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

65–643 PDF 2011

POLICY PROPOSALS FROM MEMBERS OF 

CONGRESS TO REFORM THE NATION’S 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 

(112–21) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 5, 2011 

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 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York, Vice Chair 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

BOB FILNER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Oregon ................................................................................................................... 29 

Butterfield, Hon. G.K., a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina ................................................................................................................ 29 

Chabot, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio ........ 29 

Chu, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ..... 29 

Critz, Hon. Mark S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 29 

Davis, Hon. Geoff, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kentucky .. 29 

DeLauro, Hon. Rosa L., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Connecticut ........................................................................................................... 29 

Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ..................................................................................................................... 29 

Green, Hon. Gene, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ........ 29 

McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts .................................................................................................. 29 

Tonko, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 29 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York .......................................................................................................... 29 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES 

Blumenauer, Hon. Earl ........................................................................................... 84 

Butterfield, Hon. G.K. ............................................................................................. 87 

Chabot, Hon. Steve .................................................................................................. 94 

Chu, Hon. Judy ........................................................................................................ 96 

Davis, Hon. Geoff ..................................................................................................... 98 

DeLauro, Hon. Rosa L. ............................................................................................ 101 

Garamendi, Hon. John ............................................................................................ 104 

Green, Hon. Gene .................................................................................................... 108 

McGovern, Hon. James P. ....................................................................................... 113 

Tonko, Hon. Paul ..................................................................................................... 117 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M. ....................................................................................... 124 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Chu, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

request to include the following materials in the record regarding America 

Fast Forward: Creating Jobs the Right Way: 

The QTIBs Provision: General Explanation of Qualified Transportation Improvement Bonds Provision ............................................................................. 38 

The TIFIA Provision: General Explanation of Transportation Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act Provision ............................................................ 40 

America Fast Forward: Creating Jobs the Right Way ...................................... 42 

America Fast Forward: Proposed Federal Financing Tools To Stimulate 

Transportation Infrastructure Investment ..................................................... 46 

Napolitano, Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, request to include recommendations for the surface transportation 

reauthorization bill submitted by Cindy McKim, Director, California Department of Transportation ................................................................................. 6 

Page

VI 

Prepared statements submitted by Members of Congress: 

Barletta, Hon. Lou, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................. 129 

Bass, Hon. Karen, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................................................................................................. 131 

Berg, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Dakota; Canseco, Hon. Francisco ‘‘Quico,’’ a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Texas; Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas; Cuellar, Hon. Henry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas; Gardner, Hon. Cory, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado; Neugebauer, Hon. 

Randy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas; Rehberg, 

Hon. Denny, a Representative in Congress from the State of Montana; 

Smith, Hon. Adrian, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nebraska; and Thornberry, Hon. Mac, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Texas ............................................................................................. 135 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam .................. 138 

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................................................................................................. 142 

Coffman, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado .................................................................................................................... 145 

Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia ......................................................................................................... 147 

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maryland ....................................................................................................... 149 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Oregon ............................................................................................................... 151 

Filner, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of California 154 

Fincher, Hon. Stephen Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee ...................................................................................................... 159 

Garrett, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey ................................................................................................................. 161 

Green, Hon. Al, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ......... 169 

Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wyoming ....................................................................................................... 170 

McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Washington ......................................................................................... 173 

Michaud, Hon. Michael H., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maine ............................................................................................................. 175 

Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................................................................................................. 178 

Price, Hon. David E., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

North Carolina .................................................................................................. 179 

Quigley, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 183 

Reichert, Hon. David G., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Washington ................................................................................................... 185 

Schmidt, Hon. Jean, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio ... 186 

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington ................................................................................................................. 187 

Southerland, Hon. Steve, II, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ........................................................................................................... 190 

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska .... 211 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 65643.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 65643.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 65643.003
(1) 

POLICY PROPOSALS FROM MEMBERS 

OF CONGRESS TO REFORM THE NATION’S 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. We will call the hearing to order today. 

The subcommittee is convening a hearing to receive testimony from 

various Members of Congress on their policy proposals for the reauthorization of the Federal surface transportation programs. 

I ask unanimous consent that members of the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure who are not on the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit be permitted to sit with the 

subcommittee at today’s hearing, offer testimony, and ask questions. Is there any objection? 

[No response.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

Chairman Mica and I have gone around and held various field 

hearings around the country in regard to the highway bill. And 

then last week we heard testimony from over 40 different transportation organizations and associations. The subcommittee is in the 

process of reviewing the information provided during last week’s 

hearings, and many of the innovative ideas put forward may become part of the surface transportation reauthorization bill. 

Today we will hear reauthorization policy proposals from Members of Congress. Several Members have introduced individual bills 

that make changes to the Federal highway, transit, or highway 

safety programs. This hearing will provide Members the opportunity to advocate for the reforms and improvements they are proposing in those bills, and proposing for their districts. 

This reauthorization of the highway, transit, and highway safety 

programs will be more challenging than any other in recent memory. Fiscal constraints will cause us to be more creative and find 

ways to do more with less. The committee will consider proposals 

to better leverage our highway trust fund dollars through loan and 

bonding programs and public-private partnerships. 

I also hope to hear ideas from Members on how to speed up the 

project delivery process. Time delays and inefficiencies in project 

2 

delivery not only postpone needed improvements in our Nation’s 

transportation and infrastructure, but also result in increases in 

the cost of projects. 

Additionally, the committee is seeking proposals on how to reduce the number of Federal surface transportation programs. 

Today there are more than 100 highway, transit, and highway safety programs. Many of these programs are duplicative or no longer 

serve a national need. I know there will be several proposals today 

to create new programs, but before we create new programs we 

must perform a thorough review of the existing programs, and 

eliminate the programs that are no longer needed, or that we can 

no longer afford. 

I look forward to working with Chairman Mica and Ranking 

Members Rahall and DeFazio on improving and reforming the Federal surface transportation programs. And with that, as soon as he 

has a chance to catch his breath, we will hear from the ranking 

member, any statement that he wishes to make at this time. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the continuing 

discussion of the authorization of the Surface Transportation Act. 

I look forward to the testimony and hope that some of our colleagues can give us some solutions to the problem which confronts 

us: a deteriorating infrastructure which has vaulted us from First 

World status to what I call Fourth World—that is, worse than 

Third World—in terms of the percent of our GDP that we are investing and the rapidity of the disintegration of the system. 

Given the rules adopted by the Republicans, we are not allowed 

to talk about new revenues. And if we live within existing revenues 

without some creative sort of financing, we will see the rate of deterioration accelerate. So I hope our colleagues have some good 

ideas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. We will now hear 

from any Members who wish to make opening statements. And 

first we will call on the vice chairman of the subcommittee, a gentleman from New York, Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was pleased that this 

subcommittee was able to hold a listening session in my district 

earlier this month. It sent a strong message that we went directly 

to our constituents, as well as consulting with industry groups and 

other stakeholders down here in Washington. 

This bill is about our constituency, mobility and transportation 

needs of their communities, which they know best. I would like to 

reiterate a common theme that I have heard from my folks in my 

district throughout the discussion. New York is unique in many 

ways, and our infrastructure challenges vary from region to region. 

However, too often, small communities are left out of the planning process, and given little or no input with the State DOTs regarding project funding. Urban areas with high populations receive 

special sub-allowances and metropolitan regions with 50,000 or 

more people are represented at a State level by metropolitan planning organizations, MPOs. 

However, small rural communities like I represent are left to 

fend for themselves amongst very stiff competition. If metropolitan 

areas are given a say in where their Federal transportation dollars 

3 

are spent, we should provide smaller rural communities with that 

same input. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee 

to include language in the reauthorization that gives local governments a seat at the table. While some States have voluntarily included regional planning groups in the process, many, including 

New York, have not. 

I ask that our 6-year bill incorporate language that accomplishes 

the following: allow for the creation of regional planning organizations to provide formal input in the State level planning process; 

direct these organizations to cooperate, not just consult, with their 

State DOTs, to put them at a par with their counterparts at MPOs; 

recognize at the Federal level these planning organizations to reinforce the role in the planning process; provide these organizations 

with a formal structure and delineated responsibilities to match 

those of MPOs. 

Rural communities face stiff competition for limited Federal 

transportation dollars. And I look forward to working with the committee to ensure local governments get a fair seat at the table. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hanna. The first Member here on the minority side is Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. Everyone in this room—this is one of 

those rare opportunities where we have business and labor together, a very popular topic out in my district of moving forward 

on a surface transportation bill, understanding that it won’t only 

create short-term jobs, it puts us back to compete economically in 

the long term, whether that is moving farm produce out of Minnesota or in New York. 

I would like to associate myself with the gentleman from New 

York’s remarks, Mr. Hanna, the vice chair. This idea of a regional 

transportation planning organization is a better and more efficient 

use of our dollars. It does not add extra bureaucracy to it, but it 

does give the voice that the gentleman was speaking of to our rural 

communities, making sure that we are connecting parts of this 

country in the most efficient manner. 

In the previous Congress, I had introduced 2782 that did exactly 

that. This piece of legislation gained great bipartisan support. I 

certainly think that is the way to go. I think it allows for that voice 

to be there, and does the things exactly as the gentleman said, allows for more local control, which I think is—in this piece of legislation, is right. 

Secondly, I would like to speak just for a moment on trying to 

streamline and uniform some of our policies on—truck weights is 

an issue and a particular interest of mine that I think we can get 

some uniform ability to get those weights where they are manageable. We pay for them, they are not doing—and we do the research 

necessary to make sure that bridge harmonics and everything are 

taken into consideration. 

The problem that I have is our limit is 80,000 in Minnesota. 

North Dakota is 105,000. South Dakota, on the other side of my 

district, is 129,000. Canada is 100,000. What we would like to see 

is an opt in on this to allow for the higher weight. State of MinVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:55 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\4-5-11~1\65643.TXT JEAN
4 

nesota’s Department of Transportation has agreed with this, and 

certainly think that is the way to go. 

So, we have got a great opportunity in this committee, bipartisan-wise, to agree on this is an issue that is clearly delineated in 

the Constitution for us providing for the post roads and the infrastructure of this country. It is a smart use of resources. I thank the 

chairman for getting out there, holding these hearings, listening to 

the American public. And I look forward to getting this thing done. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Walz. Next on our 

side is Mr. Southerland. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Chairman, I have no comments. Thank 

you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Ranking Member DeFazio. There was a hearing in Los Angeles with 

Chairman Mica and Senator Boxer not too long ago on transportation. We very much appreciate that. 

We must produce a very robust transportation highway trust bill. 

It is a major economic recovery tool, creates jobs, provides congestion relief, gets the goods to market, and gets people to work faster. 

All committee members have agreed to $550 billion last year. It is 

supported by the Chamber, by business, by unions, by highway and 

transit officials. It would increase safety, improve public transit, reduce congestion, and reduce the freight impact on communities, especially mine. 

Strongly support the inclusion of a metropolitan mobility program that should address major bottlenecks in urban corridors, especially on I–5 in my district, the Santa Ana Freeway, one of the 

most congested freeways in the United States, with 25,000 trucks 

per day, and of course, our Alameda Corridor East, the 54 crossings 

that cause delays through the eastern Los Angeles, and slows delivery to—for on-time delivery to the rest of the Nation. 

We must include a program to deal with urban congestion, as 

well as freight improvement program—the dedicated source of 

funding to address the effects of freight movement on communities 

and improve that mobility. 

The freight movement from the ports Los Angeles and Long 

Beach do impact my district. And it is burdened with traffic delays 

on the freeways and at crossings. The air quality for diesel-spewing 

engines, the noise from the whistle on the rail cars are safety concerns on roadways and, of course, partly the road rage. We must 

provide funding for grade separations and cleaner truck programs 

to mitigate problems caused by freight, especially in those areas 

that have high concentration of these movements. 

There are 54 crossings in—as I said, in my area, and only—not 

even half are funded. Must increase funding for transit to keep 

cars off the road, especially mass transit. Buses and cars do get 

held up on freeways, just like everybody else. But mass transit 

would be very, very much an improvement in Los Angeles. 

And we must provide some incentives. One of the things that we 

have talked about are the grants, the TIFIA, improvement of the 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. The 

lowest interest bonds, such as Build America bonds, we—in that 

5 

area I am looking for information on how we can provide any of 

the transit companies looking for assistance from the Federal Government, how to produce a private-public partnership, so that they 

may be able to move faster on these projects. 

The bill should streamline the environment and review program. 

California is the only State to participate in the surface transportation project’s delivery pilot program authorized in SAFETEA–LU. 

It gives States stringent environmental review standards, and the 

ability to easily certify the NEPA and CEQA, once they have obtained their State’s environmental certification. Programs very successful in streamlining the environmental review and speeding up 

project delivery for highway projects, and we need to expand this 

program to transit and other transportation projects. They should 

not have to do the work twice. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include materials 

submitted by Caltrans director Cindy McKim and Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority director Art Leahy, with their public 

policy recommendations for the bill. 

Thank you both, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Is there any objection to attaching any statements that any Member wishes to do so? 

[No response.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. Hearing no objection, any statements or materials 

that the Members wish to attach to their opening statements will 

be included in the record. 

[The information follows:] 

6 


Insert offset folio 4 here 65643.004
7 


Insert offset folio 5 here 65643.005
8 


Insert offset folio 6 here 65643.006
9 


Insert offset folio 7 here 65643.007
10 


Insert offset folio 8 here 65643.008
11 


Insert offset folio 9 here 65643.009
12 


Insert offset folio 10 here 65643.010
13 


Insert offset folio 11 here 65643.011
14 


Insert offset folio 12 here 65643.012
15 


Insert offset folio 13 here 65643.013
16 


Insert offset folio 14 here 65643.014
17 

Mr. DUNCAN. The next Member on our side is Mr. Gibbs. No 

statement? All right. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing, because I do think that when, as Democrats, we were in the 

majority and had the opportunity to move forward a reauthorization, I think that we didn’t do service to the public in that, and 

that, you know, we look at transportation for a number of reasons: 

one, because we have transportation needs across this country that 

are unmet; we have challenges in moving projects through the approval process so that it stymies many projects that are worthy in 

the States; and because we want to improve commerce and create 

jobs. 

So, I think it is important for us to be both courageous and bold 

to meet the Nation’s infrastructure needs, to look at creative and 

unique ways of financing, so that we have some capacity not just 

to delivery projects for today, but to make sure that we are doing 

what we need to do to move forward for the future, because we are 

way behind in our infrastructure. We can see that when we look 

from this country to other Nations that are both emerging and developing, who seem to be investing by leaps and bounds over what 

we are investing to meet our infrastructure needs. 

I represent a district that is here in the national capital region. 

We are home to a metro system, a metro-rail system, that services 

not just the people who live and work here in the capital region, 

one of the largest regions in the country, but also serves the Nation, serves the Nation in terms of facilitating Federal workers 

keeping our government moving—but the 20 million or so visitors 

who come from every region of this country and across the world, 

and who need a safe and reliable transit system to get around. 

And so, how do we find a way of identifying and prioritizing the 

unique needs of our States and our districts, rather than just leaving everything to the discretion of any one administration, whether 

that administration is a Democratic administration or a Republic 

administration? I think each of us on this committee and in the 

Congress can attest to the fact of our ability to know and understand the unique needs of our districts and our States when it 

comes to transportation. We are closer to the ground, so to speak. 

Projects such as those here in the metropolitan region, like the 

purple line that would wrap itself around the beltway in the national capital region are important, not just for my district, but also 

for freeing up the congestion and bottleneck along the I–95 corridor 

that serves the commerce needs of an entire eastern seaboard. And 

so, even though I might prioritize a project like this, it serves a 

broader public need. 

I think here in this region, as in across the country, we have to 

have a commitment to mass transit for the purposes of facilitating 

our ability to have clean air for our children to breathe, and clean 

water, and for the ease of commerce. 

And so, while I believe that it is good for us to get our work 

started—we are several months ahead of the next expiration of our 

authorization—I think it is important for us to get it right, and to 

make sure that, across the country, our States understand what 

our transportation priorities are, and they can get on with funding 

those long-term needs to match what happens at the Federal level. 

18 

I have talked with our governor and our department of transportation officials, and they are, in some ways, in a stalemate because 

they do not know what it is that we will make a commitment to 

at the Federal level. And so it makes it very difficult to plan for 

the long term at the State level. 

And so, I—Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you, to 

working with our Members, to make sure that we are making the 

kinds of investments in transportation that will lead us to job creation toward greater economic success, and to make sure that we 

have a transportation system that meets our 21st-century goals. 

Thank you very much, and I yield. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. Dr. Bucshon? 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you. I want to thank the committee for the 

opportunity to discuss what I believe are the critical issues in 

transportation. 

I come before you today to tell you the story of my home State 

of Indiana, and the advances that we have made in our infrastructure. Thanks to the leadership of Governor Mitch Daniels, in the 

past 5 years Indiana has repaired or built over 41 roadway projects 

that are open to traffic, repaired 588 bridges, and invested $5.7 billion in new construction and preservation projects. It is critical to 

note that the governor has done this without raising taxes on the 

people of Indiana. 

In late 2005, Governor Daniels launched an aggressive 10-year, 

$12 billion transportation plan known as Major Moves, to significantly improve and expand Indiana’s highway infrastructure. Governor Daniels and the Indiana General Assembly approved the 

lease of a toll road for 75 years to a private corporation, resulting 

in the State acquiring a $4 billion up-front payment that was put 

back into infrastructure projects in Indiana. This public-private 

partnership is funding road projects across Indiana, including expansion of Interstate 69 through my district in southwestern Indiana. 

There are currently no interstate connections between Evansville 

and Indianapolis. The largest city in my district is Evansville, and 

the State capital is Indianapolis. Past governors have tried to get 

this done. In fact, Governor Evan Bayh in the late—in the 1990s 

even broke ground on the highway, but never had the money to 

complete the project. Governor Daniels has broken ground in 2008. 

And finally, our city of Evansville will be connected to the State 

capital. 

While many members of this committee and in Congress have in 

past been critical of public-private partnerships, Indiana has proven that it can be successful. This $12 billion plan has provided 

thousands of transportation jobs in Indiana, and created new and 

safe roads in one of the most heavily traveled States in the country. 

In 2005, Indiana labor unions worked with Governor Daniels on 

the original idea of Major Moves, and have continued to support 

this project. 

While Indiana has been building roads rapidly, they still face 

many of the problems that others across the country have been facing. What I have heard from countless engineers, construction companies, and State employees is that, ‘‘Federal regulations and red 

19 

tape are slowing us down.’’ We are spending too much time making 

sure our paperwork is filled out correctly, and too much money on 

various permits that are needed to test ground for a potential new 

project. The regulations that we have put in place in Washington, 

DC, are hurting people in towns like Washington, Indiana, in my 

district. 

Let me give you an egregious example on I–69. They had to hire 

a box turtle-sniffing dog that they had to import from Tennessee 

for long stretches of the road, to make sure that the box turtles 

were out of the way. Now, as I have nothing against box turtles, 

this is something that is an egregious regulatory thing that the 

Federal Government has put in place, and shows an example of 

how ridiculous that this can get. 

We need to give back in whatever we do here in Washington, DC, 

more power to our States, and allow them to make decisions on 

what is best for their State. I would argue that none of us in this 

committee or in Congress knows what will work for each State better than the governor of the State and, more importantly, the citizens of our States. But yet we continue to put restrictions on what 

each State can do. 

Indiana would be able to save an estimated $8 million a year if 

current Federal ban on rest park commercialization, for example, 

was taken away. It is good public policy, possibly, to have rest 

parks on the interstate system. But in a time when we have critical 

shortages in funding, we need to revisit what our priorities are. 

As I have stated, Indiana has successfully completed public-private partnerships. They should be able to investigate doing this 

going forward. Denying States options by putting in onerous Federal regulations are inhibiting our States and our country from advancing. 

I would implore us to create legislation going forward that cuts 

red tape, and we need to invest our money in ways that are working and quit investing money in an old system that is not working. 

Give our States more flexibility, give our citizens more flexibility. 

Create an environment where States and cities can actively pursue 

public-private partnerships like in Indiana going forward in this 

time where we need out-of-the-box thinking on funding our infrastructure, going forward. 

Thank you, and I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon. Mr. Boswell? 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership, and what you are doing here by getting us focused on what 

is going on. 

Mr. Chairman, I—maybe you can help me out, Mr. Chairman, 

but I know a few years ago we sat in here and it was a ShusterOberstar or a Young-Oberstar, where we had quite a discussion, bipartisan discussion, about use tax. And we came to an agreement. 

And as I recall—and correct me, if you need to—but I think we 

recessed for 2 or 3 days, and they went to the White House to see, 

if we labored through this like we had in this committee, would we 

get support. And then they called us back together, and I think we 

were sitting pretty close, they walked in the room. We saw that 

they did not have a smile on their face, and they said, ‘‘No, it would 

be vetoed.’’ So we did not do it. 

20 

Meanwhile, we labor on and on and on. And I have a lot of hope. 

I have confidence. You got handed the keys to this committee in 

one hand, and a whole list of longstanding problems in the other. 

And we are falling behind. A lot of you have traveled. You know 

what is going on in China, you know what is going on in Europe. 

You know a lot of places. And our infrastructure is falling behind. 

And we cannot compete in that situation, whether it is road, rail, 

mass transit, the whole thing. 

In my State, when I was in the legislature, and the old new governor is back—he was governor at that time, Governor Branstad— 

the last time we raised the fuel tax. But inflation alone has 

changed that to about $.15 short. And so, my farmers and manufacturers and contractors and everybody across—‘‘Why are you 

waiting to do what is inevitable, we have to do?’’ 

And I told them about the experience I am just sharing that we 

did here in this committee. And, you know, we were going to make 

that adjustment. And I believe we were going to index, if I remember, so we would not have to go through this turmoil and keep up 

with inflation. 

So, I just wanted to give you encouragement, and work with you, 

and say, you know, I hope we do not just come up with another 

study. We have studied it to death. We need to do something. And 

I know you, I think what—you intend to do something. I am not 

sure what it is going to be yet. But we have got a challenge, and 

we cannot be competitive in this world economy if we do not take 

care of our infrastructure. That is just—whether it is farm-to-market, whatever it is, looking at Mr. Long down there, we understand 

if he cannot get the grain to town, he cannot get the cattle to town, 

cannot get the pigs to market, you know, it does not work. And we 

got a lot of things we need to work on. 

So, with that, I yield back and wish us all well, that we can actually move forward under the leadership we have got now. Thank 

you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Boswell, for a very 

accurate statement. And we are sure going to try. 

The next one in line is Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing today and giving us an opportunity to share with you some 

of our priorities. 

I participated in several of the listening sessions that Chairman 

Mica had, and I think it is important, and I would like to highlight 

five bills that I have brought forward that reflect my priorities, and 

I think should be incorporated in the main bill. 

I recently introduced the Freight Focus Act, H.R. 1122. I represent 40 percent of the Nation’s goods going through my particular community. I have a bridge that carries 15 percent of the 

Nation’s cargo that has a diaper underneath it to catch the concrete that is falling down. That is the same bridge that approximately 10 years ago would have cost us $600 million to fix. Now 

it is going to cost us $1.3 billion to replace. 

The Freight Focus bill contains many provisions that I think we 

need to consider with goods movement in our infrastructure. One, 

I strongly believe that we need an office of freight within the Department of Transportation. Two, we need a national freight adviVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:55 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\4-5-11~1\65643.TXT JEAN
21 

sory committee that would include the private sector, so they would 

have an opportunity to give input, in terms of where dollars are 

spent, in priorities—highways of significance. Three, we need to 

improve freight planning, and actually designate corridors of national significance. Four, I want to concur with what my colleagues 

have said. We need to create a goods movement trust fund. 

Now, I would like to focus my comments on the diesel tax side, 

as opposed to the general tax. When you look at a tax that has not 

been increased since 1993—and, as we heard last week when we 

had a hearing, if the industry is willing to tax themselves, why are 

we standing in the way? 

And my comment of this committee is I just think we need to 

have some opportunity—I don’t think today is the forum, but there 

has got to be an opportunity for us to talk about the elephant in 

the room, and that is to say no taxes for no tax sake I don’t think 

really makes any sense for either side. There needs to be an honest 

discussion about that particular issue or any other revenue opportunities that we have. Because, clearly, we are not generating 

enough dollars in the current gas tax. 

I have pushback that I think the diesel tax, in particular—you 

heard right here in this committee, where the American Truckers 

Association supported taxing themselves. 

Also what we heard—when you look at others who are willing to 

support this idea, who are also supporting my bill, Retail Industry 

Leaders Association, RILA, which is the largest group that is responsible for moving goods in and around all of our corridors. The 

Waterfront Coalition, the International Warehouse and Logistics 

Association. Something is wrong when all of the people who are actually doing the work are trying to move forward ideas that, for 

some reason, we have got groups of people who do not even want 

to discuss. 

The second key point I wanted to talk about is the TIFIA Enhancement Act. That is also a bill that I introduced, H.R. 1123, 

that would increase the size of the current program, and it would 

continue to give local governments flexibility to be able to do longterm financing. I think you are familiar with that, and so I will 

hold my comments on that one. 

Third is the Build America bonds, which you have heard several 

Members mention. I have a bill, H.R. 736, which would extend this 

program into 2014. 

The other point is number four for me, which is my bill that has 

to do with what many people have talked about, which is the environment current regulations, and expanding our pilot program, 

which I do support. But we need to make sure that, as we balance 

this funding, and we look at these new ideas with regulation, that 

we do it in the correct way, that we not only—yes, we want to 

make sure that permits are not holding projects from going forward, but we also need to make sure that our environment is protected, as well. 

Finally, my fifth bill that I wanted to talk about is the Prevention of Unreasonable Fees Act, and that has to do with, in many 

of our airports today, there are areas where there is pre-arranged 

ground transportation services. In my State—I know in others—for 

example, if you have a car service that is picking up versus a taxi 

22 

service, they are charged how many times they are going around 

the airport, and it really does not make sense. 

So, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I just want to summarize my comments, that I and other colleagues have great pieces of 

legislation. We would like an opportunity to speak with you and 

your committee staff about how they can be incorporated. But 

while you were talking with Mr. Boswell I want to end with this 

point, which is what I started with. 

By us not looking at revenue options, the cost is not going to go 

away. The cost is still there. So for me, of a bridge that used to 

cost $600 million that is now going to cost $1.3 billion, it has to 

be addressed. 

So, I look forward to working with you and the rest of my colleagues. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, and let me thank our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Duncan, and Ranking Member DeFazio, 

being represented by Congresswoman Napolitano right now. 

As a member of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee I would 

like to express my appreciation to the leadership, as well as members of this committee for an opportunity to talk about what we 

consider to be priorities. And hopefully we will continue to have 

more input. 

I have introduced several bills that I would like to bring before 

the subcommittee’s attention. First, I have authored H.R. 341, the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, 

TIFIA, which increases the maximum Federal credit assistance and 

local authority under TIFIA program for such projects from 30 to 

49 percent. 

TIFIA funding is designed to leverage non-Federal funding, including investment from the private sector. This legislation will 

continue to allow substantial private co-investment to be leveraged 

at a time when Federal gas tax revenue and most States’ resources 

are inadequate to meet the funding needs for large-scale transportation projects. 

And, secondly, I have introduced H.R. 551, which is a bill that 

would allow States to continue their own funds toward Federal and 

State agencies for transportation projects undergoing national environmental policy act. This is an environmental streamlining legislation falling directly in line with one of the committee’s primary 

goals, to provide States the flexibility they need to address their 

unique transportation challenges by establishing innovative financing options. And I applaud the committee for its efforts to invest 

in these funds safely. 

Now, I guess 2, almost 3 years ago, I served on a task force that 

Speaker Pelosi put together where we had economists, researchers, 

Wall Street representatives, and it was very clear that it would be 

a long time before we would have the money to address the infrastructure needs in this Nation. And out of that came the idea of 

an infrastructure bank. 

I worked with Mr. Mica for a long time, trying to agree on an 

amount which we would work on. He wanted it to be $300-some 

billion, and I had in mind $50 billion. So, we did not get very far 

23 

with that. However, I think it is still an idea that we should be 

considering on the table so that we can move on with continuing 

to curve the crumbling of our infrastructure in this country. 

And so, I thank you for this opportunity, and I hope that out of 

this we can get a package that would address many of these needs. 

As Congresswoman Richardson just said, putting it off does not 

make it go away. But it will make it more expensive. So, thank you 

very much. I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. Hirono? 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There will be few opportunities for this Congress to truly impact not only the day-to-day 

life in our communities, but also to affect the prosperity of our future. Few pieces of legislation authorize programs that touch every 

State and community in a fundamental way. And our Federal surface transportation programs do just that. 

These programs create well-paying jobs, putting people to work, 

doing things that make it possible for our communities to thrive. 

They also provide the foundation for our well-functioning economy. 

Reauthorizing these programs and reforming them for the future 

are important to the people of my home State of Hawaii. As the 

only island State, we do face unique transportation challenges. We 

have the highest gas prices in the Nation. We are a growing population, and traffic congestion is a serious problem. 

According to the urban mobility report by the Texas Transpor- tation Institute, the average Honolulu motorist pays $709 each 

year in time and travel cost, due to congestion. Outside of Oahu, 

which is our most populated island, our neighbor island population 

is also growing. Demand for affordable public transportation options for workers on the neighbor islands have increased. In addition, we need to expand the capacity of our harbors and improve 

our airports and roadways. 

These are vital to the future success of Hawaii’s economy. The 

Hawaii Institute of Public Affairs estimates that Hawaii needs a 

minimum of $14.3 billion in capital improvement projects. Many 

other States are facing similar challenges, and are looking for solutions, just as we are. Addressing these challenges will require a robust, long-term transportation reauthorization bill. 

I would like to share what I believe is a unique approach to dealing with our transportation challenges, or at least thinking about 

them, as well as some ideas that I hope will be included in a final 

bill. The Hawaiians divided our lands into ahupua’a, wedge-shaped 

land areas that went from the mountains to the sea. The idea was 

that everything that happened in the uplands will ultimately affect 

the coastal area and the ocean. In those days, the ancient Hawaiians managed the resources of each ahupua’a effectively and holistically. This allowed them to manage food and water resources to 

ensure prosperity and plenty for all, year-round. 

The idea behind ahupua’a is certainly appropriate today. If we 

approach things holistically and embrace smart development and 

transportation policies, I am confident our modern communities 

can also ensure prosperity and plenty for all, year-round. 

So, a good first step for us to work to achieve an integrated, 

inter-modal transportation system. This means investments in 

24 

transit and transit-oriented development. These are the types of 

systems that give our citizens the option to take a train or a bus 

or a bike, or even just to walk, or any combination of these on any 

given day. Linking different modes of transportation also helps to 

connect workers with jobs, businesses with customers. Increasing 

transportation options also increases mobility and opportunity for 

people of all ages and income levels. 

Second, we have to continue investing in the safety and security 

of those using our transportation systems. The State of Hawaii has 

successfully used National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

funds to reduce motor vehicle fatalities, increase seatbelt usage, 

and keep pedestrians safe. 

Third, we have to ensure that we are protecting and enhancing 

our environmental resources. This means that we must constantly 

pursue alternative energy, and focus on getting more cars off the 

road to help keep our air clean. And we must be diligent in incorporating these values into project construction, which means that 

people should be working together. 

In Hawaii, the Army Corps of Engineers works in concert with 

other agencies—the EPA, Fish and Wildlife, and others—during 

the early stages of public works projects. This way, each project is 

looked at from a variety of perspectives at the outset. This saves 

time, money, and paperwork. 

Finally, we have to determine how to effectively finance these 

new projects and initiatives. Others have talked about the national 

infrastructure and development bank. This will provide a muchneeded alternative means of financing these large projects—certainly not enough. We need to have an annual Federal commitment 

of some $225 to $240 billion for 50 years, just to upgrade all the 

modes of transportation to a state of good repair throughout our 

country. But all options should be on the table. The President’s 

2012 budget provides a solid blueprint from which to work, in 

terms of what we need to do. 

But I think we can also learn from the ancient Hawaiians to 

think about our shared challenges holistically, in order to effectively manage our prosperity for generations to come. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

to solicit policy proposals for Members of Congress about the service transportation authorization bill. 

Many of us on this committee, myself included, recognize that in 

order to truly meet the infrastructure needs across the country, we 

need to write a bill that significantly increases funding. We know 

that there is a $2.2 trillion backlog, just to get our infrastructure 

up to a state of good repair. 

I have heard the mention in this committee the past couple of 

months about looking for ways to do more with less. I am deeply 

concerned about the implications of that approach, and fear that 

any cut in funding will have disastrous effects on jobs and on the 

economy, on the quality of life, on the state of good repair of our 

roads, bridges, tunnels, and rails, and on the environment. 

Unfortunately, considering the political climate in the House 

these days regarding public spending, I fear we will not report a 

25 

bill with adequate funding levels. So, rather than get into every 

policy provision or program that I have worked on in this committee for the past 2 decades, I would like to focus today on two 

overarching concerns. 

First, it is extremely important that transit, public transportation and alternative modes of transportation, continue to play a 

prominent role in the surface transportation bill. I have heard 

Chairman Mica indicate the transit funding will remain ‘‘about the 

same.’’ I certainly hope that this—I certainly hope that at least 

that is true, if we cannot realize a substantial increase in transit 

funding. But in any event, it is imperative that we retain adequate 

funding and eligibility under the Federal program for public and 

alternative modes of transportation. 

Second, it is absolutely essential that the bill includes a rail title, 

and adequately deals with freight and goods movement. Too often 

we distribute funding through the silos of highways, transit, et 

cetera, and do not consider some of the bigger projects that cut 

across all modes, but which have a direct benefit to the highway 

system and commuters. 

I agree with Chairman Mica that we need a national strategy, 

and that freight and, in particular, rail freight must be a part of 

that equation. I am hopeful that in the next transportation bill we 

can include a program to fund projects of national and regional significance, as it was originally intended to ensure that we complete 

a few initiatives that are too big for one State to carry on its own, 

and which might not fall under the traditional eligibility requirements, but that are vital to the economy and national security or 

have other significant public benefits. 

I have had conversations with Chairman Mica and others on the 

committee about this, and I look forward to having more detailed 

discussions as the bill moves forward. I want to thank you, Chairman Duncan, for holding this hearing. I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know that we have 

to go through this exercise of futility, and I do recognize you for 

that. 

I am very concerned about this whole process. I was the author 

of the last bill, and everybody in this room that was here before 

voted for that bill four times. And I have told the chairman I am 

not excited unless we figure a way around this program about writing a bill that gives the money, basically, to the President—I don’t 

care who the President is—for the next 5 years, and then have that 

Federal Highway Commission decide they are going to send it to 

the State department of transportation. 

Now, I do not know how many of you in this room realize what 

that means. That means you have no say of anything about a highway bill. So why in the hell would we write a highway bill? Think 

about it a moment. Why would I give the President and the State 

department of transportation monies and I have no say where it 

goes? 

And I represent a whole State, I do not represent one little district. I have two major metropolitan areas, two of them. And I 

know my State department of transportation. We ought to elimiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:55 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\4-5-11~1\65643.TXT JEAN
26 

nate all State departments of transportation, by the way. I think 

we would be a hell of a lot better off. Because they will put the 

money where the largest wheel turns. And the rest of the State 

transportation will be neglected. Neglected. And this is about 

transportation for all of the people, not just the few of the people. 

All of the people, small communities and large communities. Make 

it a network that serves this country. 

We are way behind the act. And, by the way, I have yet to speak 

to the chairman how we are going to finance this thing. If you had 

done what I wanted you to do 8 years ago we would have had it 

done. Now you did not get any support from my President and your 

President, or any of the leadership. ‘‘Oh, we cannot raise any 

money.’’ Gas is $1.36 at that time. And I wanted to raise it $.05 

one time, index it, and we would have had this thing funded. I do 

not know how you are going to fund it right now. 

But in the meantime, as we go forth in this program, if we have 

any opportunity, as this committee of all committees, stick together 

and make sure our people understand on my side of the aisle, your 

side of the aisle, this is about transportation. There is no Democrat, there is no Republican. This is a transportation system for the 

United States of America, the people of America. 

Now, to have us shortchange this by an idea, ‘‘Oh, we are going 

to let the Federal Government run this program,’’ shame on us. 

Shame on us. We are the ones that said less government, less control, less regulations. And we are going to give it to the Federal 

Highway Commission? 

And, truthfully, Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about this, 

and if there is not some breakthrough where every Member, as a 

congressman, has a right to dedicate where dollars should go—yes, 

it is called an earmark—and if you will go back through history, 

that is the Constitution. Only the Congress can raise money and 

spend money, not the President of the United States or an agency 

of his designation. 

We have neglected our duty by being true representatives of the 

people. The people have a right to address the government, and we 

are the government, not some unelected bureaucrat that does not 

know his backside from his sun side, but he thinks he does. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I am saying this very strongly, I hope you understand where I am coming from. This is not a good idea, to try 

to write a bill where we have no say in what occurs. 

Now, I have got that off my chest and I have got to go to another 

meeting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Young, for 

a very fine statement. And Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to be associated with the remarks of the gentleman from Alaska, because I 

likewise feel that Members who raise the capital should have some 

input. You can call it earmarks, you can call it Members’ priority. 

But the first Congress had an earmark and it was a lighthouse in 

Maine. So it has always been the responsibility of the Congress to 

raise the revenue. And we, of course, should have some input as 

to how that revenue is spent. 

I do want to talk about how happy I am that we are having these 

hearings. I want to thank Mr. Mica and Mr. Rahall for holding 

27 

these hearings, because I think that we need the 6-year reauthorization bill. I think it would kick-start our economy. The railroad 

subcommittee will be holding a similar hearing on Thursday to 

hear testimony on issues that would be included in the reauthorization bill. I would encourage anyone that has suggestions for improving rail, pipeline, and hazmat programs to get them to the subcommittee as soon as possible. 

We are experiencing a renaissance in passenger rail in this country. And if we want to keep up with our international competitors, 

we need to make a significant investment in commuter and highspeed rail. I am an advocate for the support of a dedicated source 

of funding for rail, and would encourage the committee to include 

a minimum of $50 billion over the life of the bill. 

Compared to the funding level in the overall bill and the money being spent in other countries—for example, China, $350 billion— 

this is a very small amount of money to dedicate to rail. 

Although we have some very small-minded governors, support for 

high-speed rail is still very high around the country. In fact, last 

night, as of 8:00 p.m., application deadline for the Florida highspeed rail funds was approaching, applicants throughout the 

United States was rolling in, into the FRA for the Florida money. 

I know New York is right in there, and California, and probably 

even Texas. 

I also believe that this reauthorization offers us an opportunity 

to improve the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Finance 

program, RRIF. The RRIF program can help railroads, shippers, 

and States meet these rail infrastructure investment needs. But I 

think we are not taking full advantage of the program. I met with 

railroads and others and they tell me it takes too long, it is too expensive, you have to go from agency to agency. This is one example 

that we need to combine the regulations and work to make it more 

streamlined and find a way that we can reinvest in the infrastructure through the RRIF program. 

There is one program I do want to talk about. I want to encourage the committee to include language that ensures minority veterans and women-owned businesses are getting their fair share of 

the transportation pie. Federal transportation spending have historically served as a crucial means to empower socially disadvantaged businesses. 

Thanks to the effort of the Congressional Black Caucus and a bipartisan group of members of the House Transportation Committee, including Bud Shuster, when he was chairman, every major 

transportation bill since 1983 have mandated minimum levels of 

participation for minorities or women-owned business. Unfortunately, because the Federal Railroad Administration has not historically been a significant grant-making agency, it does not currently authorize—require opportunities for disadvantaged business. 

I strongly encourage the committee to take the steps necessary 

to provide the FRA with the authority and to develop other programs such as small business set-asides, subcontracting, goal-setting, and other avenues that ensure that minorities and disadvantaged businesses have fair access to Federal fund contracts. 

During the field hearing process, we have heard from witnesses 

who want to limit the scope of the bill to just building roads. In 

28 

fact, I was just appalled when one person said that—and I support 

building roads, but he indicated that just roads, not even sidewalks, not overpasses. What about the children? What about the 

handicapped? When we develop a transportation bill, it should be 

comprehensive. It should serve all of the people. 

And so, with that, I would yield back the balance of my time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Ms. Brown. And we have been joined 

by the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Rahall. Do you 

have a statement? 

Mr. RAHALL. No, thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Mr. Altmire. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, for calling this 

hearing as the committee prepares the next transportation authorization. We can all agree that the priority of this committee is to 

advance policies that promote a surface transportation system that 

guarantees safe and efficient travel. We are also aware that American infrastructure currently faces challenges on several fronts, and 

my home State of Pennsylvania is no exception. 

Last month, Transportation for America released a report on our 

Nation’s bridges that revealed that 26.5 percent of bridges in Pennsylvania are structurally deficient, giving Pennsylvania both the 

highest percentage and the greatest number of deficient bridges in 

the entire United States. This is an unacceptable statistic, but it 

is the reality for the traveling public in western Pennsylvania, and 

it needs to be addressed as a priority of this authorization. 

Mr. Chairman, repairing crumbling bridges is a safety concern 

not just for western Pennsylvanians, but for all Americans who 

want to be confident that the bridges they cross daily to get to 

work and take their children to and from school are structurally 

sound. Despite the fiscal constraints we face, this committee must 

focus on initiatives that connect communities safely now and in the 

future. This is one area where we can not afford not to act. 

And in addition to crumbling roads and bridges, we must confront the reality of our Nation’s aging population. It has been estimated that 25 percent of American drivers will be over the age of 

65 by the year 2025. These drivers have years of experience behind 

the wheel that help them make smart decisions. But they also have 

some physical and visual limitations that need to be addressed by 

sound public policy. 

The Federal Highway Administration’s older driver handbook 

lays out several vital road safety alterations that can improve safety for older drivers on the roadway. These include signs with more 

legible font, reflective pavement markings, left-turn lanes at intersections, and better placement of signs. These improvements are 

inexpensive and have a proven track record of being extremely effective at reducing roadway deaths and injuries. By improving the 

markings and traffic patterns on our roads and highways, and 

making older drivers’ daily travel as safe as possible, we increase 

road safety for every driver and every passenger on the road. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the rest 

of the committee as we craft policies that will shape the way Americans travel for generations to come. 

29 

Western Pennsylvania deserves safe roads and bridges, and I appreciate your leadership and cooperation in achieving that goal as 

this authorization moves forward. And I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Altmire. And now 

we are honored to have the Honorable Geoff Davis and the Honorable Steve Chabot. And I thought maybe Ms. Schmidt was going 

to join—you are going to be up here, a member of the committee. 

And we will now hear their testimony. We will ask unanimous 

consent that the full statements of all Members be placed into the 

record. Is there any objection? 

[No response.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. Hearing none, that will be so ordered. Since your 

full written statements are now—or will be—included in the record, 

we will request that you summarize these statements in 5 minutes. 

And, Ms. Schmidt, do you want to go first, or do you want 

the—— 

Ms. SCHMIDT. No, I am just listening. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK, all right. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. We are packaged as a team. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, thank you very much. We will hear 

first from Congressman Davis. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. GEOFF DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY; HON. STEVE 

CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF OHIO; HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HON. 

JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON; 

HON. ROSA L. DELAURO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT; HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

TEXAS; HON. MARK S. CRITZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; HON. NYDIA M. 

VELA ́ ZQUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK; HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; AND 

HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member 

Napolitano, for the opportunity to testify today. We are here today 

to discuss the necessity for Congress to develop and prioritize a 

program to finance nationally vital transportation projects where 

costs cannot be borne by one or two States alone. 

An example of such critical infrastructure projects is the Brent 

Spence Bridge, which, as you can see from our first handout, is a 

vital interstate structure on the critical north-south I–75 corridor 

that crosses the Ohio River between our districts. As you can see 

from the second handout, one-third of the population of the United 

States lives within 275 miles of this corridor. The Brent Spence 

30 

Bridge carries more than 3 percent of our gross domestic product 

across the Ohio River annually. Replacement of this bridge is critical to America’s economy. 

As you begin to develop core elements of the surface transportation reauthorization, we submit that a new process by which nationally vital transportation projects can be addressed and funded 

should be developed for the economic well-being of the Nation, as 

a whole. We must develop a rational process whereby critical infrastructure projects will be objectively identified and funded, based 

on merit. The 2011 authorization presents an opportunity to fill 

that need. 

Despite our best efforts during the previous transportation authorization bills, Congress has not established a sufficient mechanism for funding critical infrastructure projects where costs are so 

high they cannot be funded by one or more States. 

For example, the Brent Spence Bridge project will ultimately cost 

between $2 billion and $3 billion to complete, a burden which Kentucky and Ohio cannot shoulder alone. And we take a generation 

or more to fund this one project under current highway trust fund 

allocations. 

The Brent Spence Bridge enables more than $400 billion of commerce to travel from origin to destination, annually. With interstate truck traffic projected to grow by 10 percent by 2030, the 

bridge, in its current state, will gridlock a vital national corridor 

causing lost income, wasted fuel, and reduced employment because 

we cannot efficiently deliver goods to customers. 

However, Ohio and Kentucky would have to dedicate their entire 

highway transportation budgets, to the exclusion of everything else, 

in order to fund the Brent Spence Bridge project. This is fiscally 

unrealistic, and would be unreasonable, given the benefits of the 

project that flow to the Nation, not just two States. 

Major transportation bottlenecks cost thousands of hours of 

delay, and have a negative impact on individual travelers, commuters, families, truckers, shippers, and receivers, particularly 

when the routes they travel are hostage to under-funded critical infrastructure modes of national significant. 

The Woodrow Wilson Bridge between Maryland and Virginia, 

just southeast of downtown Washington, DC, is traveled daily by 

some in the room here. In 1993, 200,000 vehicles crossed that 

bridge every day. The Wilson Bridge carries Interstate 95 and 495 

across the Potomac River. The bridge supports a transportation 

corridor of national significance, connecting the southeastern and 

northeastern United States. 

At the time, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimated 

that the value of the freight trucked across this bridge was equivalent to 1.3 percent of the entire gross domestic product of the 

United States, less than half that of the Brent Spence Bridge mentioned earlier. By the mid-1990s, the bridge was carrying 250 percent of the traffic volume for which it was designed. The bridge 

only had three lanes with five highways lanes worth of traffic trying to squeeze through. The bridge had become a bottleneck with 

national significance, causing tens of thousands of hours of delay 

to American travelers and commerce. 

31 

Neither Maryland nor Virginia could assume the $2.5 billion cost 

of this project, which was several times the annual statewide infrastructure budgets for both States. Additionally, there was no Federal program to fund projects that impacted the Nation as a whole. 

If Congress had not prioritized funding for the Wilson Bridge, funding that paid for the majority of the cost of the project, the bridge 

may have come to closure with economic impacts felt across the 

eastern seaboard. 

Congress helped resolve the funding issue, and the Wilson Bridge 

project was completed. However, resolution was cobbled together 

through exception, not by a cohesive decisionmaking and 

prioritization process like the one we are advocating for today. The 

2011 authorization must include a mechanism for dealing with critical infrastructure projects like the Wilson Bridge that will hasten 

economic recovery and put Americans back to work. 

As we have noted, a current example of a project impacting the 

Nation as a whole is the Brent Spence Bridge. Not only a vital conduit of goods and people across the Ohio River, the bridge also connects Canada to Florida via I–75, as well as Ohio to the western 

United States via I–71, and feeds traffic and freight to Chicago via 

I–74 and all the way to Alabama via I–65. The bridge affects commerce in over 60 Congressional Districts across the central United 

States. Completed in 1963, it was designed to carry 80,000 vehicles 

today. And it will soon have to accommodate nearly 200,000 vehicles, despite being functionally obsolete. 

It is illustrative of projects over $400 billion in freight crossing 

the Ohio River for the American economy, more than 3 percent of 

our gross domestic product. It is a critical infrastructure project for 

the United States, and will create tens of thousands of jobs. I urge 

my colleagues to ensure the 2011 transportation authorization has 

a program for providing a funding mechanism for critical infrastructure. 

Finally, I would like to express my tremendous appreciation to 

my colleagues, Steve Chabot and Jean Schmidt, for their help and 

partnership through the years, as we hope to see this project forward to benefit our Nation. 

With that, I thank you for your consideration and yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member DeFazio and Congresswoman Napolitano, and all the other 

members of the committee, for giving us the opportunity to address 

the committee and testify today. 

Congressman Davis, I want to take this opportunity to thank you 

for your continued leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with you. 

And Congresswoman Schmidt, I also want to thank you for your 

leadership. And this is a project I know we have all worked on for 

many years. And even our predecessors, going back many years, we 

have worked on this. And it has been done in a bipartisan manner, 

and I would encourage us all to continue to do that as we move 

forward on a transportation bill. 

32 

Like Congressman Davis, I am also here to support the authorization of a program in the 2011 transportation bill to include 

projects of regional and national significance. We need to be pragmatic in our approach to this transportation bill, ensuring that 

every dollar spent represents a long-term investment that will improve the flow of commerce and create American jobs. We must recognize that, although we face significant budget challenges, the 

basic infrastructure of our Nation must be a top priority. 

In Cincinnati we have a project of regional and national significance that I believe is the type of project Congress needs to consider while taking up the highway bill. The Brent Spence Bridge, 

as previously referred to by Congressman Davis, is not only critical 

to our local economy, but, like Congressman Davis said, it is a 

major commercial artery connecting the Midwest with the South. 

The annual value of freight crossing the bridge exceeds $400 billion. That is a little over 3 percent of our national GDP crossing 

one bridge. And by 2030, the value in real dollars is expected to 

more than double to $800 billion, nearly a $1 trillion. The benefits 

of a project with that kind of freight value are tremendous. The 

Brent Spence Bridge project would save an estimated $748 million 

in congestion costs annually, savings that would grow in real dollars to $1.3 billion annually by 2030. 

A 2009 study done by the Texas Transportation Institute concluded that completing the Brent Spence Bridge project would save 

2.9 million man-hours of delay, 210,000 vehicle-hours of delay, and 

1.22 million gallons of fuel every year. Over the next 20 years this 

would result in $18.9 billion in benefits for commuters, shippers, 

and manufacturers. 

The numbers are powerful on their own, but with freight serving 

as a key determinant of our economic competitiveness in the new 

global marketplace and the economy, projects like the Brent Spence 

Bridge carry even greater significance. With the price of oil well 

over $100 a barrel, and freight traffic scheduled to increase by 10 

percent by 2030, our ability to efficiently move goods within our 

Nation’s borders is critical to keeping the price of American goods 

low and competitive in the global marketplace. 

It is no secret that our country faces serious economic challenges. 

Our national debt, let us face it, is out of control. And that is due, 

in large part, to poor decisions and wasteful spending of taxpayers’ 

money. Those of us in Congress are consequently forced to make 

tough choices on how to wisely invest in projects on their merits, 

not on their politics. We owe it to the American people to invest 

only in those projects that will produce long-term savings, keep us 

competitive and, most importantly, create American jobs. 

Like my friend and colleague, Congressman Davis, and like Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, I strongly urge you to ensure that the 

2011 highway bill authorizes funding for projects of regional and 

national significance, like the Brent Spence Bridge. 

Thank you for your time. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chabot. Ms. Schmidt 

wants to also testify about this particular project, and then I will 

go to Mr. Larsen. 

33 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you. And I want to thank Congressman 

Davis and Congressman Chabot for highlighting this very important project. Just a couple of quick things. 

Ohio is one of the areas of the country where it moves services 

within 500—most of the services in the United States are moved 

within 500 miles of Ohio. So the I–71/I–75 corridor is well-used. 

That all feeds into the Brent Spence Bridge. I would like to add 

a couple of things to your facts on it. 

One is, while structurally it gets about a B –, capacity-wise it is 

at an F –, because there are no lanes for breakdowns. It is wallto-wall across the bridge. It is the sixth most used bridge in the 

country. And, as highlighted before, 3 percent of our GDP is moved 

across that bridge. 

But more importantly, it highlights something that we have a 

greater concern in the United States, and that is major projects. 

How are we going to fund major projects, multimodal projects 

across the United States, under the current formula that we have 

now? I think, Mr. Chairman, we have to find ways to do that, language within the transportation bill, and funding outside of the 

transportation bill’s scope. And toward that end, I look forward to 

working with you. 

And I thank the gentleman for highlighting this very important 

need for the United States. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much. I think, as some of you 

know, I have had so many relatives in the Cincinnati-Dayton area 

throughout my life—and also, in fact, we held a Duncan family reunion one time in Mr. Davis’s district there, at the Drawbridge Inn. 

But I am very familiar with this. Interstate 75 also runs through 

my district. I have been in both of your districts many, many times. 

So it is a very important project, and I thank you for coming to testify here today. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

the opportunity before the subcommittee to consider some of the 

policy proposals that I want to put forward for the next surface 

transportation bill. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member DeFazio, to invest in our Nation’s infrastructure and create jobs as we rewrite the Federal surface 

transportation legislation. 

Now, as we write this next bill, it is clear that our Nation needs 

a significant investment in our transportation infrastructure to create private sector construction jobs, invest in the repair and maintenance of our highways, roads, bridges, and transit, and set the 

foundation for future economic growth. 

In the Pacific Northwest, where I am from, transportation investment means jobs. Local private sector engineers were in my office 

last week, and said that the single biggest action Congress could 

take to save and create jobs in their industry would be to pass a 

6-year transportation authorization bill. 

Now, the full committee chair has indicated that we should not 

expect a bill that calls for more funding than the highway trust 

fund can sustain. In other words, a bill that contains less funding 

34 

than the SAFETEA–LU. So, I support innovative financing mechanisms, but I will be clear. Innovative financing mechanisms would 

only be supplements to the highway trust fund, not substitutes. It 

is hard to see how innovative financing bridges the gap between 

current trust fund levels and the amount that most transportation 

experts believe we need to simply maintain the transportation system that we have. 

If this committee is going to write a $250 billion bill, we should 

all be clear on what that means: States and localities will do less 

with less. Fewer private sector construction jobs will be created. 

Fewer highways, roads, and buses will be maintained. And even 

fewer new capacity-building projects will be built. 

On the issue of consolidation, Mr. Chairman, I support the—consolidating Federal transportation programs, as the Democrats first 

proposed in the 2009 Surface Transportation Authorization Act. 

And, as well as streamlining the Federal permitting process. These 

measures will not fill the funding gap, but they are simply necessary reforms important for the future of transportation funding. 

Currently there are 108 separate Federal surface transportation 

programs administered by 5 separate Federal agencies. The current 

program structure is fragmented and stovepiped, and there is little 

relation between our national transportation goals and this complicated decisionmaking process. 

Then-Chairman Oberstar’s Surface Transportation Authorization 

Act proposed consolidating or terminating more than 75 programs. 

It would have transformed the current structure into a performance-based framework designed to achieve specific national objectives. 

The GAO recently concurred with this approach in their March 

2011 report on opportunities to reduce potential duplication in government programs, save tax dollars, and enhance revenue. The 

GAO argues that, ‘‘This fragmented approach impedes effective decisionmaking, and limits the ability of decisionmakers to devise 

comprehensive solutions to complex challenges.’’ They concluded 

that ‘‘a fundamental re-examination and reform of the Nation’s surface transportation policies is needed.’’ I urge the committee to 

heed the GAO’s advice. 

Next I would like to discuss a top transportation priority for my 

district in the reauthorization bill. Meeting these priorities will 

mean jobs in the Pacific Northwest. 

First, the issue of ferries. Ferries are a top priority for my district and for the State. The Washington State Ferry System is the 

largest system in the United States, and carries over 25 million 

riders annually. Ferries are an integral part of the transportation 

infrastructure of Washington State. They are an extension of our 

highway system. They provide public transportation to help thousands of my constituents get to work and to return home. So I encourage this subcommittee to improve and expand upon this investment and this form of transportation. 

In fact, next month, Senator Patty Murray and I, from Washington State, will introduce the U.S. Ferry Systems Investment Act 

of 2011. Our legislation will make a robust investment in the Federal ferry boat program, also mandate that half of these funds be 

distributed by formula, and half through—by a discretionary basis. 

35 

Second, highway safety. My district includes U.S. Highway 2, a 

stretch of highway where there have been over 50 fatal accidents 

since 1999. So I support the inclusion of a robust safety program, 

or at least an emphasis in the next surface transportation bill that 

could direct resources toward particularly dangerous highway corridors. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, freight mobility is a priority. In Washington State, freight systems supported over 1 million jobs in 

freight-dependent industry sectors. Washington State’s transportation infrastructure, including our northern border crossings, 

Interstate 5, the Burlington Santa Fe and Union Pacific rail lines, 

the ports of Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, and others, and inter-modal 

connectors, all of them, are critical to supporting the movement of 

freight and goods that create jobs. 

Investment and freight mobility is important, because the more 

freight we move, the more jobs we create. And I support the creation and funding of a national freight transportation program that 

will work with States and local governments to invest in highway 

rail and port projects that eliminate choke points and increase efficiency. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to 

present my policy requests for the next surface transportation authorization. I look forward to continuing to work with you and the 

rest of the subcommittee as we look at how to invest in our Nation’s infrastructure to create jobs. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Larsen, for a 

fine statement. 

We are honored now to have Representative Garamendi. And, 

Mr. Garamendi, your full statement will be placed in the record. 

And you may proceed. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, members 

of the committee. 

I have just listened to three presentations, and all three of them 

speak to what I would like to start my policy statement with, and 

that is let us make all this stuff in America. We do have a Buy 

America provisions, they have been in the law for a long time, but 

they are routine, they are ignored. We need very strong make-itin-America—because, frankly, we need to rebuild our manufacturing base here in this Nation. And we can use our infrastructure 

programs to do that. 

Speaking specifically today of transportation, all well and good. 

If we are going to build a bridge, it ought to be American steel. If 

we are going to deal with transit systems, they ought to be buses, 

trains made in America. I have legislation that is now in the hopper, H.R. 613, Airports, Highways, High-Speed Rail, Trains, and 

Transit, all of it. Let us make it in America. If we are going to use 

our tax money to buy something, we ought to use it to buy American-made equipment. There is a provision in this that allows us 

to move toward 100 percent over 3 years. 

So, I will start there. Let us use our money to strengthen the 

American manufacturing base. We know it can be done. The stimulus bill did it. And now we are seeing Siemens and other foreign 

countries—companies—establishing manufacturing plants here so 

that they can move forward with building high-speed rail. 

36 

Secondly, I support President Obama’s $556 billion/6-year surface reauthorization plan to modernize our country’s surface transportation infrastructure to create jobs and to invest in our future. 

I like the idea of a jump start. We need jobs now. We certainly 

need jobs in the future. But his $50 billion boost? Terrific. We 

ought to do it, ought to be in the bill. We ought to move forward 

with it. 

The $8 billion in 2012 and $53 billion over 6 years to provide 80 

percent of Americans with convenient access to passenger rail, 

high-speed services in the next 25 years, bravo, ought to be in the 

bill, we ought to do it. The $30 billion over 6 years for the national 

infrastructure bank, terrific idea. It gives us a way to leverage both 

public and private money. It should be in the bill. 

The next generation air transportation system, I don’t know how 

many years this precedes me—by at least a decade-and-a-half—but 

yet it is not yet done. Let us get it done. It is going to make air 

travel to the Pacific much easier for Mrs. Napolitano and myself, 

and we think that is a great idea. The $10 billion for the state of good repair, OK. But that also reminds me of another issue, which is the state of high denial that 

seems to exist within this Congress on this side and the other side, 

and perhaps also in the administration. There is no freebie here. 

We are going to have to find the money to do it. So if we are going 

to have a state of good repair, we have to end the state of high denial that somehow there is going to be money falling from trees or 

somewhere that is going to pay for this. 

We need to be very, very serious about this, and we also need 

to understand that later this fall there is no excise tax. It terminates. And we are going to have to reauthorize the excise tax on 

diesel and gasoline. And as we do that, we ought to consider the 

overarching needs and set that price—set that at a level where we 

can actually do the things that must be done for America’s future. 

Specifically on the Bay area, the northern California San Francisco Bay area is one of the largest transportation places in this 

Nation, and it has over 5 million passengers a year on public transportation. So as we reauthorize, we need to pay attention to the 

transit systems that serve the entire Nation, and particularly the 

Bay area. There is BART, there are bus systems, there is transportation programs of all kinds, including Amtrak with its Amtrak 

capital corridor the San Joachin corridor, and the—also the peninsula. 

We have three major airports: San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose. 

We have ports: the Port of Oakland, the Port of West Sacramento, 

Stockton, and also a couple of smaller ports in the area. All of these 

need our attention, and we have to do the money to do it. Highspeed rail is much discussed. California will build it, and it will 

service well into the future. 

Livable communities. Yes, bicycles are really important, as are 

walking and other ways of getting to the transportation hubs. 

And finally, let me just finish with five major interstate routes: 

Interstate 80; 680; 580; two State routes that have become major 

corridors, the 4 and the 80. All of these are critically important, 

and they have to be properly integrated into the overall structure 

and funding of the new surface transportation program. 

37 

I won’t go into pipeline safety, but we are all across this Nation 

going to spend billions upon billions in upgrading our pipelines. 

And I think all of us are aware of that. 

In conclusion, we simply are going to have to build for our future. 

The transportation infrastructure is critical. I thank you for the 

extra 20 seconds, and I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Garamendi. I certainly agree with your Buy America statements. 

And at some point we have got to stop rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan and start rebuilding the United States of America. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, why don’t we do that by denying the funding for those programs, and start ratcheting down the funding and 

transfer that here? 

It personally drives me crazy. We didn’t get into the program, 

but I represent the Delta crucial to California’s future. I cannot 

find a Corps of Engineer person to work on that seriously. But I 

suspect if we talked about the delta of the Euphrates River we 

could find all kinds of folks to work on that. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. Ms. Chu has been 

here with us for a while, and we will go next to her, and then we 

will get to Mr. Sires. 

We are honored to have you, Representative Chu, and you may 

begin your testimony. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Los Angeles is one of 

the most congested and polluted counties in the Nation. And now, 

more than ever, we need a transportation system that will create 

jobs. That is why it is so critical that we move forward on a surface 

transportation authorization. 

I am here today to reiterate our region’s most important priorities, and to urge you to include these suggestions in any draft surface transportation bill. To that end, I would like to ask that you 

include in the record the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s detailed proposal that they call America Fast 

Forward, also known as the 3010 Plan. 

[The information follows:] 

38 


Insert offset folio 15 here 65643.015
39 


Insert offset folio 16 here 65643.016
40 


Insert offset folio 17 here 65643.017
41 


Insert offset folio 18 here 65643.018
42 


Insert offset folio 19 here 65643.019
43 


Insert offset folio 20 here 65643.020
44 


Insert offset folio 21 here 65643.021
45 


Insert offset folio 22 here 65643.022
46 


Insert offset folio 23 here 65643.023
47 


Insert offset folio 24 here 65643.024
48 


Insert offset folio 25 here 65643.025
49 


Insert offset folio 26 here 65643.026
50 


Insert offset folio 27 here 65643.027
51 


Insert offset folio 28 here 65643.028
52 


Insert offset folio 29 here 65643.029
53 


Insert offset folio 30 here 65643.030
54 


Insert offset folio 31 here 65643.031
55 


Insert offset folio 32 here 65643.032
56 


Insert offset folio 33 here 65643.033
57 


Insert offset folio 34 here 65643.034
58 


Insert offset folio 35 here 65643.035
59 


Insert offset folio 36 here 65643.036
60 


Insert offset folio 37 here 65643.037
61 

Ms. CHU. In 2009, LA County approved a 30-year transportation 

plan that aims to build 12 transit projects connecting millions of 

people across the Nation’s largest county. LA County residents approved a half-cent sales tax to build them. That’s right. During a 

recession, residents actually agreed to tax themselves more. Our 

region desperately needs this investment, and I am so proud that 

Angelenos were ready and willing to pay for it. 

But our air is too polluted and our roads too congested to wait 

3 decades for a real 21st-century transportation system. Instead, 

we want to do it in just 10 years. We want to leverage our local 

dollars and stretch the Federal transportation dollars coming out 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s budget. And with the 

Federal Government’s help to augment this serious investment in 

local transportation, together we can create nearly 1 million annual 

private sector jobs in just a decade. 

How do we do this? By enhancing the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, TIFIA, through reforming six 

provisions. First, increasing the annual funding from $122 million 

to over $500 million, annually. Second, increasing the maximum 

TIFIA share from 33 percent to 49 percent. Third, broadening eligibility to include programs-related projects, not just one project per 

TIFIA loan. Fourth, authorizing the U.S. Department of Transportation to make up-front master credit agreements for larger 

projects and programs. Fifth, to authorize the Transportation Department to offer limited interest rate hedge for master credit 

agreements. And last, to eliminate the springing lien for certain 

types of loans. 

But that is not all. The surface transportation bill should also 

create a new class of qualified tax credit bonds called qualified 

transportation improvement bonds. These qualified tax credit 

bonds are taxable rate bonds issued by State, local, or other eligible 

issuers. The Federal Government would subsidize the interest cost 

by granting investors annual tax credits in lieu of interest. These 

bonds would be authorized in the amount of $4.5 billion per year 

over the next 10 years. This would allow issuers to finance more 

than twice the dollar value of capital improvements than is possible with traditional tax-exempt bonds, stimulating greater investment and taking pressure off of conventional Federal grant programs. 

But southern California’s transportation challenges are more 

than just about roads and transit. The region handles more than 

40 percent of our Nation’s shipping containers, three-quarters of 

which leave destined for markets outside the area. And many of 

these goods travel on freight rail right through my district, creating 

congestion and safety hazards for my constituents. 

Now our State and communities have made significant local investments in making local grade separation safer, particularly 

through the Alameda Corridor East project in the San Gabriel Valley. These investments allow trains to go faster through the corridor, getting these goods out to the rest of the Nation more quickly, and also saving lives. 

But we need Federal help to finish the project. The surface transportation bill should create a national freight infrastructure investment program for designated freight corridors and gateways to proVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:55 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\4-5-11~1\65643.TXT JEAN
62 

vide funding for freight projects. This program should prioritize nationally significant projects and their impact on interstate and foreign commerce. And efficiency and environmental impact should be 

considered. 

Port authorities and municipalities and units of local government 

should be able to receive these grants and funding projects through 

to completion, similar to a full-funding grant agreement for transit 

projects. These changes would strengthen long-term economic recovery by supporting the more efficient movement of American exports and imports, and create jobs. 

Now, let me be clear. This is not just about Los Angeles. It is 

about making our Federal tax dollars stretch further. And this type 

of a reform will encourage other areas to follow in our footsteps. 

Let us make sure we get the most bang for our buck. I urge you 

to include these proposals in any draft legislation. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Chu. A very fine 

testimony. Mrs. Napolitano, any statement you wish to make, or 

comments? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I totally agree with her assessment, especially 

in the view of the fact that California has 35 million people that 

have to get to work, and the aging infrastructure has not been really upgraded for many decades. And I think it is time that we begin 

to really focus. Seeing as California provides a lot of the funding 

for transportation, we are a donor State, so to speak. So I agree. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much, Ms. Chu. Mr. 

Sires? 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member 

DeFazio, for holding this important hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to share my policy proposals as we work together to reauthorize the surface transportation bill. 

As many of you know, my district in New Jersey is one of the 

most densely populated, and is also an important transportation 

hub, home to highways, commuter rail, light rail, and the largest 

port on the East Coast. I believe that an effective transportation 

policy should focus on ways to improve congestion, make our transportation system more efficient, and protect the environment and 

health of our constituents. 

This Congress I have introduced legislation that I believe will 

prove useful if incorporated into the surface transportation bill. 

The first is H.R. 260, Commute LESS, which stands for leveraging 

employer support and successes. This bill was modeled after a successful program in Washington State. In 2009, Washington’s commute reduction board reported that their program removed 28,000 

vehicles from the road, reduce 12,900 hours of delay, and led to 

savings of $9 million in congestion costs. 

Based on these successes, I believe that my legislation, Commute 

LESS, can similarly work throughout the country. If implemented, 

the results will be less congestion, less emission of greenhouse 

gases, and ultimately, better efficiency in our transportation system. Commute LESS would give employers the tools necessary to 

provide their employees with alternative forms of transportation, 

such as transit, carpooling, and teleworking. Metropolitan planning 

63 

organizations would work with employers to receive input regarding the development of long-range transportation plans. 

Additionally, if construction plans impede the flow of traffic for more than 120 days, or exceed $100 million, this bill will require 

a mitigation plan. I believe that this bill provides the solution necessary to expand commuting options during a time when congestion has cost Americans $115 billion and 34 lost hours. 

I also introduced H.R. 1338, the Focusing Resources Economic 

Investment and Guidance to Help Transportation Act of 2011, and 

believe that its broad policy proposal should be considered in the 

upcoming bill. This legislation would help achieve national objectives of bettering our communities through reduced congestion and 

pollution, while also stimulating our economy. 

The Freight Act focuses on three policy ideas. The first is the creation of a national freight transportation policy to improve freight 

efficiency, operation, and security. This plan would access the current national freight system and its ability to achieve future objectives and goals. 

Second, this bill will establish a dedicated office of freight planning and development within the Department of Transportation to 

be led by an assistant secretary of freight planning and development. This office will be instrumental in facilitating communications among stakeholders and different levels of government. 

Lastly, national freight infrastructure grants will be awarded on 

a competitive basis to improve the efficiency of our national transportation system. With freight, volume is expected to increase 92 

percent by 2035. It is important that our Nation is prepared to 

meet these needs. And I believe the freight policy ideas can help. 

Livable communities. Livable communities are also an issue that 

I feel strongly about, and I believe it belongs in the upcoming bill. 

The HUD, DoT, and EPA partnership for sustainable community 

has been successfully working to integrate planning and investment among the three agencies. Their programs are working to 

provide more transportation choices and promote public health. 

Additionally, Safe Routes for Schools is another program that 

has had nationwide success. Safe Routes for Schools reduces congestion while also encouraging healthy and safe options for children. Both the partnership and Safe Routes are important tools to 

reach the goals of streamlining our transportation system. 

Lastly, I must urge the committee to focus on infrastructure and 

investment. Not only are investments necessary to bring our country into the future, but investments will bring jobs: $1 billion in infrastructure creates approximately 35,000 jobs. The construction 

sector unemployment rate is still over 20 percent, and we have 

thousands of people waiting to work. 

The committee has focused on finding ways to do more with less. 

And I agree that this is needed. I believe that both Commute LESS 

and the Freight Act can meet these goals. I also believe that creating livable communities provides holistic framework to ensure 

that our policies improve the well-being of our constituents. 

Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member DeFazio, for 

holding this hearing. And I look forward to a robust reauthorization bill. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Sires. 

64 

And we are now honored to be joined by our colleague, Earl 

Blumenauer from Oregon. And Congressman Blumenauer, it is an 

honor to have you here with us. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must confess 

that I miss the 10 years I spent with you on this committee, and 

am privileged to be with you. I would identify strongly with the elements that were mentioned by my good friend from New Jersey, 

and would echo them. Because what we know is that the Surface 

Transportation Act is probably our most effective tool to be able to 

rebuild and renew America, to put people back to work, and to give 

them tools, as my friend mentioned, to be able to work more efficiently. 

Transportation should be about giving citizens and businesses 

options. People want more choices. It is interesting, the study by 

the National Association of Realtors showed that over 50 percent 

of Americans think we ought to invest more in public transit and 

active transportation instead of merely automatically increasing 

traditional road-building infrastructure. But we know that is important, as well. 

The cost of congestion to society has increased almost 500 percent in the last 30 years. Being able to work collectively and flexibly, to be able to move passengers, and freight, and strengthen 

community is what it is all about. 

I was pleased to see what has happened, as was referenced, with 

the unique partnership between the Department of Transportation, 

HUD, and EPA. It is unparalleled. And we have watched almost 

1,500 communities make applications for the Tiger Grants, for instance, and there are only 51 of them. We could have increased 

that investment 40 times with worthy projects. I am just pleased 

that my community got one, and that I have been able to visit communities around the country where people are putting it to work. 

It gives an opportunity for people to enhance that flexibility, 

which brings me to my second point, because I know the committee 

has been looking at ways to streamline the process. This is something that has occupied our time. I would hope that we can reframe 

the regulatory debate beyond the rules and regulations and the 

hoops that we jump through. 

But what actually is the outcome? Can we make this more performance-driven? Mrs. Napolitano has a State that has environmental regulations that are arguably stronger than the Federal 

Government. Well, when there is a big transit project, for instance, 

in southern California, or a road project in Sacramento, does it 

make sense to require two separate processes, if the State process 

is arguably even stronger? What is the benefit for the extra time 

and energy? 

I think, by making this performance-driven, this is something 

that people of all philosophies, all color States, can come together. 

And it is something I would like to work with the committee on. 

I have taken this to the White House after the President’s recent 

Executive order on regulation, suggesting that we do business differently, not just look at the good and the bad. 

I also hope that we can spend more time talking about how we 

finance infrastructure. One of the reasons why I grudgingly took a 

leave from this committee to go to Ways and Means and go to 

65 

budget is because, frankly, you need more resources to realize the 

vision. The American Society of Civil Engineers suggests that we 

are $2.2 billion down for infrastructure needs, just for the next 5 

years. 

You know, it is interesting. Ronald Reagan, at the height of the 

work that he was doing, supported a gas tax increase. We see our 

friends in the Senate with their FAA reauthorization come together 

for user fees that are actually supported by the industry that would 

support billions of dollars of investment. I know this is not primarily your jurisdiction, but I would urge that you work with us, 

because I will fight for you on the revenue title on Ways and 

Means, and carry that to the budget discussion. 

And while we are at it, we need to be looking at the long-term 

financing. Using for transportation a fee that is based on gallons 

consumed locks us in a downward spiral. I come from a State that 

gave you, 91 years ago, the first gas tax dedicated for transportation, road construction. We are working to try and eliminate the 

gas tax with work that we have done, authorized by this committee 

before, on a vehicle-mile-traveled fee, which has been a pilot project 

that has been very successful. 

I came before you last year, urging that you incorporate a portion 

of legislation that I have that would expand this pilot project to 

other States that would like it. Because, ultimately, with hyper-efficient diesel trucks, with more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars, 

with hybrids, with plug-in hybrids, with electric cars, we are in a 

downward spiral that cannot support our transportation needs, 

even while they put demands on the road. I would urge that you 

look at 3311 from the last session, and see if there is something 

that we can do with you to expand that, so people understand the 

power and the capacity. 

And in the short term, I would hope that we could look perhaps 

at legislation that I have to change the truck excise tax to a fuel 

tax. The big hit to the transportation fund was the collapse of truck 

sales, and that 12 percent excise tax did not collect the money. I 

have been working with the auto dealers, the truck manufacturers, 

with a range of groups, to see if we cannot replace that excise tax, 

which is very unstable, with a revenue-neutral proposal that would 

simply have a small increase in the fuel tax in the interim. That 

would promote the sales of equipment, it would stabilize the highway trust fund, and I think would help position us, moving forward. 

There is no more important work for this Congress than what 

you are doing with reauthorization. I know it is not easy. I know 

there are lots of tugs and pushes and pulls. I will supply a statement for the record about some other interests that I have. But I 

did want to join with you to make these three points, to pledge my 

support, and hope that we are able to work with you on the long 

term for the things that will help us rebuild America, make our 

communities more livable, and our families safer, healthier, and 

more economically secure. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Blumenauer, and 

you have just shown those of us who are here, through your testimony, why you were such an outstanding member of this committee. And I look forward to working with you on some of those 

66 

proposals, as you said, especially some of the environmental requirements and several of the other things, as well. You have made 

some very good suggestions. 

Any comments, Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, except you forgot to mention the bicycle 

paths. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. But I am silently advertising before you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. [Off mic.] 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Hanna. My goal would be that we work very hard to make it not 

subjective, that we identify what it is that we are trying to achieve 

with a particular environmental protection. 

I worked in a prior life, when I was commissioner of public works 

for the city of Portland, I was part of an effort for our region to 

work with our largest employer, Intel—actually, it is the largest 

concentration of Intel employees anywhere in the world—on a plant 

expansion. It required an air quality permit. And there was some 

ambiguity about what would happen, in terms of having bureaucrats designing what was necessary for that plant expansion. 

And we were able to work out with EPA and our State regulatory 

authority, conditions where they committed to meet the standard, 

but we got out of the way, in terms of what the specifics would be. 

And they were able to move forward with the project. They saved 

millions of dollars. And the air is just as clean, if not cleaner. And 

that—so I do not want it to be subjective. I do not want us to be 

in the cross-current. 

I bleed green. It is not about protecting the environment or the 

health. It is just getting to the point of what we are trying to 

achieve, making that standard specific, and then holding people accountable for meeting it. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Blumenauer. And 

now I will recognize Mr. Cohen for any statement or comments 

that he wishes to make. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Duncan. I appreciate your 

leadership and recognition. 

I have the privilege of representing Memphis, Tennessee, America’s airtropolis, in addition to being the home of Elvis, and the unfortunate site of the assassination of Dr. King 43 years ago yesterday, where there is a great new civil rights museum. 

In Memphis we have the four R’s come together: roads, runways, 

rails, and river. And it makes our city distinct in our country, as 

a distribution hub and transportation center. We move more cargo 

through our airport—largely because of Federal Express—than any 

airport in the United States, and second only to Hong Kong in the 

world. 

As a representative of this town, which is a transportation town, 

I understand the need of functioning transportation infrastructure 

to keep our Nation’s economy moving. It is one place we are lagging behind our counterparts in Asia and in Europe. 

67 

Every evaluation of our transportation infrastructure makes the 

same conclusion, that our infrastructure is crumbling, and Congress needs to pass long-term authorization that makes a significant investment in that infrastructure. It is not only important for 

the immediate needs of our economy and our putting our people to 

work with jobs, but also the long term of keeping our economy 

going and competing on the world stage, as an important trade 

partner and producer and distributor of goods and products. 

This point is moist poignantly made by the appropriately titled 

AASHTO report, ‘‘Rough Roads Ahead: Fix Them Now or Pay for 

It Later,’’ which states that one-third of the Nation’s highways are 

in poor or mediocre condition. I hate to think of the structure of 

our bridges, which threaten lives, as well. This report and others 

indicate that now is the time not to stand pat and reduce our 

spending, but that we need to keep our country and our people and 

our economy moving in the 21st century. We need to move forward 

with investments, not stand pat. 

The Surface Transportation Authorization Act authorization 

must do more than invest in our infrastructure. It needs to provide 

a visionary comprehensive systemic approach to infrastructure investment that addresses the Nation’s commercial needs. To that 

end, I propose two pieces of legislation that achieve this mission by 

advancing the development of airtropolis transportation systems. 

I worked with Chairman Mica to advance airtropolis transportation systems, development in the FAA Reauthorization Act and 

hope to do the same in the Surface Transportation Authorization 

Act. 

The 21st century has been dubbed ‘‘the fast century,’’ an era 

when speed and agility will determine commercial success. And to 

serve that need, new urban forms are coming about, comprising 

multimodal transportation networks and aviation-intensive businesses called the airtropolis. It is developing around the world. 

Paris, France, has an airtropolis concept. They have got one in 

China, in addition to—a couple in China, in Hong Kong being another. 

Similar in shape to the traditional metropolis design, the 

airtropolis extends from major airports. Centered around that airport is a planned, coordinated, multimodal freight and passenger 

transportation network called an airtropolis transportation system. 

It involves not just the airport, which is the center of economic activity, but trucks that come in and bring goods, railroads that come 

in and bring goods, and even river transportation moved by other 

forms of transportation to the air hub, that then distributes it to 

the world. 

Airtropolis development systems are developing across the country in other cities besides Memphis—although Memphis is premier—cities such Detroit and Milwaukee. But all these cities need 

Federal support to compete in this international marketplace. 

To spur domestic airtropolis transportation system development, 

I am introducing legislation that directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a grant program to provide funding assistance 

to local entities for planning, design, environmental review, and 

land acquisition activities for airtropolis transportation system 

projects. Many airtropolis transportation systems throughout the 

68 

country are developing slowly, because local entities lack the requisite funding for pre-construction activities. By providing a small 

influx of money in the pre-construction phase, the government can 

help localities expedite project delivery, enhance U.S. competitiveness, and create jobs. 

I will introduce the Airtropolis Act of 2011, which amends 

SAFETEA–LU, so that projects—assistance of the establishment of 

airtropolis transportation systems are eligible to receive funds 

under the projects of national and regional significance program. 

This program funds projects with national economic benefits that 

cannot be funded through traditional funding, making the program 

an appropriate funding mechanism for airtropolis transportation 

systems. Without that support and investment, airtropolis won’t 

take flight in the United States, and leave our Nation grounded. 

We must ensure we use innovative approaches to address growing transportation needs of our citizens. To do so, we need to support the President’s livability agenda, by creating an office of livability within the Department of Transportation, and develop an 

extensive livability agenda. 

As our Nation’s population ages, gas prices climb, we have to 

have more than just cars and trucks. We need to have bike paths, 

we need to have walking paths. We need to have other forms of 

transportation that God has given us, and that aren’t dependent on 

fossil fuels. 

Lastly, we need to resolve how to better invest in programs like 

the Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute at the University 

of Memphis, which is educating transportation engineers of our future. 

It is also—the University of Memphis has great athletic basketball teams, but not as good as the University of Connecticut’s this 

year. But next year we will be better. 

I look forward to working with you to pass a long-term comprehensive surface transportation authorization act to create jobs 

and keep our country moving. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cohen. Our next witness will be the Honorable Rosa DeLauro, from the State of Connecticut. Ms. DeLauro, it is an honor to have you here with us. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. Go 

Huskies. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. Really delighted and proud to be 

here with you this morning. I want to thank Chairman Duncan, 

and I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, Congresswoman Napolitano. Good to be here with you. This is a wonderful 

opportunity you have provided me to testify about the national infrastructure bank. 

I might add that on a recent CODEL to Afghanistan I had the 

opportunity to talk about transportation infrastructure in general 

with Chairman Mica. And I and my staff have discussed the proposal at length with Representative Shuster of the committee, as 

well. And he generously spent some time in Connecticut earlier 

this year, looking at our high-speed rail development in the northeast corridor. So I thank all of you for your great leadership on this 

issue. 

I want to commend the subcommittee for its recognition that investment in transportation infrastructure is critical to job creation 

69 

and to economic growth. Everyone here understands that we need 

to make wise investments with limited resources, and that investments in infrastructure pay enormous dividends in jobs and prosperity. 

If you will permit me to quote you this morning, Mr. Chairman, 

you said in a hearing last week that this subcommittee ‘‘will also 

be looking at innovative financing, bonding, loan programs, and 

public-private partnerships are just some of the innovative financing techniques that the subcommittee can utilize to leverage the 

Nation’s limited highway trust fund dollars.’’ 

In addition, Mr. Chairman, and again I quote, you said, ‘‘We 

should consolidate duplicative Federal programs to eliminate waste 

and eliminate programs that do not serve the national need.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the entirety of these statements. In 

fact, these hit on the exact goals and purpose of a national infrastructure bank. To that end, I introduced legislation that would establish a national infrastructure bank, government-owned corporation, managed by an independent board of directors and staffed 

with experts in finance and infrastructure. It would leverage private dollars to invest objectively in a broad range of infrastructure 

projects of national and regional significance with clear economic, 

environmental, and social benefits. 

On the lending side, the bank would leverage private dollars by 

issuing bonds that will attract interested institutional investors 

with proceeds used to provide loans and loan guarantees to 

projects. On the borrowing side, the private sector can partner with 

the public sector—regions, States, localities—to borrow from the 

bank, while adding its own private equity. 

The bank takes a diverse view of infrastructure needs. It provides funding to projects that cross traditional jurisdictions, and 

prioritizes those with additional sources of financing that can be 

completed more promptly with assistance from the bank. Authorized appropriations would capitalize the bank, which would then 

lend money to projects with identifiable and reliable revenue 

streams, so that loans are paid back, and the bank becomes a selfsustaining entity. 

To be clear, the purpose of a national infrastructure bank is to 

supplement, not supplant current funding mechanisms. I am a 

strong supporter of the robust surface transportation reauthorization measure, as well, and believe this should be part of that effort. 

The infrastructure bank concept acknowledges what we all know, 

that current Federal programs are simply unable to provide the investment needed to meet the infrastructure investment deficit that 

we face. 

According to the National Surface Transportation Policy and 

Revenue Study Commission, $225 billion is needed a year for the 

next 50 years to upgrade our surface transportation system to a 

state of good repair, and create a more advanced system. Particularly in light of our current fiscal situation, now is the right time 

to move forward with this innovative finance proposal. 

Over the past month I know this committee has conducted a series of 16 field hearings and listening sessions around the country 

to gather input from States and local communities. It is seeking 

input from the transportation community for the surface transporVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:55 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\4-5-11~1\65643.TXT JEAN
70 

tation reauthorization. I suspect many of them would advise that 

they support a national infrastructure bank. 

The concept has received a wide range of support from business, 

labor, and the investment communities, as well as a bipartisan 

group of governors and mayors and a variety of advocacy groups. 

In fact, a bipartisan counterpart to my legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Senators John Kerry, Kay Bailey 

Hutchison, Mark Warner, and Lindsey Graham. 

In sum, by leveraging private dollars, streamlining and focusing 

our infrastructure investment decisions, funding projects critical to 

economic growth, and creating good, well-paying jobs, a national infrastructure bank can help to meet the goals the committee has set 

out for the surface transportation reauthorization. I hope that we 

can come together to craft an authorization for a national infrastructure bank that can attract the type of bipartisan support within the House that the proposal has enjoyed for years outside the 

institution. 

Republican or Democrat, we all know that transportation and infrastructure investment creates jobs, revitalizes our economy. I believe that the bank will help put us and help to put America back 

to work. 

I thank you. I look forward to working with the subcommittee on 

this initiative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. 

Napolitano. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Ms. DeLauro. And I 

agree with you. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I concur totally with the statement made by 

our colleague, Ms. DeLauro. It is really key that we get this bill 

moving. 

Ms. DELAURO. OK. Thank you so much, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. All right. Our next witness is the Honorable Gene Green from Texas. 

And, Mr. Green, it is a privilege to have you here with us. Thank 

you very much. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our ranking member, 

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. And 

I understand the physical challenges we face, but I also believe we 

must do more to improve our Nation’s transportation system. 

I represent the east side of Houston, Texas, and east Harris 

County that includes both the Port of Houston and a support system based on a movement of trucks out of the port. Transportation 

funding, particularly for highways and transit, is particularly important for my constituents, the entirety of the greater Houston 

area. We have a congestion problem in Houston. We have done a 

lot to reduce this congestion, but more must be done. 

We also have the largest port in the country for foreign tonnage, 

and the largest petrochemical complex in our country along the 

banks of the Port of Houston. In years ahead we will face a much 

higher traffic volume, due to the population growth and the expansion of the Panama Canal, which will bring more truck traffic and 

economic development to the area. 

In order for Houston and our port to continue to be a hub of commerce, we must strengthen our rail and road infrastructure. Both 

71 

a successful port and growing local economy rely on well-maintained roads and bridges. Communities around our country must 

improve transportation infrastructure in order to encourage businesses and economic development. 

With a population of 6.1 million, the Houston area relies on highway funding. Texas is a donor State. We pay more into the highway trust fund than we receive. As a result, it is important that 

percentages are maintained so that we do not lose any more money 

of the money that Texas pays into the fund. Ideally, under a new 

bill, our percentage would increase. 

Right now is the best time to fund construction projects. With the 

recent downturn in the economy, construction projects have decreased in cost. The Texas Department of Transportation has told 

me they saved as much as 20 percent on projects funded under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, because costs during recession went down a great deal. 

One project I am familiar with is the direct connectors on State 

Highway 59 and the Beltway 8 around Houston on the north side 

that is in our district was initially estimated it cost $100 million. 

It ended up a total cost of $36 million. 

I am concerned about the increased reliance on toll roads. They 

certainly have a place in our system, and we have them in the 

Houston area, but we cannot allow two different highway systems 

to develop, one for the wealthy, who can afford the daily budget 

drain of toll roads, and the rest of us, who cannot. If the toll roads 

that are constructed are paid for by the tolls, I believe that expands options for drivers and is generally a good thing. However, 

I do not support any Federal funds being spent on these roads. 

While I understand the strain that the highway trust is experiencing, particularly with increasing vehicle fuel efficiency, it is important we fund important highway projects throughout the country. 

We are at a critical time for our Nation, in terms of transportation funding. We must fix the bridges, expand the highways, and 

increase the capacity of our infrastructure. Funding for new starts 

is important for Houston, and I hope to be included in the authorization bill. 

In—Houston is current scheduled to receive full funding grant 

agreement for two light rail lines under the new starts program 

this summer. I am happy that both the Federal Transit Administration and the Department of Transportation have seen the significance of these two projects. Houston is our only light rail, is 

supported by local funds, and these projects would actually be a 

partnership with the Federal Government, which would not only 

stimulate job creation, but also improve our local transportation infrastructure by providing affordable mass transit and easing congestion on our highways. 

The Houston area has, for too long, been left behind on transit. 

And these two lines will serve some of the most transit-dependent 

parts of our community. For that I am thankful, and for the added 

commerce and economic opportunities the light rail will bring to 

these communities. 

Highway and transit projects are important to our constituents 

so they can work, go to work and school, and they are important 

72 

to our business, so they can move commerce. Everyone wins when 

you increase our investments in transportation infrastructure. 

And again, thank you for the time today, and thank the committee for allowing Members to testify. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Green. I wish all of our $100 million projects would come in at $36 million. We could 

get a whole lot more done. 

Mr. GREEN. I was shocked myself. In fact, that interchange was 

at the corner of our district, but along with Ted Poe’s and Sheila 

Jackson Lee’s, so all of us agreed we would stand there and hold 

the same scissors as we cut them, because it was a partnership 

from all three of us. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, that is great. You have been an outstanding 

Member of Congress. How long have you served now? 

Mr. GREEN. I am in my tenth term, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Tenth term. I knew it was something like that. 

Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Nothing. Just great testimony, Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Our next witness is the 

Honorable Mark Critz from Pennsylvania. And we are pleased, certainly pleased to have you with us here today. And I thought we 

were going to get right to you, and then a couple of others who 

were scheduled before you—and you were—I was going to let you 

go ahead anyway, but I saw that you graciously moved out of their 

way, so I appreciate that. 

But thank you, and you may begin your testimony. 

Mr. CRITZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

to testify. And, Mrs. Napolitano, I appreciate the opportunity. I do 

not have a prepared statement, and—but I just wanted to go over 

some notes about something that happened in the 2005 reauthorization of SAFETEA–LU, and sort of what brought us to this position. 

In 1991, in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 

ISTEA, there was language put in that states that have toll highways could use the toll credits from those as matching funds for 

Appalachian Highway System projects. That was going along quite 

well. 

And to give you a little bit of background about Pennsylvania, 

the Pennsylvania Turnpike, of course, is one of the oldest highways 

in the country, and there is actually a portion that runs between 

Breezewood, Pennsylvania and New Stanton, Pennsylvania, where 

Route 70, a Federal highway, joins the turnpike. And at that stage, 

for that 89-mile stretch, the Federal Government bears no cost to 

maintain that portion of the highway. 

In fact, if you use new highway construction costs, which are 

running in the $20 million to $25 million range, that 89-mile 

stretch of highway saved the Federal Government quite a bit of 

money in past years. But looking at it from a current standpoint, 

a reasonable amount of money to consider for just upkeep and 

maintenance of a stretch of highway is probably about $1 million 

a mile every 5 years. 

So, the 5 years since the language was changed in the 

SAFETEA–LU reauthorization in 2005, the State of Pennsylvania 

73 

has actually saved the Federal Government probably approximately $190 million in maintenance costs to that stretch of highway. 

But even going further, what the turnpike also does is that they 

contribute approximately $450 million back to Pennsylvania for 

other highways that are not part of the turnpike system. So, when 

you talk about innovative financing, Pennsylvania has been at the 

forefront of using their highway system and their interstate dollars 

to supplement what the Federal Government has been able to do. 

And if you look at Pennsylvania from a geographic standpoint, it 

is hard to move commerce between the northeast population centers and the rest of the country without going through Pennsylvania. So, even though we take a hit sometimes because our roads 

are not always the least pothole-filled ones in the country, we do 

have more miles of roadway than the entire northeast New England States combined. So we do try to maintain that link between 

the northeast commerce and the rest of the country. 

But what happened is that—and, as you know, Mr. Chairman— 

is that—being from Tennessee and part of the Appalachian region—is that the Appalachian highway system was developed because a lot of our areas, rural America, are not connected to the 

original interstate transportation system. And, therefore, this system was set up so that our areas, rural America, could be connected and hopefully produce an economic benefit to it. So, that 

system was going along quite well with the addition of the toll 

credits. 

And I refer back to the savings that the State of Pennsylvania, 

because of the turnpike, produces for the Federal Government. 

These toll credits are really a reward for Pennsylvania. It is not an 

expense to the Federal Government. It is actually zero sum, and 

actually, probably even less than that. 

We have—and I am going to be specific, because it impacted 

Pennsylvania dramatically in the past couple of years—is that we 

have a section of the Appalachian highway system ready to go to 

construction, and is $35 million short in its match. And that is 

when the—it was discovered that the toll credits were taken out of 

the match. And, unfortunately, in our trying economic times, Pennsylvania does not have that extra $35 million to fund a $350 million construction project in Pennsylvania. 

It is completing the Route 219 in southern Somerset County, 

which will connect it to 68 and, in essence, connects three east-west 

corridors: Route 68, that goes through Maryland and West Virginia; Route—the turnpike, which runs through Pennsylvania; and 

then Route 22, which is in the northern part of my district. And 

without this matching money, these projects won’t go forward. Obviously, it is also an economic boon. The construction of Route 219 

is going to create 2,400 to 2,600 permanent jobs, along with about 

8,000 construction-related jobs. So it has come at such a critical 

point to our local economy. 

But it is not just about Pennsylvania, because this toll credit language impacts all the Appalachian region, which includes Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and 

74 

West Virginia. And without this, rural Pennsylvania, rural America, is going to be left behind. And we need your help. 

So, I wanted to testify. This is so critical. And I appreciate you 

taking my testimony. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Critz. I believe 

that Members should try to do things for their districts. And your 

predecessor was a legend in that regard. I know you worked for 

him, and you are in the position of having to follow an Adolph 

Rupp or a Bear Bryant, but I am sure that you will handle it well. 

And certainly I appreciate your testimony here today. 

Mrs. Napolitano, do you have any questions? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Not at all. No questions, but a comment that 

I am looking at the corridors and their viability to be able to not 

only move people, but goods movement. And certainly when—at 

least from my area in California, we are almost 12 million people, 

just in our county alone, and that is people that have been counted—how do we move people, not only from the big areas, the metropolitan areas, but from the urban and suburban, the agricultural 

areas, so that they too have the same ability to have their demands 

met, in terms of transportation, including safety of the roads that 

they travel for their families. 

So, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate that. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. The next witnesses are on 

the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I understand they are 

having a vote right at this moment. So we will be in recess for just 

a few minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. The hearing will resume. We have had a lot of 

Members here today. But we are certainly honored to have, as our 

next witness, Congresswoman Nydia Vela ́zquez, who is a long-time 

friend of mine, and a really outstanding Member. 

And, Ms. Vela ́zquez, you may begin your testimony. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking 

Member DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee. I welcome today’s opportunity to present policy proposals to reform the Federal 

highway safety programs as the committee begins drafting a longterm reauthorization of the Nation’s surface transportation programs. 

The economic downturn and rising gas prices have made intercity bus service the fastest growing mode of transportation in the 

country, outpacing air and rail travel combined. The popularity of 

bus travel is dominated by the so-called curbside carriers. Instead 

of using bus terminals, these low-cost operators use city streets to 

drop off and pick up passengers. After 40 years of declining ridership, curbside operators have revived the bus industry, and now 

originate more than 20 percent of all departures. However, this 

rapid growth has led to serious safety concerns. 

As you know, bus operators must follow many safety requirements, including screening drivers for controlled substances, limiting the number of hours drivers can operate, and properly maintaining buses and equipment. Unfortunately, curbside carriers operate in a gray area of the law, and current safety measures have 

75 

not prevented deadly accidents and near misses from occurring 

around the country. The examples are numerous. 

Last September, four people were killed when a curbside bus hit 

a bridge in Salina, New York. On March 11, 2011, a bus driver in 

New Jersey was cited for a DUI, leaving passengers stranded on 

the side of the highway for hours. And, of course, there was the accident in the Bronx that killed 15 and injured dozens, the majority 

of whom were my constituents. In response to this tragedy, I requested a full NTSB investigation into the discount busing industry, looking at the condition of buses, driver fatigue, and safety 

rules enforcement. The NTSB recently agreed to my request and 

will begin a 6-month investigation immediately. 

Today I would like to bring to the committee’s attention several 

concerns I have with the discount bus industry. Curbside bus operations present a unique challenge to inspectors from the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The lack of terminal facilities 

seriously hampers their ability to perform required equipment inspections on the Nation’s growing fleet. The result is poorly maintained buses skipping inspection and putting lives in jeopardy. 

Driver behavior also places lives in peril. Easily falsified log 

books allow many drivers to violate the 10-hour driving limit. Such 

violations place both passengers and motorists in grave danger. 

Since the Bronx tragedy, numerous instances of over-worked drivers have been reported. 

Additionally, inconsistent State laws allow drivers to continue 

operating even after drug and alcohol violations. Many small trucking companies lack the resources to verify a driver’s record in multiple States, forcing companies to rely heavily on falsified information supplied by drivers. Establishing a national clearinghouse for 

drug and alcohol violations would significantly reduce the number 

of dangerous drivers on the road, and the costs of conducting required background checks. 

Unfortunately, curbside buses may continue operating even after 

several failed inspections or citations for drivers being on the road 

too long. The lack of authority to swiftly take operators, drivers, 

and buses off the road for safety violations has prevented the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from fulfilling its mission 

to reduce accidents on the Nation’s highways. 

The growth of curbside busing has placed unsustainable pressure, not only on cities and towns, but on the Nation’s highways, 

as well. The tragedy in the Bronx was the latest in a long line of 

accidents that highlight the need to improve oversight of the bus 

industry, in order to protect passengers and motorists. 

I come here today, Mr. Chairman, to ask the committee to address these concerns when drafting a long-term reauthorization of 

the Nation’s surface transportation program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Nydia. It has always 

been a pleasure to serve with you. 

And, Mrs. Napolitano, do you have any comments? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, Mr. Chair, just commenting on Ms. 

Vela ́zquez’s references to the curbside operators and their drivers 

not having all the necessary clearances or being—how would I 

say—inhibited by alcohol or any other drug issue. 

76 

There is the commercial driver’s license—the CDLIS, I think it 

is called—the national clearinghouse. Is there a way to be able to 

get them to—not re-review, but look at the current status of some 

of your curbside operators’ ability to continue servicing, especially 

in a metropolitan area like New York, to be able to understand 

what their findings have been, and maybe either start placing 

heavier fines or be able to control inappropriate activity that endangers the general public and the tourism for that area? That 

would be one comment that I would ask, if there has been anything 

moving in that direction. 

The fact remains that people want to make money. And sometimes, if they are found to have a need to provide additional services, they will take anybody that is available and put them on a 

route. 

So, I am not sure what the issue is, in so far as the curbside. 

I didn’t know there was curbside operators. I thought you only had 

buses in New York, because I really do not pay that much attention 

when I visit. But I certainly would love to be able to help in any 

way I can. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Very good. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. Our next witness 

is Mr. McGovern, Honorable Jim McGovern from Massachusetts. 

And certainly Mr. McGovern has been a great leader in this Congress and for many years now, and it is an honor, Mr. McGovern, 

to have you here with us. We have had a lot of Members through 

here today, and we are getting down to the—— 

Mr. MCGOVERN. The final one. 

Mr. DUNCAN [continuing]. Last couple of witnesses. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. 

Mr. DUNCAN. But we are certainly pleased to have you here with 

us. You may proceed. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, thank you, Chairman Duncan and Congresswoman Napolitano. Thank you for allowing me to testify. And 

than you for your patience, listening to not just me, but a whole 

bunch of Members today. 

As a former member of this committee, I recognize that you are 

facing extraordinary budgetary challenges as you begin work on 

the next highway reauthorization bill. Over the past several years 

I have been a strong advocate of limiting truck size and weight, 

and I plan to reintroduce my Safe Highways and Infrastructure 

Preservation Act in the coming weeks, which would extend common 

sense size and weight limits to the entire national highway system. 

Various groups dominated by large shippers and large trucking 

companies are lobbying Congress right now to raise the maximum 

weight of single tractor trailer trucks from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 

pounds, and to allow longer trucks across the highway system. 

Simply, bigger, heavier trucks impose huge costs to State and local 

governments for road and bridge repair and maintenance, impose 

tremendous safety risks to motorists. 

At a time when both the Federal and State governments are facing projected budget shortfalls for fiscal year 2012, allowing inVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:55 Oct 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\4-5-11~1\65643.TXT JEAN
77 

creases to truck size or weight will exacerbate existing transportation funding problems. 

The fact of the matter is the big trucks today do not pay their 

fair share for the damage they cause to our roads and our bridges. 

A 2000 Federal Highway Administration study found that a typical 

80,000-pound truck pays only 80 percent of its highway maintenance costs, and a 97,000-pound truck pays only 50 percent of its 

damage costs. 

Bridges are particularly damaged by these super-sized rigs. The 

Illinois Department of Transportation recently conducted a cost 

benefit analysis of the impact on bridges in the State associated 

with raising truck weights to 97,000 pounds. IDOT’s conservative 

estimate show that these heavier trucks will cost the State an additional $162 million in repair and maintenance costs for interstate 

bridges, alone. 

In addition to the added costs, the dangerousness of bigger 

trucks is well documented. In 2009, 74,000 people were injured and 

3,380 people were killed in crashes with heavy trucks. Allowing 

trucks to be even heavier is a dangerous proposition. 

While some proponents of big trucks argue that bigger trucks 

means fewer trucks on the roads, the evidence just does not support this claim, nor does the evidence support the argument that 

bigger trucks mean a decrease in the emissions that cause pollution. Time and time again, we have seen that increasing truck size 

and weight results in more trucks on the road, more fossil fuels 

burned, and more highway congestion, not less. 

As you begin drafting the next highway reauthorization bill, I 

urge you not to increase truck size and weight on our highways. 

In these tough budgetary times, we simply cannot afford the cost 

that these dangerous mini-trains impose on our State and our local 

governments. And, as I said before, we are going to reintroduce my 

bill and we are going to reintroduce it with scores and scores of 

safety organizations across the country that view the increase in 

truck size and weight as a safety issue, as well. 

One final note. While I understand that tax issues are not the 

purview of this committee, I urge you to keep in mind mass transit 

as you craft your legislation. The commuter tax benefit in the Recovery Act that allows mass transit commuters to receive the same 

maximum benefit from their employers as those who receive parking benefits was extended through December 31, 2011. I urge you 

to encourage the usage of mass transit as one way to relieve traffic 

congestion and give commuters more affordable transportation options. 

Again, I appreciate your patience, and I appreciate the work that 

is done on this committee, and I yield back my time. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. [presiding.] Would you like to say something? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. I thank you so much for your testimony. 

And you hit a subject that I have a great concern about, and that 

is the increase in not only the weight, but the size of the trailers. 

And I know in California there was talk of expanding to two— 

the tandem, 52-footers. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the ability for them to navigate around 

the on-ramps and off-ramps is totally bogus. They cannot. And the 

78 

fact that transportation—I can understand, like you have said, the 

trucking organizations, the companies, want to be able to transport 

more. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Problem in California, in many areas, is that 

they were using unleaded gas coming into California, spewing more 

environmental pollution in our area. Plus, one of those rigs has an 

accident, it shuts down the freeways. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And a lot of the issues that have been discussed in the California transportation committee that I sat on for 

6 years, they are very, very true, even now, that the increase does 

affect the roads and the highways that we have. 

Now, you talk about bridges. There is none in my area, but let 

me tell you that in some of my cities the ruts are so big, caused 

by the excess weight in some of those rigs, that it is hard for sometimes the cars that are navigating. They sometimes have problems 

with their undercarriage because they fall into those ruts. 

So, yes, it is a big concern. And I always hear—and you can see 

the placards on some of the trucks—that they pay heavy-duty 

taxes. Well, I am not sure if it is enough to be able to keep the 

infrastructure safe for the rest of the traveling public. 

So, thank you very much for your testimony—— 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, thank you—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [continuing]. And I would love to look at your 

bill. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, thank you. And you said it accurately. 

They do not pay their share, in terms of what they—in terms of 

the wear and tear on highways. 

I will just say one final thing. There are some who are advocating that we allow States to kind of decide this on a piecemeal 

basis. I think that is a bad idea. I think it is a bad idea, because 

then it ultimately will put pressure on other States to make exemptions for bigger trucks and heavier trucks because we have an 

interstate highway system. And I think that would be a very, very 

bad idea. 

I mean this is a safety issue, first and foremost. It is also a cost 

issue. And, you know, I think if any State were to do a cost benefit 

analysis of what it would mean to allow bigger trucks and heavier 

trucks on their roads, they would find that they would be having 

to pay a lot more money for basic repairs of their infrastructure. 

This is a bad idea that is being pushed by the big shippers right 

now, and I hope that this committee, in its wisdom, when you do 

the highway reauthorization bill, will state emphatically that we 

are against the increase in truck sizes and weights. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Butterfield, you are recognized. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Chairman Schmidt, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, thank you very much for this opportunity. I am multitasking this morning between the Energy and Commerce Committee and your committee. I thank you. 

As we all painfully remember, August 1, 2007, was a tragic day 

in our country on the level of 9/11. Early that morning, the I–35 

west highway bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, leaving 13 people 

79 

dead and 145 injured. The National Transportation Safety Board 

determined that inadequate load capacity created by increases in 

bridge weight and traffic as the likely cause. Sadly, the bridge had 

been deemed structurally deficient, all the way back to 1991. This 

was an avoidable tragedy we must never see happen again. 

Ensuring adequate Federal funding for inspection, necessary upgrades, and bridge replacement is a priority for my constituents in 

eastern North Carolina. As we consider reauthorizing the surface 

transportation programs, I urge you, Madam Chair, to provide adequate funding for critical transportation projects, to ensure public 

safety, and create jobs. Specifically, I urge you to support the President’s $23 billion 

budget request for the U.S. Department of Transportation. The 

bridge program was funded at $5.3 billion in 2010, but even more 

funding was needed. In 2010, nationwide, 24.3 percent of bridges 

were considered deficient. And out of 19,000 bridges in my State, 

29 percent are rated as deficient or obsolete. That is a chilling statistic. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has indicated replacing those bridges in a timely manner will be a considerable challenge. 

I represent a large rural district in eastern North Carolina. And, 

as you know, most deficient and obsolete bridges are, indeed, in 

rural areas. The most recent Bureau of Transportation statistics report showed that 69 percent of deficient and obsolete bridges were 

in rural, local bridges. The need for improved transportation infrastructure in my district is very clear. Many bridges in rural eastern 

North Carolina are deteriorating, and pose unacceptable safety concerns. In numerous cases, bridge use is limited or restricted because the infrastructure cannot support the weight or dimensions 

of modern vehicles. Nearly 600 bridges in my district are rate deficient or obsolete. That is 600 bridges. 

Elizabeth City, North Carolina, the home to a U.S. Coast Guard 

air station, has an obsolete bridge spanning the Pasquotank River, 

set to be replaced in summer of this year. Replacing the bridge will 

cost over $96 million, and my State depends on 77 percent of those 

funds to come from us. The project will improve safety for large volumes of traffic and repair sinking roads and sidewalks. 

The town of Havelock, the home of Cherry Point Marine Air Station, has a deficient bridge spanning the Slocum Creek. Without 

significant investment, the bridge cannot meet safety requirements, 

and will continue to pose a threat to public safety. Our DoT has 

already determined that there is an immediate need to correct 

structural deficiencies in the pilings supporting the structure, and 

has moved the schedule start date for the project from 2019 to 

2013. My district needs additional funding from the Federal Government to make the project a reality. 

States and municipalities depend on Federal funding to make 

necessary safety improvements, and to help restore bridges like the 

two that I have mentioned. Madam Chairman, we must retain a 

distinct bridge program to ensure that FHWA and States like 

North Carolina continue to have flexibility to upgrade our Nation’s 

aging bridge infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support the 

President’s budget request to adequately fund the U.S. Department 

of Transportation and the distinct highway bridge program. 

80 

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member, I want to thank you for 

this time. I wanted to save my accolades to the end, to make sure 

that I had enough time to make my statement, but I appreciate 

your opening up your hearing and allowing us to come by and 

share these comments with you. It is a very significant issue that 

we are facing. 

Thank you. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you very much. Do you have any comments? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No comments, necessarily—or no questions, 

necessarily, but comments on thanking our Members for coming in 

and giving a viewpoint of their own areas, because that is key. 

But I hear the same subject, the same topic, the same goal is get 

it done. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes, absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you. Next, Congressman Tonko from New 

York. Nice to see you again this morning. 

Mr. Tonko and I see each other at 7:00 Mass in the morning. 

Mr. TONKO. We get our fueling. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. We do. We get our forgiveness and our prayers at 

the same time, right? 

Mr. TONKO. We need them. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Amen. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Chair Schmidt and Ranking Member 

Napolitano, and respected members of the committee. I want to 

sincerely thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here 

today. 

I represent the 21st Congressional District in the State of New 

York, also known as our capital region. My area is home to the convergence of two great highway systems, Interstate 87 and Interstate 90, also known as the Thruway and the Northway. We are 

also home to the Erie Canal and Barge Canal basins—some of the 

busiest freight and passenger rail tracks in the country—the Port 

of Albany, multiple airports, a system of locks, dams, and reservoirs, and much, much more. 

As we work together to create long-term transportation policy 

that reauthorizes the highway trust fund, there are a few areas of 

interest I would particularly like to highlight. Those would include 

green corridors, high-speed rail, clustering upgrading aging urban 

cores, and smart transit. However, I am here before you today to 

focus on one issue in particular, that being truck parking facilities. 

Last session of Congress I introduced Jason’s Law, H.R. 2156. 

Now, I would ask you if you could kindly picture this. A hardworking mother with a 2-year-old son in upstate New York. She 

and her husband are pregnant with twins. One late winter morning, she says good-bye to her husband as he heads out the door on 

another truck run. This particular run finds the rig filled with 

milk, and the destination is South Carolina. She has said good-bye 

to her husband hundreds of times before. Only this time, he does 

not come back. On March 5, 2009, that is exactly what happened 

to Hope Rivenburg. Her husband, Jason Rivenburg, was foolishly 

murdered in South Carolina while sleeping at an abandoned gas 

81 

station along a highway. His murderer stole a meager $7 from Jason’s wallet after shooting him in the cab of his truck. 

That is why I introduced Jason’s Law. This bill would rectify the 

dire shortage of safe parking for trucks, and improve the conditions 

at current truck parking facilities. We must ensure that our drivers 

have safe rest areas with parking for commercial motor vehicles, 

parking facilities next to truck stops and travel plazas, and new facilities for parking, including weigh-in inspection stations. 

Additionally, we must improve facilities that are closed on a seasonal basis, and improve the geometric design of interchanges on 

the national highway system for better access to commercial motor 

vehicle parking facilities. Small businesses are the heart of the engine that drives our economy. If we require our truck drivers, who 

are themselves small business owners, to continue to ramp up their 

deliveries to small businesses, and even major corporations, we 

need also to ensure their safety. 

Jason’s Law, by investing in infrastructure and helping to buttress State budget shortfalls, does just that. In these difficult economic times, we need to continue to pay attention to our role, to 

protect public and worker safety, especially where regulations mandate their necessity. I believe that is part of the reason that my bill 

garnered the bipartisan support of 45 Members in the 111th Congress. As we move forward in the 112th Congress, I look forward 

to working with my new colleagues in the majority and the distinguished members of this committee to advance safe, stable, and reliable truck parking facilities. 

The trucking community is rightfully worried about changes to 

the hours of service, ability to find and comply with parking regulations and detention time. We are hearing from truckers on these 

topics each and every day, and it is my hope that Jason’s Law will 

help to alleviate some of these fears and angst. 

I want to close my remarks this afternoon with these following 

words, written by songwriters Barry Allen and David Ayers in tribute to Jason. I quote, ‘‘Jason drove that truck, reaching for that 

blue collar dream. Hard-working man, making a living driving that 

big machine. He loved his son, Joshua, and Hope, his wife. But for 

$7 he lost his life. With nowhere to rest in between his loads, he 

was shot to death on the side of the road. Say a prayer for Jason, 

say a prayer for Joshua and Hope. Say a prayer for all the truck 

drivers stuck out on the road. Say a prayer, say prayer, say a prayer.’’ 

Chairman Schmidt and Ranking Member Napolitano and distinguished members on this committee, I would like to thank you for 

letting me testify before you today, and I would only end with this. 

While saying a prayer is always a good decision and a helpful 

measure, I hope that I can work with each and every one of you 

to ensure that enactment of Jason’s Law and make safe truck parking a reality for anyone that seeks it. And certainly, it is a way to 

answer the prayers of Hope and Jason’s family and friends. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you. And I just have one question for you. 

The murderer of Jason, has he been convicted yet? 

Mr. TONKO. Yes, he has. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. And what was his sentence? 

82 

Mr. TONKO. It was a number of years. I know that the family 

also went—it was very difficult on his widow. 

By the way, Hope delivered twins just weeks after the murder. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. So they will never know his father, their father. 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. God be with that family. Do you have anything to 

say? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Tonko, I agree with you. Unfortunately, 

the time when there is land for a lot of these rest areas to be made 

available, since land has become so expensive for a lot of our entities to provide these rest areas, it behooves us to start looking at 

Federal land or State land that can be leased, not necessarily sold, 

and developed for specifically that project, especially off of freeways, because there is right of way that is there. 

So you might want to look at how we may be able to allow the 

State or the county governments or others to look at what area 

they are not using that can be possibly allowed to permit, if you 

will, these entities, these truck drivers to be able to rest. 

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. And I think also there is an opportunity 

to work with that same concept with State lands, because it does 

a partnership with private sector and public sector, so as to encourage the safe infrastructure that Jason so desperately needed. 

He showed up at his destination early. But with some of the 

changed requirements, they cause you to go and find a spot other 

than that delivery point. And so he was just ahead of schedule, and 

went to get rest, and the tragedy occurred. 

But, you know, I firmly believe that if we, as a government, are 

requiring certain demands of the trucking industry, of the trucker, 

and we do that in the name of public safety, everyone is benefitted 

by it, and we need to act accordingly, and we have to be there to 

provide the infrastructure to enable them to respond to the demands on their travel schedule and on their operations. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, and just a little beyond that, I think we 

need to also look at the causes for some of these individuals to go 

out and commit crimes, whether or not they are mentally stable, 

unstable, whether they are on drugs, and be able to have ability 

to go back to the providers of those drugs and others and slap some 

fines, or either—do something to be able to look at the root cause 

of some of these people taking these—how would I say—drastic 

measures to rob people. 

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. And having witnessed the hardship that 

has befallen, and the—just the sense of loss upon this family just 

compels me to work to get this done. And we have been reaching 

out to Members in the majority to make it happen, because I think 

it is essential. 

You know, she has been under such stress and has responded so 

valiantly and courageously, that it is impressive. And I think it is 

a way to work through tragedy, to have his life not be in—or his 

death not be in vain. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Was he an independent truck driver? 

Mr. TONKO. Yes, he was. And, actually, had other career situations. But as a good, solid provider, he was filling his winter 

months with this added income. So—and the place he pulled into 

was definitely unsafe. 

83 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you so much. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you very much. I would like to thank each 

Member for your testimony today. Your contribution to today’s discussion has been very informative and helpful. 

I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open for 30 days to allow additional Members to provide policy proposals to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Without objection, so ordered. If no other Members 

have anything to add, this subcommittee stands ready to adjourn. 

[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

84 


Insert offset folio 38 here 65643.038
85 


Insert offset folio 39 here 65643.039
86 


Insert offset folio 40 here 65643.040
87 


Insert offset folio 41 here 65643.041
88 


Insert offset folio 42 here 65643.042
89 


Insert offset folio 43 here 65643.043
90 


Insert offset folio 44 here 65643.044
91 


Insert offset folio 45 here 65643.045
92 


Insert offset folio 46 here 65643.046
93 


Insert offset folio 47 here 65643.047
94 


Insert offset folio 48 here 65643.048
95 


Insert offset folio 49 here 65643.049
96 


Insert offset folio 50 here 65643.050
97 


Insert offset folio 51 here 65643.051
98 


Insert offset folio 52 here 65643.052
99 


Insert offset folio 53 here 65643.053
100 


Insert offset folio 54 here 65643.054
101 


Insert offset folio 55 here 65643.055
102 


Insert offset folio 56 here 65643.056
103 


Insert offset folio 57 here 65643.057
104 


Insert offset folio 58 here 65643.058
105 


Insert offset folio 59 here 65643.059
106 


Insert offset folio 60 here 65643.060
107 


Insert offset folio 61 here 65643.061
108 


Insert offset folio 62 here 65643.062
109 


Insert offset folio 63 here 65643.063
110 


Insert offset folio 64 here 65643.064
111 


Insert offset folio 65 here 65643.065
112 


Insert offset folio 66 here 65643.066
113 


Insert offset folio 67 here 65643.067
114 


Insert offset folio 68 here 65643.068
115 


Insert offset folio 69 here 65643.069
116 


Insert offset folio 70 here 65643.070
117 


Insert offset folio 71 here 65643.071
118 


Insert offset folio 72 here 65643.072
119 


Insert offset folio 73 here 65643.073
120 


Insert offset folio 74 here 65643.074
121 


Insert offset folio 75 here 65643.075
122 


Insert offset folio 76 here 65643.076
123 


Insert offset folio 77 here 65643.077
124 


Insert offset folio 78 here 65643.078
125 


Insert offset folio 79 here 65643.079
126 


Insert offset folio 80 here 65643.080
127 


Insert offset folio 81 here 65643.081
128 


Insert offset folio 82 here 65643.082
129 


Insert offset folio 83 here 65643.083
130 


Insert offset folio 84 here 65643.084
131 


Insert offset folio 85 here 65643.085
132 


Insert offset folio 86 here 65643.086
133 


Insert offset folio 87 here 65643.087
134 


Insert offset folio 88 here 65643.088
135 


Insert offset folio 89 here 65643.089
136 


Insert offset folio 90 here 65643.090
137 


Insert offset folio 91 here 65643.091
138 


Insert offset folio 92 here 65643.092
139 


Insert offset folio 93 here 65643.093
140 


Insert offset folio 94 here 65643.094
141 


Insert offset folio 95 here 65643.095
142 


Insert offset folio 96 here 65643.096
143 


Insert offset folio 97 here 65643.097
144 


Insert offset folio 98 here 65643.098
145 


Insert offset folio 99 here 65643.099
146 


Insert offset folio 100 here 65643.100
147 


Insert offset folio 101 here 65643.101
148 


Insert offset folio 102 here 65643.102
149 


Insert offset folio 103 here 65643.103
150 


Insert offset folio 104 here 65643.104
151 


Insert offset folio 105 here 65643.105
152 


Insert offset folio 106 here 65643.106
153 


Insert offset folio 107 here 65643.107
154 


Insert offset folio 108 here 65643.108
155 


Insert offset folio 109 here 65643.109
156 


Insert offset folio 110 here 65643.110
157 


Insert offset folio 111 here 65643.111
158 


Insert offset folio 112 here 65643.112
159 


Insert offset folio 113 here 65643.113
160 


Insert offset folio 114 here 65643.114
161 


Insert offset folio 115 here 65643.115
162 


Insert offset folio 116 here 65643.116
163 


Insert offset folio 117 here 65643.117
164 


Insert offset folio 118 here 65643.118
165 


Insert offset folio 119 here 65643.119
166 


Insert offset folio 120 here 65643.120
167 


Insert offset folio 121 here 65643.121
168 


Insert offset folio 122 here 65643.122
169 


Insert offset folio 123 here 65643.123
170 


Insert offset folio 124 here 65643.124
171 


Insert offset folio 125 here 65643.125
172 


Insert offset folio 126 here 65643.126
173 


Insert offset folio 127 here 65643.127
174 


Insert offset folio 128 here 65643.128
175 


Insert offset folio 129 here 65643.129
176 


Insert offset folio 130 here 65643.130
177 


Insert offset folio 131 here 65643.131
178 


Insert offset folio 132 here 65643.132
179 


Insert offset folio 133 here 65643.133
180 


Insert offset folio 134 here 65643.134
181 


Insert offset folio 135 here 65643.135
182 


Insert offset folio 136 here 65643.136
183 


Insert offset folio 137 here 65643.137
184 


Insert offset folio 138 here 65643.138
185 


Insert offset folio 139 here 65643.139
186 


Insert offset folio 140 here 65643.140
187 


Insert offset folio 141 here 65643.141
188 


Insert offset folio 142 here 65643.142
189 


Insert offset folio 143 here 65643.143
190 


Insert offset folio 144 here 65643.144
191 


Insert offset folio 145 here 65643.145
192 


Insert offset folio 146 here 65643.146
193 


Insert offset folio 147 here 65643.147
194 


Insert offset folio 148 here 65643.148
195 


Insert offset folio 149 here 65643.149
196 


Insert offset folio 150 here 65643.150
197 


Insert offset folio 151 here 65643.151
198 


Insert offset folio 152 here 65643.152
199 


Insert offset folio 153 here 65643.153
200 


Insert offset folio 154 here 65643.154
201 


Insert offset folio 155 here 65643.155
202 


Insert offset folio 156 here 65643.156
203 


Insert offset folio 157 here 65643.157
204 


Insert offset folio 158 here 65643.158
205 


Insert offset folio 159 here 65643.159
206 


Insert offset folio 160 here 65643.160
207 


Insert offset folio 161 here 65643.161
208 


Insert offset folio 162 here 65643.162
209 


Insert offset folio 163 here 65643.163
210 


Insert offset folio 164 here 65643.164
211 


Insert offset folio 165 here 65643.165
212 


Insert offset folio 166 here 65643.166
213 


Insert offset folio 167 here 65643.167
214 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 168 here 65643.168