U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–278 PDF 2014

BUILDING THE FOUNDATION FOR SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION 

(113–48) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 14, 2014 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Mary Fallin, Governor, State of Oklahoma, on behalf of the National 

Governors Association .......................................................................................... 4 

Stuart Levenick, Group President, Caterpillar, Inc. ............................................. 4 

Hon. Kasim Reed, Mayor, City of Atlanta, on behalf of the U.S. Conference 

of Mayors .............................................................................................................. 4 

Lawrence J. Hanley, International President, Amalgamated Transit Union ..... 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Howard Coble, of North Carolina .................................................................. 46 

Hon. Steve Daines, of Montana .............................................................................. 47 

Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, of West Virginia .............................................................. 49 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Mary Fallin ..................................................................................................... 52 

Stuart Levenick ....................................................................................................... 59 

Hon. Kasim Reed ..................................................................................................... 68 

Lawrence J. Hanley ................................................................................................. 78 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates, written testimony ........................................... 105 

Kurt J. Nagle, President and CEO, American Association of Port Authorities, 

written testimony ................................................................................................. 109 

Edward A. Gottko, PWLF, President, American Public Works Association, 

written testimony ................................................................................................. 112 

International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association, written testimony ..... 120 

Transportation Equity Caucus, written testimony ............................................... 124 

Victor S. Parra, President and CEO, United Motorcoach Association, written 

testimony .............................................................................................................. 129 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 86278.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 86278.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 86278.003
(1) 

BUILDING THE FOUNDATION FOR SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 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. 

First I would like the opportunity to welcome everyone to today’s 

hearing. It looks like we have a full house, which is a good sign. 

This is the first hearing for the committee this year, and the subject matter is of critical importance to the Nation, to the economy, 

and certainly to our transportation infrastructure system. 

I am pleased to welcome our distinguished witnesses: The Governor of Oklahoma and former colleague, Mary Fallin. Mary, it is 

great to see you, and Governor, it is great to see you today. 

Mr. Stuart Levenick, group president of Caterpillar. Nice to see 

you, sir. 

The Honorable Kasim Reed, the mayor of Atlanta. Mr. Mayor, 

thanks for being here with us. 

And Mr. Lawrence Hanley, international president of Amalgamated Transit Union. 

Thank you all for being here. We certainly look forward to hearing from all of you today. 

Transportation is important, I think we all know that, and sometimes we forget the importance of it in our daily lives. But it is how 

people get to work, it is how we get our children to school, we go 

to the store to buy food and clothes and any other necessities as 

well as visiting our family members around the country. 

But it is also about business. It is critical to the supply chain, 

how it functions, how raw materials get to factories, how finished 

products get to market, and how food gets from farms to our kitchens. 

It allows American business to be competitive in the global marketplace and for our economy to prosper and grow and create jobs. 

And that is absolutely essential to this bill and to any infrastructure bill we do, and that is to talk about the jobs. Not just the construction jobs, we certainly know there are going to be construction 

jobs created, but it is the long-term jobs. 

And so that Caterpillar, when they are grabbing market share in 

the world economy, they are going to be hiring hopefully more people back in Peoria or their other plants around the country, creVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:49 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\1-14-1~1\86278.TXT JEAN
2 

ating those jobs to create those machines that again go into the 

world economy. And sold there and make our economy stronger. 

There is a long history of a strong Federal role in transportation. 

I go right back to the key philosopher that our Founding Fathers 

all read when they were developing this Nation, this constitution, 

Adam Smith was the father of modern economics. And he believed 

there were three duties of Government: To provide security, preserve peace, and to erect and maintain public works to facilitate 

commerce. And with those thoughts, our Founding Fathers went 

forward and drew up the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 talks 

about the interstate commerce and post roads. And those post 

roads today are the highways, the byways, the transportation system of today, as well as the inland waterways and the harbors that 

were absolutely critical at the beginning of our Nation. 

The Federal Government continued to invest over the last 200 

years from the Transcontinental Railroad, to the Panama Canal to 

the Interstate Highway System, all making significant impacts to 

the efficiency and to the economy of the United States. 

Last Congress we continued this history by passing MAP–21, 

which reauthorized Federal surface transportation programs, and 

MAP–21 expires in September of this year. My hope is to have a 

reauthorization done on time, and in order to do that the committee’s work is ramping up to get a long-term bill. Today we are formally kicking off this reauthorization process with this hearing. 

In the coming months, we plan to hold hearings and roundtable 

discussions to give stakeholders an opportunity to share their policy priorities and concerns. We hope to take committee action in 

late spring, early summer with the goal to be on the House floor 

before August recess. In this timeframe will give us a time to conference that bill with the Senate. 

I believe this bill needs to be bipartisan, much the same way we 

moved forward with WRRDA, to build consensus working together 

and making sure we are educating, and all of you as stakeholders 

in this room, helping to educate Members of Congress, as to the importance of this bill, what it means in their districts, what it means 

to their States and their States’ and districts’ economy. 

The next bill must ensure that our surface transportation system 

can continue to support the U.S. economy and provide Americans 

with a good quality of life. And as I said, this bill is about jobs. 

It is about providing a strong physical platform for U.S. companies 

to compete at home and abroad. 

It is about making sure we can purchase goods and services 

which we have come to rely on in our daily lives. And as I said and 

I will keep saying, it is about jobs. Not only the construction jobs 

but the jobs that people are going to be able to create in factories 

around this country and also people going into the stores and not 

paying more but paying less for those products that get efficiently 

to their shelves so they have more money in their pockets to spend 

money on other things that they want in their lives. 

So how do we get there? This bill will be built around key principles. This bill needs to be fiscally responsible and to build on the 

reforms of MAP–21. We need to continue to reduce regulatory burdens, we need to make sure our Federal partners have flexibility 

in how they spend their money and approve projects. 

3 

We also need to focus on freight mobility. Chairman Jimmy Duncan’s special panel on freight wrapped up this October. An independent panel provided us with a lot of good recommendations that 

we need to take a hard look at. We can’t afford to be stuck in the 

past or we will be left behind, more assuredly. 

We should encourage our Federal partners to think outside the 

box in how to address our transportation challenges. So we need 

to promote innovation and lay the foundation for emerging technologies. By passing the next surface transportation bill we can ensure Americans quality of life and facilitate economic growth for 

years to come. 

So I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel, and 

with that will turn to the ranking member on the Highway Transit 

Subcommittee, the honorable gentlelady from Washington, DC. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly had not intended to make an opening statement because Mr. Rahall is shortly here. I believe he was on C–SPAN this 

morning. But since he is not here, and I know he will have something to say when he comes, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, how encouraged I am by your opening statement and by our beginning the 

year with this hearing. With every indication that we will have a 

new bill, the Democrats among ourselves have been meeting, to 

talk about priorities. 

Of course, our major concern is the great dilemma of surface 

transportation and of this committee. And that is as our trust fund 

evaporates, and I don’t believe that that is too harsh a word, 

whether we will be innovative enough to come up with a way to 

pay for this bill that will attract both Democratic and Republican 

support. And, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt, given your leadership on the WRRDA bill, that that is not a task beyond you, or beyond this committee. 

And I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for not allowing us 

to go home in January without casting the opening net for the new 

surface transportation bill for 2014. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady. 

And with that again Governor Fallin has got a hard stop, so we 

want to get started with her. 

And then I would encourage the witnesses to maintain the 5- 

minute rule. I have been known to be brutal with the gavel and 

the clock, but since we have such a distinguished group here, I may 

be a little weaker today. 

But with that, I would like to allow Mr. Markwayne Mullin to 

introduce the Governor of Oklahoma. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Chairman. 

It is a great honor I have to introduce our honored guest. Governor Mary Fallin, from the great State of Oklahoma. What an 

honor to have you back. I know this used to be your committee. 

And you are going to bring a very unique perspective being that 

you served our great State not only on the Federal level but now 

on the State level. 

Transportation is obviously vitally important to not just our 

State but the entire country. It is one thing that in the constitution 

4 

that definitely specifies this is the area that Congress has control 

over. 

So Governor Fallin, what an honor it is to have you back in DC, 

and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And with that I ask unanimous consent that our 

witnesses’ full statements be included in the record. 

And with that, yield to the Governor of the great State of Oklahoma. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MARY FALLIN, GOVERNOR, STATE OF 

OKLAHOMA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION; STUART LEVENICK, GROUP PRESIDENT, CATERPILLAR, INC.; HON. KASIM REED, MAYOR, CITY OF ATLANTA, 

ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; AND 

LAWRENCE J. HANLEY, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION 

Governor FALLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure to be here. 

And Ranking Member Rahall, it is good to see you. 

And, Congressman Mullin, thank you very much for that kind introduction. 

And members of the committee, it is a great pleasure to be here 

today on behalf of our Nation’s Governors in front of the Transportation Committee. 

As chair of the National Governors Association, Governors want 

to work with our Federal partners on the surface transportation reauthorization. As a former member of the Transportation Committee and now having the perspective of being a Governor, I understand now more than ever the importance of Governors and the 

NGA and the Transportation Committee working together on the 

surface transportation reauthorization. 

Our Nation’s transportation infrastructure systems support and 

enhance economic growth of the States and the country, sustain 

our quality of life, and enable the flow of interstate and international commerce. 

However, previous surface transportation reauthorizations and 

their string of legislative extensions created uncertainty, not only 

on the national level but certainly on the State level. Our States 

took action to maintain and develop our vital infrastructure. But, 

Governors agree that successful State action does not justify Federal disengagement. 

Governors believe that surface transportation requires both a 

long-term vision and funding stability to provide for our Nation’s 

diverse mobility needs. As CEOs of our States, Governors understand the fundamental importance of surface transportation to economic competitiveness and job growth. Continued Federal investment is necessary to leverage and create a cohesive transportation 

system across the Nation. The burden of maintaining the Nation’s 

entire transportation network cannot be left only to the States. 

Federal, State, and local governments must partner to invest in 

quality infrastructure to meet our Nation’s transportation needs. 

Investing today in transportation is investing long term in our economic vitality and also in the safety of our citizens. Of course, infrastructure includes more than just transportation, and I want to 

5 

take a moment to commend this committee on the passage of the 

2013 WRRDA bill. This reauthorization remains an NGA priority. 

Stewardship of our water infrastructure resources is vital to safety, environmental protection, and economic development. We also 

recognize that our Nation’s infrastructure systems are interconnected. State-of-the-art ports and waterways must have stateof-the-art highways, transit, and rail systems. 

As Congress begins its work on MAP–21, Governor support continuing the user-pays principle to guide transportation funding and 

placing all options on the table for evaluation. Governors support 

Federal funding mechanism designs to maintain reliable, long-term 

funding certainty. Governors support outcome-oriented performance measures developed by State and localities. We believe levels 

of Governments must cooperate to improve and ensure safety and 

security of our infrastructure systems. 

Governors appreciate that MAP–21 reflected many of the NGA 

priorities. Governors supported the preservation of innovative financing tools, such as public-private partnerships and the expanded capacity of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovations Act. Let me emphasize that States need Federal funding stability and certainty to pursue long-term planning and 

project delivery. 

Now, next I want to mention municipal bonds, because they have 

assisted our States, our cities, and our counties in financing our infrastructure needs. As you know, the Federal Tax Code includes an 

exclusion from income on interest earned on municipal bonds. Ending or capping the Federal exclusion from income for municipal 

bond interest would increase the costs of financing infrastructure 

projects. It would trigger higher interest rates by at least 20 basis 

points. And that, in effect, would chill the project, or trigger higher 

taxes on citizens to fund our infrastructure needs. 

There have been studies that show proposals to cap or eliminate 

the interest exclusion on State and local tax deductibility would 

bring a net loss of approximately 417,000 jobs, and the loss of $71 

billion in real gross domestic product over 10 years. Governors believe Federal taxes, and Federal laws or regulations should not increase the costs of States to incur the issue of municipal bonds or 

decrease investor appetite to purchase them. 

Infrastructure requires an intergovernmental partnership and all 

levels of Government have a crucial role to play to achieve overall 

success. Governors look forward to working with this Congress and 

with this committee on the reauthorization of MAP–21. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Governor. 

And I would be remiss if I didn’t call out a name of your long 

serving Secretary of Transportation, Gary Ridley. I see him over 

there. As I think he may be the longest serving State DOT Secretary in the United States. So watch out. It is good to have you 

here, a real expert with us here today. 

Next, Mr. Levenick, from Caterpillar. Please proceed. 

Mr. LEVENICK. Well, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and distinguished members of the committee. Thanks very 

much for the opportunity to testify today about the reauthorization 

of our surface transportation system and the importance of our 

6 

transportation infrastructure to companies like Cat, as we do business and compete in the global marketplace. 

My name is Stu Levenick. I am a group president for Caterpillar, 

responsible for leading the company’s customer and dealer support 

organization, which provides integrated supply chain, transportation services, service parts logistics to Cat dealers and customers 

around the world. 

It is probably no surprise to anybody in the room that a company 

like Caterpillar, manufacturing bulldozers, is a big supporter of infrastructure investment. But for us, and my purpose here today is 

not just about selling more machines and jobs, it is about the drag 

our poor infrastructure has on the U.S. economy, our ability to efficiently import and export, and consequently the adverse impact it 

has on U.S. competitiveness. 

As one of the America’s leading exporters, we are keenly aware 

of the importance of exports for job creation and economic expansion. We also understand how absolutely critical it is to have an 

effective supply chain if we are to maintain our global leadership 

as a U.S. manufacturer. 

Today, Cat exports to every region of the world. 2012, we exported over $22 billion. These are products from the United States 

which must travel through multimodal transportation systems that 

includes; roads, rail, water, and air. The condition and integration 

of these various models have a significant and direct impact on our 

ability to move products quickly and efficiently at the lowest possible cost. 

As the world marketplace expands and our Nation faces increasing competition from around the world, our ability to move goods 

as quickly and efficiently as possible takes on an even more important role. Our transportation system is the backbone of our economy. Economic opportunities are directly tied to the efficiency and 

reliability of this system, but we are relying on investments made 

decades ago to sustain our growing and changing economy. 

Our transportation network is aging, it is underfunded, and we 

must renew our commitment to this system if we are to ensure 

global competitiveness in the 21st century. The big question is 

what does it mean for American competitiveness. Our interstates 

and highways, for instance, provide a particular challenge for the 

movement of Cat products through the U.S. logistics network. Congestion and capacity constraints are a significant concern with high 

levels of traffic in major metropolitan areas affecting turn times 

and on-time performance. 

Similar to highway congestion, bridges present a comparable 

problem with inadequate capacity for large loads or traffic flows, 

bridges that were built early in the transportation industry present 

the largest problems with regard to height and age. 

Our Nation’s rail network is increasing seen as an attractive 

cost-effective way to alleviate growing passenger and freight congestion on our highways. It is also a vital component of our integrated transportation system. However, current railroad infrastructure limits Cat’s transportation options. Many rail lines, bridges, 

tunnels cannot accept the physical height and width attributes of 

our products, and accordingly, a great number of rail switching 

7 

yards and terminals are required, leading to added delays and increased costs. 

Like road and rail networks, our ports are also posing significant 

challenges for exporters and logistics professionals. Because U.S. 

port capacity constraints, outdated manual processes and communications, and a lack of integration and automation, Caterpillar has 

come to increasingly Canadian ports for both import and export 

containers due to improved transit times and costs. Approximately 

40 percent of Cat’s imports and exports now move through Canadian ports. 

Finally, our aviation system, which was once the envy of the 

world, today is operating with substandard technologies and facing 

significant capacity constraints. As an example, we annually ship 

about 70 million pounds of mission-critical service parts globally 

through Chicago O’Hare. These parts are typically needed to a customer’s site within 24 hours. Last year, Chicago O’Hare airport 

overall on-time arrival was about 75 percent, in other words, one 

in four flights experiences some sort of delay. This significantly impacts our ability to satisfy customers and service our products in 

the time customers require. 

In summary, our transportation system, roads, rail, water, and 

air is aging, inefficient, and in serious need of reinvestment. This 

reality leads to increased costs and less efficiency, impacting and 

reducing our competitiveness around the world. Our aging infrastructure and shipping inefficiencies it creates has added an estimated 3 to 4 days of transit time, costing Caterpillar millions of 

dollars in cash flow annually. 

America needs a multiyear, sustainable surface transportation 

reauthorization so we can begin to rebuild our infrastructure and 

get back on the road to global competitiveness. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rahall, and the members of the 

committee, thanks for the opportunity to share with you the views 

of Caterpillar on this crucial topic. We stand ready to work with 

you and your colleagues in Congress to move surface transportation 

reauthorization forward. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Levenick. 

And with that, Mayor Reed, please proceed. 

Mr. REED. Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 

Rahall and members of the committee. 

I am Kasim Reed, the mayor of the city of Atlanta. I want to tell 

you how grateful I am for having the opportunity to appear before 

you on behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors, representing nearly 1,400 cities across America with populations of 

30,000 people or more. 

Increasingly, our success as a country will depend on how we address our transportation needs and other infrastructure needs in 

our metropolitan areas. We are fortunate because we are seeing 

genuine leadership out of this committee. As mayor, I can assure 

you that nothing is more important than investment in our water 

and our transportation systems. 

Now I happen to be the mayor of a city with the busiest passenger airport on the planet Earth, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta. 

Last year, we handled about 95 million passengers. That is about 

8 

10 million more than Beijing’s airport. My home State of Georgia 

has one of the fastest growing ports in the United States of America, the port of Savannah. So the work of this committee is vital 

to me as a leader of the capital city of the State of the Georgia and 

vital to Georgia as well. 

As you prepare for renewal of the Federal surface transportation 

law, I ask that we work together to expand our investment and 

avoid simply flat-lining our commitments. At the Conference of 

Mayors, we have found that over the next 30 years your metropolitan areas will grow by 84 million people. I do want to be clear 

when we use the word metros, we don’t simply mean cities. That 

is both cities and the suburbs that surround the cities. 

Mr. Chairman, this is more people than the current population 

of my home State of Georgia, your home State of Pennsylvania, Arizona, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Tennessee, and 

Virginia combined. So I think that we can make a strong argument 

that the country’s future health is going to be tied to having very 

healthy metropolitan areas. And we should take a bipartisan approach to them because this isn’t simply about cities, it is also 

about our suburbs as well. And I believe the work that you all are 

doing on the transportation bill really does represent the most 

thoughtful, effective method to expand well-paying jobs in our cities 

and our metro that we will have in some time. 

MAP–21 made important policy reforms by consolidating programs, improving project delivery, providing for greater accountability, and assisting project sponsors with more financing options. 

But we need the stability of a long-term bill. And I am hopeful that 

you will take that into consideration as you move this bill forward. 

I also want you to know that mayors across the United States 

of America are prepared in a truly bipartisan way to help you carry 

this water. To get out all over the United States of American and 

explain why the work you are doing is essential to the competitiveness of the greatest country on Earth. 

I also respectfully ask that you provide cities some flexibility and 

a larger role at the table. We want to be partners with our Governors. And we understand that that will mean being junior partners, but we would like to have a seat at the table and to ensure 

that cities have a voice as well. We believe that when cities are directly at the table along with Governors in States that we can actually leverage more resources and make the dollars that you provide 

States and cities go further. 

The Atlanta region is one of the largest and fastest growing metropolitan areas in the Nation. Our principle transit system, 

MARTA, is the 9th largest in the country. Your bill will help it as 

well. So on issue after issue, we think that we can make a case 

that we will be a strong partner to you. And we also think that the 

bill that you are moving will provide more verifiable jobs if we get 

a long-term bill than almost any bill that will come through Congress. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leadership, 

Ranking Member Rahall, I want to thank you for your relationship 

certainly on the WRRDA bill, and I look forward to seeing the same 

kind of energy and commitment to the surface transportation bill. 

I am very grateful to you. Thank you. 

9 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate that. I also appreciate your commitment to helping us go out across the country 

to educate the American people. I think that is really where it 

starts and then moves into the halls of Congress. So thank you for 

that commitment. 

With that, Mr. Hanley, please proceed. 

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Rahall. 

Appreciate the opportunity to be here to testify. 

I want to speak for a moment about the transit crisis in America 

that has gone on for the last 5 years. As a consequence of the 

downturn in the economy and the fact that Federal funding has 

been flat-lined, essentially, to our cities. With the fall in revenue 

coming in from tax collections in our cities and counties, we have 

seen a true crisis in American mobility. We have seen 90 percent 

of the cities in America have to raise fares and cut service. Sometimes cutting service in my hometown of New York, that had run 

for 100 years in that city, because of this lack of funding available 

to keep the systems running. 

I represent about 200,000 people who work in the transit industry in the U.S. and Canada, and our members are the frontline 

people who transport people in communities. They are the urban 

tax collectors who pull into bus stops every day and have to explain 

to people why their service is being cut at the same time that their 

fares are going up. This is in a period when there as been a bipartisan agreement in Washington that we can’t raise taxes on millionaires, we just can’t do that because that would wreck the economy. And yet as we watch inequality gnawing at American society, 

we ignore the fact the decision to not fund transit is one that has 

caused taxes to be increased again and again deliberately on the 

poorest Americans who need transit to get around. 

The other thing that is important is that Congress should understand that the notion that you can’t raises tax to provide transit 

service, is walking in the exact opposite direction of the American 

people. Every time a referendum is put up around this country to 

raise taxes, people vote for it. Seventy percent of the referenda that 

had been proposed and actually voted on over the course of the last 

5 years, where taxpayers have an opportunity to raise their taxes 

to support transit, they vote yes. These referenda are passing. That 

is a clear signal from the American people that they not only want 

more transit but they are prepared to pay for it. 

But more significantly the coming crisis, the one that is looming, 

if you think there was a problem in Fort Lee, New Jersey, because 

of some political shenanigans regarding traffic, wait until you see 

what is about to happen in America. Over the course of the next 

15 years, our cities are going to grow exponentially. There has been 

already an increase in the population in cities; in my own city in 

New York, we have grown to over 8 million people again. The projection is the metropolitan area in New York will be 20, almost 21 

million people in 12 years. Where will people get transit to get 

around? 

And what about the young people in America? This may come as 

a surprise, but young people in America not only are moving back 

into cities, but they are rejecting car travel. Fewer, as a percentage 

of the population, fewer young people today hold drivers licenses 

10 

than at any time since John Kennedy was President of this country. That is a trend that we are missing if we don’t start to project 

a plan for how we are going to get people around. So imagine all 

these growing urban centers with young people who have no cars 

who have no licenses who are flooding into transit systems. And 

that is the case in many of our larger cities. 

Even more shocking, the projection for Phoenix. If anybody believes this is simply, you know, old urban cities. Phoenix is projected in several years to have a population as large as the current 

population of New York City. Eight million people will live in the 

Phoenix metropolitan area soon. How are those people going to get 

around? America cannot depend upon cars. You know, people say 

that Americans are in love with their cars, and I think the fact is 

that is not true. They just hate everything else. And it is because 

everything else does not serve their interest. 

There have been studies that have shown. Matter of fact in our 

testimony we talk about the fact that Brookings Institute found in 

a typical metropolitan area, residents can only reach 30 percent of 

jobs via transit within 90 minutes. Now, knowing that, understanding that, how could anyone think that it is just a love affair 

between the American people and their cars. It is not. 

We also want to say that we will work with you, we want to 

work with Congress to make this happen. In 2012, 56 Members of 

Congress or the Senate campaigned with us, bipartisan, Republicans and Democrats, worked with us around the country to build 

rider support to voice their interest in transit. More people, by the 

way, board our transit systems in America in 3 days than all the 

people that Mayor Reed talked about going through the Atlanta 

airport, not to say we shouldn’t fix the Atlanta airport. But the 

magnitude of this is huge. There are 35 million boardings a day in 

the United States of people riding transit. There should be many 

more. But these are voters, these are people who need more attention to their needs as American citizens. 

So we are organizing those riders. We have 91 cities across the 

country that have now formed rider groups. You will be hearing 

from them. And we would ask you to join us in the month of May 

when we go out and campaign throughout our cities and throughout rural areas to try and get more attention to transit, more funding for transit, and essentially a better way of life for American 

people. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Hanley. 

And knowing that the Governor has about 10 more minutes, I 

am going to start off by asking her a couple of questions, and I 

think Ranking Member Rahall, if you have one, I think we can get 

it in here and we can get her out on time. 

By the way, I don’t know if it was mentioned here, you are the 

chairman of the National Governors Association, and we are very, 

very proud of you of course for being Governor but also leading 

that great organization. So we will make sure we get you out of 

here on time. 

In your testimony, you mentioned that Oklahoma is globally 

competitive because of the Nation’s transportation network. Can 

you explain some of the facilities that you rely on that are thouVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:49 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\1-14-1~1\86278.TXT JEAN
11 

sands of miles away? And I have to admit to you, when Markwayne 

Mullin took us up to the Port of Catoosa, I did not realize it was 

the largest inland waterway in the country. So again we learn everything new. It is good to be up here and travel. If you could just 

talk about how the Nation’s infrastructure affects or impacts positively or negatively Oklahoma. 

Governor FALLIN. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Rahall, it is great to see you. It is great to be back in front of 

the committee again. And it is interesting to see the other side of 

the story once I have been on the Transportation Committee and 

now as a Governor actually working with Federal regulatory entities and Federal funds and now on the State level. And trying to 

decide how you parcel and part those Federal funds, versus the 

State funds, and how you combine the two and work together. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned about how important 

it is that we have reauthorization of the transportation bill. But 

one of the things I want to emphasize, that I have seen on the 

State level is, that we need certainty. We need certainty in our 

States. When there are short-term extensions, when there are continuing resolutions, when there is no permanency, no long-term vision for funding for our Nation’s infrastructure, whatever type of 

infrastructure that it might be. Whether it is the highways or 

bridges, our ports, our transit, our airports, addressing our congestion problems, that affects our States and it affects the certainty 

within our marketplace. It affects our employers, it affects their 

ability to hire people, to gear up for say, construction projects like 

our I–40 cross-town interstate that you came to see in our State. 

And so as you are working through the committee on the MAP– 

21 reauthorization, we just ask that you look at, first of all a longterm solution, giving us some certainty in our States, certainly addressing all of the concerns that we have heard from our various 

people testifying today, and that you allow us the flexibility, innovation. There is some great innovation going on among the States, 

some great examples of ways that we can stretch our dollars. 

But also understand that States can’t pick up the load by ourselves. That we have to have a national vision for national transportation infrastructure system. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Governor. 

Mr. Levenick, can you talk a little bit of some of the specific experiences you have moving your goods out of the country on the 

system? What are the bottlenecks? I know you and I had a discussion before, I kept using Caterpillar as an example of shipping out 

of American ports. And then you told me you ship a lot of it out 

of Canadian ports because they are better equipped to handle, they 

are easier, they are less expensive. So could you talk about some 

of the issues that you face, whether it is roads, rail? 

Mr. LEVENICK. Thank you. I think the real issue, and it talks a 

little about the what the Governor just addressed is that for us, it 

is not any one thing. We look at the transportation as a network. 

And so if you look at highways that have bottlenecks, if you look 

at old bridges, if you look at old rail that can’t handle the size, the 

ports that aren’t deep enough. 

Ironically, Caterpillar is providing the equipment that is widening the Panama Canal. It is sort of an ironic twist of fate that 

12 

once that is widened, some of the ships that will be able to pass 

through that canal may not be able to dock at U.S. ports and benefit exports from the United States. 

As we look at ports, there is some pretty good detail in the testimony, but 40 percent of our exports and imports come through Canadian ports today. Port of Montreal is about 3 days faster than 

Norfolk, Virginia, and Prince Rupert out of British Columbia is 

about 2 days faster than Long Beach for us. And that time, of 

course, is money and it is costs. And as we compete in the global 

economy, that matters. And so it is not just one thing. If the network doesn’t work together as an integrated whole, it is a problem. 

And that is what you see, that is what we deal with every day. And 

we are just a proxy for any American manufacturer. 

So again. I come back to our plea is that and again echo what 

the Governor said, a multiyear, sustainable plan that gives certainty to people making investments and at the same time drives 

a line in an integration. That is a role the Federal Government can 

play to really help this thing work as an efficient network. That 

will readily get us back to competitive advantage. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. I would now yield to the 

ranking member for questioning, keeping in mind Governor Fallin 

has 5 minutes. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I ask unanimous 

consent my opening comments be made part of the record. And I 

apologize for being tardy. My comments made part of the record, 

my opening comments. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. RAHALL. Governor Fallin, welcome back. Good to see you 

once again. You served not only on this committee, but Resources 

Committee as well, which I chaired at one time. And I know you 

have been through some difficult times since then as Governor because of natural disasters and you have done a tremendous job of 

leading your State through those disasters. And good to see you 

here today. 

You mentioned in your testimony, you kind of warned Members 

not to misinterpret what some of the States are doing on their own, 

which are very commendable actions, as far as raising revenue, 

they are not just waiting for us to act here in Washington, but they 

are proceeding on their own. But you said don’t misinterpret that 

as a signal to devolve everything back to the States and renege on 

our Federal role. Could you comment just briefly further on what 

that might mean? I know we heard from Tom Donohue, the Chamber of Commerce back early in this hearing process, we heard from 

the Laborers’ International Union president, from Governor 

Rendell, that there has to be a Federal role in transportation. We 

cannot just devolve, as some Members of this body have preached, 

back to the States. What are some other negative repercussions if 

that were to happen? 

Governor FALLIN. Ranking Member Rahall, it is a great question. 

And it is a very important question because I do think there has 

to be a partnership between the Federal Government, States, and 

localities within our individual States to work together. 

We certainly do need to have a national vision for our transportation infrastructure because we are 50 States and the territories 

13 

that have to work together to develop a seamless transportation 

system in all the different realms of transportation that we have 

in our Nation. 

But the States can’t pick up all the costs. And certainly as you 

have gone through sequester and Government shutdowns and 

other things that you have had here in Congress, States have had 

to make some tough choices when it came to spending and being 

able to meet some of our funding needs. And we have done some 

innovative things. 

So I guess what I am saying is that we do need some flexibility. 

We do have some great ideas within our States that I think could 

be helpful and sharing those best practices with Congress, which 

many times in front of this committee we have had various people 

testify, like my Secretary of Transportation, Gary Ridley, who has 

been before this committee many times when I was here. But to 

understand that we do need to have a national system that assures 

that we have safety within our various systems, whether it is rail, 

whether it is ports, whether it is our airports or commercial air, 

our roads and bridges throughout our States, whatever form it 

might be, transit. 

But we also need to have some flexibility within our States because each State is different, each State has different needs, each 

State has different funding sources, each State has different crises 

that we have to deal with. Each State has different needs. I was 

listening to the gentleman talking about transit and the need for 

that. And certainly we understand that. But in Oklahoma we are 

a very rural State, we have a lot of roads within Oklahoma. And 

so we don’t have big transit systems because Oklahoma City isn’t 

as big as Atlanta. So each State is different, each State has different needs. And we are just asking that you consider that as you 

are working through the various rules and regulations in the 

MAP–21 reauthorization. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you very much, Governor. 

Let me turn quickly to Mr. Hanley. And certainly want to thank 

you for all that you do and what you do for the health and safety 

of our transit workers, which is paramount on all our agendas. 

What impact would a slash in Federal transit budget have on the 

workers that you represent? And on the riders? 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, again, what we have seen over the course of 

the last several years simply with no increases in Federal funding, 

and also, by the way, a bias in Congress against operating aid for 

transit. In times of urgent economic need, we believe that the Congress should step up and fund some operating aid to keep transit 

systems running when the economy is not only in collapse nationally but at the local level. 

But we have seen over the course of the last 5 or 6 years more 

layoffs of transit workers than we had seen since World War II. 

Chicago, for example, a city that depends on transit, cut 12 percent 

of its transit in 1 day in 2009 because of the economic downturn. 

We are a better country than that. You know, we can’t abandon 

riders in the streets. And at a time when the economy really needs 

more people at work, it was kind of silly not to keep transit workers working as well. 

14 

So if there are any cuts in transit obviously those same two 

groups are going to feel it the most, the people who operate the systems, the drivers and the mechanics and the people who sell tokens 

and other fare media, and also the people who ride and depend 

upon transit every day. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. With that, it is 10:45. Governor Fallin, we will let 

you excuse yourself. And again we are really proud of you being the 

Governor of Oklahoma and of course your new leadership position 

at the National Governors Association. So thanks for taking the 

time to be here with us today and I look forward to working with 

you as we move forward on the next surface transportation bill this 

year. Thank you. 

And with that, I yield to Mr. Petri for questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Fallin and some 

of the other panel members referred to this, but I wonder if you 

could expand on it a little bit. For some years now, Congress has 

been drifting away from what we call regular order, reauthorization of 5- and 6-year bills in major sectors of our economy. We had 

a couple of dozen short-term aviation reauthorizations before finally adopting a multiyear bill. Currently in the highway area, we 

are on a relatively short-term authorization. 

In any event, what difference does it make if we just kick the can 

down the road and don’t do our job, we still seem to have some sort 

of a program in place. Why is a 5- or 6-year framework important 

for our country? What difference does it make? Would each of you 

be willing to address that a little bit? 

Mr. REED. The instability stifles investment. So when we don’t 

have a 6-year plan, and we are planning a new runway at 

Hartsfield-Jackson, or a new terminal, we are taking on projects 

that are multiyear projects. And it helps us when we know what 

is going to be available. Good, bad, or indifferent. I could make the 

same argument regarding the port in Savannah, where we are 

making another long-term investment and we are going to have to 

expand the roadways and arterials to deepen the Port of Savannah. 

Caterpillar just located a site in Georgia, and one of the reasons 

that they did was the port. So the bottom line is, is the stability 

that a 6-year bill or a longer term bill gives us is it removes instability and allows us to go and invest knowing what the situation 

is. And that is healthy because it stimulates our ability to make 

investments that employ people. So the biggest economic generator 

in the State of Georgia is Hartsfield-Jackson Airport. It employs 

about 56,000 people directly. And the decisions you make here give 

me a sense of what we are going to need to do on our side of the 

house in terms of what our responsibilities and obligations are. 

So the difference between a 2-year bill and a 6-year bill represents the difference of tens of millions of dollars being invested 

locally, at the municipal level and at the State level. 

Mr. LEVENICK. I take the same angle that the mayor did and just 

say that the same applies to the contractors, the architects, the designers that are building this infrastructure. They won’t make investments in people, products, material, without a long-term view 

as to what the future holds. It is, you know, basically pretty simple. It is a result. You see people relying on what they have got, 

15 

on rental of equipment, not making the hiring decisions that you 

would normally see if they had a long-term plan with certainty. 

I would also say that, you know, MAP–21, while it is only a 2- 

year extension, many of the provisions or regulatory provisions that 

went into that bill I think will be very effective going forward if 

applied to a longer term legislation with certainty. The efficiencies, 

the accountability, the flexibility that is built into that I think are 

real good reforms that will actually make things much more efficient when applied to a long-term commitment on funding. 

Mr. HANLEY. I agree as well. Significantly, in our major cities, 

real estate development is always built around transit. And people 

often forget that. But the value of having a long-term plan is that 

first it enables people who start to imagine better things for their 

cities to put them in place, and, secondly, it certainly attracts investment from people who are interested in developing the real estate and moving to different parts of town. 

It is vital that we have a long-term plan for—and particularly 

when you think about what is going to happen to our cities over 

the course of the next 15 years, as the population grows throughout 

urban America, we are going to need a transportation infrastructure in every one of our cities to make of work. And you can’t have 

that if you do this one year at a time. You needto have a long-term 

plan. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Just real quickly. If we are kind of not 

making real progress, if we are you know, a fight between the 

House and Senate, is it important to just do something for 3 

months or to have crisis and deal with it and funding a major 6- 

year bill because of a benefit of doing that? 

In other words, is it better to just keep things calm and go along 

even if there’s inadequate framework or is it better to face up to 

our problems and put a major 6-year bill in place. 

Mr. LEVENICK. Well, I guess from my perspective, the reason we 

are here is to make a strong case that this is about the economic 

vitality of the country. We are losing ground against the global 

economy. So I guess from Caterpillar’s perspective it would be 

worth a very good debate and dialogue. I will let you guys work the 

details, but what we need is a multiyear, multimode and transportation system with certainty that really addresses the issues that 

we are all describing here. 

Mr. REED. I would certainly err on the side of short-term pain 

for a long-term promise and stability. 

Mr. HANLEY. And I don’t think we need to have a fight. I think 

we all ought to agree. No committee in Congress has ever been 

more bipartisan than this committee, historically, and I think that 

is a proud history and you should all embrace it. 

But look at what is happening around the world. My God, the 

amount of money that China is investing in its transportation, not 

just transporting goods, but also transporting people. America cannot afford to let itself become a third world country, and these are 

the kinds of things that we need to do to step up and make it happen. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentleman. Ms. Norton is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

16 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was really 

struck by how much the witnesses had in common and over and 

over again there was talk about stability and long-term funding. 

Indeed, Mayor Reed, I don’t know how with 2-year funding that 

you could do much more than patch a road. Because it was a 2- 

year patch funding that essentially was out of a trust fund that 

was hardly there. It needed general revenue—— 

Mr. REED. Sure. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Simply to get over its own cliff. But I 

think we ought to drill down and stop simply talking about cliffs 

and disaster and let’s say what we really mean. 

By 2015, this trust fund, which already needed revenue in order 

to fund it this year, will go from $53 billion to zero. What I think 

we are most in need of are ideas about how to fund a 21st-century 

surface transportation system with transit, roads, with everything 

that we need in it. 

The user fund was based on the old car economy. So even if the 

user fund was as robust as it could be, it has outlived its usefulness. People like me drive a hybrid. In other words, we have had 

success with our energy policy, so there is less funding for the trust 

fund. As successful as that was during the period of Eisenhower, 

we need another way to fund roads. 

Have you thought about what kinds of things the Congress 

should do? You understand that funding has to begin with funding 

the whole country, and has to begin here. Should we depend on 

users, the basis for the trust fund? Should we have another framework for funding our vital transportation? Have you given any 

thought to that? 

Do you believe that taxpayers would fully fund a new way to do 

more than patch a road for every couple years or every year? 

Mr. REED. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and 

thank you for your leadership of the District of Columbia for so 

many years. I have given it thought, and I think that what we 

need to do is to have a conversation in this committee where we 

put all options on the table. And then people who are the beneficiaries of your legislation need to step up once you all decide a 

direction and get out here and help you sell it and win it and not 

have you up here alone on a cliff. 

Now, I know that that is going to mean tough negotiations. But 

the reason that I wanted to come here today is because I saw the 

substantial work that was done on WRRDA, which was some of the 

most serious legislation that has come out of Washington in some 

time. And so it suggests that under Chairman Shuster’s leadership 

and under Ranking Member Rahall’s leadership, that you can get 

a serious bill done. 

So I would advocate putting all of the options on the table. In 

communities like mine, we certainly are willing to take on our own 

share to fund what we want. And we typically would do it through 

the form of referenda. Because I believe that, you know, when you 

want more money for public projects, it is OK to go ask for folks. 

But we have got to be given flexibility. 

And finally, Congresswoman, I need you all’s help because mayors have to be at the table. When you don’t involve your mayors, 

17 

you are losing Federal leverage and Federal money. Your Federal 

dollars do not go as far. In one project in the city of Atlanta, we invested $365 million in a project called the Atlanta BeltLine. It has leveraged $1 billion in 

private investment, and I can get projects done faster at the local 

level than you can at the State and Federal level. 

So in summation, I would ask that you put all of the options on 

the table, I would ask that you get a 6-year bill because a 2-year 

bill is not very helpful to us, and I would ask that you give serious 

thought to flexibility and adding mayors to the mix because we can 

get projects out and done faster than you can at the Federal level 

and State level. 

And I think that this committee has the ability to play the most 

powerful role, or one of the three most powerful roles in expanding 

well-paying jobs at a time when we need well-paying jobs and protecting our competitiveness. I think we can out-compete anybody, 

but right now if we don’t start long-term planning, we are just giving it away. I think we are just giving our leadership position 

away. 

Mr. HANLEY. When I was in school, we had a class called Citizenship. And I assume that if they teach that class today, it’s called 

Taxpayership. Because suddenly somewhere along the line we 

switched from being citizens that cared about each other and cared 

about our community and we became taxpayers who wanted all 

that money kept to ourselves. I think Congress needs to be a little 

more bold on this. 

If we are going to have a vision for America that involves a better economy, then we have to find a way to pay for it. You just 

heard from a corporate titan, Caterpillar, that we need better highways, that Caterpillar needs better highways. Well, the folks that 

are making the money at the top ought to figure out a way to pay 

for this. You know, one of the proposals that is in Congress right 

now is to tax stock transactions. 

Right now, by the way, we can all go out and buy, let’s say, a 

broom this afternoon and pay a tax on it because there is a tax on 

the broom. But if you buy the company that made the broom, there 

is no tax. So that seems kind of silly to me. When the company who 

is getting the profits from the roads we build, the transit we provide for people to come to work. And again I know this might rub 

against the grain for some folks who have adopted the idea that 

we are no longer citizens but taxpayers. And what I am saying to 

you is we ought to find a way to do this and remember that at the 

end of the day, if we are not citizens, we have no country. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, gentleman. With that, Mr. Duncan is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A few years 

ago, when I chaired the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, the 

Federal Highway people had two studies saying that the average 

Federal highway projects take 13 years. One study said 13 years, 

one study said 15 years from conception to completion. And Mayor 

Reed, when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, the Atlanta airport people, this is many years ago, they came to us and told us 

that their newest runway, which is now several years old, took 14 

years from conception to completion. It took only 99 construction 

18 

days, and they were so relieved to get all the final approvals, they 

did that in 33 24-hour days. What I am getting at is we have tried 

in some of these bills to do what is referred to as environmental 

streamlining. Most of these delays have been on the environmental 

rules and regulations and red tape. 

I would like to ask all the witnesses, do you see that those efforts 

have done much good? Are these projects still taking too long? And 

I noticed Mayor Reed was talking about that he can do things 

much faster at the local level. Most of the developed nations are 

doing these projects in half time that we are. Especially in China 

and Japan, they are doing probably in a third of the time. 

Mr. REED. You are right. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Are these project still taking too long? 

Mr. REED. The answer, Congressman, is that we are certainly 

able to deliver projects faster. So this committee helped me recently 

build a streetcar expansion in the city of Atlanta. And we are going 

to bring it in, on budget and relatively close to schedule, and we 

are going to regenerated at several hundreds of jobs, and that was 

the demand. So there is no question that we can do things faster. 

If you look at the time that it took for us to complete and construct our fifth runway, and our airport handles about 10 percent 

of domestic U.S. travel. Because we are the home of Delta Airlines. 

The things that you all did to help us streamline our processes 

helped a great deal. 

And so the straight answer to your question is yes. And then, 

you know, the second request would be just to continue to help us 

move faster and then to push real hard to get us a 6-year bill because we need to make multiple decisions at the same time. 

So the capital project from our airport is a $6 billion capital 

project. And in order to spend those kind of dollars, I need to know 

where we are going to be with our Federal partners before I make 

critical decisions to put thousands of people to work. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Levenick, do you still see delays; is there more that we can 

do through this committee? 

Mr. LEVENICK. Well, Congressman, there is probably always 

more that we can do. But I think, at least from Caterpillar’s point 

of view, and we are a user of the output of these projects, not so 

much the builders themselves, but the reforms that were in MAP– 

21 I think were roundly viewed as very positive. And I think as we 

move towards a 6-year bill with certainty, I think those reforms 

will have a very positive impact and probably allow us to improve 

efficiency much greater than what we have seen in the past. It is 

always a step in the right direction. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We have got to have cooperation at the State and 

local levels, though, as well to really do what we need to do. 

Mr. Hanley. 

Mr. HANLEY. We have not experienced that problem in transit. 

If anything, transit projects have been more streamlined over the 

course of the last 10 years than they had been prior to that. And 

certainly we think more attention should be paid to the environment, not less. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Ms. Johnson is recognized for 5 minutes. 

19 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and our 

ranking member and for calling this meeting, and thanks to the 

witnesses for your testimony. The surface transportation legislation 

is one of the signature pieces of legislation for this esteemed committee, and I look forward to cultivating the next piece of legislation with my colleagues for the coming months. 

I have been a strong supporter of activity yeah and had noticed 

that Governor Fallin had mentioned TIFIA as a benefit for her 

State and mentioned also the possibility of any other types of creative financing options. And I would like to ask each one of you to 

tell me why you—whether or not you support TIFIA or any other 

creative financing that we might consider. 

Mr. LEVENICK. Well, let me start, Madam Congressman. Absolutely. I think, as the Governor said, and I will just echo again her 

comments, I think we always want to devolve to the—to the quick 

answer, what is the funding solution to make this all better, and 

the answer probably is, and you will know better than I, but there 

probably isn’t one. We are probably going to need all of them. 

TIFIA is attractive; the infrastructure bank is attractive. Congressman Delaney’s got a proposal on repatriating foreign deferred taxes 

that might have some legs. Certainly user fees is another one. We 

are probably going to need public-private partnerships. I think it 

is going to have to be comprehensive to really get at what we want. 

So, at least from Caterpillar’s point of view, we are open to any 

and all. The ultimate goal for us is an integrated network with 

long-term certainty in a multimodal transportation network that 

improves our competitive advantage globally. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. REED. Congresswoman, I believe that TIFIA is highly effective. 

In the State of Georgia, we recently were awarded TIFIA funding. It was essential to a major transportation initiative in one of 

the most congested parts of the metropolitan region. I can’t say 

enough about that process. 

I think it also represents an extension of Federal resources, because unlike the grant approach, it does allow States that have 

strong credit and strong financial resources to be allowed to pay 

the Federal Government back for your investment, but I think that 

TIFIA really highlights the need for providing alternatives, and so 

to the extent that you can push out a menu of alternatives that 

allow us to do more and leverage more, I hope that as you consider 

this extension, that alternatives are constantly put on the table. 

My city happens to be a huge beneficiary of the TIGER initiative. 

We have won two TIGER grants. One leveraged double the Federal 

investment. We won a $47 million investment that leveraged a 

$100 million project, and the Atlanta BeltLine recently won an $18 

million investment that is leveraging $43 million of local investment. So I think that when you look at the jobs that are verifiably 

created and our ability to pay our bills, that TIFIA is an extremely 

effective project, but at the end of the day, we need alternatives 

with verifiable track records. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. HANLEY. And I think from the workers’ perspective, we are 

interested in all kinds of creative ways to finance these systems, 

20 

but one word of caution that I want you to hear, and that is that 

the public-private partnership craze that has occurred has resulted 

in a real attack on American workers. And, again, it is fashionable 

to attack American workers, but then let’s all talk about we should 

have equality. I mean, you can’t have both. You can’t attack American workers and then gripe about inequality, because that is what 

created it. 

And what has happened in the public-private partnership area in 

transit is that companies, global companies based in England and 

France—one is a really great story. Veolia is a French transit company, a water company also. It is owned by the French social security system. And Veolia comes here and takes over transit systems, 

and in every single case, they eliminate the American workers’ 

pension, every single case. It is their corporate policy that American workers cannot have a pension if they work for Veolia, and yet 

it is owned by the French social security system. There is something wrong about that, and there is something wrong about us 

supporting public-private partnerships that result in degrading 

American jobs, particularly if we are then going to get up together 

and say, you know, we have got to ring our hands about this inequality in America. We are creating it. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

My time has expired. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Time has expired. 

And with that, Mr. Hanna is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Hanley, first of all, I am an operating engineer, 

35 years. I spent a lifetime in—— 

Mr. HANLEY. Good morning, brother. 

Mr. HANNA [continuing]. Cat equipment. I am going to ask you 

something. You know, I agree with you. States are having—they 

are having good outcomes in asking for additional money for transit. You are absolutely right. The age of—between 18 and 34, people are driving increasingly less. We see for the first time in the 

last 10 years numbers miles per person in that age group are declining. We know that that is why the Highway Trust Fund is in 

trouble, the diesel tax and the excise tax and the gasoline tax, 

which I guess on gas, you—transit gets about 2.8 percent. I also 

know that people who use mass transit are not all poor. I have 

been in New York City. I am a New Yorker. You know, a lot of 

wealthy people that ride the transit. It is a great way to get around 

and increasingly, as you said, 35 million people a year—a day, load 

themselves, and your union does a great job of getting people 

where they want to go safely. 

Why isn’t that—why doesn’t that lead you to the conclusion that 

people who take mass transit should not pay something to the Federal Government toward that, because basically now those people 

who you say are riding—are spending money on gas and diesel, 

they are subsidizing, for lack of a better word, they are subsidizing 

mass transit, and there is no—there is no quid pro quo in reverse. 

Yet you are here asking for additional money, which I fully understand, but why shouldn’t this—part of the problem and the difficulty on this committee is exactly as you identified, we are having—we need to have a conversation about how to pay this. Why 

shouldn’t ridership be part of that when not everybody is disadvanVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:49 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\1-14-1~1\86278.TXT JEAN
21 

taged who rides mass transit all across this country? And increasingly, it is just the opposite. 

Mr. HANLEY. Where is Warren Buffett when you need him? It is 

true that in major cities like Washington and New York and Chicago, we have a much more mixed clientele with respect to who 

rides transit, and certainly there are very wealthy people who ride 

transit every day. There are also very poor people who have no 

choice but to ride transit. I recently had—— 

Mr. HANNA. But poor people own cars, too. 

Mr. HANLEY. Let me tell you a story. I was recently involved in 

a nonpartisan voter turnout operation in Cleveland, and I was on 

a van who picked up a voter who had to go a mile and a half from 

her house uphill on a terrible day to vote. And when she got on, 

she said, Thank you. And I said, no, no. Come on. We are happy 

to take you up. No, no. Thank you. She says, you know, I own a 

car. But she—yeah, she said, but I can’t afford the gas. Now, this 

was in a housing project, by the way. 

Mr. HANNA. But isn’t that a case for you to say to her, part of 

your gas tax is going toward this? 

Mr. HANLEY. Oh, yeah, but—— 

Mr. HANNA. You are riding mass transit, therefore, you are not 

paying for it. 

Mr. HANLEY. Well—— 

Mr. HANNA. I mean, how do you justify that transfer of taxes? 

I am just—it is just a simple question. I don’t need an anecdote—— 

Mr. HANLEY. OK. 

Mr. HANNA. What I need to know is why specifically do you think 

people who ride mass transit have no obligation to pay what other 

people in this country pay through their gas tax, diesel and excise 

tax? 

Mr. HANLEY. No, no. 

Mr. HANNA. I am not advocating—— 

Mr. HANLEY. They do pay. They do pay. They pay huge fares. 

They pay income taxes. They pay real estate taxes that all fund 

transit. It is not as if transit riders are getting a free ride—— 

Mr. HANNA. But the Federal Government—— 

Mr. HANLEY [continuing]. But more specifically—— 

Mr. HANNA [continuing]. Subsidizes them, but we do not—we 

do—the people who use the rest of the transportation system have 

historically paid directly unsubsidized. 

Mr. HANLEY. But that is a myth. That is a myth. The fact is that 

the subsidy per rider is much less than the subsidy per car owner 

in America if you want to look at all the different subsidies that 

go into roads, highways, bridges, et cetera. And that is not to take 

away from the importance of them. 

Mr. HANNA. But there is no payment on the part of people who 

use mass transit back to the Federal Government—— 

Mr. HANLEY. That—— 

Mr. HANNA [continuing]. Yet there is with gas and diesel and excise. 

Mr. HANLEY. But they pay Federal taxes. That is what they do. 

They pay income taxes. 

Mr. HANNA. We all pay Federal taxes. 

Mr. HANLEY. Pardon me? 

22 

Mr. HANNA. We all pay Federal taxes if we are in a bracket that 

allows us to do that. 

Mr. HANLEY. OK. But—— 

Mr. HANNA. You see, you really don’t have an answer for that 

question. 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, it is—I don’t have a 30-second answer. There 

is a long, complicated answer that absolutely justifies huge increases in Federal investment in transit. We would be happy to 

have that discussion you in writing or personally. 

Mr. HANNA. My time is expired. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentleman. 

And Mr. Lipinski is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to go back a few minutes to share, I think, Mr. Hanley’s 

exasperation here when one thing he says, look at what the—look 

at what the rest of the world is doing, look what we are sitting 

here talking about. Unfortunately, since SAFETEA–LU expired 

September 30th of 2009, we have struggled to do a long-term robust spending bill for our transportation infrastructure, which we 

all know is desperately needed. We all know that in this room. 

There has been a lack of we can—you know, we can argue here and 

there about who is more to blame, Republicans or Democrats. 

There is plenty of blame to go around and plenty of lack of leadership that I have seen on this issue. It is time that we finally do 

something here. 

Now, MAP–21 was a—was largely a Band-Aid, although it did 

have, as Mr. Levenick had pointed out, had—he pointed out some 

of the good provisions in MAP–21, and then there were others in 

there, so that was good, but it was still a Band-Aid, and we face 

a big cliff at the end of MAP–21 with funding. We need to get this 

done. We need to be serious about it. We need to see real leadership on this. 

Now, I certainly thank and congratulate Chairman Shuster for 

his leadership that he has taken as chairman of this committee 

and moving this issue, keeping this issue on the front burner and 

showing that this is an issue that affects all Americans and it impacts business. And I think we need to do more—a better job of 

getting that out there, the impact on business, the impact on our 

economy. 

So I thank Chairman Shuster for what he is doing, but we really 

need to finally move forward, decide how are we going to fund this. 

We have got to make the tough decisions to do it. 

Now, Mr. Levenick, everyone knows that Caterpillar—obviously, 

you know, Caterpillar will—will benefit from, if we have a transportation bill, from what is spent on building the new roads, the 

additional infrastructure, but I think the point that I want to most 

bring out, and you certainly touched on, was the impact on the 

economy as a whole, everyone in the economy. We depend on an 

efficient transportation system. So I just want you to—give you an 

opportunity, Mr. Levenick, to—you know, to ask you, you know, 

what is at risk for our economy, specifically for Caterpillar, if we 

continue to underinvest in our system as we continue to do? 

Mr. LEVENICK. Well, thanks, Congressman, for the question. I 

think—simply put, I think we continue to lose competitiveness in 

23 

the global economy. And I cited a number of examples about, you 

know, the longer delays for U.S. ports and delays in shipping products across State boundaries and so forth and so on, and I think 

those all build up into inefficiency that our customers have to pay 

for and that other countries in the world—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And what does that mean for job creation? 

Mr. LEVENICK. Well, I think, you know, the more effective we are 

at moving goods and being an effective and competitive exporter, 

the better we are going to do as a company; that is a proxy for U.S. 

manufacturers who export, import. And, you know, you are going 

to be a much more effective company, you are going to grow, create 

jobs. 

I mean, if you look at—many of you have traveled to China and 

you have probably witnessed what is gone on there. China is an interesting example. They have some advantages, clearly. You know, 

they started essentially with a clean sheet of paper and so they are 

able to build an infrastructure network much like what we are describing, an integrated infrastructure network, which is, frankly, 

becoming the standard in the world. They spend 9 percent of GDP. 

They are the second-largest economy on earth; they spend 9 percent of GDP on infrastructure. The United States, 1.4 percent; Canada, 4 percent. Europe, for example, along the lines of what I am 

describing, they have created the TEN–T program, this Trans-European Transportation Network, solely focused on creating an integrated network to make their economy much more efficient in the 

global marketplace. That is the kind of leadership we need here. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. And I—efficiency means—efficiency for 

American businesses mean more American jobs. Other countries 

are stepping out in front of us, becoming more efficient; that means 

more jobs over there than here. 

In the brief time I have left, Mr. Hanley, you know that I formed 

a congressional caucus on public transportation earlier this year. I 

thank you for what you have done at the local level. And we need 

to continue to do more so people understand the importance of public transportation, not just to those who take that transportation, 

but to those who are on the roads who don’t have to deal, then, 

with all the others who are on public transportation being on the 

roads. But my time is up, so, unfortunately, I won’t have an opportunity to have you expand on that. 

So I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. 

And with that, Mr. Gibbs is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for coming before us today, and I am—there are 

lots of us here who feel a long-term highway surface transportation 

bill is a very good thing, and it provides certainty, like you said. 

I want to talk a little bit about—to Mr. Levenick from Caterpillar. In your testimony, you talk about the amount of exports and 

imports that Caterpillar does through the foreign ports in Canada 

in particular. In your testimony, you talk about outdated manual 

processes, communications, lack of integration and automation. 

Well, first, before I get to that, I want to say, in our omnibus bill, 

the appropriations bill we are doing tomorrow, we are getting the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund appropriation, over a billion dolVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:49 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\1-14-1~1\86278.TXT JEAN
24 

lars, so we are on the right track there. And as the chairman of 

the subcommittee that worked on WRRDA, that is something we 

have been fighting to do. I always like to say, doesn’t anybody understand the word to mean, what a trust fund is? 

But I want to talk a little bit, because I have been to some of 

these ports and, you know, we talk about the depth of the ports 

and the need for dredging, but you talk also in your testimony 

about the lack of integration, automation and the communications 

process. Can you just kind of expound a little bit on what is going 

on in those other ports? And then I guess the second part of that, 

too, is we get the dredging done, which we have been fighting hard 

to get done, do we also have just a plain, like, at L.A., Long Beach 

and some other ports, a capacity problem is an issue? Is there some 

other ports could pick up some of that? Is that part of the problem, 

too, or is it some of these other problems you mentioned? 

Mr. LEVENICK. Yeah, I think it is a little of both. And don’t take 

from my comments about the ports it is simply the Port of Norfolk 

can’t unload ships fast enough. You know, there are a variety of 

issues around all of these, but I think the issue is, is that our 

modes aren’t as alined as they are in other countries. So if you 

have a tremendous world-class port and the highway infrastructure 

surrounding it, which provides access to the Nation’s network, isn’t 

up to standard, you haven’t gained anything. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Mr. LEVENICK. This is the same argument with the States doing 

their own infrastructure development. While it is admirable that 

they are taking the initiative to do this, if we wind up with a 

patchwork of 50 different States, you haven’t created a national 

network that is very efficient. Other countries are doing that much 

better. I mentioned the TEN–T issue in Europe. China certainly 

has done that with a clean sheet of paper; Japan is very good at 

it, and even Canada has done a good job of it. So it is a series of 

things regarding alignment of these modes, the information systems necessary to communicate effectively between the modes, and 

a variety of things like that that really make it not optimum, and 

we all pay a price for that; we don’t see it, but we do, and we are 

losing global competitiveness as a result. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. And I just want to turn to Mr. Reed with your 

Savannah port and Atlanta being, I don’t know how many miles it 

is in from the port, but it is, you now, definitely landlocked, and 

you talked about what you are trying do to improve that, what you 

just said about the, you know, the intermodal. Can you comment 

on that, what you are seeing in regards to Savannah and Atlanta? 

Mr. REED. Yes, Congressman. Savannah is about a 21⁄2-hour 

drive from Atlanta, but Atlanta has the highway network that then 

gets the goods throughout the Southeast, so it is that kind of partnership. About 100,000 jobs in the metropolitan region are supported by the Port of Savannah. It is the fastest growing port on 

the eastern seaboard, but it needs to be deepened immediately to 

47 feet. This committee has been helpful with that. But I recently 

traveled to Panama with Vice President Biden, and President 

Martinelli talked about global exports and said that every port that 

is going to be a player in the global economy needs to be at 50 feet, 

so that is where the United States needs to be, and that exports 

25 

around the world over a 30-year period of time, as you know well, 

will increase by about 80 percent, and then when you add to that 

the issue of the size of the ships. 

So we did all of the work that Caterpillar’s been a part of to get 

the Panama Canal so that it could handle a ship with 12,000 or 

13,000 BTUs, and now you have ships that are being manufactured 

that are going to handle 18,000 BTUs, and so we have to begin. 

And when we have a 6-year runway, I think we have a better opportunity to take all of this in and get ready for it. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am just about out of time, but I just want to make 

the comment, I think you are making the comment how important 

it is to connect these systems. I always think, you know, all of our 

transportation systems, you have to look at the whole system and 

not just one part. And I would also—I am out of time, but I would 

also just say we have got a good bill out of WRRDA out of the 

House, and it is not completely there, but we are getting there, but 

just tell all your members, all your people you work with just keep 

the pressure on both the House and the Senate to get it done. 

Thanks. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Gibbs, we are working on it. 

And with that, Mr. Carson’s recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that States like 

Indiana have demonstrated that there is a role for the private sector in building and expanding our transportation infrastructure. 

Going forward, what do you all see as effective plans for, or paths 

for that matter, for the private sector to help build out transportation systems? What should we consider? Is there a menu of alternatives that you may have in mind? 

Mr. REED. Well, what we look to do is to have local leverage that 

then is paired with Federal commitments. So, in the two most recent examples we have had, one was our TIGER bill. We have 

about 42 million guests. We leveraged double what the Federal 

Government put in, so we think that that represents a good investment for you all. We are also going to be open to public-private 

partnerships, but we will allow our private sector—our public sector employees to compete. But in the United States, public-private 

partnerships are going to have to be a part of the long-term solution, because you have so much wealth that is prepared to invest 

in infrastructure around the world—— 

Mr. CARSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. REED [continuing]. But what we are not going to do is to let 

a three-piece solution crowd out access and opportunities to traditional labor, so everybody is going to be able to come to the table 

and show that you can compete. 

The next step for us in Atlanta is going to be a light rail system 

for the Atlanta BeltLine, which people in Atlanta are wildly supportive of. So one of the opportunities to fund that would be a 

referenda, because I don’t believe in simply imposing taxes on folks 

based upon my own notions of what I think should be done. 

But the bottom line is alternatives, alternatives, alternatives 

that have been vetted and proved effective, and then let the local 

electeds make the decision and suffer the consequences, good or 

bad. 

Mr. CARSON. Right. That is good. 

26 

Mr. HANLEY. Did you want a reaction from me? 

Mr. CARSON. Yes. 

Mr. HANLEY. Yeah. My union has had the great advantage of 122 

years of vetting private companies, and we—and most of the contracts we have at this point are with private companies, not with 

public agencies. And we can tell you unequivocally that private 

companies collapsed throughout the United States; it is what led 

to the original bill in 1964 50 years ago to bring mass transit back. 

And so long as we seek to improve transit by injecting the importance of a profit motive for private companies, we will fail. 

Government can effectively run transit. Government does effectively run transit. And frankly, trying to reinvent, you know, the 

1960s, when transit collapsed in America, we think is a critical 

mistake. 

Mr. CARSON. OK. 

Mr. LEVENICK. You know, first of all, I would agree. I think Indiana has done some creative things, and I think they can be kind 

of a poster child for some of the options which might be available, 

but in the end, from my point of view and Caterpillar’s point of 

view, whatever gets us to a multiyear, sustainable integrated network is what we need. And I think you are probably likely going 

to need all of the above. All the private partnerships have their 

role, referendums have their role, user fees, user taxes, I think all 

of this is going to form, you know, the potential here to find the 

funding we need to get this done, but the important thing here is 

to understand that this really is about the economic future of the 

United States. I mean, this is not just some short-term thing. This 

really is about how we compete in the global economy and the 

standard of living that we are striving to achieve. And, you know, 

hopefully, the comments that we have made help put that in perspective for you. 

Mr. CARSON. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

With that, Mr. Webster is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

doing this, getting started early on the reauthorization. I think this 

probably could be one of the most important—probably the most 

important bill that passes this last half of the—of our—of this 2- 

year Congress. 

I have a question for the mayor. I am intrigued by a mega city 

inside somewhat of a rural State. 

Mr. REED. Yes. 

Mr. WEBSTER. And I am wondering, how do you bring about influence in that there is one step between you and the Federal Government through the DOT and through the MPO process? How do 

you work that out? 

Mr. REED. I work it out by partnering with my Republican Governor, who is a—Republican, but we understand that there are 

some things that we have got to work together on, and we both occasionally get in trouble. I supported his application for a TIFIA 

loan for $270 million and caught some flack from folks in my party 

for supporting a Republican. He supported me on a transportation 

referenda, and he caught some flack, but I tell you what, unemVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:49 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\1-14-1~1\86278.TXT JEAN
27 

ployment since we both took office is down from 10.2 to 7.0, and 

we will put the jobs that we have created up against all of the people who criticized him for working with me and for me to work 

with him. 

So, you know, I understand that he is Batman, and I am Robin, 

but I do believe that mayors have to have a voice. I don’t have it 

confused. That is why I wanted to share that with you, because the 

bottom line is, is that, you know, folks in cities will help to fund 

things that folks in rural areas might not want to be a part of, but 

at least give folks that flexibility, because it does allow the Federal 

dollar to come forward. And, you know, I think that that has been 

the key in Georgia for us. 

We work together on the things that we agree on, and we don’t 

on the things that we don’t agree on, and so that is why I think 

that we have had the kind of wins, speaking of Caterpillar, the 

deepening of the Port of Savannah and others that we have been 

having. So that is what I think. And I am sure I will get in trouble 

for saying that during my testimony. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I hope you don’t. I would ask you this, then, we 

just finished a freight panel which did a study around the country 

about how we might be able to enhance that through—and a lot 

of the discussion was about how we could somewhat regionalize 

things, certainly roads and railroads and highways and other 

things, and most of the people that come in on—to your—to your 

airport come from somewhere else—— 

Mr. REED. You are right. 

Mr. WEBSTER [continuing]. Sometimes out of your State, and 

none of those stop at your city line nor do they stop at the Georgia 

State line. How do you—do you have any suggestions for us on how 

we can, without overburdening you with some sort of Federal— 

Federal heavy hand, help you in becoming or maintaining a regional picture that goes beyond your State or city boundary? 

Mr. REED. Yeah. I think that you can help us by identifying Republicans and Democrats that have addressed regional efforts and 

partnerships successfully. There are not that many of them, but 

what we like to have in politics is examples, so—and I think that 

Governor Deal and my relationship has been talked about—not 

across the country—because we are kind of unusual, but to the extent that you have bipartisan solutions on regional issues and you 

hold those up as examples and reward folks for engaging in that 

behavior, I think that you help America. 

The State of Georgia got turned down for TIFIA four times. 

When the Governor and I both supported the application, we got 

a $270 million grant. And I think that that is—I remember when 

we walked in Ray LaHood’s office, he didn’t understand why we 

were there together. What is this mayor of Atlanta and this Governor of Georgia, who had been a Member of Congress for 20 years, 

walk in to his office for? When we have examples like that, I think 

that committees like yours, with all of your influence, should hold 

them up and look at what we worked on and what we got done, 

and I think the country can learn from that, because, you know, 

I served in the legislature a long time. When folks come to see you, 

if they are really smart, when they start opening their mouths, 

they make sure that they don’t tell you anything that is going to 

28 

get you beat. I know that is how—I used to—when folks used to, 

like, don’t come in here with something that is going to get me 

beat. So you have got to be able to tell me about examples where 

other people have done this and lived to tell the tale, and I think 

that that helps the country, and that is what you all did on 

WRRDA, and I think it is what you all can do on this surface 

transportation bill. This is the biggest opportunity to create wellpaying jobs in the tradition of Eisenhower that we are going to 

have around here in the next 24 months. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you for that insight, Mr. Mayor. 

And with that, Ms. Hahn is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also recently served on 

this terrific panel on 21st-century freight transportation. We were 

tasked with coming up with recommendations for a national freight 

policy in this—in this country, and we traveled across the country, 

everybody came out to L.A., Long Beach, to look at those ports and 

understand what impact those ports have on our country. 

One of the recommendations that I helped craft was a recommendation that would have required our DOT Secretary to identify corridor-based solutions to freight mobility. I represent the Port 

of Los Angeles, and I understand what we are talking about when 

we talk about the last mile. And I have been told that cargo gets 

diverted, not because of any fees or environmental regulations in 

our ports, because it—but it is because of land side congestion. So 

I was disappointed to see that DOT failed to include last mile connector roads, which connect our ports to major highways, in their 

recently released MAP designating the primary freight network. I 

think that is a big oversight. 

And nobody understands, you know, the congestion or dredging 

as much as I do. I have traveled to the Panama Canal. I understand what that is going to mean to our U.S. ports, but I also know 

that—you know, they call me Ms. Harbor Maintenance Tax around 

here, because I have been on this issue since I came to Congress 

21⁄2 years ago. We have $9 billion in surplus in our Harbor Maintenance Tax that we are not spending for the purpose for which it 

was collected, which is to invest in the maintenance and the dredging of our Nation’s ports. The head of Army Corps told me that if 

we could release all of that money, they could have our ports 

dredged to 53, 54 feet within 5 years. That would create jobs, and 

that would keep us globally competitive. 

But I will say, Mr. Levenick, it was very disturbing, very disturbing for me to read your testimony and to hear your testimony. 

And I understand, again, we need to do a much better job of dredging our ports, being globally competitive, working on that last mile, 

but, you know, I feel like you are part of the problem and not part 

of the solution. You are shipping 40 percent of your product 

through Canadian ports, which means basically you are avoiding 

the Harbor Maintenance Tax. So you are avoiding paying that, and 

that is the very money that we use to maintain our ports and harbors. And we are looking to actually expand the use of the Harbor 

Maintenance Tax to include possibly land side improvements that 

relate to our ports. 

29 

So you are failing to pay it, you are avoiding it, and then you are 

using our infrastructure, and you are complaining that our ports 

aren’t dredged and our infrastructure’s not maintained, so—and by 

the way, I just want to go on record saying, I know, and I am glad 

you said it wasn’t one thing that caused you to abandon our U.S. 

ports, but, you know, automation is not going to be the answer to 

making us, you know, more efficient. I mean, we are—we are—you 

know, we—if there is one thing we got to fight for, it is good American jobs, and there are good American jobs at our ports. And automation may be coming and maybe it is a little more efficient, bu 

it is not the answer. And with automation comes the disruption of 

good American jobs, and I am not sure that is what we need to be 

focusing on. 

I think there are other ways to be more efficient and move those 

goods, but we have got to talk seriously about our roads, our infrastructure, our bridges and certainly that last mile. 

So what other ideas do you have? And by the way, I am disappointed that you are a board member of the United States 

Chamber of Commerce, and you are abandoning our U.S. ports and 

shipping your products through Canada. You know, I just don’t 

think that is a good message. So what other ideas do we have collectively, and I would like to hear you, to improve that last mile, 

to improve the congestion and to make this seamless transportation network that does include more on dock rail, you know, better near dock facilities and moving this cargo more efficiently? 

Mr. LEVENICK. Well, first of all, I think what has drove us to that 

decision is not some arbitrary decision that we are abandoning the 

United States. I mean, the whole reason I am here is we are one 

of the largest exporters in the United States, and we would love 

nothing better than—and we find it, frankly, crazy that we can’t 

export efficiently on a global basis from our U.S. ports, and the 

only alternative to be globally competitive—our customers around 

the world don’t care about U.S. jobs. They care about a cost-effective delivery of their product on time and in a competitive cost. 

And so we are forced as a global competitor, like anybody in the 

global economy, to play by those rules. 

The suggestions I think we have laid out, and I am glad to hear 

that you understand that it is not—it is not one solution; it is an 

integrated network. That is what the rest of the world’s going. That 

is where the rest of the world’s going. One solution on, you know, 

a weight limit addressment or just purely highway funding isn’t 

necessarily the answer. It is got to be—this is where I think the 

Federal Government really plays a role, and I compliment the 

study that was done for—by this committee over the last 9 months. 

So I think that is a great blueprint for where this country needs 

to go, but ultimately, it is about an integrated network, you know, 

led by I think the philosophy driven by this committee and the 

Federal Government with flexibility for regions and for States that 

will get us back to where we need to be, but by no means are we 

abandoning U.S. Ports. I mean, the ports that we do use today, of 

course we are paying taxes. And we would like to see those taxes 

spent against—or those fees spent against the improvements you 

are talking about. But we would love nothing better than to be able 

to ship all of our goods—it only makes sense. The ports are closer 

30 

to our places of manufacturing in the United States than Canadian 

ports. We are only doing that because we are driven by the global 

economics. 

Ms. HAHN. Well, and—but you are. I mean, you are—certainly 

you talked about abandoning L.A., Long Beach. And, you know, our 

local economy in Los Angeles is really tied to the economy of Long 

Beach and L.A. When cargo is down in those ports, you know, 

small businesses suffer in Los Angeles. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentlelady. 

With that—is Mr. Davis here? Oh, there he is. Mr. Davis is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sorry. I forgot you were sitting on the other side 

of the room. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Right in front of Ms. 

Harbor Maintenance Trust—— 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness, and thank you to the panel. This committee—and what has 

been great for a new freshman like me to hear is the talk about 

the cooperation and bipartisanship, especially when it comes to 

transportation issues. This committee recently passed a bill, passed 

the WRRDA bill out of here unanimously. We don’t hear about that 

in the press. We don’t hear about bipartisanship and cooperation. 

So whether it is Batman and Robin, Mr. Mayor, or you and the 

Governor, you know, it is great to hear where you are making successes on a bipartisan basis when you talk about infrastructure 

and implementing it in a very cost-effective way. 

And I would also like to congratulate the city of Atlanta on three 

Hall of Famers this year. 

Mr. REED. Yeah. Pretty good. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yeah. Congratulations. And thank you for what you 

do for that great city. 

When you talk about cooperation, you talk about infrastructure. 

We have examples of success all throughout this country. Next 

month, we are going to open the Stan Musial Veteran’s Memorial 

Bridge across the Mississippi River from Illinois into Missouri, and 

that was a project that had been long planned. And it took bipartisan cooperation from—they are not Batman and Robin, but two 

that I would like to call out are former Member Jerry Costello from 

the State of Illinois and also my colleague and friend John 

Shimkus for their bipartisan cooperation, but it took so many others to work together to make that project a reality. And we on this 

committee have the opportunity to do that together. I am glad the 

chairman has begun the dialogue and opened up the process of us 

being able to do that. And all of you today have provided me a 

great knowledge and a great optimism on where we can go. And 

I do have a couple of specific questions. 

Mr. Levenick, as you know, it has been a difficult year in Decatur, Illinois. However, I was really excited to here that Cat’s application for a $694 million loan was recently approved, and that is 

going to hopefully provide more mining equipment to a new iron 

31 

ore mine in Australia. I am hoping that means an increase in 

workload for your Decatur plant and more jobs for my constituents. 

And in your opinion, though, what is the most important thing 

this committee can do to help Cat, ADM and others in the Decatur 

area bring more jobs to central Illinois? 

Mr. LEVENICK. Well, I would piggyback a little bit on what 

Mayor Reed said before. I think—you know, we located a facility 

in Athens, Georgia, essentially to take advantage of what we believe is going to be world-class infrastructure. We moved goods 

back to the point of where they are consumed from overseas. I 

think that was a very good move for us and for the country. And 

simply stated, I think what Cat and any other manufacturer or 

business like us that is a global exporter needs is a sufficient network of transportation. Make us globally competitive. That is going 

to create more jobs in the United States. It is going to make us 

more successful as a country, raise our standards of living; integrated multiyear, multimodal program with certainty is going to 

give us the competitive advantage we need to be globally competitive. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you very much for that. And I know in 

your testimony and also in your responses today, you talked about 

the investments other countries are making to transportation and 

infrastructure systems, and also how an organization and a company like Caterpillar would make decisions. And you have let us 

know how much of a factor efficiency and reliability of the surrounding infrastructure is when you make those decisions. 

And today’s marketplace is global. We understand that. And I respect the fact that you have to make decisions on a global basis. 

However, within the State of Illinois, in particular, in regards to 

the many facilities that you have in that great State, what would 

you say is the number one transportation impediment to growth 

and expansion in the State of Illinois versus in Athens, Georgia? 

Mr. LEVENICK. Probably the—it is different in every State, obviously, but I think probably the challenge in Illinois would be the 

highway system. It has been underinvested in for a number of 

years, and it needs to be upgraded, repaired, replaced. It is not a— 

like other States, it is—Chicago is a very big metropolitan area, but 

the rest of the State where our facilities are located is, you know, 

relatively resident or smaller communities, Peoria, Decatur, Aurora, so the infrastructure that exists there is just outdated and 

needs to be upgraded. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. I had 

some more questions, but since the chairman didn’t recognize I was 

here, I ran out of time. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, I am sorry. I really apologize I didn’t recognize the gentleman from—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Does that mean I get more time? 

Mr. SHUSTER [continuing]. Illinois. No, but I have to point out to 

the committee that the Stan Musial Bridge is actually the Stan 

Musial Bridge II, because the Stan Musial Bridge is in my district. 

It runs across from Donora, where he was born, to Monessen, 

Pennsylvania. So I just had to point that out to the gentleman 

from—— 

32 

Mr. DAVIS. Little minute details. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And with that, I recognize Ms. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I, too, want to thank you and Ranking Member Rahall for 

working on a bipartisan basis. Now all we need to do is have the 

witnesses understand that we need your help in convincing the 

other Members of Congress to vote for a 6-year bill. We have been 

wanting it. We have been needing it. And you know better than 

anybody where that need is. And if we don’t work together and convince some of the folks that will help us put that 6-year bill forward, that we won’t be as successful, so I am asking for your help 

to be able to convince some of the Members who are a little reticent 

on doing a 6-year bill versus a 2-year bill. 

And you talk about global competitiveness. And I am from L.A. 

The ports that Ms. Hahn talks about run through my district, the 

freight, and the great separation, the funding isn’t there to be able 

to increase the number to do more on-time delivery. The railroads 

are not putting as much money as we would hope they would. And 

somehow we need to be able to change the mentality of where the 

job development is, what it is going to mean to the economy and 

how we can all partner and be better, how would I say, served? 

And, Mr. Reed, I am a former mayor of a small city—— 

Mr. REED. I know. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [continuing]. And it is—that is where the rubber hits the road. That is where people will come to you and tell 

you what their needs are. And you are right. We need to have a 

lot more of the ability for the local communities to make up their 

mind what their needs are rather than to have somebody tell them, 

but what about an infrastructure bank to be able to help those 

communities that are note able to finance their own projects being 

able to get some help from transportation funding? And that is 

some of the things that I—that I have very, very key in my mind. 

And you talk about infrastructure development. South America 

is going great guns to be able to take some of those freight lines 

away from us, or freight corridors. The infrastructure that is being 

spent in many of the countries far outweighs, as you pointed out, 

what we are doing in this country. 

To some of the areas, and this goes to Mr. Reed, is—Honorable 

Reed, is the local hire preference. It used to be years ago when the 

law was first proposed and passed, it was 80 percent Federal funded to 20 percent, and it is now reversed. So why are we not allowing the communities to be able to do local hiring, because they 

know where their pockets of poverty are that can benefit from job 

development and job training, and somehow we have not really reversed that to be able to allow local communities to do a lot more 

of their own economic development. That is one area. 

And the other area goes, of course, to Mr. Hanley is we didn’t 

talk about safety, transit operator safety, whether it is railroad, 

bus drivers. I think we have more bus drivers, as you pointed out, 

suffering from fatigue and causing accidents. You have more accidents with buses than you do with airplanes. Now, how do we address those, and how do we begin to understand that all of it comes 

together? You have to have the funding, you have to have the community support, and you have to be able to have driver safety or 

33 

employee safety, because not only is it the person who is doing the 

driving, but it is also the people he has under his charge, whether 

it is a bus or a train or a plane. Anybody. 

Mr. REED. Well, Congresswoman, I would start by saying I fully 

support your feelings regarding an infrastructure bank, because of 

the reversal in funding that you have pointed out. So when our 

MARTA system—we have the ninth largest system in America. It 

does not receive State funding and runs in a pretty strong fashion. 

When it came about, it was 80 percent Federal, 20 percent from the 

State and local. That has changed, which is why—and I was aware 

that you had been a mayor, which is why I think mayors have to 

have a bigger say, because the bottom line is 70 percent of the GDP 

in America is in cities. So I would fully support your efforts around 

an infrastructure bank. And I advocated in my own remarks that 

mayors need to have a seat at the table to have their own ideas 

baked in and to use the tools that we use. 

So you referenced the local hire initiative. All of that is impossible under the current framework that is being sent to us, because 

we are not even at the table. And so getting folks well-paying jobs 

is being slowed down at the Federal and State level. And so I was 

just advocating one that I think that the infrastructure bank is a 

good solution, that once it works its way through and comes out in 

a bipartisan fashion, I think it is going to be part of the future because it will extend the Federal Government’s resources at a time 

when we need to do more with less. 

Mr. HANLEY. In our formal written testimony, Congresswoman, 

we addressed all three of those areas, one being the fact that there 

is a massive wave of assaults on transit workers, particularly bus 

drivers throughout the U.S. and Canada right now. We believe it 

is connected to the fact that they are in a bad economy, that the 

service has been cut, passengers are angry and the fares have gone 

up, but these are very critical assaults that are going on. People 

are being beaten within an inch of their life. 

The other thing is that in public transit, one of the dirty little 

secrets that nobody ever wants to talk about is that transit systems 

do not provide bathroom breaks and do not provide access to bathrooms, and as a consequence, and this is a safety and health issue, 

drivers all over the country are driving around developing diseases, 

not being able to use bathrooms, limiting their intake of water, and 

this is something that we would like to address with Congress during this reauthorization. 

Also, in the over-the-road industry, which you just mentioned, 

the Greyhound-type buses, not just Greyhound, because of deregulation, we have had a huge increase in safety hazards and deaths. 

People are dying all over the country. More people die in bus accidents now than in plane crashes, and that is because of the fact 

that our Government has abandoned regulation. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentlelady. 

And with that, I recognize Mr. Barletta for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the chair also for putting this panel together. 

34 

I enjoyed hearing from all of you. I, too, was a mayor; I was a 

mayor for 11 years, so I agree with the importance of having mayors at the table in the decision process. There is not a tougher job 

in politics than being a mayor, as you know. And I also understand 

the importance of public transit and what it means to a community. My family was also in the road construction business, so I 

have been on a Cat 956 front-end loader. I also understand that in 

that industry, contractors are not going to buy a $500,000 piece of 

equipment on a 2-year bill; that if we want people to make investments, they need to know there is work for 5, 6, 7 years. There is 

also nothing better for the economy than a long-term bill, because 

when there is a lot of construction work, construction workers 

make good money. When construction workers make good money, 

they take their families out to eat. They spend it in the local economy, and that money stays right in our communities. 

I also believe that public-private partnerships are very important 

in the fact that we are able to stretch our dollars and bring the private money in so that there are more projects. When there are 

more projects, more people will be working, and maybe we wouldn’t 

be talking about extending unemployment compensation if there 

was more work for construction workers so that they know that 

they had a job. 

Mayor Reed, your northwest corridor project is very interesting. 

I would like if you could explain a little bit of that and what the 

TIFIA program means to that project. 

Mr. REED. Well, what it means is we have a choked I–75 north 

corridor, which is northwest above the city of Atlanta. And our 

metro, now, Congressman, is 6.1 million, so we have got the ninth 

largest metro in the U.S. The problem is, is that we grew that fast 

probably 20 years ahead of where most folks thought we would get 

there, and so that corridor is choked and congested. 

The State of Georgia enjoys one of the highest bond ratings in 

the United States of America. We are one of seven or eight States 

that have Triple A ratings by all of the major rating agencies, and 

we needed the Government’s help. And so we had applied before. 

We applied most recently, received a grant under Secretary 

LaHood, and then that grant was—is being used in that corridor. 

And I think it just represents one of the best solutions, because you 

all are not encumbering the Federal Treasury with debt. We will 

pay it back. We are capable of paying it back, so we think that that 

should be held up as a tool and talked about and talked about and 

talked about. 

And I also happen to believe that once you all draft a 6-year bill, 

mayors across America got to get out and talk about it and help 

you explain, because the bottom line is I certainly agree with my 

colleague from Caterpillar, is that it is really about competitiveness, but folks aside from Members of Congress need to get out and 

say it. This is about the America that we want to have, and so the 

bottom line is if we don’t deal with our arterials and our traffic and 

the deepening of our ports and our roadways, you know, we are 

giving away where everybody says the growth is, which is in our 

international routes and access and in the global economy. So that 

is my straight answer. 

35 

And so much freight travels on that 75 corridor to the rest of the 

United States, certainly in the Southeast in the United States. Atlanta and our metro is the hub and is the most dynamic economy 

in the Southeast. Our metro economy is larger than that of 30 

States. So this is real money, real job creation. It is about a $298 

billion metro economy. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentleman. 

With that, Mr. DeFazio is recognized. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Levenick, earlier Governor Fallin talked about the fact 

States have stepped up and said that that can’t be a rationale for 

the Federal Government to pull back from its proper share. There 

is kind of a—well, there are some right wing think tanks around 

here who are pushing very hard on the idea that we should have 

what is called devolution; we should devolve the duties of financing, coordinating and constructing a system, a national transportation system, to the States. And when I say to them, well, how is 

that going to work? For instance, I guess there was some earlier 

discussion about you using harbors in Canada because it takes 

longer through L.A. So how does that work for L.A.? So they provide their freighters to go all over the United States, but the Port 

of L.A. and California should pay for the Port of L.A. and the Federal Government shouldn’t? I mean, what do you think about this 

theory that we should devolve back to the States the duties for a 

national transportation system? 

Mr. LEVENICK. Well, I think, first of all, we don’t support that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Good. 

Mr. LEVENICK. That is the simple answer. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is good. 

Mr. LEVENICK. I think the chairman said it in his opening remarks, the Federal Government has always had a constitutional 

role that creating a national system of transportation that supports 

the common good. We couldn’t agree with that more. We need an 

efficient network. And you have seen States take the initiative, and 

we commend it, because they are acting in, I guess, their own self 

interest to pass gas tax or find funding mechanisms to drive some 

investment in infrastructure, because they recognize the importance, but that can’t really be the answer. If we wind up with a 

patchwork of 50 different solutions, you don’t have a network, and 

that is some of the heartburn we see today with all the different 

regulations and the inefficiency in the system is driven by, frankly, 

a lot of variation in our network that has likely evolved over time 

because some States didn’t keep up with—you know, with the development of world-class transportation that others did, and we 

wind up with this situation. 

So I don’t think devolving the responsibility for this to the States 

is an effective solution if we are going to be internationally competitive. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And then just—I recently visited an equipment 

manufacturer in my district, Johnson Crushers, they make rock 

crushers, and I think you may compete in some areas, but they 

made a point and they showed me graphics that whenever we are 

uncertain about the future of the Highway Trust Fund or we are 

inadequately investing, domestic orders drop off dramatically beVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:49 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\1-14-1~1\86278.TXT JEAN
36 

cause the contractors don’t see the work in the future. And one of 

the States already—it might have been Oklahoma, I can’t remember—has said we are pulling back on our investments, because we 

don’t know if the Federal cost share is going to be there, because 

the trust fund goes to zero next—next fiscal year. 

Have you seen the same impact on Caterpillar’s heavy equipment 

domestic sales that when there is uncertainty about the future or 

we are not investing adequately, that your sales suffer? 

Mr. LEVENICK. Yeah, we have seen that. And we certainly hear 

it from our customers, who are very vocal about it, and our dealers 

who, you know, explain very clearly that, you know, without a 

long-term solution, we won’t step up and make the long-term commitments on investments that are necessary. 

One of the phenomenons that I think supports that also is the 

dramatic expansion of the rental industry for heavy equipment. 

People are choosing more to rent rather than buy as a result of this 

or hold on to equipment longer than they otherwise would. So there 

is a whole series of things that play out, and it varies State by 

State, but that is—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And that, obviously, has a major job impact here 

in the U.S. 

Mr. LEVENICK. Absolutely. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanley, quickly. One point I was surprised you didn’t make 

in responding to Mr. Hanna was the fact that there—can’t we say 

that there is a tremendous net benefit to highway users, particularly in urban areas, from having diverted people from being in single-occupancy vehicles, adding more to congestion and delaying 

people more? Would you—you want to address that briefly? 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, I couldn’t have said that better. You know, 

again, we found out some of that—some of the effects of congestion 

in Fort Wayne, New Jersey. You know, the fact is that if transit 

riders stopped riding transit tomorrow, this country would come to 

a standstill, and the same impact will occur if we don’t plan ahead 

for the next two appropriation—I am sorry, the next two authorization periods, because the population in our cities is going to explode: 80 percent of the people in this country live in cities, and 

the population of many of those cities is going to grow by 30, 40, 

50 percent. So it is—there is a much longer answer, obviously, to 

what the Congressman asked me, but the fact of the matter is that 

transit riders pay more than their fair share for their systems. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

And Mr. Bucshon is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for the time. 

Thank you, panel, for being here. It is very much appreciated. 

I wanted to focus on Mr. Hanley. Following up with Mr. DeFazio 

and Mr. Hanna just talked about. And I think the mayor said this, 

well, that everything should be on the table. I mean, if we are 

going to fund infrastructure, then everything should be on the 

table. And as you are aware, in MAP–21, as it passed out of comVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:49 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\1-14-1~1\86278.TXT JEAN
37 

mittee, transit was separate. It was separated out from the gas tax. 

And we are not going to get into that debate today. 

But the point is, is that people on the committee here are struggling to find ways to do exactly what you want for your workers. 

Because—exactly what Caterpillar wants, exactly what the mayor 

of Atlanta would like to have. And that is more money for infrastructure. I think we can all agree on that. So if we are going to 

have everything on the table—and I know you said the people that 

ride mass transit are paying their fair share. And I have lived in 

Chicago; my son goes to Emery University in your great city. And, 

in fact, I just flew through your airport coming here. I love Atlanta. 

But that said, if everything is going to be on the table, tell me 

how you would think that the workers that you represent potentially would be harmed by looking at having that support on the 

table as a way to overall fund infrastructure, not just—not just 

mass transit, but as a part of a bigger equation to find more money 

for our whole intermodal system? Why would your workers be 

against something that we might try to find a way that transit 

could support the Federal highway and transit program? I am just 

trying to get my arms around that. 

Mr. HANLEY. I am not sure I understand the question. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Well, I mean, the gas tax is a user fee. 

Mr. HANLEY. Right. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Is there a user fee—Federal user fee for mass 

transit? 

Mr. HANLEY. No. But—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. That is the basic question. I am not saying there 

should be. I am just saying if everything is on the table, what I 

am trying to understand is why your workers or your industry 

would be against having that on the table as a part of a way to 

help us find more money. Because we are—my—our struggle is 

finding more money for infrastructure. 

I mean, I totally agree last time, you know, we funded a 2-year 

bill—it is not long enough—we used other revenue from other 

areas of the Government, because the user fees, our revenue is 

dropping because of inflation and no indexing of the gas tax, blah, 

blah, blah, we all know what the problem is. 

I just can’t wrap my hands around the—on the transit side. And 

this is not a partisan issue because we have bipartisan people that 

did not want that separated out—why finding some money in that 

area is something that would hurt the workers that you represent. 

I just don’t understand that. 

Mr. HANLEY. But you have it. I mean, I think if the goal is to 

say that because people who ride in cars pay gasoline taxes, and 

some of that goes to transit, then therefore there has to be some 

special Federal taxation on transit riders because they ride transit—I think that is what you are saying. 

Dr. BUCSHON. I am just saying it seems—don’t get me wrong, I 

am not for or again—I am just trying to have a conversation here 

about if we are going to have everything on the table. There are 

some people in Congress that think transit should not be in this 

highway bill, should be subject to annual appropriations—and I am 

not saying I am for or against that, but that’s what passed out of 

committee last time. So, in our discussions, you know, how can— 

38 

you can help convince us when we need more money that we 

should keep that in there and—and everybody else should have 

their taxes raised like you—you pointed out, like the general fund, 

say just for argument’s sake, the millionaires—and that is a direct 

quote from you. 

Mr. HANLEY. Billionaires. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Millionaires, billionaires, that is the talking point. 

And, by the way, I was disappointed that you used the national 

talking point of the bridge from New Jersey to New York in part 

of this discussion. I thought that was inappropriate. 

But the fact of the matter is how can you convince people that, 

OK, we should do that and we should use those general funds to 

pay for transit, which, as Mr. Hanna pointed out, it is—in fact, I 

rode—in Atlanta, my son took me to—drove me to one of your train 

stops on the North Side and rode it directly—I love mass transit; 

I ride it any chance I get. I am just trying to get my hands around 

how you can convince us that if everything is on the table, that 

that that isn’t. 

Mr. HANLEY. I think we have to walk for a minute through history and consider the impacts of the Eisenhower highway program 

on mass transit and on mobility in America. You know, prior to 

that highway program, people got around by using trollies, trains, 

buses. That is how they moved around the United States of America in our cities and between our cities. And this Government made 

a choice in the Eisenhower highway program to change radically 

the way Americans lived, to create suburbs, to drive people out of 

cities or to encourage people to get out of cities. It was a completely 

subsidized operation by this Federal Government to move Americans from their cities out to suburbs. And there came a point in 

the 1960s where all of the transit systems were going broke. The 

ones that were not taken over by the auto industry, the national 

city bus lines, which was a creation that was pursued by the Justice Department for ripping up trolley systems all over the country. 

This is a fact, this is what happened. So then what came about is 

in the 1960s, mobility in American cities was in collapse. Bus companies were going out of business, train companies going out of 

business, until the Federal Government finally had to step in. This 

was really the mirror image of the highway program, where the 

Federal Government had to step in and subsidize transit to get it 

back up and running in order to keep our cities moving. 

Now what is happening is the exact opposite phenomenon of 

what happened in the 1950s is occurring, not because of a Federal 

Government program but because young people are saying, no, no, 

I don’t want to live in the suburbs, I don’t want to have a 4-hour 

commute every day. I want to live where I work. And there are 

other factors obviously involved in that. But these are societal 

changes. And I just don’t think we can attempt, rationally, to isolate where Federal taxes come from for a particular program. I 

think that is a failed strategy, and there are many reasons why but 

I know I am out of time. 

Dr. BUCSHON. OK. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Only thing, Mr. Hanley, I would say I disagree on 

is the Federal Government does provide dollars for the highway 

39 

system, but it is a user-based system. So if you use it, you pay for 

it, and that is what Mr. Bucshon, Mr. Hanley, again, we need to 

look at everything. And, you know, I am a big rider now on the 

train from Harrisburg to Philadelphia. And the State put in $100 

million for Amtrak, and they reduced the time. And, you know, I 

have said many times in this committee room and many times 

across this country, every time I get on that train and I look at the 

ticket price and the figure on the back of the envelope, I should be 

paying more for it. Prime time, they are not making money. I think 

they have inched it up some. But when I do the back of the envelope, on gas, tolls, parking, and then my productivity goes from 

zero in a car to 100 percent productive, you know, sometimes I 

think we are not looking at that in transit systems. As we said, 

there are a lot of rich people that are riding—I think Mayor 

Bloomberg rides the transit system. 

Mr. HANLEY. Not really. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. 

Mr. HANLEY. I have been there. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I believe you. But I think, you know, we have got 

to be looking at those kinds of things and how we can make transit 

systems—look I don’t believe they are ever going to pay for themselves, but to get them paying more for themselves so that everybody is going to benefit by it. Because your argument is right, the 

logic is clear. People that get on trains and transit aren’t in their 

cars. And that would cause us a huge, huge congestion explosion 

if we did that. So we have just got to be thinking about different 

ways. And I think Mr. Bucshon is trying to get at that. What do 

we think about how do we get around it? That is the key to it. 

With that, Ms. Edwards is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you to our witnesses today. You know, I have been so intrigued but 

these conversations about transit riders subsidizing the transit for 

what we put into gas tax with the roads. Because I can think of 

a number of public goods that—public good that we get from having transit in place, not the least of which is taking so many people 

off the highways so that our trucks and commercial vehicles can 

travel more safely and more efficiently. 

I can think of the public good of improving our air and water 

quality because we are not having all that, you know, sort of oil 

dripping down into our waterways. And we experience that in Metropolitan Washington. I can think about the contributions to 

strengthening the quality of life when people can get home to their 

families, get to their jobs on time, and take away that stress. So 

if we are going to begin to quantify things, I hope we begin to 

quantify some of those things when it comes to asking whether 

transit is a net positive or a negative. 

And, frankly, sometimes people in my district and my State ask 

me why, when we are such a thriving State in a thriving metropolitan region that is contributing a lot to the economy, why we are 

subsidizing roads out in the middle of nowhere? And I say, you 

know what? It is because we are Americans, and we make an investment in a national system. And so the folks in the rural areas 

get their roads, and in our metropolitan area, we get our transit. 

40 

So I hadn’t planned to go there, but this conversation has just 

been so fascinating. I listened earlier as well. And thought from the 

perspective—and I want to ask about this, about workers. Because 

I think about the workers who work for Caterpillar and other manufacturing companies who are going to be charged with building 

the equipment that will improve our infrastructure. The workers in 

communities like Atlanta and here and this region who build the 

roads, maintain the highways and bridges and maintain and operate our buses, our Metros and our commuter rail. And I am no 

Mayor Bloomberg, but I have been known to get on our Metro system and get on our buses and, of course, the workers, who ride, 

drive, and commute. 

And so my question really goes to Mayor Reed and to Mr. Hanley 

asking about wages and benefits and things like transit benefits 

that go to workers so that they get off the roads. And whether we 

are paying prevailing wages so that the jobs we are creating actually enable people to take care of themselves and their families and 

build that kind of thriving economy. And I wonder if you could 

comment about the importance of those kind of policy initiatives as 

well when we consider reauthorization. 

Mr. REED. Well, I would start by saying that the reauthorization 

bill is going to help drive construction, which in my community 

took a 50,000-job hit during the worst of the recession. And the city 

of Atlanta is one of the biggest actors in the construction space in 

the region and the State. So we are in the middle of building a $1.2 

billion football stadium. We have a $6 billion capital program at 

the airport. We have $2 billion more to spend in water and 

sewer—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. You prevailing wage standards that apply to that, 

especially of course when—— 

Mr. REED. We don’t have prevailing wage standards that apply 

to that, but we have initiated a mentor program, and we do provide 

benefits to businesses that hire locally. So we don’t have prevailing 

wage program. But I will tell you this, I have been mayor of Atlanta now for 4 years. And without any kind of program, I have 

raised the salary in the city of Atlanta for every single employee 

to $10 an hour or more. Because I made the decision as the leader 

of my city that nobody was going to have a full-time job with my 

city and be in poverty. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Could I get a comment from Mr. Hanley before my 

time runs out? 

Thank you, Mayor. 

Mr. HANLEY. There are many, many hidden subsidies involved. 

There are many hidden subsidies involved in highways and cars. 

And one of the ones Congresswoman Duckworth joined us in pointing out and that is the fact that we have this need for oil, which 

creates a need for wars, which creates a need to American kids to 

lose their lives, their limbs, and their heads. And that is something 

that is never factored into this public discussion about the importance of public transit. And the question was then about wages 

also? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Yes, wages. 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, the fact—I recently had a meeting with about 

30 new presidents of locals in our union throughout the country 

41 

and Canada. And one of them got up from Ohio and said he has 

members who work full time and work overtime and qualify for 

food stamps. And that gave me pause. And I said: How many presidents in this room can say the same thing? Every one, except the 

Canadians, said that they have workers in their union working full 

time qualifying for food stamps. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Let me just, very quickly, because my time has 

run out. When we reauthorization surface transportation, do you 

think it is important for us to make sure that we maintain strong 

prevailing wage standards when it comes to spending Federal dollars? 

Mr. HANLEY. It is absolutely vital. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if you could, if we could get an answer from the panelists here about the idea of tying tax rates to 

construction inflation like we do in Maryland in terms of strengthening the Highway Trust Fund. Not raising the gas tax, but tying 

increases to construction inflation. Florida, Massachusetts, and 

Maryland are three States that do that. And if we are looking for 

other revenues to strengthen the Highway Trust Fund, I would just 

be curious, particularly, you know, from our friend in Caterpillar, 

if you would respond to that. 

Mr. LEVENICK. Well, sure. I think—I think that is a legitimate 

question to ask. Like I said before, I think there are going to be 

multiple ways that we fund this. One of the big fallacies with or 

the big disadvantages with, you know, the 1993 highway bill was 

that it was never indexed against inflation or fuel efficiency. And 

I think correcting those gaps in whatever we do going forward will 

be a big step going forward. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady. 

And the gentleman. 

With that, Mr. Meadows is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank each of you for your time. I think I am last up, but 

you are going to get to go home shortly. 

Mayor Reed, I just want to compliment you on your bipartisan 

way, and it has real effect. I live very close to Atlanta. I am probably closer to Atlanta than I am Charlotte. My other favorite 

mayor is now Secretary of Transportation. 

Mr. REED. Good friend of mine. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I consider him a great man in the spirit of what 

you have shared here today. But in a bipartisan way, you have my 

commitment to work on this. 

I want to thank the chairman for being proactive in working on 

this ahead of time so that we can get truly good policy as it comes 

forth and we address this particular issue. 

Mayor Reed, I would be interested—you serve the Atlanta metropolitan area. And yet much of what you have talked about here 

today is looking at transportation from a holistic point of view, 

from the ports, obviously, to the city. How do you sell that to your 

constituents that will make a decision every 4 years on whether 

you are going to represent them again? 

Mr. REED. I think we sell it because my constituents understand 

competitiveness. And they understand that in order for me to make 

42 

sure that they have the kind of opportunities that allow us to have 

the fourth largest concentration of Fortune 500 businesses, that we 

have to have global access and global connectivity and that we 

have got to be competitive around the world. And so most people 

in the Metropolitan Atlanta region know someone or related to 

someone that has a job that is tied to one of our major businesses 

or major industries. And so that is how we sell it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So putting more of an emphasis just on light rail 

or MARTA or whatever it might be is only one component of transportation in terms of those that benefit the constituents that you 

represent. 

Mr. REED. You are right. And you have to make the competitiveness argument. And that is really what carries the day for us. That 

is how you cut through the partisanship. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanley, in your testimony, you mentioned a GAO report. 

And in that report, it also made—that same report made mentions 

of really the private sector working on public transit. And the benefits. But yet in your testimony, as I have listened, I guess, to some 

of the question and answer, you don’t believe that the private sector really has a strong role, I guess, going back to some of the demise from the 1964—I don’t want to misquote you, but I think that 

characterizes your testimony. 

So you agree in part with the GAO study but not in totality. 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, that would be fair. But are you asking a question about our views on the private companies and transit generally? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I guess my—how do you pick and choose 

what parts of GAO study you are going to support? You mentioned 

it in your testimony. So you pick the part that you like. And the 

part that you don’t like, you kind of throw out, so what matrix do 

you use to qualify what is a good recommendation from the GAO 

and what is a bad recommendation? 

Mr. HANLEY. We don’t have a matrix. We just layer our thoughts 

and views and our knowledge on what we read in the GAO reports. 

And sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But, I mean, guess, how do you make that determination? I mean, for me as a Member here, I am trying to figure 

out, OK, how do I value that? And so does that come from a personal bias or where does that come from? How—— 

Mr. HANLEY. Years of experience. 

Mr. MEADOWS. OK. Years of experience that the private sector is 

not the best solution is what you are saying. 

Mr. HANLEY. I know what happens. I know what happens when 

you inject profit into public transit. I know what happens to workers. I gave you the example of a French company run by the social 

security system. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. HANLEY. Taking away pensions. The problem in a study like 

what the GAO has is it ignores that. Those facts were not brought 

up. I would be happy to sit down with the GAO, and they would 

come out with a much different study if they talked to us. 

Mr. MEADOWS. No doubt. 

Mr. HANLEY. There are some facts—— 

43 

Mr. MEADOWS. Here is what I would like each one of you for the 

record if you could give me three areas that would perhaps be painful to absorb or handle in terms of a—what you most would like 

not to see happen in a highway bill that is coming up. And what 

I would like you to do is identify those three areas that are most 

problematic for each one you. And if you would submit that to the 

committee for the record, I would appreciate it. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentleman. 

And with that, Ms. Esty. She has been waiting patiently. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. It is so nice to be recognized over here. 

There is a blind spot. 

Thank you, Chairman Shuster. And belated happy birthday. 

Thank you, Ranking Member Rahall. 

And thank you, gentlemen, for—and departed Governor—for 

being here and joining us today on this very important initiative. 

And I am glad we are starting these hearings early. This bill, I 

would agree with several of my colleagues that I think this has the 

opportunity to be the most important piece of legislation we work 

on this year, and we need to do it in a bipartisan way, and your 

assistance in helping us do that is much appreciated. 

And look forward to continuing, Mayor Reed, our conversation 

from last year on these important issues. And how we grapple with 

the reality that the trust funds are woefully inadequate to meet the 

needs that we have, even if we were all dedicating those funds to 

the present needs. 

My constituents span the rural to the urban. I have all of that 

in my district. So I have to make that competitiveness argument, 

that essential-need argument, each and every day. And they are 

prepared for and want us to invest in transportation. Just last 

week, the mayor of my largest city, in Waterbury, Connecticut, announced an initiative to put up money on the local side for a 

TIGER grant for a greenway, not necessarily what you would think 

the most important issue is for a former manufacturing center. But 

they see that as vital to this integration of roads and rail and 

walkability to address the demographic needs of young people. And 

I have three of them who want to live in a city and don’t want to 

drive cars, but they want to be in a vibrant city. So we have to do 

better as a society to the figure out how to integrate these needs. 

But the same city of Waterbury is hampered by a notoriously congested highway, I–84, which desperately needs to be upgraded and 

has corrosion and is falling apart and is affectionately known as 

the Mixmaster, so you get a sense of what those highways look 

like. 

So we need to have a long-term bill. You know it. We need to 

convince the public and our colleagues of it. That long-term investment is going to be essential to get the sort of partnering of publicprivate money that clearly we are going to need to leverage to address the needs. 

So I would like you to maybe, Mayor Reed, to start with you, to 

make the case as persuasively as you can as to why these investments are so essential for economic development. You know, unless 

we turn the curve so we are looking at a growing pie in economic 

development, we don’t get to the real core issue, which is jobs, jobs 

44 

now and job in the future. And so if you can expand on the critical 

role that transportation and the surface transportation in its myriad forms plays in that, that would be helpful. 

Mr. REED. I would start by saying that during the worst of times, 

we had a bill called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

So it was a $784 billion bill. And no matter how you feel about it, 

if you do an analysis of the verifiable jobs that were created, there 

was about 10 percent of that bill that was spent on transportation 

and infrastructure. It yielded more than 30 percent of the jobs that 

could be verified. So no matter how you feel about the overall bill, 

if you care about jobs, there is no question that transportation and 

infrastructure is where you create verifiable jobs. That would be 

number one. 

Number two, the long-term bipartisan nature of transportation 

and infrastructure since President Eisenhower is undeniable. So 

this is an opportunity that creates jobs for Americans that has historically been bipartisan. So it creates verifiable well-paying bipartisan jobs. 

And, lastly, I would say to those folks, if you love America and 

want it to be first and the leading economy in the world, it has to 

have world-class infrastructure because the rest of the world gets 

it, and they are investing in it. And the fact of the matter is, is 

that we are losing. And the example, my colleague from Caterpillar 

points that out more sharply than anything else can. The fact that 

the ports in the United States are so uncompetitive that 40 percent 

of Caterpillar’s traffic is being sent to Canada I think would be persuasive to any person that cares about their own standard of living. 

So those would be my arguments. 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, as I said earlier, there is no question about 

the direct connection between transit—I am leaving transportation 

broadly aside; I just want to speak about my issue, I am selfish. 

But the connection between transit and real estate development 

and real estate values is absolutely clear and undeniable. And the 

investment that has occurred as recently as the last few years in 

New York has shown that when you make the investment, the real 

estate values go up, the tax base gets better, the whole economy 

gets better when you do that. And it is impossible again what—to 

have a short-term bill and long-term planning. There is no way we 

can deal with the problems your kids have unless we have plans 

that go out at lest 6 years and probably longer. And, obviously, all 

of these things end up creating a better economy and a better environment. And they deal with every issue Americans have to deal 

with today, including jobs and education. Just getting kids to 

school is becoming harder without funding in transit. 

Mr. LEVENICK. I am not sure could I add anything to what the 

mayor said in very eloquent fashion. But I will take a shot. And 

that would be that I think everybody probably gets the jobs thing. 

I didn’t realize that statistic on the stimulus plan. But that is a 

good one. But that is pretty obvious. 

I think the one that we have to have an adult conversation about 

with the citizens of this country is the economic impact on the future of country. In fact, most citizens don’t have the advantage that 

I have of traveling the world and seeing what is going on in other 

countries and how far beyond we are falling and what that really 

45 

means. And I think the incumbent upon all of us in plain English, 

plain language that people understand what is at stake here. And 

it really is a standard of living that we have come to expect in this 

country. And there is no reason we can’t do that. It has just traditionally been the role of Federal Government to play a lead roll. 

There is a role for States. And we have created, I think, a framework here that provides some flexibility. But ultimately, this is 

about, one, investment in the future, which we are going to get a 

return on. And all you have to do is look back to the interstate 

highway days and the Eisenhower program, investments we have 

made in education and other big national things. It needs to be 

funded in a way that is fair and flexible and recognizes those who 

use the resource pay for the resource, and ultimately create a national network that is long term, sustainable, and provides the integration in a network that gives us a global competitive advantage. And for its role, I think it is one that has probably not has 

been as strong in the past as it is needs to. American business is 

ready to step up and play a role in telling that story and providing 

the anecdotes that explain it in plain English to the citizens of the 

country so we can make some progress. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Levenick, I thank you. Your time has expired. 

I appreciate all three of you being here. And again, on those 

words, I know all of you had a great close there. Appreciate that. 

As was mentioned, this is our first hearing moving toward the reauthorization. But I want everybody to realize, too, that we have 

been having stakeholder meetings and other types of meetings getting information from the stakeholders. And all indicate clearly 

from every meeting we have, and certainly from today, it is about 

certainty, long-term flexibility, reducing regulatory burden. Trying 

to move this bill in a bipartisan way I think is important for us 

to do, being fiscally responsible. And I know you just said it at the 

end, Mr. Levenick, and the mayor has said it probably several 

times today, it is going to be important that those of you that are 

stakeholders, those of us on this committee and Congress, we need 

to educate, advocate, inform the American people about the importance. Because they don’t have the same world view on what is 

happening to a big city if it is not being connected or the different 

transit systems around the country. And that is incumbent upon us 

to make sure we are out there talking. And then as we move closer, 

making sure we are talking to Members of Congress. Because, 

again, some Members of Congress aren’t clear on how far we are 

falling behind in the transportation and infrastructure that we 

have out there. 

So, again, thank you all for being here. With that, 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 the record remain open for 15 days for additional comments 

and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included 

into the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

46 


Insert offset folio 4 here 86278.004
47 


Insert offset folio 5 here 86278.005
48 


Insert offset folio 6 here 86278.006
49 


Insert offset folio 7 here 86278.007
50 


Insert offset folio 8 here 86278.008
51 


Insert offset folio 9 here 86278.009
52 


Insert offset folio 10 here 86278.010
53 


Insert offset folio 11 here 86278.011
54 


Insert offset folio 12 here 86278.012
55 


Insert offset folio 13 here 86278.013
56 


Insert offset folio 14 here 86278.014
57 


Insert offset folio 15 here 86278.015
58 


Insert offset folio 16 here 86278.016
59 


Insert offset folio 17 here 86278.017
60 


Insert offset folio 18 here 86278.018
61 


Insert offset folio 19 here 86278.019
62 


Insert offset folio 20 here 86278.020
63 


Insert offset folio 21 here 86278.021
64 


Insert offset folio 22 here 86278.022
65 


Insert offset folio 23 here 86278.023
66 


Insert offset folio 24 here 86278.024
67 


Insert offset folio 25 here 86278.025
68 


Insert offset folio 26 here 86278.026
69 


Insert offset folio 27 here 86278.027
70 


Insert offset folio 28 here 86278.028
71 


Insert offset folio 29 here 86278.029
72 


Insert offset folio 30 here 86278.030
73 


Insert offset folio 31 here 86278.031
74 


Insert offset folio 32 here 86278.032
75 


Insert offset folio 33 here 86278.033
76 


Insert offset folio 34 here 86278.034
77 


Insert offset folio 35 here 86278.035
78 


Insert offset folio 36 here 86278.036
79 


Insert offset folio 37 here 86278.037
80 


Insert offset folio 38 here 86278.038
81 


Insert offset folio 39 here 86278.039
82 


Insert offset folio 40 here 86278.040
83 


Insert offset folio 41 here 86278.041
84 


Insert offset folio 42 here 86278.042
85 


Insert offset folio 43 here 86278.043
86 


Insert offset folio 44 here 86278.044
87 


Insert offset folio 45 here 86278.045
88 


Insert offset folio 46 here 86278.046
89 


Insert offset folio 47 here 86278.047
90 


Insert offset folio 48 here 86278.048
91 


Insert offset folio 49 here 86278.049
92 


Insert offset folio 50 here 86278.050
93 


Insert offset folio 51 here 86278.051
94 


Insert offset folio 52 here 86278.052
95 


Insert offset folio 53 here 86278.053
96 


Insert offset folio 54 here 86278.054
97 


Insert offset folio 55 here 86278.055
98 


Insert offset folio 56 here 86278.056
99 


Insert offset folio 57 here 86278.057
100 


Insert offset folio 58 here 86278.058
101 


Insert offset folio 59 here 86278.059
102 


Insert offset folio 60 here 86278.060
103 


Insert offset folio 61 here 86278.061
104 


Insert offset folio 62 here 86278.062
105 


Insert offset folio 63 here 86278.063
106 


Insert offset folio 64 here 86278.064
107 


Insert offset folio 65 here 86278.065
108 


Insert offset folio 66 here 86278.066
109 


Insert offset folio 67 here 86278.067
110 


Insert offset folio 68 here 86278.068
111 


Insert offset folio 69 here 86278.069
112 


Insert offset folio 70 here 86278.070
113 


Insert offset folio 71 here 86278.071
114 


Insert offset folio 72 here 86278.072
115 


Insert offset folio 73 here 86278.073
116 


Insert offset folio 74 here 86278.074
117 


Insert offset folio 75 here 86278.075
118 


Insert offset folio 76 here 86278.076
119 


Insert offset folio 77 here 86278.077
120 


Insert offset folio 78 here 86278.078
121 


Insert offset folio 79 here 86278.079
122 


Insert offset folio 80 here 86278.080
123 


Insert offset folio 81 here 86278.081
124 


Insert offset folio 82 here 86278.082
125 


Insert offset folio 83 here 86278.083
126 


Insert offset folio 84 here 86278.084
127 


Insert offset folio 85 here 86278.085
128 


Insert offset folio 86 here 86278.086
129 


Insert offset folio 87 here 86278.087
130 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 88 here 86278.088