunity to revisit the budget request for the safety defects 

investigation program. In the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Budget, NHTSA requested $10.6 million for the safety defects investigations program, which is consistent with the FY 2014 request. However, this request is for program costs and 

does not include salaries and benefits for Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) employees. While NHTSA did not ask for additional program dollars in the FY 2015 

request, the Agency did request six additional positions for ODI. And in the President’s FY 2014 Budget, the Agency requested four additional positions for ODI. 

ODI’s work is important to all highway users, as is evident from the recent recalls 

of Toyota vehicles and General Motors vehicles. To increase the effectiveness of 

ODI’s work, we believe that the following steps are necessary: enhance ODI’s ability 

to use the latest technology to help identify possible safety defects; increase the 

public’s awareness of reporting safety problems with their vehicles or vehicle equipment to NHTSA; and provide ODI with the personnel resources to address potential 

safety risks. 

Looking ahead, areas of new opportunities for safety defect investigations could 

include an advanced data mining and analytical tool, incorporation of business intelligence to enhance the ability of defect screeners and investigators to identify new 

defect trends. On another front, in the future NHTSA may wish to undertake a consumer awareness and outreach campaign as a large portion of the data received 

about defects comes from consumers. 

DOT looks forward to working with Congress to ensure that NHTSA is adequately 

funded to fulfill its safety responsibilities and respond effectively to emerging safety 

issues through these and other activities. 

Having a sufficient number of qualified staff is critical to an effective safety defects investigation program. ODI currently has eight defect screeners and four Early 

Warning data analysts to identify potential safety defects, and 16 investigators to 

conduct formal investigations. With over 250 million registered vehicles in the U.S., 

this creates a tremendous data collection and analysis burden that will only continue to grow. 

Senator MCCASKILL. If you combine all the engineering that is in 

residence at all of our manufacturers, and then you look at the 

safety defects investigation component of NHTSA, it really is David 

and Goliath. I mean it really is a very small effort that can be put 

forth under any circumstances. 

So I think it’s time that your agency really take a—and, by the 

way, Vehicle Safety Compliance, they got a million dollar increase 

this year. And I’m not really sure that their function is as important as the investigation’s function. Because, it’s the investigation 

function that keeps the car manufacturers honest. It’s one thing 

once a car manufacturer has come clean and said, ‘‘We’ve got a defect and you’ve got to make a decision on a recall.’’ 

I believe that’s what the safety compliance people do. But it’s a 

whole other deal to say, ‘‘You guys have to go find it,’’ when the 

car manufacturer is trying to hide it, which is what we have in this 

instance. 

Let me also go briefly to—before my time is up and I know votes 

have been called and we’ll have to figure out whether we adjourn 

or whether we deploy waves of sitting chairmen while we try to go 

vote. 

The public-private partnership on funding infrastructure, I don’t 

know if you’ve looked at the legislation that Senator Blunt and 

Senator Bennet and I and others, and maybe even some of the othVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\93415.TXT JACKIE
30 

ers that are still here, have done is Partnership to Build America 

Act, which I think is a really elegant idea. The idea is we do $50 

billion worth of bonds. It would go out in an auction setting to companies that wanted to repatriate profits. And they would bid how 

high a tax they’re willing to pay to repatriate the money. So maybe 

you’d put out a trench of $5 billion, maybe, hypothetically General 

Electric wants to bring back $5 billion. They’d say, ‘‘You know, 

we’ll pay 10 percent tax on that.’’ Well, maybe Apple wants to bring back $5 billion. They say, 

‘‘We’ll pay 12 percent.’’ 

Whoever is willing to pay the highest tax for repatriation would 

secure the bonds, would allow them to repatriate the money and 

then those funds would strictly be used to leverage private and 

state and local money for infrastructure development. I think it’s 

a nifty idea and I think it works on so many levels for the influx 

of money we need right now, immediately, because of the crisis you 

eloquently described in your statement. 

Have you had a chance to look at it? And is there any chance 

we could get the Administration to give a seal of approval on this? 

Secretary FOXX. We will take it back to the Administration. And, 

certainly, it’s consistent with our view that we’ve got to have more 

tools in the toolbox as a nation. 

The infrastructure deficit we have as a country is massive. It’s 

estimated at $3.6 trillion. And any way that we can find to add capacity to build our infrastructure is very consistent with what 

we’re trying to do with the GROW AMERICA Act. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We’ll look forward to hearing back from you. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you for being here. 

Secretary FOXX. Sure. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Booker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Chairwoman, very much. 

Trying to be respectful of the time, and my colleagues who may 

not have spoken yet, I’ll try to be as brief as possible. But I would 

be remiss, this is my first time to address you as Senator and have 

you in a hearing. And I just want to say for the record, I’ve had 

the privilege of knowing you for many, many years. We were both 

peer mayors. And, if your service in your current capacity is anything similar to your service as mayor where you focused on economic growth, economic expansion, economic opportunity, and really fighting for those who are dealt bad cards, I think you’re going 

to be a tremendous leader. And I look forward to working with you 

especially as we look at some of the big issues from FAA reauthorization to the current issues before us right now. So it’s a privilege 

to sit across from you in this capacity. 

To go real quick, you know, obviously New Jersey is—and I don’t 

want to repeat a lot of the very important things that were brought 

up. And so, skipping to some of the specific concerns. New Jersey 

is obviously a highly dense transportation super structure. A significant amount of the freight that comes into the United States is 

coming through our state. We have key transportation nodes. And 

31 

I’d like to zero in on one of those nodes that has me really, particularly, concerned right now. If I can, Chairwoman, submit—or 

Chairperson—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HELLER. I’m with you. 

Senator BOOKER [presiding]. I’m the Chair? Let the record show, 

this is my first time chairing the Commerce Committee. 

Senator SCOTT. Will the Chairman yield then. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. I’m happy to take the power. The power I feel 

right now is tremendous. 

But I would like to enter into the record, without objection, from 

my dear friends, Senator Scott and Senator Heller, I’d like to put 

into the record an article about the Hudson Crossing. 

Without objection? 

Senator HELLER. Yes. 

Senator BOOKER. Without objection, thank you very much. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

By Dana Rubenstein, May 5, 2014 

‘‘CLOCK TICKING ON HUDSON CROSSINGS, ALBANY WARNS’’ 

The end may be near for the New York region’s cross-harbor rail tunnels, with 

no good alternative in sight. 

‘‘I’m being told we got something less than 20 years before we have to shut one 

or two down,’’ said Amtrak C.E.O. Joseph Boardman at the Regional Plan Association’s conference last week at the Waldorf Astoria. ‘‘Something less than 20. I don’t 

know if that something less than 20 is seven, or some other number. But to build 

two new ones, you’re talking seven to nine years to deliver, if we all decided today 

that we could do it.’’ 

Tom Wright, the Regional Plan Association’s executive director, described 

Boardman’s remarks as ‘‘a big shock.’’ 

‘‘I’ve been hearing abstractly people at Amtrak and other people at New Jersey 

Transit say for years the tunnels are over 100 years old and we have to be worried 

about them,’’ he said. ‘‘To actually have Joe put something concrete on the table, 

less than 20 years . . . Within my office, there was a level of, ‘Wow, this is really 

serious.’ ’’ 

New Jersey governor Chris Christie spiked plans to build two new rail tunnels 

under the Hudson, likely leaving the metropolitan region for the next quarter century with all of two rail tunnels to carry New Jersey commuters into Midtown Manhattan. Those two tunnels are more than a century old and carry more more than 

160,000 passengers a day. Hurricane Sandy flooded them and caused a lot of damage. They are also a dangerously narrow chokepoint on the one of the busiest rail 

corridors in the world. 

The state and federally financed project called Access to the Region’s Core would 

have doubled the number of cross-Hudson tubes and relieved that bottleneck. Construction had already begun when Christie pulled the plug, a putative cost-saving 

measure that was also meant to demonstrate his state’s political independence, and 

rededicated some of its funding to repairing the Pulaski Skyway. 

Senator Chuck Schumer last year called Christie’s decision ‘‘one of the worst decisions that any governmental leader has made in the 20th century, or the 21st century.’’ 

Amtrak has since come up with a new, still-unfunded plan called the Gateway 

Program. Like A.R.C., it would build two new tunnels under the Hudson River. Amtrak’s literature puts the target completion date at 2030, but Boardman, recounting 

a panel discussion he’d attended earlier that day, said the panel’s consensus was 

‘‘25 years if you’re lucky.’’ 

By his lights, that’s not nearly soon enough, particularly with what he describes 

as at least a half-billion dollars’ worth of Hurricane Sandy-related damage. That 

could pose some very big problems for the New Jersey commuters and regional rail 

travelers who rely on those tunnels to get from New Jersey to New York, and back 

again. 

32 

‘‘Today those two tunnels carry 24 trains per hour, 24,’’ he said. ‘‘If you take it 

to one tunnel, typically you’d assume 12. Not so. Six trains per hour. Six. Because 

you gotta get them in and get them out. Six trains per hour. Amtrak does four. So 

if Amtrak’s selfish and owns the infrastructure and says we’re gonna do our four, 

well it doesn’t matter whether New Jersey Transit gets two or not, because with 

two they’re dead anyway. You can’t deliver what we were gonna deliver.’’ 

‘‘Sorry, we are going to have to decline comment across the board,’’ said William 

Smith, a New Jersey Transit spokesman, when asked to respond. 

When I asked Craig Shultz, an Amtrak spokesman, who told Boardman that the 

tunnels had 20 years, tops, he said he wasn’t sure. 

‘‘As you know the Hudson River Tunnels are more than 100 years old and were 

filled with salt water during Super Storm Sandy, which can be very corrosive,’’ he 

said. ‘‘Amtrak is working with an expert to assess the condition of the tunnel structures since the storm, and that work is ongoing.’’ 

‘‘I think the point Mr. Boardman was making in his comments at the RPA Assembly is that damage from Sandy accelerated what was already an urgent need for 

additional tunnel capacity between New York and New Jersey,’’ he continued. ’’ We 

expect that the tunnels are going to need major rehabilitation, which can only happen with prolonged service outages permitted by a new tunnel.’’ 

Christie’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on Boardman’s remarks. 

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/05/8544757/clock-tickinghudson-crossings-amtrak-warns 

Senator BOOKER. This is all going to go to my head; forgive me. 

But this is an article about the deterioration of the Hudson 

Crossing which is the busiest river crossing in the United States 

of America and a critical part of our national economy. It is a report that basically says two of the Amtrak tunnels between New 

York and New Jersey—the CEO of Amtrak is quoted as saying that 

they have about 20 years left of use before one or both of those tunnels need to be closed. 

The tunnels carry over 160,000 passengers; as I said, again, the 

busiest river crossing in the United States of America. In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, especially as we see a frequency of 

these storms, these tunnels are facing some severe challenges. And, 

as we saw during Sandy, they were closed. During peak hours, a 

train enters those tunnels every 150 seconds. Arguably, they are already over-crowded. And many people who use those tunnels daily 

are struck with frustrations because of delays, because of mechanical problems, and the like. As you know, projects of this magnitude could take years to complete. And so, the clock is ticking if 

that 20 years is coming down. 

And so, given this urgency, what can we do to ensure that, as 

we focus on critical immediate projects, what can we be doing to 

be sure that multi-year projects get the funding that they need, 

and get the funding that they need not to respond to a crisis but 

really what is more economically justifiable, the funding they need, 

to avert crisis before they happen? 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you for the question, Senator. And it is 

a pleasure to be on this end of the table from you, as well. 

Specifically on the Hudson Crossing, as you know, several years 

ago, the department committed $3 billion to build a new modern 

rail tunnel but the effort was canceled. The GROW AMERICA Act 

would provide Amtrak with predictable dedicated funding to repair 

and replace its aging infrastructure just like these tunnel areas 

you’re talking about. And Amtrak has already begun efforts to replace these tunnels and it’s called the Gateway Tunnel Project 

33 

which could be leveraged with, again, predictable dedicated funding 

which our bill would provide. 

On the larger issues, you’re exactly right. We treat our infrastructure as if there’s not a cost associated with poorly maintained 

infrastructure. But, in reality, there is. There’s the cost of inflation; 

eventually you have to replace it. There’s the cost of wear and tear 

on the vehicle side in every state I’ve gone to and I’ve seen evidence of the additional cost it costs consumers and vehicle users 

just to, buy tires and other things because they’re riding over potholes. 

And so, there’s a cost to not acting. And, frankly, specifically 

when it comes to rail or highways when there’s uncertainty, lack 

of predictable funding, lack of dedicated funding, it’s impossible to 

plan—— 

Senator BOOKER. Sorry to interrupt you, Secretary. Your point is 

100 percent clear. 

If you could just touch on, I won’t go through the longer part of 

the question but, as trucks seek to expand, we really have an issue 

with the impact on roads. There’s this study that you all are engaged upon that it seems like you need more time to make sure 

that we’re doing the right thing for road safety and a number of 

other very important measures. Can you just comment on that 

really, really briefly? 

Secretary FOXX. Yes. 

We are continuing to work through our study. We have another 

public meeting coming up this summer on that. I expect that the 

report will be issued to Congress by the November 15 deadline. 

Senator BOOKER. All right. Thank you very much. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

Senator BOOKER. It’s with great hesitancy that, while it’s the 

first time I have the Chair of the Commerce Committee, that I look 

across the table at my friend and colleague, Senator Heller. It’s 

with great hesitancy that I not only recognize you to speak next 

but I yield my power as Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator HELLER [presiding]. Are you going to leave? 

Senator BOOKER. I’m going to leave to go vote, sir. 

Senator HELLER. Because Senator Scott and I would like to bring 

up a couple bills. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. For the sake of my dear friend, Secretary Foxx, 

I might want to stay. 

Senator HELLER. Well, thank you. 

And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for taking the time. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator HELLER. I’ll be brief. 

I wanted to bring up some NHTSA and GM, but I think we’ve 

played that hand quite a bit today. So I’ll keep my comments brief 

for Senator Scott so we can both get down, the three of us, get 

down to the floor. 

But, like you, I want you to know I feel it’s imperative, what you 

do is very important. 

34 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

Senator HELLER. Infrastructure for the country, for the state of 

Nevada, it’s critically important. And I want to talk about one issue 

that I believe is imperative and critically important for the state 

of Nevada. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2010 and 2030, 

they anticipate that the Mountain West, which Nevada is part of, 

will grow by 28.5 percent. Twenty-eight and a half percent; roughly 

32 million people will be in that region. So the demand for both 

freight and personal vehicles are expected to soar. And I do not 

want a multi-year surface transportation bill to be signed into law 

without planning for the future transportation needs, of course, of 

Nevada. 

So I wrote a letter to the Chairman of EPW and the Ranking 

Member and the necessity and need for Congressional designation 

of a road from Las Vegas through Northern Nevada. And our Governor is participating in this also; trying to determine where that 

route will be. But in the meantime, I’d love to have that designation. 

And the reason it’s important, and I’ll be quick, the reason it’ll 

be important, I’m going to get done with this, Senator Scott, is that 

Nevada is a net importer of freight. We probably bring in almost 

double of what we produce into the state of Nevada. And, as you 

know, it’s a service industry. And so, that makes some sense. And, 

obviously, the ability to move freight would determine the worldclass experience that we offer in the State of Nevada. And so, that’s 

why designating a road to the north as part of I–11 is so important. 

So, I guess my question to you, and then I’ll be done—what we’re 

trying to do is increase trade, create jobs, improve our economy. My 

question for you is: Will you support our endeavors as a delegation 

from Nevada to congressionally designate I–11 into northern Nevada? 

Secretary FOXX. First of all, Senator, thank you very much for 

the question. And the types of challenges you just described in Nevada are challenges that we see all over the country. 

Senator HELLER. I’m sure you do. I’m sure you do. 

Secretary FOXX. And it is one of the reasons why having a robust 

solution on reauthorization and funding is so critical because even 

with a designation, without the resources, we’re going to be in trouble. 

Senator HELLER. You and I are on the same page. 

Secretary FOXX. Yes, absolutely. 

Now, having said that, I’d be happy to work with your delegation 

on this and I will ask our FHWA colleagues to interface with you 

directly on this. 

Senator HELLER. Would you please? 

Secretary FOXX. And we’ll try to help you out. 

Senator HELLER. Secretary, thank you very much. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. Appreciate you. 

Senator HELLER. Senator Scott. 

35 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM SCOTT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator SCOTT [presiding]. Let me make my first order of business, as a new Chairman of this committee—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCOTT.—a point to vote for Senator Heller to be the permanent Chair of the Commerce Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCOTT. Any opposition? I see none. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCOTT. Probably won’t be funny when Chairman Rockefeller hears my comments here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCOTT. Just a quick question for you. I had a couple but 

I think Senator Fischer talked about the potential for Interstate 

tolls which I think is very important with you being from North 

Carolina; two lanes going to three lanes on I–95 and the impact 

that would have. I’d love to, perhaps, submit that question for the 

record. 

Secretary FOXX. Sure. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Answer. We are not suggesting that the Federal Government should direct State 

and local governments to impose tolls on their Interstate highways. Rather, we are 

proposing to offer tolling as a tool in the toolbox that states could consider—where 

appropriate—during the project planning and development process. And we are proposing to make the new toll authorities subject to Departmental approval. 

As an example, the GROW AMERICA Act would allow any state the option of tolling a highway to pay for its reconstruction. Under GROW AMERICA, the existing 

Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP), with 

its limited number of slots, would be discontinued. In its place, any state that has 

identified a potential project to toll an Interstate highway to fund its reconstruction, 

and vetted it through the NEPA process, would be able to apply to USDOT for tolling authority. Before accepting proposals, we would first develop and publish criteria for tolling approvals, soliciting input from all interested parties and publishing 

final approval criteria in the Federal Register after thoroughly considering their 

comments. 

Senator SCOTT. And then, get your response on that? 

Another question that I’d love to get your perspective on has to 

do with the trust fund and the fact that we’re spending, really, gas 

tax dollars, on transit systems that are not making any real contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. And while we have a challenge with building infrastructure, we have a challenge building 

the infrastructure that the 18.4 cents per gallon is dedicated to 

build. So I’d love to have that also for the record. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Answer. In 1982, Congress passed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act 

which directs a portion of Federal gasoline and diesel excise taxes to an account in 

the Highway Trust Fund specifically to help fund mass transit operations. Through 

the Mass Transit Account, buses, subways and other forms of mass transit have 

helped communities nationwide to expand or improve public transportation systems—thereby helping to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. Highways and mass transit systems are complementary, not competitive, solutions to 

America’s transportation challenges and we need to increase investment in both. 

Senator SCOTT. My question really has to do with just the regulatory environment that’s been growing so quickly. 

36 

You think about the fact that in Fiscal Year 2013, almost 4,000 

new rules were issued. Now we’re seeing the cost of the regulatory 

environment is about 11 percent of the entire GDP of our country. 

If you’re a small business owner like I used to be with 20 employees or fewer, the cost of the regulatory environment is about 

$10,500 a year; if you have more than 500 employees, it’s about 

$7,800. 

With GROW AMERICA, you have put forward lots of ideas for 

more regulations; and just to name two or three real quick and get 

your response on the cost benefit analysis on these regulations and 

other regulations to come. If you think about inspectors stopping 

passenger tour buses and doing inspections any time they want to 

while they’re in route, I think that would have a major impact on 

the cost of doing business. If you think about being able to impound a new vehicle at a dealership for up to 72 hours, hopefully 

trying to figure out whether they’re in compliance with the CAFE 

Standards that has another impact. And, if you think about an extension or expansion of the Federal hours-of-service regulations to 

railroads, I certainly know that would have an impact. 

And my real question is simple. What is the cost benefit analysis 

suggesting and/or indicating to you? And, have we actually had a 

cost benefit analysis on these proposals, so to speak? 

Secretary FOXX. Yes. 

Well, thank you for the question, Senator. And we will submit responses to the questions for the record, as well. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Answer. Executive Order 13563, signed by President Obama in 2011, requires 

that any regulatory requirement adopted by an agency can be adopted ‘‘only upon 

a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs.’’ While the statutory provisions proposed in GROW AMERICA have not yet been the subject of such benefitcost analysis, they would all be subject to benefit-cost analysis before the regulations implementing them were issued. 

Section 5401 of GROW AMERICA would amend the requirements for approval of 

State motor carrier safety plans. The proposed language would require that, ‘‘except 

in the case of an imminent hazard or obvious safety hazard,’’ such plans must ensure ‘‘that an inspection of a vehicle transporting passengers for a motor carrier of 

passengers is conducted at a station, terminal, border crossing, maintenance facility, 

destination, or other location where adequate food, shelter, and sanitation facilities 

are available for passengers, and reasonable accommodations are available for passengers with disabilities.’’ The proposed language only affects State inspectors, not 

Federal inspectors, and is quite restrictive about where inspections may take place, 

and does not allow inspectors to stop passenger tour buses any time they want to. 

Inspections can only take place where the needs of the passengers can be attended 

to. While we have not prepared a benefit-cost analysis of this provision, we believe 

that this provision will enhance safety without having a significant adverse effect 

on passengers. We believe that most passengers would be happy to have the assurance that the bus on which they are traveling is safe. 

Under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) current 

regulations concerning Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, the fuel 

economy standard varies depending on the ‘‘footprint’’ of the car—that is, the wheelbase of the car multiplied by its track width. It therefore becomes important to ensure that the footprint is accurately measured. Section 4108 of GROW AMERICA 

clarifies that NHTSA inspectors can examine automobiles at the manufacturer’s or 

dealer’s premises to confirm that the footprint stated in the manufacturer’s certification of compliance is accurately measured. A mis-measurement of the car’s footprint has the potential to increase the regulatory burden on the manufacturer as 

well as reduce it, so getting the measurement right has as much chance of reducing 

regulatory burdens as to increase them. We have not yet prepared a benefit-cost 

analysis of this provision, but we believe that both manufacturers and dealers have 

an interest in ensuring that the CAFE standards that apply to the cars they sell 

are accurately measured. 

37 

Finally, Federal hours-of-service regulations have applied to railroads since 1907. 

Section 9403 of GROW AMERICA would replace the existing rigid statutory requirements on railroad hours-of-service with a more flexible provision that would allow 

the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to draw upon the most recent scientific 

findings related to the effects of fatigue on safety in setting hours-of-service requirements. The 2008 Rail Safety Improvement Act gave FRA this regulatory discretion 

(which all other modal administrations at U.S. DOT already have) with respect to 

passenger railroads, but not with respect to freight railroads. FRA’s rulemaking on 

hours of service for passenger railroads, issued in 2011, provided more flexibility for 

passenger railroads in setting hours of service requirements, so that regulatory burdens were reduced while safety was improved. Section 9403 of GROW AMERICA 

is intended to achieve exactly the same sort of win-win solution for freight railroads. 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you. 

Secretary FOXX. On the issues that you raised, as a data-driven 

agency, what’s proposed in our bill is the product of our experience 

and the product of what we have learned in the different modes 

that you talked about. In the Federal Motor Carriers area, for instance, where you mentioned the stoppage of the motor coaches, 

what we found is that our enforcement capabilities are relatively 

narrow. And we closed 50 companies down last year that were bad 

actors. They weren’t up to safety standards. 

But our toolbox is relatively limited to catch the bad actors. And, 

unfortunately, the outcome, if we don’t, is in some cases injury or 

death. And we’ve seen incidents just in the last year where these 

things have occurred. So our job and our goal is to ensure safety. 

And those regulations there are based on the data that we have. 

Now, I’m certainly happy to have our team reach out to you and 

to provide you with what we have on the justification for those? 

Senator SCOTT. Yes. 

Secretary FOXX. Happy to do that, sir. 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you. We’ll follow up. 

Secretary FOXX. OK. 

Senator SCOTT. Thanks a lot. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Senator BLUNT [presiding]. Mr. Secretary, I never expected that 

Senator Scott and I would be in charge of this committee but I like 

the—well, at least—not right now, but I like the feel of it. Thanks 

for staying and thanks for accommodating members having to come 

and go as they have. As a matter of fact, Senator Ayotte and I went 

to cast one of the two votes and then came back and we’ll eventually catch the second half of that two vote series. 

On positive train control, on March 6, when Mr. Szabo was here, 

the Federal Railroad Administrator, we talked about positive train 

control. And at the time, I asked him to consider treating those 

railroads that could be in compliance as test cases until everyone 

is in compliance. You know, where they could be up and operational and maybe seeing what the problems with the system are. 

But it would seem unfair to me that they would have all of the application that we’d eventually want that law to have when other 

railroads weren’t even complying. In your reauthorization proposal, 

the FRA asked for the authority to extend the December 2015 

deadline on a case-by-case basis. 

So my question is, under this proposal, would the Federal Railroad Administration treat railroads in full compliance as a test 

38 

case so they wouldn’t be competitively disadvantaged against other 

railroads who simply have failed to meet the deadline? 

Secretary FOXX. I want to make sure that I understand the question, Senator. Is the question whether we would allow them to activate positive train control if they had the capability today versus 

a company that does not? Just want to make sure I understand the 

question. 

Senator BLUNT. I think the question is, if they activate positive 

train control but others do not, would you hold them to all of the 

requirements that we would eventually hope everybody would have 

to meet or would they merely be a test case, able to each share that 

material? 

I mean, many of these railroads even run on the same track for 

certain periods of time, though they may not share the, obviously, 

the same track all the time. Or I guess they’d all have, at least, 

access to positive train control. So I think you have a real inequity 

here if the railroads that had met the law have to be in full compliance while everybody else has an un-penalized waiver. 

At the same time, we’ve seen what happened with the Affordable 

Care Act having a test case out there to see how many problems 

there are but not necessarily penalizing the people who are trying 

to comply for the problems they might be able to discover and 

share. It seems to me a more reasonable place to be. 

Secretary FOXX. If it’s okay, Senator, I’d like to submit for the 

record on that. And primarily because I do know that there are a 

handful of companies that have made significant investments in 

the positive train control technology. And what I’d like to get back 

to you on is the question that I think you’re raising as to whether 

there’s a burden on them in fully activating and adhering to our 

standards as articulated in the previous law that Congress has required. And I’d like to get back to you on that. 

Senator BLUNT. Yes, I’d like you to look at that really carefully 

because, if we just simply waive the deadline for some of these railroads but we want the other railroads to be fully compliant with 

the law, that doesn’t seem fair to me. I think the government, 

itself, has been complicit in making it hard to comply with tower 

sitings and other problems that you’re fully aware of. I also think 

it would be helpful to have some of the railroads testing the system 

out and up and running. 

But whatever the obligations or penalties are of somehow failing 

to be 95 percent in compliance on a given day, or something, I’d 

hate to see them penalized for that while we let other railroads 

take another couple of years. 

So look at that and see if there is anything within the rule. And 

I believe when Mr. Szabo was here he seemed to fully appreciate 

the unfairness of what might happen there. So look at that and I’m 

more than glad to have a response for the record but I would like 

to have a response on that. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Answer. Let me respond to the concerns you’ve raised. Of course, DOT does not 

wish to penalize railroads for being more successful than others in implementing 

PTC systems, and the agency recognizes that there may be issues with PTC systems 

when they are first put into revenue service. In the GROW AMERICA Act, FRA requests authority for provisional certifications to allow railroads more time in revenue service to identify those issues. Additionally, FRA has proposed a rule that 

39 

would reduce the burdens of operating a train suffering a PTC system failure, and 

the final rule is currently under Executive Branch review. 

Senator BLUNT. One other thing that you may want to do for the 

record or not: In the Compliance, Safety, and Accountability program, CSA program, meant to use crash and violation data to develop motor carrier vehicle safety scores, these scores would then 

be used by FMCSA to target resources for enforcement and by 

third parties to use as the basis for safety-based business decisions. 

There’s a GAO report that came out in February that found that 

many of these scores, generally, don’t correlate to actual future 

crash risk. And the GAO found serious limitations in this program’s ability to assign fair safety ratings to motor carriers. 

So the question is what changes is your department planning to 

make to address the GAO report? 

Secretary FOXX. We’ll submit for the record on that, Senator. 

Senator BLUNT. All right. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Answer. We strongly disagree that GAO has demonstrated FMCSA’s methodology 

is not sufficiently reliable for its intended purpose, which is to prioritize motor carriers for interventions to ensure the most effective use of the Agency’s resources. 

The CSA program does not assign safety ratings to motor carriers. The alternative 

methodology suggested in GAO’s report would result in a prioritization tool that 

would only provide meaningful information about large carriers with little, if any, 

practical applications for assessing the safety performance of small and medium carriers that are involved in the majority of commercial motor vehicle related crashes. 

We acknowledge that more data and observations would improve the Safety Measurement System (SMS) from a statistical confidence interval perspective, which the 

Agency will continue to work towards. However, the relatively small percentage of 

the active interstate carriers that would be assessed using GAO’s recommended 

methodology would create far greater oversight vulnerabilities than the current 

SMS. 

While the Department does not agree with some conclusions of the GAO report, 

FMCSA continuously reviews and makes enhancements to its methodology for the 

selection of motor carriers for intervention. FMCSA launched SMS in December 

2010 after a period of testing, evaluation, and unprecedented levels of public input. 

Since then, FMCSA has made a number of enhancements to improve the effectiveness of SMS in identifying motor carriers for interventions. These changes were 

based on analysis conducted by the Agency, in addition to recommendations provided by its stakeholders, including industry and safety advocates. 

FMCSA’s most recent analysis confirms the effectiveness of SMS as an intervention tool, finding that the group of carriers identified as high risk have a future 

crash rate twice the national average, and those carriers prioritized for a CSA intervention (for any carrier with a Behavior Analysis & Safety Improvement Category 

(BASIC) above the intervention threshold) have a 79 percent higher future crash 

rate than the group of carriers not identified for CSA interventions (i.e., not above 

the intervention threshold). As a result, FMCSA continues to believe that SMS is 

an effective prioritization tool and is an improvement over the previous SafeStat 

system. SMS continues to evolve and mature as data, feedback, and other relevant 

information becomes available. 

FMCSA will continue to build on the positive results from the use of SMS to 

prioritize carriers for interventions and make adjustments to hone the effectiveness 

of the system. The Agency will analyze GAO’s recommendations as part of that process. FMCSA’s plans for continuous improvement include analyzing approaches and 

aligning improvements to identify and prioritize carriers for CSA interventions within the following framework: 

• Finding carriers with higher crash risk across the spectrum of carrier sizes with 

varying amounts of carrier safety data. This allows the CSA program to hold 

a large portion of the motor carrier industry accountable for poor safety management controls, rather than just focusing on those carriers regularly being inspected. 

40 

• Identifying carriers with the worst pattern of on-road violations and high crash 

risk. These carriers have the largest potential for improvement from CSA interventions. 

• Identifying non-compliance patterns and intervening early to help carriers establish strong safety practices before crashes occur. 

• Monitoring safety performance over time for carriers that entered the CSA 

intervention process. This allows FMCSA to quickly respond and prioritize enforcement resources on carriers that show trends of worsening safety performance rather than carriers that are improving. 

FMCSA remains committed to considering future changes to SMS provided such 

changes improve the Agency’s ability to identify unsafe motor carriers for intervention prioritization. 

Senator BLUNT. Let me see if I can get one more quick one in 

before—we’ve somehow gotten in charge of this hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUNT. So I’m feeling good about this. 

I think those are the two—— 

Senator AYOTTE. I appreciate that. 

Senator BLUNT. Let me let Senator Ayotte ask her question. I 

may come back for one quick question when she’s done. 

Secretary FOXX. OK. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator AYOTTE. Do I call you Chairman? This is great. 

Secretary Foxx, it’s great to welcome you here. Thank you. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. I know that one of the issues you’re concerned 

about is the number of the bridges across the nation that are in 

desperate need of repair. And one of those bridges is actually the 

Sarah Mildred Long Bridge, which connects New Hampshire and 

Maine. So it is a bridge that really deals with Interstate Commerce 

as well as critical to both states in terms of the commerce and their 

seacoast areas. 

So what’s been happening is that this bridge is critical not only 

for automobile traffic, its freight, rail, and cargo vessels. Because 

there’s a port right there so it kind of hits all modes of transportation. This bridge has been closed numerous times for major repairs over the last 5 years. So what it does is it disrupts the businesses and the residents in the area for both New Hampshire and 

Maine. 

So the bridge, itself, has been rated as structurally deficient. It 

requires immediate replacement to preserve public safety and support the trade in the Northeast. So both the New Hampshire and 

Maine DOTs have worked together on this. So we’re on the same 

page. We’ve been partnering as stakeholders with both states to 

identify a solution to repairing the bridge. 

I’m sure you’re aware that we applied for a TIGER Grant that 

both states support and all the delegations, on a bipartisan basis, 

are supporting. So, given the importance of this bridge to both 

states, I would be honored if you would consider coming to New 

Hampshire and perhaps joining both the New Hampshire and 

Maine delegations to see this bridge. So I know that not only myself but all my colleagues in both Maine and New Hampshire are 

concerned about getting this bridge repaired. So I would like to inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\93415.TXT JACKIE
41 

vite you to New Hampshire and I hope you’d be willing to come join 

us. 

And I will assure you that it’s very, very pretty in the spring and 

summer. So I’m not asking you to come in the winter. We’re past 

that. And we would love to host you in New Hampshire. So we’d 

like to invite you to do that. 

Secretary FOXX. Senator, thank you for the invitation and consider it done. We will schedule that. 

Senator AYOTTE. Fantastic. I’m so glad you’ll come. And I know 

that my colleagues will, I’m sure, be glad to join us in that visit. 

So thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. I wanted to ask you also about the new truck 

driver hours-of-service rules that your department put into place in 

July 2013. So, I’m hearing a huge amount of feedback on this. I 

have legislation I filed on it, of these rules having an impact on 

productivity in a negative way. And drivers, in terms of the truck 

drivers themselves and thinking about the benefits versus some of 

the impacts of this, I think the rule itself has substantial problems. 

I’ve not only heard from independent and small business truckers in New Hampshire but, also, I’ve been surprised at how many 

industries are impacted and have been coming to me and that obviously rely on delivery for whether it’s food services, you know, almost—it has been staggering to me that the impact that this rule 

could have. 

I know that, to justify these changes, your department really 

speculated that the rules themselves would make drivers healthier 

and live longer. What plans does your department have to measure 

and try to confirm whether these benefits that had been cited in 

the rule, that I haven’t seen evidence of, will actually be realized 

versus the impact on our economy and our small truckers and our 

independent truckers and all the industries that they serve? 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

And the hours-of-service rule, like all of our efforts around safety, 

is driven by data. And I know that the impacts of some of our safety regulations sometimes provide limitations on folks’ freedom of 

movement. But we’ve done a very deep amount of study on this and 

the agency is very convinced that this is the appropriate standard. 

To your question about going forward and testing the effectiveness of the rule, I would like to submit to you on the record on that 

to make sure that we give you as complete a response as possible 

there. 

Senator AYOTTE. I would also like to see the analysis that was 

done in terms of the impact on the economy to the people who will 

be impacted not only all of the independent truckers, the small 

businesses, but as well as the businesses that they serve who have 

all come to me and said that this rule is not workable. 

So I hope that your department has taken that analysis. And so, 

if you could give me that information too, I’d really appreciate it. 

Secretary FOXX. We’ll get you the best information we can. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Answer. In our regulatory analysis, the Agency estimated that the changes to the 

hours of service rule would yield not only safety benefits in lives saved but also benefits to driver health. The FMCSA is exploring a number of approaches to more preVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\93415.TXT JACKIE
42 

cisely assess the impact of the rulemaking on the long term health of commercial 

motor vehicle drivers and the operations of the motor carrier industry. In recent 

weeks we have engaged in several conversations regarding this issue with industry 

organizations, congressional staff, and safety advocates. As the Federal agency responsible for enforcing commercial motor vehicle safety on our Nation’s roadways, 

we regularly examine the impact of our regulations on small businesses. And, as 

part of the President’s Regulatory Retrospective Review, we continuously reach out 

to stakeholders to identify ways to advance our safety efforts at reduced costs to the 

regulated industry. 

The benefits of the rule are not speculative. They are supported by the best available science on the relationship between increased sleep (for sleep-deprived groups, 

like truck drivers) and increased life expectancy. These benefits will of course be realized over a long period. FMCSA is considering a range of research projects to 

evaluate the effect of the 2011 final rule, including the two-night requirement that 

some argue puts an excessive number of trucks on the road early in the morning. 

The Agency will announce its research plans in due course and seek industry input 

and cooperation in refining them and carrying out the studies. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

And I do have a question that I’ll just submit for the record, 

which is related to the issue of non-motorized users and the safety 

hazards for non-motorized users in establishing a separate performance standard for non-motorized transportation users. That’s 

something I’ve been interested in as I’ve spent part of my life racing bicycles. So this is important. And I wanted to submit that 

issue to you for the record for you to comment. 

Secretary FOXX. Absolutely. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Answer. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is one of my top priorities. All modes in 

DOT strongly support this priority and will continue to work collaboratively to do 

so. More information about DOT’s bicycle and pedestrian work in this area is available at: http://www.dot.gov/bicycles-pedestrians. 

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Safety Performance Measures 

(available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-03-11/pdf/2014-05152.pdf), 

as required by MAP–21, we are proposing the establishment of one measure for 

each of the four areas mandated by MAP–21: number of fatalities, fatality rate, 

number of serious injuries, and serious injury rate. Our proposed measure is consistent with the focus of the Highway Safety Improvement Program, which is to reduce all fatalities and serious injuries—including those involving pedestrians and 

bicyclists. 

States are already using and reporting a pedestrian fatality metric through 

NHTSA’s Highway Safety Program. Just this spring, NHTSA reached a further 

agreement with the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) to add to the requirement for states to develop a bicycle safety performance target. These will begin 

with FY 2015 highway safety grants. You can be assured that both NHTSA and 

FHWA are working cooperatively on safety performance measures to spur states to 

achieve the national goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all users. 

The Department supports a data-driven approach to addressing safety issues. As 

states update their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP)—the statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing all fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads—they bring pedestrian and bicyclist interests to the table and look at crash trends. An SHSP identifies a State’s key safety 

needs and guides investment decisions toward strategies and countermeasures with 

the most potential to save lives and prevent injuries. The majority of states already 

include pedestrian and bicyclist safety in their SHSPs either as a priority emphasis 

area or a strategy. 

As FHWA moves through the rulemaking process, FHWA will continue to consider all comments received. The Safety Performance Measures NPRM specifically 

asks for comment on how the Department could address non-motorized safety performance and how State and MPOs consider such data in their safety programs and 

in selecting investments. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

43 

Senator BLUNT. Let me ask another question. It really is right 

along the line of the second question that Senator Ayotte asked. 

On these rules on the surface transportation proposal that’s out 

now, you suggest that the department be given the authority to 

track on-duty non-driving time of drivers and possibly require 

motor carriers to compensate employees for that on-duty non-driving time, which is different because of the rule; the rule that Senator Ayotte asked about. 

Did you offer the driver on-duty non-driving reimbursement proposal because the new rule has had wage impact on drivers? 

Secretary FOXX. I would like to submit on the record on that, 

Senator. I think the bottom-line here is that, in the motor coach— 

we’re not talking about motor coaches here. We’re talking about 

trucks? 

Senator BLUNT. We’re talking about motor carriers. 

Secretary FOXX. Yes. 

In that space, there are some realities that are different than 

there are for trucks and I just would like to submit for the record 

for you on that; if that’s OK? 

Senator BLUNT. I’ll let you do that. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Answer. The Agency’s recent proposal in the GROW AMERICA Act would permit 

the Agency to adopt, through rulemaking, a requirement that certain commercial 

motor vehicle drivers be compensated no less than the Federal minimum wage for 

non-driving, on-duty time. The proposal addresses the issue that drivers are experiencing detention times at shipping facilities that count against their hours to drive. 

In many cases, these drivers are not being paid for their waiting time. We often 

hear from drivers that this industry practice places pressure on drivers to drive beyond the hours of service limits as a matter of economic necessity. This concern is 

not limited to truck drivers; drivers of over-the-road motor coaches also experience 

on-duty, not driving periods when they are not compensated. We believe this business model has a negative impact on highway safety. 

And I think that the similar question that Senator Ayotte asked 

was the assertion that these new rules, these new restart rules, 

would impact driver productivity but would also predict that drivers would be healthier and live longer. I’m going to submit a question for the record on that to ask what kind of data you have that 

indicates that drivers who are away from home in these breaks are 

somehow going to be healthier than drivers who, by driving under 

the old rules, actually got home. I don’t find away from home, myself, is as healthy as being at home. And I doubt if drivers do too. 

And then, the other would be well, what’s been the wage impact? 

[The information requested follows:] 

Answer. The FMCSA has examined the fatigue impact of commercial motor carrier drivers taking two nights rest between 1 and 5 am during their 34-hour restart. 

Scientific studies have shown that this two night period provides more restorative 

sleep than a single night’s rest. At this time we do not have specific information 

on the impact of home rest in contrast to rest obtained away from home. 

Getting home has always been an issue for truck drivers. Before 2003, the industry argued that many drivers were kept waiting (and frustrated) at truck stops for 

days on end until their so-called 60-or 70-hour clocks could reset. The Agency adopted a 34-hour restart rule in 2003 in part to address that problem. Then complaints 

began to arise about drivers who were no more than 30 minutes or an hour from 

home, but had to shut down for a 34-hour restart. No matter what the limit on driving or on-duty time, however, there will always be some drivers just over the line 

who cannot get home without violating those limits. 

As part of each of our rulemakings, the Department is required to consider the 

costs to the regulated industry and public for which transportation services are proVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\93415.TXT JACKIE
44 

vided. This is carried out through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process in 

which all interested parties are encouraged to submit information and data on the 

potential economic impacts of proposed regulatory actions. The Regulatory Impact 

Analysis and benefit-cost analysis for the 2011 hours-of-service final rule addressed 

the economic impacts of the rule would have on trucking operations. The Agency 

did not receive information from shippers, receivers or other non-motor carrier entities that would have resulted in different values for the estimated costs of the rule. 

The Agency’s economic estimates are available in the public rulemaking docket. 

The Department has not attempted to estimate the wage impact of the 2011 final 

rule, but given industry predictions that driver shortages will soon reach 100,000, 

one would expect economic demand to increase driver wages, irrespective of any 

marginal effect of the hours-of-service rules. 

Senator BLUNT. I understand Senator Nelson is coming back to 

ask a question. 

Did you establish in earlier testimony, when I wasn’t here, on 

the Lynchburg derailing? Was one of the tankers have, the tanker 

that met the more current standard, that punctured and—— 

Secretary FOXX. My understanding, and again, this is a matter 

that is under NTSB review, but my understanding is that it was 

a 1232 car. 

Senator BLUNT. All right. 

I think that’s all I’ve got but Senator Nelson is coming back. If 

we could just take a moment here. 

Secretary FOXX. OK. 

Senator BLUNT. Anything else you want to talk about, Secretary? 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary FOXX. I sing and I dance. I don’t know. 

Senator BLUNT. Exactly. 

Well, it’s a big job and it’s an important job. You know, one of 

the things that we’re looking at on this committee and the Finance 

Committee, both, are ways that we can figure out how to provide 

more funding sources for state and local governments. Senator 

Bennet and I have a bill that would take repatriated funds, stranded profits from overseas, let those be invested in an infrastructure 

fund to the tune of about $50 billion which then allows $750 billion 

or so of state and local infrastructure to happen. And then, Senator 

Warner and I have a bill that would be a more traditional funding 

vehicle but also for state and local gov called the BRIDGE Act. 

I know we’ve got to figure out how to make this infrastructure 

work. And, one of the big challenges for you and for us, both, is 

to figure out how we can come up with a proposal we could all advance that would let us meet our infrastructure needs. I think 

there are great opportunities out there but you have to have the 

infrastructure it takes to meet those opportunities. 

Secretary FOXX. Senator, you’re exactly right. And I want to applaud you and many others who are trying to think through innovative ways to help us create more capacity in the system. The reality is that we are underinvesting in our infrastructure and we 

have been for some time. And that’s one of the reasons why the 

GROW AMERICA Act is seeking to actually increase the investment in infrastructure. 

Clearly there are many ways to get there. And we, of course, 

have said all along that we will propose our best thinking, our best 

solution, based on the feedback we’ve gotten from folks on the Hill. 

But, as consensus emerges on Capitol Hill around specific solutions, we’ve also said that we will keep an open ear and open mind 

45 

to ideas that emerge. And so, we welcome the work that you’re 

doing and others are doing to try to get there. 

Senator BLUNT. I think there’ll unlikely be one solution here. 

There’s lots of tools in the toolbox and not every one of them will 

be used by everybody but, if all of them could be used by somebody, 

then suddenly, you know, we find paths forward. And what I find, 

and I’m sure what you hear all the time, is everybody understands 

there’s a huge infrastructure need. It’s just that, generally, they 

want somebody else to pay for it. And, you know, states are struggling with this. We’re struggling with our overall funding. I think 

you’ve mentioned already, you know, the traditional funding is 

about $18 billion short of what we’ve been spending and even that 

string is running out and what do we do about that. 

Secretary FOXX. It’s a tough challenge. And compounding that is 

the fact that at the state and local level, as you point out and I 

have fairly recent experience with, the uncertainty is so profound 

that many of these communities and these states are slowing down 

projects. They are slowing down their planning process such that, 

even if the Federal Government all of a sudden figured out a way 

to fund this stuff over the long term, it would take a while in some 

cases for folks to ramp up because they slowed down their planning 

process. 

Senator BLUNT. Yes. 

And they can’t even meet the—they feel like they can’t so they’re 

taking these off the books. I think that’s true. 

And the majority has now reasserted its control and Senator Nelson is here. 

We did no damage while you were voting, Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it. 

And Mr. Secretary, welcome. Sorry for the interruption. Two 

votes were held in the interim. So, thank you for being so patient. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator NELSON. Yesterday, the Administration published the 

Third National Climate Assessment and it confirmed what a lot of 

us suspected: climate change is, indeed, real. 

As a matter of fact, I took this committee to Miami Beach about 

a month ago and a NASA scientist testified not projections, not 

forecast, but measurements on sea-level rise: In the last 50 years, 

five to eight inches in Florida. And, of course, climate change and 

severe weather can have significant implications for our infrastructure. 

There’s a part of A1A Coastal Highway in South Florida that 

was severely eroded in Hurricane Sandy. And Hurricane Sandy 

was way off the coast. It ended up going up to the Northeast, as 

we know. 

As the impact of climate change takes its toll on our infrastructure, what would you suggest that the Department of Transportation ought to be doing in improving standards and resiliency of 

the infrastructure that we are, then, having to rebuild? 

Secretary FOXX. It’s a great question, Senator. And you’re exactly 

right. Climate change is real and it’s a reality, unfortunately, that 

46 

we have to deal with in the infrastructure space. And we are mining our experiences all over the country. 

I would also point out the Hurricane Sandy area where there are 

massive investments in infrastructure and we’re learning how to 

build to a higher standard. Things like, for example, in subway systems where the wires were set on the floor. They’re now being set 

on the ceiling and they’re being encased in a much more resilient 

material that will survive water. And so, we’re learning about all 

of this. 

I would say that, from our standpoint, it means providing guidance to the states who are largely the project sponsors, in our 

transportation system, on best practices in building to a higher 

standard. It also means taking a look at, in some cases, height; in 

some cases, material; in some cases, design. And we’re going to continue encouraging. 

In our proposal, a lot of what we’re doing with our proposal is 

actually encouraging best practices in the design and implementation of projects. And it’s an unfortunate reality, but we do now 

have to build to a higher standard. 

Senator NELSON. In the GROW AMERICA Act, the Administration proposed establishing a National High Performance Rail System, especially for Intercity Passenger Rail and considering that 

Amtrak ridership is at an all-time high and Americans are not 

driving much more than they were 10 years ago. But, in order to 

achieve our goal, we’ve got to have cooperation from the states. 

I have a very unpleasant experience in my State of Florida, having worked with a lot of other very courageous people for a long 

period of time. And we were ready to put high-speed rail right 

down the middle of Interstate 4; from Tampa to Orlando. It would 

have been completed by next year and we would become the showcase for the entire country on high-speed rail; something that the 

United States is 30 and 40 years behind Europe and Asia in highspeed rail. They’ve even got a train now, I can’t remember if it’s 

China or Japan, I think it’s both, that is upwards of 300 miles an 

hour. 

So, despite the fact that there was $2.4 billion on the table for 

Florida, it would have paid for 90 percent of the cost of getting it 

ready to go. And the Governor did not want to do it because of political ideological reasons even though he sat on his own Department of Transportation study that countered what he was using as 

the reason; which he was saying that the high-speed rail was not 

going to make any money and the State of Florida would have to 

pick up the deficit. His own Florida Department of Transportation 

study said it would make money in the very first year. And, by the 

tenth year, it was going to be making a considerable amount. And 

that is just Tampa to Orlando. So $2.4 billion that was ready to go and it went to other states 

and the project was killed. What are you experiencing with highspeed rail with other state governments so that we can further develop intercity rail in the U.S.? 

Secretary FOXX. It’s a vitally important question, Senator. And 

going from a macroperspective, we are going to have 100 million 

more people in this country by 2050. That’s 100 million more people trying to move around. And the projections are the congestion 

47 

is going to increase unless we make substantial improvements to 

our surface transportation system. And those improvements must 

be multi-modal; can’t just be one thing or another. It needs to be 

a mix. 

We are finding that, despite some of the setbacks that were experienced early, that many states are now stepping into this. I was 

in Texas a couple of weeks ago and there’s activity around trying 

to get a faster rail connection between Dallas and Houston, for example. I’m aware of efforts in the state of Florida now, to do some 

of that as well. 

What is happening is folks are recognizing that our highway systems, as important as they are, as critical as they are, as population grows and needs increase, our travel times are going to increasingly become less predictable. And when you have strong robust rail systems, you can actually have predictable travel times. 

And, for folks that are taking their kids off to a vacation or whether they’re traveling for work, time really is money. And I think our 

investments in rail will show themselves over the long-term. 

Senator NELSON. We have a shortage in the Highway Trust 

Fund. And yesterday, I raised the issue in the Finance Committee 

with the Secretary of Transportation in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And I asked about their change of the law back in a previous 

administration from a gas tax, a state gas tax, to a sales tax. Tell 

me what you think about that. 

Secretary FOXX. There are a lot of different alternatives out 

there. What Virginia did has obviously been ground shifting in Virginia. There are states that are taxing oil on the barrel. There are 

a lot of alternatives out there that have been tried and some are 

new, as is the case in Virginia. 

What I would say, Senator, is that this is ultimately, in some respects, a political question. The math, itself, is very clear. We’re 

going to fall short in the Highway Trust Fund—$63 billion over the 

next four years. It goes up as you go on with time. 

What’s also clear is that the gas tax, the current gas tax which 

is not indexed, hasn’t been raised since 1993, a gas tax has a downward facing curve. And that’s a result of more efficient vehicles and 

lots of other issues. So wherever you set the level with a gas tax, 

the curve is still going to be going down. So there’s a cliff out there 

somewhere. 

We recognize these realities and we’ve put forward our idea, 

which is a 4-year, $302 billion bill, funded with pro-growth business tax reform. But, as I’ve said earlier, if there are other ideas 

that emerge be it the idea that Virginia has raised, be it more conventional sources, we will listen to Congress and try to play a constructive role in getting us away from where we are right now, 

which is looking insolvency right in the face. 

Senator NELSON. The Panama Canal is expanding and may be 

able to accept the larger ships by 2016. So it’s going to cause the 

huge mega freighters to be able to come straight from Asia to the 

East Coast of the United States instead of having to unload onto 

rail or truck on the West Coast. 

Do you think that we’re getting ready, from a transportation infrastructure, are we getting ready to be able to accept all of this 

new cargo capacity? 

48 

Secretary FOXX. I think the reviews currently are mixed. Obviously, our West Coast ports are in really good shape; their depths 

are good; they can receive these Post-Panamax vessels just fine. On 

the East Coast, we only have two ports that are ready for PostPanamax vessels. And, at the same time, there are countries in the 

Caribbean, in Europe, that are setting their ports up for success. 

And if we’re competing against ports that are ready for the depths 

of these new vessels, we’re going to lose opportunities. There’s no 

question about it. 

And so, I know that there is ongoing work on the water bill, a 

very important piece of legislation. But, in addition to that, from 

a surface transportation standpoint, not only do we need to worry 

about the depths, we also need to worry about the first and last 

mile challenges at these ports; the ability to connect highway systems, rail systems, directly to the ports so that we can have efficient movement of freight. And that is another area where we are 

challenged as a nation, and one of the reasons why we must have 

not only a stable Highway Trust Fund but increased investment in 

our infrastructure. 

Senator NELSON. The port of Miami has been ahead of the curve. 

And they’ve been able to go ahead and get the infrastructure both 

with a tunnel as well as the rail connections that are just about 

both in place. Rail is already in place and the tunnel will open this 

fall. And the depths, by the time the big ships come, the depths in 

Miami will be dredged down to 50 feet. 

So they should be able to handle it but others, for example, Jacksonville, it will be upwards of 2019 by the time upriver is dredged 

to sufficient depths. And likewise, other ports as well. And there 

are many others that, for example, Port Everglades at Fort Lauderdale, wants to be able to handle the Panamax ships. Tampa is another one. 

But you’re right. It’s not just getting the ship up to the dock. 

Then it’s unloading all of that extra container cargo and being able 

to distribute it in an efficient manner. 

Final question. You’ve got a fascinating job because in your bailiwick is also aviation. And, lo and behold, in aviation now, in the 

FAA, is now the FAA role in commercial spaceflight. My observation is that it is proceeding quite nicely. It’s not fast enough for carrying humans, but those processes are underway in now taking 

commercial rockets that have been quite successful; putting in all 

the redundancies and escape systems that make it safe for humans. 

And although it looks like we’re on a schedule for 2016 for that 

to happen, it can’t happen fast enough for me because our only ride 

now to the International Space Station, which is longer than a football field with six astronauts and cosmonauts constantly onboard, 

our only ride is on the Russian’s Soyuz rocket. 

And, although I do not think that there will be any disruption 

because of the considerable cooperation between the Russian Space 

Program and the American one, one that goes back to the middle 

of the Cold War in the Soviet Union, by the way, when we have 

Apollo-Soyuz. Nevertheless, you never can quite predict what Mr. 

Putin is going to do. I don’t think he will do anything drastic because the Russians can’t operate the space station by themselves. 

49 

Their commands, many of their commands, have to go through 

Houston. Their electricity in the Russian part of the space station, 

their electricity, comes from American systems. So that along with 

the very strong desire of the Russian Space Program to cooperate 

with the Americans, I think, we’ll keep it that way. But you have 

to worry about it when you see the escapades of Mr. Putin at this 

point. 

So I just wanted to share that with you. That’s not on your daily 

diet but it is clearly something that we’d have to face as we face 

issues of transportation these days. 

Secretary FOXX. Absolutely. 

Senator NELSON. Does the staff have any questions? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. OK. 

Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you for a very elucidating and illuminating hearing and the meeting is adjourned. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you, Senator. 

[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(51) 

A P P E N D I X 

INDEX

A. Disparity Studies 

Alabama 

City of Birmingham: Disparity Study Report, Prepared by Pendleton, Friedberg, 

Wilson & Hennessey, P.C. for the City of Birmingham, Alabama (2007) 

Alaska 

Alaska Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Study—Availability and Disparity, 

Prepared by D. Wilson Consulting Group, LLC for the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities (2008) 

Arizona 

Availability Analysis and Disparity Study for the Arizona Department of Transportation: Final Report, Prepared by MGT of America for the Arizona Department of Transportation (2009) 

A Comprehensive Study of the Pima County MWBE Program, Prepared by D. 

Wilson Consulting Group, LLC for the Pima County Procurement Department 

(2008) 

A Comprehensive Disparity Study of the City of Tucson MWBE Program, Prepared by D. Wilson Consulting Group, LLC for the Pima County Procurement 

Department (2008) 

The City of Phoenix Minority-, Women-Owned, and Small Business Enterprise 

Program Update Study, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. for the City of Phoenix (2005) 

California 

Metro Disparity Study Final Report, Prepared by the BBC Research & Consulting for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

(2010) 

OCTA Disparity Study Final Report, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 

for the Orange County Transportation Authority (2010) 

SANDAG Disparity Study Final Report, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the San Diego Association of Governments (2010) 

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Disparity Authority, Prepared by 

BBC Research & Consulting for the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (2010) 

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Availability and Utilization 

Study, Final Report, Prepared by Mason Tillman Assoc. for the San Francisco 

Bay Area Rapid Transit District (2009) 

Metrolink Disparity Study Draft Report, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (2009) 

Measuring Minority- and Woman-Owned Construction and Professional Service 

Firm Availability and Utilization, Prepared by CRA International for the San 

Mateo County Transit District and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 

(2008) 

Availability and Disparity Study for the California Department of Transportation, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the California Department 

of Transportation (2007) 

Measuring Minority-and Woman-Owned Construction and Professional Service 

Firm Availability and Utilization, Prepared by CRA International for the Santa 

Clara Valley Transportation Authority (2007) 

Alameda County Availability Study, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, 

Ltd. for County of Alameda (2004) 

52 

Colorado 

Colorado Department of Transportation Statewide Transportation Disparity 

Study, Prepared by D. Wilson Consulting Group, LLC for the Colorado Department of Transportation (2009) 

Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from Denver, Colorado, Prepared 

by NERA Economic Consulting for the City and County of Denver, Colorado 

(2006) 

Connecticut 

The City of Bridgeport Disparity Study Regarding Minority Participation in 

Contracting, presented by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the City of 

Bridgeport Connecticut (2005) 

Florida 

The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise: Evidence from Broward 

County, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for Broward County, Florida 

(2010) 

Multi-Jurisdictional Disparity Study Consultant Services: Hillsborough County 

Aviation Authority and City of Tampa, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, 

Ltd. for the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Office and City of Tampa, 

Florida (2006) 

Georgia 

Georgia Department of Transportation Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the Georgia Department of Administration (2012) 

Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from Augusta, Georgia, Prepared 

by NERA Economic Consulting for August-Richmond County Georgia (2009) 

Consortium Disparity Study Update, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 

for the City of Albany, Georgia; Dougherty County, Georgia; Dougherty County 

School System; Albany Water, Gas & Light Commission; and Albany Tomorrow, 

Inc. (2008) 

City of Atlanta Disparity Study, Prepared by Griffin and Strong for the City of 

Atlanta (2006) 

Georgia Department of Transportation Disparity Study, Prepared by Boston Research Group for the State of Georgia (2005) 

Hawaii 

The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise: Evidence from Hawai’i, 

Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Hawaii Department of Transportation (2010) 

Idaho 

A Study to Determine DBE Availability and Analyze Disparity in the Transportation Contracting Industry in Idaho, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 

for the Idaho Transportation Department (2007) 

Illinois 

Report on the City of Chicago’s MWBE Program, Prepared by David 

Blanchflower, Ph.D., for the City of Chicago M/WBE Program (2009) 

Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State of Illinois and the 

Chicago Metropolitan Area, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (2006) 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Availability Study, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting, for the Illinois Department of Transportation (2004) 

Disparity Study for the City of Peoria, Prepared by Kevin O’Brien, Ph.D., for 

the City of Peoria (2004) 

Indiana 

Indiana Disparity Study: Final Report, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the Indiana Department of Administration (2010) 

Iowa 

City of Davenport Disparity Study Regarding Minority and Women Participation 

in Contracting, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the Davenport, 

Iowa (2009) 

53 

Maryland 

The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise: Evidence from Maryland, 

Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Maryland Department of 

Transportation (2011) 

Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the City of Baltimore, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the City of Baltimore, MD (2007) 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Availability Studies Prepared for the Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, Maryland 

Transit Administration, Maryland Aviation Administration, Prepared by NERA 

Economic Consulting for the Maryland Department of Transportation (2006) 

The Prince George’s County Government: Disparity Study Final Report, Prepared by D.J. Miller & Associates, Inc. for the Prince George’s County Government (2006) 

Race, Sex and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State of Maryland, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Maryland Department of Transportation (2006) 

Massachusetts 

Race, Sex and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Vol. I, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Massachusetts 

Housing Finance Agency (2006) 

Minnesota 

The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise: Evidence from Minneapolis, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the City of Minneapolis 

(2010) 

The State of Minnesota Joint Availability and Disparity Study, Prepared by 

MGT of America, Inc., for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (2010) 

A Disparity Study for the City of Saint Paul and the Saint Paul Housing and 

Redevelopment Authority, Saint Paul, Minnesota, Prepared by MGT of America 

for the City of Saint Paul and the Redevelopment Authority of Saint Paul (2008) 

Race, Sex and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State of Minnesota, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Minnesota State Department of 

Transportation (2005) 

Missouri 

Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the St Louis Metropolitan 

Statistical Area 1979–2004, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the BiState Development Agency (2005) 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Availability Study, for the Missouri Department of Transportation, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Missouri State Department of Transportation (2004) 

Montana 

Disparity Study for the Montana Department of Transportation: Final Report, 

Prepared by D. Wilson Consulting Group, LLC for the Montana Department of 

Transportation (2009) 

Nevada 

Availability and Disparity Study for the Nevada Department of Transportation, 

Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the Nevada Department of Transportation (2007) 

New Jersey 

State of New Jersey Construction Services: Disparity Study 2003–2004, Prepared 

by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the New Jersey Disparity Study Commission (2006) 

State of New Jersey Construction Services: Disparity Study 2000–2002, Prepared 

by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the New Jersey Disparity Study Commission (2005) 

State of New Jersey Disparity Study of Procurement in Professional Services, 

other Services, and Goods and Commodities, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the New Jersey Department of State (2005) 

Analysis of Essex County Procurement and Contracting: Final Report, Prepared 

by the University of Minnesota Disparity Study Research Team for the County 

of Essex Disparity Study Commission (2005) 

54 

New York 

The State of Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprises: Evidence from 

New York, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the New York State Department of Economic Development (2010) 

The City of New York Disparity Study, presented by Mason Tillman Associates, 

Ltd. for the City of New York (2005) 

North Carolina 

City of Charlotte: Disparity Study, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc., for the 

City of C Charlotte (2011) 

Measuring Business Opportunity: A Disparity Study of NCDOT’s State and Federal Programs, Prepared by Equant for the North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (2009) 

North Carolina Department of Transportation Second Generation Disparity 

Study, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. for the State of North Carolina (2004) 

Ohio 

The State of Minority and Women Owned Business Enterprise: Evidence from 

Cleveland (2012) 

The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise: Evidence from Northeast 

Ohio, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Northeast Ohio Regional 

Sewer District (2010) 

A Second-Generation Disparity Study, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. for the 

City of Dayton, Ohio (2008) 

Oklahoma 

City of Tulsa Business Disparity Study, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. for 

the City of Tulsa (2010) 

Oregon 

City of Portland Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for 

the Portland Development Commission (2011) 

A Disparity Study for the Port of Portland, Oregon, Prepared by MGT for America, Inc., for the Port of Portland, Oregon (2009) 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Disparity Study, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. for the Oregon Department of Transportation (2007) 

Pennsylvania 

City of Philadelphia, Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Disparity Study, Prepared by 

Econosult Corporation for the City of Philadelphia (2012) 

City of Philadelphia, Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Disparity Study, Prepared by 

Econosult Corporation for the City of Philadelphia (2011) 

City of Philadelphia, Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Disparity Study, Prepared by 

Econosult Corporation for the City of Philadelphia (2010) 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services: Disparity 

Study in Building Construction and Building Design, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of 

General Services (2007) 

Minority Business Shares of Prime Contracts Approved by the Board of Pittsburgh Public Schools, January-September 2005, Prepared by the University of 

Pittsburgh Center on Race and Social Problems (2006) 

South Carolina 

A Business Underutilization Causation Analysis Study for the City of Columbia, 

Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. for the State of South Carolina (2006) 

Tennessee 

City of Memphis, Tennessee, Comprehensive Disparity Study, Prepared by Griffin and Strong, P.C., for the City of Memphis (2010) 

Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from Memphis, Tennessee, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Memphis-Shelby County Airport 

Authority (2008) 

State of Tennessee Department of Transportation, Prepared by Mason Tillman 

Associates, Ltd. for the Tennessee Department of Transportation (2007) 

55 

Final Report for Development and Revision of Small, Minority and Women Enterprise Program, Nashville International Airport, Prepared by Griffin & Strong, 

P.C. for the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority (2007) 

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County: Disparity Study 

Final Report, Prepared by Griffin and Strong for Nashville and Davidson County (2004) 

Texas 

The State of Minority and Women Owned Enterprise in Construction: Evidence 

from Houston, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Northeast Ohio 

Regional Sewer District (2012) 

A Historically Underutilized Business Disparity Study of State Contracting 2009 

Final Report, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. for the State of Texas (2010) 

San Antonio Regional Business Disparity Causation Analysis Study, Prepared 

by MGT of America for the City of San Antonio, Texas (2009) 

Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the City of Austin, Prepared 

by NERA Economic Consulting for the City of Austin, TX (2008) 

Quantitative Analysis of the Availability of Minority- and Women-Owned Businesses and their Utilization by the Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority, Prepared by Jim Lee, Ph.D., for the Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority (2007) 

The City of Houston Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason Tillman Assoc., Ltd. 

(2006) 

Utah 

Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State of Utah, Prepared 

by NERA Economic Consulting for the Salt Lake City Departments of Airports 

(2009) 

Virginia 

A Disparity Study for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Prepared by MGT of 

America, Inc. for the Commonwealth of Virginia (2010) 

A Procurement Disparity Study of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Prepared by 

MGT of America, Inc. for the Commonwealth of Virginia (2004) 

Washington 

2012 DBE Program Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 

for the Washington State Department of Transportation (2012) 

Race, Sex and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State of Washington, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Washington State Department of 

Transportation (2005) 

Washington D.C. 

2010 Disparity Study, Final Report, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, 

Ltd., for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (2011) 

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission 2005 Disparity Study: Summary 

and Recommendations, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (2005) 

Wisconsin 

Disparity Study for the City of Milwaukee, Prepared by D. Wilson Consulting 

Group, LLC for the City of Milwaukee (2010) 

City of Wisconsin, Study to Determine the Effectiveness of the City’s Emerging 

Business Enterprise Program, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. For 

the City of Milwaukee, Wisc. (2007) 

B. Studies and Reports 

• Expert Report in Midwest Fence Corp. v. DOT 

• Expert Report in Geyer Signal Inc. v. Minnesota DOT 

• Expert Report in Rothe Dev. Inc. v. DOD and SBA 

• Frances Amatucci, Women Entrepreneurs Securing Business Angel Financing: 

Tales from the Field, Venture Capital (2004) 

• Ana Aparicio, Hispanic-Owned Business Enterprises in the Construction Industry of Greater Chicago: Responses and Personal Perspectives, for the City of Chicago M/WBE Program (2009) 

56 

• Ana Aparicio, Women-Owned Business Enterprises in the Construction Industry 

of Greater Chicago: Responses and Personal Perspectives, for the City of Chicago 

M/WBE Program (2009) 

• Asian American Justice Center, Equal Access: Unlocking Government Doors for 

Asian Americans: Public Contracting Laws and Policies (2008) 

• S. Ann Becker and Donn Miller-Kermani, Women-Owned Small Businesses in 

the Federal Procurement Market, Journal of Contract Management 131 (2008) 

• Dana Bible, Kathy Hill, Discrimination: Women in Business, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 11, No. 1 (2007) 

• Lloyd Blanchard, Bo Zhao, and John Yinger, Do Credit Market Barriers Exists 

for Minority and Women Entrepreneurs?, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell 

School, Syracuse University, Working Paper No. 74 (2005) 

• David. G. Blanchflower and Jon Wainwright, An Analysis of the Impact of Affirmative Action Programs on Self-Employment in the Construction Industry, 

National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 11793 (2008) 

• David. G. Blanchflower, Minority Self-Employment in the United States and the 

Impact of Affirmative Action Programs, National Bureau of Economic Research, 

Working Paper 13972 (2008) 

• Boston Consulting Group, The New Agenda for Minority Business Development 

(2005) 

• Ken Cavalluzzo & John Wolken, Competition, Small Business Financing, and 

Discrimination: Evidence from a New Survey, 75(4) Journal of Business 641 

(2005) 

• Ken Cavalluzzo & John Wolken, Small Business Loan Turndowns, Personal 

Wealth, and Discrimination, 78(6) Journal of Business 2153 (2005) 

• Susan Coleman, Access to Debt Capital for Women and Minority Owned Small 

Firms: Does Educational Attainment Have an Impact, 9(2) Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 127 (2004) 

• Susan Coleman, Is There a Liquidity Crisis For Small, Black-Owned Firms, 

Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (2005) 

• Ernst & Young, 2008 Catalyst Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top 

Earners of the Fortune 500, available at http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/ 

2008-catalyst-census-women-corporate-officers-and-top-earners-fortune-500 (last 

visited, April 3, 2014) 

• Robert W. Fairlie and Alicia M. Robb, Minority Business Development Agency 

Disparities in Capital Access between Minority and Non-Minority-Owned Businesses: The Troubling Reality of Capital Limitations Faced by MBEs, Prepared 

for the U.S. Department of Commerce (2010) 

• Robert W. Fairlie and Alicia M. Robb, Why are Black-Owned Businesses Less 

Successful Than White-Owned Businesses? The Role of Families, Inheritances, 

and Business Human Capital, 25 Journal of Labor Economics 289 (2007) 

• Robert W. Fairlie, Minority Entrepreneurship, The Small Business Economy, 

produced under contract with the SBA, Office of Advocacy (2005) 

• Cedric Herring, Barriers to the Utilization of Targeted Program Contractors: Results from Interviews of African American Contractors, for the City of Chicago 

M/WBE Program (2009) 

• Insight Center for Community Economic Development, The Impact of State Affirmative Procurement Policies on Minority- and Women-Owned Businesses in 

Five States, Best Practices, Imperfections, and Challenges in State Inclusive 

Business Programs (2007) 

• Yvonne M. Lau, Profiles on Asian Americans in Construction—A Study for the 

City of Chicago M/WBE Sunset Project, for the City of Chicago M/WBE Program (2009) 

• Sang-Suk Lee and Diane Denslow, A Study on the Major Problems of U.S. 

Women-Owned Small Businesses, Journal of Small Business Strategy, 15 (2) 

(2005) 

• Ying Lowrey, Minorities in Business: A Demographic Review of Minority Business Ownership, 298 U.S. Small Business Administration (2007) 

• Ying Lowrey, Dynamics of Minority-Owned Employer Establishments, 1997– 

2001, 251U.S. Small Business Administration (2005) 

57 

• Karlyn Mitchell & Douglas K. Pearce, Availability of Financing to Small Firms 

Using the Survey of Small Business Finances, 257 U.S. Small Business Administration (2005) 

• Craig A. Peterson and James Philpot, Women’s Roles on U.S. Fortune 500 

Boards: Director Expertise and Committee Memberships, 72 Journal of Business 

Ethics 177 (2007) 

• Myron Quon, Discrimination Against Asian American Business Enterprises: The 

Continuing Need for Affirmative Action in Public Contracting, Asian American 

Policy Review 41 (2008) 

• Howard Rasheed, Capital Access Barriers to Government Procurement Performance: Moderating Effects of Ethnicity, Gender, and Education, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (2004) 

• Elaine Reardon, Nancy Nicosia and Nancy Y. Moore, The Utilization of WomenOwned Small Businesses in Federal Contracting, Kauffman-RAND Institute for 

Entrepreneurship Public Policy (2007) 

• Alicia M. Robb, & Robert Fairlie, Access to Financial Capital Among U.S. Businesses: The Case of African American Firms Constraints, 613 Annals of the 

American Academy of Political and Social Science (2007) 

• Hal Salzman and Signe-Mary McKernan, Capital Access for Women, Profile and 

Analysis of U.S. Best Practice Programs, The Urban Institute (2007) 

• Jonathan Taylor, Income and Wealth Transfer Effects of Discrimination in 

Small Business Lending, 32 (3/4) Review of Black Political Economy 87 (2005) 

• Siri Terjesen, Ruth Sealy and Val Singh, Women Directors on Corporate Boards: 

A Review and Research Agenda, 17 Corporate Governance: An International Review 320 (2009) 

• Jon Wainwright, Disparity Study Methodology, National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program Report (2010) 

• U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Business Owners—Characteristics of Business 

Owners: 2007, available at http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/getsof.html?07cbo 

(last visited April 3, 2014). 

• U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Business Owners—Women-Owned Firms: 2007, 

available at http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/getsof.html?07women (last visited 

April 3, 2014) 

• U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency, Accelerating Job Creation and Economic Productivity: Expanding Financing Opportunities for Minority Businesses (2004) 

• U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency, Characteristics of Minority Businesses and Entrepreneurs, An Analysis of the 2002 

Survey of Business Owners (2008) 

• U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority Business Development Agency, The 

State of Minority Business Enterprises, An Overview of the 2002 Survey of Business Owners, Number of Firms, Gross Receipts, and Paid Employees (2006) 

• United States Department of Labor, Quick Stats on Women Workers, 2010, 

available at http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/QS-womenwork2010.htm (last 

visited April 3, 2014) 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX

Question 1. This country is desperately lagging behind in infrastructure investment. With funding hard to come by, and what funding is available primarily going 

through stove-piped modal administrations except for the limited funds in the 

TIGER program, we have to think about how we can get the biggest bang for our 

investments across modes. Given that the lion’s share of infrastructure funding is 

channeled through administrative siloes, how can we optimize strategic investments 

in multimodal projects to facilitate efficient freight movement? 

Answer. To optimize strategic investments, the Department must first identify 

and prioritize the multimodal projects that will facilitate efficient freight movement. 

The designation of the National Freight Network is the first step to identifying the 

corridors and connectors that are most important to the movement of freight. However, it is necessary that the National Freight Network is a multimodal designation, 

and not one that is solely focused on highways and intermodal connections to highways. 

58 

Another way to optimize strategic investments is to utilize data to inform investment decisions. The Department is focused on developing better data and forecasting tools so that these are available at the federal, state, and local level. Wider 

use of benefit-cost analysis for projects can help to prioritize investments that provide the largest benefits relative to the cost. States are currently required to develop 

risk-based asset management plans for their highway systems. Encouraging states 

to develop asset management plans for their entire freight transportation systems 

would help in planning future investments. 

With limited Federal funding available, project financing and public private partnerships are an increasingly important tool for delivering major projects. The Department maintains several programs which provide project finance assistance to 

State, local, and private project sponsors, reducing project costs and incentivizing 

greater investment. The Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation 

Act program (TIFIA) provides long-term, flexible financing to highway and transit 

projects with dedicated revenue sources, which can make public-private partnerships (P3s) an attractive option. As of June 1, 2014, TIFIA loans have supported 

45 projects with more than $17 billion in credit assistance, contributing to nearly 

$64 billion in infrastructure investment. TIFIA has supported critical freight 

projects such as the Port of Miami Tunnel and Replacement of the Gerald Desmond 

Bridge. Other projects such as the Surface Transportation Private Activity Bond 

program (PABs) and the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 

(RRIF) have incentivized greater private sector investment in freight infrastructure. 

Moreover, RRIF loans allow financing of intermodal projects. 

Question 2. Would it make sense to move beyond the current formulaic funding 

programs toward a multi-modal, strategic model? 

Answer. There are certainly limitations to the formula funding model. The current 

formulaic funding makes it difficult to fund projects without a highway-centric 

focus. Additionally, the formula funds must be divided to fund both transit and 

freight based projects. Finally, because individual states determine where the formula funding is spent, there is a possibility that national or regional freight projects 

of significance are overlooked. 

In the GROW AMERICA Act, the Department proposes to create a Multimodal 

Freight Investment Program that would include an incentive grant program and a 

discretionary grant program. The discretionary program would award grants to the 

projects that would have the greatest impact on the safety, efficiency, and state of 

good repair of the freight transportation system. The incentive grant program would 

reward states that have engaged multimodal stakeholders in a comprehensive 

freight planning process. The most important features of these programs are that 

they are multimodal and dedicated to freight investment. The Multimodal Freight 

Investment Program would help fund major national freight projects and allow the 

formula funds to target important state priorities. 

Question 3. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Highway 

Trust Fund, the main source of funding for highway and transit programs, will run 

out of cash to pay for day-to-day operations before MAP–21 expires at the end of 

the fiscal year—likely sometime over the summer. DOT recently came out and gave 

a more concrete date, saying the Highway Trust Fund will encounter a cash shortfall by August 29, 2014. As a result, construction projects around the country could 

slow or come to a complete stop during the peak of construction season. How much 

additional funding will the Highway Trust Fund need to get through the remainder 

of the fiscal year? 

Answer. Based on our most recent data, the Highway Trust Fund would need an 

additional $5 billion before the end of FY 2014 and approximately $9 billion to get 

through the current calendar year. 

Question 4. Will uncertainty leading up to HTF insolvency set back construction 

projects around the country? Are we seeing that occur already? 

Answer. The impending Highway Trust Fund cash shortfall will have an impact 

on construction projects in the U.S. Some states have indicated they plan to slow 

down or put construction projects on hold due to uncertainty about Federal highway 

funding. Several other states have publicly announced that they are evaluating the 

situation and considering various options, but have not yet announced that they are 

delaying/suspending projects. I would note here that ramp-up and ramp-down costs 

for construction projects can increase total project costs and project completion times 

significantly. 

States that have already taken action: 

• Arkansas—issued an Information Release indicating that they are suspending 

some highway construction projects due to the impending HTF shortfall. 

59 

• Georgia—has announced they will be suspending its listing of highway construction projects beginning in July. 

• Ohio—has decided to delay their Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan 

(STIP) by one year. 

• Rhode Island—has halted advertising of all new, non-emergency highway 

projects. 

• Tennessee—has announced the delay of certain construction projects pending a 

fix to the HTF shortfall. 

• Vermont—has announced that they will delay awarding projects this summer 

until the HTF shortfall is resolved. 

Question 5. Last week, the Administration introduced their 4-year, $302 billion 

surface transportation bill. This proposal includes substantial funding for passenger 

and freight rail programs, freight and goods movement, and other general safety 

provisions. As we all know, increases in funding at this time are a difficult sell; 

however, we are confronted with an outdated, overburdened surface transportation 

system that is in need of serious repair. What all is on the table to fund the Administration’s surface transportation proposal? 

Answer. The Administration proposes to fund the GROW AMERICA Act through 

a pro-growth, business tax reform, without adding to the deficit. The President’s 

Budget outlined a proposal to dedicate $150 billion in one-time transition revenue 

from pro-growth business tax reform to address the funding crisis facing surface 

transportation programs and increase infrastructure investment. This amount is 

sufficient to not only fill the current funding gap in the Highway Trust Fund, but 

increase surface transportation investment over current authorized levels by nearly 

$90 billion over the next four years. When taking into account existing funding for 

surface transportation, this plan will result in a total of $302 billion being invested 

over four years putting people back to work modernizing our transportation infrastructure. The Administration believes that a comprehensive approach to reforming 

our business taxes can help create jobs and spur investment, while ensuring a fairer 

and more equitable tax system that eliminates current loopholes that reward companies for moving profits overseas and allow them to avoid paying their fair share. 

The Administration is putting forward this pro-growth financing plan to encourage 

bipartisan efforts to support a visionary infrastructure plan, but is open to all ideas 

for how to achieve this important objective, and will work closely with Members of 

Congress of both parties on a solution that will invest in more job creating transportation projects. 

Question 6. Fuel taxes to support the HTF have not been raised in over 20 years. 

Other funding proposals, such as vehicle miles traveled (VMT), while they may have 

some merit, cannot be stood up overnight. Given these constraints, what do you see 

as the most fair and consumer-friendly way to raise revenue in the short-term? 

Answer. The GROW AMERICA proposal, as we have articulated it, would accomplish the funding needs in the short term. We think it is the right way to go particularly given the urgency of the moment. Our ears and minds are open to what 

emerges from the Hill however. We would like to be in the discussions at a table 

with you. 

Question 7. Last year, Americans took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation, 

the highest annual transit ridership in 57 years. Amtrak ridership continues to be 

at record levels, and since 1997 has grown faster than any other major travel mode 

in the U.S. Recent studies have also found that Americans drive no more miles than 

they did in 2004, and that individuals age 16 to 24 drive 23 percent fewer miles 

than they did a decade ago. I point out these statistics to show that transportation 

trends in America are changing. Is the Department of Transportation noticing these 

same trends, and if so, what does this mean for the future of transportation in this 

country, specifically transportation funding? 

Answer. The Department’s data on travel patterns reveal similar trends and suggest that these trends will continue for the foreseeable future. These trends first became apparent beginning with the ‘‘great recession’’ in late 2007—early 2008, but 

the general trajectory of these travel patterns has not changed despite the improving economy. This suggests that we will continue to experience increased public 

transportation and intercity passenger rail ridership, while vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) decreases. 

There are many factors that are causing this long-term shift, but the most prevalent are changing demographics and changing lifestyles. There is ongoing 

generational shift in lifestyle preferences not only here in the United States, but 

around the world. A significant portion of Generation X and Y, unlike the Baby 

Boomers, and generations before them, are choosing to live in urban areas, includVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\93415.TXT JACKIE
60 

ing in densely populated urban cores where the need for driving is significantly 

lower and the availability of quality transit service and other alternatives is higher. 

Some choose to do so for economic reasons and some for social reasons. We cannot 

say whether their residential location and travel patterns will continue to differ 

from the older generation as the economy improves and the younger generation begins to have children, but we need to be adaptable to whichever long term patterns 

emerge. 

Though these are positive trends, they ironically pose a threat to the future of 

our current system for surface transportation funding which relies predominantly 

on Federal fuel tax revenues. Even if we start to experience an increase in VMT, 

motor fuel tax revenue will continue to be affected by the increased number of fuelefficient vehicles on the market. While fuel-efficient vehicles have been beneficial to 

consumers and our environment, they contribute to a reduction in the Highway 

Trust Fund’s resources. 

Current FHWA data indicate that the Highway Account of the Highway Trust 

Fund will likely face another shortfall before the end of FY 2014. While the timing 

of the forecast is subject to change, there is little doubt that another funding crisis 

will soon be upon us. It is imperative that we recognize the long-term trends facing 

the Nation and their ramification on the future of the surface transportation funding. Finding a sustainable solution that acknowledges these factors should be our 

collective goal. After all, maintaining and improving our highway and transit infrastructure is vital to our economy and our way of life. 

Question 8. Most transportation programs are broken down into modal silos and 

are not accountable to any unifying strategic vision or national purpose. A major 

reason for this is the lack of a cohesive national transportation plan that examines 

actual travel trends and future needs to determine how the modes inter-relate and 

what investments are necessary. What can be done to better integrate our Nation’s 

transportation programs and coordinate investments across modes? 

Answer. The Department recognizes that there is a great need for national transportation plans that unify and coordinate national transportation programs so that 

investment can be directed to where it is needed most. There are two separate efforts currently underway to address national transportation system planning. The 

Department is beginning to develop a 30-year National Transportation Agenda that 

will consider current and future travel trends, as well as how each mode fits into 

the future of the national transportation system. The intent of the 30-year National 

Transportation Agenda is to spur future discussion of the long-range transportation 

needs of the country and identify areas where future investment is needed. 

Additionally, MAP–21 directed the Department to draft a National Freight Strategic Plan and a Freight Transportation Conditions and Performance Report. The 

Department is currently working towards a final draft of the Freight Conditions and 

Performance Report that is expected to be completed later this year. Preliminary 

work on the National Freight Strategic Plan has already begun and will be completed in 2015. The National Freight Strategic Plan will emphasize the multimodal 

interactions that are necessary for the efficient movement of freight. One goal will 

be to identify the chokepoints and bottlenecks, particularly at intermodal connectors, where investment is necessary. 

The Department believes that both of these efforts will provide a unifying strategic vision to coordinate and prioritize investments going forward. Facilitating 

greater cooperation between the different modes is an important goal for the Department, particularly in making investment decisions. The Department is striving 

towards this goal and is continuing to realize improvements. 

Question 9. Congress has authorized the DOT’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) program in every surface transportation bill since 1982. The purpose 

of these provisions was to address past and current discrimination against minority 

and women-owned small businesses, and to ensure that they are provided equal opportunity to compete for DOT-assisted transportation projects, such as the construction of highways. Does race or gender discrimination continue to impact transportation programs? Please provide any additional information and evidence DOT has 

compiled on this topic. 

Answer. Over the past several decades, the Department of Transportation and 

other Federal agencies have submitted similar disparity and other studies to Congress on which Congress has relied in part to find that there is a compelling need 

to authorize the Department of Transportation to create and to maintain its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by 

numerous more recent studies and data, including those retained in Committee 

files, although significant progress has occurred due to the enactment of the DBE 

61 

program, discrimination remains a significant barrier for minority- and womenowned businesses seeking to do business in highway and transit-related markets. 

Question 10. DOT is currently conducting a comprehensive truck size and weight 

study as required by MAP–21. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 

Peer Review Committee issued a report highlighting what they believed to be methodological flaws in the study. However, the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) has stated that they do not intend to make any changes to the truck size 

and weight study methodology. Does DOT plan to make any changes to the truck 

size and weight study to address the concerns identified in the NAS report? 

Answer. The NAS Peer Review Panel recommended a consistent organization of 

the elements within each of five desk scans, a clear linkage between material in 

each desk scan and its corresponding project plan, and a synthesis of methods and 

results from prior studies to the results of this Study. The Department agrees with 

these recommendations and is incorporating these changes in the final desk scans 

and related documents. 

Question 11. In their report, NAS also noted that there were ‘‘significant weaknesses’’ in the data collections and analytical methods FHWA was using. Do you 

agree with that assessment? Please provide additional details to support your position. 

Answer. Although in none of the five major analysis areas did the NAS Peer Review Committee identify modeling approaches or data sources omitted from the desk 

scans that would be clearly superior to those selected by the USDOT study team, 

USDOT recognizes that in some study areas, despite using the most appropriate 

models and data available, there are some data limitations and methodological challenges to undertaking a robust and comprehensive analysis. The Department intends to describe these limitations and challenges in the Study. 

Question 12. The NAS report believes that the study is relying on deficient methods because there is not a sufficient amount of time to develop appropriate methods 

given the congressional timeline. NAS believes that these deficient methodologies 

can lead to inaccurate results. Given the public policy and safety ramifications that 

this study will have, do you believe that the study can be successfully and accurately completed according to the congressionally mandated timeline? What happens 

if you don’t meet the deadline? 

Answer. We are focused on getting this Study right. The Department is committed 

to an objective, data-driven, approach that uses appropriate methods and is responsive to the requirements set forth in MAP–21. The Department takes congressional 

deadlines seriously, but if it takes longer than the Congressional deadline to 

produce a satisfactory Study, then we will inform Congress and take that additional 

time. 

Question 13. MAP–21 included mandatory requirements for the issuance of four 

important occupant protection regulations. DOT issued the seat belt rule last year. 

However, final rules for improving motorcoach roof strength, anti-ejection protection 

and rollover prevention technology are required to be issued by October 1, 2014. To 

date, there have been not been any NPRMs issued for these safety standards. Will 

DOT meet the October 1, 2014 statutory deadlines for these safety standards? If not, 

when do you believe these rules will be issued? 

Answer. NHTSA is working diligently to implement the various motor vehicle and 

highway safety improvements contained in MAP–21, as well as other rulemaking, 

enforcement, vehicle research, and highway safety activities that reduce highway injuries and deaths. For example, in 2013, NHTSA issued a rule requiring seatbelts 

on motorcoaches. The agency already issued the NPRM for motorcoach rollover 

crash avoidance, which is part of ‘‘Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy 

Vehicles,’’ and plans to issue the final rule this year. The agency plans to issue the 

NPRM for motorcoach roof strength, also known as ‘‘Motorcoach Rollover Structural 

Integrity,’’ this year, and will develop a final rule schedule after receiving and analyzing comments on the proposal. We have not yet determined a schedule for the 

NPRM for motorcoach anti-ejection safety measures. 

Question 14. The Administration’s GROW AMERICA Act recently submitted to 

Congress proposes to modify the requirement for safety reviews of new entrant 

motor carriers by making the reviews discretionary rather than mandatory, which 

current law requires. DOT’s report language states that the new entrant safety reviews have been ineffective and that new entrant knowledge testing, which has not 

yet been proposed, will address this shortcoming. What analysis has DOT performed 

of the new entrant review methodology to determine the reason that safety reviews 

are ineffective? 

Answer. FMCSA believes that safety audits conducted under the New Entrant 

Safety Assurance Program, in some cases, are an effective means to hold newly esVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\93415.TXT JACKIE
62 

tablished motor carriers accountable for having appropriate safety management controls. This is particularly true in the case of companies run by individuals with little 

experience in the industry and little exposure to Federal safety regulations or industry best practices. That is not always the case, however. 

The Department based its proposal for increased flexibility in conducting safety 

audits on a program evaluation of the New Entrant Safety Assurance Program 

(NESAP) that was initiated in FY 2012. The preliminary results of the study found 

that new entrant carriers are indeed overrepresented in crashes. Overall, new entrant carriers have a crash rate that ranges from 22.3 percent to 40.2 percent higher 

than non-new entrant carriers during the period 2004 to 2009; and 28.8 percent 

higher than non-new entrant carriers in the first full year after the New Entrant 

Safety Assurance Process Final Rule published December 16, 2008, with an effective 

date of December 16, 2010. In addition, the study found sufficient evidence to conclude that new entrant carriers violate safety rules more frequently than existing 

carriers. Despite this data indicating the need for new carriers to receive an intervention, the pre-safety audit and post-safety audit analysis indicated that new entrant carrier crash rates increased counter-intuitively after the safety audit by about 

10 percent during the 2003–2009 period. While the crash results were better during 

the period of 2010 through 2012, the new entrant crash rate performance after conducting the safety audit failed to demonstrate any measureable improvement. There 

is evidence that carrier compliance with regulations improves modestly immediately 

following a safety audit, however, there is no evidence to support the assumption 

that carrier crash performance improves following a safety audit. 

Based on the preliminary results of the NESAP evaluation it is recommended that 

FMCSA redefine new entrant carriers as small carriers with fewer than five power 

units with limited or no experience, allowing FMCSA to focus resources on those 

carriers posing a higher safety risk. FMCSA is tasked by Congress with overseeing 

a large regulated population and with managing scarce government resources. The 

Agency has developed considerable expertise with a wide range of safety enhancing 

enforcement tools and programs, from comprehensive reviews to civil penalties to 

warning letters to outreach and education. The Agency has examined the effectiveness of many of these tools, and in many cases the new entrant safety audits are 

less valuable than other interventions. 

Question 15. More than twenty years ago, Congress directed DOT to develop and 

issue training requirements for entry-level commercial vehicle operators. In MAP– 

21, Congress again directed DOT to issue a final rule for training entry-level commercial vehicle operators by September 2013. However, DOT withdrew their proposed rule last year. When will DOT issue a final rule requiring minimum training 

standards for entry-level commercial motor vehicle drivers? 

Answer. While the entry-level driver training rulemaking is a priority for FMCSA, 

the Agency cannot now precisely project the completion date of a final rule as further explained below. The Agency anticipates awarding a contract within the next 

month to engage the services of a convener to assess the feasibility of conducting 

a negotiated rulemaking under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) (Pub. L. No. 

101–646, 5 U.S.C. secs. 581–590) to implement this important MAP–21 provision. 

This follows a series of public listening sessions that were held in 2013 and the 

June 2013 letter report provided by the Agency’s Motor Carrier Safety Advisory 

Committee. If the convener suggests a negotiated rulemaking is feasible and 

FMCSA utilizes this process, however, the Agency is still required to provide a notice soliciting committee membership and create a charter under the Federal Advisory Committee Act before the negotiations could begin (NRA, 5 U.S.C. sec. 584). 

While it is difficult to predict precisely how long negotiations would take, past experiences suggest it is normally less than a year. The consensus-based NPRM would 

then be published for notice and comment. 

Based on MAP–21, the Agency’s current rulemaking must: (1) address the knowledge and skills needed for safe operation of a CMV, (2) address the specific training 

needs of those seeking hazardous materials and passenger endorsements, (3) create 

a means of certifying that an applicant for a CDL meets Federal requirements, and 

(4) require training providers to demonstrate that their training meets uniform Federal standards. The 2007 NPRM did not address endorsement-related training or 

the entry-level training of new intrastate CDL applicants that is now mandated by 

MAP–21; these additional statutory provisions would be addressed in the current 

rulemaking. 

After reviewing the MAP–21requirements, comments to the 2007 NPRM, participants’ statements during the Agency’s public listening sessions held in 2013, and 

the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee’s June 2013 letter report, FMCSA determined that it would be inappropriate to continue with the rulemaking initiated 

in 2007. The Agency concluded that a new rulemaking would provide the most effecVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\93415.TXT JACKIE
63 

tive starting point for implementing the MAP–21 requirements. A new rulemaking 

would provide the Agency and all interested parties the opportunity to develop a 

proposal that focuses on the MAP–21 mandate and makes the best use of the wealth 

of information provided by stakeholders since publication of the 2007 NPRM. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. EDWARD MARKEY TO

HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX

Question 1. In 2000, the TREAD Act was enacted in response to the Ford/Firestone rollover issue. That bill created the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) System. 

At the time, after some expressed concern that the industry would continue to seek 

to withhold critical information from the public, I engaged in an October 10, 2000 

Floor colloquy with then-Energy and Commerce Chairman Billy Tauzin in which I 

obtained Chairman Tauzin’s affirmation that the bill was not intended to protect information from disclosure that could be disclosed under the law. Although the EWR 

proposed rule was consistent with the stated intent of Congress, the final rule was 

not. The problem with the current rule can be described as follows: If I make a complaint to NHTSA’s consumer database that includes details about a serious automobile safety concern, that information is made publicly available. If I instead make 

the identical complaint to an automaker, the automaker is allowed under NHTSA’s 

rules to classify the entire complaint as ‘confidential business information,’ counter 

to the clear intent of Congress. I also raised this concern in 2010 hearings with 

then-Secretary LaHood and then-NHTSA Administrator Strickland. Will you commit to rewriting this regulation, consistent with the language I included in S. 2151, 

in order to ensure that only the information that truly could be withheld from public 

release under the Freedom of Information Act can be withheld from disclosure 

under EWR reporting? If not, why not? 

Answer. This is a complex issue. I committed to provide comments to the Committee on S. 2151, a bill introduced by Senators Markey and Blumenthal to make 

additional EWR information and certain fatality information publicly available and 

to improve the public’s access to information on the agency’s vehicle safety related 

databases. I will provide my comments to the Committee under separate cover. 

Question 2. S. 2151 also includes a provision directing automakers to automatically submit the accident report or other document that first alerted them to a fatality involving their vehicle or equipment to NHTSA’s Early Warning Reporting database. NHTSA is then required to automatically make those documents public unless 

they are exempted from public disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 

(FOIA). Presently, these documents are only provided to NHTSA if the agency requests them, and they are not made public unless they are requested under FOIA. 

On May 7, I released a document that consists of GM’s response to just such a request by NHTSA. This document—which did not contain any proprietary information—shows that both GM and NHTSA knew that the contractor the agency used 

to investigate a fatal Wisconsin accident reported the accident was linked to the fact 

that the airbags had not deployed. GM also sent NHTSA a February 2007 collision 

analysis and reconstruction report done by the Wisconsin State Patrol Academy that 

highlighted the ignition switch defect as preventing the airbags from deploying. The 

report also references other reports of similar problems that the Wisconsin investigators uncovered. Had this document been made automatically available to 

NHTSA, the public and independent safety experts, it could have provided an actual 

‘‘early warning’’ and potentially avoided other accidents, injuries and deaths. Does 

the Department support the provision and subsequent publication in the EWR database of documents such as the accident report or other document that first alerted 

automakers to a fatality involving their vehicle or equipment to NHTSA? If not, why 

not? 

Answer. This is a complex issue. I committed to provide comments to the Committee on S. 2151, a bill introduced by Senators Markey and Blumenthal to make 

additional EWR information and certain fatality information publicly available and 

to improve the public’s access to information on the agency’s vehicle safety related 

databases. I will provide my comments to the Committee under separate cover. 

Question 3. Does the Department believe that NHTSA should be required to consider information contained in the EWR database when it is investigating potential 

safety defects and when it is evaluating citizen petitions for automobile safety 

standards or enforcement actions? If not, why not? 

Answer. When investigating potential safety defects including petitions, NHTSA 

relies on all the information it collects using the authority delegated by Congress. 

This information includes, but is not limited to, EWR reports as well as consumer 

complaint data, field reports, manufacturer communications including technical 

64 

service bulletins, SCI crash reports, precedent in prior investigations and peer vehicle data. Given that EWR reports are already integrated in NHTSA standard defect 

evaluation and investigation process, the Department does not see a need to statutorily require NHTSA to consider EWR information. 

Question 4. Tire Identification Numbers (TINs) are 12-symbol alphanumeric codes 

required by NHTSA and are intended to assist consumers, manufacturers, vendors 

and service providers when tires are recalled. The agency created the TIN system 

in 1970 to function as a tire identifier in the event of a recall. According to recent 

press reports, there is no database that is searchable by TINs on NHTSA’s database 

and often no way for consumers, vendors or manufacturers to quickly and easily access and read the TINs on tires themselves. This has led to accidents, injuries and 

deaths as people drove in vehicles with recalled tires that later failed. Would the 

Department undertake a) the creation of a searchable TIN database that would 

allow people to quickly search by TIN, as well as by make and model, on recalled 

tires to determine whether particular tires were part of a recall b) a rulemaking to 

require TINs to be easily accessible and machine-readable so that consumers, vendors or service providers can quickly determine their recall status and c) a rulemaking to require tire vendors to register tire owner information so that providing 

notice in the event of a tire recall is facilitated? If not, why not? 

Answer. The Department is committed to exploring ways to improve tire registrations and tire recall completion rates. NHTSA is currently learning more about how 

dealers are implementing the tire registration process. NHTSA also is conducting 

outreach to dealers to educate them of their obligation to provide registration cards 

or electronically register the tires at the point of sale. NHTSA intends to work with 

industry to determine the best way to increase registration rates. Based upon the 

result of these efforts, the Department will decide whether a rulemaking effort is 

necessary. 

Regarding recall completion rates, the Department believes that a TIN lookup 

that furnishes recall applicability and a calculated tire age could be beneficial to 

consumers. Such a database would improve customer understanding of what tires 

are covered by recalls as well as the age of the tire. A TIN, however, is different 

from a vehicle identification number or VIN. While a VIN is a unique identifier for 

every vehicle, a TIN only identifies a batch of tires made during a specific week at 

a specific plant. The TIN is not a unique identifier, but it could still be used to determine whether a tire is part of a recalled batch as well as to determine the age 

of the tire. 

However, we believe that tire manufacturers are best positioned to compile and 

maintain the data online, similar to our requirement that automakers and motorcycle manufacturers provide consumers with a free online tool that will enable them 

to search recall information by VIN starting this summer. Were NHTSA required 

to develop and maintain such data, properly deploying such a database would require significant information collection from the public, industry and stakeholders 

to assess the best method and to avoid unintended consequences. In addition, standing up and maintaining the related information technology infrastructure and data 

processing procedures would require significant resources. And before committing to 

a rulemaking mandating the TIN to be easily accessible and machine readable, we 

would need to consider the safety need, technical feasibility and anticipated costs 

and benefits. 

Question 5. What information does the Department, whether through the Federal 

Railroad Administration or some other entity, collect regarding toxic inhalation hazard (TIH) or other rail-security sensitive substances that are carried by rail? This 

information could include but not be limited to contents on specific trains, routes, 

and times traveled. 

Answer. While railroads are required to compile and analyze routing information 

for certain hazardous materials, including TIH materials, FRA and PHMSA may inspect this data but we do not compile or retain it. 

Subpart 1 of 49 CFR Part 172 includes requirements regarding the development 

of safety and security plans for certain hazardous materials (see section 172.800(b)) 

such as TIH, explosives, or radioactive materials, and additional analysis and routing requirements for certain hazardous materials (see section 172.820(a)). 

With regard to collection of this information we do not require submittal of safety 

and security plans or information used in a routing analysis. The regulations do require those subject to the requirements maintain a copy of the information that is 

accessible at, or through, its principal place of business. These materials must be 

made available upon request, at a reasonable time and location, to an authorized 

official of the Department of Transportation or the Department of Homeland SecuVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\93415.TXT JACKIE
65 

rity. (See sections 172.800(d) and 172.820(i) and (j)). FRA reviews the railroad security plans and routing analyses, but FRA does not collect this specific data. 

Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation plans submitted to FRA are riskbased, so the routes for PTC installation are prioritized based on risk. FRA knows 

if a particular route is being PTC-equipped because TIH is transported on the route, 

but FRA does not collect or require other data related to hazardous materials for 

purposes of the PTC implementation plan. See 49 U.S.C. 20157 and 49 C.F.R. 

236.1011(a)(5)(i). 

Question 6. Assuming the DOT collects some information regarding TIH or other 

rail-security sensitive substances that are carried by rail, what does the Department 

do with that information? For example, does the DOT share that information with 

local officials and/or first responders, and if so, when (i.e., in advance of a shipment, 

or after a spill or other type of accident occurs)? 

Answer. Again, FRA and PHMSA do require detailed reports regarding certain 

rail accidents/incidents, and certain hazardous materials releases. For FRA, the accident reports may contain information about whether a TIH or other hazardous 

material was involved, but that is not specifically required. The hazmat incident 

data collected by PHMSA would indicate what hazardous material was involved in 

a release. While railroads are required to compile and analyze routing information 

for certain hazardous materials, including TIH materials, FRA and PHMSA may inspect this data but we do not compile or retain it. 

DOT notes that the Nation’s railroads and hazardous materials shippers partner 

on voluntary efforts to educate and aid emergency responders. An example of this 

is the TRANSCAER program, a national outreach effort that focuses on assisting 

communities to prepare for and respond to a possible hazardous materials transportation incident. TRANSCAER members consist of volunteer representatives from the 

chemical manufacturing, transportation, distributor, and emergency response industries, as well as the Federal Government. 

Most railroads have claimed that information related to the quantity of TIH 

transported over a certain route is proprietary/confidential as it could disclose market share and put a railroad at a competitive disadvantage. 

Question 7. Section 10301 of SAFETEA–LU required standards to address both 

complete and partial ejections from vehicles. However, the rule did not address occupant ejections through sunroof and rear window vehicle openings, which together 

have accounted for more than 12 percent of injuries and 7 percent of deaths from 

ejection. In the final rule, NHTSA stated: ‘‘We plan to examine field data to better 

understand the current and future extent of roof ejections, and will seek to learn 

about the future implementation of sun/moon roofs in vehicles and ideas about effective ejection countermeasures through those portals. The results of this work may 

find that future rulemaking on roof ejections could be warranted.’’ What has 

NHTSA done to examine the field data and determine whether a new rulemaking 

is warranted? Please provide me with a description of all efforts to date, along with 

a timeline that describes future plans. 

Answer. After completion of the final rule, NHTSA formed a working group made 

up of members of Rulemaking, Enforcement, Research and the National Center for 

Statistics and Analysis to complete this task. The group started by analyzing real 

world crashes involving ejections through roof portals included in our Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS–CDS) and met with manufacturers to better understand the issue. The group then used this information to develop a research test 

plan for further investigation. Testing is expected to be completed before the end 

of calendar year 2014. The results of this testing will be used to make a management decision in 2015 regarding how to proceed. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CORY BOOKER TO

HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX

Question 1. Mr. Secretary—as you may know, my predecessor in the Senate, 

Frank Lautenberg, was a fierce advocate in the prevention of drunk driving. I too, 

share his passion to keep our roads safe and wanted to ask you a question in regards to drunk driving prevention through the use of ignition interlocks. 

These devices, which prevent a driver from starting his or her vehicle if their 

blood alcohol level is elevated, has been a proven lifesaver and the National Transportation Safety Board has advocated for the expansion of their use. 

Almost all states have some type of mandatory or discretionary ignition interlock 

program, and 36 of them have laws mandating their use after a first DUI conviction. 

Yet, of these 36, only two were awarded Section 405(d) Federal grants specifically 

66 

designed to encourage states to adopt and enforce mandatory ignition interlock laws. 

Mr. Secretary, are there ways that we can improve the utilization of this grant program? 

Answer. MAP–21 specifies that to qualify for a grant under section 405(d) a state 

must adopt and enforce a mandatory law that requires all offenders convicted of 

DUI to be limited to driving only motor vehicles equipped with ignition interlocks. 

The plain language of the statute sets a very straightforward requirement that an 

interlock must be used. Unfortunately, many States, including some with laws that 

are described as mandatory, include exemptions or permissions in their laws that 

allow offenders to avoid interlock use under some circumstances. Under the plain 

language of the statute, these states do not qualify for a grant. 

Currently, the Department provides technical assistance to states to help 

strengthen ignition interlock laws and meet the grant requirements. For example, 

in the first year of the grant program 14 states applied for a grant and two states 

met the qualification criteria. In the second grant year, 12 states applied for a grant 

and four states qualified. The increase in awards from the first to the second year 

resulted from two states amending their laws to remove exemptions and establish 

mandatory programs. 

The Department’s Grow America Act also proposes changes to Section 405(d) that 

would expand eligibility for the ignition interlock grant program by allowing states 

with employer or rural exemptions in their interlock laws to be eligible if DUI offenders are still covered by a 24–7 monitoring program. A 24–7 program requires 

DUI offenders to either check in with authorities periodically during each day and 

complete breath alcohol tests or use a continuous electronic monitoring device. 

We believe that the combination of technical assistance to states and refinements 

to the statute will enable more states to qualify for Section 405(d) grant funds. 

Question 2. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that states that are doing the right 

thing when it comes to drunk driver prevention are not being recognized by the 

grant program and moreover, that the remaining states who are considering stronger ignition interlock laws are discouraged to do so through the failure of this program. I would like to hear your thoughts on the best ways that I can work with 

you and Acting NHTSA Administrator Friedman to improve the responsiveness of 

the 405(d) grant program as well other provisions in MAP–21 to make sure NHTSA 

is doing everything it can to ensure that the drivers on our roads are sober drivers. 

Answer. We believe that incentive grant programs such as the Ignition Interlock 

Incentive Program should seek a balance between rewarding states that have enacted effective laws and providing funds for states to build effective programs. Refinements to the existing Section 405(d) grant program have been proposed in the 

Department’s Grow America Act that would seek this balance by allowing additional 

opportunities for states to qualify for incentive funds. These refinements would 

allow states with employment and rural exemptions to be eligible for a grant if offenders are still covered by a 24–7 monitoring program. 

The current research shows that ignition interlocks are effective when they are 

installed on vehicles. Consequently, the introduction of exemptions in this grant program that would allow offenders to drive without interlocks or any kind of monitoring should be carefully considered. As a general matter, we feel these types of 

exemptions in any form undermine safety. 

Question 3. Another important safety issue that I would like to discuss is in regards to the General Motors recall. It is deeply concerning that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) failed to take action to identify the ignition switch problem and require a recall over a ten year period, despite opening two 

separate investigations of the failure of the vehicle’s airbags to deploy in crashes. 

What could be included in transportation reauthorization proposal that could help 

the agency ensure that safety defects are identified and prevented in the early 

stages? 

Answer. The GROW AMERICA Act will strengthen NHTSA’s ability to hold automobile manufacturers accountable for defects that can cost lives. Specifically, the 

Act: 

• Establishes harsher penalties for manufacturers that refuse to address defective 

and dangerous vehicles and equipment that endanger the public; 

• Provides the authority to require manufacturers to cease retail sale and/or require repair of vehicles or equipment that pose an imminent hazard to the safety of the motoring public; and 

• Provides the authority to require rental car companies and used car dealers to 

participate in recalls of defective and unsafe vehicles. 

67 

To increase the effectiveness of NHTSA’s safety defects investigation, we also believe that the following steps are necessary: enhance the Office of Defect’s (ODI) 

ability to use the latest technology to help identify possible safety defects; increase 

the public’s awareness of reporting safety problems with their vehicles or vehicle 

equipment to NHTSA; and provide ODI with the personnel resources to address potential safety risks. 

Question 4. What changes in agency process and procedures could prevent another 

safety defect from going undetected? 

Answer. The Department continually seeks new ways to improve our processes. 

We are currently conducting an internal due diligence review of our processes. As 

part of that effort, we are reviewing the events leading up to this recall to see if 

there are areas that can be improved. 

For example, we are looking to improve our understanding of the way that various manufacturers design air bags to function when the vehicle loses power, considering whether we need to improve the use of Special Crash Investigation (SCI) in 

our defects screening process, reviewing ways to better incorporate information 

about remote defect possibilities into the investigative process, and evaluating our 

process for engaging manufacturers around issue evaluations. As a result of 

NHTSA’s communication with automotive manufacturers and suppliers regarding 

air bag design and performance related to the position of the vehicle ignition switch, 

NHTSA has opened two formal investigations related to potential safety defects related to the air bag systems in certain Chrysler vehicles (MY 2006–2007 Jeep Commander and MY 2005–2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles and 2008–2010 Grand 

Caravan, Town and Country and Dodge Journey vehicles). 

Additionally, we are working closely with the Department’s Office of the Inspector 

General audit assessing issues pertaining to NHTSA’s actions prior to the recent 

GM recalls. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX

To address concerns with implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC). 

Question 1. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am pleased to see that 

your draft legislation addresses the issue of PTC. The Committee has heard testimony on several recent occasions about the obstacles passenger and freight railroads 

are encountering in their efforts to meet the 2015 deadline, most notably the issues 

with the FCC approval process for communications towers which hasn’t granted a 

single permit since MAY 2013. Can you please outline the administration’s proposals for PTC and for addressing difficulties in implementation? 

Answer. The GROW AMERICA Act grants the Secretary of Transportation new 

authority in four areas: (1) to grant merit-based extensions of the current statutory 

implementation deadline for PTC systems; (2) to establish a schedule with milestones for PTC system implementation; (3) to permit provisional operation of a PTC 

system or component prior to its full certification; and (4) to allow alternative methods of protection in lieu of a PTC system where the alternative methods will provide 

appropriate risk mitigation against PTC-preventable accidents. The GROW AMERICA Act also reinforces the need for coordination between DOT and the FCC to assess spectrum needs and determine a solution to lack of spectrum availability. 

Question 1a. Why have you not included a blanket extension of the 2015 PTC 

deadline since there isn’t a single freight railroad and most passenger lines are nowhere near being compliant due to events outside their control? 

Answer. Based on the technical challenges that Southern California Regional Rail 

Authority (Metrolink), Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), and BNSF Railway 

Company (BNSF) have experienced, and the other railroads’ state of progress, the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) believes it unlikely that any Class I freight 

railroad will be able to fully complete PTC system development and approval by the 

December 31, 2015 deadline. Many will, however, be able to accomplish partial to 

substantial deployment. FRA believes that BNSF will most likely be the furthest 

along in the deployment process, with the other railroads following behind them. 

The unfortunate reality is that there are technical, financial, and agency review 

and coordination issues affecting individual railroads’ abilities to complete PTC implementation by the December 31, 2015, deadline. The extent to which these issues 

affect individual railroads is not uniform. I cannot emphasize this enough. I do not 

believe that a blanket extension is necessarily the most appropriate (or effective) 

way to address the unique circumstances each railroad is facing. I strongly recommend that extensions be considered on a merit basis and only as necessary and 

68 

that they take into consideration the specific issues affecting the particular railroad 

as well as the ability of the railroad to address the issues, the availability and effectiveness of alternative solutions, and the safety risks, as provided in the GROW 

AMERICA Act. 

Question 1b. In addition, I understand there are very valid concerns regarding 

interoperability under a scenario where there’s different compliance dates for different railroads. What analysis has DOT done about how ad hoc compliance could 

impact overall operability of various PTC solutions for both passenger and freight 

railroads? 

Answer. Regardless of whether or not DOT is granted the authority requested in 

the GROW AMERICA Act, the Department anticipates railroads will be in varied 

states of compliance with the implementation mandate, as previously indicated. 

This may be either as a consequence of the difficulties individual railroads face in 

resolving the specific technical and other issues associated with their individual 

PTC system development and deployment efforts, or as a consequence of system failures once a PTC system has been fully deployed and is operational. 

Where a railroad fails to have an interoperable PTC system in place, for whatever 

the reason, the implementing regulations are designed to maintain a level of safety 

generally in accord with that which could be expected with an operable PTC system, 

by requiring supplementary procedures to heighten crew awareness and provide 

operational controls limiting the frequency of unsafe events and reducing the potential severity of any unsafe event. The implementing regulations further allow for 

unique customization of these supplementary procedures based on specific risk and 

risk mitigations. 

To stress the importance of preserving 24/7 Sobriety programs as DOT looks to restructure Section 405 incentive grants. 

Question 2. Drunk driving is a serious concern, and one that is a priority for me 

as we move forward with reauthorizing NHTSA. South Dakota has taken recent, 

proactive steps to address the issue of drunk driving. In 2011, South Dakota passed 

legislation to create our state’s 24/7 Sobriety Program. In MAP–21, which I supported, I fought to protect this program by ensuring it wasn’t precluded as an eligible safety program. As you propose to restructure Section 405 incentive grants, what 

is the Administration’s outlook on programs like the 24/7 Sobriety Program, and 

what steps have you taken to ensure that states have the flexibility to rely on them? 

Answer. NHTSA is aware of evaluations of intensive supervision programs, such 

as the 24/7 Sobriety Program, which indicates that such programs can be effective 

in reducing DWI recidivism. In the GROW AMERICA Act, the Administration proposes to increase state flexibility with regard to eligibility for an alcohol-ignition 

interlock law grant by allowing the substitution of 24/7 intensive supervision programs for ignition interlock use under certain circumstances. Under the proposal, 

a state would be eligible for an ignition interlock grant even if its all-offender interlock law contained an exemption for employer-owned vehicles, provided that the 

state required such offenders to participate in a 24/7 intensive supervision program. 

Similarly, a state would also be eligible for an ignition interlock grant even if its 

all-offender interlock law contained an exemption for rural residents, provided that 

such offenders live more than one hundred miles from an interlock service provider 

and they participate in a 24/7 intensive supervision program. 

To address South Dakota concerns that more flexible 402 funds will be less available. 

Question 3. NHTSA provides State and Community Highway Safety grants under 

Section 402 in addition to the National Priority Safety Program grants under Section 405, which are more restrictive. The Administration’s proposal contemplates 

funding for Section 405 at higher levels than Section 402. Yet, Section 402 allows 

states more flexibility to provide for data-driven projects in support of a number of 

highway safety issues, and some states would prefer to see the funding levels reversed, with 402 receiving as much funding as possible. Can you explain the Administration’s rationale for the proposed funding levels as set forward in your proposal? 

Answer. In MAP–21, Congress continued the approach from previous highway 

safety authorizations by extending the Section 402 State and Community Grant 

Program and providing grants to address specific highway safety problems with the 

Section 405 National Priority Safety Program Grant Program. In the GROW AMERICA Act, the Administration proposes increases in both Section 402 and Section 405 

funding. The Administration proposes approximately 14 percent growth of the Section 402 program and 16 percent growth in the Section 405 program over the life 

of the bill. 

Section 405 funding provides grants to states that meet specific grant criteria to 

combat highway safety issues that are significant concerns in virtually every State, 

69 

such as occupant protection, impaired driving, novice driver safety, distracted driving, motorcycle safety, as well as State traffic safety information systems that form 

the basis for State highway safety problem identification and resource allocation. 

Section 405 provides grants to states to address all these safety problems while also 

providing incentives to states to refine and improve these programs, by raising the 

bar for qualification over the life of the authorization period. In addition to continuing and revising the existing MAP21 grant programs, the GROW AMERICA Act 

provides funding for states to address additional safety concerns: the growing number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes, and novice driver safety through the adoption 

of national driver education standards and programs developed by the driver education community. 

Section 402 grants provide funding with flexibility for states to address more 

State-specific safety problems, identified using data generated from the State traffic 

safety information systems supported at least in part by Section 405 grants. Much 

of the Section 402 funding is used by states to address the widespread problems of 

impaired driving, occupant protection and distracted driving. The existence of Section 405 grants in these areas allows states the option to devote a smaller percentage of their Section 402 funds to these issues and free up those Section 402 funds 

for use on other State-specific safety problems. 

The proposed funding increases in the GROW AMERICA Act are designed to advance the synergy between the National Priority Program grants and the State and 

Community Highway Safety grants by providing comparable increases in funding to 

both programs. 

To express concern about reports of invasive roadside survey procedures employed by 

NHTSA contractors. 

Question 4. I am concerned about reports regarding the National Roadside Survey 

of Alcohol and Drugged Driving that revealed motorists complaints of being forced 

off the road and asked to provide breath, blood and saliva samples. While combating 

impaired driving is a priority, and while survey data provide important insights to 

policymakers regarding the scope of this problem, it is important that the methods 

employed by NHTSA and its contractors respect the civil liberties of our Nation’s 

motorists. 

Survey participation should be voluntary and not feel coerced as some have 

claimed. 

Can you explain how the survey was conducted and what procedures, if any, 

NHTSA employs to ensure that its testing activities—both those conducted by the 

agency itself and those conducted through third-party contractors –are constitutional and as unobtrusive as possible? 

Answer. The National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers is one 

of the most reliable sources of data on the presence of alcohol and legal and illegal 

drugs among drivers on the road. Information gathered through the Roadside Survey is a critical part of our efforts to reduce impaired driving. For example, information from previous surveys contributed to the passage of the 21 Drinking Age law. 

Also, data from previous surveys helped law enforcement target times for impaired 

driving enforcement. 

Procedures for conducting the Roadside Survey were reviewed and approved by 

an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the Protection of Human Subjects, as required by Federal statute. This IRB approval process is designed to ensure that subjects of federally-funded research are treated with dignity, respect, and courtesy, 

that their participation is voluntary, that there is no coercion, and that volunteers 

give informed consent to participate. 

The following protocols were in place to ensure that the survey was conducted in 

accordance with law and as unobtrusively as possible: 

• The research team placed large signs, including mobile electronic signboards, in 

the roadway in advance of the survey site to alert drivers to the ‘‘Paid Voluntary Survey’’ ahead. 

• Drivers passing by survey locations were randomly selected and asked if they 

would like to volunteer to participate in the survey. 

• Law enforcement officers were present at each survey site for the safety of the 

motorists and researchers. However, officers remained outside of the data collection area and were not involved in collecting data from the drivers. 

• Researchers began by informing drivers that they have done nothing wrong and 

that they are free to leave at any time. Researchers also gave each driver an 

information sheet describing the study, stating clearly that the survey is voluntary, and explaining that no personally identifying information will be collected. 

70 

• If researchers encountered a driver who appeared to be intoxicated, for the protection of the driver and other motorists researchers offered a series of options 

(e.g., substituting a sober passenger as a driver in the vehicle; having a researcher drive the vehicle home or to a hotel; hiring a cab). (No driver has ever 

been arrested at a survey site under this program.) 

NHTSA is committed to its mission of reducing traffic deaths and works closely 

with State partners to develop and implement effective traffic safety programs. The 

agency also fully recognizes the sensitivity of research activities of this nature and 

takes great care to ensure that anonymity is preserved and individual rights are not 

compromised. 

Question 5. To request an update on when the Administration expects to formally 

send up senior nominations including Deputy Secretary, FHWA and NHTSA. 

I sent a letter to the President in March 2014 urging him to act swiftly to fill 

the vacant Administrator position at NHTSA. In that letter, I explained my view 

that though the Acting Administrator and career staff carry on the work of the 

agency during periods where there is not a confirmed Administrator, as is the current situation, a sustained absence of leadership can send a mixed message, particularly when it comes to the important safety mission entrusted to NHTSA. The recent recalls of General Motors’ vehicles have once again put a spotlight on the Office 

of Defect Investigation’s process for identifying and addressing safety defects. It is 

important to ensure that there is a Senate confirmed Administrator in place to provide necessary leadership in this and other areas. Can you provide an update to this 

Committee on what progress has been made with respect to identifying and nominating a candidate to fill this position? 

Answer. I share your interest in the importance of having a confirmed Administrator at NHTSA and understand the White House Office of Presidential Personnel 

is working on finding the appropriate candidate for this vacancy. In the interim, I 

have full confidence that NHTSA’s safety mission continues to be the top priority 

for the agency’s current leadership and staff. My Department looks forward to providing the Committee with more information on this nomination in the near future. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. KELLY AYOTTE TO

HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX

Question. Over the last several years we’ve seen fatalities of pedestrians and 

bicyclists increase, even as overall traffic fatalities are falling. These modes account 

for over 5,000 deaths and 115,000 serious injuries a year. 

As you know, I have written to your department in the past requesting a separate 

performance measure for non-motorized transportation users. In fact, I have introduced legislation that would ensure states measure fatalities of both motorized and 

non-motorized users, so they may identify safety hazards on their roads. 

In March, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released a draft rule of 

the safety performance measure. Why did this measure not include a separate nonmotorized performance measure that would improve data collection and encourage 

states to focus on reducing these fatalities? 

Answer. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is one of my top priorities. All modes in 

DOT strongly support this priority and will continue to work collaboratively to do 

so. More information about DOT’s bicycle and pedestrian work in this area is available at: http://www.dot.gov/bicycles-pedestrians. 

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Safety Performance Measures 

(available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-03-11/pdf/2014-05152.pdf), 

as required by MAP–21, we are proposing the establishment of one measure for 

each of the four areas mandated by MAP–21: number of fatalities, fatality rate, 

number of serious injuries, and serious injury rate. Our proposed measure is consistent with the focus of the Highway Safety Improvement Program, which is to reduce all fatalities and serious injuries—including those involving pedestrians and 

bicyclists. 

States are already using and reporting a pedestrian fatality metric through 

NHTSA’s Highway Safety Program. Just this spring, NHTSA reached a further 

agreement with the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) to add the requirement for states to develop a bicycle safety performance target. These will begin 

with FY 2015 highway safety grants. You can be assured that both NHTSA and 

FHWA are working cooperatively on safety performance measures to spur states to 

achieve the national goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all users. 

The Department supports a data-driven approach to addressing safety issues. As 

states update their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP)—the statewide-coordiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:03 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\93415.TXT JACKIE
71 

nated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing all fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads—they bring pedestrian and bicyclist interests to the table and look at crash trends. An SHSP identifies a State’s key safety 

needs and guides investment decisions toward strategies and countermeasures with 

the most potential to save lives and prevent injuries. The majority of states already 

include pedestrian and bicyclist safety in their SHSPs either as a priority emphasis 

area or a strategy. 

As FHWA moves through the rulemaking process, FHWA will continue to consider all comments received. The Safety Performance Measures NPRM specifically 

asks for comment on how the Department could address non-motorized safety performance and how State and MPOs consider such data in their safety programs and 

in selecting investments. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX

Question 1. The rail industry has not been able to install antennas that will be 

needed to make Positive Train Control work for over a year while the FCC tries 

to develop a workable process to handle the 22,000 applications they expect. What 

are you doing to help move this process forward? 

Answer. FRA has worked closely with the FCC and other stakeholders throughout 

the development of the Program Comment that will apply to most of the antennas 

within the railroad right-of-way necessary for PTC implementation and was adopted 

by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in May 2014. FRA’s primary role 

is as a technical resource for the FCC to enable it to better understand the potential 

ramifications of various policy and technical options that it is considering to facilitate the PTC tower application-review process. The FCC is responsible for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental 

Policy Act as they relate to its approval of communication system towers and stations. FRA has no statutory or regulatory authority over spectrum allocation and 

availability or communication systems tower deployment. FRA has provided, and 

will continue to provide, the FCC with all possible technical assistance as the FCC 

implements the Program Comment and approves the antennas necessary for PTC 

system implementation. 

Question 2. The new truck driver hours of service rules your department put in 

place in July 2013 are having a substantial impact on productivity. To justify the 

change your department speculated that hours of service would make drivers 

healthier and live longer. Also, your department recently completed a congressionally mandated study on the rules’ restart provision that acknowledged that your 

rule changes have put more trucks on the road during daytime hours. 

What plans does your Department have to measure and try to confirm whether 

these speculative health benefits will actually be realized? Also, what plans does 

your Department have to evaluate the daytime driving safety impacts of putting so 

many trucks on the road at the same time? 

Answer. The Hours-of-Service rule has been in place almost a full year; a year 

in which the industry has seen higher profitability than any year since 2009. Only 

those drivers who were working more than 70 hours per week are affected by having 

their work limited to an average of 70 hours per week, which is still nearly double 

the national standard of a 40-hour work week. The benefits of the rule are not speculative. They are supported by the best available science on the relationship between increased sleep (for sleep-deprived groups, like truck drivers) and increased 

life expectancy. FMCSA is considering a range of research projects to evaluate the 

effect of the 2011 final rule, including the two-night requirement that some argue 

puts an excessive number of trucks on the road early in the morning. The Agency 

will announce its research plans in due course and seek industry input and cooperation in refining them and carrying out the studies. 

This rule also does not prevent carriers and drivers from setting their own schedules, nor does it restrict drivers from being on the roads during any time of the day. 

Only drivers who run out of time during the work week and exceed 60 hours of work 

in 7 days or 70 hours in 8 days, and need to begin a new work week as soon as 

possible would have to use the 34-hour restart, including two nighttime periods from 

1–5 a.m. Even then, there is no requirement that such a driver hit the road at a 

specific hour. Less than 15 percent of long haul truck-drivers are affected by the 

34-hour restart. 

In our regulatory analysis, the Agency estimated that the changes to the hours 

of service rule would yield not only safety benefits in lives saved, quantified at 19 

lives saved per year, as well as benefits to driver health, including $280 million in 

72 

savings from fewer crashes and $470 million in savings from improved driver 

health. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ROY BLUNT TO

HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX

Questions on Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Question 1. There are considerable Bakken crude testing and survey efforts under 

way by oil producers and shippers. 17 companies submitted over 1,100 test results 

to their trade association-representatives of which I know plan to walk PHMSA 

through the results when they are ready. 

The North Dakota Petroleum Council also plans to collect 150 total samples from 

both well sites and rail facilities. These efforts will provide a substantial amount 

of data to PHMSA on the characteristics and behavior of Bakken crude. 

How will this data be utilized by PHMSA, and do you expect it to settle questions 

surrounding Bakken crude and how it compares to other crude types? 

Answer. Safety is my number one priority as Secretary of Transportation. We appreciate the efforts of the industry to collect and analyze crude oil data following 

our request to share this information. As we’ve said, more needs to be understood 

about this crude oil, and our safety experts are reviewing the data as we also continue to collect and analyze our own data. This testing data is critical to our comprehensive approach. 

As part of its on-going efforts, PHMSA has supported the American Petroleum Institute Standards Committee initiative to develop industry standards for proper 

sampling techniques, testing criteria, and testing frequency for crude oil. PHMSA 

has actively participated in the discussions during working groups sessions held to 

date and plans to continue up through expected completion in July. PHMSA uses 

the data collected on crude oil characteristics in conjunction with physical testing 

of tank car integrity and predictive modeling tools to gather data on tank car performance in accident scenarios to develop its proposals. 

The data submitted to date and any submitted in the future will be analyzed and 

compared to PHMSA’s sampling and testing results. PHMSA is also actively involved in an American Petroleum Institute working group tasked with developing 

industry best practices, including those regarding testing and sampling methods for 

crude oil. 

Question 2. Will it inform the rulemaking process your department already has 

underway? 

Answer. Yes. Based on PHMSA’s own testing and sampling efforts, combined with 

the voluntarily submitted testing data by industry, PHMSA better understands the 

unique properties of crude oil. This understanding has led to the development of a 

comprehensive rulemaking. PHMSA has used the data collected on crude oil characteristics in conjunction with physical testing of tank car integrity and predictive 

modeling tools to gather data on tank car performance in accident scenario to develop its proposals. PHMSA is confident the proposals in our rulemaking will account for the unique characteristics of crude oil and improve safety and looks forward to public comment on these proposals and the data that supported their development. 

Question 3. Mr. Secretary, last week you announced you sent a ‘‘comprehensive 

package’’ of rules to OMB intended to address rail safety. I understand you are unable to comment on the specific details, but I assume there will be some treatment 

of rail car design and how to address cars currently in service. I have been informed 

that a part of the technical analysis your department is considering for rail car design standards is a study by the University of Illinois. But I also understand that 

study is currently undergoing peer review. How will the results of that peer review 

be incorporated into the proposed regulatory actions the Department is considering? 

Answer. The rulemaking that is currently pending focuses on a variety of topics 

from tank car design to possibly classification issues. 

Æ