U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

33–618 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

EXAMINING THE ADMINISTRATION’S 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSAL 

(115–37) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 6, 2018 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ 

browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

Rules of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Rule XIV. Records 

(a) Keeping of Records.—The Committee shall keep a complete record of all 

Committee action which shall include—— 

(1) in the case of any meeting or hearing transcripts, a substantially verbatim 

account of remarks actually made during the proceedings, subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the person making the remarks involved;... 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’ Crawford of Arkansas .............................................. 67 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ............................................................. 67 

Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio ............................................................................ 74 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas ..................................................... 74 

Hon. Mark Meadows of North Carolina .................................................. 75 

Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington ............................................................. 77 

Hon. John Katko of New York ................................................................. 78 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano of California ................................................... 78 

Hon. Barbara Comstock of Virginia ......................................................... 79 

Hon. John Garamendi of California ......................................................... 80 

Hon, David Rouzer of North Carolina ..................................................... 81 

Hon. Frederica S. Wilson of Florida ........................................................ 81 

Hon. Randy K. Weber, Sr., of Texas ........................................................ 87 

Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal of California ...................................................... 89 

Hon. John J. Faso of New York ............................................................... 90 

Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands ................................ 91 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Donald M. Payne, Jr., of New Jersey, together with article of March 

12, 2018, entitled, ‘‘Trump Administration Uses Fuzzy Logic to Derail $11 

Billion Tunnel Plan for New York and New Jersey,’’ by Salvador Rizzo, 

Washington Post .................................................................................................. 92 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Letter of February 28, 2017, from Hon. Dina Titus of Nevada et al., to 

Hon. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of 

Transportation; submitted by Hon. Titus .......................................................... 100 

Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Connecticut, submission of the following: 

Letter of March 5, 2018, from Catherine Chase, President, Advocates 

for Highway and Auto Safety, et al., to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, 

and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ............................................................................. 101 

Letter of March 5, 2018, from Shailen Bhatt, President and CEO, ITS 

America, to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ...... 107 

Letter of March 6, 2018, from Alabama Rivers Alliance et al., to Hon. 

Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ..................................... 109 

Letter of March 5, 2018, from Robert P. Canavan, Chair, Rebuild America’s Schools, to Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................... 114 

Page

VI 

Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Connecticut, submission of the following—Continued 

Joint written statement of David H. Fialkov, Vice President, Government 

Affairs, Legislative and Regulatory Counsel, National Association of 

Truckstop Operators, and Brittney D. Kohler, Program Director, Transportation and Infrastructure, Federal Advocacy, National League of 

Cities .............................................................................................................. 116 

Letter of March 6, 2018, from Hon. John K. Delaney, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Maryland, et al. (New Democrat Coalition), to Hon. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation ................................................................................. 122 

Letter of March 13, 2018, from Franchise Business Services (representing 

BWW franchisees) et al., to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter 

A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, submitted by Hon. Rodney Davis of Illinois ..................................... 126 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Letter of March 6, 2018, from Dennis Slater, President, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. 

DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................ 128 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 33618.001

lliiU O>~usttr 

([{Jairmau 

MathewM.Sturges 

StaffDin."ctor 

<!Committee on i!l:ran~portation anll1lnfra~tructure 

Uli.~. ~Otl~l' of l\eptc~l'tttatlbl'~ 

Wa~gington :ID<!C 20515 

March 2, 2018 

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

TO: 

FROM: 

Members, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Staff, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

jilrttr !:!.lllr;!fa;io 

i\anking Jfl.rmbrr 

KatberineW.Dedrick 

Democratk:StaffDirector 

RE: Full Committee Hearing on "Examining the Administration's Infrastructure 

PURPOSE 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Tuesday, March 6, 

2017 at 10:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony concerning the 

Trump Administration's infrastructure proposal. The Committee will hear from the Secretary of 

Transportation. 

BACKGROUND 

The Importance of Transportation Infrastructure 

Transportation infrastructure provides a strong physical platform that facilitates economic 

growth, ensures global competitiveness, creates American jobs, and supports national security. 

In addition, it affords Americans a good quality of life by enabling them travel to and from work, 

to conduct business, and to visit family and friends. 

The Nation's transportation infrastructure is an extensive network of highways, airports, 

railroads, public transit systems, waterways, ports, and pipelines. It includes over 4 million 

miles of public roads, nearly 20,000 airports, over 140,000 miles of railroad, over 272,000 miles 

of public transit route miles, over 2.6 million miles of pipeline, over 25,000 miles of navigable 

waterways, and 360 commercial ports. 1 

Our Nation's transportation infrastructure is the backbone of the U.S. economy. In 2015, 

all modes of transportation moved an estimated 18.1 billion tons of goods worth about $19.2 

trillion on our Nation's transportation network. On a daily basis, 49 million tons of goods valued 

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2015 Pocket Guide to Transportation; 

Federal Railroad Administration, The Freight Rail Network; Federal Transit Administration, National Transit 

Database; American Association of Port Authorities, U.S. Puhlic Port Facts. 
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 33618.002

at more than $53 billion are shipped throughout the country on all transportation modes. 2 In 

addition, nearly 13 million Americans, approximately nine percent of the U.S. workforce, are 

directly employed by transportation related industries3 In 2015, Americans drove 3.1 trillion 

miles commuting to and from work and conducting other activities.' 

Future Needs for Transportation Infrastructure 

Over the next 30 years. our Nation's transportation infrastructure will need to keep pace 

with anticipated increases in population and demand for freight transportation. Forecasts predict 

that America's population will grow from 319 million in 2014 to approximately 400 million in 

205!. 5 The movement of freight is expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 30 years6 

U.S. trade volume is expected to double by the year 202!. and double again by the year 2030. 

By 2030, large "post-Panamax" ships are expected to comprise a majority of the world's 

container ship capacity, although fewer than 10 of America's 360 ports arc now capable of 

receiving ships of this size. Air travel demand is expected to increase from 750 million 

passengers annually to nearly one billion passengers mmually by the end of the next decade7 

New forms of air transportation, including drones and commercial space transportation will also 

need to be integrated into the aviation system. In terms of highway usage, vehicle miles traveled 

are projected to increase by nearly 20 percent by 20358 Between 2015 and 2045, it is estimated 

that freight rail tonnage will increase by 24 percent, from 1. 7 billion tons to 2.1 billion tons9 

The Trump Administration's Infrastructure Proposal 

On February 6, 2018, the Trump Administration released its ''Legislative Outline for 

Rebuilding Infrastructure in America". The proposal would address a broad array of 

infrastructure needs in areas including highways, transit. aviation, rail, drinking and wastewater 

waterways, public buildings, Brownfield and Superfund sites, energy, public lands, and veterans' 

hospitals. The proposal does not include recommendations on addressing the long-term solvency 

of the Highway Trust Fund. 

The proposal calls for $200 billion in funding, credit subsidies, and tax incentives over 

the next 10 years to improve U.S. infrastructure. The proposal is structured with the intention of 

stimulating a total of$1.5 billion in new investment in U.S. infrastructure. Offsets arc not 

identified in the proposal to "pay-for" the proposed level of spending. The proposal breaks down 

the $200 billion as follows: 

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, DOT releases 30-Year Freight Projections, 

March 3, 2016. 3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation in the United States: 

Highlights from 2015 Transportation Statistics Annual Report. 4 U.S. Department of Transportation, US. Driving Tops 3.1 Trillion Miles in 2015, New Federal Data Show, 2016. 5 U.S. Census Bureau, Projections ofthe Size and Composition ~fthe U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060,2015. 6 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, DOT Releases 30-Year Freight 

Projections, 2016. 7 U.S. Department of Transportation, FAA Aerospace Forecast. Fiscal Years 2016-2036, 2016. 8 Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Forecasts of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): Spring 20/6,2016. 9 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, DOT Releases 30-Year Freight 

Projections, 2016. 

2 
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 33618.003

$100 billion for an Incentives Program- A new discretionary grant program available 

to states and local governments to construct infrastructure projects. The funding 

would be awarded based on a number of criteria including whether states and local 

governments can demonstrate the ability to secure new, non-federal revenue for 

infrastructure investment, operation, and maintenance; 

$50 billion for a Rural Infrastructure Program- New formula and discretionary grant 

programs for infrastructure projects in areas with populations ofless than 50,000. A 

portion of this funding would be set aside for tribal and U.S. territorial governments; 

$20 billion for a Transformative Projects Program- A new discretionary grant 

program for projects that "would fundamentally transform the way infrastructure in 

delivered or operated"; 

$10 billion for a Federal Capital Financing Fund- The funding would be used to 

capitalize a revolving fund to finance the acquisition of federal real property, such as 

new federal buildings; 

$14 billion to expand eligibilities under existing credit programs, such as the 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), Water 

Infrastructure Financing Act (WIFIA), and Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement 

Financing (RRIF) programs; and 

$6 billion to offset the cost of expanding eligibilities and lifting the current volume 

caps on tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds. 

The Administration's proposal contains several recommendations for permanent changes 

to existing law in an effort to incentivize investment and remove regulatory hurdles to 

infrastructure development. Some of the recommendations that fall under the jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure include; 

Eliminating the statutory prohibition on tolling existing interstate facilities; 

Lifting the statutory prohibition on the commercialization of interstate rest stops; 

Providing t1exibility on the "application of federal requirements" for projects that 

receive minimal federal assistance; 

Authorizing states to repay the federal investment in a highway facility to 

permanently remove the application offedcral requirements on the facility; 

Lowering the threshold for air carrier approval required for airports to participate in 

the Airport Privatization Pilot Program; 

Authorizing financial assistance to privately operated treatment works under the 

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund; and 

Expanding the number of agreements between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) and private entities to construct and operate inland waterway projects and 

hydropower facilities. 

The Administration's proposal also includes several recommendations intended to reduce 

the time it takes to conduct environmental review and permitting of infrastructure projects. 

Some of the recommendations that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure include; 
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 33618.004

Aligning the period for the filing of legal challenges to environmental permits issued 

for rail projects to that of highway and transit projects; 

- Authorizing the acquisition of rights-of-way for rail projects prior to the completion 

of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review process; 

- Removing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to veto a 

permit issued by the Corps authorizing the discharge of dredged or fill material in 

waters of the United States under section 404 of the Clean Water Act; 

Clarifying the time states have to review applications and issue State Water Quality 

Certifications for projects under section 401 of the Clean Water Act; and 

- Lengthening the terms of Clean Water Act discharge permits from five to 15 years 

and providing for automatic renewals of such permits for activities that impact waters 

of the United States. 

Finally, the Administration's proposal includes recommendations on changes to 

workforce development and education programs in an etTort to improve the skills of workers that 

build and maintain U.S. infrastructure. More information on the Administration's proposal is 

available at https://v.•ww. whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/20 18/02/INFRASTR UCTURE2ll.pdf. 

WITNESS LIST 

The Honorable Elaine Chao 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

4 
(1) 

EXAMINING THE ADMINISTRATION’S 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSAL 

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster (Chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The committee will come to order. As Members 

take their seats, the committee will come to order. And without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time, although I don’t believe we are going to have votes until this afternoon, so I don’t think that will be a problem. 

But we welcome and thank Secretary Chao for testifying today 

on the administration’s infrastructure proposal. 

Welcome, Secretary Chao. 

I have been encouraged by the President’s focus on infrastructure 

since before the election and through his inauguration, when I believe he became the first President in our history to mention the 

word ‘‘infrastructure’’ in his inaugural address, although I do believe along the way Lincoln called them internal improvements. 

And so, again, infrastructure, internal improvements, have always been part of the Federal Government’s role. And actually, 

that is why we have emblazoned over the two doors, one, Adam 

Smith, ‘‘The Wealth of Nations,’’ talking about the need for the 

duty of the sovereign, the Government, to—one of the three things 

is the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and 

certain public institutions that can never be in the interest of any 

individual or small number of individuals, erect and maintain. 

So again, Adam Smith even said it, and of course our founders 

that were students of Adam Smith talked about and put in the 

Constitution Congress’ main three roles: defense of the general welfare, regulate commerce, and to establish post offices and post 

roads, article 1, section 8. 

So again, from the founding of this country there has been a Federal role. It is at all levels of Government. Local, State, and Federal have a role. It is not just the Federal Government, but we certainly need to continue to participate to make sure we continue to 

have a robust national transportation system. 

Over the past year, though, statement of support for increasing 

investment in America’s infrastructure has been positive, and the 

President’s interest, his background as a builder, and his leaderVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Dec 14, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\FULL\3-6-20~1\33618.TXT JEAN
2 

ship on the issue will be crucial to building 21st-century infrastructure for America. 

I look forward to working with you, Madam Secretary, as we 

move forward this year. 

Some of the administration’s infrastructure proposals are much 

needed. I have questions about some of the other proposals and 

how the work—for example, I want to commend you for work you 

and the DOT have done in speeding up projects. We now have 

about—between MAP–21, and the FAST Act, about 50 percent of 

those streamlining proposals have been put in place. There is still 

more on permitting that we need to do to get this permitting process down to a reasonable number of years. The last two highway 

bills, as I said, had those types of reforms in it. And there is more 

to do to fully enact those. 

Still, it takes too long for projects to move forward. On average, 

it is about 14 years for a major road project to move forward, and 

that is just way too long. To cut that in half, the President has 

been talking about 2 years, which would be fantastic. But if you 

cut that 14 just by—in half, just on the—no, excuse me, inflation 

alone, you would save somewhere between 12 and 15 percent on a 

project, and that, over time, adds up to real, real dollars. 

And I have said many times before, an infrastructure plan must 

be a bipartisan plan if it is going to pass Congress. The Senate 

rules with the 60 votes, it has to be bipartisan there. And I am 

sure, in the House, if we are to do a bipartisan bill, we need to 

bring our Democratic colleagues on board and work closely with 

them to produce something that will pass through the House on a 

bipartisan vote. 

I have been working with and plan to work with Ranking Member DeFazio and my Democratic colleagues to develop a plan that 

does attract bipartisan support. To do that we have to be realistic 

about our needs and how we can address them in a fiscally responsible way. 

Fixing the Highway Trust Fund for the future and modernizing 

how we fund infrastructure in this country must be part of the solution. In fact, that has to be, really, the starting point. If we don’t 

figure out how to trust the trust fund, October 20, October—or into 

early 2021 the trust fund will run out. 

And again, if you look across the country, 31 States have already 

dealt with their shortfalls in revenue, and there has been no political price for fixing their revenue. They did it in very different 

ways, and it has been States with Democratic legislatures and 

Democratic Governors, it has been States—my home State of Pennsylvania, a Republican house and senate and a Republican Governor fixed their funding, the revenue shortfall. And again, there 

was no political price to pay, because I think the American people 

understand the need we have to invest in our infrastructure. 

So I look forward to continuing working with you at the White 

House and my colleagues in Congress on a bipartisan infrastructure plan. 

And so, with that, I recognize the vice ranking member of the 

committee, Ms. Esty, for the opening statement. I guess Mr. 

DeFazio missed the plane. 

Ms. ESTY. Delayed. 

3 

Mr. SHUSTER. If we would have only passed my FAA reauthorization—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER [continuing]. Mr. DeFazio would be here. But now 

that Mr. DeFazio is not here, I am having second thoughts. 

Mr. LARSEN. Tell us more, tell us more. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I think it is better we didn’t. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. ESTY. I believe it was canceled, not delayed. Thank you, 

Chairman Shuster, and thank you, Secretary Chao, for joining us 

here today. We are now over 400 days into the Trump administration, far past the 100-day mark, a period during which the President promised to enact a bill to invest $1 billion in infrastructure. 

After a lot of talk, the White House finally released its longawaited infrastructure plan 3 weeks ago. Sadly, my frustration 

over the long delay in getting to see the White House plan has now 

been eclipsed by my frustration over what is actually in it. 

How we structure an infrastructure package and how we pay for 

it matters a lot. If an infrastructure package is to bring together 

successfully, it must be based on a mutual understanding that we 

need real sustainable investment to improve the productivity and 

mobility of our communities. We can’t do it based on gimmicks, 

shifting responsibility among partners, or glossing over years of 

underinvestment. 

What we need is a sound, long-term investment at the Federal 

level that will create millions of jobs, boost local economies, and 

pay dividends for generations to come. Let me elaborate. 

Number one, an investment package must contain real Federal 

funding, and I am glad that the chairman mentioned the importance of actual funding for these programs. An investment of $1 

trillion in Federal infrastructure funding will create or sustain 16 

million jobs. And those are well-paid jobs. Instead, the President’s 

promised $1 trillion has turned out to be only $200 billion over 10 

years, over a broad swath of infrastructure needs. That is $20 billion a year to cover all modes of transportation, broadband, wastewater, drinking water, as well as veteran and GSA facilities. 

And let’s be clear. This $200 billion in ‘‘additional money’’ is proposed in the broader context of $168 billion in cuts to existing 

transportation, transit, and infrastructure funding over the same 

10-year period. 

So, in reality, the President is proposing very little, if any, new 

Federal money. The White House envisions that the new money 

that they can take credit for as Presidentially led investments will 

actually come from the State and local level by tolling and taxing 

citizens more, or by bonding to be paid off by future tax revenues. 

That is pushing the cost on to Americans not yet born. 

Congress and the White House missed a massive opportunity to 

raise revenue for infrastructure in the tax bill, which is mind-boggling, because 250 Members of Congress with robust representation 

from both sides of the aisle wrote to the leadership of the Ways and 

Means Committee, urging that a permanent solution to our Highway Trust Fund be included in that tax bill. 

4 

And so, we continue to spin our wheels on how to bridge the gap 

between nearly universal support for fixing our Nation’s infrastructure and our massive funding needs. 

Number two, selling off public assets is a cash grab, not a solution. To bridge this gap in part, the White House infrastructure 

plan contains several attempts to push a privatization agenda. This 

isn’t the solution. There is universal bipartisan agreement, even 

among those in the private sector, that public-private partnerships, 

so-called P3s, will not solve our infrastructure crisis and will do 

nothing for the vast majority of surface transportation projects. 

And as the chairman already noted, we need look no further than 

the quotations now painted on the wall, painted there for all of us 

to look at every day about the Federal role in funding infrastructure. 

Number three, we can’t streamline our way out of underinvestment. Let me address the favorite Trojan horse in infrastructure: 

environmental streamlining. Rolling back environmental protections will not save hundreds of billions of dollars. 

The vast majority of projects, 90 percent of projects, are already 

exempt from full environmental review, and proceed under a categorical exclusion, so-called CE. Only 4 percent of projects require 

the preparation of an environmental impact statement, the most 

detailed review document. And for the surface transportation 

projects that do undergo a detailed review, the time for completion 

is less than 4 years. 

In the last decade, Congress has passed extensive legislation to 

expedite environmental review, based on inputs from State DOTs, 

timelines to complete various levels of environmental review have 

fallen significantly as a result. While there may still be legitimate 

policy changes, Congress should consider to expedite project delivery, which I and many of my colleagues are open to hearing about; 

artificial deadlines, and punitive actions are not the answer. 

Number four, let’s work with what we have: existing Federal programs. The White House talking points claim to want to give 

States and local governments more decisionmaking power, yet they 

have proposed to direct 80 percent of infrastructure funds, $160 billion of the $200 billion, to grants or loans selected by the Federal 

Government. Again, these programs are coupled with cuts to existing programs under which States and local governments currently 

select those projects. 

Instead, Congress can quickly and fairly direct infrastructure 

dollars to States and cities through existing infrastructure programs. Doing so ensures that these investments result in projects 

that utilize American iron and steel, by enforcing Buy America protections; they support good-paying jobs for American families by 

maintaining prevailing wage and other worker protections; and 

provide opportunities for diverse small businesses to participate. 

This will also ensure real investment will be available immediately 

to spend on the projects State and local governments determine are 

the most worthy. 

Ranking Member DeFazio included a provision in the FAST Act 

to ensure that if additional funding came in through the Highway 

Trust Fund, Congress will not have to take any further action to 

see those dollars put to good use right away. Again, by utilizing the 

5 

existing structure, each authorized highway and transit program 

will get a proportional plus-up. 

The clock is ticking. Since President Trump took office, time 

wasted by commuters, travelers, and inefficient movement of goods 

has already cost the American economy more than $179 billion. If 

the President and the Republican leadership in Congress are serious about making infrastructure a priority and finding new revenue to pay for it, then we have a unique opportunity to make 

badly needed investments in our roads, bridges, transit systems, 

rail infrastructure, airports, and ports that we have been neglecting for decades. 

Let’s work together. Let’s seize this opportunity, and let’s make 

a real investment in America. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. I would now like to welcome again the 

Honorable Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation. And I would 

ask unanimous consent that our witness’ full statement will be included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Secretary Chao, again, thank you for being here today. And you 

are now recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF 

TRANSPORTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you very much, Chairman Shuster. And 

even though Ranking Member DeFazio is not here, I do want to 

also acknowledge him. Members of the committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. 

As you have heard, infrastructure is indeed the backbone of our 

country’s economy, the most productive, flexible, and dynamic in 

the world. It is a key factor in productivity and our economic 

growth. And yet, as we have all heard and experienced, the challenges are everywhere. 

With respect to surface transportation, traffic congestion and delays cost drivers nearly $160 billion annually. About one-quarter 

of our Nation’s bridges are structurally deficient, which, by the 

way, does not mean that they are unsafe. When bridges are unsafe, 

we shut them down immediately. Structurally deficient means that 

we have to monitor them more closely on a more regular basis. 

More than 20 percent of our Nation’s roads are in poor condition. 

And the transportation needs of rural America, which account for 

a disproportionately high percentage of our Nation’s highway fatalities, have been ignored for too long. And that is why, over the 

past year, amongst all the other agenda items which the administration has undertaken, many agencies have been supporting the 

President, working hard on a comprehensive infrastructure framework which the President announced as a priority in his 2018 State 

of the Union Address. 

Transportation is one component. The initiative includes, but is 

not limited to, energy, drinking and waste water, broadband and 

veterans’ hospitals, as well. It is designed to change how infrastructure is designed, built, financed, and maintained in communities 

across the country. 

The goal of the President’s proposal is to stimulate at least $1.5 

trillion in infrastructure investment, which includes a minimum of 

6 

$200 billion in direct Federal funding. The guiding guidelines and 

principles are, one, to use Federal dollars as seed money to 

incentivize non-Federal infrastructure investments; two, provide for 

the needs of rural America; three, streamline permitting to speed 

up project delivery; four, reduce unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations. 

In addition, a key element of the proposal is to empower decisionmaking at the State and local level. They know best the infrastructure needs of their communities. Half of the new infrastructure funds will go toward incentivizing new State, local, and private-sector investments in infrastructure. One-quarter of the Federal funds will be dedicated to addressing rural infrastructure 

needs, as prioritized by State and local leaders. And, as a former 

Secretary of Labor, I am pleased to note that this plan also has a 

workforce component to help workers access the skills necessary to 

build these new projects. 

The Department is also implementing the President’s ‘‘One Federal Decision’’ mandate announced on August 15, 2017, to help 

speed up the delivery of new infrastructure and reduce the cost of 

new buildings. 

In addition to permitting reform, the Department is doing its 

part to grow the economy and create jobs through regulatory reform. Costs associated with new DOT regulations decreased by 

$312 million in 2017, and the Department is on track to decrease 

these costs by at least $500 million in 2018. 

By incentivizing new investments in infrastructure, eliminating 

overly burdensome regulations, providing support for rural America, and streamlining the permitting process, the Department is 

helping to improve our communities and people’s quality of life and 

build a brighter future for all Americans. 

Some estimates put our country’s infrastructure needs at approximately $4 trillion. The President’s plan encourages the private 

sector to help in the building of our public infrastructure. For example, endowments and pension funds are interested in investments like public infrastructure, which have collateral that will not 

walk away. In addition, the private sector helps to allocate risk. If 

a project is not successful, the private sector bears the first loss instead of the taxpayer. 

The Department realizes and recognizes that different regions require different solutions. The private sector investments should not 

be disallowed, and should be an allowable option, where appropriate. The administration looks forward to working with all of you 

on what we hope will be a bipartisan package to address these 

needs. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I am 

going to start with recognizing my Democratic colleague, Ms. Esty, 

to start the questioning. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again, Secretary Chao, for your long service to this country, and for appearing before our committee today. 

[Slide] 

7 

Ms. ESTY. According to the administration—and I think we have 

got our graphic up, but we may need better glasses to read that, 

but I direct people’s attention to what is now up on the screens. 

According to the administration, a key element of this infrastructure proposal is to empower decisionmaking at the State and local 

level because these are the officials who know best the infrastructure needs of their own communities. 

However, if we look at this chart, we will see that 80 percent of 

the funding under this proposal goes to projects selected or approved by the administration, not by State and local government. 

Governors only get to allocate 20 percent of the funding, and the 

locals don’t get to decide anything. 

Secretary Chao, can you explain how this squares with the vision 

of empowering State and local government when you look at or— 

if you can, explain that dichotomy between the promise and what 

we see—— 

Secretary CHAO. Well, we disagree with that chart, obviously. We 

feel that the local and State communities and applicants will have 

a great deal of say. They will come up with the projects, they will 

decide who they want to work with. They will decide what projects 

to prioritize. So it would be up to them. It would be a partnership. 

Ms. ESTY. But ultimately, the administration will be making the 

selection for those projects. Isn’t that correct? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, the administration will be working on 

these projects, as they do in the TIGER [Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery] grants, as they do in the 

INFRA [Infrastructure for Rebuilding America] grants. It is the 

same concept. 

Ms. ESTY. I think most of us have found our experience with 

TIGER grants is Governors are the ones who decide and prioritize 

those. So I think, with all due respect—— 

Secretary CHAO. Well, that is an issue with the congressmen and 

the Governors. 

Ms. ESTY. Secretary Chao, the White House plan also provides 

limited Federal dollars in order to incentivize non-Federal partners. We have had some discussion about that. You personally have 

called this a new paradigm in infrastructure investment, where the 

Federal Government takes a back seat. 

And frankly, I have got to tell you I am hearing this at the local 

level. I was just home in Connecticut. They see this as pushing the 

problem down onto the States and local government. 

Given that States and local government already provide the majority of funding for highway and transit projects, why does the administration want to put more of the burden on local governments, 

many of which are already strained? And those that are struggling 

economically, that need this benefit most, are also going to be hit 

really hard by this shift. 

Secretary CHAO. Well, the National Highway System, you know, 

our roads and bridges, are actually very decentralized. Ten percent 

of the overall roads are owned by the Federal Government. They 

are called the interstate highway parts. The rest of the highway 

system, the national highway, is actually State and local. And then 

the rest of the roads and bridges are basically State and local. 

8 

So, the majority of the roads and bridges are actually locally 

owned. As mentioned, the Federal Government owns about 10 percent and we fund about 20 percent. 

Ms. ESTY. Although, again, I have three interstates—I am just 

saying—in my district, in my State, I–91, I–95, and I–84—crossed 

by hundreds of thousands of Americans traveling up and down the 

eastern seaboard every single day. And those are aging infrastructure. The chairman’s district is like that, too. We have aging Interstate Highway Systems and local and State authorities are not in 

a position to pay for the redo of all of those with—— 

Secretary CHAO. Well, I know those routes very well, having 

spent my childhood in the New York area. 

So I think that what you are referring to is the whole issue of 

pay-fors. And I think the good news on the pay-fors is that everything is on the table, and we look forward to working with Congress on those. 

Ms. ESTY. Because I will tell you again this came up last week. 

I met with the State legislators, Republicans and Democrats in my 

home State. And they are concerned. They are saying if the Federal 

Government is rolling back its commitment on infrastructure, and 

the States are going to have to come up with that money, that is 

less money they have to pay for precisely the roads and bridges 

that you have identified that are already paid for by local government and States. 

So, with all due respect, if there is less Federal investment—because we are not talking about additional Federal investment when 

there is a time of additional need—if there is less Federal investment, States and localities will proportionately—especially when 

we have not erected and maintained, as the chairman pointed out, 

we haven’t been maintaining the Federal infrastructure or the 

State. 

With all due respect, I would suggest the Federal Government 

has a role in ensuring the Federal investments are maintained. 

Secretary CHAO. Well, that is in your State. And we do not agree 

that it was a rollback. As I mentioned, most of the Federal role is 

actually quite limited. In the beginning of our history, in our country’s history, a lot of the infrastructure was done by the State and 

local and private sector. So there has been no rollback. 

The Federal role was only confined to the intrastate. There are 

many, many other roads and bridges and National Highway Systems that are not part of the Federal role. But having said that, 

I acknowledge that pay-for is a big issue. And so we want to work 

with the Congress in finding solutions to that. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. And I see we are over time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady. We will—let me start off 

with—the pay-for is critical. And we can argue back and forth 

about this, and we will, for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, 

also we have to talk to the Ways and Means Committee. 

But I think it is important to point out that—and especially to 

my Republican colleagues, who—many of your States—I have two 

of my colleagues here from Pennsylvania, or three—our State, 

Pennsylvania, dealt with it. And the user fee we pay at the pump, 

it is a user fee. We continue to call it a tax, but it technically is 

9 

a user fee. If you don’t use the roads, you don’t pay for them. So 

it is a user fee. 

Now, the next thing that will come from conservatives is that it 

is a regressive user fee. And I come from rural Pennsylvania, so my 

folks will pay more. But it has a progressive benefit to the folks 

in rural Pennsylvania. The most rural counties in America, for 

every dollar they put in they get $1.70 back. You cannot build a 

road from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia through rural Pennsylvania 

without the population centers subsidizing roadways through my 

district. 

We saw this as we went through Pennsylvania, the complaint 

from those in my district, the legislators, we subsidized SEPTA and 

the Pittsburgh Transit Authority by 30 percent. A roadway through 

my district gets subsidized anywhere from 50 to 70 percent, because there just isn’t the population. 

So, I think it is important for us all to understand that we are 

talking about something that has a huge benefit to those of us that 

live in rural populations and, again, benefits the urban centers so 

they can get across those rural areas. 

So again, we can talk 15 cents raising the gas tax, average Amer- ican pays $2. That is a cup of coffee—unless you drink Starbucks 

coffee, that is half a cup of coffee—or it is two bottles of water that 

you can get at home for pennies. So I think it is something that 

is really sellable to the American people. And the President has 

said—he proposed in a meeting 25 cents. I mean that is a great 

starting place to start to talk about this. 

But I think we have to get past that to talk about other things. 

And one of the questions I have for you, Madam Secretary, is on 

an idea called asset recycling. 

Now, some of my colleagues—Mr. DeFazio, he is not here, so I 

will say he wants me to—he wants—I am proposing we sell all of 

our assets. That is not at all what they did in Australia. They 

leased their assets. They formed a lease agreement, they still have 

a say in the matter. They can take it back at any time if there is 

no performance. 

So I wanted to see what your thoughts are on the idea of asset 

recycling. 

Secretary CHAO. We want all funding and financing options to be 

available, because that is going to be the biggest challenge facing 

this infrastructure proposal. And so, we should look at other countries, as mentioned, like Australia, like many European countries 

in which there are public-private partnerships which have been 

very successful, and there has been asset recycling. 

So we should be looking at all of these. And in some of our States 

we do not allow many of these other financing options to be utilized. And so, what we are saying is let’s be open to all sorts of 

other options. 

So, for example, it is not only toll roads, but it is private activity 

bonds, it is different aspects, revenue availability streams, there 

are many different options. I would like to encourage all of us to 

look at some of these other options, and not disallow or forbid any 

one of them from being considered in the proposal. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And I think that is a great point. I think pointing 

to Europe and other countries, social democratic countries around 

10 

the world, they are turning to the private sector all the time to try 

to figure out ways to get them involved, to utilize. 

I know the Canadian pension funds are huge investors in infrastructure, not just in Canada, but around the world. But again, it 

is not a silver bullet. But we have to, again, look at ways to expand 

that, to encourage that. It is one of the tools in the toolbox, but it 

can be a bigger tool in the toolbox, I believe. 

And so the final question I have for you is on permitting. I know 

you have done many rulemakings. Permitting is still a problem. I 

think there is the need for some legislation to help you with the 

permitting process, but can you tell us the permitting situation 

over at DOT, how are you moving forward? You know, what is the 

outlook? 

Secretary CHAO. People get permitting and the deregulatory 

agenda mixed up. They are actually quite different. 

Also, the FAST Act asked that the Department in 2015 implement a number of NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] improvements. Of the 31 requested rules, we have actually completed 

29. There are two more coming out, probably around June and 

July. But the FAST Act requirements only refer to NEPA, and the 

permitting is actually different, and that is why the ‘‘One Federal 

Decision,’’ which the President announced last August 2017, will 

address some of the permitting. 

And the permitting processes that we are talking about do not 

compromise all of our concerns about the environment at all, but 

it refers to sometimes very simple, commonsensical ways in which 

we can improve the permitting process. 

For example, many permitting processes occur sequentially, rather than concurrently. There is no reason why several processes cannot occur simultaneously. But instead, many of them occur sequentially. 

Another example is when sister agencies within the same department, for example, the Department of Transportation, cannot share 

their information with each other. They each go out for their own 

surveys, sequentially. So that lengthens the time that it takes for 

permitting. 

There are other commonsensical ways of reducing duplication, 

you know, some regulations or even some guidance, ask for the 

same things, but they will ask for a different timeline, so that the 

reporting requirement then has to be done all over, because they 

asked for different time periods. So, we all protect the environment, 

but the permitting is not NEPA, the permitting is different. 

And then we are actually making progress in a lot of the private 

sector, these private pension funds. They are actually quite anxious 

to help in the rebuilding of infrastructure. And it would help if we 

decrease the permitting process without compromising any of the 

environmental concerns. That will decrease the risk profile and enable more private-sector pension funds, for example, to come and 

help in the financing of public infrastructure. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, thank you very much for that. And again, we 

are ready, willing, and able for your department to send forward 

to us things that we can be helpful in that permitting process, to 

streamline, to make it easier. If we have to pass legislation, that 

11 

is something we all on this committee should be willing to undertake. 

One of the great places to start when it comes to permitting and 

Government regulation is the Corps of Engineers. I met with the 

Conference of Mayors yesterday and last week with AASHTO 

[American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials], and I always like to get a show of hands: Who has had a 

project that they have worked on, or working on, or want to work 

on that the Corps of Engineers has been a huge challenge to the 

project? And every single person in the room raises their hand. 

So that is why the subcommittee chairman Garret Graves and I 

are working now, and everybody should realize we are going to 

move forward with a water resources bill, and one of the focuses 

is going to be a serious look at the Corps of Engineers and a serious look at why does the Corps of Engineers need the Civil Works 

piece of it, why does it need to be at DoD. 

Two hundred years ago it made sense, the Army was the only 

thing that could build a dam, a roadway. But today there is no 

need for the Civil Works to remain at DoD. It needs to move to a 

different agency. I would propose DOT. Secretary Zinke wants it to 

go to the Department of the Interior. I think that would be a 

healthy debate, and I would encourage all my friends—because I 

know on the Democratic side of the aisle there is none of you that 

has not seen the Corps of Engineers stop, stifle, or just increase the 

cost of a project. 

And so, with that, I yield 5 minutes to Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. I very much appreciate this hearing, because there 

has been so much talk about the President’s infrastructure plan, 

and now we have an opportunity to inquire about it. 

I have two questions for you, Madam Secretary, and I am so 

pleased to see you here this morning. 

One has to do with the holdup in appropriated funds. Well, you 

know, it is hard enough to get funds out of here. And I note, by 

the way, that in the President’s infrastructure bill there would be 

$130 billion in new competitive grant funds. So this committee and 

the Congress is likely to look at, well, what have you done with the 

funds we have appropriated or authorized? 

According to our count, there is nearly $6 billion in program 

funds that remain unspent. And of this $2 billion are among the 

most competitive. More jurisdictions want them than can possibly 

qualify for the amount in INFRA and TIGER grants, for example. 

And I note that this looks like it is something of a trend. 

You held up $1 billion, even in emergency relief funds, until the 

Democrats in this committee wrote you and it was released. 

I have to ask you Madam Secretary, what is keeping you from 

getting this money out of the door? And don’t you think it will reflect on whatever we are able to do with the President’s plan if that 

money is not gotten to where it is needed? 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you for that question. I don’t think that 

is accurate, that the emergency relief funds are not released. We 

have actually made record time. 

Ms. NORTON. It has been released now, but only after—— 

Secretary CHAO. No, no, no. I think we understand how important the emergency relief funds are, and as soon as a request 

12 

comes in, we have actually been very, very good about turning it 

around. 

Ms. NORTON. I know they are released now, but the Democrats 

on this committee had to write a letter in order to get them released. OK, they are released now. 

Secretary CHAO. Well, I may respectfully disagree. 

Ms. NORTON. But I have only so much time, Madam Secretary—— 

Secretary CHAO. If I can answer the rest of your questions, the 

$6 billion, I do not think we have that much money outstanding. 

But I have good news for you. I don’t think it is $6 billion, either. 

But having said that, I think it took a while for this Government 

to be stood up, because we didn’t have our nominees. I only had 

four nominees confirmed as of February of 2018. I just got three 

others confirmed last week. So the ability of this Government to 

stand up under this administration has been impacted by our not 

having our top leadership. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, we have noticed that. And that is very good 

news. Can you—— 

Secretary CHAO. I understand that is not this Chamber, but I 

wanted to bring that up, since you asked for an explanation. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, it is not this Chamber, I think it is the administration. But whoever it is, I congratulate you—— 

Secretary CHAO. But having said all of that, I do have good news 

for you. So hopefully the TIGER grants will be coming out soon. 

But we do have to notify the appropriators first, so they will get 

that first. 

Ms. NORTON. When do you expect that to occur, Madam Secretary? 

Secretary CHAO. Hopefully this week. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Secretary CHAO. Soon, soon. 

Ms. NORTON. That is very good news. 

Secretary CHAO. Very soon. 

Ms. NORTON. I would dare say—— 

Secretary CHAO. And then—— 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Almost everybody on this platform has 

an interest in those grants. Let me ask you about—— 

Secretary CHAO. Right. On the INFRA, let me just mention the 

INFRA grants, also. So the TIGER and the INFRA grants, and perhaps this is something that you can take a look at, were actually 

put under the FAST Act, under a new office in the policy office, 

which actually is not an operational office. So they have to do the 

TIGER grants first, and then they can turn to INFRA, and hopefully we will get that out probably by the beginning of June, or, 

let’s say June, beginning of the summer. 

Ms. NORTON. You have given us very welcome information on 

that. 

Look, the interstate, of course, is a product of the Eisenhower administration. It is one of the fairest and most progressive ways to 

distribute money. And yet the President’s infrastructure plan looks 

like it discriminates against most of the country, 52 percent of the 

country, which provides most of the GDP, because of the way in 

13 

which the plan provides money for the rural areas. It looks like it 

reverses what we have always done. 

Eighty percent of the money for everybody—except, of course, the 

rural areas—got even more subsidy, but 80 percent came from the 

Federal Government, 20 percent came from the States. And it looks 

as though you have reversed that and provided $40 million in the 

first year for rural areas, with 80 percent, and suburban and big 

cities, where all the congestion is, get 20 percent. 

Why have you reversed the age-old way in which we distribute 

highway funds, the formula that has worked now for 75 years? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Secretary, go ahead and answer that, and then we 

will move on. 

Ms. NORTON. Can’t she at least respond? 

Mr. SHUSTER. That is what I said, the Secretary can answer the 

question and then we will move on. 

Secretary CHAO. The 80/20 interstate formula, the 80/20 formula, 

applied only to interstate. As mentioned, the Federal role, the Federal Government owns 10 percent of the highways, the roads, the 

bridges. 

Ms. NORTON. The States have to take care of the rest, Madam 

Secretary. 

Secretary CHAO. The rest are actually from the States. 

Ms. NORTON. We, the Federal Government, we only take care of 

the Federal infrastructure. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Ms. Norton, your time has expired. Please allow 

the Secretary to finish, and thank you. 

Secretary CHAO. My only point was it is that the 80/20 formula 

applies only to the interstate highways. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. And now I will recognize Mr. 

LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, 

thank you for being here today. I have the privilege of chairing the 

Aviation Subcommittee, and the honor of representing the Federal 

Aviation Administration’s flagship Technical Center, which I am 

sure you know is responsible for all safety, security, research, and 

development, and the extraordinary work that is done by more 

than 3,500 people at that location for aviation in America. 

I know your opening statement was limited, and there are so 

many needs for infrastructure, but I didn’t hear anything referred 

to about what we are doing with aviation, a major economic component and driver for our Nation. Specifically, I am hoping you can 

address three areas that I think are critical to the future of aviation, and the FAA research, engineering, and development account, 

a proposed cut of more than $100 million. I mean it basically 

freezes them and puts them dead in the water. 

UAS [unmanned aircraft systems] is a growing, growing area in 

our Nation, which requires a lot of oversight and a lot of attention. 

And the UAS research account is cut to a fraction of what it has 

been in previous years, when the problem hasn’t been as big. 

And the last one is the FAA Technical Center laboratory facility, 

which is located completely at the tech center, that that account is 

cut by one-third. And if we are going to stay at the cutting edge 

of aviation for the United States of America, I don’t know how we 

can withstand those kind of cuts, and I am hopeful you might be 

14 

able to give me some insight in how we are going to try to deal 

with this and restore that. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you for those questions. I am sorry that 

we didn’t have a chance to visit the facility that was in your district. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The invitation is wide open for you. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. And for some reason we somehow 

could not. We had a date, but then it didn’t happen. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Right. 

Secretary CHAO. Aviation, obviously, is very important. The 

chairman’s proposal on air traffic control legislation was a seminal 

piece that could have improved air travel, which the administration 

supported. But unfortunately, it did not garner enough support 

within this Chamber. And so that was abandoned. 

On the research, the FAA has the second largest budget in the 

Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation 

has a budget of $77 billion. Highway is a major portion for the 

roads, for the Interstate Highway System. And the next biggest 

chunk is to aviation. And we actually have a research office within 

the Office of the Secretary. And so there needs to be some coordination and some improvement in ensuring that the projects that are 

being done by the research office and the Office of the Secretary, 

which is the rest of the Department, and the FAA are actually not 

redundant, and that they are not duplicative, either. 

On the issue of UAS, I am very, very much a supporter of autonomous vehicles, unmanned aerial systems. We are actually focusing 

a great deal on it. But again, there is actually a great deal of research money, but the research money is not used very well. And 

so we are in the process of trying to figure out where is all this 

money going, how is it achieving the stated purposes of the Department’s mission. 

And the third one I forgot. What did you—— 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, the third one is the—— 

Secretary CHAO. Oh, airport grants? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The technical center laboratory facility. 

Secretary CHAO. Oh, right. I don’t have an answer for that, and 

so I will look into that. But this is obviously of concern to you, and 

we can talk more. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, if you have the opportunity to visit the 

technical center, you will see the unique laboratories that exist nowhere else in the country, and the engineers that are doing the 

work there that, in many cases, cannot be duplicated anywhere 

else. And hopefully that will help influence part of how you feel 

about this. 

But thank you very much; I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. And Mr. Larsen is recognized. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary Chao, 

thank you for coming to help us out today. I have a couple questions. One is a local problem, a couple others are about the proposal, itself. 

The first is related to New Starts, and specifically Sound Transit 

and our Lynnwood Link. We got an FFGA [Full-Funding Grant 

Agreement] awaiting some help from you all for only 38 percent of 

15 

the project itself. So we are putting in 62 percent of it. This is for 

Lynnwood Link, extends light rail into Snohomish County. 

At any rate, for the second year the administration’s proposed 

budget calls for winding down the capital investment grant program by limiting funding only to projects that already have signed 

FFGAs. It runs counter to the FAST Act of 2015, which authorizes 

funding for CIG. So I was wondering when you would anticipate 

your department signing FFGAs for approved CIG projects, which 

Lynnwood Link is. 

Secretary CHAO. Well, the administration’s budget says that if 

the projects are not already in line to receive FFGAs, then we cannot sign new ones. But obviously, there are aspects of the budget 

that the Congress is going to disagree with, and so we look forward 

to working with the Congress. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right. And that gets to my second question, the 

other point, because part of the administration’s proposal on infrastructure is to encourage local government, State governments, the 

local funding entities, to raise their own dollars. What you are proposing, it puts them in line to get Federal funding. Help yourself, 

and then they will give you that Federal help. That is literally 

what the administration proposes for its infrastructure package, in 

part, which is what we are doing in the Pacific Northwest. 

As recently—for the next phase of Sound Transit, where we all 

taxed ourselves $54 billion over the next 5 million years, I think 

is what I am paying, for a long, long time, and yet there are zero 

dollars proposed in the administration’s budget to support that 

kind of activity because you want to move to a different system. I 

just don’t think you need to move to a different way of helping out 

local entities that are already doing what you are asking them to 

do. There is an inconsistency there. It is certainly an issue I am 

going to continue to pursue, as we work with you all on trying to 

improve the administration’s proposal. 

As well, I just want to note that Jimmy Duncan led a panel here 

a few years back on public-private partnerships. And we concluded—and Mike Capuano, who is here, was the cochair—that P3s 

are not a silver bullet, but there is room for P3s, depending on the 

kind of infrastructure. 

And I guess I would offer to you that if the administration can 

be more clear about where you think P3s can help best, there 

might be a different kind of model for airports than it is for roads, 

bridges, highways, and it might be a different kind of model for 

water or sewer than it is for rail, as opposed to trying to package 

it all as what comes across as one big P3 package, which I don’t 

think is helpful to you all, and it is not helpful to us to help you, 

because I believe there is room—maybe not as much as the President believes, but there—I believe there is some room. I just offer 

that, as well. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, sure. And then finally—maybe not finally, but 

we have talked about the gas tax, the user fee. Washington State 

has the third highest gas tax in the country. But I would like to 

remind my colleagues that we are tied for first in the lowest income tax in the country, as well, of zero. So it is a balance of funding and how you fund your Government, how you fund to do things. 

16 

But I am just wondering how you would characterize the administration’s position on raising the Federal portion of the gas tax. 

How would you characterize that today? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, one reason I am here with no solutions on 

the pay-fors is because we have not yet come to a resolution on 

that. So I think the good news is, for certain people, that everything is on the table, and that this administration is open to considering all revenue sources. Some people are not going to be happy 

at that. 

But as of now, everything is on the table, and there has been no 

resolution on how to pay for this proposal, which is why, once 

again, we send principles up, we did not send legislative language. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Secretary CHAO. We really do want this to be a bipartisan effort, 

and we need the help and counsel of the Congress on these and 

many other issues, as well. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right, thanks. And I look forward to hearing 

back from you specifically a little bit more on the CIG grant, 

FFGAs for Sound Transit. Thanks a lot. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. Now I will recognize Mr. 

Barletta for questioning. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Secretary Chao, thank you for being here today to talk about the 

President’s infrastructure proposal. I commend both of you, you 

and the President, for recognizing how important America’s transportation systems are to maintaining our world-class economy. 

I am going to begin today by venturing a bit outside what we traditionally think of when we talk about infrastructure. Last week, 

following the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida, I called for U.S. 

schools to be added to the current categories of critical infrastructure. These 16 sectors are considered so vital to our Nation’s wellbeing that the Federal Government works with State and local 

partners to ensure their security and resilience. I believe our 

schools should be the 17th critical infrastructure. 

Secretary Chao, what ways can the Department of Transportation assist in ensuring our schools are treated like critical infrastructure, and our kids get the protection that they need? Surely, 

if we treat our banks as critical, and we defend bureaucrats at the 

Department of Education with armed security guards, we can deem 

America’s children as critical, as well. 

Secretary CHAO. This is obviously a devastating blow to our 

country. And, as you have seen on television, the President has 

held meetings with survivors, their relatives, parents, and relatives 

that have lost their loved ones. This is a devastating blow, and the 

President feels strongly, very strongly, keenly about this issue. 

On the issue of infrastructure and including hardening schools to 

be part of the infrastructure proposal, I would bring this back to 

the White House and to the President. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Great, thank you. I think that is something that 

we can all agree on, as we debate all these other issues. If people 

can’t get into our schools, they can’t harm our children. So thank 

you. 

I was pleased to see that the White House’s proposal included a 

section on workforce development. Back in December I chaired a 

17 

hearing in the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 

Buildings, and Emergency Management that examined ways in 

which the opioid crisis is impacting the workforce and economic 

growth in the Appalachian region, which includes my home State 

of Pennsylvania. What we have seen is that individuals in this part 

of the country who are 25 to 44 years old experience mortality 

rates 70 percent higher than the non-Appalachian States. Typically, this group includes Americans in their prime working years, 

which has created a significant challenge to economic development 

in the region. 

Recognizing how important a strong workforce is to rebuilding 

our infrastructure, and knowing that opioids are devastating that 

workforce, especially in rural areas, which the administration has 

targeted as a critical area of investment, can you speak to how the 

infrastructure proposal will help address this issue? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, it is a huge issue. And Secretary Acosta 

in the Labor Department has responsibility for the workforce development, workforce retraining part. The infrastructure proposal, 

hopefully, will spark new buildings, which will yield good-paying 

jobs. And we probably will not have enough skilled trades workers 

to be able to address all the infrastructure needs when it finally 

gets all going. 

So the workforce training and retraining part is important. And 

your idea about including or somehow working with these communities and populations of people who will certainly be benefitted by 

this, turning around their lives, is something that again, I am very 

interested in. As a former Secretary of Labor, I will bring that back 

also to the White House and to Secretary Acosta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Thank you for your work. I yield 

back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. I will recognize Mrs. 

Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Hello, Ms. Secretary. My question deals with the California Sen- ate bill 1, which invests $54 billion over the next decade in infrastructure. It is intended to spur the State and local investment in 

the infrastructure. That past major bill of legislation was twothirds vote of our legislation, known as Senate bill 1, and provides 

$54 billion over the next decade. 

Do you support this recently passed legislation? It is California’s 

Senate bill. 

Secretary CHAO. Unfortunately, I am not very much—I am not 

really up to speed on that. If I may ask to take a look, and will 

be more than glad—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. To answer that question. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And it—my question deals with the lack of 

recognizing that the States that pass infrastructure packages, in 

addition to passing that bill, the county of Los Angeles passed two 

transportation sales tax measures since 2009, providing $120 billion over the next 40 years. The voters approved with 70 percent 

of the vote. The most recent sales tax was last year. 

Concerning the majority of your plan significantly penalizes 

State and local governments that have raised revenues prior to 

18 

January 2018, not only do States and locals recently passed legislation—infrastructure legislation packages score poorly when rated 

by your department, you limit these projects to qualify for only 5 

percent, or $5 billion, out of the $100 billion of the new incentives 

projects program. Why would you want to preclude the potentially 

great projects that have already had non-Federal revenues already 

lined up by responsible States and local governments? And don’t 

you think your approach to incentivize project sponsors that have 

not passed revenue packages in their States would slow project delivery? 

Secretary CHAO. I understand the question. The original intent 

was we wanted to recognize what States have done. But some 

States have done things 5 years ago, 7 years ago. It is still on the 

books. So do we take into account and just accept what they have 

done, let’s say, in the last 10 years? That, we thought, was a little 

too much. So the current proposal has a 3-year look-back. And if 

that is perhaps too long, again, we are flexible on that. 

I understand the point that you are making. For certain States 

that have taken the initiative, they have bitten the bullet. Why 

should they be penalized? So the 3-year look-back may not be one 

that they agree with. So we can talk about that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would very much appreciate that, Ms. Secretary. 

Because your plan calls for 80 percent of a project cost to be from 

State and local sources, we should be allowing States and local governments to have local hire preference. When the residents of California are voting by a 70-percent margin for the bill to raise their 

own taxes in order to support transportation projects, they assume 

they will be given preference in getting those jobs. 

Do you think States should be allowed to give preference to hiring their own—and taxpayers when they are paying for the vast 

majority of the project? 

Secretary CHAO. That is probably an issue that I have got to 

bring back. Again, there are many other agencies involved in this, 

and I have got to go back to the White House and ask some of the 

other Secretaries, as well. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, would you please give us a clarification? 

Because it is unfair if we are paying for the improvements and we 

cannot hire local preference. 

Secretary CHAO. I will take a look at that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Another issue is Los Angeles 

County is preparing to host the Nation and the world for the 2028 

Olympic Games. Give us your commitment to make these critical 

transportation projects a priority, potentially convening a DOT 

working group among staff so that the needed infrastructure is in 

place to host a successful Olympic Games. 

Secretary CHAO. Well, your mayor has been in to see us and 

other agencies on this issue, as well. So we look forward to working 

with him and also with you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Very well, thank you. In regards to successfully hosting the Olympics, one of the most critical projects is the 

Purple Line subway extension project, which will build a new station and subway line to serve UCLA, one of the Olympic venues, 

as well as a planned village for athletes. Can you please give us 

19 

your commitment that you will look at it, do everything you can 

to support the project, ensure that it is built on time, and ready 

for the Olympics? 

Secretary CHAO. You are not the only one that has brought it up. 

As I mentioned, your mayor has been very good about approaching 

us on this. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Very good. Thank you, Ms.—— 

Secretary CHAO. So we will look forward to working with you and 

the mayor. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today. I am really encouraged about the proposal, especially the administration’s proposal regarding streamlining, and how we can lower costs and do things more efficiently. 

And I just wanted to highlight a few things there before I ask some 

questions. 

But the section 404 permits, the White House language is similar 

to a bill that I have introduced, H.R. 2917, that deals with vetoing 

and preemptively, retroactively vetoing permits. And so there is 

language in there that eliminates duplicative oversight by the EPA 

on the section 404 permits. So that is a good thing. 

Another bill I have is H.R. 465, dealing with integrated planning. 

And this bill would really help our local municipalities deal with 

their water and sewer projects. And I know the administration supports that, so I appreciate that, because I think that is a good way 

to help bring more efficiencies and lower costs and get that infrastructure at the municipal level accomplished. 

And another proposal that the White House discussed a lot in 

your package is the WIFIA, the Water Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act, which I sponsored the pilot in WRRDA 2014, and 

along with Congressman Brian Mast, down in front of you, we have 

a bill that increases the funding and reauthorizes the program. I 

know the White House is very supportive of that. It is a partnership. 

And then rural broadband, I am really concerned about that. A 

good opportunity—I think we are kind of like where probably President Eisenhower was with the Interstate Highway System. If we 

get rural broadband accomplished, how that helps with jobs, opportunities, and education across—I just want to highlight that. 

In the administration’s proposal you talk about a $50 billion investment to improve infrastructure in rural areas. Can you maybe 

elaborate on how it would come about, how you operate that, and 

what types of projects might be eligible for that funding? 

Secretary CHAO. We understand that rural America has different 

needs. And so, a specific title is set aside for rural America needs. 

Forty percent of that would be by formula, understanding again 

that, you know, having some kind of a public-private partnership 

won’t really work, given the lesser density and the volume, the 

density that is required in a public-private partnership. So 40 percent of that would be by formula, and about 10 percent, as is currently discussed, would be competitively bid. 

If I may also return back to your legislation and give you a 

shout-out about the section 404 and section 402, these are not 

20 

within the Department of Transportation, they are within the 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Secretary CHAO. And so, as the chairman and others have mentioned, that is always a point of great concern on the parts of many 

parties. 

But the section 404 and section 402 permits both require, substantially, the same information. And yet they must be gathered 

and then they are conducted separately, sequentially, thereby adding unnecessary time lags to the permitting process. So thank you 

for that. 

Mr. GIBBS. Now, you are right, it is not in your jurisdiction, per 

se. But I am sure you have input at the administration’s level on 

how important that is. And, of course, it was in the President’s 

package, the 50-page document I read. And so I think that is a big 

help. 

Back on the rural infrastructure, the 40 percent—you take into 

account—because a lot of the projects might be smaller or harder 

to find partnership financing, because of just the nature of that. So 

you think that formula takes into account enough for private institutions or private entities to want to get involved in that, because 

the costs are higher and the returns might not be as well? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, that actually would be up to the Congress 

because, again, we sent guidelines. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. It is supposed to be formula. But beyond that, 

there are not very many details. So we look forward to working 

with you. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am just about out of time. 

Secretary CHAO. The Congress on that. 

Mr. GIBBS. I just wanted to mention I always think it is a good 

priority if the administration identifies certain projects that are national—significant importance or regional projects that have economic or national defense issues that we—should be addressed. 

And so I would just encourage that. 

Things like, you know, certain infrastructure in certain areas 

that are critical to our economy and our national security should 

be prioritized by the administration. So I look for leadership from 

the administration to help identify those and push for those where 

States might not be able to address those as well. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize Mr. Lipinski for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you, 

Madam Secretary, for all your years of service to our Government. 

I am glad that we have now got the conversation going on the 

infrastructure plan. And I thank the chairman for his work, and 

I am very hopeful that we could move forward with a bipartisan 

plan here in this committee. I know the chairman wants to do that, 

Ranking Member DeFazio does, I think we all do. So I am very 

hopeful that we can get that done. On the INFRA grants, I know there is $1.5 billion there. Hopefully those will get out in June and not later. I know there is a 

21 

project that everyone knows I always talk about, the CREATE 

[Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency] Program, the rail modernization program in Chicago that is—you 

know, 67 percent is both—comes from private funding, State and 

local funding. So I think that fits perfectly with what the administration is talking about. I hope to see that funding come. 

Another big issue in Chicago is public transit. In the transit system our capital needs are very, very big. The capital needs would 

account for, you know, 18 percent of the entire pot of Federal funding in the administration plan, the $200 billion. 

I know Mr. Larsen had talked about the Full-Funding Grant 

Agreements, the situation there. And I wanted to make a point 

that it is important that transit is eligible for the funding, and that 

there has to be a way that—I believe that transit can get funded. 

It is very tough for transit to be able to come up with the 80 to 

90 percent for a transit project, a locality to come up with that. 

Does the administration see those projects, transit projects, as 

being possible through the administration’s plan? And if Congress 

comes up with a different plan that is much more supportive of 

transit funding, will the administration support that coming out of 

Congress? 

Secretary CHAO. You ask very good questions. 

And number one, I would say we want to work with the Congress. So that is the basic premise. 

We do have a disagreement about the amount of support for 

transit. But I would hope that we are open to discussing these 

projects. And currently, in the principles that were sent up to the 

Hill, there is no disparaging positioning of transit versus other 

projects. If anything, once again, it leaves it up to the local and 

State governments to select what projects they want. So if they 

want transit versus something else, it is up to them. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. It is going to be very tough to come up 

with the 80 to 90 percent on transit. But let—I want to move on 

to TIFIA [Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act] and RRIF [Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing]—— 

Secretary CHAO. Yes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI [continuing]. Which are very good programs, and I 

think the administration agrees with that. They have been undersubscribed, though. What is the administration going to do to make 

those more attractive, both TIFIA and RRIF? 

Secretary CHAO. Only one of them is undersubscribed. And so, in 

the infrastructure proposal there are recommendations to broaden 

the eligibility, so that more parties can participate. We think that 

that would probably allow more usage of those programs. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Because I know there has been an issue with RRIF 

that has made it unattractive for many of the short line railroads 

to use that. But that is something we could discuss further later. 

I want to follow up on RRIF. The former administration, Obama 

administration, said that they would follow Buy America policies 

for RRIF. Does the current administration also believe that Buy 

America needs to be followed for the RRIF program? 

Secretary CHAO. I think this administration, this President in 

particular, feels very strongly about that. So we have actually been 

22 

very, very tough on it, the Buy America provision. It is not within 

the infrastructure proposal, if that is what is being discussed. But 

it is an overriding statute that all of us have to abide by, and do 

abide. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I will yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. Now I will recognize Mr. 

Webster for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, 

for being here today. I appreciate your willingness to come and testify about something that is an important issue for all of us. 

I am from Florida, central Florida. We depend on transportation 

as a huge part of our economic engine when it deals with tourism. 

I would like to keep going on the TIFIA program, as we are, especially in central Florida, big users of TIFIA. 

When you were talking about broadening the ability of States 

and local governments to apply for a TIFIA loan, is there a pecking 

order that is going to be there? Because in our particular case, 

three of the big projects were the tunnel down in Miami to the 

port; I–4, which is an ultimate project, which is about 6 years in 

the making; and then there is also the Central Florida Expressway 

Authority, which had a large TIFIA loan, which will complete the 

beltway around Orlando. In each of those cases, that loan is going 

to be paid back by new money, in that it is going to be paid back 

by tolls. And there are some other projects that are the same. 

If those that can apply has broadened, will there still be given 

some sort of nod to those that, number one, provide a huge chunk 

of that money from the State or local government? And number 

two, it is guaranteed by revenue—it would be a revenue-producing 

project, as opposed to those who may just pay it back from their 

regular State transportation trust funds, or something like that. It 

is not real new money, it is just advancing a project. 

So, anyway, my question is will there still be given some priority 

to those who are going to bring new money into the system and pay 

it back with new money, which will be recurring each year, even 

after the loan is paid back? Anyway, that is my question. 

Secretary CHAO. The simple answer to all of these questions is 

yes. But I want to get you a definitive answer. So if you will allow 

me to go back and confirm that, I will do so. Because the repayment portion, we just want to make sure it is repaid. So whatever 

sources, we would—— 

Mr. WEBSTER. Well, my only—— 

Secretary CHAO. We just want to make sure that it is going to 

be solid. 

Mr. WEBSTER. There is an advantage to the Federal Government 

in that there is new money being interjected that won’t end when 

that TIFIA loan is repaid, and that it is going to produce—and in 

our State, the monies that are collected from tolls can be used to 

enhance that particular infrastructure project—in this case, a 

road—to bring in more traffic, more money, and more things can 

be handled, even with the local level, without any Federal participation and/or minimal participation through maybe another TIFIA 

loan. 

Anyway, that is—I just don’t want to lose any kind of positioning 

to those who would not be having a—I know you want to get the 

23 

money paid back, I got that. But on the other hand, there are two 

ways. And the one that would produce money seems to me would 

be better. 

Secretary CHAO. Yours is not the only example. So let me get 

you—— 

Mr. WEBSTER. OK. 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. A firm answer, if you would. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Secretary CHAO. Not at all. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. And next is Mr. Sires, recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I represent the district in New Jersey where the two tunnels are. 

Secretary CHAO. Yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Can you speak into the mic a little bit more? 

Mr. SIRES. Where the two tunnels are located, the Lincoln Tunnel and the Holland Tunnel. Obviously, you know they are over 100 

years old. And obviously, they were hit very hard by Hurricane 

Sandy. We have over 200,000 riders a day that use these tunnels. 

The Northeast Corridor Commission estimates that the economy 

will lose about $100 million a day if something happens to these 

tunnels. 

You and I were both present when Governor Christie and Governor Cuomo had a meeting with the President regarding the Gateway tunnel. And everybody there left very enthusiastic. The President seemed to be supportive, including yourself, of this project. 

But lately it seems like this project has come under attack. Let me 

just state a couple of things. 

First, rejecting the 50/50 partnership agreement between New 

Jersey, New York, and the U.S. Government, that was an agreement that was done on the Obama administration because of the 

necessity that these tunnels be redone. 

Then, trying to eliminate the capital investment grant funds, and 

trying to eliminate funding for Amtrak. And now there are reports 

the President is appealing to Speaker Ryan to pull all the funding 

for the Gateway tunnel. 

I would just like to know what happened. We left there so enthused, you were enthused, the President was enthused. All of a 

sudden this is a project that is not such a priority, especially when 

there are 52 million people in this region and it generates about 

20 percent of the economy in this region. 

So can you give me something that I can be enthusiastic about? 

Because I really am very disappointed in the President. We go 

there and we thought we had something good going. 

Secretary CHAO. I am very glad to answer those questions. 

Mr. SIRES. It is just one. 

Secretary CHAO. Number one, on September 7, 2017, when this 

meeting occurred at the White House, we were very polite. We 

were cordial. There was no commitment at all. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, I—let me say you were not—— 

Secretary CHAO. The attendees of that meeting—— 

24 

Mr. SIRES. I didn’t say you were not cordial or polite. And I didn’t 

say there was no—I said there were—everybody left there very enthusiastically. 

Secretary CHAO. The attendees of that meeting exited that meeting and spun the results of that meeting as they wanted the meeting to be. There was no commitment from that meeting. As I mentioned, it was a cordial, respectful—— 

Mr. SIRES. So are you telling me now that there is no commitment—— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. Courteous meeting—— 

Mr. SIRES [continuing]. To do this tunnel? 

Secretary CHAO. If I may proceed, because there has been so 

much misinformation about this, I am so pleased to be given this 

opportunity to clarify. 

Number one, there are these Gateway projects, there are nine of 

them. They are collectively called Gateway out of convenience. And 

the total bill is $30 billion. New York and New Jersey are two of 

the richest States in the country. 

Mr. SIRES. I know. 

Secretary CHAO. They are putting in less than 5 percent—— 

Mr. SIRES. We send a lot of money to the Federal Government. 

Secretary CHAO. They are putting in less than 5 percent on one, 

and zero in the other. There is no funding agreement. There has 

never been a funding agreement. 

Secretary Foxx said at a political rally in the heat of the campaign in 2016 that he was going to help. There is no documentation 

on a Federal funding agreement. There is no paperwork on that 

issue. And, in fact, there is no pending application. 

So I don’t want to sound hostile, sir—— 

Mr. SIRES. So let me get this straight. I have 5 minutes—— 

Secretary CHAO. But—— 

Mr. SIRES. Madam Secretary, I have 5 minutes. 

Secretary CHAO. It is just so inaccurate—— 

Mr. SIRES. There is—if there is some sort of help that we can expect in this region, because these two tunnels are 108 years old. 

And if they collapse, the entire country is going to pay a price for 

this. 

Secretary CHAO. The—— 

Mr. SIRES. So I was wondering—— 

Secretary CHAO. New York and New Jersey—— 

Mr. SIRES [continuing]. If you support any kind of help for these 

tunnels. 

Secretary CHAO. New York and New Jersey—— 

Mr. SIRES. Because I have been there—— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. Can come up with larger than zero 

or 5 percent. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, right now they were willing to commit 50 percent of the project. 

Secretary CHAO. The rest of the money is going to take every 

other transit project funding—— 

Mr. SIRES. So I go back to my district—— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. From all across the State, all across 

the country. 

25 

Mr. SIRES [continuing]. That this Federal Government is not 

going to help us. 

Secretary CHAO. This is not going to be a heated discussion. 

Mr. SIRES. No, this is not going to be a heated discussion. I just 

want to know what I bring back to my district. 

Secretary CHAO. It is going to take money from every other transit project in America. 

Mr. SIRES. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. That is just a fact. 

Mr. SIRES. We already raised the gas tax 23 percent to deal with 

the transportation trust fund. And it is very expensive to go from 

New Jersey to New York—— 

Secretary CHAO. Well, there is a lot of misinformation on this. 

And please understand—— 

Mr. SIRES. Madam Secretary, obviously—— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing].New York and New Jersey have got 

to up—— 

Mr. SIRES [continuing]. I am going to bring back to my district 

that we are not getting any help. 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. Their local share. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Denham is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, welcome to the committee today. We have talked a lot about the $1 trillion that we would all like to see, even 

more than $1 trillion. One of the ways we do that is through financing. And as we have had a number of discussions in this committee about user-pay projects, there is not a bigger user-pay 

project than water storage. 

I am a ratepayer. Every time I turn on that tap, I am paying for 

that water storage. If we can build water storage in California and 

solve our water crisis, it can be the biggest infrastructure project 

in the country. 

And we have done some new things with WIFIA. We have a 

number of financing programs that work well. My New WATER 

Act would expand that to reclamation projects. The principles are 

within the President’s working document. 

I wonder if you could describe where the decision is on where 

that is housed, and whether or not you think that is a good financing tool for not only infrastructure projects, but specifically water 

storage. 

Secretary CHAO. Unfortunately, that is the EPA Administrator’s 

portfolio. So that has to be more properly addressed to him, and 

I will be more than glad to go back to the White House and bring 

back your concerns to him. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Well, we would certainly like to see 

that housed under DOT, and WIFIA, as well. But the reclamation—the EPA will be out in my district, we are going to have that 

discussion. But this is a big financing tool to be able to build big 

water storage in California and elsewhere. 

Let me switch to another issue that pertains to water storage. 

Out of this committee we have passed a number of pieces of legislation, including an amendment to the FAST Act which deals with 

26 

NEPA reciprocity. We want to, obviously, deal with the highest environmental quality policies across the country. We just don’t want 

to do it twice. And so, California, we have been utilizing our exemption on NEPA to just deal with CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] so that you are not seeing the long delays and 

lawsuits on the permitting process. 

Right now the program is currently limited to DOT projects. Can 

you discuss about how we would use these and expedite a project 

delivery for surface water storage projects and the merits of expanding this type of policy to water agencies, as well? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, so much of the permitting process spans 

over so many departments and agencies, which is why, when we 

talk about infrastructure, there needed to be a multiagency, ‘‘One 

Federal Decision’’ process, and that is why the President made that 

announcement with ‘‘One Federal Decision’’ with one Federal agency, one Federal cabinet, kind of being first among equals to take 

the lead in some of these permitting issues. 

We are in the process of signing an MOU [memorandum of understanding] with the various departments. And we hope to have 

that pretty soon. But the President has been pretty aggressive in 

mandating that he wants the permitting process to be shortened. 

And again, the permitting process is not the NEPA process necessarily. And again, we don’t want to compromise the environment 

at all. But how do we have a more commonsensical approach to 

streamlining the permitting process so that redundant or duplicative processes are somehow resolved? 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, thank you. My time is short here, but let me 

just say how excited I am about having a large infrastructure 

project that could not only solve California’s water crisis, but really 

expand our ports, expand our highways, really expand goods movement as we create more jobs. 

We will continue to partner with you to find new revenues. Obviously, we would like to see our numbers as high as we can, but also 

want to have the creativity to use our current financing systems 

and streamline these projects. To take these projects—not only taking them 10 years, but—in some cases, including California water 

storage, it is not only multidecade, it is generational gaps in new 

water storage. 

And so we are looking at those opportunities to expedite these 

projects and actually get them built not only in our lifetime, but 

get them built in the next couple of years. So excited about the new 

proposal, and want to find new ways that we can work together, 

and I yield back. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your 

testimony today, Secretary Chao. And I noticed that in your written testimony submitted for the record, as well as your oral testimony today, you failed to make any mention whatsoever as to public transportation. That is a glaring omission. Can you explain why 

you have not testified and not spoken on public transit? Is it not 

important? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, it is not excluded. 

27 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you didn’t mention it, though. 

Secretary CHAO. I didn’t mention highways too much, either. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you did mention—— 

Secretary CHAO. But your point is well taken. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Highways, but you didn’t mention 

transit. 

Secretary CHAO. It is whatever is the infrastructure needs of the 

local communities. And again, we leave that to others, we don’t express a preference for one or the other. We leave it up to the local 

communities. But I take your comment to heart. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me ask you this. 

Secretary CHAO. Yes? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you agree that public transit is and should be 

a tool in the infrastructure toolbox? 

Secretary CHAO. Sure, if the local community wants it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And do you—— 

Secretary CHAO. It is up to them to prioritize. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. And do you believe that public transit systems significantly improve economic vitality and opportunities for 

small businesses? 

Secretary CHAO. In urban areas, where there is density, and 

where there is enough traffic, yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And it allows or it enables these local communities 

to prosper and grow. Isn’t that correct? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, sometimes they can’t pay for the transit 

systems, and then it is a problem. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the Federal Government has always seen 

that it is important in the local communities that they have support for public transit. And you agree with that, don’t you? 

Secretary CHAO. No, I think it actually varies. Some administrations—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you don’t—— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. Support it more so than others. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You don’t think public transit is something that 

the Federal Government should invest in? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, the Federal Government does invest in 

Federal transit. There is something called—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you don’t think—— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. The Federal Transit Administration. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you don’t think that it should, going forward, 

because you left it out of—— 

Secretary CHAO. No, I didn’t say that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you left it out of—— 

Secretary CHAO. You are asking me to prefer transit over something else, and I am saying this is a local decision. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am just asking you to recognize it in your comments to our committee, and you failed to do so. 

Secretary CHAO. I don’t understand that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And I am asking you why. 

Secretary CHAO. I didn’t mention other modes of transportation 

like aviation. I was criticized on that, as well. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, do you think public transit is important? 

28 

Secretary CHAO. In certain cities where there is enough volume 

and density to support it, it can be a viable alternative transportation system. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, what is the Trump transportation plan insofar as public transit is concerned? What is the plan? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, we have a budget for the Federal Transit 

Administration. 

What is the budget [turning to ask a person seated behind her]? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is that the one that is being cut—— 

Secretary CHAO. There is a Federal Transit Administration with 

a full budget, and we support—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But the budget is—— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. All the transit programs there. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Budget is being cut by 19 percent, correct? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, that indicates that sometimes administrations don’t fully agree with all the transit projects. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you are pretty good at jumping around my 

questions. 

Secretary CHAO. No, no, I am trying to be cooperative and answer. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, no, you are not. Let me ask you this question. 

The Trump infrastructure proposal would turn the funding formula 

on its head by requiring State and local governments to cough up 

80 percent of the cost of infrastructure. Do you believe that it is 

realistic to believe that cash-strapped municipalities in rural America would be able to squeeze sufficient revenues from State and 

local taxpayers to pay the 80-percent share of the cost of infrastructure improvements? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, as I have mentioned, the 80/20 applies 

only to intrastate projects. That has always been the case. The rest 

of the transportation systems in the country is 10 percent owned 

by the Federal Government, 90 percent owned by the States. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you are not answering my question. 

Secretary CHAO. And the existing programs, the budget still 

stays. All the formula grants and the FAST Act, that all stays. We 

are—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam? 

Secretary CHAO. Yes? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam, my question is—— 

Secretary CHAO. Yes? 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Do you believe that State and local 

governments will be able to cough up 80 percent of the share of the 

cost of infrastructure improvements? You believe they will be able 

to squeeze—— 

Secretary CHAO. Well, that is the question of pay-fors. And as I 

mentioned—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you think—— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. We will work with Congress on 

that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you think the State and local taxpayers can afford to be squeezed? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, Federal money is not free. Federal money 

is taxpayers’ money, as well. It is Federal monies, actually taxVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Dec 14, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\FULL\3-6-20~1\33618.TXT JEAN
29 

payers’ money coming from the States and localities. They come up 

to us, we send it back to the—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I got one last—— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. Localities and to the local and 

State governments with Federal strings attached. 

Mr. JOHNSON. One last—— 

Secretary CHAO. That is what Federal dollars are. 

Mr. JOHNSON. One last question. 

Secretary CHAO. Yes, of course. 

Mr. JOHNSON. In your written testimony you state that the guiding principle of the Trump infrastructure plan is the use of Federal 

dollars as seed money to incentivize infrastructure investment by 

State and local governments. My question is how does the Trump 

infrastructure plan propose to incentivize private-sector investment 

in rural areas? 

Secretary CHAO. By the dint of the Federal Government getting 

involved in certain projects, they offer the imprimatur of the weight 

and gravitas of the United States Government. And with that, that 

actually improves the quality of some of the projects. And more private investors are willing to enter because they think there has 

been a ‘‘seal of good housekeeping.’’ 

And that is why, again, the Federal Government’s entry, or being 

involved in a transaction, is helpful to helping the private sector 

enter. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I [inaudible]—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman’s time has expired. I thank the 

gentleman. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Answer my question. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I would also like to remind the gentleman. Under 

the formula, the trust fund formula, 80 percent goes to highways, 

roughly 20 percent goes to transit, and States have the ability 

today—which, of course, we in rural Pennsylvania are always complaining that the Governor flexes dollars, which, under the law, he 

can do, to Philadelphia. 

So there is money to be spent on—again, we haven’t talked about 

changing that formula, I don’t believe, in the President’s plan. Just 

new ideas. 

So again, with that, I—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I thank the chairman for answering my 

question. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. You are quite welcome. I recognize Mr. Davis for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam 

Secretary. I appreciate you being here to talk about investing in 

our Nation’s infrastructure. And I also appreciate the cooperation 

and the responses that you have given to some of my colleagues’ 

previous questions. And I disagree with some of the assertions that 

may have been made earlier. 

I actually appreciated the White House’s infrastructure proposal. 

And kind of piggybacking on to my colleague, Mr. Johnson’s, comments on rural America, I like the fact that some of those funds 

30 

in the proposed plan were dedicated to rural America. For years we 

have seen rural roads and bridges lag behind due to funding constraints and the lack of access to funds. 

For example, prior to MAP–21, all bridges were eligible for funding under what was then the Highway Bridge Program. However, 

this program was eliminated in MAP–21, with the majority of its 

funding going into the National Highway Performance Program for 

which off-system bridges are not eligible. 

This means that today 77 percent of all bridges in the U.S. are 

only eligible for funding under the Surface Transportation Block 

Grant program. This leads to many off-system bridges in rural 

counties like those in my district being years, sometimes decades, 

behind in the maintenance that needs to be conducted. 

So again, thanks for ensuring rural infrastructure was prioritized 

in this proposal. And I would also suggest that some of these dollars be allocated directly to local jurisdictions who can best identify 

their own infrastructure priorities. Under the administration’s proposal, the 80 percent of the funding set aside for rural formula dollars would go directly to Governors. It would make sense to me to 

use the Surface Transportation Block Grant program, which suballocates more than 50 percent of the formula to locals, as a model. 

Because, unfortunately, local infrastructure priorities, as Chairman 

Shuster just mentioned, don’t always align with our Governors, regardless of which party may be in charge. 

Secretary Chao, do you agree that we should include some level 

of local control of rural infrastructure dollars? 

Secretary CHAO. In fact, the President’s entire infrastructure proposal leaves the priority of projects to the State and local leaders. 

So we don’t say what project is preferable over another. We don’t 

say which financing or funding mechanism is preferable. We are 

basically saying it is really up to the local and State leaders. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I understand that. But, as Chairman Shuster 

mentioned, as I mentioned, sometimes our Governors’ priorities, 

our State officials’ priorities, may be overtaken in the nonrural 

areas. So thank you for your dedication to rural America. 

I want to start my second question by noting that I support the 

DOT’s electronic logging device rule, moving forward, as the rule 

was authorized by Congress. And much of the trucking industry 

has already invested millions into coming into compliance. 

I do, however, also believe that there are legitimate concerns for 

certain industries who are working to come into compliance. And 

this includes the livestock hauling industry. 

Madam Secretary, can you describe FMCSA’s [Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration’s] outreach to the agriculture industry leading up to the implementation of the ELD rule? 

Secretary CHAO. This is a very important rule, especially with 

reference to livestock. And I have heard from multiple numbers of 

rural lawmakers on this issue. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you—— 

Secretary CHAO. FMCSA supposedly has, and I have been told, 

and if you are not satisfied with it, please tell me, because I will 

go back and reinforce this point with them. I have been told that 

they have held a number of outreach and educational sessions to 

31 

try to explain the 90-day waiver that has been issued for livestock, 

and how this particular rule functions. 

But again, if you are not satisfied with that, please let me know 

and I will—— 

Mr. DAVIS. We will have our local groups get back with us, and 

we will reach out to DOT. 

Secretary CHAO. Right. 

Mr. DAVIS. So you are saying the 90-day waiver has already been 

implemented. 

Secretary CHAO. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. So eight livestock groups submitted a letter, asking 

for a waiver, and that has already been submitted? 

Secretary CHAO. The last time was December 18th, so it was extended into March 18th, which is coming up. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Do you anticipate another waiver? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, this is a big decision, because, legislatively, the Department is constrained. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right, thank—— 

Secretary CHAO. So we have to study it carefully. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I am specifically talking—— 

Secretary CHAO. But I am very sympathetic to this issue. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, and I am specifically talking about the livestock 

industry. 

Secretary CHAO. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. It is also my understanding—— 

Secretary CHAO. This is the waiver. 

Mr. DAVIS. What is that? 

Secretary CHAO. This is the waiver. 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. 

Secretary CHAO. The waiver was only for livestock. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity 

to ask you this, and we will get back with you on the waiver issue, 

to make sure our questions are answered. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. And now Ms. Titus is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Secretary, welcome back to the committee. It is nice to see 

you. The last time you were here I asked you about the status of 

the National Advisory Committee on Travel and Tourism Infrastructure. 

Just to remind everybody of what that is, in the FAST Act I 

worked with my colleagues across the aisle. We had a bipartisan 

amendment to the FAST Act. It created a committee to report directly to you that brought together a diverse array of experts from 

across the travel and tourism industry, and they were to advise you 

on—I quote—‘‘current and emerging priorities, issues, projects, and 

funding needs related to the use of the intermodal transportation 

network of the United States to facilitate travel and tourism.’’ 

And travel and tourism are very important to my district in Las 

Vegas. But all around the country, no matter what district you represent, there is something related to tourism that is there. 

32 

Now, we thought that with infrastructure being such a priority 

of this President, that now would be a good time for this committee 

to be meeting and giving advice on how travel and tourism priorities would fit into that plan. Under your predecessor, the advisory 

committee was up and running, meetings were occurring, they 

were coming with recommendations. 

In February of last year, though, following your confirmation, I 

led this letter with my fellow House and Senate Members who are 

cochairs of the Travel and Tourism Caucus. And I would like to ask 

that this be submitted into the record. And we were urging you to 

kind of prioritize that committee’s work. 

Unfortunately, though, nothing has happened. They haven’t met, 

they reschedule meetings and they cancel meetings. And so, I 

would just like to ask you, if they are unable to continue their 

work, you are not kind of empowering them to continue, how can 

their recommendations be reflected in the infrastructure plan? 

Their charter goes away June the 20th. And I wonder, are you 

just waiting out the clock, or are you going to be working with this 

committee? 

And don’t you think these priorities are important to consider, as 

we move forward with infrastructure plans? 

Secretary CHAO. I know this is important to you. It was brought 

to my attention just before the hearing. 

Now, we don’t really have a good grasp over all of what is called 

FACAs [Federal Advisory Committee Act]. These are all boards and 

commissions. And so we are slowly, and I do admit slowly, going 

through them to see what needs to be done with them, how do we 

get them going. And frankly, I just haven’t had enough staff to go 

through it. But we will take a look at it. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, I hope so, because it has been a year since I 

have asked about this. And their time is running out, and we are 

putting the plan together now. And you have got experts on that 

committee who are ready and willing to go to work, if you will just 

give them the say-so. 

And, you know, in addition to that, according to the same section 

of the FAST Act, that requires that your department consult with 

them on the strategic plan. And that is supposed to be submitted 

by the end of the year. And if they are not up and operating, they 

are not going to be able to have any input into that, either. 

And so, I hope you will make that a priority. I have been hoping 

that for a while now. And it really didn’t seem like it would require 

that much effort to see what they are doing and what they can contribute to this kind of major infrastructure overhaul that you are 

talking about. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. 

Ms. TITUS. No, thank you. And I look forward to hearing back 

from you and Rossi Ralenkotter, who is the chair of that, who is 

also the chair of our Convention and Visitors Authority, to hear 

that progress is being made. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. 

Ms. TITUS. All right. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady. And without objection, the 

gentlelady’s letter will be made part of the record. 

33 

[The letter referenced by Congresswoman Titus is on page 100.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. And with that, I recognize Mr. Sanford for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman. And thank you, Madam 

Secretary. Two quick questions on infrastructure. 

One is could you give a little bit more definition of the 3-year 

look-back, as it relates to infrastructure? Because, for instance, 

South Carolina just raised its gas tax. And one of the things that 

I have heard from back home is questions as to the degree to which 

they will be recognized for doing so. A question on that front. 

Secretary CHAO. No, it is an issue, because, in fact, South Carolina had a very, very good project, which was originally on the first 

round of some grants that were to be released. And yet, because 

of what they did, showing that they had initiative, they had responsibility, they were actually not eligible to receive the grant 

that they would have received if they were laggard, in terms of not 

raising any revenues at all. 

So, this is one of a number of projects. But there was also balanced against this another concern that there were States that did 

this 10 years ago, and there were some people in this working 

group of agencies that thought that that was not fair to include 10 

years. So the compromise was 3 years. 

And this and other issues, I have mentioned to the chairman, we 

are more than willing to work on a bipartisan basis with both sides 

on how to address this and other issues of concern, because I understand South Carolina is a glaring example where you did not 

get a grant for a port in South Carolina. I don’t know whether that 

is in your district. 

Mr. SANFORD. Yes. 

Secretary CHAO. But they took responsibility, they raised their 

own revenues, and then subsequently they were not eligible for the 

grant. 

Mr. SANFORD. All right. So to be continued on that one. 

The other question is actually tied to Charleston, as well. And 

that is one of the questions with P3s is you—in essence, they are 

aimed toward revenue-generating projects. And yet, if you look at 

flooding in Charleston, it has increased rather dramatically. So 

something is going on, in terms of sea level rise. We can have long 

debates on the why and the what, but the bottom line is that it is 

happening. And nuisance flooding has exacerbated, as has more 

damaging forms of flooding. 

They have committed significant amounts of money to doing so, 

but it looks like they will be ineligible for many of these other 

kinds of grants, given the fact that there has to be a revenue-generating component to what is done. And that obviously doesn’t fit 

with safeguarding property, as a consequence of this flooding. 

Any particular ideas there, in terms of where folks in Charleston 

might be able to better look on the grant front? 

Secretary CHAO. I am not familiar with that. It is a good point. 

And if you will let me, let me take a look at that, and we will get 

back to you on that. 

Mr. SANFORD. All right. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time. 

34 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Payne is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Chao, I am going to follow up with my colleague’s line 

of questioning, Mr. Sires, in reference to the Gateway project. 

Now, this weekend the Washington Post reported that President 

Trump is actively seeking to undermine the Gateway project now. 

Now, we know this project is one of the biggest and most expensive 

in the country, granted. We know that hundreds of thousands of 

commuters and intercity travelers rely on this trans-Hudson infrastructure to get in and out of New York, daily. 

Despite the President’s actions, are you saying that there is no 

commitment to support this critical infrastructure on the Federal 

level? 

Secretary CHAO. There is no commitment, there is no documentation on Federal funding, there is no completed application. 

Mr. PAYNE. I was at that meeting in the White House, as well. 

I sat about two chairs away from you. 

So, when the President talked about it being a good project, and 

it looks good, and we are going to move forward, and talked to Governor Cuomo even about that runway at LaGuardia Airport that he 

felt that they should get, now you are saying that none of this happened? 

Secretary CHAO. No, I did not say that. I said we were polite, we 

were respectful, we were cordial. We made no commitments. We 

want to work together. There is no doubt about that. But working 

together also means that New York and New Jersey, two of the 

richest States in the country, have got to come up with more than 

zero financing on one project—— 

Mr. PAYNE. Excuse me, excuse me, it is not zero— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. And 5 percent on the other. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, well, I don’t know where you get your information, because we have offered a 50/50 split with the Federal Government, not 80—not 10/90, not 80/20—50/50, half. 

Secretary CHAO. We have—— 

Mr. PAYNE. You have—— 

Secretary CHAO. That is great. 

Mr. PAYNE. You have not—— 

Secretary CHAO. If that is the case, that is terrific. 

Mr. PAYNE. You have not heard that? 

Secretary CHAO. That is great. No. We have been in discussion 

with the—— 

Mr. PAYNE. You have not heard that? You have not heard that 

New Jersey and New York had offered 50 percent of the—— 

Secretary CHAO. Well, that could have been said. But in discussions that we have been having with them, there is zero financing 

on the Hudson Tunnel and the Portal Bridge. It is zero financing 

on one by the New York/New Jersey parties, and 5 percent on the 

other. And they are using TIFIA loans, which they are going to get 

from us, as part of their downpayment. 

Mr. PAYNE. Absolutely incorrect. 

Secretary CHAO. Well, sir, I think we have a disagreement about 

the facts, then. 

35 

Mr. PAYNE. Exactly, yes. And I know this administration and 

their alternate facts, and how that works. 

Secretary CHAO. Sir, I take exception to that. I never have said 

that. 

Mr. PAYNE. Then take exception to that. 

Secretary CHAO. And I do not want to be stern—— 

Mr. PAYNE. You can take—— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. But the misinformation on this 

project has been stunning. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman has the time. 

Mr. PAYNE. Let me say this. It is very unfortunate that the 

things you hear come out of this administration, once you leave a 

day later, it just dissipates into air. It never happened. It just dissipates. It is amazing. 

I really suggest you look at the facts at what New Jersey has offered, New York and New Jersey have offered on this. And please, 

can we somewhere along the line live up to our word with this administration? 

And I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank—— 

Secretary CHAO. Sir, if you will put that in writing and have 

New York and New Jersey submit something in writing, we will be 

more than pleased to look at it. Thank you very much. Because 

currently we have nothing. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady. And I believe that is the 

fact, that there has been no submission. So it is up to the States 

to submit something. 

And with that, I recognize Mr. Woodall for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 

Madam Secretary, for being here with us. And thank you for all 

that you have done in partnership with my home State of Georgia. 

I have heard folks accuse the administration during this hearing 

of pushing problems down on folks. What I know is when our State 

was at its weakest, you all stepped in to make sure that the collapse of our major transportation corridor through the State—a collapse due to fire—you all were there, not from day one but from 

hour one. And I am thankful for your responsiveness. 

I see, sitting behind you, Mr. McMaster and Mr. Ray. You have 

been served by a great team. I am pleased that within the last 

month you have added a new member to your team, and that Assistant Secretary by the name of Adam Sullivan. He served the 

Georgia delegation years and years proudly and with distinction. 

And my expectations for your department were already extremely 

high because of your leadership. But seeing the folks you are adding to that list sent it even higher. 

You mentioned, when Mrs. Napolitano was asking you about the 

3-year look-back, the willingness to have that conversation. I am 

grateful to you for sharing that. Mr. Sanford touched on it a little 

bit, too. Are you able to share anything from those multipartner 

discussions to help me to understand what characteristics the Department is looking for, as we continue to have that discussion? 

I know we want to encourage more investment, and that is certainly what South Carolina did and Georgia has done. And the fear 

36 

is we don’t want to go back and capture investments made a decade ago that are not being influenced by the new $200 billion that 

is available. 

Is it clear to you, as you and I sit here today, what some of those 

characteristics are that will determine the outcome of that conversation, whether it is a 2-year or a 3-year or a 5-year, whether 

it is an 80-percent credit or a 60-percent credit, is there any guidance that you can provide to me? Or is it genuinely a blank slate? 

And we will have that discussion going forward. 

Secretary CHAO. You bring up some very good points about criteria. I think we are actually pretty open. It was just this concern 

about how do we give people credit, but not give them so much 

credit that there is nothing for them to do, going forward, and they 

still get the Federal dollars for a project that is already existing 

and up and running. So we are working forward, too. 

If I may just add one thing. Yes, thank you for your compliments 

about the appointees at the Department. They are all doing a great 

job, as are the career folks. I just wanted to let you know Adam 

Sullivan was just sworn in yesterday, and he was nominated more 

than 9 months ago. 

Mr. WOODALL. Nine months ago. You wouldn’t know you were 

shorthanded, given the amount of productivity that has been coming out of the Department. I go back and I look at the numbers. We talk about $200 billion 

in brandnew Federal dollars being pumped in, as if it’s a ‘‘nothing’’ 

of a proposal. Of course, that is more money than the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act pumped into transportation. It is a 

stunning amount of money, almost as much as the chairman was 

able to put forward in our FAST Act, which is the biggest transportation bill that we have ever done around here. 

But I am thinking about some of the regulatory challenges that the Department has dealt with. By my count, we are close to $1 

billion in regulatory savings, not because we have sacrificed any of 

our stewardship responsibilities to the environment or to labor or 

to local control, but simply because of some of the efforts you all 

have made to spend that money more wisely. 

I know the first year on the job offers lots of potential. Do you 

think we will continue to see those kinds of regulatory reforms, 

those kinds of savings that cost us nothing, as taxpayers and as 

stewards of the environment, but go to real dollars going back into 

infrastructure? 

Secretary CHAO. Under the previous administration the burden 

of regulations on just the transportation sector alone was more 

than $3 billion a year. In the last year, we have taken a look at 

these regulations without compromising on any of the really important things to us, like the environment. And basically, we have 

been able to have a deregulatory approach that actually will decrease regulations by about $312 million. 

Concurrent with that, of course, is the permitting, which is separate from the deregulation. And I have given some examples of the 

permitting processes that can be improved. And that is getting rid 

of sequential, duplicative processes, and many of them came, actually, from the Members of Congress, giving us suggestions and recommendations as to what we should be looking for. And so we look 

37 

forward to working with the Members of Congress in ensuring that 

projects that really need to be online are being given the permission that they need to begin improvements. 

Mr. WOODALL. Well, I don’t just thank you for what you do, I 

thank you for how you do it. When young men and women talk to 

me about the discord in politics today, and they want to know what 

a real public servant looks like, I often give them your name. And 

I am grateful to you for your service. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Lowenthal is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Secretary Chao, for addressing us. 

I want to associate myself first with many of the comments that 

Congresswoman Esty made in presenting Ranking Member 

DeFazio’s statement, and also some of the comments of Chairman 

Shuster and other colleagues who have highlighted some of the 

issues or concerns that they have with the administration’s infrastructure package. 

You know, unfortunately, I believe the administration has 

ducked the tough decisions that Congress must make, decisions on 

how to shore up the Highway Trust Fund, and how to move towards a sustainable path for infrastructure investment. 

Secretary Chao, I am concerned that your proposal undermines 

a key priority of mine: to fund the Nation’s system of goods movement. I was glad to hear Congressman Denham mention goods 

movement. Perhaps you have heard the phrase ‘‘Freight doesn’t 

vote,’’ which explains why a dedicated freight funding has been so 

hard for Congress to deal with, and very hard to be won in Congress. 

The administration’s infrastructure plan proposes, as I understand, a $100 billion grant program over 10 years that the States 

and cities can compete for at a 20-percent Federal share. This additional funding, however, is now paired with a Presidential budget 

request that cuts $122 billion from the Highway Trust Fund over 

10 years. 

As you know, the Highway Trust Fund provides dedicated formula grants for freight programs, as well as discretionary grants 

through the INFRA program. This proposed budget significantly 

scales back both. 

The President’s budget also eliminates the highly oversubscribed 

TIGER program, which has made key intermodal investments, including $30 million to improve the flow of commerce at both the 

Ports of L.A. and Long Beach. 

So the question I have is, given the Nation’s staggering need to 

improve freight movement and relieve congestion, how does your 

administration’s plan advance freight projects, while at the same 

time eliminating guaranteed and dedicated funding for freight? 

Secretary CHAO. Freight is very important, obviously. And you 

bring up a very good point, and I don’t have an answer for you. I 

should. So, if you would, let me get back to you on that. But you 

bring up a very important—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. And I hope—— 

Secretary CHAO. I am remiss, not being able to answer it. 

38 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And I hope, while you are looking 

at it, you look at a proposal that I put forth in H.R. 3001, which 

establishes a sustainable, dedicated freight trust fund. It would 

make sure that we have the resources to deal with these critical 

investments. And I think it is consistent with what we have talked 

about before, in terms of user fees. I would like you at least to address that issue. 

Also, next question, Secretary Chao, is the administration has 

said that it would like to reduce—and we have heard it here 

today—the environmental permitting process from 10 years to 2 

years. 

Yet, according to CEQ, the—the Council on Environmental Quality—the overwhelming majority of Federal projects that require environmental review—that is approximately 95 percent of those 

projects—proceed under categorical exclusions and are exempt from 

the most rigorous types of environmental review. Less than 1 percent of the projects require a more rigorous environmental impact 

statement, the EIS. And according to the Federal Highway Administration, the average length of that review is less than 4 years. 

What I don’t understand is, given these statistics, why does 

President Trump insist that it takes 10 years to go through the 

permitting process for a transportation project? 

Secretary CHAO. First of all, we are not talking about environmental permitting, we are just talking about permitting, overall. 

As mentioned, we all want to protect the environment. But there 

are ways in which the permitting process is duplicative, it doesn’t 

make sense, just from a process point of view, that we hope we can 

address. 

The permitting process also not only includes Federal, but State 

and local. And the process could take 10 years. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Yes. 

Secretary CHAO. Our part can be maybe a portion of that. 

So one example is in Alaska. I went up to Alaska in August, and 

it just so happened that the permitting process for the Sterling 

Highway came through after a 35-year delay, and it came from the 

Department of the Interior. 

So are there not ways we are asking ourselves, with input from 

the Congress, on how we can improve the permitting process so 

many of these projects, transportation infrastructure projects that 

need to be repaired, improved, can actually begin construction and 

improvement? That is what we are talking—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And just as I yield back I will submit in writing—I am concerned about the delays and uncertainty 

regarding the New Starts program. I will submit that, especially 

about the Orange County Streetcar, which has gone through everything and is ready to go. 

And also I concur with Congresswoman Napolitano regarding the 

2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, and the need for infrastructure improvement. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. And I have not seen your 

proposal on the freight rail trust fund. I would caution, though, the 

railroads typically don’t want Federal dollars because you put a 

dollar of Federal money in, it costs twice as much, it takes twice 

39 

as long to do it. So again, I would be interested to see your proposals. So I appreciate that. 

And, with that, Mr. Babin is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Secretary Chao. Any big construction projects, say nothing of a $1.5 trillion infrastructure package, relies on an efficient and cost-effective freight 

delivery network, especially trucks, to help build it. And for the 

past 8 months I have been working hard to do something about the 

ELD mandate, the electronic logging device, which I believe is not 

only hurting our economy, but making our shared goal of rebuilding our infrastructure that much harder. 

And I acknowledge, though, that while there are serious issues 

with the costs, security, and reliability of ELDs that we are already 

seeing, the bigger concern here is the underlying hours of service 

regulations and the inflexible enforcement of them triggered by an 

ELD. 

Professional drivers often identify the current HOS requirement 

as counterproductive, and an impediment to safety improvement. 

Crashes are up, for an example, by 56 percent since 2010. And 

drivers say they are often forced to drive at times of high traffic 

congestion, bad weather, or when they are tired or fatigued. And 

they want flexibility. 

So while I would continue to strongly urge you, Madam Secretary, to direct a waiver from this ELD mandate for all sectors of 

the trucking industry—not just livestock, as we have heard today— 

I would like to get your perspective and hopefully your commitment 

on steps that we can take to modernize and add some common 

sense to these hours of service regulations. 

And my office is working right now with outside stakeholders on 

a solution that would provide for the same 14-hour window of service, but with additional flexibility for drivers to take their rest 

hours when they want and when they need it, not as weather and 

traffic conditions permit. And ELD tries to tell them to do so. 

Can I have your commitment to work with us and your team to 

explore these sorts of options, either through the regulatory or the 

legislative process, Madam Secretary? 

Secretary CHAO. I am very sympathetic to this issue, because I 

come from a rural State. The ELD issue and the waivers are tied 

in to the hours of service, which is the underlying legislation. 

Dr. BABIN. Right. 

Secretary CHAO. We are very much constrained by the law. So 

we look forward to working with you, and there will be other people on the other side, on how to handle this. 

Dr. BABIN. I understand. But even those on the other side have 

a problem with the hours of service. And a lot of this could be, I 

think, taken care of if we could give some flexibility to some of our 

drivers. 

Secretary CHAO. It was tightened up in around 2010, 2011. 

Dr. BABIN. But that is supposed—— 

Secretary CHAO. I would be more than glad to talk with you 

about all of—— 

Dr. BABIN. Absolutely, I would love to do so. Because, as I said 

earlier, traffic crashes with trucks are up 56 percent since 2010. 

40 

Another question. The State of Texas recently invested millions 

in a new state-of-the-art Center for Infrastructure Renewal at 

Texas A&M University. This focuses on all aspects of infrastructure renewal and from new materials to workforce development to 

cybersecurity. 

Can you speak to your agency’s strategic plan for engaging with 

industry and academia to bring innovation and sufficiently trained 

manpower to our Nation’s infrastructure agenda, specifically your 

plans to partner with existing comprehensive facilities like our own 

Texas A&M CIR I mentioned to maximize public-private investment in partnerships to ensure innovation and sufficiently trained 

manpower fuel our infrastructure investments of the future? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, these transportation centers, research centers and universities all across the country, are very helpful. I am 

afraid the Secretary of Energy has beaten you to this particular 

point. He has been pushing this point with Texas A&M for quite 

a while. So we are very much aware of it, and we are trying to 

work with the Energy Department. 

Dr. BABIN. Excellent. 

Secretary CHAO. We will also work with you, as well, on this. 

Dr. BABIN. Excellent. Thank you, Madam Secretary, because 

the—our Energy Secretary is an alumni of Texas A&M. OK, thank 

you. I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the argument you made there. I think this ELD debate shouldn’t be about 

the technology, it is about the rest time, it is about, you know, 

the—the police sleep don’t say sleep at a certain time, but truckers 

can figure it out. And again, with this technology today, we can 

probably know exactly when somebody is resting and when they 

are not resting. 

So again, I think the technology is positive. And again, I appreciate Dr. Babin for you bringing that up about the hours of rest 

need to be flexible for these drivers. 

Dr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. With that, Mr. Maloney is recognized. 

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Huffman is recognized, sorry. 

Mr. MALONEY. OK. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The ranking member overrode me. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. We are always getting confused with each other, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MALONEY. Better news for me than for you, sir. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us here today. I 

want to ask you about the capital investment grant program. This 

is something Congress appropriated $2.4 billion for in fiscal year 

2017. These Federal dollars were intended to build new transit investments selected by local communities. Projects under this program have been reviewed, highly rated, and are, in many cases, 

awaiting your approval. 

I wonder, Madam Secretary, if you would agree with me that 

since Congress has spoken creating this program, funding this program, that unless and until the program is ended it is your legal 

responsibility to carry it out. 

41 

Secretary CHAO. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. Because in my district, we have got 

a project that we are very proud of. It is the Sonoma-Marin Area 

Rail Transit program, or SMART. It has been moving ahead with 

a new regional commuter rail system that is funded almost entirely 

by local sales taxes and other local and regional funding sources. 

It opened in August 2016 with a fully operational Positive Train 

Control system. At a time when we are focused a lot on rail safety 

and Positive Train Control, this is a project that we can all celebrate and be proud of. It is, arguably, the safest little railroad in 

America, and a real extraordinary success story. 

The only problem is it has been waiting for months for funding 

under a Small Starts grant to be distributed. This is a grant that 

was previously awarded. And although your agency has issued a no 

prejudice letter, we have not been able to get that funding distributed. 

We talk a lot here about projects that are shovel ready, we talk 

about the burden of permitting and environmental review. This is 

a project where everything is ready. In fact, the shovels are already 

working, it is under construction. But for reasons we still don’t understand, we just can’t get those funds distributed. 

So I wanted to bring this to your attention, Madam Secretary, as 

an example of infrastructure that everybody thinks can and should 

move forward, but it has the potential to be derailed. And I understand that positions are still being filled and some of the other 

challenges we have heard about here today. But would you agree 

with me a project like this, that is really right down the line the 

kind of thing we want to support, the kind of thing that should get 

its funds distributed, deserves your attention and support in a moment like this? 

Secretary CHAO. I will take a look at that project, and see where 

it is at this point. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, that is much appreciated. And that is 

all I had for you, Madam Secretary. So I yield the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA [presiding]. The gentleman yields 

back. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Madam Secretary, thank you very much for being here, and I 

want to pass on commendations from the State, Louisiana, the secretary of transportation and development, who has been through 

dozens of disasters over the last several years, who said that your 

outreach activities related to some of the 2017 disasters was far 

better than any other administration that they have dealt with. So 

I want to thank you for that. 

The State of Louisiana, like many States, has a lack of investment in infrastructure. I think they have had some prioritization 

problems and other things over several years. 

I am curious, with the administration’s proposal, infrastructure 

proposal, what recommendations you would make to a State like 

Louisiana that already is suffering financial challenges, deficits, 

what recommendations you would make to them to ensure their 

ability to fairly compete for some of the infrastructure dollars that 

are available when we are already having financial problems. 

42 

Secretary CHAO. Well, Louisiana is a rural State, basically, except for, obviously, the major cities like New Orleans. So there is 

actually a title, a proposed provision within the guidelines that 

have been passed forward that rural America will come under a 

different provision, and it will be formula grant, basically. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Yes, and thank you. And Secretary 

Wilson actually made specific mention of the rural program, as did 

the Governor, and how they are appreciative of that. But we also 

do have cities like New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Shreveport, and 

other areas that have more sizeable populations. 

Just to give you an idea, my hometown of Baton Rouge, which 

only has a population of approximately 230,000 people, if I recall 

correctly, we were recently rated as having the 13th worst traffic 

in the United States, and the 106th worst traffic in the world. This 

is the town of Baton Rouge with, again, approximately 200,000 people in the city. 

You and I spoke a few weeks ago about the fact that we have 

the only place in the United States where the interstate system 

funnels down to one lane. Anybody who is thinking about that idea, 

it is an awful one, please don’t replicate it. It certainly contributes 

much to traffic. And the solution there is going to be a new bridge, 

among other investments, which—you are looking at probably over 

$1 billion. 

So the rural program is good for much of our State. But when 

you get into these metropolitan areas, I don’t think it is really 

going to fit or address some of the solutions there. 

Secretary CHAO. So the rural areas is one part, and then the 

other parts, for example, like the major cities, New Orleans and 

Baton Rouge. It is going to be up to the State and local governments as to how they want to package and prioritize the transportation projects that they view as most important. And they would 

package that, send that up to the Department of Transportation, 

or it can be to whatever else. If it is water, energy, whatever, it 

would go to the other departments. And then there would be a 

process by which targeted investments would be evaluated and ultimately, grants given. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. I want to make sure, as 

we move forward on this, that we continue to have discussions and 

understand the implications. As a former implementer of largescale infrastructure projects, I do think it is important that both 

the State and Federal Government relay to one another expectations in terms of budgets, and give us the appropriate time to 

adapt or prepare for those additional demands. 

I know that much of the work that I have done with the Corps 

of Engineers, it was a very difficult partnership because they would 

come in one year and provide funding, then we would have zero 

funding for a number of years following. That predictability of 

funding, and making sure that we convey to both Federal and nonFederal partners expectations—and giving appropriate time for 

budget planning, I think, is a really important component of this 

proposal. 

One other thing, Madam Secretary, that I want to relay to you— 

and I know you have commented on it to some degree here in today’s hearing—we need to make sure that we don’t come in and 

43 

put good money on top of bad. And the chairman made note a few 

minutes ago about the fact that some of the rail lines don’t want 

to see Federal investment because, by complying with Federal 

standards, you are going to be doubling the cost of projects. In 

some cases, I think it can be even higher than that. 

I know that there has been some talk about looking at the appropriate threshold to trigger Federal requirements like NEPA, DavisBacon, historic preservation or other things, and allowing for 

States to use their own surrogate process to respect the environment, address worker wages, and other important priorities. 

I want to ensure that, as we move forward, that we are paying 

close attention to those types of efficiencies. Because if we are coming in and putting additional Federal dollars on top of an inefficient project development delivery system, that is not yielding taxpayers the results they deserve. 

I am not sure if you want to comment on project deficiencies in 

the remaining seconds. 

Secretary CHAO. You actually make a very good point, and we actually are in the process of dealing, for example, with Nebraska, 

and letting them take hold of the permitting process. There is no 

devolution, there is no dilution at all. But certain States have applied, and we are working with them. So that is a very good point, 

thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I am 

now going to yield 5 minutes to the real gentleman from New York, 

Sean Patrick Maloney. 

Mr. MALONEY. If I had a nickel for every time I heard that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MALONEY. Secretary Chao, it is wonderful to be with you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize, I had to step out earlier, so if some of this has been covered, I hope you will bear with 

me. 

But can you confirm for me that the Gateway project in New 

York was listed as the number-one project on the Trump administration’s priorities list? Do I have that right? 

Secretary CHAO. I don’t think so. 

Mr. MALONEY. You don’t think so? 

Secretary CHAO. I don’t think there is a list. 

Mr. MALONEY. Well, I think that you identified major projects of 

national significance, and it was the number-one project. 

But stipulating the importance of the project, you would agree 

with me it is an important project. 

Secretary CHAO. We want to work with the States. The issue is 

how to fund it, and what the proportion of shares are. 

Mr. MALONEY. Right. So the Washington Post reported, Secretary 

Chao, that President Trump recently personally requested that 

Speaker Ryan block the Federal funding for the Gateway project in 

the omnibus spending package. What can you tell us about that? 

Is that true? 

Secretary CHAO. I read it in the newspapers, just like you did. 

Mr. MALONEY. Right. My question was is it true? 

Secretary CHAO. It probably is, because—— 

Mr. MALONEY. And can you tell us why the President is seeking 

to block funding—— 

44 

Secretary CHAO. I think you need to ask the White House on 

that. 

But I have already said—— 

Mr. MALONEY. Secretary Chao, excuse me. 

Secretary CHAO. I will be more than glad to explain it, if you let 

me. I have just said that to you numerous times, to the New YorkNew Jersey delegation, and apparently my answers are not good 

enough, but I don’t have—— 

Mr. MALONEY. Yes. Well, I think it is fair to say they are—— 

Secretary CHAO. It is the same answer, because those are the 

facts. 

Mr. MALONEY [continuing]. Not good enough to come before Congress and to say I have to ask the White House, when you are the 

Secretary of Transportation. 

Secretary CHAO. There is no agreement, first of all, between New 

York-New Jersey and the Federal Government as to the Federal 

and local shares in financing the projects. There is no documentation focused on this issue. 

Mr. MALONEY. My question was much more narrow. My question 

was is the President of the United States personally intervening 

with the Speaker to kill this project? 

Secretary CHAO. The President, yes, the President is concerned 

about the viability of this project, and the fact that New York and 

New Jersey have no skin in the game. The localities need to step 

up and bear their fair share. They are two of the richest States in 

the country. If they absorb all these funds, there will be no other 

funds for the rest of the country. 

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you for confirming that. And is it also the 

case that the administration has rejected the 50/50 partnership developed by the Obama administration—— 

Secretary CHAO. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding—— 

Mr. MALONEY. Excuse me. If I could ask my question, ma’am, 

thank you. Proposed to eliminate CIG funds, proposed to eliminate 

Amtrak funds, tried to block all omnibus funding, and now, with 

your confirmation, threatened other lawmakers with the loss of 

their project, and asked the Speaker to personally kill it? 

So is it fair to say that the States aren’t doing enough, when this 

is the administration’s sorry record on this project? 

Secretary CHAO. Sir, that is your characterization. It takes me 

too much time to have to answer every single one of those 

misstatements. And this is said with the greatest respect. 

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining? 

Mr. SHUSTER [presiding]. What was the question? 

Mr. MALONEY. How much time do I have remaining? 

Mr. SHUSTER. 200—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. Two minutes and four seconds. 

Mr. MALONEY. Well, Madam Secretary, you may have my remaining 2 minutes if you can do your best to explain why the—— 

Secretary CHAO. Absolutely, I will be more than glad to. 

Mr. MALONEY [continuing]. President of the United States is killing the most important infrastructure project certainly in the 

Northeast, probably in the country, and why it has actively underVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Dec 14, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\FULL\3-6-20~1\33618.TXT JEAN
45 

mined the efforts of the previous administration to work out the 

very issues you just addressed. Please, take my time and tell us 

why this project, which is so important, is being killed personally 

by this President. 

Secretary CHAO. Those are your words, not mine. If you want the 

President’s stance, please go to the White House. There is no such 

agreement as to the Federal versus local shares. The previous administration made no commitment, except at a political rally in the 

heat of a campaign. There is no documentation evidencing any 

commitment on this vital issue. There is no completed application 

on the nine projects that you collectively call Gateway. 

The career staff rated this project as not eligible for Federal 

funding because the State and local government have put in 5 percent in one, zero percent in the other. That is not how these 

projects are financed. 

One of the projects is thinking about applying for a TIFIA loan. 

They are taking our loan and using it as their equity. That is like 

if you are getting a mortgage, you have to put 20 percent down as 

your equity, you go out and you get a second loan and you call that 

second loan your equity. Well, there are certain guidelines in which 

these loans are put together. 

As an example, if you look at the Purple Line in Maryland, it is 

38 percent Federal grants, 33 percent TIFIA loan, 20 percent State, 

9 percent the private sector. And I–66, right here in Virginia, the 

private sector put in 42 percent, TIFIA is 33 percent—— 

Mr. MALONEY. Ma’am, I am familiar with how the TIFIA program works. 

Secretary CHAO. Let me finish. Twenty-five percent is public activity bonds with no Federal funding. 

Mr. MALONEY. Yes, I am very familiar with how the TIFIA program works, and I understand those comparisons. I am also struck 

by something you said, which is that we cannot ask you about the 

administration’s positions in this room. 

Secretary CHAO. No, you can. 

Mr. MALONEY. But I have to ask the White House about something as important as the Gateway project? 

Secretary CHAO. Please confirm that with him. 

Mr. MALONEY. Is—— 

Secretary CHAO. Yes, please confirm that. 

Mr. MALONEY. I understood you correctly on that? 

Secretary CHAO. Yes. 

Mr. MALONEY. Can you explain why? 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Secretary CHAO. That is how it works. 

Mr. MALONEY. Please feel free to answer. I will stop asking. 

Secretary CHAO. No, that is how it works. I don’t speak for another person unless I am there, personally. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady, I thank the gentleman. Mr. 

Smucker is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here, thank you for your 

leadership and the administration, the President’s leadership in 

advancing an infrastructure package that is so important to our 

Nation’s economy. 

46 

Also, I would like to thank you for the 3-year look-back provision 

that specifically helps a State like Pennsylvania. We just recently 

increased the wholesale gas tax and provided additional revenue. 

In fact, I would like to talk just a little bit about that if I have 

time. 

But first a question. I had sent a letter to you last year in June 

of 2017 regarding the administration’s position on the use of project 

labor agreements on highway projects that are receiving Federal 

dollars. And it is important to me, important to my district, because we live in a State where project labor agreements have been 

used to exclude great companies and exclude many folks in the 

workforce from participating in jobs. And the letter I had sent in 

June was a response to one specific project where that had occurred. 

Someone from your department had replied September 7th. I 

have a letter here that says the U.S. Department of Transportation 

is currently reviewing the policy on the use of PLAs on federally 

funded projects issued in 2009. And it said it would keep us posted. 

So I would like to ask you for an update on that review and on 

the administration’s policy on the use of project labor agreements 

on federally funded projects. 

Secretary CHAO. I am actually very familiar with project labor 

agreements, having been the former Secretary of Labor. I think actually our response back is not totally correct, because we basically 

have to coordinate with the White House, and also with the Department of Labor on that particular provision. 

But having said that, let me try to get some clarity for you on 

it. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Yes, I was—— 

Secretary CHAO. As far as I know, no decision has been made. 

Mr. SMUCKER. I was pleased to see in your proposal the recognition of the need for individuals—for the workforce, essentially, to 

do the work that would be required—infrastructure project. And 

you have one particular section on page 53 that talks about empowering workers. 

And you specifically talk about the need to allow workers with 

out-of-state skilled trade licenses to work in a particular State. And 

your reasoning for that I think is good, but could very much be applied to what I am talking about with project labor agreements. 

You talk about preventing out-of-state professionals—you could 

say preventing nonunion labor—would reduce the speed of these 

projects, delaying the effect of the economic benefit they provide, 

would increase the cost of the projects by artificially limiting supply professionals available to work in these projects. And allowing 

that would speed project delivery, reduce project costs, provide 

flexibility to workers. I couldn’t have described better what we are 

talking about with project labor agreements, which really does artificially prevent 86 percent of the workforce available in the construction industry from working on these projects, and so would 

provide for more inefficient use of Federal dollars. 

So I would really, really appreciate you making that a priority, 

and establishing a policy that would prevent project labor agreements on any project with Federal funding. 

47 

Now, back to—I have just 1 minute and 20 seconds—back to 

what we had done in Pennsylvania. The chairman had mentioned 

this briefly. We, Pennsylvania, increased the wholesale—or took 

the ceiling off the wholesale price for gas, and really created an infusion of new dollars into an infrastructure—in our case, mostly 

highways and bridges—that the public really understood the need 

for it. 

And I think the public does support additional funding for infrastructure, when they understand that—the state of the infrastructure and they understand the economic benefit. But I think it is 

important to talk about that. And I think, you know, all stakeholders involved, including the administration, really need to make 

the case for why this infrastructure funding and investment is so 

important. 

So I guess I would like to hear from you what your plans are in 

that regard, what the plans are of the Department and of the administration, in terms of selling the infrastructure project to the 

public, who needs it. 

Secretary CHAO. Well, it is certainly a very important part of the 

infrastructure, and it is usually coordinated out of the White 

House. There are many different agencies that are involved with 

all of this. So that certainly should be done. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Well, again, thank you for your leadership on this, 

and I look forward to continuing to work with you. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. Mrs. Bustos is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and also Vice Ranking 

Member Esty. Thank you very much. And thanks, Madam Secretary, I appreciate you being here today. 

I am sure you remember this, but last time you were here I told 

you a little bit about my congressional district. I am kidding, you 

probably don’t remember. 

Secretary CHAO. Well, actually, I study all of your congressional 

districts. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. But I represent the northwestern—the entire 

northwestern corner of the State of Illinois. And it is mostly smaller towns, rural. It spans 7,000 square miles in 14 counties. So I 

would like to talk a little bit about rural America, as it pertains 

to infrastructure. And I really appreciate what Congressman 

Graves had brought up, where he raised that States are already 

struggling to fund roads and bridges in our rural communities. 

But—so I was really happy that the administration made a decision to—well, earmark is not the right word, but to have part of 

the funding in the plan dedicated to rural America. And so I know 

specifically the plan calls for distributing rural formula funds in 

part based on rural lane miles. And so States like Illinois have 

plenty of rural roads, but also real needs in rural areas like drinking water systems, locks and dams, broadband, et cetera. 

So I am wondering why the administration believes that the 

rural lane miles are a good way of allotting funds that are intended 

to be used for all kinds of infrastructure, if you wouldn’t mind filling me in a little bit on that. 

48 

Secretary CHAO. I don’t really have an answer. That was kind of 

what the group came up with. And if you think that is not a right 

way to do so, I am very open. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. OK, OK. Maybe we can—we could put together a 

letter, or we could put together some thoughts, or happy to sit 

down with you about some of those other needs and maybe a funding formula that makes sense for some of these small towns. 

Secretary CHAO. Well, the Congress is going to have a chance to 

mark up its own bill. So the good news is, and I really want to emphasize this, we may have differences, but we are actually quite 

open. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. So we want to work with you. The 3-year lookback is another issue that I have heard a great deal about. We are 

very open to how do we work with the Congress on all of these. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. OK, I really appreciate that. I just think, when you 

are looking at rural America, there are a lot of needs, and they are 

special needs that vary from urban America. And so I really appreciate that offer to be able to work with you on that, and we will 

take you up on that. 

OK, question 2. The plan the administration released says the 

rural formula would also be adjusted to reflect policy objectives. 

Those were the words in the plan, ‘‘policy objectives.’’ And I don’t 

know if you know the answer to this, but wondering if you could 

add a little more clarity on what that means by the policy objectives. 

Secretary CHAO. We sent principles up, but we basically want to 

make sure that rural America has its own particular needs, and so 

we left it very vague. And again, it is an effort to, aside from the 

formula, which we thought was going to be an easy way to distribute funds, but if the Congress doesn’t agree with that, then we 

certainly can revisit that, if that does not make sense. 

And with certain goals, I think we would like to have greater 

economic development, more job creation, greater economic vitality, 

which is why broadband and veterans hospitals can be of great 

help in providing that part of the infrastructure for rural America, 

as well. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. OK, all right. I have got about a minute and a half. 

And if we have time for this also, so the plan on—is silent, to my 

knowledge, on applying Federal protections like Davis-Bacon. I 

know in your opening statement—— 

Secretary CHAO. It is there. 

Mrs. BUSTOS [continuing]. You mentioned that the bill has a 

workforce component. So I am wondering, specific to Davis-Bacon, 

if the administration supports the application of Davis-Bacon on 

the infrastructure projects that will come forward. 

Secretary CHAO. The administration certainly has not disallowed 

it. This is a hugely important issue. There are people against it, 

but I, frankly, don’t see how a bipartisan bill can exist, come into 

being, without that provision. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. That is very good to hear. Let me see. So last question, then. 

Locks and dams, and I—you might have addressed this a little 

bit ago, but my western border—not just of my congressional disVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Dec 14, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\FULL\3-6-20~1\33618.TXT JEAN
49 

trict, but the entire State of Illinois and, you know, up and down 

the Mississippi River corridor—just severe needs. And I am wanting to—if you can address at all your thoughts on the locks and 

dam system, how you see your department being involved with 

that, what you can do to help us move some of the needed improvements along in a way that is a little bit more expedient. 

Secretary CHAO. I am so glad to say that that is the Army Corps 

of Engineers. And there are lots of concerns always addressed on 

that. 

The chairman has a Harbor Maintenance Fund, which is a wonderful idea, which we should be replenishing and supporting to fulfill that purpose. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. OK. Thanks, Madam Secretary. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady. And with that, Mr. Bost is 

recognized. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. And I know it has been a long day, but I 

would like to go back to some other questions that got—kind of 

concerns. 

Let me, first off, tell you that I would look forward, if you are 

going to work with Representative Babin on the ELD hours of service, that was my life in a previous life. I grew up in a trucking industry and then ran one for many years. 

But I have a concern still on the answer that you gave on the 

livestock. The concern that I have is the original request on the 

livestock was a waiver for 5 years, and that was permitted—that 

was done in September. Now you answered that we have given 90 

days and 90 days and 90 days. Is it possible that they can get the 

5-year? 

Secretary CHAO. The second 90-day has not yet been given. 

Mr. BOST. OK, all right. But—— 

Secretary CHAO. The first waiver is not the waiver, there is a difference in term. One is a waiver, which is 90 days. One is an exemption. 

Mr. BOST. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. And we are evaluating—— 

Mr. BOST. Five years? 

Secretary CHAO. Exemption is 5 years, yes. 

Mr. BOST. OK, OK. 

Secretary CHAO. But there are very strict criteria upon which 

that can occur. 

Mr. BOST. OK. I—— 

Secretary CHAO. So I look forward to discussing it with both of 

you and others who are concerned. 

Mr. BOST. I would like to hear on the criteria. And the reason 

why I would like to hear on the criteria, because we know the concerns that we have with livestock. You can naturally figure that 

out, OK? 

When you are moving livestock, they don’t care what the computer says. They are going to live and die and have good time and 

bad time in the back end of a vehicle being moved from point A 

to point B, and cause a lot of trouble and concerns for what we are 

trying to deal with. But we did grant the exemption—if the 5 years 

is an exemption—for the motion picture industry. Why did we do 

50 

the motion picture industry, and what criteria was used on that, 

in comparison to wanting to—where livestock—I think it is probably easier to explain that—I am trying to explain that to my—— 

Secretary CHAO. No, it is not easy. In fact, until this was brought 

up to my attention, I didn’t even know that that waiver had been 

given. 

Mr. BOST. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. It has been explained to me, I don’t quite understand it. 

Mr. BOST. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. So we understand the concerns of Congress and 

yourself, and many, many others. 

Mr. BOST. If you could get—— 

Secretary CHAO. What I will do is this. I actually have a confirmed PAS, Presidential appointee, Senate-confirmed, and that is 

Ray Martinez. Let me send him to your offices. 

Mr. BOST. That would be wonderful. That would be wonderful. 

Secretary CHAO. And he—— 

Mr. BOST. Thank you. 

Secretary CHAO. Have him hear from you firsthand your concerns with this issue, and—— 

Mr. BOST. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. Because his office would be the one that will be 

issuing the waiver or the exemption. 

Mr. BOST. That is all we can ask for. Thank you very much for 

that. 

I have got another direction I want to go. When the administration rolled out and talked about its proposals for our infrastructure 

projects and everything like that, it was kind of silent. Originally 

in the campaign, and when first being announced, the President 

had spoke up and said with a Buy America—what language would 

be proposed in there. But he was kind of silent with that. 

What is your thoughts on the Buy America language being in 

there? 

Secretary CHAO. Very much, of course, in support, because the 

President has made this very, very clear. 

So there are a number of other abiding authorities that are ongoing and existent which are not mentioned specifically in the infrastructure proposal you hear from some of the others, from the 

Democrat side, as well. I don’t know the exact term, but these are 

overriding authorities, and they will prevail. 

Mr. BOST. OK, OK. Well, thank you for that. I am bouncing all 

over the place, and I am sorry for that, but these are questions 

that—— 

Secretary CHAO. Yes. 

Mr. BOST [continuing]. Came up after other people asked questions. When you are this far down on the pecking order, you kind 

of have to add and change things around. 

Early on we were talking about both the TIGER grant and the 

INFRA grant. And when you gave an answer you said that it has 

now been directed to a new department, or a new area of your department. 

Secretary CHAO. It has. 

51 

Mr. BOST. And so that does not allow them to work on both at 

the same time, is that correct? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, it is a capacity issue. 

Mr. BOST. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. So traditionally, these grants are processed 

through the modes, either Federal transit, or Federal highways, 

FAA. But in the FAST Act it was thought that a multimodal, intermodal approach would be best. And so they didn’t know where to 

put it. 

So they didn’t put it in highways, they didn’t put it in transit. 

They didn’t put it in these modes, which have a distribution system 

for processing these grants. Instead, they gave it to the policy office, which, by its very name, it is not an operational office. It is 

a policy office. So we have had to gear up, stand up an organization 

to be able to administer these two grant programs. 

Mr. BOST. One quick question before it runs out, then. 

Secretary CHAO. Yes. 

Mr. BOST. You said we went through the TIGER already. How 

quick do we think the INFRA—— 

Secretary CHAO. I hope it comes out this week. 

Mr. BOST. The TIGER will be out this week. 

Secretary CHAO. Yes. 

Mr. BOST. But INFRA, how long—— 

Secretary CHAO. I hope we will switch right to that. Hopefully, 

June. 

Mr. BOST. OK, all right, thank you very much. 

Secretary CHAO. Early summer. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Mr. Carson for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Madam Secretary, the administration contends that the procurement process is broken, and that this is a major factor as to why 

the FAA hasn’t made more progress with NextGen. Madam Secretary, what steps can the Department take today to improve the 

procurement process? And what statutory burdens or impediments 

are slowing the transition to air traffic control, for example? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, the FAA doesn’t have to follow the procurement. They were carved out. But they continue to follow it. I 

think there were fears about litigation, so that it takes the FAA a 

very long time to get new equipment. There have been recently, in 

the last 4 or 5 years, 8 years, maybe, 15 IG reports criticizing the 

NextGen project and its progress. So it is a big concern. 

Mr. CARSON. And lastly, like everyone here who is concerned 

about their district, there has been a proposal that suggests the 

elimination of funding for previously approved capital investment 

grants like the Red Line in Indianapolis. 

Fortunately, there is a continued bipartisan support effort in 

Congress for these projects for fiscal year 2017 that has already 

been appropriated, yet local officials in my district are concerned 

about the unexplained delays in releasing these funds. 

Madam Secretary, Indianapolis has two bus—rapid transit 

projects awaiting appropriate funds, the Red Line and the Purple 

Line. We are wanting to know what the holdup is. And when will 

52 

the administration end the delays and objections to transit and approve these projects? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, we don’t like delays, and we don’t intend 

to delay. There has been a delay? Let me take a look at that, I am 

not aware of that. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, ma’am. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. LaMalfa is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, 

for being here today and enduring what you have to with some of 

what goes on around here. 

Let me narrow it down. I was pleased to work with Mr. Babin 

last year on the ELD issue, and I appreciate the comments of several of my colleagues here, Mr. Bost and others, on the issues with 

ELD. 

Now, it is one thing for Washington several years ago to legislate 

ELDs, that would be great, everybody will love them. And indeed, 

that has worked out for probably a lot of folks, the larger outfits 

that are—have ability to afford and train many drivers on that. 

But we get down again to one size doesn’t fit all. You have unique 

single carriers, Mom and Pop, whatever you want to call it, and industries that it doesn’t always adapt well to with agriculture and 

livestock. 

And I greatly appreciate that there has been that, you know, exemption done so far for the 90 days, but we are coming up on 

March 18th here, where, if nothing is done to further that exemption or have a—or, you know, the waiver, and get to an exemption 

status, then March 19th there is going to be a lot of haulers that 

have really no way to do this right. 

And we come down again to the unique situation that—of hauling livestock or—maybe we can even talk about hazardous materials, or maybe other ag products. But livestock, these are animals 

on the hoof, on the—in a trailer. And because of unknown—you 

know, unknowable conditions, traffic, weather, what have you, they 

got to get A to B. And some of those are very long hauls, and we 

are talking about livestock processing, which seems to be not something that is in everybody’s back yard, due to zoning. Much of this 

has to go on in the Midwest. And, you know, long hauls we are 

talking about. 

So yes, I agree—I saw several colleagues shaking their heads— 

hours of service is a problem. We need flexibility on this. We need 

flexibility. It really works for the drivers and the people that are 

striving to do this and do it well. 

So I would like to ask you, please, really, really look at—and Mr. 

Bost brought up the Motion Picture Association of America has a 

5-year exemption now, and because—my understanding is that 

they do a really good job on their records of duty status, so they 

don’t need the ELD. And so it is also well known that the livestock 

haulers—these are well-trained individuals, because they are hauling very valuable commodities that are perishable, they are animals. They are very well trained, and they have a tiny, tiny percentage of accidents, much lower than the average. 

53 

So we ought to look at that as a—given that good record, that 

they should be able to look at a similar exemption, as the Motion 

Picture Association—at least for this next 2 weeks, since the 18th 

is—they will wake up on the 19th, if there is not an additional 

waiver done, of being either outside the law or endangering their 

animals, or even, you know, themselves, going to have to do some 

things. 

So let me ask you. Can we please look at, in the short term, an 

additional waiver, but a really good, hard look at a 5-year-type exemption, similar to the motion picture industry, which I would submit that the agricultural products have a heck of a lot more value, 

given watching the Oscars the other night, than some of the product coming out of Hollywood. 

Secretary CHAO. I am very sympathetic to this issue, and we are 

very much aware of the March 18th deadline. We, in fact, just had 

a meeting on it yesterday. 

As you pointed out, the hours of service is the issue. And we are 

very much bound, constrained, by legislation and regulations on 

that. 

Mr. LAMALFA. We will work on that side, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CHAO. So—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. But for the short term, this is what we need, you 

know, and—I am sorry, please go on. 

Secretary CHAO. So let me have also Ray Martinez and Cathy 

Gautreaux. We now have two people over there, and they should 

be really paying a visit to all of you—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, maybe—— 

Secretary CHAO [continuing]. To get your input, and also to explain the difficult situation that we find ourselves, and how do we 

go forward. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, I would be happy to help put together a 

group of my colleagues on that, and we can, you know, have a good, 

productive opportunity to speak about that. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Because—and I do appreciate it. Don’t—— 

Secretary CHAO. But we will act before March 18th. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Good. So that—— 

Secretary CHAO. Absolutely. 

Mr. LAMALFA. That is a commitment that we can at least find 

some breathing room for these folks that are—again, have mere 

days left. Because what we are looking at with livestock is very 

unique, and I think that, with the 90 days very valuable to them— 

I had another thought on this, as well. 

Hazardous materials, I have had people speak with me about 

that, they are in that business, too. And we are coming down on 

an hours of service problem. And so, longer term, I hope we can 

work with you on that and get the flexibility, as long as we can get 

our own nonsense of politics around here beyond that. 

I will finish on this. Motor carrier safety, to my knowledge, has 

only had maybe two meetings with folks on this. And I know part 

of the intent originally was that there would be the opportunity to 

have this education back and forth, and I don’t think there has 

54 

been nearly enough with that for—with the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration to have them hear firsthand, better than I 

can illustrate, what they are dealing with on the livestock and 

other ag and things. 

So thank you for listening on that. I appreciate it. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Ms. Wilson 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, and—for holding 

this important hearing. Welcome back, Madam Secretary. 

As you know, U.S. seaports are economic engines that drive 

growth for the Nation. U.S. seaports activity generates more than 

$320 billion a year in Federal, State, and local revenue. Could you 

please address how the President’s infrastructure plan will help 

seaports continue to grow and support the Nation’s economy, and 

specifically how it will help facilitate the modernization of the Nation’s shipping channels? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, the ports are part of the infrastructure. 

And so they are part of the proposals that will be addressed by the 

local and State governments. They are not excluded. 

Ms. WILSON. OK. So you plan to fund projects that have received 

no allocations of Federal funds to date that put forth their own 

money as they partner with cities and States, like the dredge in 

Miami? 

Secretary CHAO. The budgets for the Transportation Department 

will still be ongoing. So whatever monies are there for highways, 

transit, rail, ports are still there. The infrastructure money is on 

top of that. And so the ports have access to TIGER grants, they 

have access to these maritime grants, even. And the INFRA grants, 

as well. 

Ms. WILSON. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. On top of the regular funding that the Department puts out. 

Ms. WILSON. Good, OK. Along with our Nation’s roads and 

bridges, the majority of our public schools are now reaching the 

end of their 40- to 50-year life cycle. America’s public schools are 

the Nation’s second largest public infrastructure investment, after 

highways and bridges. But investments in school infrastructure 

have lagged. 

Sadly, these infrastructure plans make no mention of public 

schools, despite the fact that the President has talked about it. Do 

you feel school facilities should be a part of a comprehensive infrastructure investment package? 

Secretary CHAO. One of the congressmen asked about the hardening of the schools, and what is the Federal role in that. And so 

I spoke on how devastating the recent tragedies have been to our 

Nation, and I said that I will bring that concern back to the White 

House and to the President. He is obviously very concerned about 

this issue. 

I don’t know how this fits, but clearly the hardening of our 

schools is an issue that was discussed in the televised meeting that 

the President had with the survivors, the relatives, and—— 

Ms. WILSON. What I am talking about is—— 

Secretary CHAO. Yes? 

55 

Ms. WILSON [continuing]. Buildings, classrooms, laboratories, 

equipment, learning labs, updating old buildings, not necessarily 

just a hardening. Is that something that you would be—— 

Secretary CHAO. Yes, I don’t know, sorry. 

Ms. WILSON. Is that something that you would bring up, as far 

as a comprehensive infrastructure investment package, schools, 

aging schools that are 50 and 60 years old? 

Secretary CHAO. There are many agencies that are involved in 

this, as I mentioned. I will be more than glad to bring it back to 

the White House. 

Ms. WILSON. OK, thank you. My mantra in Congress has been 

jobs, jobs, jobs, since the first day. And I was pleased to learn that 

the administration’s infrastructure plan contains some workforce 

development proposals, including expanding Pell grants to cover 

short-term certificate programs and increasing apprenticeships. 

However, the details were scant. 

Can you elaborate on the administration’s plan to tackle workforce development? 

Secretary CHAO. We are actually going to be facing a very tight 

market. To build infrastructure is actually quite a skill, it is a 

trade skill that we don’t have enough of, which is why the workforce development and retraining and training provision was put 

into the infrastructure proposal. 

The details are to be fleshed out, in conjunction with the Congress. We sent principles, rather than legislative language, in a 

show of, I think, deference and also partnership with the Hill, that 

we want to work on these things. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. 

Chairman Shuster, I have additional questions. Can I submit 

them? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, you may submit—— 

Ms. WILSON. For the record? For followup? Because we are out 

of time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you—— 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Ms. Wilson. Mr. Westerman 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Chao, for your leadership and for the administration’s focus on infrastructure. Hopefully we can work together to get a good package 

out for the country. 

I represent a rural district in Arkansas with a lot of infrastructure needs. I know that we have to look at all methods in funding 

infrastructure projects. There is really not any private-public partnerships or toll systems that would work on the infrastructure in 

Arkansas. 

But as we look at, you know, one particular project, Interstate 

49 that passes through my district, this is part of an interstate system that reaches from the gulf to Canada. Interstate 49 goes from 

New Orleans up to Kansas City, and then there are two other 

interstate routes, on up to the Canadian border. But if you look at 

that whole transportation corridor, the only part that is not finished is Interstate 49 in western Arkansas. 

56 

It is about a $3.2 billion project. It is not just critical for my district and our State, but it is critical for that whole region of the 

country, and I would say the whole country, as we see more goods 

moving back and forth to the gulf and to Canada. 

So, my question on that is how do we—when we get into these 

infrastructure projects, how do we make the case for the importance of that project? Is that one that you are aware of? And is 

there—— 

Secretary CHAO. Recognizing the unique needs of rural America, 

the infrastructure bill does have a provision that addresses just infrastructure in rural areas. And that is about 20 percent of the 

Federal funds. And it will be done on a formula basis, 90 percent 

of it. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So of the $50 billion that I believe you have 

proposed—— 

Secretary CHAO. $40 billion would be by formula. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. OK. So that is—— 

Secretary CHAO. And there was some disagreement as to how 

that formula would go, and we are very open to discussing it. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Yes. So we would want to work with you on the 

formula, and how that affects rural areas. 

You know, there is also another interstate, I–69, that goes from 

Houston to Detroit. There is less of that interstate system that is 

completed, but I know there is parts of it that go through Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky. And, you know, I would advocate strongly for Interstate 69 in those other States, because until 

the whole corridor is complete, it doesn’t do a lot of good for the 

areas that could benefit from it. 

Also, I know this might be an area that—from some of your previous comments, but on the navigable waterways, the McClellanKerr River Navigation System on the Arkansas River is in need of 

repair. There is a 12-foot channel project that would take a lot of 

traffic off of the interstate system. The operators on that river have 

already self-imposed a 45-percent increase on their fuel tax. But 

how do we get more attention and funding on these inland waterways? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, thank you very much for bringing it to my 

attention. And a lot of it is actually the Army Corps of Engineers. 

It doesn’t even go through the Maritime Administration. So 

MARAD used to have a Deputy Administrator for inland waterways. And I have come back, 26 years later, and I don’t know 

where that position went. 

So it is important, and we need to talk more about it. We would 

be more than glad to work with you on it. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Yes, maybe we can work together with the 

Corps to make sure that these—you know, some of these structures 

have outlived their useful life. And 1 failure on 1 of those 13 locks 

and dams could shut down a lot of river traffic, disrupt the economy, and put a lot more trucks out on the interstate. 

It is a big country, you have got a lot of things to look over. And 

I just want to offer that if there is any way that me or my office 

can help, please reach out to us. And thank you again for being 

here. 

I yield back. 

57 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you for your offer. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. DeSaulnier is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My light bulb is 

out. I apologize, Madam Secretary. 

I just want to start by saying one of the reasons I really wanted 

to be on this committee is its reputation as being bipartisan. And 

certainly you understand the nature of a bipartisan approach when 

it comes to this country’s infrastructure. I fear, with this particular 

initiative—and to be honest, Madam Secretary, with the tone of 

this hearing—we are doing great damage to that history of bipartisanship, with that just as an observation and as an admonition 

maybe to all of us that we should refocus on what I think was historically the spirit of this committee. 

And I will go back. I remember when my dad was a Republican 

member of the Massachusetts State Legislature, and he had a close 

friendship with Governor Volpe, who became the first Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, and the second Secretary of Transportation. He worked for President Eisenhower and 

President Nixon and President Ford in those positions. And he actually advocated for raising taxes, because he knew he had to raise 

taxes and develop revenue, real revenue, as well as making improvements as—and I agree with you, there are regulatory and administrative improvements we can do. 

I look at States like California, where I am from. We are trying 

to copy the Department of Transportation in Washington. It has 

done a remarkable job in Minnesota and Massachusetts, and I have 

tried to engage with some of your staff as to how we could use 

those laboratories of invention at the State level in that regard. So 

I do think there are opportunities. However, I think you have to 

be realistic about what the actual benefit will be. 

So, my two questions. First is about what certainly seems to me, 

representing a largely suburban district in the bay area, where 70 

percent of my constituents travel out of my district to get to work, 

where our congestion has increased by 80 percent in just 5 years 

because of our economy—the GDP in the bay area grew by 11.7 

percent in 2015, and it has put enormous pressure on our infrastructure. And we were hoping for some support from the administration in this regard. I see this as more of an attack on urban and 

suburban commuters. It certainly seems to prejudice towards rural 

commuters, or rural users. 

And on the history of SB 1, as my colleague from southern California pointed out you are going to look at, I will just give you a 

little history, having been involved in that before I came to Congress as chair of the transportation committee in both the assembly 

and the senate. When that passed, it had bipartisan support. It 

raised the gas tax, it raised the vehicle license fee. And one of the 

key supporters of that was Senator Cannella from northern San 

Joaquin Valley, the same area that my friend, Congressman 

Denham, represents. So he voted for that, because he knew he had 

to identify revenue for his suburban commuters to reach into Silicon Valley and San Francisco. 

So my first question—I am going to give you both these questions 

so you can use time to answer both of them—is this seems like an 

58 

attack on suburban commuters. We have some of the largest supercommutes in the bay area. And DC and northern Virginia has similar large super-commutes, people taking an hour and a half to 2 

hours each way, because of the cost of housing and other reasons, 

to commute. There doesn’t seem to be, other than the requirement 

for those commuters to raise their own tax, the State and local 

taxes, to pay for this with very little support from the Federal Government. 

So, first question is could you answer that challenge, or that perception? 

And the second one—and I think a more important question—I 

have is you were quoted on March 29th saying—and I read in 

quotes of 2017—‘‘The problem is not money, it is the delays caused 

by the Government permitting process that hold up projects for 

years, even decades, making them risky investments.’’ 

And then in 2016, the U.S. Department of the Treasury found in 

a commissioned report, ‘‘A lack of public funding is by far the most 

common factor hindering the completion of transportation and 

water infrastructure projects.’’ 

So my two questions are answer the suburban-urban—seems like 

targeted lack of support, and then this—your quote saying, well, if 

we just had regulatory reform and permitting process reform, but 

your department is saying the opposite. And if you could answer 

those two questions, I would be appreciative. 

Secretary CHAO. First of all, thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. Number one, and I say this with great respect 

and with no intention to anger, that this is an attack on suburbia, 

suburban areas, which is not true, because the question can actually be turned around. For years and years and years, for decades, 

rural America has been ignored and forgotten. And so this infrastructure proposal tries to address the needs in rural America. 

Number two, Marin County, I should not have singled them out 

because I would probably anger them, but some of these projects 

that we are talking about are in the richest areas of the country. 

And we have the rest of the country subsidizing them. 

My quote about the problem is not funding, I think the problem 

is not funding, if we allow the private sector to fully participate. 

But in the years hence we have certainly discovered that there are 

Members of Congress who don’t want to rely too much on publicprivate partnerships. If they don’t want to rely too much on publicprivate partnerships, then funding is a problem. And the publicprivate partnerships, allowing the private sector, allowing the pension funds to come in and invest in public infrastructure was a way 

to address the funding gap. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank 

you, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. I just say I am disappointed in your response. 

You are making this more of a partisan issue than it should be. 

Secretary CHAO. I am not making—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Secretary CHAO. My whole background has never been partisan. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

59 

Secretary CHAO. But it seems that whenever I say something 

that people don’t like to hear, I am accused of partisanship. I think 

that is highly unfair. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady. With that, Mr. Weber is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Madam Chao, Secretary Chao, thank you for being 

here. You came to Beaumont, which is in my district, which, by the 

way, is not partisan. So thank you for doing that. We appreciate 

that, I think the week my dad died, and I could not be there, and 

so I hope you will come back. 

I want to address a question about TIGER grants, if I may. 

Beaumont moves more military personnel and equipment than— 

the Port of Beaumont—than any other port in the country. 

And I want to read something that the Army Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, said in his first major address. He said, ‘‘Readiness for ground combat is—and will remain—the U.S. Army’s number one priority.’’ An article on the U.S. Army’s website goes on to 

say, ‘‘Readiness is the ability of the Army and its sister services to 

respond to any situation at any time with effective force, and requires not only trained troops, but an effective transportation infrastructure capable of supplying their needs, wherever and whenever 

they operate.’’ 

Critical to this is port capacity. Of course, that is the Army. And 

so I would argue that Beaumont is extremely important, from a national—the Port of Beaumont—from a national security perspective. 

In the issue of TIGER grants, do you think, Madam Secretary, 

that maybe when TIGER grants are being considered, that national 

security and the readiness that General Milley talked about should 

be considered in awarding TIGER grants? 

Secretary CHAO. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. 

Secretary CHAO. And I will take a look at it. 

Mr. WEBER. All right. 

Secretary CHAO. I was not aware of that. So let me take a look 

at it. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, let me say that our area was ground zero for 

Hurricane Harvey flooding, the first three coastal counties of 

Texas: Jefferson County, Galveston County, and the southern half 

of Brazoria County. We have got two ports over in Jefferson County. Both of them are among the strategic seaports, been recognized 

as strategic seaports, Port of Beaumont, Port of Port Arthur. Neither port in southeast Texas, when it comes to Federal grants— 

they have just been ignored over the years. 

So my question is, you know, could you take a look at that? The 

Sabine-Neches Waterway, which those two ports are on, is the second largest waterway in the Gulf of Mexico, second only to the Mississippi River, one of the most vital waterways in the Nation. Sixty 

percent of the Nation’s jet fuel is produced in our district. Almost 

90 percent of the Nation’s LNG is exported out of the SabineNeches Waterway. It is huge, when it comes to national security, 

and even to energy. 

Noting the fact that there has been a lot of Harvey destruction 

there on the gulf coast of Texas, we would like to see you all have 

60 

a policy of awarding TIGER grants, where you would only just put 

one TIGER grant in one area, and one—but in a region maybe you 

could consider more than one TIGER grant. And maybe you might 

even consider the fact of the devastation from the recent Hurricane 

Harvey and others—I realize there is others around the country. Of 

course, this is my district. 

So we would love to see you consider that maybe USDOT should 

provide assistance through the TIGER and even the INFRA programs for the region’s infrastructure. 

Applications and geographic locations impacted by natural disasters, we believe, should not be restricted to just one award per geographic location. Much of the southeast area—not just Jefferson 

County, but Galveston County and the southern half of Brazoria 

County, Port of Freeport was hit hard by Harvey. So we would like 

to have some conversation with someone from your office about 

maybe looking at the way those TIGER grants are awarded, and 

perhaps talking about the infrastructure here on the gulf coast of 

Texas that is so vital to energy, so vital to military readiness, and 

we would love to have the name of somebody in your office to reach 

out to so that we could have that discussion. 

Would you be open to, number one, having your staff look at 

it—— 

Secretary CHAO. Absolutely. 

Mr. WEBER [continuing]. And, number two, getting back with us 

on it? 

Secretary CHAO. Sure, we will be glad to set that up. 

Mr. WEBER. That is easy enough. And I appreciate you being 

here, because Harvey was very, very nonpartisan, and you guys 

helping us would help everybody. And we appreciate you. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Cohen is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for having the 

hearing. 

And Secretary Chao, it is nice to have you here and back in Government service. I thank you for your past service. 

In 2016 I wrote to Secretary Foxx in support of the Tennessee 

Department of Transportation’s application for what was then 

called a FASTLANE [Fostering Advancements in Shipping and 

Transportation for the Long-Term Achievement of National Efficiencies] grant for roadway improvements along the Lamar Avenue—not named for Lamar Alexander, but strongly supported by 

Lamar Alexander—corridor in Memphis. Are you familiar with the 

Lamar Avenue corridor project, by chance? 

Secretary CHAO. I am not. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, not kind of surprised that you aren’t, because 

it is a local issue. But it is very important, nationally, as well. 

Memphis, as you may well know, is known as not only the basketball school that occasionally beats Louisville, but also as America’s distribution hub. We are home to the global headquarters of 

FedEx and a great airport, five Class I railroads, and one of the 

largest inland ports in America along the river, Mississippi River. 

In short, Memphis has one of the Nation’s most significant freight 

61 

corridors, and substantial importance to the national cargo network 

and the national economy. 

There is severe congestion along Lamar Avenue, where there is 

a program right now with BNSF Railway and a multimodal corridor. And the lack of sufficient roadway there, the trucks are just 

backed up forever. And bad traffic, but also bad for the truckers 

to be able to get their cargo to the BNSF Railway and be loaded 

on to the trains, hurts the transportation of American goods. It 

hurts the BNSF multimodal corridor, and the Memphis International Airport right nearby, the second busiest cargo airport in 

the United States. 

So this is important to the Nation. According to the Federal 

Highway Administration, the multimodal freight network there directly supports millions of U.S. jobs, and moves 55 million tons of 

jobs worth over $49 billion daily. System strains and inefficiencies, 

including congestion, is estimated to cost $1 trillion annually: 7 

percent of the U.S. economic output. 

Madam Secretary, at the beginning of the new administration 

your agency revamped existing programs in the FASTLANE grant 

program, now known as the INFRA grant program. What is the 

general purpose or mission of INFRA grants? And how would the 

Lamar Avenue corridor proposal fit into that? 

Secretary CHAO. I don’t know, because I am not in the processing 

or the deliberative end of cuts to all of these grants. So I am not 

aware of that. 

The INFRA grants are recast to add in economic development as 

one of the criteria, as well. So let me take a look at that. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Secretary CHAO. And I will be more than glad to get back to you. 

Mr. COHEN. If you would, I would appreciate it. Senators Alexander and Corker both are very supportive. I am sure Representative Kustoff is, as well, and Governor Haslam was. It came from 

the Department of Transportation, who made the request. 

Is there anything you know of, offhand, or somebody on your 

staff with you that you can advise us on possibly making a more 

compelling case for the future consideration of this grant? 

Secretary CHAO. Let me check up on what the status is. And 

again, I will be more than glad to get back to you. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Secretary CHAO. And you should also know what some of the concerns are, sure. 

Mr. COHEN. And then I have questions here at the end. And I 

am surprised this hasn’t been asked yet. What is your opinion of 

the NCAA’s infractions on the University of Louisville basketball 

program? 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary CHAO. Oh, I am in such big trouble. It has been very 

sad. It has been really, really sad. 

Mr. COHEN. Was the NCAA wrong to punish Louisville like they 

did, or were they right? 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary CHAO. I hope I can get a pass on that, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. Well, they did it—— 

62 

Secretary CHAO. It has been very sad for the whole community. 

Mr. COHEN. They did it to Memphis first with Calipari. And with 

Pitino you got it second. So I feel your pain. I see that banner up 

in the FedExForum, even though it is not there, and you will be 

able to see it in the Yum! Center, because it’ll be there, even 

though it is not there. 

Secretary CHAO. There have been wonderful young men who 

played in that game, and now they are not going to have their—— 

Mr. COHEN. Good luck in the tournament. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. Now I will recognize Ms. 

Plaskett for 5 minutes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. Thank you, Secretary Chao, for being here this afternoon with us. And I especially want to thank you for coming to the 

Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and to all the places that you visited that have been affected by the 2017 hurricane season. 

There has been much discussion in this hearing about, in particular, the $50 billion rural infrastructure program. And one of the 

questions that I have relates to—in that program it states that portion of the rural infrastructure program funds will be set aside for 

Tribal infrastructure and Territorial infrastructure with the remainder available to the States. 

Now, the U.S. Territories have been subjected to substantial infrastructure funding cuts over the last 25 years, while the 50 

States and the District of Columbia have received increases. These 

cuts have resulted in deterioration of our public highway system, 

enormous damage to our ports. I know that you have been a frequent visitor to the U.S. Virgin Islands, and I know that our Governor and others have spoken with you about that issue. 

How much of the $50 billion in rural infrastructure program 

funding does the administration expect to set aside for Territorial 

infrastructure, and how might that set-aside for Territorial infrastructure be apportioned among the Territories? 

Secretary CHAO. That is a very good question. I don’t know. And 

I certainly think that your concerns are very reasonable. And so we 

have worked on other things in the past, especially in the aftermath of the hurricanes. So we look forward to working with you 

on that, as well. 

Ms. PLASKETT. I would appreciate that. Because, as you know— 

and you may have seen and others in your agency have also seen— 

that much of the damage that we sustained, particularly with our 

roadways that are right onto—right abutting the waterways, that 

there was—a substantial deterioration occurred because we did not 

have funding over a protracted period of time to support our highway system. And that increase would really be important to us. We 

have experienced enormous decreases over the years, along with 

the other Territories: Guam, Northern Marianas, and Puerto Rico, 

as well. 

Do you know how ‘‘rural’’ is going to be defined for purposes of 

the rural transportation infrastructure program? Will it be based 

on lane miles, or will it be based on population? 

63 

Secretary CHAO. I think that is a very good question, as well. 

There is a certain definition to that. And I have been asked this, 

and I have forgotten it. So let—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. And will—— 

Secretary CHAO. Let me get back to you on that. 

Ms. PLASKETT [continuing]. Your agency be the primary lead 

in—— 

Secretary CHAO. No. 

Ms. PLASKETT [continuing]. Administering that, or will the Department of Agriculture or others—how will that be determined? 

Who will determine how that funding is distributed? 

Secretary CHAO. As of now it is primarily the Department of Agriculture. 

Ms. PLASKETT. OK, thank you. Good for me, I sit on the Committee on Agriculture, as well. So I will tag team you guys on that 

one. 

But, you know, as we talk about these things, the last thing I 

wanted to talk with you about was resiliency. Does the White 

House infrastructure plan include considerations particularly for 

States and other areas to have found that the Federal investment 

on hazard mitigation has a six-to-one return on investment? 

So working on resiliency is really important for the fiscal responsibility of this Nation. Are there opportunities for new funding for 

new infrastructure to incentivize areas in resiliency? 

Secretary CHAO. You make a very good point. As of now, I think, 

if anything, there is a bias toward building new structures, rather 

than maintenance. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And in that resiliency, one of the things, as well 

as this Federal program that you were discussing, much of it is to 

incentivize local and municipal areas. I know that the chairman 

says that in Pennsylvania they have expended all of their resources 

at the State level and the local level to do the matching that is necessary for the Federal Government. In the Virgin Islands, as well 

as in Puerto Rico, I know that we are already at deficit budgets. 

And so it will be really difficult for us to provide that match. 

As well as are there mechanisms in your thought, in the thought 

of the administration or the President, in how we can add additional incentives to bring private investment to create public-private partnerships? 

Secretary CHAO. Well, the U.S. Virgin Islands would be eligible 

for rural, that rural title. The Virgin Islands will be part of that, 

and 40 percent, $40 billion of that will be formula, $10 billion will 

be competitive. We are currently doing the formula on a lane mile 

basis, which, obviously, some people don’t agree with. 

So we will look forward to working with Congress as you rewrite 

this bill, or on addressing these issues. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady. And Madam Secretary, 

thank you so much for being with us today. I appreciate your 

frankness. Again, there are some folks that are going to submit 

questions in writing to you, we would appreciate that response. 

But again, thanks for taking the time, and thanks for your public 

service. Thank you. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. 

64 

Mr. SHUSTER. I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s 

hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in 

writing, and unanimous consent that that record remain open for 

15 days for additional comments and information submitted by 

Members or witnesses to include in the record of today’s hearing. 

The gentlelady from Connecticut is recognized. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank you, Secretary Chao. And we appreciate your persistence and resilience 

under this very long hearing. And thank you and to your staff for 

staying with us here, all the way to the end. We had a record participation, I think, of Members, which, I think, does underscore, 

yes, concerns, but also really a deep desire and commitment to get 

something done for the American people. And we can assure you 

we really do want to figure out a way to get to yes with the administration on something that will be good. 

Secretary CHAO. Well, our intent is absolutely the same. We may 

have differences, but let me please emphasize again we want to 

work with the Congress on a bipartisan basis. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. 

And Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 

enter into the record letters from the following organizations to be 

included as part of today’s hearing record: Advocates for Highway 

and Auto Safety and several other safety advocates; ITS America; 

Alabama Rivers Alliance, and a collection of other environmental 

advocates; Rebuild America’s Schools; a letter from the National 

League of Cities and NATSO; and a letter from the New Democrat 

Coalition. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The letters and statement referenced by Congresswoman Esty are on pages 

101–125.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. And, with that, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

65 


Insert offset folio 5 here 33618.005

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELAINE L. CHAO 

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INRASTRUCTURE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HEARING ON 

Examining the Administration's Infrastructure Proposal 

March 6, 2018 

Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today regarding our new infrastructure initiative. 

Infrastructure is the backbone of our world-class economy-the most productive, flexible, and 

dynamic in the world. It is a key factor in productivity and economic growth, which has provided 

millions of hard working Americans with a standard ofliving that is the envy of the world. Yet 

today, these gains are threatened by aging infrastructure that is increasingly congested, in need of 

repair, and unable to keep pace with technological change. 

The challenges are everywhere. With respect to surface transportation infrastructure, traffic 

congestion and delays cost drivers nearly $160 billion annually. About one-quarter of our 

Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or in need of improvement. More than 20 percent of 

our Nation's roads are in poor condition. And the transportation needs of rural America, which 

account for a disproportionately high percentage of our Nation's highway fatalities, have been 

ignored for too long. 

That's why 12 government agencies have been supporting the President on a comprehensive 

Infrastrncture Initiative, which the President announced as a priority in the 2018 State of the 

Union address. Transportation is just one component. The Initiative includes, but is not limited 

to, drinking and wastewater, energy, broadband and veterans' hospitals as well. It is designed to 

change how infrastructure is designed, built, financed and maintained in communities across the 

country. 

The goal of the President's proposal is to stimulate at least $1.5 trillion in infrastructure 

investment, which includes a minimum of$200 billion in direct Federal funding. The guiding 

principles are to: 1) use Federal dollars as seed money to incentivize infrastructure investment; 2) 

provide for the needs of rural communities; 3) streamline permitting to speed up project delivery; 

and, 4) reduce unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations. In addition, a key element of the 

proposal is to empower decision making at the State and local level, who know best the 

infrastructure needs of their communities. Half of the new infrastructure funds would go towards 

incentivizing new State and local investments in infrastructure. A quarter of the Federal funds 

will be dedicated to addressing rural infrastructure needs, as prioritized by State and local 

leaders. And as a former Secretary of Labor, l"m pleased to note this plan also has a workforce 

component, to help workers access the skills needed to build these new projects. 

We're already applying these principles to one of the Department's major existing infrastructure 

grant programs, Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA). I'm pleased to say communities 
66 


Insert offset folio 6 here 33618.006

have responded positively by modifying their proposals to reflect these new criteria. This 

quarter, the President has generously decided to donate his annual salary to the Department's 

INFRA grant program. INFRA directly reflects the President's priorities by providing dedicated, 

discretionary funding for projects that address critical issues facing our Nation's highways and 

bridges. Under the INFRA program, States and localities that secure some funding or financing 

of their own are given higher priority access to Federal funds. In addition, INFRA also reserves 

at least 25 percent of its funding to be awarded to rural projects. 

The Department is also implementing the President's "One Federal Decision" mandate, which 

will help speed up the delivery of new infrastructure and reduce costs. The new process is 

designed to more effectively and efficiently handle the permitting of complicated, multi-agency 

projects to meet the President's new time line to complete environmental reviews in two years, 

while preserving environmental protections. The Department is working on a new process to 

handle the permitting of complicated, multi-agency projects to meet the President's new 

expedited time line. 

In addition to permitting reform, the Department is doing its part to help grow the economy and 

create jobs through an aggressive regulatory reform agenda. Costs associated with our new 

regulations decreased by $312 million in 2017, and we're on track to decrease these costs by 

$500 million in 2018. So, we are on track to save taxpayers nearly $800 million in regulatory 

burdens in 2017-2018 alone. A new Mercatus study concluded that DOT removed more 

regulatory restrictions than any other cabinet department in the President's first year. 

By incentivizing new investment in infrastructure, eliminating overly burdensome regulations, 

providing support for rural America, and streamlining the permitting process, the Department is 

helping to improve our quality of life and build a brighter future for all Americans. 

Thank you again for the invitation to appear before you today. This Administration welcomes the 

opportunity to work with you on these issues of critical importance to our country's 

infrastructure, so our economy can continue to grow and create good jobs for America's working 

families. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

# 
67 


Insert offset folio 7 here 33618.007

"Examining the Administration's Infrastructure Proposal" 

Tuesday, March 6, 2018, 10:00 a.m. 

House Transportation 

2167 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C . 

.Questions for the Record 

Submitted on behalf of Eric A. "Rick" Crawford (AR-01): 

Madame Secretary, thank you for being here today for this important discussion about our 

Nation's infrastructure. 

I want to ask you specifically about infrastructure in rural America - like my district in 

eastern Arkansas. Historically, rural areas have received fewer infrastructure dollars overall 

than urban and suburban areas, yet rural populations contribute significantly to the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

1. What can Congress do differently in this infrastructure bill to ensure overwhelmingly 

rural districts reap the benefits of this critical federal investment in infrastructure? 

Answer: The Administration's proposal specifically dedicates $50 billion (25 percent 

of overall amount) to enable rural America to address its many infrastructure 

challenges. 80 percent of the .funds will be provided to Governors via formula to.fimd 

their respective States' infrastructure priorities. The remaining 20 percent ofthefimds 

will be used for Performance Grants based on performance criteria. The program also 

will provide a needed boost to tribal and territorial infrastructure. 

2. Given the substantial increase in the use of electric vehicles, what can lawmakers do 

to ensure they are contributing to the Highway Trust Fund equally to gas vehicles? 

Answer: The Department is closely monitoring the Highway Trust Fund. We believe the 

most appropriate time to discuss long-term solutions is during normal reauthorization. 

Submitted on beha(f of Representative Peter A. DeFazio (OR-04): 

1. Trillion Dollar Investment- The White House claims that its proposal will stimulate $1.5 

trillion in new infrastructure spending through a $200 billion federal investment. 

However, an analysis done by the President's alma mater, the University of 

Pennsylvania's Wharton School, estimates that this new federal investment would lead at 

most to an additional $30 billion in slate, local and private spending, or about two percent 

of the amount envisioned by the White House. The Wharton study noted, "Most of the 

grant programs contained in the infrastructure plan fail to provide strong incentives for 

states to invest additional money in public infrastructure.'· The study concludes your plan 

simply shifts slate and local dollars around, but fails to increase the amount of new 

investment. 

a. Given the cuts to infrastructure in the fiscal year 2019 budget proposal, how can you 

disagree with President Trump's alma mater? 
68 


Insert offset folio 8 here 33618.008

Answer: The President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) anaZvzed the Wharton 

report and found the model to be an unsuitable too/for estimating the new investment in 

infrastructure that the President's pian will generate. According to CEA, the study did 

not model the Administration's actual plan and the study's parameter values were 

outdated. 

Cuts that are cited over a 10-year period are particularly inflated by assumptions 

regarding spendingfor certain programs beyond currently authorized levels. For 

example, the Department projects the Highway Trust Fund will remain solvent through 

at least FY2020, and solvency issues be.vond that dates must clearly be addressed. 

The Administration's approach is not simply to askfor money, but to drive 

tran~formational reforms in how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, 

delivered, and maintained. The $200 billion proposed for the Infrastructure Initiative is 

layered on top of existing programs and will be structured to incentivize additional 

State/local/private funding, reduce the costs associated with accepting Federal dollars. 

and ensure that Federal funding is utilized to maximize and significantly increase total 

infrastructure spending. 

b. Please explain to us how you get to $1 .5 trillion from $200 billion. 

Answer: S/00 billion in rederalfunds will go to the competitive Infrastructure 

Incentives Program grants that match up to 20 percent of new revenue generated by the 

applicant that would lead to at least $500 billion and perhaps $800 billion in total new 

investment. Because the Administration recognizes that the infrastructure needs and 

capacities o.frural communities are different, the proposal also allocates $50 billion 

towards capital investments that support projects in rural areas, including US. 

territories and Tribal communities, (!{which $10 billion would be reserved for 

performance-based grants. $20 billion will provide competitive funding for 

transformative technologies and techniques. which could generate up to $80 billion in 

total investment. $14 billion will be used to expand the capacity of existing Federal 

irzfrastructure credit assistance programs. Each dollar of'Federal expenditure can 

support many times that number of dollars o.f new infrastructure investments. One of 

these programs, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 

program. has achieved a leverage ratio of40-to-l. Assuming a slightly smaller ratio 

could add over $500 billion in total investment. Allocating $6 billion to broaden the use 

o.fprivate activity bonds can generate another $70 billion, bringing total new 

investments to well over $1 trillion. Thefinal $10 billion will be used to establish a 

Federal Capital Financing Fund for the purchase o.freal property. These figures also 

ignore the millions o.fdollars we believe will be saved by our reforms to federal review 

and permitting, which increases the impact of our proposal even further. 

2. Passenger Facility Charge Cap- U.S. airports have $10 billion ofunmet infrastructure needs 

each year. Yet, the Administration's proposal fails to increase or eliminate the outdated 

federal cap on the passenger facility charge (PFC). Increasing or eliminating the PFC cap is 

critical to airports financing their significant backlog of infrastructure projects, without 

requiring additional federal spending. Last year, I, along with Congressman Massie (RKY), introduced a bipartisan bill to remove the outdated PFC cap and generate billions 

of dollars in much-needed revenue for our aging airport infrastructure. During your 

testimony before the Committee last June, you assured Congressman Massie that you 

would take a look at our bill. What is the Administration's position on increasing or lifting 

the PFC cap? 
69 


Insert offset folio 9 here 33618.009

Answer: The Administration is committed to working with Congress to enact a law that 

will enable America's builders to construct new, modern, and efficient infrastructure. We 

have shared our ideas with you, and want to work together as legislation moves forward 

3. Aimort Privatization -The Administration's proposal allows all U.S. airports to privatize. 

Under current law, up to 1 Oairports can privatize under a program that has been in place for 

more than 20 years. Yet, few communities have wanted to take advantage of the program. 

As we learned during the Committee's Public-Private Partnership (P3) Panel a few years 

ago, airlines also had little interest in privatized airports because they were worried about 

paying increased fees, and we all know that, ifthe airlines pay more, travelers will get the 

bill. 

a. Given this lack of interest among the aviation community, why do you believe 

airport privatization is a solution to airports' infrastructure needs? 

b. Who, other than Bob Poole and the Administration, thinks airport privatization is a 

good idea? 

Answer: Passenger demandfor air travel continues to grow and will soon outstrip the 

current capacity offacilities. Around the world, countries facing similar problems have 

adopted market-based aviation reforms. Hundreds of airports around the world have 

been partly orfulZv privatized The example ofsuccessful(v privatized major airports 

around the world support the notion that increased private investment in airports will 

allow for improved profitability and efficiency of the nation's airports. 

4. State and Local Revenues- The Administration's proposal envisions $200 billion over 10 

years for a broad swath of infrastructure-transportation, broadband, wastewater, 

drinking water, and federal facilities. This $200 billion of "additional"funding is offset 

by the President's Budget, which cuts more than $168 billion from existing inlrastructure 

investment over the same I 0-year period. Thus, the President proposes very little, if any, 

''new" federal money. Your proposal also supports bringing in new private capital to 

invest in transportation, where warranted. However, we know that P3s are only 

successful if there is sufficient public money on the table to make a deal come together. 

a. Is it your intention to place the full burden of bringing new transportation and 

infi·astructure dollars to the table on states and local governments? If you don't have 

a net increase in federal funds, then states alone have to try to leverage private 

capital. Do you think this is feasible? 

Answer: The Administration's approach is not simply to askfor money, but to drive 

rransformational reforms in how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, 

delivered, and maintained The $200 billion proposed for the Infrastructure Initiative is 

layered on top of existing programs and will be structured to incentivize additional 

State/locallprivatefimding, reduce the costs associated with accepting Federal dollars, 

and ensure that Federal funding is utilized to maximize and significantly increase total 

injrastructure spending 

We recognize that private investment won't always make sense for every type ()f project 

in every state. That is why the Initiative includes a robust Federal funding program for 

infrastructure in rural areas. In addition to the funding components of the plan. 

provisions ji1r infrastructure improvement include many policy provisions to empower 
70 


Insert offset folio 10 here 33618.010

State and local officials in how they manage existing assets and develop new assets. 

b. Do you agree that states have a limited ability to tax and toll their constituents, 

making your plan unsustainable? 

Answer: A.1any Stales have raised new revenues for transportation investments in recent 

years, and many more are currently considering such actions. For example, according 

to the Pew Charitable Trusts. more than half the Slates raised their gas tax between 

2012 and 2017. 

In addition, one form of private investment, public-private partnerships, or P3s, are 

about much more than toll roads. They have also proven successfi•lfor projects that are 

non-tolled or otherwise have insufficient or uncertain project-related revenue streams. 

Availability payments are a way to support non-tolled or tolled projects. Under this 

model. the private partner receives scheduled payments from the project sponsor over 

the period of the contract. Usually the payments are tied to completing construction 

milestones or for meeting operations and maintenance performance standards. 

This type ofarrangement can work just as well in rural areas as in urban areas. In 

recent years, rural P 3 projects in Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania have all used 

availability payments. 

5. Amtrak Funding- In 2017, there were 31.7million trips taken on Amtrak's nationwide rail 

network. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC), North America's busiest rail line, operates 

approximately 2,200 Amtrak, commuter, and freight trains over some portion of 

Washington-Boston route each day. The NEC Commission estimates that a loss of all 

Northeast Corridor services forjust one day could cost the economy an estimated 

$100 million. Amtrak service is a vital asset for businesses, workers, and the traveling 

public.lnstead of investing in our passenger rail network, the President'sbudget proposes to 

cut federal funding for Amtrak by 54 percent, which according to Amtrak CEO Richard 

Anderson would likely shutdown the railroad. My understanding is that this 

Administration wants to use those cuts to pay for Trump's Infrastructure Plan. Do you 

think getting rid of Amtrak will benefit American workers and the travelling public? 

~ In 2008 Congress required States to assume a larger role in financially 

supporting Amtrak State-Supported services and commuter rail services that operate over 

the Northeast Corridor. As a result of these reforms, there is now increased particzjmtion 

and accountability in the delivery of State-Supported services and Northeast Corridor 

infrastructure improvements. 

In FY 2017, long-distance routes accountedfor approximately $500 million in Operating 

losses for Amtrak. This is because ridership is considerably lower than urban routesmaking the per passenger costs much higher. To address these losses. the FY 2019 

President's Budget proposes a significant restructuring to the Amtrak network such that 

States assume responsibilityfor half of the operating costs ofAmtrak Long Distance trains 

that benefit their localities. This proposal is one of many ideas included in the President's 

Budget to rationalize the Amtrak system, improve efficiency. and reduce costs. 

This cost-sharing proposal will reduce the Federal subsidy that supports these routes, and 

enable States to play a larger role in shaping the delivery of Long Distance train service. 
71 


Insert offset folio 11 here 33618.011

6. Buy America - I am concerned with how the Department of Transportation (DOT) is 

handling Buy America waiver requests. Tue Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) 

alone has hundreds of pending waiver requests -many of which were applied for over a 

year ago. Make no mistake -I am a strong proponent of Buy America laws and want to 

ensure that federal transportation dollars utilize the maximum amount of domestic 

content. I can understand if DOT is reviewing the waiver process, particularly in light of 

the President's April 2017 Executive Order on Buy America, which calls on each agency 

to "scrupulously monitor, enforce, and comply with Buy American laws, to the extent 

they apply, and minimize the use of waivers." However, waiver authority exists in 

current law in order to ensure that project sponsors can apply for and utilize waivers 

when they are warranted. This provision of law is not meant to unnecessarily delay 

projects. Project sponsors deserve feedback and communication from DOT-otherwise. 

this ties up federal funds with no timeline for a resolution. 

a. Is DOT undertaking a review of the waiver process? 

b. If so, will DOT brief Members of this Committee on the status? 

c. Can you explain why waiver processing has ground to a halt, and why project 

sponsors are hearing nothing from your Department? 

Answer: On April !8, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (EO) 13788, Buy 

American and Hire American, to ensure that Federal procurement and Federal assistance 

awards maximize the use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States, 

including iron, steel, and manufactured goods. The EO required all Federal agencies to 

assess the compliance with existing Buy American laws and to develop and propose policies 

to strengthen Buy America implementation and compliance. 

Pursuant to the EO, and existing statute, DOT is working closely with its grantees and 

stakeholders to ensure that domestic content is maximized in all projects utilizing Federal 

assistance. DOT's modal administrations work with project sponsors to apply their 

statutory Buy America requirements. As part o.fthis process. DOT's modal administrations 

help project .1ponsors to identifY and locate potential domestic manufacturers for products 

and materials necessary to complete projects. 

Both Title 23 and Title 49 provide a process for waiving Buy America requirements. In 

cases where a waiver of the Buy America requirements may be applicable, DOT solicits 

public comment through its website, and in some cases, a Federal Register notice on 

whether granting a waiver is appropriate. 

DOT is committed to enforcing Buy America laws and ensuring that domestic content is 

maximized. Since this Administration took (i[fice, DOT has issuedfewer Buy America 

waivers than it had in recent years. 

7. Reduced Federal Investment -According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 

federal investment for infrastructure has decreased substantially: from 2003 to 20 14. 

there was a 19 percent decrease in federal spending adjusted for inf1ation, while state and 

local governments continue to spend far more. CBO data further shows that state and 

local investment is consistently above federal investment levels, and investment levels 

move in tandem - in other words, as federal investment levels rise, state and local 

investment levels go even higher. Given the fact that federal revenues have been 

declining for transportation since 2003, how does the Trump plan boost investment in 
72 


Insert offset folio 12 here 33618.012

infrastructure if it just furthers this decline in federal share? 

Answer: The Administration's plan is in addition to existingfimding programs and 

proposes significant Federalfundingfor infrastructure. We lookforward to engaging with 

Congress on a bipartisan basis in order to address the country's significant infrastructure 

needs. 

8. Limiting Public Participation - In my opinion, the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) serves two important functions. First, the environmental review component, and 

second, the opportunity for the public to provide input on the impact of a proposal. In 

fact, public input is a fundamental strength ofNEPA in that it requires agencies to 

provide citizens with two key opportunities for meaningful participation: first, when an 

agency begins a NEPA analysis, and second, when a NEPA document in released for 

public review and comment. 

a. Do you believe the public deserves a robust opportunity to review and provide input 

into public infrastructure projects? 

~ It is the policy of the Administration that public involvement and a systematic 

interdisciplinary approach be essential parts of the development processfor proposed 

actions. 

b. If so, why does your proposal shorten the NEPA process and limit public input? 

Answer: All Department projects require NEPA documentation, analysis, or review. 

Under NEPA, the level of review required depends on the potential significance of the 

environmental effects of the project. Executive Order (EO) 13807 establishes a One 

Federal Decision policyfor the environmental review and permitting process for major 

infrastructure projects. One Federal Decision means that each major infi·astructure 

project has one lead Federal agency which is responsible for navigating the project 

through the Federal environmental review and permitting process. It does not mean 

that other agencies are excludedfrom review. The Administration's Infrastructure 

Initiative build~ on the EO with a One Agency, One Decision proposal. This proposal 

places a lime limit on the Federal Government's completion of the review process. But 

again. it does not exclude agencies from review. 

9. Maritime and Port Infrastructure Needs - According to the DOT's Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, the total value of marine freight is predicted to increase by 43 

percent domestically and 67 percent internationally between 2010 and 2020. Ferry 

passenger transport is experiencing rapid growth in response to land-transport 

congestion. These increasing demands cannot be met safely, efficiently and reliably with 

maritime and port infrastructure that the American Society of Civil Engineer's in 2017 

gave a paltry grade of C+. Yet, the Administration's infrastructure proposal is devoid of 

any mention of maritime infrastructure (e.g., vessels, shipyards, ports and marine 

terminals, etc .. ) despite the critical role this infrastructure plays in facilitating the foreign 

commerce ofthe United States. 

a. Why has the Administration turned away from addressing the pressing need to 

significantly upgrade U.S. maritime infrastructure? 

Answer: The Administration views our ports as an integral part of our national 

transportation system, and, as such, ports are spec(fically named as eligible for an 
73 


Insert offset folio 13 here 33618.013

increasing number of Federal assistance programs. Ports compete successfullyfor 

US. Department of Transportation based discretionary grant programs such as 

TIGER. INFRA, Marine Highways, and CMAQ; technology programs such as 

ATCA1TD and the ITS-JPO; and federal financing programs such as TIFIA and 

RRIF1 Additionally. the Maritime Administration works with port authorities, State 

Departments of Transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to 

encourage inclusion of ports in all regional freight planning effort. Port planning 

toolkit modules continue to be developed in concert with the port industry, designed to 

fill a gap in port and intermodal infrastructure planning educational tools. These are 

made available to ports at no charge. Thirty-eight states have navigable waterways 

and ports within their boundaries, and the Department works with each of these. 

b. Considering the economic importance of maritime infrastructure, why is maritime 

infrastructure less deserving? 

Answer: As stated above, the Administration considers ports to be key components of 

our infrastructure, necessaryjiw our economy. 

c. Are there initiatives that you plan to undertake to address these needs? 

Answer: The Maritime Administration (MARA D) has data-mined over 600 requests 

for infrastructure assistance received from ports and understands regional needs. 

Based on this information, strategic initiatives have been developed resulting in both 

technical assistance and outreach provided to the maritime industry by the Agency 

throughout the year. Examples of recent results include: a cooperative effort between 

MARAD, FHWA and the DOT's ITS-JPO addressing Jason ·sLaw related truck 

parking needs near port gates. Another initiative is underway by MARAD to plot all 

ports, by cargo type, in a GIS based system, to better understand and inform future 

policy decisions related to regional port needs by industry. Once Phase I is complete, 

the system will layer all rail and road connectors[() all ports. This system will be 

made available to the public for planning purposes, and will support requests to 

relieve regional chokepoints in the system. A third example of an effort that is in 

progress is development of a planning tool addressing Cyber Security threats at ports. 

This tool will enable ports to more easily identify and plan for impacts from Cyberattach, and is envisioned to be ofparticular value to small and medium ports that may 

lack in house experti!w or resources to address has is i.r::;t.,·ues. 

l 0. Real Infrastructure Program- The Administration's Infrastructure plan sets aside $40 billion 

for rural grants with the money allocated to the Governor of each state using a formula that 

uses rural road lane miles and rural population "adjusted to retlect policy objectives". 

a. What 'policy objectives" does the Administration intend to meet by changing the 

rural population definition used by the Census Bureau? 

b. Will you guarantee that these 'policy objectives" arc not politically motivated, and 

are not intended to shift funding to rural areas that supported the President compared 

to rural areas that did not? 

1 Transportation Infrastructure Generating Economic Recovery {TIGER), Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRAL 

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ), Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies 

Deployment Program (ATCMTD). Intelligent Transportation System- Joint Program Office (ITS-JPO), Transportation 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) 
74 


Insert offset folio 14 here 33618.014

Answer: The Administration is veryfocused on the unique infrastructure needs 

ofrural America. The intention of the rural program is to provide needed resources to 

areas that are clearly rural in terms ofproximity to urban areas and 

population density. The Administration would be happy to work with Congress as it 

develops aformula that ensures rural funding is provided to the rural areas that need it 

most. 

Submitted on behalf of Congressman Bob Gibbs (OH-07): 

Secretary Chao, traditionally Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permits do not fall under 

DOT's jurisdiction, but there have been cases of permits for road construction being 

effectively vetoed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refusing to approve or 

deny the permit application. 

I. Would the reforms called for in the President's infrastructure plan insure that these 

decisions are handled with due process and in an objective and timely manner, 

especially given that we will sec an increase in infrastructure projects after the 

passage of this package? 

Answer: The plan consolidates authority to make jurisdictional determinations for 404 

permits. I defer this question to the EPA and the US. Army Corp of Engineers. 

The costs and delays associated with CW A Section 404 permitting -particularly with 

respect to mitigation requirements and jurisdictional determinations -comprise a 

disproportionately large part of infrastructure costs. 

2. Would the President's infrastructure plan provide you with additional authority to 

address this issue nationwide? How would you utilize the President's proposed plan to 

address systematic, nationwide problems with the 404 program? 

~ I defer this question to the EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 

As the President outlined in his infrastructure plan, greater efficiency is needed in the permitting 

process-specitically for CWA provisions, some of which are needed for infrastructure projectsand calls for removing EPA's 404 veto authority and clarifying the Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) authority for making finaljurisdictional determinations. 

3. lfCongress implements these reforms, would this eliminate future uncertainty of 

CWA Section 404 permits being preemptively or retroactively vetoed? Would it also 

allow for the continued environmental protections provided by the Section 404(b )(1) 

guidelines and 40 I water quality certification process? 

Answer: The plan consolidates authority to make jurisdictional determinations for 

404 permits. l defer this question to the EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 

Submitted on beha(f of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (FX-30): 

I. Road Signs - After the FHWA's abrupt cancellation of 28 states' interim approval to 

usc Clearview font on road signs, FHWA issued a Request for Information (RFI) 

seeking quantitative information related to the use of Clcarview font. 
75 


Insert offset folio 15 here 33618.015

a. Based on the information received through the RFI, is FHW A reconsidering its 

decision to terminate the use of Clcarview font? 

b. What is the timeline for restoring this approval to our states and municipalities? 

Answer: Division L, Section 125 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. enacted 

March 23, 2018. requires FHWA to reinstate Interim Approval IA-5for the provisional 

use of the alternate letter style known as Clearview as it existed before its 

termination. FHWA will comply with this requirement shortly. 

Submitted on behalf ()(Congressman Mark Meadows (NC-11): 

1. The Infrastructure Initiative states, 'the Administration's goal is to seck long-term 

reforms on how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, delivered, and maintained I 

." As you are aware, Executive Order No. 12866 "directed agencies, whenever 

feasible, to specify performance ob_jectives, rather than behavior, in crafting new 2 

regulations." A recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

states that although "agencies may design their regulations in different ways to 

achieve intended policy outcomes," agency "officials reported a preference for 3 

'performance' designs that establish an outcome ... " 

'FACT Sheet 2018 Budget: Infrastructure Initiative: 

(https i /w\vw. whitehouse.gov/sites/\vhitehouse.govifi!es/omb/budget/fi'20 18/fact sheets/20 18%20 Budgct%20Fact% 20Sheet 

Infrastructure%20Initiative.pdt). 

2 Executive Order 12866ofSeptember 30, 1993: (https://\\'\Vw.archives.gov/files/fCderal-rcgister/executive- orders/pdf/ 

l2866.pdt). 

3 Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Regulatory AtTairsand Federal Management Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. 'Key Consideration for Agency Design and Enforcement Decisions." October 2017. 

GA0-18-22: (https:'lwww .gao.gov/assets/690/687875.pdf). 

a. Do you believe the usc of outcome-based performance standards by DOT will 

be less prescriptive, as required by Executive Order 12866, while facilitating 

less costly, safer regulatory outcomes that do not stifle innovation? 

Answer: Yes, outcome-based performance standards, rather than prescriptive 

standards. will result in less costly, safer regulations, as they provide regulated 

entities with more options to ensure safety, which result in regulated entities 

and others being incentivized to .find new and better ways to comply with 

regulations. 

b. Will your agency apply outcome-based performance standards to implement 

its infrastructure initiative? 

Answer: Yes, we will apply outcome-based performance standards to the 

extent feasible. 

c. What steps is DOT taking to fully comply with the performance-based 

regulatory reform directives contained in Executive Order 12866 and 

subsequent orders? 
76 


Insert offset folio 16 here 33618.016

~ The Department has formed a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) 

and named a regulatory reform office (RRO) to alleviate unnecessary 

regulatory burdens. As a result, there has been a significant reduction in 

regulatory costs imposed on the public by the Department's 

rule makings. Rules issued under this Administration in fiscal year 2017 have 

resulted in $3I2 million in net present value cost savings without compromising 

the Department's core safety mission. This reduction in regulatory costs was 

accompanied by a significant increase in deregulatory actions undertaken by 

the Department, as reflected in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Unified Agenda, which OMB 

compiles twice annually. synthesizes the regulatory agenda(){ each Federal 

entity into one Government-wide plan. Under the RRTF's direction, the 

number of deregulatory actions in the Spring 20I7 Unified Agenda increased to 

36 percent of total DOTrulemakings and increased again in the Fall 20I7 

Unified Agenda to 48 percent ()f the total DOT rulemakings. 

2. Given DOT's repeated statements in favor of technology neutrality, what steps is 

DOT taking to reverse past efforts of the agency to lock in dedicated short-range 

communications (DSRC) as the preferred connected vehicle technology? 

Answer: DOT is embracing a technology-neutral approach to vehicle-to-everything 

(V2Aj communications by evaluating multiple potential technologies that could provide 

safety and mobility benefits to America's surface transportation system. Our connected 

vehicle research and demonstration programs gather data to address critical questions 

which the market can use to decide which technology is best utilized, based on 

performance and deployment costs. 

In addition to work on DSRC, the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program 

Office (ITS JPO) is leading a multi-modal team that is analyzing emerging LTE and 5G 

technologies to better understand their perfiJrmance capabilities and applicability to the 

surface transportation space. Additionally, the Department has been conducting a 

technical assessment of the feasibility of DSRC spectrum sharing in collaboration with 

FCC and NT/A. While this work is ongoing, NHT:.'!A has placed the proposed 

rulemaking, "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) !50 Vehicle to Vehicle 

(V2V) Communication'' on the Long-Term Actions list of the Unified Regulatory 

Agenda. 

Regardless (){the technology used, V2X communications for collision avoidance will 

require spectrum and its use must be effective, affordable. ubiquitous and interoperable 

to achieve DOT's safety and mobility goals. 

3. Will forthcoming vehicle-to-infrastructure publications from DOT's Intelligent 

Transportation Systems Joint Program Office continue to favor DSRC over 

competing technologies such as 5G wireless, in contradiction of DOT's stated policy 

of maintaining technology neutrality and fostering market-driven innovation? 

Answer: The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Research Programs, including 

Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I), are evaluating various communications technologies 

such as Wi-Fi, cellular vehicle-to-everything (C- V2Aj and 5G to better understand 

capabilities and potential impacts to the transportation system, and these programs will 

publish their researchfindings upon completion. All publications of the ITS research 

programs are created to share research and demonstration resultsfrom DOT:funded 
77 


Insert offset folio 17 here 33618.017

ITS research: gathering, analyzing and sharing data openly to inform and to address 

critical questions which the market can use to decide which technology is best utilized, 

based on performance and deployment costs. 

Submitted on beha(f of Representative Rick Larsen (WA-02): 

I. Structural Deficient Bridges In May 2013, a portion of the Skagit Valley Bridge on 

Interstate 5 in my district collapsed into the Skagit River. Thankfully, no one died from 

the incident, but this was yet another dramatic wakeup calls on the state of the Nation's 

infrastructure. According to DOT, "about one-quarter of our Nation's bridges are 

structurally deficient or in need ofimprovement." What is the Administration's strategy 

to address the backlog of structural deficient bridges across the country? 

Answer: First, let me say a structural(v deficient bridge is not unsafe. Unsafe 

bridges must be closed to traffic. A structurally deficient bridge is in need 

of repair, replacement, or requires more.frequent inspections. FHWA has undertaken 

several efforts to ensure the safety oft he Nation's bridges. These ejjbrts include: 

• reviewing State compliance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards and 

instituting corrective actions where necessary: 

• updating the National Bridge Inspection Program to reflect changes required by 

MAP-21 and the f"'AST Act; 

• providing technical assistance, including delivering bridge inspection training 

courses; 

• maintaining the National Bridge Inventory database and identifYing trends in the 

data; and 

• assessing the minimum level.fbr condition of National Highway System bridges 

to ensure that Federalfunds are used efficiently. 

2. Public Private Partnerships- In Washington State, the Legislature directed the State DOT 

to study how four transportation projects would be delivered using a P3 mechanism. The 

Administration's infrastructure proposal calls for the elimination ofFcderal restrictions 

on P3s for transit. However, under Washington State law, potential P3 projects are 

subject to a rigorous evaluation process. Under the president's plan, how would the 

structure of P3s differ by infrastructure project type? 

~ Under the Jnfi"astructure Initiative. transit projects will he able to_compete 

with every other mode <!f"transportation.fbr project funding. _The Il?frastructure Initiative 

is designed to provide additional tools andjlexibility so that transit systems alongside 

other forms of core inf"rastructure proiects utilize performance-based, long-term 

investment plans. while leveraging Federal funds with sustainable non-Federal revenue 

sources. 

3. Raising the Gas Tax- Washington State has incrementally raised the gas tax since 

2003 to help ensure the longevity of vital state transportation and infrastructure 

projects. We need to see the same level of commitment from this Administration. 

Do you, as the Secretary of Transportation, support raising the gas tax? 

~ ll?frastructure and thefimdingfor in.fi"astructure is a bipartisan issue and all 

options are on the table. 

This Administration welcomes the opportunity to work with you on these issues of 
78 


Insert offset folio 18 here 33618.018

critical importance to our country's infrastructure, so our economy can continue to 

grow and create good jobs for America's workingfamilies. 

4. Challenges Facing Mid-Sized Cities- Mid-sized cities, including several in the district I 

represent, ollen have trouble competing for federal transportation grants because they do 

not have the same resources as larger cities. Which is why I introduced a bill to set aside 

20 percent ofthe funds made available through the popular Transportation Investment 

Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program for smaller and medium-sized 

cities. However, the Administration's infrastructure proposal erodes the important role 

federal resources play in modernizing the Nation's infrastructurc,andthe fiscal year 

20 19 budget eliminates TIGER grants. Under the president's infrastructure plan, 

how will the Administration address the unique challenges mid-sized cities face? 

Answer: We know how popular TIGER grants are with members of Congress. The 

intention is that goingfi>rward there would be a more holislic approach to infrastructure. 

Projects originally eligible for TIGER grants will have the opportunity to apply and 

compete forfimding included in the Administration's Infrastructure Initiative. The 

proposal provides an additional $200 billion over the next ten years for increased 

Federal spending for infrastructure projects, and will provide an important capability to 

address our nation's urgent transportation infrastructure needs at the state and local 

level .. 

5. Apprenticeships -Any plan to address the Nation's infrastructure challenges cannot do so 

without focusing on how to build the next generation workforce. Would you please 

elaborate on the Administration's recommendations to expand access to apprenticeships? 

How will the Administration maintain the federal role in ensuring the quality of 

apprenticeships and career and technical education (CTE) programs? 

Answer: The Administration's Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America 

published by the White House in February 2018, as well as the President's Fiscal Year 

2019 Budget request outlines priorities regarding workforce development and career 

and technical education. l defer this question to the US. Departments of' Labor and 

Education since they administer most of' these programs. 

Submitted onbehalfofCongressmanJohn Katko (NY-24): 

I. The President's infrastructure plan proposes a number of pilot projects. The plan 

document also refers to some pilot programs that have been successful and 

recommends making them permanent. So, it seems clear that pilot programs can 

advance the public interest and move understanding of an issue forward in a way that 

mere study of documents cannot. Do you agree that pilot programs have the 

potential to be effective in advancing knowledge in additional areas, such as 

pavements, safety enforcement, truck weight, delegation of federal authorities to 

states, and other transportation matters? 

Answer: The data and best practices captured by pilot programs may be used as the 

basis of' new. more expansive andflexible regulations. 

Submitted on behalf of Representative Grace F Napolitano (CA-32): 

I. State Revenues -The Administration's infrastructure plan is clear that it is intended to 

spur state and local investment in infrastructure. My state of California recently passed a 
79 


Insert offset folio 19 here 33618.019

major bipartisan transportation package with two-thirds vote of our legislature known as 

SB I that will provide $54 billion in infrastructure investment over the next decade. This 

is the perfect example of state level transportation investment that the Administration's 

infrastructure plan is encouraging. Does the Administration support California 'srecently 

passed bipartisan SB I infrastructure package? 

Answer: A key element of the Infrastructure plan is to empower decision making at the 

State and local level, as you know best the infrastructure needs ofyour communities. 

The plan also includes policy provisions to empower State and local officials in how 

they manage existing assets and develop new assets. 

Submitted on beha(f of Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (VA-10): 

4 

I. Secretary Chao, I am very interested in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 3D 

Elevation Program (3DEP) fact sheet for Yirginia.4 Can you provide me your 

thoughts on the nationwide elevation data collection program using LIDAR 

technology managed by USGS known as 3DEP? The President's fiscal year 2019 

budget provided specific language for elevation data collection allowing for "precise 

planning for energy development, transportation and other infrastructure projects, 

urban planning, flood prediction, emergency response, and hazard mitigation." 

Whether for flood map risk, or infrastructure projects, or economic development, and 

a variety of other issues, my state stands to benefit from the President's focus on 

acquiring elevation and topographic data. How does the DOT budget request and 

Infrastructure Proposal seek to leverage the 5: I return on investment from 3DEP in 

fiscal year 20 19? 

Answer: The Federal Highway Administration worked with the USGS in 2017, on a 

limited basis last year, on USGS's 3D LIDATR data. The issue was to attempt to extract 

highway elevation datajiJr all National Highway System roadways by travel direction, possibly 

by utilizing the elevation data to assess how routing affects energy consumption, and explore 

how the elevation data could fill our roadway inventory data gap. Some prof,'ress was made. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, tJ .S. Geological Survey. August2013. 'The 3D Elevation Program -Summary for Virginia" 

httpsi/pubs .usgs.gov/i'>'20-13/3052/pdflfs20 l3·3052.pdf 

2. Secretary Chao, can you tell me how much from your respective budget or amounts 

found in the Infrastructure proposal is going to help the USGS 3DEP? 

Answer: There is nothing in the current budget or in the Infrastructure proposal set 

aside for the USGS 3D F. 

3. If the answer to the previous question is $0, Could the DOT's mission as connected 

to transportation and infrastructure projects be aided by enhanced elevation data 

from 3DEP? I would certainly encourage DOT to look into how just a. small portion 

of your own budget could be utilized, just as the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA), Corps, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

and National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) chips in from their own 

budgets, and l would ask that the DOT work closely with USGS on this important 

elevation data program initiative given its connection to not just emergency response 

and recovery, but how as the budget funding for 3DEP is pooled with your potential 

future additions, that the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and 
80 


Insert offset folio 20 here 33618.020

"Infrastructure" could greatly benefit from such a vital geospatial dataset. 

~ We will look into this. 

Submitted on behalfofRepresentative John Garamendi (CA-03): 

I. Buy America- Will funding from the Administration's proposal maintain the same Buy 

America requirements that exist for current infrastructure projects? 

2. Buy America- More specifically, the Administration's proposal includes additional 

delegation authority to state agencies-- would this allow states to fund projects using a 

federal match without the Buy America requirements? 

Answer: On April 18, 2017, the President signed txecutive Order 13 788, Buy American 

and Hire American, to ensure that Federal procurement and Federal assistance awards 

maximize the use o.lgoods, products, and materials produced in the United States, including 

iron, steel, and manufactured goods. The Executive Order required all Federal agencies to 

assess the compliance with existing Buy American laws and to develop and propose policies 

to strengthen Buy America implementation and compliance. 

Pursuant to the txecutive Order, and existing statute, DOT is working closely with its 

grantees and stakeholders to ensure that domestic content is maximized in all projects 

utilizing Federal assistance. DOT's modal administrations work with project sponsors to 

apply their statutory Buy America requirements. As part of this process, DOT's modal 

administrations help project sponsors to identifY and locate potential domestic 

manufacturers for products and materials necessary to complete projects. 

Both title 23 and title 49 provide a process for waiving Buy America requirements. In cases 

where a waiver o.f the Buy America requirements may be applicable, DOT solicits public 

comment through its website, and in some cases, a Federal Register notice on whether 

granting a waiver is appropriate. 

DOT is committed to enf'orcing Buy America laws and ensuring that domestic content is 

maximized. Since this Administration took o.tfice, DOT has issuedfewer Buy America 

waivers than it had in recent years. 

3. Global Positioning System (GPS) Backup Services- GPS backup services are critical to 

the safety, efficiency and carrying capacity of our Nation's transportation systems. They 

are essential infrastructure. The Coast Guard reauthorization bill, now near completion. 

clarifies DOT as the lead federal agency responsible for addressing this single point of 

failure. Does the Administration's infrastructure plan address this important need? If 

not, can you please explain why? 

Answer: DOT takes the protection of our critical infrastructures seriously, and 

recognizes the potential disruptions to transportation, and to the economy, of 

an interruption of'GPS services. Section 1618 of the 2017 National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) already addressed the issue ofGPS backup. NDAA required 

D01~ the Secretaries ol DOD and DHS to complete a study ofGPS backup 

requirements and conduct an analysis of alternative technologies for all critical 

inji·astructures, including transportation. Section 1617 of the 2018 NDAA requires the 

Secretaries to conduct a demonstration of' a GPS backup capability. DOT is working 

with DHS and DOD colleagues on the planfi:Jr a demonstration that is due to Congress 
81 


Insert offset folio 21 here 33618.021

in April 2018. DOT will provide all necessary technical support to implement and 

evaluate this demonstration project, pending appropriations. DOT continues to work 

with our DHS and DOD colleagues to find the most effective way to address the study 

requirements. 

Submitted on behalf ()f Congressman David Rouzer (NC-O 7: 

In the Administration's Infrastructure Proposal, Congress is requested to repeal the longstanding prohibition on the commercialization of rest stops on Interstate highways as well as 

the limitation on placing tolls on Interstates. Congress enacted these restrictions to promote 

commerce at the communities lining Interstates. The restriction also promotes competition 

and ensures a level playing field among businesses located at intersections. 

I. Since commercialization and tolling will redirect the sale of food, fuel and other 

goods and services away from the private sector in communities and redirect such 

commerce to state-run or sanctioned rest stops established on Interstate right-of-ways. 

did the Administmtion make any assessment or study of the impact these proposals 

will have on the tax revenue that the small towns and communities receive from 

businesses along Interstates? If so, can you provide this Committee with your 

findings? 

Answer: As you note, Federal law currently prohibits most commercial activity within 

the Interstate right-of: way. including at Interstate rest areas. This limits infrastructure 

investment opportunities and the ability to generate revenues to operate and maintain 

Interstates. The Administration believes that amending Title 23 would provide States 

flexibility to determine whether commercialization is appropriate for them. Importantly. 

revenues generated would he reinvested in the corridor in which they are generated and 

would support new ir!frastructure investment. Local communities would also benefit 

.from the new jobs and service opportunities created at nearby rest areas. Under this 

proposal, States would not be permitted to charge feesfor essential services such as 

water or access to restrooms. l would also note that commercial services are already 

allowed at rest areas on toll roads that are part of the Interstate system. as well as older 

pre-1960 establishments that were grandfathered in when the restrictions were 

originally put into place. 

2. In locations where highways are tolled, drivers will naturally be inclined to use 

alternative routes, when possible, to avoid paying tolls. This, in tum, increases traffic 

on secondary roads that may not be equipped to efficiently handle it. That being the 

case, did the Administration assess what impact tolling of Interstates would have on 

traffic on secondary roads and the communities they serve? 

Answer: Under the Administration's proposal. no one would he required to implement 

tolls who does not want them. Rather, we believe that decisions about tolling 

Interstates and other Federal-aid highways should be left to the States themselves, who 

are in the best position to assess the needs of their local communities. We also believe 

that States should have greaterflexihility to use toll revenues to meet their surface 

transportation i'?frastructure needs as they see/it. including investments in nearby 

secondary road~. which is currentzy restricted under the existing Interstate tolling pilot 

program. 

Submitted on behalf of Representative Frederica S. Wilson (FL-24): 
82 


Insert offset folio 22 here 33618.022

I. Workforce Development- Since my first day in Congress, my mantra has beenjobs,jobs, 

jobs. As soon as I was sworn-in, I worked with the Congressional Black Caucus to host a 

job fair that was attended by nearly I 0,000 people in South Florida. Since then, I have 

worked with Republicans to create the bipartisan Florida Ports Caucus to advocate for 

Florida's 15 seaports that support 900,000 jobs. I also co-founded the Full Employment 

Caucus and have introduced several workforce development bills to promote 

apprenticeships and direct hiring. I was pleased to learn that the Administration's 

infrastructure plan contains some workforce development proposals, including expanding 

Pel! Grants to cover short-term certificate programs and increasing apprenticeships. 

However, the details were scant. Please elaborate on the Administration 'splan to tackle 

workforce development. 

Answer: Representative Wilson, I applaud your dedication and commitment to 

connecting individuals vl'ithjobs. As is evidenced in the Presidential Executive Order 

Expanding Apprenticeships in America signed June 2017, the commitment to workforce 

development in this Administration's Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in 

America, and the Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget, we too are committed to 

connecting individuals with jobs. I defer this question to the US. Departments of Labor 

and Education. 

2. Seaports- U.S. Seaports are economic engines that drive growth for the Nation. U.S. 

seaport activity generates more than $320 billion a year in federal, state and local tax 

revenue. Seaport cargo activity accounts for more than 25 percent of U.S. GOP and 

supports more than 23 million American jobs. Could you please address how the 

President's infrastructure plan will help seaports continue to grow and support the 

Nation's economy and specifically, how it will help facilitate the modernization of 

the Nation 's shipping channels? 

Answer: The Administration considers the cargo needs of all industries in the United States, 

ensuring these are addressed through muftiplefederal assistance programs at the Department 

of Transportation. The many regions of our nation have differing transportation 

infrastructure requirements, and we work to ensure these are addressed The President's 

infi·astructure plan aids US. industry by supporting needs of all types o,(port and intermodal 

infrastructure needed by each of the differing types o.f cargo. 

3. Seaports -The Port Miami deep dredge to 50/52 feet was completed in 2015 by a 

funding agreement in which the state of Florida and Miami-Dade County advanced 

the entire cost. Port Miami is now the only U.S. port south of Norfolk that is deep 

enough to accommodate the mega container ships traversing the Panama Canal. The 

advance of the entire project cost, including the federal government's share, enabled 

the project to be completed expeditiously and at a much lower cost than it would 

have been if we'd waited on annual budget procedures, which inflates costs over 

time. Many other U.S. ports have entered into advanced funding agreements for 

ongoing work, including, Florida's Port of Jacksonville. How will the President's 

infrastructure plan support ongoing projects with advanced funding agreements to 

include completed projects such as Miami's deep dredge, which has received no 

allocations of federal funds to date? 

Answer: Dredging programs are the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

so they are better positioned to respond to questions regardingfimdingfor specific 

dredging projects. We do note, however, that the A1aritime Administration coordinates 

Federal support for {and-side infrastructure projects with the U.S Army Corps of 
83 


Insert offset folio 23 here 33618.023

Engineers. For example. MARAD ensures requestlfor expanded cargo handling 

capabilities are located in ports where the Corps· plans support expansion with needed 

drafts, and will continue that coordination with regard to Port Miami. 

4. School Infrastructure-Alongwith our Nation 'sroads and bridges, the majority of our 

I OO,OOOpublic schoolsarcnowreaching the end oftheir40-to 50-year life cycles. America's 

public schools arc the Nation's second-largest public infrastructure investment after 

highways and bridges, but investments in school infrastructure have lagged. Education 

infrastructure-which includes buildings, classrooms, laboratories, and equipment, among 

other items--arc crucial elements of learning environments in schools, community 

colleges and universities. Has the Administration considered the idea that highquality school infrastructure facilitates better instruction, improves local 

employment, and equips a growing workforce with 21st century skills for those who 

would ultimately work on our roads and bridges? 

Answer: The Infrastructure Initiative focuses funding eligibility on a wide-ranging 

group of traditional government-owned assets and does not include traditional public 

if!frastructure such as schools and libraries. Although schools are not included in the 

Administration's if!frastructure proposal, the Administration certainly acknowledges the 

importance of our nation's school system. 

5. Schoollnfrastructure- Last year, I cosponsored H.R. 2475, the Rebuild America's 

Schools Act. which would help invest federal funds to build and modernize school 

facilities so they are safe, healthy, and modern -by helping with school construction and 

repair to improving access to broadband. Improving our physical infrastructure is critical 

for growing our economy and allowing us to remain globally competitive. However, it is 

our schools that are essential for ensuring that the next generation can achieve the 

American Dream and lead our country to face the challenges oftomorrow. Sadly, the 

Administration's infrastructure plan makes no mention of public schools, despite the fact 

that President has talked about rebuilding our schools on a number of occasions. Do you 

see school facilities as a part of a comprehensive infrastructure investment package? 

~ The Infrastructure Initiative focuses funding eligibility on a wide-ranging 

group of traditional government-owned assets and does not include traditional public 

infrastructure such as schools and libraries. Although schools are not included in the 

Administration's infrastructure proposal. the Administration certainly acknowledges the 

importance of our nation 's school system. 

6. Transportation Equity - Our Nation's history of inequitable transportation and 

development investments has resulted in gross injustices: 

Twenty percent of African American households, 14 percent of Latino 

households, and 13 percent of Asian households live without a car,cornpared to 

five percent of white households. 

Nearly two-thirds of rural community residents have limited transportation 

options. 

Nearly one in five Americans has a disability and relics on accessible 

transportation infrastructure. 

While one in I 0 civilian jobs is transportation-related -women, communities of 

color, low-income people, and people with disabilities lack access to jobs and 

contracting opportunities in the industry. 
84 


Insert offset folio 24 here 33618.024

Equitable infrastructure policy has the potential to foster economic mobility, ensuring that 

everyone in the community can participate in and benefit from the local economy. At the 

beginning this year, DOT disbanded its Advisory Committee on Transportation Equity. 

That committee was charged with making ''recommendations that provide timely, 

comprehensive, inclusive advice to the Secretary on transportation opportunity public 

policy issues that advance the principles of providing opportunity and access to 

everyone." 

a. Why was the Advisory Committee on Transportation Committee disbanded? 

b. Would you consider reinstating it? 

Answer: The Advisory Committee on Transportation Equity was established in 2016 to 

provide advice and recommendations about comprehensive, interdisciplinary issues 

related to transportation equity. The Department determined to sunset the Committee. 

Please be assured, the Department will continue to handle the important work ~/equity 

and access in transportation. 

7. Climate Change- The Trump budget would drastically cut EPA's programs on 

climate change. Funding for the agency's Office of Science and Technology would be 

cut by more than a third, from $762 million to $489 million. Funding for prosecuting 

environmental crimes and for certain clean air and water programs also would drop 

significantly. The "One Agency, One Decision" structure for environmental reviews 

seems to me a dilution or bypass of such reviews rather than "streamlining" as the 

Administration would like to call it. There are also numerous rollbacks on CW A. 

The President claimed that he valued clean water during his campaign, but how do 

you respond to his continuing and apparent efforts to roll back on and even eliminate 

environmental protections? 

~ The Executive Order (EO) I3807 established a One Federal Decision policy 

for the environmental review and permitting processfor major infrastructure projects. 

One Federal Decision means that each major il?f'rastructure project has one lead 

Federal agency which is responsible for navigating the project through the }ederal 

environmental review and permitting process. It does not mean that other agencies are 

excluded from review. The Administration's ll?f'rastructure Initiative builds on the EO 

with a One Agency, One Decision proposal. This proposal places a time limit on the 

Federal Government's completion ~lthe review process. But again, it does not exclude 

agencies.f'rom review or bypass any reviews. Streamlining the inefficiencies in the 

permitting process while maintaining environmental saf'eguards will enable Americans 

to benefitfrom infrastructure projects, including those that make our water cleaner. 

sooner. I defer questions regarding EPA 's budget and CWA to EPA. 

8. Climate Change- I represent a coastal district in Florida. We have seen predictions of 

considerable sea-level rises, some of which have come from this Administration. A new 

study undertaken by the University ofFiorida found that between the years 20 II and 

2015, sea level rose more than six times faster in the southeast United States than the 

global average sea level rise. Sea-level rises will have grave impacts on coastal 

communities such as my district and we have to prepare for resulting changes in 

geography, infrastructure and emergency management, but such concerns have not been 

addressed in the budget. What's the Administration's plan to address such problems 

from coastal communities and states like mine? 
85 


Insert offset folio 25 here 33618.025

Answer: We have started a third round of resilience studies, in addition to providing 

technical assistance to State DOTs and MPOs regarding integration a_{ resilience into 

planning and project development. We are also movingforward with an effort to identifY 

best practices by States in building resiliency in their response to emergency events. 

These practices will be captured and shared with Federal, state, and local agencies 

through regular outreach events. 

9. Climate Change • In my home state of Florida, climate change and infrastructure 

cannot be separated. We have to protect our roads, bridges, and seawalls to resist sea 

rises. The Trump plan does not address this problem. What do you see as steps to 

handle these challenges? 

Answer: The Infrastructure Plan is designed to change how in{rastructure is designed, 

built, .financed and maintained in communities across the count1y. The proposed 

Infrastructure Incentives program will provide Federal matching grants to State and 

local governments that raise additional revenue for infrastructure investment, including 

investment in resiliency projects. In addition, the FAST Act and the Statewide, 

Nonmetropolitan, and Metropolilan Transportation Planning rule (May 27, 2016) added 

resiliency and reliability of' the transportation system as a Slatewide and Metropolitan 

Transportation Planning factor. This requires States and MPOs to carry out a 

continuing. cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process that 

providesfiJr consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services that 

will improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or 

mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation. States and MPOs are required to 

consider in their planning process any reasonable alternatives for facilities that have 

been repeatedly damaged by an emergenLJ' event. 

10. Highway Trust Fund ·The Highway Trust Fund, which is the source of funding for 

federal highway and transit formula programs, is projected to run out of money after 

fiscal year 2020. How does this new budget proposal plan to address the fund's 

insolvency? 

Answer: The Department is closely monitoring the Highway Trust Fund. We believe 

the most appropriate time to discuss long-term solutions is during normal 

reauthorization. 

11. Congestion Mitigation ·The ability to move people and goods in our large cities on 

the interstate system is very important to the economic health of our country, yet they 

are clogged during most hours of the day with commuter traffic and in most cases it is 

no longer feasible to widen these highways, The average U.S. commuter spends 42 

hours in traffic per year and loses more than $900 from traffic congestion. Could 

you elaborate on how the Administration 's plan would help to address congestion in 

cities like Miami, Florida? 

Answer: The Administration's Legislative Outline for Rebuilding infrastructure in 

America describes a number ojjimding andfinancing programs that will advance 

projects across America, including congestion mitigation projects in cities like Miami, 

Florida. The proposal will achieve these goals by empowering states and local 

decision makers who are in the best posilion to understand their needs, removing 

barriers that will serve to stimulate private infrastructure investment, and improving 

!he efficiency of the environmental review and permitting process that will speed up 

project delivery while protecting the environment. 
86 


Insert offset folio 26 here 33618.026

12. Underserved Communities - This budget plan leaves key decisions of what needs to be 

built or repaired, like the water pipes in Flint, Michigan, to the states and underserved 

communities and that puts them in a difficult place since private investors are most 

likely to fund projects that will pay financial dividends. What will be done to 

incentive investors to invest in underserved communities? 

Answer: Infrastructure finance reforms described in the proposal create more 

jlexibility.for states and local governments to fund projects across all types of 

communities. Additionally, through reform of the ine.fjicient environmental review and 

permitting process, these critical projects will be able to be delivered quicker and at 

lower cost while still ensuring environmental protection. These reforms will also offer 

greater predictability that will serve to incentivize filrther private investment in 

infrastructure projects. 

13. Underserved Communities -This Administration is forcing already underserved 

communities of color like Flint, Michigan, to compete for federal resources that are 

critical and long overdue. High pollution, deteriorating roads, diminishing home 

values, and poisonous water are problems that disproportionately affect black 

communities. Trump's plan would force these cities to compete for limited 

infrastructure funds while wealthy corporations profit off building private prisons, 

immigration detention centers, and implementing new tolls and fees on basic 

services, like clean water, which many working families will not be able to afford. 

How would you respond to this? 

Answer: Infrastructure finance reforms described in the proposal create more 

jlexibility.for states and local governments to fund projects across all types of 

communities. Additionally, through reform of the inefficient environmental review and 

permitting process, these critical projects will be able to be delivered quicker and at 

lower cost while still ensuring environmental protection. These reforms will also offer 

greater predictability that will serve to incentivizefurther private investment in 

infrastructure projects. 

14. Financing -President Trump's budget plan will pay off private investors at the 

expense of local governments and taxpayers. The plan requires more state 

investments to draw down federal money, which could hurt Florida. There is a 

proposal (HB 7001) in the Florida legislature to allow for a super-majority vote of 

both houses to increase any state tax or fee. The proposal has passed the House and it 

likely to pass the Senate. If Senators agree, then the proposal will appear on the 

November general election ballot and will require approval of 60 percent of voters. If it 

is approved, then it would be that much harder for the state to find extra revenue to foot 

the bill for new or improved infrastructure. What can be done to reduce the burden on 

states? 

~ The Infrastructure proposal is designed to change how infrastructure is 

designed, built, financed and maintained in communities across the country. The 

Infrastructure proposal describes multiple programs that work together to increase the 

amount we invest as a society into infrastructure. The largest of these programs is the 

Incentives program, at $100 billion. Designed as a discretionmy grant program, the 

primary criterion that will be used to evaluate applications is how well the applicant 

leverages these dollars with non-Federal investment from State, local, and private sector 
87 


Insert offset folio 27 here 33618.027

partners. The Incentives funding program is meant to incentivize and reward 

communities that proactively invest in infrastructure. Recent ballot initiatives that 

provide transparency to votes to the use of funds, such as public infrastructure, have had 

notable success. 

This leverage selection criterion is similar to a criterion under a program we launched 

last year, called INFRA. We are currently assessing INFRA applications and aim to make 

selections later this Spring. While leveraging non-Federalfunding is only one of a 

handful (if selection criteria. we expect that the INFRA awarded projects will 

demonstrate the high-levels of non-Federal investment that is achievable when 

incentivizing project sponsors through competition. 

Another example is the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 

(11F1A) credit program. In recent years, each $1 of Federal funding has allowed TIFIA 

to provide approximate(v $14 in credit assistance, and support up to $40 of total 

infrastructure investment, including other State, local, and private sector investments. 

Submitted on behalf of Congressman Randy K Weber (I'X-14): 

1. Secretary Chao, can you share insights as to why the ports of Beaumont and Port 

Arthur, despite applying every year since 2009 (a total of22 applications altogether) 

have not received a single TlGER/F ASTLANE grant, despite positive technical 

scores? Given that the Sabine-Neches Waterway, which connects to Beaumont and 

Port Arthur's ports, is one of the largest energy production regions in the world and 

one of the most vital waterways in the Nation, this oversight seems especially 

perplexing. 

~ The level cif competition for both the TIGER and INFRA grant programs is 

fierce. As a result, the Department is only able to fund less than 10% of all 

applications received on an annual basis. Due to the overwhelming demand for these 

programs, over 90% of all applicants are not selected.for award. However, the levels 

offimdingfor this round of INFRA and the next round of TIGER have increased to $1.5 

billion respectively. This will be the largest amount of combined annualfundingfor 

these two programs. and will allow the Departmem to select more projects for award. 

The Department will continue to provide rigorous and fair evaluation ofall 

applications received. 

2. Does DOT criteria for selecting grant locations factor into consideration significant 

areas that have not received grants for many years, especially if those grant 

applications have been highly competitive? Southeast Texas has not been awarded 

any TIGER/FASTLANE grants since 2009 (the beginning of the first grant program, 

TIGER). 

Answer: Each round of competition follows unique selection criteria defined by 

Congressional requirements and specific criteria outlined in the Notice of Funding 

Opportunity. Geographic diversity has been a consistent selection criteria used in the 

710ER selection process. The Department treats every round as a unique opportunity 

and considers the geographic diversity of awards for that specific round. 

3. When there is widespread damage caused by natural disasters, has DOT considered 

awarding multiple grants for a single geographic location (i.e., impacted region)? 

There will undoubtedly be multiple applications from Southeast Texas, given the 
88 


Insert offset folio 28 here 33618.028

impact of Hurricane Harvey. 

~ The Department has made multiple awards to a single state of geographic 

region in prior rounds. However, these decisions are dependent upon the applications 

submitted, and hov.· well they address the discretionary grant selection criteria. 

4. Secretary Chao, are you familiar with the Houston-to-Dallas high-speed rail project, 

and can DOT provide an update on where they stand with moving this project along? 

The Dallas-to-Houston High-Speed Rail Project ticks all the boxes for an ideal 

INFRA proposal: it is transformative, ground-up rather than top-down, leverages 

private sector funds, and can take advantage ofthe expansion of federal loan 

programs. They are not seeking federal grants. The Federal Railroad Administration 

has held II public hearings from one end of the route to the other, concluding with a 

final hearing on March 5, 2018. 

Answer: The Texas Central Railway High-Speed Rail project is a privatelyfunded, 

proposed new passenger rail system that would operate within a fully sealed corridor of 

roughly 240 miles between Dallas and Houston, with a traveltime of approximately 90 

minutes. The Department's Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the lead agency 

with primary responsibilityfbr preparing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)for 

the proposed project. The Draft EJS was published on December 22, 2017. and 

presented FRA 's environmental ana(ysis of alignment alternatives and station locations. 

During the public comment period, which ended on March 9, 2018, FRA held 11 public 

hearings in each County along the proposed route, and in Houston near the proposed 

station locations. Currently, FRA is evaluating the feedback and comments received on 

the project and is drafting the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Additionally, FRA has received a petition from Texas Central Railroad (TCR), the 

private project sponsor, for a rule of particular applicability (RP A) to govern its 

operations. Specifically, TCR has stated it intends to base its system on JR Central's 

Tokaido Shinkansen operation. This includes, but is not limited to, the trainsets, signal 

system. track structure, operations, and maintenance practices that would be tailored to 

the proposed operating environment. As is required when proposing regulatory changes 

(such as an RPA), FRA would notify the public of' the proposed change through a notice 

published in the Federal Register and provide opportunity to comment. 

5. Secretary Chao, would you please share thoughts on the nationwide elevation data 

collection program using LlDAR technology managed by USGS known as 3DEP? 

President Trump's fiscal year 2019 budget provided specific language for elevation 

data collection allowing for "precise planning for energy development, transportation 

and other infrastructure projects, urban planning, tlood prediction, emergency 

response, and hazard mitigation." Whether for tlood map risk, infrastructure 

projects, or economic development and a variety of other issues, my state stands to 

benefit from the President's focus on acquiring elevation and topographical data. I 

would certainly encourage DOT to look into how just a small portion of your own 

budget could be utilized-just as FEMA, the Corps, NOAA, and NRCS contribute 

from their own budgets-and I would encourage ask that DOT work closely with USGS 

on this important elevation data program initiative given its connection not only to 

emergency response and recovery, but how-given how budget funding for 3DEP is 

pooled with your potential future additions-the NFIP and "Infrastructure" could 

greatly benefit from such a vital geospatial dataset. 
89 


Insert offset folio 29 here 33618.029

Answer: The Department is the co-chair and civilian government lead of the Position, 

Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Executive Committee. The PNT Executive Committee 

coordinates national civilian requirements, policies, and budgets related to positioning 

needs. The Department will explore whether 3DEP can address current orfuture 

transportation positioning requirements. 

6. How does the DOT budget request and Infrastructure Proposal seek to leverage the 

5:1 return on investment from 3DEP in fiscal year 2019? 

Answer: The DOT budget and Infrastructure Proposal does not currently rely on the 

3DEP program. 

7. How much from your respective budget or amounts found in the Infrastructure 

Proposal is going to support the USGS 3DEP? 

Answer: The Department does not currently have an Infrastructure requirement for 

3DEP positioning However, if a requirement is determined. the Department will 

analyze whether and to what de6rree resource sharing is warranted. 

8. Could DOT's mission as connected to transportation and infrastructure projects be 

aided by enhanced elevation data from 3DEP? 

~ The Department's infrastructure and transportation programs largely depend 

on local project sponsors to determine their local survey and positioning requirements. 

At present, the Department is not aware ofrequirementsfor 3DEP data to meet its 

mission. 

Submitted on behalf of Congressman Alan Lowenthal (CA-47): 

I. Transit New Starts Program - Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned about the 

delays and uncertainty regarding the New Starts program. In my district, the first 

phase of the Orange County Streetcar will connect downtown Santa Ana with 

Garden Grove. While modest, this project is the start of a new paradigm for transit in 

the County, and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) hopes to enter a 

Full Funding Grant Agreement with Federal Transit Administration in April to begin 

construction this summer. lfthey do not enter an agreement soon, the county faces 

schedule delays and cost increases. This project has been in the New Starts process 

since 2015, and my constituents have committed over $57 million of local sales tax 

revenue to make it a reality. Will you commit to moving this project forward in 

April? 

Answer: As proposed pro;ects become readyfor afimding agreement commitment, FTA 

will review current and future year funding resources, coordinate with project sponsors, 

and determine appropriate next steps. 

2. Funding for Freight Programs- As you know, the Highway Trust Fund provides 

dedicated formula grants for freight programs, as well as discretionary grants through the 

Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grants program. The Administration's 

budget would significantly scale back both. The budget also eliminates the highly 

oversubscribed TIGER program, which has made key intcnnodal investments, 

including over $30 million to improve the flow of commerce at the Ports of Los 

Angeles and Long Beach. Given the Nation's staggering needs to improve freight 
90 


Insert offset folio 30 here 33618.030

movement and relieve congestion, how does your Administration plan to advance 

freight projects while eliminating guaranteed and dedicated funding for freight at the 

same time? 

~ The Administration's FY 2019 Budget requests $46 bi!lionfor highway 

infrastructure and safety programs at levels that match the authorized amounts in the 

FAST Act. Both the National Highway Freight Program (freight formula funds out of 

the Highway Trust Fund) and the INFRA grants program would continue to be funded at 

the authorized levels set by the FAST Act. 

In addition, the President's Infrastructure Initiative would provide ample opportunities 

to fimd freight projects. For example, the rural program could benefit freight projects 

that help move agriculture and energy products from the country's heartland to our 

coastal ports for export. Freight projects also typically involve significant private sector 

investment, and these projects would be well-suitedfbr the expanded infrastructure 

financing programs under this new initiative. 

Submitted on behalf of Congressman John Faso (NY-19): 

I. Can you please provide greater clarity on the proposed $50 billion for rural 

infrastructure? Specifically, how do you plan to define 'rural' and will your agency 

administer these funds, or will others like the United States Department of 

Agriculture be involved? How do we guarantee that rural communities are not left 

behind as part of this proposal? 

Answer: The Administration is veryfbcused on the unique infrastructure needs of rural 

America. The intention of the rural prowam is to provide needed resources to areas 

that are clearly rural in terms of proximity to urban areas and population density. 

The President's Infrastructure Outline states that the statute would create a "rural 

formula, " calculated based on rural lane miles and rural population adjusted to reflect 

policy objectives. Each State would receive no less than a specified statutory minimum 

and no more than a specified statutory maximum of the Rural Infrastructure Program 

formula funds, automatically. 

In addition. funds made available to States under this program would be distributed as 

block grants to be usedfbr infrastructure projects in rural areas with populations of 

less than 50,000. 

2. As you are aware, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has 

received and granted several exemption requests regarding the electronic logging 

devices mandate. One exemption request sti II pending comes from the Owner-Operator 

Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). OOIDA's exemption ensures only those 

motor carriers defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as a small-trucking 

business would qualify for the exemption. Further, the application stipulates that only 

motor carriers with a record of no at-fault crashes would be exempted and those with 

an 'Unsatisfactory' safety rating FMCSA would not be eligible. As a result, OOIDA's 

exemption request ensures that qualifying truckers are limited to those who have 

maintained safe driving records throughout their career. OOIDA's exemption 

request solicited over 4.000 comments, mostly positive, from truckers across the 

country. Similarly, I have heard from many constituents on this issue looking for 

relief. Given the upcoming April 1st expiration of the current 'soft enforcement' policy, 
91 


Insert offset folio 31 here 33618.031

do you have a time line when DOT will make a detennination on OOIDA's 

exemption request? 

Answer: The Department acknowledges the concerns of small businesses subject to the 

FJI.ICSA Electronic Logging Device (ELD) rule. In accordance with the statutory authority 

concerning applications for exemptions and the implementing regulations, FMC SA sought 

public comment on the OOIDA 's exemption request and the Agency anticipates issuing a 

decision in the near foture. 

While the Department would like to have resolved all pending requestsfor ELD exemptions 

(a total of 19) prior to April I. it is not possible to do so given that all but one of the 

requests were submitted within 12-weeks of the December 18, 2017, compliance date. The 

Agency is working to process the exemption applications as quickly as possible. 

Submitted on behalf o,{Congressman Stacey E. Plaskett (VI-Delegate): 

I. Rural Infrastructure Program- Before the Committee, you mentioned that eligibility for 

the Administration's Rural Infrastructure Program would be based on rural lane miles. 

How specifically will ''rural" be defined in order to determine a community's rural lane 

miles? 

Answer: There are currently numerous Federal definitionsfor what constitutes 

"rural. " The President's Infrastructure Outline states, that a "rural formula" would 

be calculated based on rural lane miles and rural population adjusted to reflect policy 

objectives. The Administration would be happy to work with Congress as it develops 

the ruralfundingformula. 

2. Rural Infrastructure Program -Why would a community's rural lane miles be the 

best standard of eligibility for the Rural Infrastructure Program? 

Answer: Under the Infrastructure plan, funding available for States would be provided 

to the Governor of each State via a formula based on total rural lane miles in a State in 

relation to total rural lane miles in all States and a ratio based on the total adjusted 

rural population of" a State in relation to the total adjusted rural population of all States. 

Each State would receive no less than a specified statutory minimum and no more than 

a specified statutory maximum of the Rural Infrastructure Program formula funds, 

automatically. The Administration would be happy to work with Congress as it develops 

the rural fimdingfbrmula. 

3. Rural Infrastructure Program -While rural lane miles may be a good indicator of 

needs in terms of road projects, will this standard for the Rural Infrastructure 

Program take equitable account of water project or broadband needs of rural 

communities (or other infrastructure projects that are unrelated to roadways)? 

Answer: The President proposes to dedicate $50 billion in Federal funds to enable 

rural America to address its unique infrastructure challenges, rebuilding and 

modernizing bridges, roads, water and wastewater assets, water resources. waterways, 

power generation assets, and broadband. The bulk of these fimds under the President's 

plan will be made available to Governors, through a formula, to choose the investments 

that respond to the unique rural needv of their respective States. States may then apply 

for the remaining ruralfimds, which will be distributed as rural performance grants 

based on per:fbrmance criteria, including increased investment in broadband. 
92 


Insert offset folio 32 here 33618.032

~~· Member of Congress 

Statement for the Record 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON 

"EXAMINING THE ADMINISTRATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSAL" 

At the March 6, 2018 Transportation and Infrastructure full Committee hearing, Secretary of 

Transportation Elaine Chao and members from the New York and New Jersey delegations had sharply 

contrasting viewpoints on if and how the Federal government should pay for a share of the Gateway 

project. The following verbal exchanges took place at the hearing; however, the Secretary made 

modifications to her statements prior to publication of the official hearing transcript. (Editor's note: Please 

see page Ill for Committee rule XIV regarding the keeping of records and account of remarks.) The 

following exchange took place between Mr. Sires and the Secretary: 

SIRES: So I'm just wondering if you support any kind of help for these tunnels? Because I've 

been there ... 

CHAO: New York and New Jersey can come up with larger than zero or 5 percent ... 

SIRES: Well right now, they're willing to commit 50 percent of the project. 

I had the following exchange with the Secretary: 

PAYNE: I don't know where you get your information, because we have offered a 50/50 split 

with the federal government. Not 80/20, not 90/10 ... 50/50, half. 

CHAO: We have ... 

PAYNE: You have not ... 

CHAO: If that is the case, that is terrific. 

PAYNE: You've not heard that? 

CHAO: No, we have been in discussion with ... 
93 


Insert offset folio 33 here 33618.033

50 percent ... 

CHAO: Well, that could have been said, but in discussions that we've been having with them, 

there's zero financing on the Hudson -- I getting-- I might be getting-- it's the Hudson Tunnel 

and the Portal Bridge, it's zero funding on one by the New York, New Jersey parties and five 

percent on the other. And they're using TIFIA loans which they are going to get from us as part of 

their down payment. 

PAYNE: Absolutely incorrect. 

CHAO: Well sir, [think we have a disagreement about the facts then. 

And Mr. Maloney and the Secretary also had differing views of the facts in this exchange: 

MALONEY: Well, Madame Secretary, you may have my remaining two minutes if you 

can do your best to explain why the president of the United States is killing the most 

important infrastructure project certainly in the Northeast, probably in the country. And 

why it has actively undermined the efforts of the previous administration to work out the 

very issues you just addressed. Please, take my time and tell us why this project which is 

so important is being killed personally by this president? 

CHAO: Those are your words, not mine. If you want the presidenfs stance, please go to 

the White House. There is no such agreement. The previous administration made no 

commitment except at a political rally in the heat of a campaign. 

There's no documentation evidencing any commitment. There's no pending 

application on the nine projects that you collectively call Gateway. The career staff rated 

this project as not eligible for federal funding because a state and local government have 

put in 5 percent in one, 0 percent in the other. That's not how these projects are financed. 

One of the projects is thinking about applying for a TIFIA loan. They're taking that 

loan and making it their part that state is taking our loan and using it as their equity. 

That's like if you have- you're getting a mortgage and you have to put 20 percent down 

as your equity. You go out and you get a second loan and you call that second loan your 

equity. Well, there are certain guidelines in which these loans are put together ... 

In light of these exchanges I ask that the attached Washington Post Fact Checker article from 

March 12, titled, "Trump administration uses fuzzy logic to derail $11 billion tunnel plan for 

New York and New Jersey" be included in the hearing record so that members may get greater 

context. 

2 
94 


Insert offset folio 34 here 33618.034

h~s~/ w~~~~g;g~n~;~~post.com/news/fact~checker/wp/20 !81031 12/trump-administration-uses-fuzzy-logic-to-derail-11-billion-tunnel-p!an-for ... 

Fact Checker Analysis 

Trump administration uses fuzzy logic to derail Sll billion tunnel 

plan for New York and New Jersey 

By Salvador R1zzo 

"The president is concerned about the viability of this project and the fact that New York and New Jersey have 

no skin in the game. They need to step up and bear their fair share. They are two of the richest states in the 

country." 

- Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, discussing the Gateway project at a Honse hearing, 

March 6, 2018 

The "Gateway project" is code for a new rail tunnel connecting New ,Jersey and New York. Supporters say it's 

sorely needed because the existing, waterlogged tunnels under the Hudson River are 108 years old and nearly 

unusable. 

Chao once called Gateway an "absolute priority," but she changed her tune after The Washington Post reported 

that President Trump, amid a feud with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), is asking 

kill funding for the tunnel. 

Now, the Department of Transportation says New Jersey and New York want a fantasy land funding deal. Chao 

complained to lawmakers that under the states' proposal, the federal government would be prm~ding 100 

percent of the money for the Gateway tunnel and 9S percent of the money for a related project: replacing the 

Portal Bridge in New Jersey. (That's another 108-year-old structure near Manhattan that seniees trains 

traveling up and down the East Coast.) 

"They're putting in less than s percent on one and zero in the other," Chao testified before the House 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 

The states, however, since 201S have proposed to split Gateway costs so/so with the federal government. "Fifty 

percent is more than the federal government usually asks for such projects, so she's just dead wrong," Schumer 

said. "She doesn't know her facts, or she's dead wrong." 

What we have here is a black-and-white disagreement over basic facts. Do New .Jersey and New York really 

want a full ride from the federal government, as Chao says? 

The Facts 

Train delays and derailments are a fact oflife for hundreds of thousands of riders shuttling daily between New 

Jersey and New York. This congestion dominoes up and down the East Coast, since the Hudson River tunnels 
95 


Insert offset folio 35 here 33618.035

https:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact4 checker/wp120 18/03/ 12/trump-administration-uses-fuzzy-logic-to-derail-11-billion-tunnel-plan-for ... 

are a choke point for all Amtrak trains traveling through New York to other cities such as Boston or the District. 

With few exceptions, political leaders in New ,Jersey and New York have long recognized this situation as a 

budding crisis. A previous tunnel project, called Access to the Region's Core (ARC), had been slated for 

completion this year. But then-Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) canceled it in 2010, citing disputed cost overruns, at 

a time when the tea party was flexing its muscle over federal spending. 

The Gateway project, announced in 2011, became the region's next big hope. 

New Jersey and New York are seeking funding for the first phase: Building the new rail tunnel and replacing the 

Portal Bridge. The new tunnel is estimated to cost $11.1 billion. If it gets funded, construction would run from 

2019 to 2026. Replacing the Portal Bridge would cost another $1.56 billion and is slated to be done in 2023. 

Without a new tunnel, the economic and environmental impact in the region would be severe, according to 

several experts and a 2012 study by the Government Accountability Office, But v.ith Trump and Republicans 

from other parts of the country opposed Gateway, securing the funds will be an uphill climb. 

Chao has two primary concerns with the states' funding proposal and we're going to unpack each of her 

arguments. We reached out to DOT officials and aides for several lawmakers from New ,Jersey and New York. 

Because of the sensitivity and ongoing nature of the Gateway negotiations, these officials spoke to The Fact 

Checker on the condition of anonymity. 

'NewYorkand New Jersey have no skin in the game' 

According to Chao, the two states are asking the federal government to provide the full $11.1 billion for the new 

tunnel. However, the states committed to funding so percent of Gateway costs in 2015, according to letter 

signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D-N.Y.) and Christie, and identified $5.55 billion in local funds to cover 

their share in December 2017. 

The key here is that Chao is including two kinds of federal funds: grants and loans. AB anyone v.ith a credit card 

or a mortgage knows, loans are not free money. 

The most recent funding proposal from the states asks for so percent of Gateway funds in the form of federal 

Capital Investment Grants and the other so percent in the form of federal loans under the Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program or the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act (TIFIA). 

The state of New York is offering to cover $1.75 billion for an RRIF loan over 35 years v.1th a line item in its 

yearly budget, according to a Dec. 13 letter from Robert F. Mujica, the state's budget director, to the Federal 

Transit Administration. The governor's office would propose this appropriation and make "good faith" efforts to 

secure legislative support e\·ery year, Mujica added. 
96 


Insert offset folio 36 here 33618.036

https:,'/www. washingtonpost.com/news/fact~checker/wp/20 1 8/03/ I 2/trump~administration-uses- fuzzy~logic~to~derail-ll-bil!ion-tunncl-p!an-for ... 

New Jersey Transit is proposing to cover the cost of a $1.9 billion RRIF loan over 35 years with a new fee on its 

riders, specifically "a per-passenger trip charge for all NJ Transit rail passenger trips each way across the 

Hudson River." This surcharge would start at 90 cents in 2020, then increase to $1.70 in 2028 and $2.20 in 

2038, according to a Dec. 13 letter from then-N.J. Transit Executive Director Steven Santoro. 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a transit agency jointly run by both states, would take 

responsibility for another $1.9 billion loan. In February 2017, the agency's board of commissioners authorized a 

10-year capital plan that includes "a commitment to support debt senice payments on $2.7 billion ... of low-cost 

borrowing for Phase 1 of the Gateway program." (The agency would spend $2-4 billion on the tunnel loan, 

including accrued interest and fees, and the other $300 million on a loan for the Portal Bridge.) 

Moving on to the Portal Bridge, the states' plan is for New Jersey to contribute $29.7 million in revenue from its 

gas tax fund and bond $336.5 million through its economic development authority. The Port Authority would 

kick in $21.5 million from its revenue and take out a TIFL<\ loan worth $284 million. This adds up to S671.8 

million, or 43 percent of the total $1.56 billion cost. The federal government would cover the rest under the 

states' proposal. [Note: We first reported these numbers based on a February 2017 document, but we updated 

them to reflect some tweaks in November 2017.] 

Let's take stock of what we have here. New York is proposing to spend $1.75 billion of its taxpayers' money on 

the Gateway tunnel. For its share, New ,Jersey says it will hike N.J. Transit fares to gather S1.9 billion. The Port 

Authority has put itself on the hook for an additional $1.9 billion. It all adds up to $5.55 billion, or 50 percent of 

the tunnel's $11.1 billion price tag as currently estimated. 

Granted, the states would be asking the federal government to front this $5.55 billion, but they've identified 

specific funding sources to pay back the money over 35 years. Every time the states made a payment toward the 

loans, that would be "skin in the game." They would also have to secure these loans with collateral. 

Regarding the Portal Bridge, the states would cover $51.3 million, or 3 percent of the cost, in revenue from the 

Port Authority and New .Jersey's gas tax fund. New Jersey would use state bond proceeds to cover 21.5 percent 

of the cost, and the Port Authority would be on the hook for an additional18 percent using a federal loan. 

Asked about Chao's comments, a DOT official said New ,Jersey, New York and the Port Authority have not 

applied for any of the loans they're listing. (That doesn't mean they won't apply.) 

"There's no documentation evidencing any commitment," Chao said at the House hearing. "There's no pending 

application on the nine projects that you collectively call Gateway. The career staff rated this project as not 

eligible for federal funding because the state and local government have put in 5 percent in one, o percent in the 

other. That's not how these projects are financed." 

The so/so split was negotiated under the Obama administration. Under Trump, the deputy FTA administrator, 

K. Jane Williams, called it a "non-existent" agreement. In a 29letter to Mujica, Williams wrote that a 
97 


Insert offset folio 37 here 33618.037

https://www. wash ingtonpost.com/news/fact~checker/wp/20 I 8/03/! 2/trump-administration~uses- fuzzy-logic~to~derail- I ! ~billion-tunnel~plan-for. .. 

previous version of the Gateway tunnel plan proposed to use federal assistance for only 83 percent of the cost, 

as opposed to 100 percent. 

A DOT official told The Fact Checker the states' funding proposal has other holes. For example, the federal 

loans would require a fee, or down payment, between 2 percent and 30 percent depending on wbat types of 

funds the states used to pay back the loan and what they used as security. "If I was able to go to the bank and I 

was able to buy a house with o percent down, that's a pretty sweet gig," the official said. 

A Senate Democratic aide said these concerns put the cart before the horse. The Gateway parties are aware of 

the need to cover fees once they reach the stage of applying for loans, the aide said. It's impossible to set aside 

money for loan fees before knowing what those fees "ill be, the aide added. 

'It has always been this way. Loans are not counted as equity.' 

There's another prong to Chao's argument. States can't count these federal loans toward their share of the total 

project cost, she said in response to questions from Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) 

during a Senate hearing March 1. 

"We are not anxious for a fight on this," Gillibrand. "But for New York and New Jersey to consider 

funds, debt that we have given them, as part of their equity back to us is something that we disagree v.ith." 

Booker said Chao appeared to be changing the rules of the game. "This would crush every area of our country if 

you shifted that to what you represented," he said. 

This issue is not as clear-cut as Chao makes it out to be. 

The TIFIA statute, under which New Jersey and New York are proposing to borrow some of the Gateway funds, 

says "the proceeds of a secured loan under this chapter may be used for any non-federal share of project costs ... 

if the loan is repayable from non-federal funds." 

The DOT official pointed out that the statute says TIFIA funds may be used - not shall be used - for the local 

share of a project. But it's clear there's discretion here and federal officials could choose to count TIFIA funds 

toward New .Jersey and New York's share ofthe Gateway project. 

The TIFIA statute, the DOT official said, also says "federal assistance" may account for no more than So percent 

of a project. Loans and grants are both types of "federal assistance," the official added. 

A Senate Democratic aide pointed out that the Trump administration in .July 2017 issued a "notice of funding 

opportunity" for a new infrastructure grant, called INFRA, in the Department of Transportation. That notice 

says "funds from federal credit programs, including TIFIA and RRIF, will be considered non-federal funding." 

Gateway does not involve INFRA grants, but the Senate Democratic aide said Chao is sending mixed messages 

by saying TIFIA and RRIF loans don't count toward the local share in Gateway's case, but do count in other 
98 


Insert offset folio 38 here 33618.038

https; l/www.washingtonpost.com/ncws/fact-checker/wp/20 18/03/ 12/trump-administration-uses-fuzzy-logic-to-derail-ll-billion-tunnel-plan-for ... 

cases. 

"There has never been to our understanding in the history of the CIG [Capital Improvements Grant] program a 

partner who came in and said, 'We want a big grant, and we want you to finance the rest of the money in loans,'" 

the DOT official said. 

Is there a magic number for what a local partner should contribute to a big project? The DOT official said it 

varies but gave three examples. A high-speed rail project in California received a $647 million grant, 

representing nearly one-third of the total project cost. The Maryland Purple Line is requesting one-third in a 

grant and one-third as a loan from the federal government. The Honolulu light rail is seeking $1.5 billion as a 

grant, representing nearly 15 percent of the total project cost. 

For what it's worth, before Christie killed it, the ARC tunnel was also a so/so split between the states and the 

federal government, according to the GAO. But the states did not plan to rely as heavily on loans for that 

project. Schumer says the typical split for a project like Gateway is 80 percent federal government, 20 percent 

local. 

The Pinocchio Test 

Supporters call Gateway the most important infrastructure project in the United States. Chao's comments 

suggest New Jersey and New York are trying to get it free. She said the states are offering to pick up 5 percent of 

the cost of the Portal Bridge project and none of the tunnel's $11.1 billion outlay. 

However, the states have identified $5.5 billion to cover 50 percent of the tunnel's cost over 35 years. They've 

proposed to cover $671.8 million, or 43 percent, of the Portal Bridge replacement. Much of this money would be 

loaned by the federal government, but the states would have skin in the game from the moment they secured 

those loans, and every time they made a payment. 

Chao adds that New .Jersey and New York can't even use federal loans for their share of the project costs, but a 

federal statute makes clear that TIFIA funds could be used. To encourage use of a different grant program, the 

DOT specifically says RRIF and TIFIA loan proceeds count as the local share of a project. 

As any big developer in New York City knows, major infrastructure projects are often financed with large 

amounts of debt. Spreading out Gateway funding over 35 years would ensure that several generations of New 

Jerseyans and New Yorkers share the cost of a tunnel that is likely to be used for many decades. 

Chao broadly mischaracterizes and then dismisses the states' funding proposal, giving the impression that New 

Jersey and NewYorkare offering no money for the tunnel when in fact they've outlined billions of dollars in 

proposed funding. She also suggests the states are playing fast and loose with the rules by counting federal 

loans toward their share of the Gateway costs, but a federal statute and DOT materials suggest this is par for the 

course. 
99 


Insert offset folio 39 here 33618.039

https;//www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact~checker/wp/20 18/03/12/trump~admlnistration~uses~fuzzy~logic~to~derail~ 11 ~billion-tunnel-plan-for ... 

It's fair to ask why the states are not ponying up any cash, up front, for the tunnel. But Chao's spin takes this to 

another level, perhaps to give cover to Trump as he seeks to derail the Gateway project. For her sweeping 

mischaracterizations, Chao earns Four Pinocchios. 

Four Pinocchios 

(About our rating scale) 

Salvador Rizzo 

Salvador Rizzo is a reporter for The Fact Checker. He previously covered New Jersey parities, courts, state finances and Gov. 

Chris Christie, with stints at the Star-Ledger, the Bergen Record and the Observer. Follow'# 
100 


Insert offset folio 40 here 33618.040

<!rongr.ess of tlf.e lltnit.eb ~tat.es 

illlusl1ittgton, iiQI: 20515 

The Honorable Elaine Chao 

Secretary 

February 28, 2017 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary Chao, 

As the leaders of the House and Senate Travel and Tourism Caucuses, we urge you to continue 

to support and prioritize the work of the National Advisory Committee on Travel and Tourism 

Infrastructure (NACTTI). NACTTI was authorized under the Fixing America's Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act (P .1.114-94) and held its first meeting in December of 2016. It is 

composed of leaders and experts from across the travel and tourism industry who are charged 

with providing information, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on 

matters relating to the impact of intermodal transportation on travel and tourism activities. 

Travel and tourism generates over $2.1 trillion for the nation's economy and supports more than 

15.1 million jobs. Still, policies related to investment in transportation infrastructure often do not 

account for the needs of travelers. The President has made infrastructure a priority for his 

administration. It is imperative that travel and tourism perspectives are part of this important 

discussion. We thank you for your attention to this matter and appreciate your commitment to 

seeing the NACTTI continue through this administration. 

Sincerely, 

Dina 

~@r Titus 

Member of Congress 

United States Senator 

United States Senator United States Senator 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
101 


Insert offset folio 41 here 33618.041

March 5, 2018 

The Honorable Bill Shuster, Chairman 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio, Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio: 

As you prepare for tomorrow's hearing, "Examining the Administration's Infrastructure 

Proposal," our coalition of consumer, health; and safety groups, families of truck crash victims 

and survivors, law enforcement, first responders, truck drivers, rail labor, short lines and regional 

railroads, and railway suppliers and contractors writes to urge you to oppose any attempt to 

increase federal truck size and weight limits. Congress has rejected these unsafe proposals in the 

past and should reject them again given the unabated rise in truck crashes and decline in the 

condition of our nation's infrastmcture. These efforts include proposals to increase tmck 

lengths, to permit heavier trucks, and to grant industry and state-based exemptions or so-called 

"pilot programs." Given the state of our infrastructure and tmck safety, allowing bigger trucks 

on the roads will significantly diminish any legislation to rebuild America's roads and bridges 

and improve public safety. We respectfully request that this Jetter be included in the hearing 

record. 

Truck crashes, and the resulting injuries and fatalities, continue to go up. From 2009 to 

2015, truck crashes increased by 45 percent in the U.S. Additionally, 2016 data showed that 

tmck crash fatalities rose 5.4 percent from 2015, totaling 4,317 deaths. In 2015, the most recent 

year for which crash and injuries figures are available, there were 415,000 tntck crashes and 

more than 300 people were injured each day in crashes involving large trucks. These grim 

statistics are unacceptable, and they come with a cost. In addition to the trauma and grief that 

thousands of Americans suffer due to truck crashes, all American taxpayers experience the 

effects of commercial motor vehicle crashes by footing the $118 biilion in costs. 

Permitting the operation of larger trucks will undermine efforts to improve the United 

States' infrastructure. Nearly 40 percent of our 615,000 bridges in the National Bridge 

Inventory are 50 years or older and one out of 11 is structurally deficient. Our roads do not fare 

much better. The U.S.'s roads continue to receive a grade of"D" from the American Society of 

Civil Engineers, and 20 percent of highway pavement is in poor condition. To make matters 

worse, there is a significant and growing backlog of rehabilitation needs. Increasing truck size 

and weight will exacerbate these problems, dilute potential benefits from investments in 

infrastructure and divert rail traffic from privately owned freight railroads to our already 

overburdened public highways. 

The public does not want bigger and heavier trucks. There is overwhelming opposition to 

any increases to truck size and weight. In a nationwide poll released just last month, 7 of 10 

respondents opposed longer and heavier tJucks. A~ signed by over 1,000 local government 

officials that was sent to Congress urging rejection of any attempts to increase truck size and 
102 


Insert offset folio 42 here 33618.042

weight echoed the public sentiment. During the last Congress, both the House and Senate voted 

against attempts to allow bigger and heavier trucks in strong bipartisan votes. The U.S. 

Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) recommendation remains the same: no changes 

should be made to federal truck size and weight laws. The only thing that has changed is that 

truck crash deaths went up and the quality of our infrastructure went down. 

Longer and heavier trucks are less safe and more damaging to our infrastructure. The U.S. 

DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study found that introducing double 33-foottrailer 

trucks, known as "Double 33s," would be projected to result in 2,478 bridges requiring 

strengthening or replacement at an estimated one-time cost of $1.1 billion. This figure does not 

even account for the additional, subsequent maintenance costs which will result from longer, 

heavier trucks. These longer trucks also come with operational difficulties such as requiring 

more time to pass, having larger blind spots, crossing into adjacent lanes and swinging into 

opposing lanes on curves and turns, and taking a longer distance to adequately brake. 

In 2016, violations related to tires and/or brakes accounted for five of the top ten most common 

vehicle out-of-service violations. Not surprisingly, trucks heavier than 80,000 pounds have a 

greater number of brake violations, which are a major reason for out-of-service violations. 

According to a North Carolina study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IlHS), trucks 

with out-of-service violations are 362 percent more likely to be involved in a crash. This is also 

troubling considering that tractor-trailers moving at 60 mph are required to stop in 310 feet- the 

length of a football field- once the brakes are applied. Actual stopping distances are often much 

longer due to driver response time before braking and the common problem that truck brakes are 

often not in top working condition. Moreover, increasing the weight of a heavy truck by only 10 

percent increases bridge damage by 33 percent. The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) 

estimates that the investment backlog for bridges, to address all cost-beneficial bridge needs, is 

$123.1 billion. The U.S. would need to increase annual funding for bridges by 20 percent over 

current spending levels to eliminate the bridge backlog by 2032. 

Bigger trucks have never resulted in and will not result in fewer trucks. Following every 

past increase to federal tmck size and weight, the number of trucks are on our roads has gone up. 

Since I 982, when Congress last increased the gross vehicle weight limit, truck registrations have 

more than doubled. The U.S. DOT study also addressed this assertion and found that any 

potential mileage efficiencies from the use of heavier tmcks would be offset in just one year. 

Improving the safety and integrity of our Nation's infrastructure is a goal that we all share. It 

should not be hindered and hampered by attempts to increase or circumvent truck size and 

weight limits. We urge you to r~ect any and all proposals to put bigger and heavier trucks on 

our roads. 

Sincerely, 

Catherine Chase, President 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

Joan Claybrook, Chair 

Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH) and 

Former Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 
103 


Insert offset folio 43 here 33618.043

James P. Hoffa, General President 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters 

Jeff Solheim, 2018 President 

Emergency Nurses Association 

Linda Bauer Darr, President 

American Short Line and Regional Railroad 

Association 

John Risch, National Legislative Director 

SMART-TD (UTU) 

Jack Gillis, Director of Public Affairs 

Consumer Federation of America 

Dave Tennent, Executive Director and CEO 

Railway Engineering-Maintenance Suppliers 

Association 

Dawn King, President 

Truck Safety Coalition 

Janette Fennell, Founder and President 

KidsAndCars.org 

Andrew McGuire, Executive Director 

Trauma Foundation 

Kim Telep 

Harrisburg, P A 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Wife of Bradley Telep 

Killed in a truck crash 8/29/12 

Melissa Gouge 

Washington, D.C. 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Cousin of Amy Corbin 

Killed in a truck crash 8/18/97 

Randall Higginbotham 

Memphis, TN 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Father of Michael Higginbotham 

Killed in a huck crash, 11/18/14 

Dominick Stokes, Vice President for 

Legislative Affairs, Federal Law Enforcement 

Officers Association 

E. Michael O'Malley, President 

Railway Supply Institute 

Steve Owings, Co-Founder 

Road Safe America 

Chuck Baker, President 

National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association 

Brad Roseberry, Vice President 

Coalition Against Bigger Trucks 

Jennifer Tierney, Board Member 

CRASH Foundation 

Jason Levine, Executive Director 

Center for Auto Safety 

Daphne Izer, Co-Chair 

Parents Against Tired Truckers 

Ron Wood 

Washington, D.C. 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Son of Betsy Wood, Brother of Lisa Wood Martin, 

Uncle of Chance, Brock, and Reid Martin 

Killed in a truck crash 9/20/04 

Laurie Higginbotham 

Memphis, TN 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Mother of Michael Higginbotham 

Killed in a truck crash, 11/18/14 

Debra Cruz 

Harlingen, TX 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 8/8/08 
104 


Insert offset folio 44 here 33618.044

Cindy Southern 

Cleveland, TN 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Wife of James Whitaker, sister-in-law Anthony 

Hixon and aunt of Amber Hixon 

Killed in a truck crash 9/18/09 

LisaShrwn 

Fayette, MO 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Daughter of Virginia Baker, Step-daughter of 

Randy Baker 

Killed in a truck crash 10/10/06 

Kate Brown 

Gumee,IL 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Mother of Graham Brown 

Injured in a truck crash 5/2/05 

Monica Malarczyk 

Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 12/29/15 

Son ofRyszard and Anita Malarczyk 

Killed in a truck crash 12/29/15 

Michelle Novak 

Delevan, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Aunt of Charles "Chuck" Novak 

Killed in a truck crash 10/24/10 

Peter Malarczyk 

Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 12/29/15 

Son ofRyszard and Anita Malarczyk 

Killed in a truck crash 12/29/15 

Wanda Lindsay 

New Braunfels, TX 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Wife of John Lindsay 

Killed in a ttuck crash 5/7/l 0 

Ed Slattery 

Lutherville, MD 

Board Member, P A TT 

Husband of Susan Slattery 

Killed in a truck crash 8/16/l 0 

Sons Matthew & Peter Slattery critically injured in 

a truck crash 8/16/10 

Morgan Lake 

Sunderland, MD 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 7/19/13 

Larry Liberatore 

Severn, MD 

Board Member, PATT 

Father of Nick Liberatore 

Killed in a truck crash 6/9/97 

Tami Friedrich Trakh 

Corona, CA 

Board Member, CRASH 

Sister ofKris Mercurio, Sister-in-Law of Alan 

Mercurio, Aunt ofBrandie Rooker & Anthony 

Mercurio 

Killed in a truck crash 12/27/89 

Tina Silva 

Ontario, CA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Sister of Kris Mercurio, Sister-in-Law of Alan 

Mercurio, Aunt ofBrandie Rooker & Anthony 

Mercurio 

Killed in a truck crash 12/27/89 
105 


Insert offset folio 45 here 33618.045

Alan Dana 

Plattsburgh, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Son of Janet Dana, Uncle of Caitlyn & Lauryn 

Dana, Brother-in-law of Laurie Dana 

Killed in a huck crash 7/19/12 

Beth Badger 

Columbus, GA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Daughter of Bill Badger 

Killed in truck crash 12/23/04 

Vickie Johnson 

Hartwell, GA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Wife of Curt Johnson, Step-mother of Crystal 

Johnson 

Killed in a truck crash I 0/1/09 

Marc Johnson 

Hartwell, GA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Brother of Curt Johnson 

Killed in huck crash 10/1/09 

Marchelle Wood 

Falls Church, VA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Mother of Dana Wood 

Killed in a huck crash 10/15/02 

Sandra Lance 

Chesterfield, VA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Mother of Kristen Belair 

Killed in a huck crash 8/26/09 

Frank Wood 

Falls Church, VA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

FatherofDana Wood 

Killed in a truck crash 10/15/02 

Santiago Calderon 

Arcata,CA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a huck crash 4/10/14 

Michelle Lemus 

Los Angeles, CA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a huck crash 4/10/14 

Amy Fletcher 

Perrysburg, OH 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Wife of John Fletcher 

Killed in a huck crash 1/24/12 

Jane Mathis 

St. Augustine, FL 

Vice President, TSC 

Board Member, PATT 

Mother of David Mathis 

Mother-in-Law of Mary Kathryn Mathis 

Killed in a huck crash 3/25/04 

Jackie Novak 

Hendersonville, NC 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Mother of Charles "Chuck" Novak 

Killed in a truck crash 1 0/24/10 

Paul Badger 

Davidson, NC 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Son of Bill Badger 

Killed in huck crash 12/23/04 

Nancy Meuleners 

Bloomington, MN 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a tluck crash 12/19/89 

Linda Wilburn 

Weatherford, OK 

Board Member, P A TT 

Mother ofOrbie Wilburn 
106 


Insert offset folio 46 here 33618.046

Warren Huffman 

Odessa,MI 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Brother of Tim Huffman 

Killed in a truck crash 5/6/13 

Heriry Steck 

Homer, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Tammy Huffinan 

Odessa, MI 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Sister-in-law of Tim Huffman 

Killed in a truck crash 5/6/13 

Bruce King 

Davisburg, MI 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Son-in-law of Bill Badger 

Killed in truck crash 12/23/04 

Ashley McMillan 

Memphis, TN 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Girlfi:iend of Michael Higginbotham 

Killed in a truck crash 11/18/14 

Bernadette Fox 

Davis,CA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Best friend of Daniel McGuire 

Killed in a truck crash 7/10/14 

Killed in a truck crash 9/2/02 

John Ramsey 

Edneyville, NC 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Julie Branon Magnan 

South Burlington, VT 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 01/31/02 

Wife of David Magnan 

Killed in a truck crash 01/31/02 

Christina Mahaney 

Jackman, ME 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 7/19/11 

Mother ofLiam Mahaney 

Killed in a truck crash 7/19/11 

Steve Izer 

Lisbon, ME 

Board Member, P A IT 

Father ofJeffizer 

Killed in a truck crash 10/10/93 

cc: Members of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
107 


Insert offset folio 47 here 33618.047

March5,2018 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chairman 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio: 

ITS~ Nv\ERICA 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

In anticipation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure upcoming hearing to examine the 

Administration's infrastructure proposal, the Intelligent Transpm1ation Society of America ("ITS America")-

the nation's leading association focused on the technological modernization of our transportation system 

through the research and deployment of intelligent transportation systems-offers its recommendations fur an 

infrastructure bill. ITS America's unique membership includes cities, states, Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations, established and emerging private sector companies in the automotive and technology industries, 

research organizations and academic institutions. 

Once the envy of the world, our increasingly outmoded roads, bridges, transit, freight, and intercity passenger 

systems are struggling to move the nation's technology-driven economy. lnvesttnent in far-sighted intelligent 

transportation technologies will enable scarce infrastructure funds to reach farther and with longer-lasting 

results. As owners, operators, builders, innovators, and users of transportation infrastructure, we urge Congress 

to pass, and the Administration to support, an infrastructure bill that prioritizes investments in intelligent 

transportation technologies. ITS America recommends that an infrastructure bill should: 

• Leverage existing FAST Act programs: Increase fWJding for FAST Act programs. Intelligent 

transportation technologies, including vehicle-to-infrastructure, are eligible uses of most FAST Act 

highway program funds. Specifically increase funding for the Intelligent Transportation Systems 

Program, Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program, 

Technology and lnoovation Deployment Program, and for the Surface Transportation Block Grant 

program, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program- flexible programs that often fund 

intelligent transportation deployment activities. 

• Create grants for emerging technologies that support congestion relief' Provide new funding for 

intelligent transportation deployment activities that support congestion relief. The program would 

include both formula and grant funding. Eligible projects would include capital and operational 

investtnents that improve system safety and performance. Examples include priced managed lanes; 

transportation demand management programs; strategic transit investments; advanced parking, freight 

delivery, and incident management systems; and programs to support the deployment of connected 

and autonomous vehicles, including vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications 

technologies. 

Expand opportunities for smart communities: Build on the successes ofthe 2015 Strengthening 

Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) Cities Challenge administered by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation by including new federal funding to expand opportunities for 

communities -large and small/urban and rural- to compete for resources that will fund innovative 

and sustainable sma1t transportation projects. Projects should emphasize maturing technologies and 

performance goals. lncentivize the connection of smart cities and assist in the advancement of testing 

and deployment of autonomous vehicles. These investments have a great return on investment versus 

traditional infrastmcture investments. 
108 


Insert offset folio 48 here 33618.048

ITS~ fVv\ERICA 

• Increase development of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure: Additional development of 

EV charging station corridors based on federal and state incentive projects as well as public private 

partnerships. Continue to look at new technologies such as inductive charging to speed the 

deployment ofEVs. 

Develop additional opportunities for broadband deployment: Provide new federal funding for 

broadband in unserved area&-both rural and metropolitan-to support the deployment of intelligent 

transportation applications that depend on connectivity. 

Provide investments to stabilize the Highway Trust Fund and more resources for intelligent 

transportation technologies: Provide new and long-tenn investments to stabilize the Highway Trust 

Fund, increase federal funding for intelligent transportation technologies, and provide a multi-faceted 

approach to leveraging public and private resources. 

The nation is entering a technology revolution that will define the way people, goods, and services move for 

decades to come. It is a new transportation era as dramatic as the period where the car supplanted the horse and 

buggy. The nation must deploy intelligent transportation technologies on a large scale to remain competitive in 

an increasingly global economy. ITS America believes the infrastructure plan is the vehicle to increase the 

nation's investment in the transportation technologies that will shape mobility for decades to come. 

We thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for its leadership on the FAST Act, which made 

technology investments eligible across highway programs. We stand ready to work with the Committee on an 

infrastructure bill that builds on those investments. 

Sincerely, 

Sbailen Bhatt 

President and CEO 

ITS America 

Cc: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Ron Thaniel, Vice President, Legislative Affairs, ITS America, rthanie!Ctllitsa.org 

Intelligent Transportation Society of America Board of Directors 

AAA, Arizona Department of Transportation, California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology at University 

of California Berkeley, California Department of Transportation, Conduent, Cubic, General Motors, GRIDSMART, HELP 

Inc., Kapsch TrafficCom, Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

New York City Department of Transportation, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Qualcomm, Serco, Southwest 

Research Institute, State Farm Insurance, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Toyota, Utah Department of 

Transportation, Verizon, and Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 

1100 New Jersey Avenue SE, Suite 850, Washington, DC 20003 
109 


Insert offset folio 49 here 33618.049

Alabama Rivers Alliance**AI/iance for the Great Lakes 

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments**American Rivers 

Arkansas Public Policy Panel**C/ean Water Action**Clean Water Network 

EarthJustice**Endangered Habitats League**Environment America 

Environmental Law & Policy Center** Freshwater Future**GreenLatinos 

Gulf Restoration Network** Healing Our Waters- Great Lakes Coalition 

Hip Hop Caucus**IIlinois Council ofTrout Unlimited** Junction Coalition 

Kentucky Resources Council**Kentucky Waterways Alliance**Lake Champlain Committee 

League of Conservation Voters**Milwaukee Riverkeeper**National Medical Association 

National Parks Conservation Association**National Wildlife Federation 

Natural Resources Defense Council**Ohio Conforence of the NAACP 

Ohio Environmental Council**Ohio River Foundation**PolicyLink 

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance**Rural Coalition**Sierra Club 

Southern Environmental Law Center**Utah Rivers Council**Waterkeeper Alliance 

March 6, 2018 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chair 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio 

Ranking Member 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

2164 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Shuster and Congressman DeFazio: 

On behalf of our organizations and our millions of members and supporters, we write to submit 

recommendations to address America's water infrastructure needs and challenges. As the Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee considers legislation addressing our nation's water infrastructure crisis we 

urge you to implement our recommendations to help ensure clean water for all. 

As the Committee develops infrastructure legislation, we recommend focusing on the following themes 

regarding water infrastructure: 

I. Significantly increase funding for our nation's wastewater, drinking water, and stormwater 

infrastructure by growing existing funding sources and developing new and innovative funding 

sources. 

2. Ensure that infrastructure legislation requires, incentivizes, and supports resilient natural and naturebased solutions. 

3. Incorporate measures to ensure affordability of clean water at both the consumer and community 

level. 

4. Prioritize investment to address the greatest need. 

5. Ensure that all current environment, health, and safety protections are retained and effectively and 

fully enforced. 
110 


Insert offset folio 50 here 33618.050

1. Significantly increase funding for our nation's wastewater, drinking water, and stormwater 

infrastructure by growing existing funding sources and developing new and innovative funding 

sources. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that more than $650 billion must be invested in 

water infrastructure over the next twenty years to meet current environmental protection and public 

health needs ($384 billion for drinking water systems and $271 billion for sewage systems and 

stormwater). In order to meet these needs the federal government must increase its investment in 

drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. This includes creating new and 

innovative sources of water infrastmcture funding while also increasing existing sources of funding 

such as the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds as well as the Water 

Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act funds. 

Not only is investment in water infrastructure good for communities, it is good for our overall 

economy. According to the Economic Policy Institute, $188.4 billion spent on water infrastructure 

investments over five years would yield $265 billion in economic activity and create 1.9 million 

jobs. However, there must be an increase in overall environmental investments so as not to increase 

water infrastructure funding at the expense of other environmental programs. 

2. Ensure that infrastructure legislation requires, incentivizes, and supports resilient natural and 

nature-based solutions. 

Natural and nature-based solutions are alternatives to traditional grey infrastructure solutions and 

include such things as source water protection, protection and restoration of floodplains and fish and 

wildlife habitat, measures to increase water use efficiency, living shorelines, modifying or removing 

structures like levees and culverts to help restore natural hydrology, and green storm water 

infrastructure. For example nature-based solutions can mean planting trees and restoring wetlands 

rather than building a costly new water treatment plant, or choosing water efficiency and 

conservation instead of building a new water supply dam, or restoring floodplains instead of building 

taller levees. These solutions that protect, restore, and replicate natural systems and use water more 

efficiently have a wide range of social, economic, and environmental benefits. 

For example, healthy wetlands and floodplains provide important protections from storms and floods 

in addition to providing vital fish and wildlife habitat. During Hurricane Sandy, wetlands prevented 

$625 million in flood damages in 12 coastal states and reduced damages by 20 percent to 30 percent 

in the foW' states with the greatest wetland coverage. The purchase of 12,000 acres of easements 

along the 45-mile Iowa River corridor saved local communities an estimated $7.6 million in flood 

damages as of2009. 

Communities across the country are proving that natural and nature-based solutions can solve their 

water resources needs while also saving money, growing the economy, and improving lives at the 

same time (see report Naturally Stronger attached). Any infrastructure legislation should prioritize 

the implementation of natural and nature-based solutions either on their own or integrated with 

traditional grey infrastruch1re as these solutions can transform and restore our environment, 

invigorate our economy, confront inequities, and ensure adaptability and reliability in the face of 

climate change. 
111 


Insert offset folio 51 here 33618.051

3. Incorporate measures to ensure affordability of clean water at both the consumer and 

community level. 

Communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by 

contaminated water that results from outdated, inadequate or failing infrastructure. This is due in part 

to the fact that rate payers in these communities cannot afford to have an increase in their water bills 

to pay for improvements to their water infrastructure systems. Access to safe, clean water and 

reliable wastewater and stormwater systems should not be a privilege for the few. No one should 

have to suffer from lead contamination, untreated sewage, or polluted runoff as these problems have 

severe impacts on the health, safety, and economies of our communities. 

The federal government along with utilities and states need to ensure high caliber drinking water, 

wastewater and stormwater services are affordable to all by adopting and supporting low-income 

customer assistance programs and water conservation assistance as well as water affordability 

programs that include equitable rate structure and strategies that reduce system-wide capital and 

operating costs borne by all customers. Water equity matters access to safe drinking water and 

reliable stormwater management and effective wastewater systems is a prerequisite for healthy, 

thriving communities, where everyone participates, prospers, and reaches their full potential. 

4. Prioritize Investment to address the greatest need 

Investments in infrastructure should be targeted to communities that have been shortchanged for far 

too long. Water infrastructure funding must be prioritized for communities that have critical 

infrastructure needs and lack the ability to meet those needs by raising rates or repaying funds from 

local sources. Infrastructure investments should be directed to water systems with the greatest water 

quality problems, based on a comprehensive review of available data and research. 

5. Ensure that all current environment, health, and safety protections are retained and effectively 

and fully enforced 

Effectively addressing our water infrastructure crisis requires the full suite of protections provided 

by the nation's environmental laws, inclttding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. These longstanding environmental laws were passed with strong bi-partisan support out of the recognition that 

all Americans want and need clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment. 

These laws enable us to look before we leap and identify the best and most environmentallysustainable, long-term solution for our water infrastructure needs. For example, reviews under 

NEPA provide critical public and expert input and transparency that lead to better, more effective 

water resources projects and substantial savings for federal taxpayers. Such reviews give the public 

a critical say in projects that can have profound impacts on their lives and livelihoods. NEPA 

reviews do not delay projects that are in the public interest. Project delays are caused by poor 

planning, lack of interagency coordination, and long-standing funding constraints. Several 

Congressional Research Service reports conclude that lack of funding is the primary obstacle for 

project completion and has the greatest impact on project delivery timelines. 

Our organizations strongly oppose all efforts to roll back, undermine, or eliminate the nation's 

environmental, health, and safety protection laws. Such efforts will result in infrastructure projects 
112 


Insert offset folio 52 here 33618.052

that damage the healthy natural systems that drive our economy, protect our communities, and 

improve our lives. 

Measured against these important principles, the Trump administration's "Legislative Outline for 

Rebuilding Infrastructure in America" fails at every tum. Instead of providing meaningful funding 

opportunities, the plan would put the financial burden on state and local governments as well as private 

entities. Instead of providing for an equitable distribution of funds, the plan proposes financing options 

that will prohibit low-income communities from securing infrastructure investments. Instead of 

prioritizing natural and nature-based solutions or addressing the most pressing community needs, the 

plan has no prioritization system. Instead of protecting our waters and our environment, the plan would 

ensure greater levels of pollution and degradation by aggressively rolling back and eliminating critical 

and longstanding environmental protections. The administration's plan is not the way forward in fixing 

our nation's infrastructure crisis. 

We respectfully request that you take our recommendations into consideration when developing any 

water infrastructure legislation. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has the ability to 

create meaningful water infrastructure legislation that provides robust funding, promotes natural and 

nature-based solutions, and provides clean, affordable water for all while protecting our environment 

and our communities. The undersigned groups hope that you take the opportunity to do so. 

Sincerely, 

Alabama Rivers Alliance 

Alliance for the Great Lakes 

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments 

American Rivers 

Arkansas Public Policy Panel 

Clean Water Action 

Clean Water Network 

EarthJustice 

Endangered Habitats League 

Environment America 

Environmental Law & Policy Center 

Freshwater Future 

GreenLatinos 

Gulf Restoration Network 

Healing Our Waters- Great Lakes Coalition 

Hip Hop Caucus 

Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited 

Junction Coalition 

Kentucky Resources Council 

Kentucky Waterways Alliance 

Lake Champlain Committee 

League of Conservation Voters 

Milwaukee Riverkeeper 

National Medical Association 

National Parks Conservation Association 
113 


Insert offset folio 53 here 33618.053

National Wildlife Federation 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Ohio Conference of the NAACP 

Ohio Environmental Council 

Ohio River Foundation 

PolicyLink 

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance 

Rural Coalition 

Sierra Club 

Southern Environmental Law Center 

Utah Rivers Council 

Waterkeeper Alliance 
114 


Insert offset folio 54 here 33618.054

REBUILD 

~ AMERICA'S 

SCHOOLS 

,!Stltimw/Conlithm 

SCHOOl Dt$1 RICT~ 

Akron, Oil 

i\!dme, !X 

Binningh<~m City, At 

Binnmgham Public, Al 

Boston, MA 

fhoMml\ot.mty,Fl 

Bwwnsvtlle. TX 

Clucago, II 

C'incmnatl, OH 

Clark County. NV 

Compton,CA 

Corpus Chris!!, TX 

Dayton, Of! 

Oetmit,Ml 

1-.scambm,H 

Houston. TX 

Jetferson Pamll, LA 

Jc11.eyCity. NJ 

1\kA!Ien, TX 

Mt..'lnphis. TN 

l'vlmmi-Dadc. fl 

1\hlwaukee.WI 

Mmneapolis, MN 

Montgomery, At 

Nashville. TN 

Newark. NJ 

NcwOr!ean:>,I.A 

~ewYork, NY 

NorfOlk. \'I\ 

()k\ahomaf'ity,OK 

Omaha.NE 

Pharr-San Juan-Alamo, l'X 

Philadelphm. P A 

Pnwidem;e, Rl 

Rtdunond, VA 

Rochester. NY 

Savannah-\hatham, (TA 

SL loui~. MO 

St. Pau!.MN 

rotedo.OH 

'lui~. OK 

Ysleta. TX 

144{) N Street. N\V 

Swtc !OHJ 

Washmgttm, !X· 20005 

PHOW: 202-462-5'}1 I 

n 1 202-986-456Q 

E-.1!4/L 

Rebui!dAmeric;~sSchoolsrq, 

comcast.net 

Amcncan Federal\on of Teachers_, Coun.:1! flflhe Great C!ly Schools ~ National EducatiOn AssocJatJon 

lmematmnal Umon ofOptratmg Engm.:ers ' Nallonul Parent Tt"achcr Assooatum u Nahonal School Boards Assocm{!on 

r\1\SA, Th~: School Supenntcndents Assoc1at1on r1 Nauonal Association ofF!ementnry School Pnncipals s 

Nanonal Assocmtmn of Secondary School Principals ::; NAACP rJ Nauonal Association of Fcd ... -ra!ly lmpactlld Schools 

Amencan Institute of ArciHlt."etsti "' Organuahons Concerned About Rural Education u Natwnal Rural Educalmn AssocJat!Oil 

f'aliti.1mJans for School FacJhtu:~ 

March 5, 2018 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

Ranking Member, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Ranking Member DeFazio: 

Rebuild America's Schools (RAS) appreciates the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

hearing on The Administration's Infrastructure Initiative. Rebuild America's Schools supports 

investing in our national road, bridge, highway infrastructure including state and local school 

facility infrastructure. The need to modernize our nation's schools is extensive. School 

infrastructure needs are beyond the capacity of state and local communities. A 2013 Center for 

Green Schools Report State of Our Schools estimated that nationally schools face $271 billion 

in deferred maintenance costs. The Report estimated a $542 billion cost to bring schools into 

good repair over the next ten years. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers 2017 Infrastructure Report Card rated Schools with a 

D+. Summarizing "Every school day, nearly 50 million K-12 students and 6 million adults 

occupy close to 100,000 public school buildings .... While state and local governments make 

significant investment in public K-12 schools infrastructure and schools play important civic, 

educational, and public safety roles in communities, the nation continues to underinvest in 

school facilities, leaving an estimated $38 billion annual gap. As a result, 24% of public school 

buildings were rated as being in t8ir or poor condition." 

Rebuild America's Schools appreciates the emphasis in the Administration's Infrastructure 

Initiative on federal and state and local partnerships and state and local decision making. 

Today, states and local governments across the county are investing in school facility 

infrastructure advancing student achievement, success and career development while producing 

local construction jobs. Under the Administration's Infrastructure Initiative, federal, state and 

local governments should be able to decide to invest in schools as a priority. Federal 

partnerships will supplement state and local efforts to renovate, repair, modernize and build 

schools and classrooms promoting student success and generating jobs in local communities. 

Rebuild America's Schools supports federal investments through Grants, Tax Credit Bonds, 

Low interest loans, Infrastructure Banks and other financial incentives. Rebuild America's 

Schools suppmts The Rebuild America's Schools Act ( H.R. 2475) sponsored by Congressmen 

Scott, DeFazio and 112 House colleagues authorizing federal grants and bonds to renovate, 

repair, and construct public school infrastructure. The Rebuild America's Schools Act would 

provide federal financial support to partner with state and local projects renovating, repairing, 

modernizing and building schools and classrooms. 
115 


Insert offset folio 55 here 33618.055

Rebuild America's Schools looks forward to working with the Committee and the Administration to: 

Advance federal investments in our nation's infrastructure and school facilities. 

Invest in our nation's schools with state and local partners. 

Assist with Grants, Tax Credit bonds, Low interest loans, Infrastructure Banks. 

Renovate, repair, modernize and build technologically advanced, efficient, modem schools. 

Advance student achievement, success and 21st Century workforce preparation. 

Thank you, for your work on this critical issue and your co-sponsorship of the Rebuild America's Schools Act. 

Investing in our national infrastructure will assist state and local community across America. Investing in 

school facility infrastructure will advance student achievement, success and career development while 

producing local construction jobs. Rebuild America's Schools stands ready to assist as Congress works to 

improve our nation's school infrastructure. 

Sincerely, 

Bcf- ~ ,,a..~-o·-

Rohct1 P. ('ana van 

Chair, Rebuild America's Schools 
116 


Insert offset folio 56 here 33618.056

NLC NATIONAL 

LEAGUE 

OF CITIES 

Submission for the record 

to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

ofthe 

United States House of Representatives 

on behalf of 

NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truckstops 

and the 

National League of Cities 

for the Hearing: 

Examining the Administration's Infrastructure Proposal 

David H. Fialkov 

Vice President, Government Affairs 

Legislative and Regulatory Counsel 

NATSO 

703-739-8501 

dfialkov@natso.com 

Brittney D. Kohler 

Program Director, Transportation 

& Infrastructure 

Federal Advoacy 

National League of Cities (NLC} 

202.626.3164 

kohler@nlc.org 
117 


Insert offset folio 57 here 33618.057

The National Association of Truckstop Operators (NATSO), representing America's 

travel plazas and truckstops, and the National League of Cities (NLC), representing 

cities across America, submit this joint statement for the record with respect to the 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's (the Committee) March 6, 

2018, hearing regarding "Examining the Administration's Infrastructure Proposal." 

By way of background, NATSO is a national trade association representing travel 

plaza and truckstop owners. The NLC serves as a resource and advocate for more 

than 19,000 cities, villages, and towns throughout the United States. Working in 

partnership with the 49 state municipal leagues, the NLC is dedicated to helping city 

leaders build better communities. 

Many of the communities that the NLC represents are located in close proximity to 

an Interstate highway, and, thus, are home to NATSO's membership. Indeed, more 

than 90 percent of NATSO members are located within one-quarter mile of the U.S. 

Interstate Highway System. Improving the quality and efficiencies of America's 

roads and bridges would directly benefit both NATSO members and the cities and 

towns that the NLC represents. We are therefore pleased that the Committee is 

considering ways to enhance investment in America's infrastructure. 

Off-highway businesses, most of which are small, family-owned companies, strongly 

support efforts to increase investment in infrastructure, including removing 

unnecessary obstacles to efficiently and effectively completing transportation 

infrastructure projects. The travel center industry, similar to many restaurants, 

convenience stores, hotels, and other businesses, relies on Interstate traffic to 

survive. Improving the quality and efficiencies of America's roads and bridges 

would directly benefit our industry and the U.S. economy at large. 

The comments that follow, however, focus on an aspect of the Administration's 

infrastructure proposal that calls for repealing the prohibition on offering 

commercial services at rest areas located on the Interstate System right-of-way. 

This prohibition was enacted when the Interstate highway system was first 

developed in order to avoid state-approved monopolies on the Interstate system 

that harm off-Interstate businesses and, consequently, local governments that 

depend on these employers and property taxpayers. We urge members of the 

Committee to reject this aspect of the Administration's proposal. 

Policy Backiround 

When Congress created the Interstate Highway System in 1956, Congress and 

community leaders were concerned that local businesses, jobs, and tax bases would 

shrink as motorists and truck drivers bypassed their cities and towns. For this 

reason, Congress enacted 23 U.S.C. 111, which prohibits Interstate System rest areas 

from offering commercial services such as food and fuel. A later clause 

"grandfathered" existing commercial establishments in existence before 1960 within 

2 
118 


Insert offset folio 58 here 33618.058

an Interstate System right-of-way under certain conditions; these are located 

primarily in the northeastern United States. 

For almost sixty years, businesses have now clustered near the Interstates at the 

interchanges along the Interstate System to provide services to Interstate travelers. 

A drive along the nation's Interstate highways demonstrates the wisdom of 

Congress's decision. There are approximately 100,000 businesses located less than 

a quarter-mile from the Interstate at exit interchanges, directly marketing to 

highway travelers. These businesses employ more than two million people and 

contribute billions of dollars annually in state and local taxes. 

Commercial Services at Rest Areas Hurts Local Communities 

At first glance, offering more robust services at Interstate rest areas seems like an 

easy way for state departments of transportation to acquire additional revenue. As 

a practical matter, however, it amounts to simply "robbing Peter to pay Paul." 

Commercial services at rest areas will not increase the amount of commercial 

transactions that take place; it will simply transfer the point of sale away from the 

competitive off-highway environment to the one government-selected business 

entity that pays the state the largest amount of money to rent space that is on the 

shoulder of the highway. 

Researchers at Virginia Tech have examined the issue and found that if 

commercialization were permitted in the 611 counties with non-commercial rest 

areas, the result would lead to: 

• 46 percent decrease in fuel sales; 

• 44 percent decrease in restaurant sales; and a 

• 35 percent decrease in truck service business sales. 

In total, this would amount to over $55 billion in annual sales for interchange 

businesses in these 611 counties.l 

Commercialization of rest areas undermines the small businesses that have played by 

the rules and the communities that depend on off-highway businesses as a vital part of 

their tax and employment base. Commercial services at rest areas effectively 

displaces property tax payers located in cities and towns adjacent to Interstates 

with a business entity at rest areas that pays no local government property or sales 

tax; the entity that receives exclusive access to the public right of way simply pays 

rent to the state transportation department. With the decrease in the tax base, the 

localities impacted by new state-supported rest areas will likely be less able to pay for 

their own infrastructure needs, furthering the nation's infrastructure gap. 

1 Patrick O'Brien, Ray Pethtel, jie Luo, Gene Hetherington, john Provo, Renee LoSapio, and Eftila 

Tannelari. "The Impact of Commercial Rest Areas on Business Activity at Interstate Highway 

Interchanges." Virginia Tech University, 2011. 

3 
119 


Insert offset folio 59 here 33618.059

Commercial Services at Rest Areas Hurts Small Businesses 

Convenience of location and ease of access is essential to the ongoing viability for 

the local small businesses that invested in highway-adjacent locations to serve 

travelers. Inserting commercialized rest areas into today's system upends their 

business model and creates a non-competitive market where the state-supported 

enterprises have an outsized advantage. It is simply impossible for off-highway 

businesses to compete in such an environment. 

The off-highway travel centers, convenience stores, and restaurants -most of which 

are run by small business franchisees - are not seeking to avoid competition, but 

rather to engage in fair competition pursuant to the clear rules set down by 

Congress. Were one to stop at nearly any Interstate exit where rest areas are not 

commercialized, one would find a plethora of businesses competing next door and 

across the street from one another. The notion of a "competitor" having such an 

advantageous, on-highway location, however, is not fair competition but, in fact 

government-sanctioned monopolization. 

And the winners in these scenarios will not be local businesses, as these companies 

will simply not be able to win a contract bid to run commercialized rest areas. In 

reality, such contracts will be awarded to large, multinational companies that 

specialize in these types of franchise operations. As a supporter of commercializing 

rest areas recently acknowledged in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: "[N]umerous restarea renovations could be bundled together and bid out as a group. providing the 

scale needed to attract global operating companies while providing appealing 

opportunities for institutional investors."Z 

Any infrastructure plan Congress considers should seek to improve efficiencies and 

job opportunities for small businesses and local communities; not "global operating 

companies" and "institutional investors." 

Commercial Services at Rest Areas Undercuts Other Infrastructure Priorities. 

Including Increasing Truck Parking and Alternative Fuel Investments 

NATSO members and their facilities are an important part of the solution to other 

pressing infrastructure and policy concerns, including efforts to expand truck 

parking capacity and increase investments in alternative fuel infrastructure at retail 

fuel outlets along the Interstate System. 

In order to achieve these policy objectives, it is imperative for Congress to recognize 

both the important role that travel centers will play - NATSO members provide 

approximately 90 percent of truck parking capacity in the United States and are the 

2 R. Richard Geddes, "Why Some Stops Are a Cut Above the Rest" The Wall Street Iournal. Feb. 19, 

2018. 

4 
120 


Insert offset folio 60 here 33618.060

primary venues for vehicles traveling on the Interstate system to refuel - as well as 

the business environment within which these companies operate. 

Traditional sources of profit for travel plazas - such as fuel sales - are contracting. 

As vehicle fuel efficiencies improve, the motoring public needs less fuel to travel the 

same distances. Moreover, truck driver salaries have not kept up with inflation over 

the past thirty-five years. According to one analyst, truckers' wages have been 

slashed by nearly a third since 1980, accounting for inflation. 3 As a practical matter, 

this means truckstop operators' primary customers have far less money to spend in 

travel plazas' stores and restaurants. These stores and restaurants are a critical 

component to a truckstop's success. Their importance to the industry's bottom line 

will only grow in future years, as vehicles become even more efficient. 

The travel center industry is especially susceptible, therefore, to being unfairly 

undercut by government-sponsored competition that is conveniently located on the 

right-of-way. If such options were to be made available, motorists would begin to 

gravitate toward these types of establishments. That would make it more difficult 

for the travel plaza industry to grow and make expensive investments in truck 

parking and alternative fuel infrastructure. 

Attesting to this point, a recent study comparing the number of truck parking spaces 

and truck parking facilities on stretches of the Interstate with commercialized public 

rest areas with stretches of highway with non-commercialized rest areas found 

substantially more parking spaces in non-commercialized corridors than 

commercialized corridors. The study, which accounted for variables such as vehicle 

miles traveled, found there were 6.57 truck parking spaces per mile in noncommercialized Interstate segments compared with just 3.88 in commercialized 

areas - almost 70 percent more truck parking spaces in non-commercialized 

corridors. 

In terms of truck parking facilities, there are 235 facilities in commercialized 

Interstate segments, equal to one facility every 12.8 miles. For non-commercialized 

areas, that number skyrockets to 1,123 total facilities, which is approximately one 

facility every 8.4 miles. In light of stringent hours-of-service regulations combined 

with the forthcoming Electronic Logging Device (ELD) mandate, that 4.4 mile 

difference can be critical when a driver is running out of hours and desperately 

looking for a spot. 

The same principle applies to alternative fuel facilities- such as electric vehicle (EV) 

charging stations -as well. The best way to enhance the prevalence of such facilities 

is to create a regulatory environment where private sector refueling facilities 

believe they can make money by investing in such infrastructure. Truckstops in 

3 james jaillet, "Trucker Pay has plummeted in the last 30 years, analyst says." Overdrive Magazine. 

March 4, 2016. 

5 
121 


Insert offset folio 61 here 33618.061

particular are enticing targets for EV charging stations because they have a variety 

of food and convenience options for customers to utilize while their vehicles are 

being charged. Truckstops will not invest in such infrastructure. however. if they 

know that the government is going to be competing with them by placing such 

equipment at Interstate rest areas. 

The private sector does not enter markers where they know they will be competing 

with the government. Members of the Committee are urged to examine retail fuel 

stations that are located in close proximity to government-funded EV charging 

stations; it is unlikely that any such stations contain EV charging infrastructure. 

Conversely, were one to examine the geographic area surrounding retail fuel 

stations and restaurants that do currently offer EV charging infrastructure, one 

would discover that there is likely not a prevalence of government-sponsored 

charging stations nearby. 

Conclusion 

NATSO and the NLC are pleased that the Committee takes seriously the need to 

invest in the nation's infrastructure. We urge the Committee to pursue policies that 

will improve, rather than undercut, the ability for small businesses and the 

communities that rely on them to prosper and grow. 

Please do not hesitate to reach out to either NATSO or the NLC if we can be of 

further assistance throughout this process. 

6 
122 


Insert offset folio 62 here 33618.062

C!rongres.s of tqe 1llniteb ~fates 

JthtslJingbm, BC!I 20515 

Secretary Elaine Chao 

The U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Secretary Chao, 

March 06,2018 

The New Democrat Coalition has long called for a comprehensive, bipartisan transportation and 

infrastructure plan designed to bring our country into the 2151 Century and enable American 

businesses to grow, workers to earn more, and communities to thrive. We must seize the moment 

and deliver critical and overdue improvements for the communities we represent around the 

nation. This is a goal we believe we share with President Trump, you, and the rest of the 

Administration. President Trump has called for "both parties to come together to give us the safe, 

fast, reliable, and modem infrastructure our economy needs and our people deserve."l1

l 

Immediately following this call for action, the New Democrat Coalition Infrastructure Task 

Force released four pillars for an infrastructure deal that we believe could have widespread, 

bipartisan support. Our plan calls for modernizing America's infrastructure through updated 

funding and financing, creating an infrastructure bank to expand financing opportunities for state 

and local governments, creating incentives in communities of need to build and maintain 

infrastructure, and encouraging innovation and reform. 

We write to you today to highlight the plan's fourth pillar-regulatory iMovation-a concept for 

which the President has expressed strong support. As you know, Congress made regulatory 

reform a key part of the landmark Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of2015. 

This Act was the first long tenn highway bill to navigate its way through Congress in a decade, 

and it included many transfonnative policy changes within the Department of Transportation 

permitting process, including significant streamlining of major infrastructure projects. We 

respectfully request that the Department ofTransportation take immediate action in 

implementing existing law to expedite project approvals and build the infrastructure Americans 

need. 

In President Trump's State of the Union address to Congress, he asked that "any bill must also 

streamline the permitting and approval process-getting it down to no more than two years, and 

perhaps even one,'>l2

l a priority also eKpressed in the White House's recently released 

infrastructure plan. As you know, the yet-to-be realized reforms in the FAST Act could help 

accomplish this goal. The U.S. Department of Transportation, with the support of Congress, has 

ltl State of the Union Address, 2018 

Ill Ibid 

PA1NTED ON RECYCLED PAP£f\ 
123 


Insert offset folio 63 here 33618.063

authority today to take action on bipartisan streamlining reforms authorized in the MAP-21 and 

FAST Act transportation bills that could reduce unnecessary delay in the project review and 

approval process. In order to immediately begin improving the federal permitting process and 

avoid duplicative efforts, we urge you to prioritize the progress of the FAST Act and use the 

tools already at your disposal. For example, the Administration could fill the open role of 

Executive Director of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, provide funding for 

the Council, and fund other key elements of the FAST Act that would accelerate project 

approvals. Additionally, you could finalize the two outstanding rulemakings and complete the 

guidance documents necessary to implement changes from the FAST Act and MAP-21 to the 

environmental review process at FHW A and FT A. This would allow the Administration to make 

immediate progress on expediting projects and aligning with state efforts to move high priority 

projects along the permitting process. 

The New Democrat Coalition Members represent communities around the nation in both rural 

and urban areas, and we understand the potential a large transportation and infrastructure deal 

could have on driving economic growth and improving the lives of all Americans. We agree 

there are other possible reforms to the regulatory and permitting process that can be pursued, 

including reasonable and responsible legal deadlines on agencies for review and decision 

making; however, we must prioritize implementing the outstanding reforms of the FAST Act. 

We also believe that direct federal investments, distributed equitably, is key to ensuring 

bipartisan support for any infrastructure proposal. We look forward to working with you and the 

White House in meeting our nation's dire infrastructure needs including providing additional 

resources to invest in vital infrastructure projects across America, and stand ready to work with 

you and offer viable proposals. Thank you for your attention to this request and we await your 

reply. 

Sincerely, 

2 

John K. Delaney 

Member of Congress 

~t.t;:fi Member of Congress 

Norma Torr 

Member of Congress 
124 


Insert offset folio 64 here 33618.064

Member of Congress Member of Congress 

;iJt~~ Bradley:sctUICilfel' 

Member of Congress 

Euclosure: New Democrat Coalition 2 1" Centmy lnfrastmcture Task Force's Four Piflars for 

alllllfrastruclure Deal 
125 


Insert offset folio 65 here 33618.065

•Ill NEw a OEMS 

New Democrat Coalition 21'1 Century Infrastructure Taskforce 

Four Pillars for an Infrastructure Deal 

The New Democrat Coalition is determined to increase long-term federal investments in all types of infrastructure. 

Supporting the movement of people, goods, energy, and information through our infrastmcture is crucial to driving 

investment in our communities and maintaining America's economic competitiveness. This investment is vital to both the 

jobs created to build and maintain our infrastructure, as well as those supported and bolstered by a strong and healthy 

infrastructure system that facilitates the efficient movement of workers, goods, services, and ideas. Modernizing our 

infrastructure is important to Americans in every part ofthe country. We know that infrastructure projects are consistently 

evaluated as one of the best returns on government investments, and that Americans would rather spend more time doing 

the things they love than sitting in traffic wasting time and money. 

As New Dems, we believe any new proposal must include new revenue, new fmancing, new funding, regulatory 

streamlining, and encourage life-cycle funding in innovative infrastructure projects that are built to last. 

1. Modernize America's infrastructure 

The Task Force proposes modernizing revenue sources and protecting infrastructure funds from being looted for other 

purposes. We support securing dedicated, sustainable revenue to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent well into the 

future, and increasing federal investment that ensures America's infrastructure keeps pace with growing demand. We 

are considering a variety of funding options including mileage based user fees, raising or indexing the gas tax, user 

fees on electric vehicles or batteries to create parity with gasoline powered vehicles, slightly increasing the corporate 

tax rate and dedicating the incremental revenue gains towards infrastructure, and both expanded and new bond 

programs. 

Finally, we must think strategically and expand our focus beyond up-front costs, using life-cycle cost analysis to 

account for the operating and maintenance needs of an asset across its entire life-cycle. Short-sighted investment will 

only leave Americans with an ever-deeper backlog of deferred maintenance and costly repairs. 

2. Create an infrastructure bank to finance projects 

The Task Force supports investing seed funding to capitalize an infrastructure bank that could leverage its funds for 

everything from roads to water to broadband projects. The bank would be accessible to states, localities, and regional 

groups, and would he able to loan them money with favorable terms, as well as offer bond insurance. Importantly, an 

infrastructure bank is self-sustaining, able to make additional loans for new projects as money is paid back. 

3. Create incentives for communities most in need of building and maintaining their infrastructure 

The Task Force supports grant programs that specifically target areas in desperate need of revitalizing their 

infrastructure, including those recovering from natural disasters, communities with higher rates of unemployment and 

poverty, and rural areas. 

We also support creating new avenues to fund infrastructure projects in communities that have been left behind and in 

areas that have traditionally struggled to attract infrastructure funding for projects that have holistic community 

support. New Dcms also believe in working with public and private sources to encourage joint investment into all 

types of infrastructure projects. 

4. Encourage innovation and reform 

The Task Force recognizes the importance of continued regulatory streamlining in a way that balances expedited 

construction with appropriate environmental and safety safeguards. First and foremost, we believe the administration 

must work to implement the numerous streamlining provisions already passed into law by Congress in the FAST Act 

transportation bill. In addition, we support encouraging the use of regional partnerships and public-private 

partnerships where appropriate. 

Furthermore, as we revitalize old infrastructure and invest in new projects, we must encourage the adoption of new, 

innovative technologies that bolster safety and efficiency to create the infrastructure system of the future. 
126 


Insert offset folio 66 here 33618.066

March 13, 2018 

The llonorablc Bill Shuster 

Chainnan 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Derazio: 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

As the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee begins to consider infrastructure 

legislation. several pieces of President Trump's proposed agenda will be debated. The below-signed 

associations-representing restaurants throughout the country-ask your Committee to preserve the 

longstanding laws that prohibit commercial activities on the interstate right-of-way as well as the 

prohibition fi:w in.,.lalling tolls on existing Interstate Highways. The Trump Administration's plan. as 

proposed. would repeal these longstanding restrictions, jeopardizing consumers, thousands of existing 

small businesses ilnd the local <:ommunities that depend on those businesses. 

When Congress created the Interstate Highway System in 1956, community leaders feared that local 

busines~cs. jobs. and tax base~ would shrink as motorists bypassed their cities and towns for the 

convenience of an on-highway rest area. For this reason, Congress prohibited interstate rest areas from 

offering commercial services. such as foodservice. 

The promise of this law came to ti·uition. and today thousands of restaurants operate at interstate exit 

interchangt:S ~.:atering. to interstate travelers. These restaurants provide local jobs and are significant 

taxpayer!-.. making them a\ ita I part of the communities in which they operate. 

The Administration's proposal \Vou!d allow states to operate rest areas in direct competition with existing 

restaurants. These state-operated commercial rest areas would unfairly drive away customers who 

normally patronize our businesses. undercutting the existing communities and businesses the current 

federal law helped to create. According to a recent study of the issue, if commercialization were permitted 

at state rest an.:as. restaurants t.:an e\pect their sales to decline by 44 percent. 

The local communities that rely on our locations as a vital component of their tax base will also 

suffer. Local towns and communities would receive no benefit for restaurant sales located at interstate 

rest areas as those tax dollars would now go into state treasuries. Nationwide, interstate exit-based 

businesses, including restaurants, pay more than $22.5 billion annually in local tax revenues- funds that 

help support scht)Ois. p()]icc a11d fire dcpa11ments and other vital public services. 

A similar scen<'lrio will play out if states arc allowed to toll the Interstate Highways that are currently 

traveled on toll free. 

Studies show that motnrisb seeking to avoid paying tolls will divert off of tolled interstate Highways, 

siphoning business awa) n·om existing restaurants. At the same time. that traffic diversion will increase 

traffic onto secondary roads that were not meant to handle the same level of traffic as the Interstate 

Highway System. 
127 


Insert offset folio 67 here 33618.067

We appreciate and value Congress"s support for small businesses and their employees. However, tolling 

e:\isting interstate highways and allowing ~ommerciali7..ation at state owned rest areas will significantly 

harm the small businesses that we represent. 

Thank you for yotJr interest and leadership. 

Sincerely. 

Franchi::>e Business Sl'rviccs (representing BWW franchisees) 

franchise Management Advisory Council (Taco Bell franchisees) 

International Franchise Association 

National Council of Chnin Restnurants 

National franchisee Association (Burger King franchisees) 

National Restaurant Association 
128 


Insert offset folio 68 here 33618.068

-

AEM 

- AGR!ClHlllfH 

CONSTRUCTION 

fORESTRY 

MINl"<G 

UTiliTY 

March 6, 2018 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chainnan 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

Ranking Member 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio, 

On behalf of the more than 950 members of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers and the 1.3 

million men and women across the United States whose jobs depend on the equipment 

manufacturing industry, I want to express my thanks to you and the committee for holding today's 

hearing on the Trump administration's infrastructure framework. We hope that today's testimony 

from Secretary Chao helps to advance the introduction oflegislation to make good on the 

administration's goa! of stimulating at least $1.5 trillion in new infrastructure investment over the 

next 10 years. 

You have a historic opportunity to pass legislation that sets the course of American infrastructure in 

the next century. AEM welcomes the Trump administration's framework as a good starting point for 

this effort, and we hope that the United States Senate builds upon the framework in the coming 

weeks and months. 

The equipment manufacturing industry believes that our elected leaders must seize this opportunity 

to reclaim America's infrastructure advantage over our global competitors. Over the past three years, 

AEM held discussions with member company executives, leading academics, elected officials and 

problem-solvers across the country about how to modernize our infrastructure. The key priorities that 

emerged from these discussions are outlined in a report called The US. Infrastructure Advantage TM. 

• Our next infrastructure plan should focus on networks and systems- not one-off projects. 

The plan should recognize that our infrastructure is interconnected and that all the 

components need to work together seamlessly. 

• Our infrastructure must maximize smart technology. Elected officials should ensure that any 

infrastructure plan accommodates new technologies, and is developed with emerging 

technologies in mind. 

• Our infrastructure system must adequately connect urban and rural communities. Any 

infrastructure plan should ensure that our infrastructure assets- from roadways to waterways, 

from locks and dams to ports and multimodal tenninals- work to connect every comer of our 

nation. This includes broadband deployment in rural areas and improved energy and utility 

infrastructure. 
129 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 69 here 33618.069

1111111111 

AEM 

-• We applaud the focus of past surface transportation reauthorizations to streamline the project 

delivery process and support the Trump administration's efforts to make additional reforms 

to ensure consistency and predictability in the process of modernizing our infrastructure. 

• We urge you to reaffirm the vital role the federal government plays in supporting our nation's 

infrastructure. Public~ private partnerships are an important tool to leverage investment in 

combination with federal dollars. However, this tool alone is insufficient when it comes to 

the scope and breadth of America's infrastructure needs. A commitment to provide the 

additional federal funds needed to support our nation's infrastructure needs must be the 

foundation of any new infrastructure plan. 

These are straightforward and achievable priorities within the scope of the infrastructure legislation 

we hope will soon develop and advance. At the same time, our industry would like to underscore for 

you the persistent need to address the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and other existing federal 

programs that support infrastructure investment. 

Our industry stands ready to work with you to develop an infrastructure plan that benefits all 

Americans. Thank you for your continued leadership in helping America reclaim its infrastructure 

advantage~ and continue to grow the U.S. economy for decades to come. 

Sincerely, 

Dennis Slater 

President 

Association of Equipment Manufacturers