U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–878 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–719 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF 

MAP–21’S TIFIA PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 24, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 24, 2013 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 3 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 4 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 5 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 7 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 8 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 9 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 120 

WITNESSES 

Foxx, Hon. Anthony, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation ................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 17 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 25 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 29 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 32 

Bass, James, Chief Financial Officer, Texas Department of Transportation ..... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 52 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 57 

Yarema, Geoffrey S., Partner, Infrastructure Practice Group, Nossaman, LLP, 

Member, National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission .................................................................................................................. 63 

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

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 74 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 75 

Leahy, Arthur T., Chief Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority .................................................................................... 77 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78 

Roberts, James, President and Chief Executive Officer, Granite Construction 

Incorporated .......................................................................................................... 89 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 98 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 98 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions ............................ 99 

Gribbin, D.J., Managing Director, Head, Government Advisory and Affairs, 

Macquarie Capital ................................................................................................ 101 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 104 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 110 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 112 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION 

OF MAP–21’S TIFIA PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse, 

Gillibrand, Inhofe, and Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Welcome everybody. Mr. Secretary, welcome. We 

are going to do opening statements and, as soon as the last Senator 

appears, people come in and out, we will then turn to you for your 

comments and then we will ask you some questions. 

So, we are here today to conduct oversight of the TIFIA Program 

which we greatly expanded in MAP–21. TIFIA is supported by 

groups ranging from the U.S. Conference of Mayors that I think 

Secretary Foxx remembers well and with fondness, to the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce to the AFL–CIO. And that is quite a coalition. 

The TIFIA Program provides direct loans, loan guarantees and 

lines of credit to surface transportation projects at favorable terms. 

And the reason the terms can be favorable is there is a steady 

stream of funding behind those loans that we can count on. So, the 

cost here to us is very, very low and we can leverage these funds. 

MAP–21 builds on the other already successful TIFIA Program 

by expanding it tenfold. And I want to thank my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle who understood the potential of this program because we spent about $100 million a year in the old program, it is 

expanded this year to $750 million in 2013 and it goes up to $1 

billion in fiscal year 2014. 

So, according to the Federal Highway Administration, every dol- lar made available for TIFIA can mobilize up to $30 in transportation investments. The additional funding for TIFIA in MAP–21, 

including leveraging, will support 1 million jobs. So we are talking 

about something that is very important here. 

Since its creation, the TIFIA Program has provided over $11 billion in credit assistance to 34 projects totaling over $43 billion. 
2 

However, in recent years the number of applications for TIFIA assistance has greatly exceeded available funding. For example, in 

fiscal year 2011, the Highway Administration received requests for 

$14 billion in credit assistance for projects totaling over $48 billion 

in infrastructure investment. Before passage of MAP–21, the TIFIA 

Program could support less than one-tenth of that demand. 

The newly expanded TIFIA Program is experiencing incredible 

demand from cities and States. According to the FHWA, 31 projects 

totaling over $42 billion are seeking assistance under the TIFIA 

Program. So, colleagues, we did the right thing by expanding this 

program. 

States and cities are stepping up to the plate to provide local 

transportation funding to accelerate projects through this program. 

The 30/10 Initiative in Los Angeles County is an example of how 

the program can successfully leverage local investments. It was 

called 30/10 originally. The intent was to build in 10 years, with 

TIFIA, what would otherwise take 30 years. And we were able to 

step up and meet that need in Los Angeles. 

I have to thank former Mayor of Los Angeles Villaraigosa. He 

took 30/10 to the national level and explained that it could be replicated across the Country. We believe that here in this Committee 

and we started the expansion of TIFIA. In Los Angeles, they approved a half-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation and that is 

the stream of funding that is behind the TIFIA loans that they got 

from the Federal Government. 

With the greatly increased resources that Congress provided in 

MAP–21, it is critical, Mr. Secretary, that TIFIA funds be used efficiently, effectively and responsibly. And I have total faith in your 

leadership to make sure that is done. 

And we had a good meeting in which I said, you were in there 

for like 1 day, it was even before the vote on your nomination, and 

I said Mr. Secretary, please check on this because we have got to 

get those dollars out the door, make sure they are the right dollars, 

but get them out the door because we need the jobs. 

So today, Secretary Foxx will testify about how DOT is implementing the changes to TIFIA that were included in MAP–21 and 

what steps the Department is taking to ensure the funding is being 

used in ways that stretch our resources effectively. 

Then we have a second panel. Transportation experts and stakeholders will share their impressions of the improved and expanded 

TIFIA Program and discuss the opportunities that the program creates across the Country. 

So, I am very excited about this. This is our first hearing after 

MAP–21 to take a look at the TIFIA Program. And now, of course, 

our next challenge in the next bill is to find a funding source to 

be able to continue not only this program, but our basic infrastructure programs. So, we are going to be working very hard on that. 

And with that, I would turn to our Ranking Member, Senator 

Vitter. 
3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and members of 

the Committee and Secretary. This is an important hearing that I 

have been looking forward to. 

And I want to especially welcome to the Secretary and congratulate him on his nomination and confirmation. I am happy your first 

committee appearance as Secretary is here at EPW and I hope that 

this is the first of many appearances as we work together on important programs. 

Certainly, ensuring that America has a healthy, comprehensive 

infrastructure network is a fundamental responsibility of Government. Our transportation infrastructure is a critical component of 

our economy, our way of life, and it is fundamental to connect people and communities and to promote and sustain economic growth. 

Over the course of the next year, the Committee will need to not 

only ensure proper implementation and oversight of MAP–21’s reform, but also work toward a new reauthorization. So, needless to 

say, we have a lot of work ahead of us. That is why it is really important that we begin that process today with an examination of 

MAP–21’s reforms to TIFIA. While many pieces of MAP–21 are 

still being put into place, TIFIA got an early start and it is well 

into implementation. And so that gives us an opportunity to do 

oversight now. 

Since TIFIA was first established in 1998, it has been an essential tool for many States and communities. With proper implementation of MAP–21 reforms, I think TIFIA can and should build on 

that past success. It is a powerful, flexible investment tool designed 

to leverage taxpayer dollars and encourage both private sector participation and efficiencies for critical projects. 

MAP–21’s reforms to TIFIA have increased transparency by 

broadening access and refocusing the program on project financial 

liability. Quality infrastructure means something different in every 

part of the Country. For years, understanding this concept and empowering it through our Federal policy is what has made transportation infrastructure such a bipartisan issue. That is why proper 

oversight of TIFIA is critical to making sure that the program not 

only follows the legislative intent but is equipped for tomorrow’s 

challenges. 

There are already areas of concern, including the management of 

TIFIA’s rolling application process, the potential use of improper 

discretion in the project approval process, and the functionality and 

ramifications of TIFIA’s definition of rural projects seeking the 

rural financing structure. So, I hope this hearing focuses on those 

areas of concern in particular as we do appropriate oversight. 

As we have seen over the last several years, uncertainty causes 

real disruption for our States and communities in the planning, 

maintenance and delivery of transportation infrastructure. Making 

sure these uncertainties are addressed and that the program operates as promised will go a long way in settling that landscape. 

As we move into more comprehensive discussions of our transportation infrastructure needs, it must be noted that while TIFIA 

is an essential tool to invest in our infrastructure, it certainly does 
4 

not replace a sound, sustainable Highway Trust Fund. I want to 

make that point as well. 

Again, I thank the Chair and the witnesses for all the work 

brought into this hearing and I look forward to the testimony and 

discussion. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Vitter, I agreed with every single thing 

you said. 

Senator VITTER. Do we have that on the record? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Yes. I said it to put it in the record. I agreed 

with everything you said. 

So, we are going to go by the early bird rule. So that is 

Gillibrand, Inhofe, Cardin and Boozman. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank 

you for holding such an important hearing. 

Secretary Foxx, congratulations on becoming our Nation’s 17th 

Secretary of Transportation. I look forward to working with you 

over the coming years and to address many of the transportation 

needs that New York has. 

My State of New York faces a diversity of transportation challenges ranging from highly dense urban areas experiencing high 

level of traffic and congestion, major bridges over the Hudson River 

that handle high levels of commuter traffic, to rural highways that 

need to be safely maintained to ensure that commerce and agriculture are not disrupted. 

As you know, much of the transportation infrastructure is rapidly aging and in need of repair and, in some instance, replacement. As others have pointed out, the American Society of Civil 

Engineers once again gave our infrastructure a dismal report card. 

Our Nation’s bridges were rated C plus. The report found that 60 

percent of New York’s roads are in poor or mediocre condition. 

That is why I believe a strong Federal investment is necessary. 

We cannot allow our Country to continue to fall behind and we 

need the long-term policies that ensure sustainable funding for our 

Nation’s infrastructure. 

As I travel across my State, I have seen firsthand the challenges 

that the municipalities and counties are facing to maintaining that 

aging transportation infrastructure. According to the New York 

State DOT, out of the 17,000 highway bridges in New York State, 

more than 2,000, representing 12 percent, are structurally deficient. That means that they will need significant repair. 

More than 4,500, or 20 percent, are functionally obsolete, meaning that they were not designed to handle the levels of traffic they 

are currently experiencing on a regular basis. According to the 

American Society of Civil Engineers, the cost to repair or replace 

all of New York’s deficient bridges is a staggering $9.37 billion. 

That is higher than any other State. 

I am proud to work on this Committee and I am proud of the 

work they did coming together on our bipartisan bill, MAP–21, and 

particularly the provision that significantly expanded the TIFIA 
5 

Program. This will result in enhanced ability to leverage Federal 

dollars at the local level in order to spur capital investment in national and regionally significant transportation projects. With 

smart investments like this, we can harness the potential of the financial sector to spur economic development and create good paying jobs. 

My colleagues may be aware of the project currently underway 

in New York to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge. The project was selected by the Obama administration as a project of national significance. Now, this bridge is an integral part of the Northeastern 

Interstate Highway System, a vital transportation artery critical to 

interstate commerce that carries about 133,000 vehicles daily. That 

is 40 percent more traffic than the bridge’s original design. 

A TIFIA loan has long been considered a key element of financing the Tappan Zee Bridge to reduce overall borrowing costs and 

the potential toll increases that may otherwise be used to finance 

such a large construction project. The full cost of this nationally 

significantly project should not be borne by the residents of New 

York State alone, or by dramatically increasing tolls on the bridge. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you again for agreeing to come before this 

Committee for this oversight hearing today. Thank you for your 

willingness to serve our Nation at such a critical time. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Let me start off by saying that I cannot think of anyone who 

could have been nominated anywhere in America who is better 

qualified, and is going to be easier to work with, than Secretary 

Foxx. I think a lot of that is that misery loves company. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. And you and I were both, we were both mayors 

of major cities. We know what a hard job is, don’t we? 

Mr. FOXX. We do. 

Senator INHOFE. I would also mention that Gary Ridley is in the 

audience and I hope we get a change to say hello to him because 

he probably has testified at the table where you are right now before this Committee more than anybody else has and he is kind of 

Mr. Transportation out in the western part of the United States. 

As I have said here before, I believe in Federal infrastructure 

spending and see it as one of the primary purposes of Government. 

Given our enormous infrastructure needs, it is difficult to imagine 

that the next highway bill could ever meet all of these needs. Not 

only do we need to get the most out of our Federal highway dollar, 

but we also need to incentivize the State and local government and 

the private sector to invest as much as possible in roads and 

bridges. 

This hearing is an opportunity to examine the program of one of 

the most important financing tools in MAP–21, which is essential 

in leveraging the finite Federal funds. Now, I had three long paragraphs following this talking about the TIFIA Program which I will 
6 

not repeat because they are precisely what Chairman Boxer said 

in her opening statement. So, I will just agree with your statement 

in this rare case. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Now, unfortunately since the passage of MAP– 

21 last August, there have been some tremendous criticisms of the 

inefficiency of the administration of the very loans we are trying 

to promote. There is no point in providing almost 15 times the 

funding provided in SAFETEA-LU for TIFIA if it prevents resources from being used for their intended purpose. 

It is essential that we address institutional obstacles currently 

preventing optimal use of TIFIA and others and any ideas Secretary Foxx and our distinguished panel have regarding how do we 

overcome these challenges. 

Finally, even with the fully funded and optimized TIFIA Program, we have got to inevitably turn our attention to the shortfall 

in the Highway Trust Fund. CBO has said, in April, that absent 

additional revenue in the Trust Fund, we will be faced with a 92 

percent cut in any new highway funding, meaning most of all Trust 

Fund receipts will be used to reimburse States for projects that are 

already under construction. 

Although I would prefer that we successfully identify a sustainable funding source, I have suggested in the past that it is reasonable to resort to General Fund, as we have, over five times in the 

past, when faced with no alternative other than a series of shortterm extensions. 

And I want to say this because we have a lot of my conservative 

friends. First of all, I know that you are aware of this, Mr. Secretary, I have probably been ranked the most conservative member 

as much or more than anybody else has. But I always say that we, 

I am a big spender in two areas, defense and infrastructure. If you 

read the Constitution, that is what we are supposed to be doing 

here. 

And so, I was upset with some of my conservative friends who 

would make statements on the floor during, while were trying to 

get this bill passed just a little over a year ago, that were really 

not right. In fact, the conservative position was to do a reauthorization as opposed to doing extensions, extensions, you could argue, 

does that take 30 percent off the top or 28 percent or what? We 

know that it takes a lot of money out of the system. You cannot 

plan for it and it does not work. You cannot put the reforms, we 

had more reforms in our bill a year ago than all other bills, I think, 

combined than we have had in the past. You do not get that with 

extensions. 

So, we are going to be faced with this thing and I would like to, 

the only conservative group is the American Conservative Union 

who correctly used statements that I used on the floor saying the 

conservative position is to come up with a good, healthy reauthorization bill and start doing what the Constitution says that we are 

supposed to be doing. 

So, I just know that we are going to do the best we can and we 

are going to work as a team. And we are going to make this thing 

happen. And, of course, we rejoice in having your capabilities to 

work with us there and look forward to that process. 
7 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe, I am breathless after that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, it is always a pleasure to come 

after my big spending friend from Oklahoma. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. We are good friends. We came to Congress at 

the same time and Senator Inhofe has been a real champion on 

these issues as Senator Boxer has been a champion on this issue. 

Secretary Foxx, welcome. It is a real pleasure to have you as Secretary of Transportation and we are honored that your first appearance is before this Committee which has a reputation of working 

across party lines to get things done. So, welcome. That is not always the case with secretaries appearing before Committees, so 

you think you are in a, I think, friendly Committee that has an objective of giving you the tools necessary to modernize our infrastructure. 

And you are following on the footsteps of Secretary LaHood who 

did an incredible job in service for this Country and had a wonderful relationship with the Members of Congress and, as a result, I 

think we got some good things done for the Country. 

So, we look forward to a similar working relationship between 

you and this Committee and the Congress. And welcome. 

TIFIA was a pragmatic way to leverage more transportation 

funding. And it certainly is accomplishing those purposes. But as 

many of my colleagues have pointed out, it does not deal with the 

fundamental issue that we have and that is how do we finance 

long-term commitments to modernize our transportation in this 

Country? I could not agree with more with the previous speakers 

that we need a long-term, robust transportation program. 

Senator Inhofe, it is difficult to look at how we can get that from 

General Funds when we do not have enough General Funds to balance the Federal budget. So, it is, I do not disagree with you philosophically, but I think it is a practical manner. We have to tackle 

the issue of where are we going to get the revenues necessary to 

fund the fundamental functions of Government. And yes, I agree 

that transportation is a fundamental responsibility and that we 

need to have funding for that. 

Senator INHOFE. Since you mentioned my name, it is all right, 

but let me just respond. I do not disagree with that at all. I looked 

at things that are funded out of the General Fund and I think in 

terms of funding of our infrastructure is more important than a lot 

of those things. That is not my choice. I would rather have the 

long-term funding source that you mentioned. But we do not have 

that yet. I am saying that this has that kind of a critical effect on 

me and what I would be willing to do. So, I agree with you. 

Senator CARDIN. I understand my colleague and my friend. I 

would just point out that some of us are prepared to make the 

tough decisions so that we have the revenues necessary to do what 

is right for this Country. 
8 

And there have been Members who have suggested a carbon tax, 

a pollution tax, as a way of not only dealing with energy policy and 

environmental policy, perhaps also having revenue to deal with a 

long-term transportation program. And I think we need to look at 

those types of proposals in a way to accomplish our mutual objective of being able to finance modern transportation in this Country. 

Let me mention two other issues that I need to point out as we 

talk about TIFIA. One is that many of the States that are utilizing 

TIFIA to build new roads have a long backlog on repair and maintenance of their existing roads. Senator Gillibrand mentioned the 

problems in New York with bridges. If you take that nationwide, 

the backlog on repairs of our bridges and highways is close to $3 

trillion. 

So, as we are building new roads, which is important, we do not 

have the funding to maintain the existing roads. And I think we 

need to look at how we can put a priority on maintaining the safety 

of our existing transportation infrastructure. 

The second point I want to raise in regards to TIFIA, because 

TIFIA is not helping us with repair and maintenance, the second 

is whether we have the right mix of transportation programs within TIFIA. It is my understanding that 84 percent of the TIFIAfunded programs go for new highways. I would suggest that if you 

represent a State like I do in Maryland and you look at our No. 

1 transportation challenge, the Washington Metro Area has been 

rated as the worst traffic congested area in the Nation. 

So, we need help on transit projects. And yet transit projects are 

having a difficult time getting TIFIA funding. We have a need in 

this region for the Purple Line expansion of the Washington Metro 

System, the Red Line expansion, the Baltimore Metro System, and 

yet when we take a look at the transportation bill that is on the 

floor today, the appropriations bill, it does not have the type of robust appropriations that give us great hope that these types of 

projects can move in a timely way. 

So, Secretary Foxx, I just really wanted to make those comments 

as we talk about TIFIA to recognize that we have broader issues. 

This Committee and this Senator look forward to working with you 

so we can accomplish our mutual objective of modernizing our 

transportation system that will not only improve the quality of life 

of the people who live in this Country, provide a cleaner environment, but help our economy grow. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

Senator Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

It is good to have you here, Secretary Foxx. I really enjoyed the 

visit in the office and getting to know you and I think you are 

going to do great things for transportation. And as you are feeling, 

the Committee is going to be very, very supportive. 

In Arkansas, we have some concerns. We would like to, we have 

a couple of major interstates that we would like to work really hard 

to get completed, I–49 North-South corridor, we do not have very 
9 

many of those running through the Country, and then also the I– 

69 project. So, we look forward to working with you on that. 

The other thing is that I hope the Committee, we are in the process of sequestration. And it is here now. It is here for the foreseeable future unless we figure out a way to undo that where it can 

make it so we do not have the across-the-board cuts. But again, I 

hope we can work together to manage sequestration as best we can 

for the Department and hopefully we can do that and provide you 

some help in that regard. 

Also, working with the FAA to improve certification, to make our 

aircraft manufacturers internationally competitive, I think is very 

important. 

In regard to TIFIA, just ensuring that the medium-sized, small 

communities, rural States have an equal opportunity to participate. 

And I think that is very, very important. And then two, promoting 

what we say cooperative federalism with the States, working together and, as we face the challenges we have talked a lot about 

today, we all agree that we just do not have the funding base that 

we need, trying to think outside the box, you know, that we can 

come up, working with the States, working with the private entities, to try and get some of these things done. 

And then also something that is very, very important, and I 

think after visiting with you I know it is important to you, reducing the bureaucracy, reducing the roadblocks so that we can get 

these projects done in a timely fashion which would save a tremendous amount of money and be, you know, very helpful in a variety 

of different ways. 

So, again, we welcome you on board. We look forward to working 

with you and appreciate your testimony today. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Welcome, Secretary Foxx. I am delighted that you are where you 

are and I look forward to working with you on Rhode Island issues. 

We hear a lot of talk in Washington about our Nation’s deficit. 

But we have a very, very serious infrastructure deficit as well as 

a fiscal deficit. It gets much less attention but is probably more immediately important to the American people when bridges are not 

safe, highways are not smooth, water is not cleaned properly and 

the services that they are accustomed to in those and other areas 

are not provided. So, I really think we need to work on this. 

I am a big fan of the TIFIA Program but my Rhode Island Director of Transportation, Mike Lewis, tells me we have got nothing 

that qualifies for the TIFIA Program. We have got plenty of highways that need to be repaired, we have got plenty of bridges that 

need to be repaired, we have got an enormous amount of work to 

do. 

We have got aging infrastructure on the water side, which is not 

your problem, it is equally serious. I think we are at, what, $600 

billion a year in water infrastructure that we are behind on? And 
10 

our water resources bill is trapped here in the Senate because the 

House cannot legislate. And so, it is a frustrating circumstance to 

be in. 

Just when we get to the Q and A, I want to ask your thoughts 

about what are the other creative ways in which we can go forward, particularly to help States like mine where TIFIA does not 

apply because we do not have the toll roads and the revenues to 

offset. 

So, I welcome you. This is a big issue. Infrastructure should be 

something Republicans and Democrats can agree on. Every American is entitled to safe highways, safe bridges and safe water, both 

disposal and drinking water, and, at the moment, that deficit gets 

nowhere near the attention that it should. 

So, thank you, Chairman, and thank the Ranking Member for focusing on this and I look forward to the hearing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Well, Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY FOXX, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, and Ranking Member Vitter and members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to join 

you today in my first hearing as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. I am going to discuss the Transportation and Infrastructure 

and Innovation Act Program, more commonly known as TIFIA. 

Mayors and Governors across this Country are looking for ways 

to get more out of taxpayer dollars while making critical investments for the future. And I know this from experience. TIFIA is 

a powerful tool that helps us do just that. And I do want to applaud the leadership of Chairman Boxer and so many others who 

have been instrumental in helping us get the reauthorization done 

and also the TIFIA Program’s expansion. 

As you know, TIFIA was created by Congress to help State and 

local governments finance large-scale transportation projects with 

innovative sources of revenue. TIFIA’s flexible terms and low interest rates make it possible to obtain financing for critical projects 

that otherwise would have been delayed or deferred because of 

their size and complexity. 

This includes projects like the recently closed SR–91 Corridor 

Improvement Project in Riverside, California. At the beginning of 

this month, we provided a $421 million loan to this $1.3 billion 

project which is expected to reduce traffic delays and create more 

than 16,000 jobs. 

TIFIA is also a multi-modal program. Many large-scale surface 

transportation projects, including highways, transit, railroad, intermodal freight and port access projects are eligible for assistance. 

Increasingly, we are seeing a broad interest in TIFIA for innovative 

projects and projects with non-traditional sponsors. And we are 

seeing interest in States across the Country with more States taking advantage of the program each year. 

TIFIA is fulfilling its fundamental goal which is to leverage Federal funds by attracting substantial private or non-Federal investments in critical infrastructure improvements projects to improve 
11 

the Nation’s surface transportation system. In short, TIFIA is helping us stretch our dollars further. 

This Committee recognizes the power of TIFIA as a tool that can 

leverage Federal resources and your comments reflect that. MAP– 

21, the transportation bill that you passed and the President 

signed last summer, included a significant expansion of the program, increasing TIFIA’s funding more than eightfold from $122 

million per year to $1 billion per year in fiscal year 2014. 

We estimate that TIFIA’s leverage ratio is more than 30 to 1, meaning that $1 of budget authority will result in over $30 of infrastructure investment. At the MAP–21 funding level, the TIFIA 

Program will stimulate as much as $30 billion or more in infrastructure investment in fiscal year 2014 alone. 

The demand for TIFIA is high. In each of the last 3 years, we have received $12 billion to $15 billion in requests for TIFIA assistance. This year is no different. The Department of Transportation 

has received a record $15.8 billion in requests to finance 31 projects 

across the Country. Thanks to the strong bipartisan support and 

the leadership of Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter and 

the rest of this Committee, we now have the resources to meet the 

demand for TIFIA. 

Since MAP–21 went into effect, we have been working hard to disperse this money quickly, committing more than $800 million of 

budget authority for 18 projects. In total, we have 25 projects progressing through the TIFIA pipeline right now. To put that into 

perspective, that is about two-thirds the total number of projects 

that TIFIA has financed since 1999. 

We are also streamlining the way that we manage this program 

and we are continuing to spread the word, developing a series of 

webinars for local stakeholders who are interested in accessing 

TIFIA. 

Transparency and accountability are also high priorities throughout the process. DOT is working to keep stakeholders informed 

throughout our creditworthiness evaluation process which is a rigorous but highly efficient effort to ensure that loans are likely to 

be repaid and that the taxpayers are protected. 

We are also committed to oversight. Our DOT Credit Council is 

chaired by Deputy Secretary John Porcari and reviews all TIFIA 

requests. Under the Obama administration, the DOT Credit Council has strengthened its focus on creditworthiness requirements, incorporating lessons from the financial crisis and ensuring that 

projects are not over leveraged or financed based on overly optimistic assumptions about revenue. 

And I think I am out of time, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. That is all right. Please go ahead. We will give 

you another 2 minutes. Go ahead. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

Above all, TIFIA has been a highly successful way to leverage 

Federal dollars and it has helped communities across America invest in the large-scale infrastructure projects we need to be successful in the 21st century. To date, the program has extended more than $11 billion in cred- it assistance to support almost $44 billion in highway, bridge, rail 

and bus projects. This year, we expect to obligate TIFIA funds for 
12 

seven or more projects, which is a record number, and 2014 promises to be even busier. 

Again, it is a pleasure to be here and I look forward to working 

with all of you to address the Nation’s important infrastructure 

needs. I am happy to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Foxx follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Senator BOXER. Well thank you so much, Mr. Secretary, for that. 

And it really is music to our ears because we stuck our necks out 

and decided together, all of us on this Committee, both sides, that 

this was a program worth expanding in a time when, as you know, 

we are not expanding many other things. 

But I wanted to ask you, when you took over and I talked to you 

and others did about this, did you make any changes in how you 

deal with it? Did you put more people on this program? What 

changes are you making administratively handling this newly 

robustly funded program? 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you for the question. First of all, I will 

say that we are focusing very much on helping these projects move 

through the pipeline. That was one of the first orders of business 

for me coming into the Department, having conversation with you 

and many others on the Committee. 

And we are making progress on that. We had two projects that 

have moved recently, actually, in the Los Angeles area. 

Senator BOXER. Have you had to make any changes in the way 

TIFIA is handled or do you think your predecessor, who was also 

pretty terrific, had he put it all in place or are you moving people 

around, more help, et cetera? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, in terms of staffing, we are expanding our 

staffing and you can expect that we are going to add something on 

the order of 16 additional people to help us move projects through 

the pipeline. 

Senator BOXER. Good. I think it is important because you point 

out at the same time you want to get the money out on the street 

you also want to make sure they are safe investments for us. And 

that is why TIFIA is so effective because there is very low risk to 

us. 

Now, in addition to the large increase in funding, MAP–21 also 

included a number of policy enhancements that were broadly supported by outside organizations, many of whom are here today, including the ability to provide Master Credit Agreements for what 

we call ‘‘a program of projects’’ and increasing the share of projects’ 

costs that could be covered by TIFIA. 

Can you explain the status of DOT implementing these changes 

and allowing applicants to take full advantage of these new provisions? 

Secretary FOXX. We have one request by a community sponsor to 

purse a Master Credit Agreement and actually even, in the course 

of pursing that opportunity, I believe that it was decided that it 

was not a good fit for that particular sponsor. 

The flexibility is very important because what it allows us to do, 

potentially, is to pool projects by a project sponsor and to have an 

overreaching credit agreement that is available. I think that flexibility is still very important. But that is as far as it has gone, to 

my knowledge. 

Senator BOXER. But you are prepared to deal with those as they 

come in? 

Secretary FOXX. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. MAP–21 also made improvements to make 

TIFIA assistance more practical and usable for all regions of the 

Country, particularly rural areas. What is DOT doing to educate 
35 

potential applicants to make them aware of the new provisions and 

how they can benefit particularly in the rural areas? 

Senator FOXX. A very good question. One of the things that our 

staff is working on and had already started are a series of outreaches to local communities all across the Country. Some of them 

have been through webinars. There are other efforts to make this 

available to local communities. 

I also want to point out that changes to the program that allow 

for a lower limit for assistance to rural communities has been very, 

very important and we are looking to make even greater use of 

that flexibility. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Again, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

As the Chairman noted, we dramatically expanded TIFIA. Part 

of that deal was to also streamline and simplify the criteria used 

and we tried to make it real simple, eligibility and creditworthiness. That is because we wanted to increase transparency and really get in the project selection process and really get the program 

back to its original intent. 

Some of us are a little concerned that in the DOT application, 

however, there is a new term in there, public benefit, asking for a 

description of public benefit. Why is that inserted in there? Because it is not what we wanted to get back to, eligibility, either, 

you know, either you are in the box or not, either you are eligible 

or not, and creditworthiness. 

Concern is that something like public benefit is obviously completely subjective and it would re-insert tremendous Administration discretion which, quite frankly, we did not want to do. We 

wanted this to be more of the rolling first come, first served, you 

know, let us have clear, objective criteria. 

So, why is that term in your material and the application process? 

Secretary FOXX. Well, thank you for the question, Senator, and 

let me say at the outset that may be a comment I will need to come 

back to following the hearing. 

But on the face of it, what I can tell you is that I do not know 

of any request for a letter of interest that has come into us that 

has been excluded as a result of some concern about public benefit. 

In other words, every project that has come through our doors our 

staff is trying to work to get to yes on those projects. And I think 

that is consistent with the view that you had in crafting the legislation and the view that I have in terms of trying to get these 

projects done. 

Senator VITTER. Right. Well, I would urge you to go look at that 

and maybe supplement your answer because if what you say is 

true, and I hope it is, then it is just sort of a useless time-consuming question and then why not take it out and not make people, you know, answer another question which really does not have 

to do with the two criteria we laid out. 

Related to that, as I said, we dramatically expanded TIFIA. We 

wanted it to be more or less a first come, first served rolling process. So, with that in mind, have many projects have received assistance since the NOFA was issued in July of last year? 
36 

Secretary FOXX. Senator, I know of one project that has made it 

all the way through the process. There are several projects that are 

in the course of making it through. I think there are five or so that 

have gone through the creditworthiness process and have been invited to apply for the program. 

You may recall that one of the things that has changed with the 

program is that we are being really, we are frontloading a lot of 

the effort on the creditworthiness so that when we get to the application phase, we can move much faster. And I think we are finding 

that that is actually the case. 

So, as we say, I believe that by the end of this year you are going 

to see several projects that will get through and I think 2014 is 

going to be even more expansive. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Well again, the concern is related to what 

I was talking about a minute ago, the concern is that there are dozens pending and so it is not sort of a stream moving through the 

pipeline. If there are dozens pending, the concern is that there is 

going to be picking and choosing rather than moving eligible 

projects the pipeline. 

Secretary FOXX. If I might, sir? 

Senator VITTER. Go ahead. 

Secretary FOXX. My instruction to our staff is to try to get the 

yes on every application that we get in and it should be an outlier 

when we cannot get it done. There may be some situations as we 

go through creditworthiness that just do not work. And even then, 

we are going to try to figure out a way with the project sponsor 

to try to help make it work. 

So, I want you to understand that is where I am coming from. 

Senator VITTER. Right. And certainly, let me back up. I am not 

suggesting that we should bend much less break the rules about 

eligibility or creditworthiness, but simply that we should not be 

picking and choosing subjectively. No one should, including the Administration. And if you can get the pipeline moving to illustrate 

that you are not, I think that would build confidence. Because right 

now, there are a lot pending, and that is the concern. 

As was mentioned, another issue that has come up, and I will 

end on this and you can address it, is the rural carve out and the 

threat that some mega-projects that technically meet that criteria 

could gobble up all of that money. Can you address that as move 

forward? 

Secretary FOXX. Yes. Again, I think the flexibility that this Committee and the Congress provided us to be a little more tailored to 

rural communities has been extremely helpful. That is one of the 

reasons why we have also been pretty insistent on keeping the 33 

percent amount that is contributed to projects pretty solid across 

the range of projects that have come through because it leaves us 

with the ability to use that capacity to do projects in rural American and other parts of the Country. 

I come from a State that has urban parts to it and also rural 

parts to it and all of those parts are part of America and we are 

going to keep working to make sure we are building every part of 

this Country through this program. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 
37 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Mr. Secretary, as I mentioned in my opening statement, New York State is in the process of seeking a TIFIA 

loan to finance a significant portion of the costs of construction for 

the replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge. In March, Governor 

Cuomo announced that the process is moving forward and was in 

the credit review stage. Since them, we have not received an update on the current status. Could you provide me with an update 

on the status of New York’s request? 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate the significance of this project. It is a project of national significance and a 

bridge that continues to be very highly trafficked, as you have 

pointed out. 

This project has gone through several phases. It is still in creditworthiness. But, and by the way, it is the largest TIFIA request 

that we have ever tried to work through. So, I expect that this 

project will continue making its way through the creditworthiness 

review. 

I will say that at a certain point there was some concern about 

what the appropriate percentage level would be for the TIFIA loan. 

I think there was an interest in having it be higher than 33 percent. It is now agreed by the parties to keep it at 33 percent and 

I think we are going to see that project moving its way through the 

system. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Are there other mechanisms or alternative 

funding besides TIFIA, including tax exempt or tax credit financing, and other public-private partnership programs that currently 

exist within DOT? 

Secretary FOXX. There are. Private Activity Bonds, Buy America 

bonds, there are other tools that we have in the toolbox. And of 

course, the President has proposed an Infrastructure Bank as part 

of his fiscal year 2014 budget, all of which will be helpful, effective 

tools to build our system. 

But I think, as has been pointed out across the Committee, there 

is also still a tremendous need for both repair and new across the 

Country. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. How do you, if you could, give us some specifics, how do you plan to utilize the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Innovative Program Delivery as you seek to meet 

the Nation’s infrastructure needs? 

Secretary FOXX. Great question. We are seeing some examples of 

some pretty innovative project delivery today. The Highway Administration has started a program called Every Day Counts. And the 

whole goal of that program is to speed project delivery because 

when we shave time off of projects without compromising safety 

and environmental controls, we actually save money and help those 

dollars go further. 

So, what they have done are things like, in some situations when 

you are building a bridge, for example, the components can be put 

together on the roadside and then wholly moved over into the 

bridge thoroughfare to make the bridge get built a little faster. And 

we are looking at ways to do that. 
38 

We are also looking at our NEPA processes and our other permitting requirements to see if we can find ways to streamline those 

to get projects done quicker. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Well, on that last point, is it helpful, do you 

think, to work with other agencies like the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, to help streamline implementation of additional public-private partnerships? Because as we look 

at the idea of Infrastructure Bank or an infrastructure authority 

which would not be providing financing but actually would be providing streamlining, are there ways the Department of Transportation can do that? What is your view of that approach? 

Secretary FOXX. There are ways that we could do that. And I 

think the President, again, has put on the table some very good 

ideas about how to do that and I hope that we can see some activity around Congress in terms of responding to those ideas. 

Again, though, even if you have a $10 billion Infrastructure 

Bank, you match that against the need for repair and maintenance 

and improvements across the Country. It is a huge step to get it 

there. It is a huge step to get more private money involved in 

building our infrastructure. But we still have a great need beyond 

that. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. And in terms of streamlining, do you think 

working with other agencies is the right approach to do that? 

Secretary FOXX. I do. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Or can you do that independently? 

Secretary FOXX. Yes. It is essential and, you know, actually in 

some of our activity with EPA and HUD, we have been able to 

work together to make our projects more impactful at the local 

level. I can speak to that specifically as having been a mayor. 

I think that as we start to think about our reauthorizations, for 

instance, one of the policies that we are working on right now is 

a national freight policy and the freight policy is designed to look 

at our economic data which will come a lot from Commerce and 

will help us begin with the end in mind as we build our Nation’s 

freight infrastructure, whether it is rail, highway, or whatever. 

So, we are actually collaborating a good deal and I will be looking for ways to help us collaborate across agencies to make our 

transportation system even more impactful. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Well, one example I just want to highlight. 

I have talked to many investors who would be delighted to invest 

in a high-speed rail line, particularly in highly frequented corridors, whether it is Washington to New York to Boston, New York 

up to Montreal, or New York from Albany all the way out to Niagara. 

These are highly trafficked routes that could be very financially 

lucrative if the investment is done properly and many of those investors say we do not need financing, we do not need loan guarantees, we do not need any financing. What we need is the streamlining and the ability to do the project in a timely manner because 

if you cannot structure the build out in a way that is affordable for 

an investor, it cannot be done. 

Is that something you have looked at? Is it something you have 

considered about how to be more creative? 
39 

Secretary FOXX. Yes, there is a lot of conversation about private 

building of infrastructure whether it is rail or something else. And 

I have yet to see a private sector player agree, out of benevolence, 

to build some infrastructure for someone. There has always got to 

be a revenue source that gives them a return on that investment. 

Having said that, I think there is a lot we can do engaging with 

the private sector to figure out how to streamline the process for 

them. And we are seeing this in some parts of the Country. Chicago has an Infrastructure Bank that they have established. It is 

bringing private sector money to the table and it is helping to pick 

projects that will provide the best return but also the best public 

benefit. 

So, I think that we should continue working toward that. But the 

point, I think the larger point that I am also trying to make here, 

is that while there are some projects that are great candidates for 

public-private partnerships, there are some projects that are simply 

part of the public good and will never qualify for a public-private 

partnership but are not unimportant because of that. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I think you can see 

how well-received you were here. We are very happy to see you. 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. We are excited to work with you as we tackle our 

next problem. And we have a big problem. We have to figure out 

a way to move forward and we know you are going to be a very 

big help to us. And I am going to ask you this question. Will you 

stand ready to be a resource for us as we put together the next bipartisan highway bill? 

Secretary FOXX. Senator, I will do everything I can to be helpful 

to you and to the Committee and I look forward to working with 

you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Inhofe, I am sorry, I forgot that you wanted to question. 

I am sorry. Stay here. Do not move. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Do not leave. When I wind up, it will be time 

for the next panel. 

But I just, real quickly, one thing I would request and that is, 

you probably, in my opening statement I talked about all of the reforms that were there, a lot of them having to do with NEPA, a 

lot of them having to do with other enhancements and other 

projects. 

So what I would ask of you, and we probably had more, I believe, 

and I said this in my opening statement, that we had more reforms 

in this bill than in all of the rest of them. I have been around in 

these bills since I was in the House, back in the 1980s, and I think 

we have had more. 

So, what I am going to ask you to do is look at all of these reports and be sure that they are carried out so that they are put 

into practical use, which would be very helpful and building a lot 

more miles of road. So, if you would do that, to become personally 

familiar with all of those reforms, I would appreciate that. 

The question I would ask you is, I was serious when I said a lot 

of these people here in Washington and the U.S. Senate do not 

know what a hard job is. There is no harder job than being the 
40 

mayor of a major city and, you know, there is no hiding place. If 

they don’t like the trash system, it ends up in your front yard. In 

fact it did, in my front yard. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, no. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. So, we understand that and when I was first 

elected, they had neglected the infrastructure in my city of Tulsa. 

And I had to immediately jump in there. What kind of experience 

did you have as mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, in terms of 

your infrastructure? 

Secretary FOXX. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is hard 

to be a mayor right now and not have a lot of experience with infrastructure. 

In Charlotte, we had gone through a period of about 30 years of 

dramatic, kind of sprawl expansion, as a result of our ability to 

annex. And shortly after taking office, it became very clear to me 

that we were not going to be able to annex anymore both because 

the laws had changed but also because we had run out of land. 

Senator INHOFE. That is exactly what happened to us, the same 

situation. 

Secretary FOXX. And yet, we were experiencing exponential population growth. In fact, it was the largest, the fastest growing metro 

region in the Country. So, our transportation systems have to do 

several things at once. It has to move things and people, it has to 

enhance the ability to make good land use choices, and it has to, 

hopefully, provide people with a reliable way to get someplace. 

So, for us it was highways. It was transit. It was bike paths and 

sidewalks. It was bridges. And when those things all work together 

well, what happens is that people have choices. And when they 

have choices, they feel empowered and that is ultimately what 

transportation does for our Country. It empowers people to have a 

good quality of life and have good jobs. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, that is why I said that there is no better 

training ground for your job than to have handled it at that level. 

As you know, one of the agencies in your jurisdiction, the FAA, 

is currently involved in a lawsuit. That is why I wanted to visit 

with you a little bit here. This event, caused the Oshkosh Event, 

is the largest such event anywhere in the world. And the revenues 

that are generated for the FAA far exceed the amount that they 

would pay their air traffic controllers. 

So, as soon as the Chairman dismisses you and asks for the next 

panel, maybe we could visit about that in the back room here? 

Secretary FOXX. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Inhofe. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We look forward to working with you. 

We will ask our second esteemed panel to come forward. Mr. 

James Bass, Chief Financial Officer, Texas Department of Transportation; Mr. Geoffrey Yarema, Partner, Nossaman, LLP; Mr. Art 

Leahy, my friend and Chief Executive Officer, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Mr. James Roberts, President 

and Chief Executive Officer of Granite Construction Incorporated, 
41 

another one of my friends; and Mr. D.J. Gribbin, Managing Director, Macquarie Capital. 

If you will all take your seats. We are going to get started because we have votes behind us coming soon. So, please be seated. 

We are going to start with Mr. James Bass and we are going to 

go all across the table. 

We are very interested in getting your views today on TIFIA, 

what you feel about the program, any reports back from your perspectives since you are really on the ground. 

We will start with Mr. James Bass, Chief Financial Officer, 

Texas Department of Transportation. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES BASS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. BASS. Thank you and good morning. 

I would like to thank you, Chairman Boxer, for holding this hearing to discuss the TIFIA Program. It is my privilege to provide a 

State’s perspective on the program. And while I have the opportunity, I would like to thank the Committee for MAP–21 as we consider it to be the most significant surface transportation legislation 

passed over the last 20 years. 

Since its passage, Texas has worked diligently to implement the 

new provisions and of note, the Texas legislature recently passed 

legislation permitting Texas to assume some environmental review 

for transportation projects. We have looked very carefully at the 

success that California has had with that program since 2007 and 

we are hopeful that we can replicate the same success in Texas. 

We will continue to implement the new elements of MAP–21 in 

the second year of the bill and we look forward to updating the 

Committee on those efforts in the coming months. 

Today, I am before you to discuss one MAP–21 provision, in particular, the TIFIA Program. MAP–21 solved several key challenges, 

at least on paper, that have held back the TIFIA Program. We 

were very encouraged by the substantial increase in funding for the 

program, the increased share of project costs that TIFIA could finance, provisions for rural projects, and the congressional desire to 

make the TIFIA Program more efficient. However, if MAP–21 

funds are not deployed to projects that are ready, the program will 

lose momentum and Congress’ objectives will have not been fully 

achieved. 

Since TIFIA’s inception back in 1998 as part of TEA–21, Texas 

has been an early and frequent user of the program. In fact, we 

view TIFIA as a critical component in the delivery of all of our 

larger-scale projects in the State. Within the last 10 years, our legislature in Texas has enacted several innovative financing initiatives that can be used in conjunction with TIFIA to deliver those 

projects sooner and more efficiently than traditional methods. To date, projects in Texas have received $3.4 billion in TIFIA assistance which, when combined with State, local and private investment, have helped to deliver over $11 billion in transportation infrastructure. Because of the way the Office of Management and 

Budget scores TIFIA, the Federal budget impact for these projects 

is estimated at only $343 million. Compared to the traditional Federal funding, TIFIA helped save the Federal Government over $8.5 
42 

billion to deliver these same projects and TIFIA is a great example 

of States doing more with fewer Federal dollars available. 

Under MAP–21, Texas has submitted six letters of interest and 

we continue to have open and forthright discussions with the 

USDOT about our projects. They have been good partners to work 

with and we certainly appreciate their willingness to meet with us 

and work through the new TIFIA process. 

Prior to MAP–21, USDOT was allowed discretion to evaluate and 

choose eligible projects under specific criteria. USDOT also had the 

authority to weigh and compare the relative merits of eligible 

projects under the selection criteria and to choose those that scored 

highest under that weighted scoring system. 

Over time, USDOT continued to add criteria such as livability to 

their list of selection criteria and too much discretion seemed to be 

permeating the process and made the program more about meeting 

subjective criteria as opposed to funding the best projects in order 

to meet the mobility demands of the citizens. 

MAP–21 eliminated discretionary selection criteria as it established a limited set of objective eligibility criteria that required a 

yes or no determination of satisfaction. TxDOT and other States 

welcome this change in MAP–21 because we believe market forces 

should direct where projects are selected to receive TIFIA funding. 

A year after passage, however, the majority of funds have not yet 

been put to use. A problematic effect of the new approach, whether 

intended or not, is that it does not meet Congress’ intent that 

USDOT improve its timeliness in processing TIFIA credit assistance. 

The new law requires USDOT to indicate whether an application 

is complete within 30 days of receipt and to approve or disapprove 

an application within 60 days after giving notice that it is complete. By adjusting the process prior to MAP–21 and by requiring 

that almost every project detail be disclosed prior to the application 

stage, USDOT has put an undue burden on the project sponsors 

and has dragged out what was intended to be a streamlined process. 

In addition to the timing issues, USDOT has indicated that except under exceptional circumstances, they will not consider assistance for more than 33 percent of the total project costs. We would 

be thankful if they would consider that projects may benefit from 

more than that 33 percent. 

I see, Madam Chair, that I just ran out of time. 

Senator BOXER. Go ahead. 

Mr. BASS. OK. So, we believe USDOT should adhere to Congress’ 

intent and at least consider projects that would benefit from more 

than 33 percent to fund their projects, especially if it is important 

to put all of the dollars in the TIFIA Program to work. 

Given that MAP–21 is only a 2-year bill, we have a compelling 

reason to get the TIFIA Program back on track. MAP–21 provides 

critical changes in increased funding. But change can be made to 

further correct the program. 

Again, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity 

to be here today to share TxDOT’s past and present interest in and 

experience with the TIFIA Program. And we also appreciate the 

professional and positive working relationship that we have en-
43 

joyed with the USDOT staff and we are committed to working with 

all of our Federal partners to support the continued success of the 

very valuable TIFIA Program. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bass follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for that. I really appreciate your specific points there, thank you, because I can take them up with the 

Secretary. 

And now we turn to Mr. Geoffrey Yarema, Partner, Nossaman 

LLP. Tell us what your company does. 

Mr. YAREMA. Nossaman is a law firm. I am based in Los Angeles 

and proud to be a constituent. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY S. YAREMA, PARTNER, INFRASTRUCTURE PRACTICE GROUP, NOSSAMAN, LLP, MEMBER, 

NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

FINANCING COMMISSION 

Mr. YAREMA. Chairman Boxer, thank you for the invitation to 

participate in this important, timely hearing. I have submitted for 

the record a detailed statement and will cover only the highlights 

in my remarks today. 

My views about TIFIA are shaped from two perspectives. First, 

as I mentioned, I am a partner in a law firm that represents States 

and regional transportation agencies around the Country. They are 

all struggling with the same basic problem, how to deliver their 

largest and most complicated projects while minimizing the use of 

Federal gas taxes. Many of our agency clients have successfully 

done exactly that thanks, in significant part, to the TIFIA Program. 

Second, I was privileged to serve on the National Surface Transportation Financing Commission that Congress empowered under 

SAFETY-LU. Among the unanimous recommendations of our bipartisan report was strong support for a TIFIA Program sized to meet 

projected demand. In enacting MAP–21, Congress did just that. 

And the States have responded. As you have mentioned, since 

MAP–21’s passage, prospective applicants have submitted 31 LOIs 

for TIFIA loans to help finance over $42 billion of projects. This is 

clearly noteworthy. But what I consider equally noteworthy is that 

the number of States requesting assistance has now risen to 24. 

There are more projects in the pipeline that will push both of these 

numbers even higher. 

With increased TIFIA demand comes increased USDOT responsibility to respond. The USDOT has made significant efforts since 

last year. What can be done to deliver on congressionally enacted 

enhancements and do better? 

First, we can streamline the application process. Before an application can be formally submitted there are two steps, the letter of 

interest and the creditworthiness review. These serve valuable 

functions. But the enormous detail the USDOT is requiring of all 

LOIs is tantamount to a full-blown application process without 

having to worry about the statutory deadlines Congress improved 

on processing the applications themselves. 

Second, we need help in using TIFIA to maximize competition for 

public works construction contracts. When States issue procurements that contemplate bidders using TIFIA, States can maximize 

competitive tension only if the USDOT can first make conditional 

commitments before bidders’ prices are submitted, and second, they 

are able to close their TIFIA loans soon after those bids are re-
64 

ceived. This can be done in a way that absolutely ensures careful 

creditworthiness analysis. 

Third, the USDOT needs to consider making loans larger than 33 

percent whenever they are creditworthy. I am sure you will recall 

that in adopting MAP–21, Congress permitted loan sizes to rise up 

from 33 percent to 49 percent of eligible costs. Nevertheless, to my 

knowledge the USDOT has yet to actively consider a loan greater 

than 33 percent despite numerous creditworthy requests. 

The program office responds to such requests saying that public 

sponsors must meet some higher, undefined standard having nothing to do with creditworthiness, an obligation not derived from any 

MAP–21 statutory language. 

Fourth, it is critical to preserve TIFIA’s value proposition. TIFIA 

loans are intended to be subordinate to investment grade debt, not 

in most circumstances investment grade themselves. TIFIA loans 

are intended to allow sculpting of repayment toward the latter part 

of a loan’s duration. These features have been hallmarks of the 

TIFIA Program since its inception in 1998 and need to be retained. 

Fifth, the USDOT should strongly consider processing higher 

quality credits more efficiently. Consistent with congressional intent, TIFIA applicants dedicate a wide range of non-Federal revenue sources to repay TIFIA loans. Loans for projects backed by 

their own future user fees, like tolls, deserve revenue-specific analysis. 

On the other hand, however, projects backed by a State’s own 

highway fund or other investment grade rated revenue sources deserves streamlined due diligence and approval processes. The 

USDOT never need recreate the work rating agencies have already 

performed. 

Finally, we can enhance transparency for better management. 

The USDOT has increased its communications with the public. Yet, 

it remains simply impossible for public agencies to obtain sufficient 

information to understand the extent to which the TIFIA Program 

capacity remains for a given fiscal year. 

Will TIFIA be fully utilized? We do not know. 

Senator BOXER. You need to conclude, please. 

Mr. YAREMA. That is fine. That is fine. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yarema follows:] 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 

Senator BOXER. Art Leahy, happy to see you. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR T. LEAHY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 

Mr. LEAHY. Senator, it is a pleasure to be here. 

Chair Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, members, thank you for 

having us. Thank you for having the panel today. We always appreciate the work of the Committee. 

Los Angeles County Metro, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, is what we call in California a self-help county. We have sales 

tax measures, voter-approved sales tax measures, which have a duration of 30 years. The voters vote for those projects because included in the tax measure will be list of projects, a list of 

deliverables. So, we will be held accountable by the taxpayers of LA 

County to deliver those projects. 

The TIFIA Program is of great assistance to us. There is a TIFIA 

loan on our very important Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail project, and 

I am pleased to say that we have been invited, just a few weeks 

ago, to apply for a large TIFIA loan for our subway, the Purple 

Line out to the west and the regional connector in downtown Los 

Angeles. 

These projects will be substantially paid for with local voter-approved sales taxes. But what TIFIA does is allow, it allows us to 

accelerate these projects, to get the benefit quicker, it allows us to 

save some money to deliver more projects. and it helps improve our 

credibility with our taxpayers so that they will approve future sales 

tax measures as appropriate. 

By the way, to get a sales tax measure approved in California 

requires a two-thirds vote. So, it is very important to us that we 

deliver the goods and that we earn the trust and confidence of our 

taxpayers. 

I will not go through the points that have already been made but 

a number of them are very important and we hope the Committee 

considers them. 

We think that the TIFIA Program helps transportation dollars go 

further. We know that this will help us create jobs. The two 

projects that I just mentioned are going to create 40,000 jobs in Los 

Angeles. Not all of those jobs will be in LA. Some of them will be 

all over the Country. But we know that the TIFIA Program allows 

us to deliver the projects faster, we know it allows us to create jobs. 

So with that, Senator, or Chair Boxer, I will close and thank you 

again, Ranking Member Vitter, for having me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leahy follows:] 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

And next we turn to Mr. James Roberts, President and CEO of 

Granite Construction Incorporated. 

It is nice to see you. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES ROBERTS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED 

Mr. ROBERTS. Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here. 

As you mentioned, my name is Jim Roberts and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Granite Construction Incorporated, a California-based company that over the past 90 years 

has built thousands of roads, tunnels, bridges, airports and other 

infrastructure-related projects used by millions of people every day. 

I am here today representing the Associated General Contractors 

of America, better known as AGC, a national association of 26,000 

businesses involved in every aspect of construction with 94 Chapters representing members in every State. 

As this Committee is well aware, our transportation investment 

needs are great and the funds to fix the problem are running short. 

While not the subject of today’s hearing, the very real concern 

about the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund weighs heavily on 

the construction industry and we urge you to address this problem 

sooner rather than later. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. ROBERTS. The solution to meeting our transportation infrastructure needs is two-fold. First, Congress and the Administration 

must work together in a bipartisan way to increase user fees and 

identify new revenue sources to address our transportation needs 

both now and into the future. 

Second, there must be more private sector involvement in the 

construction of transportation projects. AGC believes the Transportation Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act Program has a prudent record of accomplishing this objective. TIFIA has been successful in filling market gaps and leveraging co-investment by providing eligible projects with supplemental or subordinate debt. 

Throughout its history, State and local governments, other public 

authorities as well as private entities including contractors undertaking large-scale construction projects have taken advantage of secured loans, loan guarantees or lines of credit provided through 

TIFIA. Thankfully, through the bipartisan leadership of Chairman 

Boxer and the other members of the Environment and Public 

Works Committee, Congress provided the TIFIA Program with a 

substantial increase in budget authority in MAP–21. 

Granite is proud to have supported the construction of various 

TIFIA-facilitated projects since the inception of the program. Specific projects include the Central Texas Turnpike System and the 

183(a) projects in Texas, the Reno re-track in Nevada, the Triangle 

Expressway in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina and the InterCounty Connector in Maryland. TIFIA credit assistance on these 

efforts totaled $2.4 billion which generated $9 billion worth or 

work. 

We are currently on teams building the IH 35 East LBJ Expressway in Dallas, $845 million, the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York, 
90 

$3.1 billion, and the US 36 managed lanes between Denver and 

Boulder, Colorado, $359 million, all of which are currently seeking 

TIFIA financing. 

The construction industry benefits from TIFIA financial assistance because it allows transportation projects to actually move forward. Many of the projects that receive TIFIA financing have been 

built using the design build contracting method. Under the design 

build, contractors are selected based on a technical proposal and 

price. 

The up-front financial costs a contractor undertakes in putting 

together a complex design build project are significant and can exceed 1 percent of the overall value of the project. If the project does 

not move forward because of a lack of funding, the contractor’s preliminary investment may be lost. Repeated losses will eliminate 

qualified contractors from pursuing these projects, thereby eliminating competition. 

Granite has established processes for identifying, tracking and 

selecting opportunities that fit our business model and risk profile. 

Project funding is a key, significant factor in the process. Dedicated 

financing sources such as TIFIA demonstrate to us that the owner 

is committed to awarding the project which allows us to be more 

likely to submit a proposal. 

Despite the clear priority that was given to the TIFIA Program 

in MAP–21, AGC is concerned that here has been a noticeable 

slowdown in the award of TIFIA financing since MAP–21 was enacted. It appears the DOT is being extremely cautious in approaching the approval of TIFIA financing on individual projects. 

AGC recognizes that DOT must take seriously its fiduciary responsibility in overseeing projects that are awarded TIFIA financing. Awarding financing to a project that ultimately has financial 

problems and puts the Government at risk for a financial loss is 

not in the best interests of the program. However, it is equally 

problematic to be over-cautious, slow and bureaucratic in making 

the financing decision. 

The past success of the TIFIA Program and the promise that it 

provides in the future should not be undermined by an inefficient 

process. AGC believes some adjustment can be made to the program so that it operates more openly and efficiently. 

DOT should redirect more personnel to the TIFIA review team. 

DOT should not hold all decisions on TIFIA awards until a record 

of decision on the project has been issued. This, in particular, 

seems to be contrary to the current review requirement that is 

found elsewhere in MAP–21. DOT should develop educational tools 

and technical advisors to assist States that lack the experience in 

applying for this assistance. There must be full transparency in the 

project selection process to encourage States that continue to make 

applications. TIFIA should be available to help establish an investment grade rating for projects that are close but ultimately unable 

to do so on their own. 

AGC encourages DOT to accept these recommendations. This will 

help move vital projects to construction. While it is still critically 

important and the Administration address the long-term solvency 

of the Highway Trust Fund, we must also assure that programs 
91 

like TIFIA, which help provide financing to fill some of the funding 

shortfall, are operated as efficiently as possible. 

Thank you for allowing AGC to present our views on TIFIA to 

this Committee and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:] 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

And last, but not least, Mr. D.J. Gribbin, Managing Director of 

Macquarie Capital. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF D.J. GRIBBIN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD, 

GOVERNMENT ADVISORY AND AFFAIRS, MACQUARIE CAPITAL 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, 

Senator Vitter, for the opportunity to testify today about the impact that TIFIA has had. 

By way of introduction, I am a Managing Director at Macquarie 

Capital and Head of our government advisory and government affairs practice here in the United States. Macquarie is the world’s 

largest private sector investor in infrastructure. We have been particularly successful in developing P3 projects here in the U.S. Since 

2008, Macquarie has been successfully involved in two-thirds of all 

large P3 projects, which have a total asset value of about $14.4 billion. 

Prior to joining Macquarie, I served as a Chief Counsel of the 

Federal Highway Administration and as a General Counsel at the 

U.S. Department of Transportation. As a result, I have the privilege of working with TIFIA from both the public policy and private 

transactional perspectives. 

Art, Jim and James covered the benefits of TIFIA so I will not 

talk about those. In my remarks what I would like instead is to 

cover three topics, the benefits of TIFIA that extend beyond just finance, the need for administrative reform of the loan approval 

process, and the importance of a portfolio approach to lending. 

First, TIFIA has done more than just provide additional capital 

for transportation infrastructure. TIFIA encourages prioritization 

of project selection, innovation in project finance and considerable 

creativity in project delivery. In short, the TIFIA success story goes 

far beyond the $11 billion invested in $43 billion worth of projects. 

At its most basic, just the fact that borrowers have to repay 

funds encourages sponsors to select projects that will produce a return on investment. Federal financial support that has to be repaid, especially projects repaid with toll revenue, brings significant 

discipline to the project selection process, avoiding the challenge of 

bridges to nowhere. 

While the increased funding for TIFIA was extremely helpful to 

the program, I would encourage the Committee to allow the Department to use some policy criteria for awarding loans and not 

have TIFIA just morph into a broad grant-like program that subsidizes every project. Simplifying TIFIA loan criteria removed some 

of the subjectivity of the process, but it also broadened the criteria 

such that every large potential project could qualify. This dramatically limits the Administration’s ability to use TIFIA to stimulate 

innovation. 

In the Bush administration, we used the TIFIA Program to encourage governments to utilize pricing to finance their infrastructure and manage congestion. The Obama administration used 

TIFIA to encourage livability. Both Administrations provided 

TIFIA loans to high priority projects that did not directly advance 

policy goals. 
102 

But TIFIA was a very useful tool to encourage new thinking 

about transportation projects. It would be a loss to the transportation community if the Department was denied the ability to use 

TIFIA as an incentive to encourage new thinking. 

My second point is to second Geoff Yarema’s comments on the 

need to speed the process. In fact, the most serious challenge facing 

the TIFIA Program is the time it takes to process and approve a 

loan application. The changes incorporated in MAP–21 and improvements made by the TIFIA office since the passage of MAP– 

21 have helped alleviate some of the concerns about timing, but 

there is still much to be done. 

Most of the improvements to the program can be made administratively and do not require a change in statute. I have listed seven 

changes in my written testimony, but let me just touch on two 

briefly here. 

First of all, it would be very helpful if TIFIA was moved to the 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation. This would improve communications with and between OMB, Federal Highways, the Office 

of Innovative Program Delivery, the Credit Council and the Office 

of the Secretary, all of which have a role in approving TIFIA loans. 

Moving to the Office of the Secretary would expedite and improve 

that communication. 

Second, the Department should establish a rule that no policy 

changes regarding TIFIA loans should be made affecting lending 

decisions on a particular loan after the application has been submitted. In other words, policy changes should be prospective, not 

retroactive. 

The changes I listed in my written testimony can shave months 

off the loan approval process. 

Finally, let me talk about risk. The TIFIA program has always 

carefully balanced at-risk projects in need of subsidized subordinate debt against the potential that a borrower may not be in a position to repay the loan. This tension was evidenced in the position 

taken by a staff member who worked early in the days of the program who refused loans for projects that were risky because a loan 

may not be repaid and refused loans for projects that were not 

risky because they were not in need of TIFIA assistance. 

Fortunately, the TIFIA Program found its way out of this Catch22 and developed into the very potent and successful program that 

exists today. But there will always be a tension between supporting 

needy projects and getting repaid. 

As the TIFIA Program matures, it would helpful for this Committee to encourage TIFIA to take a portfolio approach. In any 

portfolio, some loans will under-perform and others will do quite 

well. 

While the Credit Council should be very careful stewards of taxpayer funds used in these loans, they should not be encouraged to 

pursue a minimal risk, or worse a zero risk strategy. Such a strategy would work against the policy foundation of the TIFIA Program which was to provide credit for projects that would otherwise 

be difficult to finance. It is important to keep in mind that the 

worst performing TIFIA loan still provides infinitely more return 

than the best performing grant. 
103 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Committee for its leadership in championing the TIFIA Program and welcome any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gribbin follows:] 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 

Senator BOXER. I want to thank the panel. You did exactly what 

we asked you to do, Senator Vitter and I, we want to know how 

this program that we agreed to expand is working and I think 

what we are hearing from you is some concerns about the pace, 

but, on other hand, I do not hear complete criticism. 

So, I am going to go to Mr. Leahy to talk to him. I know Los Angeles is doing extraordinary work in delivering so many transit and 

highway projects in a short period of time. And you explained why. 

People voted to tax themselves which is always the best mandate 

you can have, especially a super majority. 

So, when Mayor Villaraigosa came here with his team of people 

and you were among them, and we decided to take this to our colleagues, we have seen tremendous movement and progress in Los 

Angeles. 

I just wonder if you could elaborate on the economic benefits of 

accelerating these types of projects, both in terms of jobs created 

and costs saved by building these projects faster, particularly at a 

time of lower construction costs. So, if you could expand on that. 

Mr. LEAHY. Sure. Well, we have three major projects I mentioned, all of which are being accelerated in part because of the potential for TIFIA, a North-South Crenshaw Light Rail line, a regional downtown connector that will hook up major regions of LA 

County, which is a very large county, as you know, and the subway 

out to the west side of Los Angeles. 

In the case of the TIFIA loans, we save money, several hundred 

million dollars on the TIFIA financing for these three projects, we 

get the benefits of the projects quicker and, altogether, the projects 

will create more than 40,000 jobs in a struggling Los Angeles economy. 

And this all, I would say to that, the subjective benefit of proving 

to the voters that we can deliver the goods. We made promises, we 

are going to deliver on those promises. So, they know they can 

count on us. 

To get a two-thirds vote in favor of a sales tax in the middle of 

a recession is quite an achievement. What it reflects is voter support for these projects and voter confidence that we are going to deliver the project. 

Senator BOXER. And of course what it does for us is it gives us 

a steady stream of payback for the TIFIA loan. 

Mr. LEAHY. Exactly. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Bass, out of all of the folks here, I think you 

were a bit negative about the way the DOT is handling things now 

and it is important that we expand on that because the purpose of 

this hearing is, I mean, we have just as much at stake in the 

TIFIA Program as all of you do because we put our confidence in 

it and we want to make sure it is working right. 

So, I want to press you on some of the things you said. Are you 

having personal experience that shows you that they are not moving quickly, that they are not moving to a larger share of the 

projects from 33 percent to 49 percent? So, are you concerned 

about, because you have been very successful, Texas has been a 

leader in taking advantage and successfully delivering large-scale 

projects. 
114 

So, are you sensing a change for the worse since we have expanded it? I am trying to grab, because we are going to communicate, I hope that Senator Vitter and I can write a joint letter to 

Secretary Foxx, laying out some of the problems. So, expand on 

that a little bit. 

Mr. BASS. Thank you for the question. Let me first state that the 

TIFIA Program had a very positive effect and impact within the 

State of Texas and continues to do so. With any program, we do 

see that there are areas for potential improvement. 

Senator BOXER. Right. 

Mr. BASS. So under the four letters of interest that the State of 

Texas, TxDOT, submitted under MAP–21, we initially asked for up 

to the 49 percent participation of eligible project costs. We received 

a response back from the TIFIA Program office that, in order to go 

above and beyond the historic cap of 33 percent, we would need to 

have a compelling argument in order to go above 33 percent. 

Senator BOXER. I think a good, compelling argument is that we 

said that they should. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BASS. We attempted that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BASS. However, we apparently were not very persuasive as 

we are at 33 percent. 

Another project, and I think you heard from some of the other 

witnesses today, the challenge, and I can only imagine the TIFIA 

office and program at a time when it is expanded eight- to tenfold 

and trying to bring on additional staff with the experience and expertise to be able to hit the ground running on Day 1. So, I certainly understand the challenges they face. 

But as an example on the timing, I would use the Grand Parkway Project in the Houston area of Texas. We submitted our LOI, 

Letter of Interest, last August. 

Last week, we priced, in the capital markets, $2.9 billion in 

bonds. We will close on those next week. We are currently at the 

Credit Council stage with TIFIA, so we have not yet been invited 

to formally submit an application, yet we have already gone 

through with the rating agencies and investors and priced that into 

the market. 

So, what we did in our financing structure last week is we included some temporary financing mechanisms in the hope and anticipation of closing with TIFIA later this year, that we will then 

be able to use TIFIA to take it out. But we have been running 

about 11 months and we have been able to take it to capital markets but we have not been able to close with TIFIA. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I think this is very important information 

for us. Let me make a commitment here. Secretary Foxx said he 

is adding 16 people. So, clearly he gets the fact that they are not 

staffed up enough. And this is very critical. 

Looking at it from their side, they do not want to make a mistake because the first mistake, politics will implode on whoever 

makes a mistake, whether it is a Republican Administration or a 

Democratic one. It becomes political if there is a mistake. And so, 

we have to understand that. 
115 

At the same time, when you say you have closed on your bonds 

and so on and so forth. So, here is what I am going to propose. This 

is my last comment of this hearing. All of you have been very constructive. And I do appreciate the specificity that you brought to 

this because we cannot really help if we do not know what is going 

on. 

Obviously, Secretary Foxx is a great believer in this program and 

wants to make it work. I am going to ask staffs on both sides to 

work with Senator Vitter and I to draft a letter that is very specific 

and laying out, we will send him all of your testimony, but we will 

also lay out in a format that is very simple, because you have been 

very straightforward, what the problems are. You have my word 

that we will do that. 

Is anyone here from DOT? Did anyone stay from DOT? Good. 

Well, that is wonderful. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. You can kind of a give a heads up. Why don’t 

you introduce yourself to us? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I am Blair Anderson. I am in the DOT Budget 

Office. I have a nice little note pad here with me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. That is good. And I am very glad you stayed. I 

seriously mean that. Because a lot of times we do not have that 

happen and then we have to recreate the entire thing. So, you are 

taking notes. 

We are going to write a letter. And it is my hope that we can 

break through some of the, perhaps, institutional resistance because this is a greatly increased program and I am sure that 

means greatly increased applications and a lot of pressure. 

So, thank you all. And I will turn it over to David to finish this. 

Senator VITTER. I am glad one person from DOT hung around. 

When you shyly raised your hand at first, I was tempted to ask 

and how was your summer internship going. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. But I am just kidding. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. I am glad one significant person is here from 

DOT to listen to this because that is the point. We wanted to hear 

it and I think it is important for the Department to hear it. And 

thank you all for your testimony and for being specific and precise. 

Let me ask all of you, when we dramatically expanded this program, the intent was for this to be a rolling, more or less first come 

first served if you met the eligibility process. What has happened 

is you have a lot of applications built up. 

Now, maybe that is because they are getting their sea legs under 

them, hiring new people, it is a big expansion. The alternative is 

a fear some of us have that they still want to sort of pick winners 

and losers and use a lot more discretion than we intended. 

Which is the case in each of your opinions? 

Mr. BASS. I guess I will start. In my opinion, I think it is the 

first that you mentioned, staffing up for a greatly enhanced program. And I do not know the details of the salary ranges that they 

are authorized to offer, but I can certainly imagine that it may be 

challenging to attract the talent with the experience. 
116 

Some of these, as you well know many of these projects are very 

complicated financial transactions and in order to attract staff with 

that experience, I can certainly understand that it might be challenging given civil service salary levels. 

Senator VITTER. Anybody else want to chime in? You do not all 

have to answer. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Just real quickly, from AGC’s perspective, I think 

the key ingredient is to keep the political environment away from 

it and focus on streamlining and expediting the timeliness of it and 

that, whatever it takes, whether it is 16 or 26 or whatever. The opportunity is there and we just need to make sure it is expedited 

and actually shown physically with the jobs out in the construction 

market itself. 

Mr. LEAHY. Senator, I would just note that, you know, there are 

some TIFIA loans that may have more risk. There are others that 

have little risk. In Los Angeles, we have a large voter-supported 

revenue stream so the loans that we get are basically risk free. We 

think that when that is the case, that should allow for expedited 

processing of that loan application. Other loans may have more 

risk and that might not be the case. 

Senator VITTER. OK. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I am sorry. I would just chime in on that. When 

I was at DOT, I actually was on the Credit Council so I have seen 

this both from inside the Government and outside. TIFIA being 

slow in processing applications is not new. TIFIA has struggled 

with timeliness since its creation. 

I think part of the challenge now that it is so popular and fully 

funded is the way that DOT is structured to administer those loans 

is not particularly as effective as it could be. And there are a number of structural changes and process decisions that need to be 

made to help move those quicker. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Gribbin, let me follow up with you. In your 

testimony, you suggested that there should be more subjective policy-oriented factors. And as you can tell from my comments, I think 

I disagree with that. Would that not, in fact, increase the uncertainty and probably increase the bureaucratic time requirement in 

such a way that is would be less effective and more costly in the 

marketplace? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Intuitively the answer to that would be yes. In 

practice, we have not seen the program move faster with limited 

policy criteria. 

Part of my comments were driven by the fact that TIFIA is very 

successful because it is a niche player in infrastructure finance. It 

is used in specific situations where governments can repay over 

time loans for projects. And it has done a fantastic job in that. 

I think part of the challenge is to resist the temptation to take 

what has been really effective in a niche and try to apply it across 

a number of areas where TIFIA really would not be all that helpful. 

And then second, the program itself can be a really useful tool 

to encourage borrowers to think outside of the box and to approach 

transportation finance in a different manner. And as I noted in my 

testimony, you have seen both the Bush administration and the 

Obama administration use it successfully to that extent, and I 
117 

think there have been significant policy and transportation improvements as a result. And incorporating policy decisions into the 

loan process has not significantly slowed down the process. 

Senator VITTER. Right. Well, I am hoping that we are going to 

change that record over time and that once this office is ramped 

up in terms of staffing, we will streamline the process. I do not 

think we have adequately tested that yet or have given it enough 

time. But, certainly, we are all going to be pushing to streamline 

that and to decrease that timeline. 

My only final comment would be maybe we should pare down the 

universe where we use TIFIA if it is more effective and makes 

more of an impact in that universe. I would hate to increase and 

get back to very subjective factors because I think that level of 

loosey-goosey discretion really increases uncertainty and therefore 

lack of efficiency and lack of time limits in the market. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Carper, we are just finishing up. So, 

welcome. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. So, you can use your 5 minutes any way you 

want. 

Senator CARPER. I just came to hear Senator Vitter say looseygoosey. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I do not think I ever heard that term, we use 

that term in Delaware but I did not know it was a Louisiana thing 

as well. 

Senator VITTER. I am not sure it means the same thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. You never know. 

Sometimes when I pop in at the end like this, I apologize, we had 

a couple of bills come up on different committees and I just, we just 

have a lot going on. So, I apologize for missing your statements. 

And coming in at the end of like this, sometimes when I chair, 

I chair the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, but sometimes when I get to the end of a hearing I 

will ask, you know, you had a chance to give an opening statement 

and answer the questions and so forth, let me just ask you to each 

take a minute to give a closing statement. 

And what I am looking for is concurrence, where there seems to 

be consensus, and in terms of your advice to us going forward. 

So we will start, how do you pronounce your last name? Is it 

Gribbin? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Gribbin, yes. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Gribbin. Just a quick closing statement, 

some good advice that you think represents a consensus view. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Yes, we can divide the issues on TIFIA into two 

buckets, one is policy and one is administration. And I think that 

while there might be some difference on how, from a policy standpoint, do you best use TIFIA, I think there is a fair amount of consensus on the administration side that there are a number of 

changes the Department can make that would greatly streamline 

the process, whether that be centralizing TIFIA decisionmaking inside the Department, providing expedited processing for what are 
118 

commonplace loans, I think there are a whole series of things that 

the Administration can do speed along. 

And I am thankful for this committee to have a hearing and especially that there is going to be a letter afterwards which maybe 

could include some of these ideas which will be sent back to the 

Department. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. Mr. Roberts. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. I think it is very consistent across the 

panel that TIFIA is an excellent program for financing. It should 

not be utilized as a funding mechanism which it is not. It is a financing mechanism. We have given many, or several, individual 

recommendations. I will review, real quickly, some of them. Direct 

more personnel to the TIFIA review team. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. ROBERTS. This is very important to expedite the process. Not 

hold the decisions on TIFIA awards until a record of decision has 

been issued but have it a process where you would have the creditworthiness going along simultaneously so that we can expedite the 

end result of the approvals. 

Develop more educational tools to those entities that are not capable today of understanding the process. It is a very long process, 

a very detailed process. Also, more transparency in the project selection process. We talked about that a little bit today. Very transparent, open, so that people have a strong level of trustworthiness 

of the program. 

And also, one thing I did mention earlier is that TIFIA should 

be available to help establish investment grade rating for projects 

that are close but ultimately unable to do so on their own so that 

it actually is helping at the same time. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Good. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Key ingredient—great program. Let’s expedite it 

and get it out in the field. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Is it Mr. Leahy? 

Mr. LEAHY. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. As in Pat Leahy, our colleague? Is he your father? 

Mr. LEAHY. No, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. There is a resemblance. Do you see it, Barbara? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I am not getting into it. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Please. 

Mr. LEAHY. Senator Carper, thank you for asking. 

Senator CARPER. About Senator Leahy? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Actually, I did meet him on a train one time. 

All right. That is good. 

Mr. LEAHY. I have lamented that I cannot call him dad for a long 

time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LEAHY. Anyway, we think the TIFIA Program has been very 

useful in Los Angeles for a number of projects. We appreciate it. 

We believe that we have a very strong non-Federal revenue stream 
119 

in Los Angeles from voter-approved sales tax measures. The TIFIA 

Program helps encourage, incentivize the development of non-Federal revenue streams because it allows us to get the benefit 

quicker, to show the taxpayers and the voters that they can trust 

us. 

We have discussed this before, but we think the notion of a Master Credit Agreement is commendable and that the loan should be 

fully subordinated just to facilitate it to get that work done. And 

with that, I will close. I appreciate being here with you. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Thanks so much for coming. Mr. 

Yarema, please. 

Mr. YAREMA. Senator, I appreciate the opportunity. We have reviewed a number of things here today where we think the U.S. Department of Transportation can improve, some mechanical, technical things that, I am not sure are entirely a lack of staff. And 

so, I hope that there will be some care given to some of the suggestions that we have put forward. 

I appreciate the focus of this hearing is on implementation of 

MAP–21 but we are only a short time away from reauthorization 

of MAP–21 and I think it is worth pointing out that, you know, this 

Committee really pioneered the policy that TIFIA should be sized 

to meet the demand, anticipate demand, at the time of reauthorization. That has turned out to be a really good policy. Every dollar 

that you put forward for TIFIA, I think, has a 30 or 40 to 1 leverage. 

So, as you look forward to reauthorization, I think what you are 

looking forward to is another increase in the program’s loan capacity. And that, I think, will be something that discussion should be 

started on now. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

And last, for Mr. Bass. Sometimes people call me Carp. So, Carp 

recognizes Bass for a response, if you will. Just a quick close. 

Mr. BASS. Thank you. No. 1, the TIFIA Program is a tremendous 

program in assistance to States in delivering projects. No. 2, the 

existing staff has done a wonderful job in a very challenging environment of a greatly expanding program. Having said that, I do 

think there are some opportunities to improve the timeliness of the 

overall process. 

One of the things we talked about as well is that historically the 

cap on participation from TIFIA had been 33 percent. Under MAP– 

21, that was increased to 49 percent. There appears to be possibly 

a reluctance to go above the 33 percent and, if that is true, I think 

a clear set of criteria as when the Administration would consider 

more than 33 percent would be helpful. 

Last, for rural projects with a set aside, I think if there is an opportunity to perhaps streamline that process for projects in rural 

areas of the Nation, that would be beneficial as well. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

Madam Chair, I would just say thanks for recognizing me. I just 

want to say, in conclusion, it’s one of the recurring themes, and 

Chairman Boxer and I have been partners for a long time in governance of our Country, but one of the things we focus on is how 

do we get better results for less money, how we leverage a little 

bit of Federal money to be able to stream a whole lot of money into, 
120 

1http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf. 

particularly, the infrastructure which we know is one of the ways 

to grow our economy. 

And the last thing is to say, find out what works and do more 

of that. This is something that works. We know it is not perfect. 

We know we can make it better. So, thanks very much for coming 

by and sharing with us some of the ideas to make a good thing 

even better. 

Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Senator Carper, I know your incredible 

chairmanship that leads you in other directions, but you always 

manage to show us that you care about these issues deeply, and 

it is a pleasure to have you on this Committee. 

And Secretary Foxx was very good and I think what has happened here with these really good people who want this program 

to work, who love what we did, is that you are exactly right. We 

are going to use their comments, send them over to the Secretary, 

we have a representative of DOT still here with us taking copious 

notes. 

Senator CARPER. Who is that? 

Senator BOXER. If the gentleman will raise his hand and introduce yourself to Tom Carper. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. He has become a star of our show and, because 

we are so happy that he stayed here to transmit this because, hearing it from you, sir, and then hearing it from us, and I know that 

Secretary Foxx is very interested in making this work better. 

So, I want to thank everyone for your presence here. We are committed to this program and we are committed to making sure it is 

the most effective program that it can be. 

Thank you very much for your help. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Good morning, thank you Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter for holding today’s hearing about innovative financing for transportation infrastructure 

under MAP–21. 

Congress passed MAP–21 just 13 months ago. This was an important, although 

short-term, bill that we all hoped would streamline the road construction process, 

reduce regulatory burdens, and give greater control over road projects to the States. 

MAP–21 also maintained near-current levels of Federal highway spending in a manner that was deficit neutral. I was pleased to vote for the bill out of committee in 

2011 and to support it on the floor last year. 

However, just 14 months from now—at the end of September 2014, the Federal 

highway program will, yet again, face expiration. And CBO reports that the highway trust fund will be insolvent by 2015, when highway trust fund revenue is expected to be $38 billion—almost $14 billion less than would be needed to meet the 

expected $52 billion in obligations. According to a recent CRS report, a new 6-year 

highway bill at current funding levels would require Congress to fill an ‘‘$85 billion 

gap between planned spending and projected [] revenues . . . ’’ Solving this funding 

shortfall will not be easy. With a national debt of $16.8 trillion and growing every day, adding even more 

debt to fund infrastructure is not a viable option. The latest CBO figures show that, 

by the time we complete the current fiscal year (FY2013), the Federal Government 

will have spent $3.5 trillion in just 1 year, with a deficit of $642 billion. 1
121 

2 Editorial dated July 18, 2013, http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/rail-no-returninvestment-look-interstates. 

We need to be smart about funding infrastructure. The ‘‘TIFIA’’ program, which 

is the focus of today’s hearing, does help leverage Federal funds to accomplish more 

infrastructure projects. I look forward to hearing an update on the TIFIA program 

today. 

But not all ‘‘infrastructure spending’’ is meritorious. If we are going to try to fully 

fund our highway program and other essential programs, this Government cannot 

afford to waste a dime of taxpayer money on wasteful or risky projects. Just a few 

months ago, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that: ‘‘[Senator] Reid, the Senate majority leader . . . said the Federal Railroad Administration has agreed to a 

loan of almost $5 billion [for XpressWest].’’ The details of the XpressWest project 

were deeply troubling: • Estimated cost for this 185-mile rail line from Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV was $6.9 billion—probably a very rosy estimate that understated the likely actual 

costs. • Just $1.4 billion of the $6.9 billion cost was proposed to come from private sources. • The remaining $5.5 billion—or at least 80 percent of the total project cost— 

would be fronted by the American taxpayer in the form of a loan by the U.S. Department of Transportation (through the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement 

Financing, or ‘‘RRIF,’’ program). • Imagine the audacity of someone to ask the American taxpayer—at a time of 

record debts and deficits—to finance 80 percent of a project like this. Yet, the Las 

Vegas Review-Journal characterized Senator Reid as ‘‘the project’s most powerful 

booster.’’ • The Reason Foundation issued a Taxpayer Risk Analysis of the XpressWest 

project that identified a laundry list of significant concerns with the project. • We know a primary purpose of the XpressWest train was to transport tourists— 

many of them, gamblers—from California to Las Vegas resorts and casinos. Why 

should American taxpayers pay for that kind of ‘‘infrastructure’’? 

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and I were deeply concerned about this dubious project and the possibility that this Administration, working in tandem with 

Senator Reid, would agree to devote billions of dollars in taxpayer funds for this proposal. Several months ago, when a decision approving the loan seemed imminent, 

we wrote Secretary LaHood and strongly urged him to ‘‘reject the XpressWest loan 

application and to direct its available RRIF funds to more worthy transportation infrastructure projects that could truly provide a reasonable rate of return to the taxpayers of this Nation.’’ The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Senator Reid 

responded to our letter by stating: ‘‘We shouldn’t allow Tea Party-driven ideology 

to limit much-needed investments in our infrastructure that create thousands of direct and indirect jobs.’’ 

Fortunately, in one of Secretary LaHood’s final actions in the Administration, he 

signed a letter dated June 28, 2013, indefinitely suspending review of the 

XpressWest loan application explaining that ‘‘serious issues persist’’ with the 

XpressWest loan application; that there are ‘‘significant uncertainties still surrounding the project’’; and that, as a result, USDOT has ‘‘decided to suspend further 

consideration’’ of the XpressWest loan request. 

So, I applaud Secretary LaHood for his prudent decision to kill the XpressWest 

project. Today is this committee’s first opportunity to hear from his replacement— 

Secretary Foxx. I look forward to asking Mr. Foxx about his views on prudent infrastructure investments and the importance of guarding taxpayer dollars against proposals like the XpressWest loan request. 

In particular, as we try to find ways to fully fund the Federal highway program 

and to meet our growing infrastructure needs through programs like TIFIA, I believe this Government needs to take a close look at all of its programs to make sure 

we’re as lean and fiscally prudent as possible. At a time of record Federal debt, we 

simply cannot afford to waste a dime of taxpayer money on risky, wasteful projects 

like XpressWest—even if some call them ‘‘infrastructure projects.’’ 

Last week, an editorial by the Las Vegas Review-Journal had some advice for Secretary Foxx in the wake of the XpressWest decision. The paper wrote: ‘‘Here’s a better idea for new Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx: Dump the idea of pouring 

huge sums of money into a utopian high-speed rail project that can’t possibly cover 

debt payments. If the Department is serious about ‘investing’ those billions, spend 

them on improvements to the nation’s interstate system . . . ’’ 2

I think that is sound advice. Thank you. 

Æ