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

94–979 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–20 

THE IMPORTANCE OF MAP–21 REAUTHORIZATION: 

PERSPECTIVES FROM OWNERS, OPERATORS, 

AND USERS OF THE SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 25, 2015 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 25, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Braceras, Hon. Carlos, Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Heminger, Steve, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission ........................................................................................................................ 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Riordan, Thomas J., President and CEO, Neenah Enterprises, Inc. .................. 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Gardner, David, Vice President, Supply Chain and Customer Experience, 

Ingredion Incorporated ........................................................................................ 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Rowen, Walt, President, Susquehanna Glass Company ....................................... 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

HTF Revenue Options ............................................................................................. 66 

(1) 

THE IMPORTANCE OF MAP–21 REAUTHORIZATION: PERSPECTIVES FROM OWNERS, OPERATORS, AND USERS OF THE SYSTEM 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Boozman, Crapo, Vitter, 

Rounds, Capito, Wicker, Carper, Whitehouse, Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. The hearing will be open. 

Let me thank the five of you who have come from far corners. 

We appreciate very much your being here. Our feeling, and I know 

I speak for Senator Boxer, we kind of need to get an outside the 

Beltway perspective. So this is the opportunity that we have for it. 

We appreciate very much the witnesses being here. 

Unfortunately, what used to be the best transportation system in 

the world is now deteriorating, and our global competitors are 

greatly outpacing us in infrastructure investment. We hear this, 

and we see this as we go around, we see what is happening in 

China, we see what is happening in the other countries. The American businesses rely on an efficient, reliable transportation network. More than 250 million vehicles traverse the highway system 

each year and businesses require a reliable transportation system. 

Now, I think anything I would say for members of this panel and 

for the five of you who have come in here to testify, it would be 

redundant. You are all familiar with the crisis that we are facing 

right now. We have Gary Ridley, whom Senator Boxer and I know 

very well, from Oklahoma, who has testified probably than anyone 

else has before this committee over the past 20 years or so. And 

the rest of you, we appreciate very much your being here. 

I am not going to use my time, because in case that Senator 

Vitter comes, who is the chairman of the subcommittee, I want him 

to have that opportunity. So with that, I will retain the balance of 

my time. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

2 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Welcome to today’s hearing. This is the second highways hearing we have held 

this year. As I have said many times, my top priority this year is to pass a fiscally 

responsible, long-term highway bill. I am confident that we will be successful in 

passing a bill, and I thank the witnesses for being here today to help us achieve 

that goal. 

Unfortunately, what used to be the best transportation system in the world is now 

deteriorating, and our global competitors are greatly outpacing us in their infrastructure investment. I am glad that we have manufacturers before us today to discuss how important transportation is to their businesses and the jobs they support. 

American businesses rely on an efficient and reliable transportation network. 

More than 250 million vehicles traverse the highway system each year and businesses require a reliable transportation network to operate. 

But every day, 20,000 miles of our highways slow below posted speed limits or 

experience stop-and-go conditions. This type of congestion has a huge negative impact on America’s businesses. 

Unfortunately, congestion is becoming more and more of a problem for American 

businesses. In its 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave America a ‘‘D’’ grade on the condition of the Nation’s 

roads and a ‘‘C+’’ on the condition of the Nation’s bridges. 

As we are all aware, the Federal highway program is operating on a short-term 

extension that expires at the end of May. 

My staff has been working with Senator Boxer’s staff on a long-term bill that will 

give our partners the certainty they need to plan and construct important transportation projects. 

Our infrastructure investments are a partnership between the Federal Government and the States. We need to keep up our end of the bargain and pass a fully 

funded, long-term bill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Senator, is it my turn? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, you and I don’t agree on a lot, we know that. But 

we do agree on the absolute importance of having a Class A transportation system. I think that this partnership that we have shown 

over the years is more critical now than perhaps ever, because we 

are just a few months away from a shutdown of the Highway Trust 

Fund. And I am going to ask unanimous consent to put my statement into the record, if I might. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. I will also put mine into the 

record. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I am going to summarize it in 2 minutes. 

Here is the thing. We are going to hear today from this diverse 

panel. I am so proud, Steve, you are here. We are hearing it from 

every stripe, from red States, from blue States, from purple States, 

from conservatives and liberals alike. We need a bill and we need 

it now. 

I want to say that last Congress, this committee, to the shame 

of the Senate and the House, and I say that knowing Democrats 

controlled the Senate, Republicans controlled the House, to the 

shame of the Senate and the House, this committee was the only 

committee to do anything on this matter. We passed a really good 

bill. We are working on another bill now. 

I had thought once we had acted, we would see all the other committees in both the House and Senate fall into line. They didn’t do 

3 

it. And I am very worried. Very worried, that I see that same kind 

of lackadaisical attitude about what we are facing. 

Look, we just averted a port strike in our great State. We have 

taken 40 percent of the imports. And what happened, and thanks 

to the Obama administration, really, they helped a lot on this. We 

all worked together, Republicans and Democrats, to stop that 

strike. And we averted it. 

But what happens to those goods? They go on trucks, mostly, and 

they go across our great Nation. They stop in Oklahoma, they stop 

all over. And if our Nation’s roads are in disrepair, and 50 percent 

of them are, and our Nation’s bridges are in danger of collapsing, 

and more than 60,000 of them are, we are in a dire circumstance. 

So I will stop at this point. I will retain my time in case there 

is an opportunity to give it to someone else later. But let me be 

clear. I don’t think, Mr. Chairman, with your great leadership, we 

need a lot more hearings. I think we need to continue our good 

work our staffs have started. 

And I think we need to take the lead and get this going. Because 

what I see coming is another extension. My chairman knows how 

expensive that is, and how absurd that is. And I will say, if you 

went to the bank to get a mortgage and the banker looks at you 

and says, oh, you are great, you get the mortgage, but it is only 

for 6 months, you are not going to buy the house. 

Well, if we can’t tell our people that they have a guarantee of 

several years at least, they are not going to build those roads. They 

are just not going to do it. 

So with that, I would retain the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Today a diverse panel of witnesses will explain to this Committee how important 

a modern surface transportation system is for a strong economy and why Congress 

must act quickly to address our nation’s infrastructure needs. 

The continued inaction by Congress to enact a long-term transportation bill is a 

disgrace. An efficient transportation system is key to our economic security. The 

U.S. economy relies on an interconnected transportation system—for example, we 

move goods out of major ports of entry onto congested urban roads and out to the 

rural highways that span our Nation. 

Federal funding is crucial to keeping our roads, bridges, and transit systems functioning so that we can move goods and people safely and efficiently. Unfortunately, 

investment in our country’s infrastructure has not kept pace with growing needs at 

the State and metropolitan level. nationwide there are 63,500 bridges that are 

structurally deficient and 50 percent of our nation’s roads are in less than good condition. 

The Federal Government provides over 50 percent of the capital expenditures for 

State highway projects nationwide, which means that states and local governments 

rely heavily on Federal funding to maintain and improve their transportation systems. 

A robust, multi-year surface transportation bill will sustain millions of jobs for 

American workers and help the construction industry, which was hit hard by the 

Great Recession. There are still approximately 1.4 million fewer construction workers today compared to 2006. 

It is critical for our nation to continue investing in our aging infrastructure. The 

Highway Trust Fund is an integral part of how the Federal Government provides 

predictable, multi-year funding to states so they can plan and construct long-term 

highway, bridge, and transit projects. Therefore, preserving the Highway Trust 

Fund needs to be our No. 1 priority. 

We must move quickly to pass a bipartisan transportation bill, because without 

action we are facing a transportation funding shutdown in just a few short months. 

4 

The law that currently authorizes our surface transportation programs is set to expire on May 31st—right as the critical summer construction season is beginning— 

and the Highway Trust Fund is projected to face cash-flow problems shortly thereafter. 

Secretary Foxx recently stated that U.S. DOT would likely begin warning states 

in June of ‘‘cash management’’ procedures which would take effect in July, when 

fund balances fall below a prudent balance. Make no mistake—this would result in 

the rationing of billions of dollars in payments to states. 

I’d like to enter into the record a recent statement from Pete Ruane, the President 

and CEO of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and read 

a portion of the statement: 

‘‘In just 100 days, authorization for the Federal highway and transit program will 

end, absent action by the Congress. Close observers know, however, that the Senate 

and House are only scheduled to be in session 55 and 36 days, respectively, before 

that legislative deadline occurs. Where is the sense of urgency? The uncertainty 

caused by congressional action is already—again—having real world, negative economic consequences as states begin cutting back work plans because they don’t 

know if the funding will be there to pay the bills several months from now.’’ 

Transportation should be a nonpartisan issue. Taking action to save the Highway 

Trust Fund and invest in our aging infrastructure is strongly supported by businesses, labor, and transportation organizations. 

Last May, the EPW Committee unanimously approved a 6-year reauthorization 

of MAP–21 that provided long-term funding certainty for highway and bridge programs. I am hopeful we will have similar success in our Committee this year, but 

the clock is ticking. Failure is not an option, there are no excuses for further delay 

or extensions, and I look forward to working with all of you to get the job done. 

Senator INHOFE. And I will do the same. 

I would only say this. What you are witnessing here is unusual 

in Washington, because you have a proud, outspoken liberal and a 

proud, outspoken conservative in total agreement on what we 

should be doing. We do have that old outdated document out there 

called the Constitution that kind of tells us what we are supposed 

to be doing here. This is what we are supposed to be doing here. 

With that, let’s start with Mr. Braceras. Mr. Braceras, we will 

start with you and we will kind of go across for your opening statements. Then we will open up for questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS BRACERAS, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. BRACERAS. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Boxer and members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the need to 

reauthorize MAP–21. My name is Carlos Braceras, and I serve as 

the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Transportation. 

Today it is my honor to testify on behalf of the State of Utah and 

AASHTO. 

Throughout the history of our Country, transportation has played 

an integral role in the success of our economy. While States have 

done an admirable job of addressing transportation within their 

boundaries, there is clearly a need for a cohesive national transportation system. Our Federal highway program is a federally funded 

Stated-administered program based on the 100-year old partnership between the Federal Government and State DOTs. Nearly half 

of all the capital funding for highway and bridge projects comes 

from the Federal Government. Eliminating the Federal participation in this partnership will leave too big a hole for the States to 

be able to make up on their own. 

State DOTs have a strong partnership with their local governments and their respective States. The transportation planning 

5 

process requires State DOTs to work extensively with local planning agencies and the public in developing multi-modal transportation plans and identifying projects that are supported by the 

Highway Trust Fund. This process works well, and is the foundation of the performance-based programs established under MAP– 

21. 

Rather than drastically altering the federally funded, State-administered nature of the Federal Highway Program, and facing 

consequences of such disruption, we should highlight examples 

were State DOTs have strong, productive partnerships with local 

governments, and where the transportation planning process is 

working well. 

In Utah, as with all of our sister States, the success of our communities, both large and small, is critical. As such, we have developed what we refer to as the unified plan, in which all our metropolitan planning organizations, cities, counties and transit authorities, have come together to develop a unified plan of projects that 

will address the goals of the State and individual communities for 

the next 30 years. In Utah, we speak with one voice toward an 

agreed-upon set of goals. 

As Congress considers policy changes in the next reauthorization 

bill, it should build on the successful reforms of MAP–21. We all 

share the goal of utilizing the resources invested in our transportation system as effectively and efficiently as possible. We can accomplish this by streamlining the project delivery process, such as 

clarifying that States participating in the NEPA delegation may 

make project-level conformity determinations, give the States the 

ability to approve designs and right-of-way acquisitions, allow 

State DOT modal administrators to use categorical exclusions determined by other modal administrators. 

Furthermore, Congress should consider authorizing a consolidated funding pilot program. This would build on the program consolidation efforts made in MAP–21 by treating all core funding programs as a single, consolidated apportionment. States would only 

be eligible to participate in the program once they have established 

performance management systems that ensure accountability and 

transparency. 

Utah is ready to step forward and pilot such a program. I am 

convinced that we will be able to demonstrate that we will be able 

to better meet both the transportation goals of this Country and 

those of Utah. 

I encourage Congress to seek additional opportunities to continue 

moving the Federal highway and safety programs toward performance and outcome-based programs that emphasize results as opposed to process. 

In conclusion, AASHTO remains committed to helping Congress 

pass a robust, long-term surface transportation authorizing bill as 

soon as possible. The current extension expires in the middle of the 

spring construction season. Already, several State DOTs are postponing needed projects that are scheduled to go out to bid. 

The sooner Congress acts, there is a greater likelihood that these 

projects will be built this year as opposed to being pushed back another year. This week, hundreds of State DOT leaders from nearly 

every State in the Country are just a couple of blocks away, attendVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:28 Aug 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94979.TXT VERN
6 

ing AASHTO’s 2015 Washington Briefing. Over the next couple of 

days, most of them will be up here on the Hill, meeting with their 

congressional delegations, advocating for a long-term surface transportation bill that addresses our surface transportation investment 

needs. 

I would like to thank you once again for the opportunity to testify today. I will be more than happy to answer any questions the 

committee has. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Braceras follows:] 

7 


94979.001
8 


94979.002
9 


94979.003
10 


94979.004
11 


94979.005
12 


94979.006
13 


94979.007
14 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Mr. Braceras. I should 

have mentioned, Mr. Braceras is the Executive Director of the 

Utah Department of Transportation. 

Next, the guy who gets the prize for coming the farthest, Steve 

Heminger, from the California Transportation Commission. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE HEMINGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 

Mr. HEMINGER. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Senator Boxer and 

members of the committee. Good morning. 

Just for the record, again, my name is Steve Heminger and I am 

Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 

which is the metropolitan planning organization, or MPO, for the 

San Francisco Bay Area. A few years ago, I also was privileged to 

serve on one of the two congressionally chartered commissions, the 

National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify today on 

the still-relevant title subject of that commission’s report: Transportation for Tomorrow. 

United States Senators have a lot on their plates. So let me 

make three brief points. First, I want to thank this committee for 

the considerable progress you have made in reforming the Nation’s 

surface transportation program. The emphases in MAP–21 on program consolidation, performance-based outcomes, freight policy and 

permit streamlining are all welcome developments. Your bipartisan 

leadership is helping States and MPOs make better investment decisions and deliver those projects faster to our constituents. 

Second, despite these advances, Federal policy, in my opinion, 

still lacks sufficient focus on the investment needs of the Nation’s 

economic engines: the metropolitan areas that more and more 

Americans call home. The fact is, the U.S. economy will rise or fall 

based on how well our metro economies compete in the global marketplace. 

For example, Bay Area residents contribute almost 60 percent 

more to our gross domestic product than the average American, 60 

percent more. In regions as diverse as Houston and Boston, this 

metro dividend is nearly 40 percent above the national average. 

Now, the Federal-State relationship is the cornerstone of American federalism, and the transportation arena is no exception to 

that. But that should not preclude a new performance partnership 

with dedicated funding between the U.S. DOT and the Nation’s 

MPOs. We need to keep those economic engines primed. 

Finally, if we want better conditions and performance from our 

roads, bridges and public transit systems, we are going to have to 

figure out a way to pay for it. So how deep is the hole we have dug? 

Let me start with that, and just give you one snapshot of the San 

Francisco Bay Area. Our long-range plan devotes nearly 90 percent 

of all the money we have available, 90 percent over the next 25 

years, just to operate and maintain the existing transportation network. 

The Federal program is 13 percent of our total funding. One way 

of looking at that is, you are getting eight to one leverage off of 

your investment in California, which is a very good return. It also 

15 

means that we are not here asking you for a handout. We are asking you for a little help, because we are doing most of it. 

But when you spend nearly 90 percent of your budget on maintenance, over the next 25 years, in the face of the growth we are seeing, we are leaving a lot of expansion projects on the table, because 

we simply can’t afford to pay for them. Even after spending 90 percent of all of our money on maintenance, we still have $10 billion 

plus shortfalls for State highway repair, for local road repair and 

for the public transit system State of good repair. 

That is the situation we are in. That is how deep the hole is. And 

that is why I say, and I think it is no surprise to this committee, 

that level funding just won’t cut it. 

Now, the members of this committee probably have forgotten 

more about politics than I will ever know. But I do know this. 

Since the Federal gas tax was last adjusted in 1993, 42 States, 42 

States, have raised their rates, some by a little, others by a lot; 

some by indexing, others by voting. These States range from the 

brightest red to the deepest blue. Somehow, all those Governors 

and State legislators figured out a way to pay for needed transportation improvements. 

Moreover, the math is pretty compelling. As an example, doubling the current Federal user fees on gasoline and diesel fuel 

would generate over $30 billion per year and create more than 

300,000 jobs, yet it would cost the average motorist less than 30 

cents per day. 

Now, a recent American president confronted a similar predicament to the one we are in today. I would like to read a quotation 

from him about how he fought his way through it. ‘‘Common sense 

tells us it will cost a lot less to keep the system we have in good 

repair than to let it crumble and then have it start all over again. 

Good tax policy decrees that wherever possible, a fee for a service 

should be assessed against those who directly benefit from that 

service. Our highways were built largely with such a user fee, the 

gasoline tax. I think it makes sense to follow that principle in restoring them to the condition we all want them to be in.’’ 

That was President Ronald Reagan in 1982. I think the words 

are still true today. 

So let me end where I began. Your reform agenda is working. 

But there is no free lunch when it comes to infrastructure. Indeed, 

the only question is whether we want to pay now to improve our 

roads and rail lines, or whether we want to pay later in crumbling 

facilities that will curtail our economic potential. 

I remain optimistic that this Congress will make the right choice. 

And in light of the quotation I have just read, perhaps I should 

conclude by saying, let’s just win one more for the Gipper. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heminger follows:] 

16 


94979.008
17 


94979.009
18 


94979.008
19 


94979.009
20 

Senator INHOFE. That has a great impact on me, anyway. Thank 

you very much. 

Mr. Riordan is the President and CEO of Neenah Enterprises. 

We recognize you to tell us about Neenah Enterprises, we will give 

you a few seconds to go over. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. RIORDAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NEENAH ENTERPRISES, INC. 

Mr. RIORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Inhofe, 

Ranking Member Boxer, and members of the Senate Committee, on 

behalf of my company, Neenah Enterprises, and the National Association of Manufacturers, that I also represent, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify about the importance of Federal investments 

in our transportation infrastructure. 

With its headquarters and largest foundry in Neenah, Wisconsin, 

Neenah Enterprises consists of two business operating entities. 

Our best-known business is Neenah Foundry, which is one of the 

top suppliers of municipal castings including manhole frames, lids, 

covers, grates, trench castings and decorative tree grates. Since 

1872, Neenah Foundry has been a consistent leader in producing 

durable castings that are used in every State across our Country, 

and we proudly make all of our products here in the U.S. 

Our other business, Neenah’s industrial division, represents 

about 70 percent of our revenue and is a key component provider 

to many of the world’s leading manufacturing companies, designing 

and building cast iron and forged parts for the heavy truck, agriculture, construction, HVAC, energy and other industries. We are 

one of the largest independent manufacturers of castings in the 

U.S. and part of the largest recycling industry in the Nation, turning scrap steel into useful products in an environmentally friend 

manner. 

As Chair of the NAM’s Small and Medium Manufacturers Group, 

I often hear about the business challenges that my peers face, from 

escalating costs of healthcare to the increasing burdens of regulation. The health and condition of our Nation’s infrastructure on the 

transportation network is also of significant concern to manufacturers. Our transportation infrastructure underpins the movement of 

goods within our economy. It is vital for our day-to-day business 

and our long-term economic prosperity. 

Neenah is hugely dependent upon the transportation infrastructure, ports, rail and highways. As an example, our largest facility 

has over 15,000 truck visits each year. The logistics planning that 

goes into each of these visits is very involved, and delays based on 

traffic congestion often drive significant expense overruns on a 

daily basis. The cost of scheduling, rescheduling, paying overtime, 

customer and vendor disruptions, production delays and lost business all add cost and challenge our competitiveness by raising our 

total cost of doing business by about 1 percent each year. 

These excess costs are diverted away from other business activities such as product development, new capital projects and investments in our work force. Congestion is really a hidden tax and an 

increasing drag on American competitiveness. As congestion continues to challenge the Nation’s highway network, especially in 

metropolitan regions, capital spending on highways, roads and 

21 

bridges fell 3.5 percent between 2003 and 2012, according to a recent NAM study. The study, entitled Catching Up, also revealed 

that spending on public infrastructure dropped 10.5 percent between 2003 and 2012 in the same time period. 

A more sustained and focused effort is going to be needed in the 

long term to help reverse these troubling trends. We can and 

should do better than allow our Nation’s infrastructure base to continue to erode. 

In the short term, manufacturers are counting on Congress to 

help facilitate commerce by moving a well-funded, multi-year surface transportation authorization that secures the financial health 

of the Highway Trust Fund. Manufacturers support this committee’s efforts to ensure our transportation system is on more solid 

and robust footing. 

I very much appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Riordan follows:] 

22 


94979.010
23 


94979.011
24 


94979.012
25 


94979.013
26 


94979.014
27 


94979.015
28 


94979.016
29 


94979.017
30 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gardner is the Vice President of Supply Chain and Customer 

Experience for Ingredion Incorporated. Why don’t you tell us about 

it? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GARDNER, VICE PRESIDENT, SUPPLY 

CHAIN AND CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE, INGREDION INCORPORATED 

Mr. GARDNER. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Dave Gardner and I am Vice President of Supply 

Chain and Customer Experience for Ingredion Incorporated. In my 

role I am responsible for operations, including raw material 

sourcing, logistics, and customer service. I am testifying here today 

on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

First, let me first tell you a little bit about Ingredion. We produce 

hundreds of value-added ingredients from plant sources, including 

corn, tapioca and rice. We manufacture our products for the food 

industry, beverage, pharmaceutical, corrugating, paper, and animal 

feed industries. Our ingredients add crunch to crackers and fiber 

to cereal bars. They can make a soft drink sweet with calories or 

sugar free, plastics biodegradable, body lotions silkier, and tissues 

stronger and softer. 

In fact, our products appear in roughly 80 percent of all the products that you would find on a grocery store shelf, either in the 

product, in the package or in the packing itself. We are a multinational, FORTUNE 500 company headquartered in the Chicago 

suburb of Westchester, IL. We have a global R&D facility in 

Bridgewater, New Jersey. We employ roughly 11,000 people globally and have 2,000 employees in the United States. 

Our supply chain is a worldwide network of 35 manufacturing 

plants and 24 R&D centers around the globe. In North America we 

operate 13 manufacturing plants, with seven of those in the United 

States. Our largest plant is in the Chicago area. 

Our primary raw material is corn, which we ship to our plants 

from the Farm Belt via rail and truck. Our finished products are 

distributed to customers across the Country by a network of rail, 

truck, warehouses, and break stations. Needless to say, a smoothfunctioning surface transportation system is not only essential to 

Ingredion’s business, it impacts the bottom line of our business and 

of our customers. 

Logistics costs represent a significant portion of our inbound corn 

costs and delivered finished product costs. In 2014 alone, our transportation costs, excluding the cost of fuel increased by 3.6 percent, 

far outstripping the rate of inflation. 

An outdated transportation system leads to increased freight 

costs, variability in delivery times, higher inventories, poor customer service, and an overall uncompetitive situation for us and for 

all other industries. Let me just touch on few examples to illustrate 

how a neglected infrastructure impacts us. 

Last year, it took longer to transport corn from the farmers and 

storage elevators to our facilities. This resulted in millions of dolVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:28 Aug 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94979.TXT VERN
31 

lars in increased freight costs, higher manufacturing costs due to 

plant downtime, and curtailed production. 

The transportation industry is struggling. In 2014, the average 

train speed decreased by over 6 percent and delay times increased 

by 10 percent. As a result, we had to increase product inventories 

and address a shortage of rail cars to transport our products, leaving us to struggle to meet customer demand. 

As the network moves slower, we are forced to increase our rail 

fleet and to make suboptimal sourcing decisions. Chicago is a primary transportation hub and the location of our largest plant. The 

increased rail volume through Chicago is causing unprecedented 

delays. For example, it can take up to 3 days to just get a rail car 

of product out of the Chicago area. A customer is a mere 7-hour 

drive away, it can take up to 5 days to deliver them product by rail. 

Because we cannot consistently rely on rail to deliver products to 

our customers on time, we are often required to revert to trucks, 

at a more costly position than rail. However, the trucking industry 

is also severely challenged. Available truck capacity compared to 

truck demand is at an historic imbalance. This has been amplified 

by tightening regulation on driver hours and deteriorating highway 

infrastructure. 

Our ability to respond to our customer needs is directly impacted 

by the availability of trucking capacity. As truck capacity tightens, 

our on-time delivery rate suffers. Ingredion’s incidence of late deliveries over the last 2 years has almost doubled since 2012. 

But our story is really just a small pixel of the bigger picture. 

Increased transportation costs are impacting the broader American 

business community. According to the Council of Supply Chain 

Management Professionals, U.S. business logistics costs was $1.4 

trillion in 2013, and this equates to 8 percent of the GDP 

Today marks the first time that Ingredion has testified before 

Members of Congress, but we can no longer afford to remain silent. 

We came here today to add our voice to the growing concern by 

businesses calling for improvements to the Nation’s infrastructure 

systems. 

I would like to thank the committee for their continued work and 

attention on the reauthorization of our surface transportation programs. MAP–21 ended years of short-term extensions that created 

a great deal of uncertainty for businesses such as ours. We are 

eager to see a long-term solution come out of Congress this year, 

and we know that you agree. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today, and 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:] 

32 


94979.018
33 


94979.019
34 


94979.020
35 


94979.021
36 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, we do agree. 

Mr. Rowen is the President of Susquehanna Glass Company. You 

are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF WALT ROWEN, PRESIDENT, SUSQUEHANNA 

GLASS COMPANY 

Mr. ROWEN. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Boxer and other members of the Committee. My name is Walt 

Rowen. I am the owner of Susquehanna Glass Company. We are 

a small, 100-year old glass decorating company based in Columbia, 

Pennsylvania. 

Our products don’t make body lotions creamier, but I can guarantee you, California wine tastes wonderful in our wine glasses. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROWEN. Thank you for allowing me to testify before you 

today and share my comments about the importance to us of reauthorizing the funding for the Highway Trust Fund. 

My company provides decorated glasses and barware to major retailers, internet flash sites, small retailers and other tabletop companies around the Country. We rely on the freight and trucking industry to ship our finished products all over the Country to retailers and directly to their customers. Last year, my business shipped 

over 57,000 small packages via UPS and FedEx and we generated 

more than a million dollars in freight charges. So clearly, our success as a company relies very heavily on our ability to deliver products efficiently and cost-effectively to our customers. 

One of our business models has been to gradually shift from 

shipping large shipments to retailers and their DCs, or their distribution centers, shifting to more of a direct-to-customer package 

delivery system, relying more on UPS and FedEx. So today, we 

really balance both of those areas, both trucking shipments and 

small UPS packaging. 

Investment in our Nation’s infrastructure is an investment in 

America, pure and simple. Not only would this benefit businesses 

like mine that rely on the shipping industry and well-maintained 

roads, it would create new opportunities for small businesses. 

About 147,000 of our Country’s 650,000 bridges are failing. This is 

especially apparent in Pennsylvania, where I live. We have the 

third-largest number of bridges in the U.S., over 25,000, but we 

lead the Nation in the number of bridges classified as structurally 

deficient. And a mere 30 percent of Pennsylvania’s roads have been 

labeled in good condition, only 30 percent in good condition. 

What is more, one-third of America’s major roads are in poor or 

mediocre condition. There are 4,000 dams in need of repair and 36 

percent of our urban highways are congested. Rebuilding America’s 

roads, bridges and schools offers tremendous opportunities to small 

businesses. Not only do they participate in the building projects 

and their supply chain, they run the hotels, coffee shops, restaurants and other businesses that serve people working on those 

projects. The economic impact to the American economy is 

unfathomable when you devote these funds to these kinds of construction projects. 

In fact, Small Business Majority’s polling found 69 percent of 

small business owners favor investing $50 billion in infrastructure 

37 

projects that would create jobs. If the cost of freight continues to 

rise while our roads deteriorate, it will become harder and harder 

to move my products and make a profit. This would seriously be 

detrimental to my bottom line. UPS and FedEx have just started 

to price small packages differently. Instead of just paying for 

weight, we are paying for the size of the package. That is going to 

increase my cost of shipping dramatically. 

Investing in our Nation’s roads, bridges and other physical infrastructure supports access to customers and vendors, while at the 

same time creating demand for the goods and services small businesses have to sell. We need infrastructure investments that will 

be beneficial for business and the economy. I hope you will strongly 

consider small business support for reauthorizing funding for the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

Thank you sincerely for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowen follows:] 

38 


94979.022
39 


94979.023
40 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Rowen, and thank all of you for 

your opening statements. 

What we are going to do is have 5-minute rounds, and have two 

rounds. This is to accommodate members who are going to have to 

come late and maybe leave early. So there will be plenty of time. 

I will go ahead and begin with the most unpopular of the subjects and that is, I have been very frustrated over how we pay for 

a multi-year reauthorization. Some of my colleagues have talked 

about supporting a concept of shifting the Federal program back to 

the States by cutting the Federal user fees, some of them 15 cents, 

some of them, whatever the amounts. And then letting the States 

pick up the tab. 

Now, if such a thing were to become a reality, Idaho would have 

to raise its State gas tax by 25 cents, West Virginia by 32 cents. 

Your State, Mr. Braceras, of Utah, would be 19 cents that you 

would have to increase this. And in Montana, 44 cents. So there 

was a reason for this. I often say one of the few things that really 

does work in government is this system. And this is coming from 

a conservative. 

So I have often said, and I remember on the Senate floor when 

we had our 27-month bill that the conservative position is to go 

ahead and do an authorization bill. No. 1, you get all the reforms, 

streamlining and all that stuff, and No. 2, if you don’t do that, it 

is going to cost about 30 percent off the top. And that is not the 

conservative position. 

Now, when you talk about devolution, as several are suggesting, 

I am probably the right one to talk about this. Because, and my 

colleagues don’t know this, but 25 years ago, Connie Mack from 

Florida and Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma were the fathers of devolution. We thought then that oh, that was so much fun on the stump 

to talk about how, go back to Oklahoma, why make an unnecessary 

trip of our dollars in Oklahoma to Washington and back, until we 

realized how it didn’t work. Obviously, it was more fun to be for 

it than against it. But nonetheless, that is happening. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. But anyway, interState commerce doesn’t stop 

at State boundaries. No State is an island. I have read extensively 

on Eisenhower, I have always been a great admirer of his. My 

other committee is Armed Services Committee. He used to say, it 

is just as much about national defense as it is interState commerce. 

InterState connectivity and national defense access are equally important. 

So I would just say, that my position, and what I am going to 

do is have only one question. One question. We will start with you, 

Mr. Braceras, and we are going to work down. Now, in 5 minutes, 

we will cut me off and go to the rest of them, then we will continue. 

So that will give you more time to think about this. All right, Mr. 

Braceras, do you agree with me? What do you think? 

Mr. BRACERAS. Mr. Chairman, I would say the answer of whether or not to devolve the Federal program is if you believe there is 

no Federal purpose in transportation. I believe that there is a 

strong purpose in our Nation’s transportation in having a strong 

Federal role. Companies such as, based in Oklahoma, Advance 

Pierre Food Services, they produce their products but they depend 

41 

on a vibrant, well-functioning, safe transportation system in every 

State of this Country. For our Country to continue to be successful 

and be an economic leader, we need a strong Federal transportation system. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. One followup question on that. 

What if a State, if you went through this concept and a State decided that they were not going to increase their taxes? Your State 

of Utah, for example, what would happen to the national system? 

Mr. BRACERAS. We depend on the Federal program to maintain 

and operate our transportation system. We have a strong State system. Our Federal program constitutes just under 25 percent of our 

program. But the Federal program is what we maintain and preserve the State’s transportation system on. So you would see roads 

continue to deteriorate, bridges to continue to deteriorate. So that 

Federal role is critical to the State of Utah. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Braceras. Mr. Heminger. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do agree with you. 

And there is another quotation I am recalling from President Eisenhower when he submitted his interState highway bill to the 

Congress. He noted that activities like transportation and communication are things that knit our Country together. I think he said 

without that, we would be a mere alliance of many separate parts. 

I think we are called the United States of America for a reason. 

If you think the Federal Government is done with transportation, 

I suppose you could devolve the program. I come from a State that 

has probably the best chance of standing on its own two feet. We 

are a nation State by any stretch of measure. But there are jobs 

that even we can’t do. And Senator Boxer mentioned the import of 

goods and the flow of commerce coming into our ports. That is not 

just a California issue, that is a national issue. 

I would finally mention one thing that doesn’t often get talked 

about in devolution. If you were to head down that path, the last 

time I checked, I think it is something like 30 or more States have 

restrictions in their State constitutions that would prohibit them 

from using gas tax money on public transit. And that is a pretty 

big pill to swallow in States around the Country where we rely on 

Federal aid to public transit. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. I am going to cut my 

time off now and we will come back for the three of you on the 

same issue. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You are a 

leader on national defense. And you are a leader on the Highway 

Trust Fund. The last person that brought that together was Ike, 

Eisenhower. He was President in the 1950’s when you and I were 

just really little kids. 

Senator INHOFE. You were littler than I was. 

Senator BOXER. Not by that much, unfortunately. But here’s the 

deal. It was Ike who started the interState highway system. And 

he did it because of national defense. Because he said, as you said, 

this is one Nation under God. He may have said under God. And 

the bottom line is, we have to move these goods. This is essential 

for our national defense, for our national security. And of course, 

for our economic security. 

42 

So we are on the high ground here. I couldn’t agree with you 

more that this is one place where Republicans and Democrats 

should come together. And we have proven we can do it in this particular committee. 

Now, this panel is just terrific. And I guess I have a political 

question to ask Mr. Braceras. Have you spoken this passionately 

to your Senator Hatch? Does he know your feelings about the impact of this? 

Mr. BRACERAS. I believe you might mean Senator Lee. Yes, Senator Hatch believes in a strong Federal role. 

Senator BOXER. No, I mean Senator Hatch. I am talking about 

Senator Hatch for a reason. Senator Hatch is the one with Senator 

Wyden is going to figure out how to fund the trust fund. And so 

far, we have seen nothing come out of that committee, either when 

Senator Wyden was in charge, frankly, or when Senator Hatch was 

in charge. Lots of ideas. 

And if I could just say, for myself, I am open to all of them. And 

the reason is, I am open to all of them, because I think this is so 

critical to our economy. If you just look at construction workers, 

and I want to say to my private sector people here, thank you for 

being here. We, at the height of the Great Recession, we had more 

than 2 million workers, is that right, Bettina? Two million construction workers out of work. Today, we have 600,000 construction 

workers out of work. It is such a long, difficult task to get everything back to where it was before the Great Recession. 

If we fail to act, and Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden together 

don’t figure out a funding mechanism, I mean, I have been talking 

to other colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, 

and we are thinking about teaming up and offering some things 

like repatriation and other things, on the floor itself, just to get 

moving. Because we are headed into very, very dark waters here. 

So I would just like to ask each of you the consequences, and put 

it as tightly as you can in my remaining time, the consequences of 

our not acting, and maybe at the last minute, throwing together a 

6-month or a 5-month extension. What are the consequences on the 

ground? I think we are going to start with you, Mr. Braceras. 

Mr. BRACERAS. Thank you, Senator. The consequences would be 

significant. If you believe that the projects that we work on are important to safety, for preservation, to save this Nation’s money, we 

could lose a construction season if we wait too long. For us, when 

we get the go-ahead from Congress, we are ready to go on those 

projects that still need to be appropriated. It takes a month to advertise, it takes a month for WRDA contracting. In cold weather 

States, we could potentially lose an entire construction season. 

Senator BOXER. And that means lost jobs and businesses really 

hurting. 

Mr. BRACERAS. And projects costing more money next year than 

they do today. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Mr. Heminger, do you agree with that? 

Mr. HEMINGER. Yes, I do, and I want to emphasize that last 

point. In life, time is money. But especially in construction. And 

when you are ready, you are ready. Then you have to let it go and 

some other job gets in the way. And then you’re three or four down 

the pecking order. 

43 

California has better weather, we have more local money. So in 

a sense we are a little bit better able to deal with this uncertainty. 

But it is frustrating for all of us, as I know it is frustrating for you, 

not to have the predictable funding that you need for long-term infrastructure investment. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Riordan. 

Mr. RIORDAN. Senator, we absolutely agree. On behalf of National Association of Manufacturers and my company as well, I 

have been personally involved in a construction equipment company in the past. I have seen first-hand the delays, cost overruns, 

confusion that go with the start and stop nature of this process. I 

would urge the committee to consider the fiduciary responsibility 

from the standpoint of making sure we spend money in an intelligent, well thought-out basis. 

As manufacturers would say, planning is best done in advance. 

It is extremely difficult and extremely disruptive to have a start 

and stop nature, not only for private manufacturers who depend on 

this lifeline all the time, but frankly, for everybody else involved 

in the process. 

Senator BOXER. Would you write us a letter? I think NAM is very 

influential. 

Mr. RIORDAN. We would certainly be happy to do that. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Mr. Gardner? And I won’t ask Mr. Rowen 

that question, because he sits here as a consumer of the roads. I 

understand. But I am talking about what happens on the ground 

if we have another one of these extensions. 

Mr. GARDNER. My comments really support Mr. Riordan, where 

I think a long-term commitment allows us to do better planning, 

better execution of capital investments. But more specifically for 

our business, we are on a 3-year to 5-year planning horizon. We 

are making decisions today on where we locate our plants and how 

we move our products based on what we see today. With the uncertainty in what the investment strategy is going to be, we may be 

making decisions that really aren’t in our long-term best interests 

or the best interests of our customers. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of 

you for being here. Your testimony is really very helpful as we go 

forward. 

The good news is that there is tremendous congressional support 

in getting this done, on both sides of the aisle. 

In Arkansas, and I will just kind of throw this open for whoever 

wants to jump in. In Arkansas we have seen some accelerated 

project delivery as a result of the common sense reforms in MAP– 

21. The reforms improved the Department of Transportation process. 

However, I have also heard in Arkansas and other areas from 

folks who believe that the reforms have done little to expedite work 

required by other agencies, such as the EPA, Fish and Wildlife and 

the Corps of Engineers. Can you comment about this? I think this 

is so important. I agree, we have to figure out a funding process 

and make this thing work. This is one of the things, though, that 

44 

if you look back, we haven’t increased the gas tax in decades. Yet 

we have increased the regulation tremendously. 

If you look and see the project that was done in Oklahoma, when 

you had your bridge collapse, the project in Minnesota where the 

bridge collapsed and was literally rebuilt in a year, not shot-cutting 

the things that we needed to have in place, but the agencies working together in a timely fashion without the gotcha attitude. 

Can you comment about that? And also, now or at some other 

point, what we would like, I think, on the committee, very, very 

much, you all are on the ground. It needs to come from the ground 

up. Give us some ideas, some real life situations that we can help 

cut through. Mr. Braceras, we can start with you. 

Mr. BRACERAS. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. First of all, I would 

like to really applaud Congress for the reforms in MAP–21. It allowed for good decisionmaking to be made in a very responsible 

way, a transparent way. Really it is about delivering your product 

to the market as quickly as possible. Those products that we deliver, those transportation projects, they save lives and they save 

the taxpayers’ money by delivering them quicker. 

I would say that the reforms have helped the Federal Highway 

Administration and USDOT accelerate those projects. But their sister agencies in the resource areas, they are in a very difficult position. They have a mission to uphold the regulations that Congress 

has passed. I would say that they don’t necessarily always share 

the same understanding in the need to move those projects forward 

as quickly as possible. 

So any attempts or efforts that Congress could make to help clarify your intent with some of those resource agencies would help 

them make their decisions quicker. It certainly doesn’t steamroll 

the process, but we can certainly streamline the process. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. Mr. Heminger. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Senator, I would first of all urge your committee 

to study the example you cited, which is the Minneapolis bridge 

collapse. My recollection, it was put back into service in 13 months. 

Probably if they had done that regular order, it would have taken 

13 years. A lot of it has to do with concurrency. I know Secretary 

Foxx was before you not to long ago, and he was using that phrase 

over and over again. The more we can do things in parallel and not 

sequence, where we are waiting for one whole activity to stop before we start the next one. 

Second, our State of California has accepted delegation of the National Environmental Policy Act. We have a strong statute called 

CEQA, so I think we are in a good position to do that. But I think 

other States could consider that as well. 

Third, I do think you are right to identify the permitting process. 

In my experience, it is not so much the environmental review process, it is trying to get all of this alphabet soup of both State and 

Federal permitting agencies on the same page. In California, we 

have started to pay for staff at some of these agencies. When you 

all fund a bill for highways, you think you have the highways funded. But if we don’t fund EPA and Fish and Wildlife, those guys can 

stop a highway project just as much as your not funding it can stop 

a highway project. 

45 

So I think focusing on those permitting agencies and trying to 

get them staffed up, putting clocks on reviews and things like that, 

that in my opinion is where you can really gain some time. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Did you want the other three to respond? That 

is an excellent line of questioning. I could just deduct that from 

your second 5 minutes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. If you don’t mind. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Mr. RIORDAN. Senator, we agree as well, the National Manufacturers Association. Part of the challenge, I think, any project has 

is certainty around timing and cost. The more there is regulatory 

uncertainty that will not only disparage and kind of slow down development, but frankly, will also increase the cost and time that is 

required. 

One of the key concerns that my company has is recognizing we 

need to be responsive and respectful of the environment. On the 

other hand, as Mr. Heminger has just said, I think the time clock 

and the requirements for quick, prompt, certain review is just absolutely critical in the life blood of our Country in terms of commerce 

here. Frankly, one of our concerns is that if this does not happen, 

and it frankly turns into one of the most public, challenging works 

project there is in terms of the Keystone Pipeline and all the delays 

and all the drama that has gone with this, our Country will come 

to a halt in terms of any development from the standpoint of infrastructure and highways. 

Mr. GARDNER. Senator Boozman, we have a company that is really built on continuous improvement. It has been core to our manufacturing operations, and over the last year we have really brought 

that into all of our business processes. What we have demonstrated 

to ourselves is that really, by leaning or simplifying our processes, 

we can really deliver the desired result without compromising the 

intent of the objectives of the program. 

So we are really supportive of anything that we can do to simplify the processes, allow the use of funds to be done more cost effectively. Certainly the permitting area would be the area that we 

need to focus on the most, because our company deals with permitting. From an environmental perspective, on a regular basis, we 

see some of the challenge and we can certainly recognize how that 

would impact all of the infrastructure investment as well. 

Mr. ROWEN. Senator Boozman, I am not going to answer your 

question from a detailed standpoint, because I am not in the industry, construction or transportation industry. But I am an owner of 

a company and I make business decisions every day about investments. 

I will give you two examples. They seem a little crazy, but they 

are, I think, to the heart of the matter. I had to just make a decision about buying a new tow motor and a new furnace for my glass 

decorating business. I spent probably about $50,000 in those two 

investments. I realized that over the last 2 years, I was spending 

a lot more repairing my tow motor than it would cost me to build 

a new one. The same was true of the dryer. I had some defective 

product because the dryer wasn’t working. It cost my business 

money. And when I sat down and looked at the numbers, I realized 

46 

that I was making a much smarter investment spending $50,000 

today so that I could save a lot of money down the road. 

I think that is what government needs to do more of. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boozman. Senator 

Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman, and 

thank you for your energetic leadership on this public works bill. 

Following up very directly on Mr. Rowen’s point, we have information out of my home State of Rhode Island that Rhode Island 

motorists pay nearly $500 million every year in car repairs for 

whacking into potholes and dealing with the crummy road infrastructure that we have to live with. So if you want to talk about 

saving money to real people and putting real money in their pockets, it is $662 per year per motorist in Rhode Island, if you divide 

out 496 by the number of motorists. 

That is twice as much, more than twice as much, as the Highway 

Trust Fund spends in Rhode Island every year. So we have the situation in which, perhaps in theory, to protect taxpayers, we are letting our roads crumble and become really lousy. And the actual effect on the pocketbook of the average homemaker is that they lose 

money. They pay $662 fixing the car instead of a little bit more in 

the gas tanks and heading smoothly down a safe and proper road. 

So if any of you have observations that are similar to that from 

your trucking companies you work with or anybody else, I think it 

is important to help us build that story of how it doesn’t save 

money to save money on infrastructure. All it does is move costs 

to the private sector and people have to write the check out of their 

own checkbook for the realignment of their front axle, because they 

whacked into a pothole that nobody took care of in time. 

So I would urge you, if you don’t mind, if you have stories that 

could help us with that case, to submit them for the record. 

The second thing we have begun to see, particularly from our 

dear friends on the House side of the building, is a penchant for 

taking a piece of legislation that ought to pass, is ready to pass, 

has broad bipartisan support, and then adding to it something controversial that they couldn’t pass through regular order but now, 

by virtue of attaching it to the piece of regular and by and large 

non-controversial legislation, they get to take a whack at it. Sort 

of the drug mule theory of legislation. You try to get your contraband through by putting it on something else that is traveling legitimately rather than trying to get it through regular order, which 

in most cases you probably couldn’t get it through regular order, 

which is why they are using this strategy. 

So the reason I bring that up is that this is an important bill. 

It has a deadline in May. There is always the prospect that somebody is going to think, oh, this would be a really clever thing to 

attach something really controversial to really stick it to somebody. 

What would your advice me if we are faced with the prospect of 

having unrelated measures attached to the Highway Bill? Go 

ahead, Director Braceras. 

Mr. BRACERAS. Thank you, Senator. We would obviously encourage a clean Highway Bill to come through, recognizing the imporVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:28 Aug 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94979.TXT VERN
47 

tance of the work that needs to be done by all transportation agencies in this Country. 

You mentioned earlier about those costs of repairing vehicles. 

Think about the loss of work time when they are taking care of and 

making those repairs. We have a saying in Utah: good roads cost 

less. If you invest and do the right treatment at the right time on 

a pavement, on a bridge, you can save over 20 times the cost of if 

you wait and let it deteriorate even further. So it is critical for the 

economic foundation of this Country that not only the transportation system function well from a congestion and a safety perspective, but that we preserve it in a proper condition. So we would encourage that the reauthorization of this bill be a long-term, clean 

Highway Bill. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. I assume that is a unanimous 

sentiment from the panel? 

Mr. HEMINGER. I would also say, Senator, that we actually confronted that situation with MAP–21. I think the fact that Senator 

Boxer, who was then chairman, and Senator Inhofe were working 

so closely together, and you got that large bipartisan vote on the 

floor, I think that is the best defense you have against those kinds 

of riders trying to attach themselves to the bill. Because when folk 

see that kind of support, they know they are climbing up a pretty 

tall hill. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I couldn’t agree with you more. I think 

there is an issue or two where Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer 

might disagree. But when they get together, as they do on these 

public works and highways bills, they are a formidable pair. They 

have done a very good job at defending against that kind of behavior. 

But I think it always helps to make a record that supports the 

fact that industry folks and folks who depend on this infrastructure 

would also like to see these bills go forward clean and through regular order. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I would only 

comment that I don’t think you are going to see that. I was with 

Congressman Shuster last night, and we talked about that very 

thing. He is going to make a real effort to make sure that doesn’t 

happen. 

Thank you, and Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

leadership. Thank you for your history. 

I am still kind of stuck on the thought that no State is an island. 

It seems like maybe we will get back to that one in a while, sir. 

In the meantime, thank you for being here. I come from South 

Dakota, which is as far away from the ocean as you are going to 

get. But as a very large State with a very low population, we still 

sit right in the middle of the Country and we have two interstates 

that run through the State, one north and south, I–29, and one 

east and west, I–90. Four hundred miles east and west and 200 

miles north and south. We rely on the Federal Highway program 

to maintain our economic competitiveness and ensure the safe and 

reliable transportation system on which not only my constituents, 

48 

but constituents across the United States rely on to get back and 

forth across the Country. 

Businesses rely on it. We are an ag State. We have to be able 

to get our products to market, just like your folks do in your States. 

We want that. 

Now, if we were to take advantage of, or take a serious look at 

devolution, our State would have to increase its share of the gas 

tax from 22 cents to 58 cents per gallon simply to stay on par. I 

would like to hear from you what your thoughts are about the economic perspective of this issue, the viability of this type of a plan 

and why or if we should be discussing this at the Federal level as 

a viable opportunity. 

I would like to just go through very quickly, and I know the 

chairman was looking at doing that, but if I could, just a real quick 

one, because I do have one more question and it is one that I would 

like to get into as well. Can we start right here with you, sir? 

Mr. ROWEN. Thank you. I never like to consistently be at the end 

of the line. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROWEN. Pennsylvania is called the Keystone State for a lot 

of reasons. But when you look at the transportation system and the 

geography and movement of goods back and forth between where 

goods are produced and where they need to go, one of the largest 

areas of the Country population-wise and economically is the northeast. Any product that has to come into the northeast or be shipped 

out of the northeast to the rest of the Country goes through Pennsylvania. 

If you look at the geography of Pennsylvania in terms of the 

health of the road systems, Pennsylvania roads are some of the 

worst in the Country for one very specific reason. Well, two reasons, there is a lot of traffic. The second is that its north-south location is the worst possible for roads, because it is not cold enough 

and not warm enough. Roads deteriorate because it gets cold and 

warm and cold and warm. That freezing and thawing breaks roads 

up. 

So Pennsylvania has to take a huge amount of traffic to service 

the Country and yet we have an enormous repair bill every year 

because of our geography. If there is not a better reason to spread 

funding out as a national infrastructure, I can’t think of one. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Mr. GARDNER. Senator Rounds, we operate our business on a 

North American basis. So we are very reliant on the complete network across the Country and through Canada and Mexico. We really are supportive of a Federal program, because we need that integrated solution. There is probably not one State where we are not 

moving either product or raw material from and to our facilities, 

or to. So as a result, we really do need an integrated solution. We 

recognize that each State should pay their fair share as well. But 

having the integrated solution is really the only option for us. 

Mr. RIORDAN. Senator, having been involved in global manufacturing for about 35 years of my career, what I find interesting is 

the State of our broad union is so interconnected with the rest of 

the world these days, compared to 15, 20, 25 years ago. But the 

most preeminent example of that is, as you suggested earlier, no 

49 

State is an island by itself. Here in the U.S., what is very difficult 

to get your hands around is how truly interconnected, in many 

cases whether it is pass-through freight from Pennsylvania through 

the heartland, out to the east coast, west coast, wherever it happens to be, it is very difficult for people not directly involved in this 

process to truly understand what the impact is of not having a federally functioning process for allocating resources in order to support the infrastructure. It is just crucial. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time is about 

up. I will yield back and we can proceed. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator Vitter is here, who is the chair of the Subcommittee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, we should have gotten to him 

earlier. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. No, I am fine to be here and listen to more of 

the discussion. Thanks, Mr. Chair, for holding this important hearing. Thanks to all of you for all of your testimony. Certainly, count 

me in, count me in as the Chair of the Infrastructure Subcommittee. Also count me in coming from Louisiana. We face absolutely these same challenges and needs. 

Actually, Louisiana is one of five States where the proportion of 

bridges that are structurally deficient is in double digits. Our figure is 14 percent. Another 15 percent are functionally obsolete. We 

rank 19th in the Nation for urban interState congestion, about 32 

percent of the miles on our urban interstates are congested. 

In Louisiana, this is a critical economic development issue. I really think we have moved into a second stage of economic development. The first stage, I think, was dominated by a focus on incentives, getting industry to our State, which has been real successful. 

But I think we are in a second stage where the critical factors 

are not those incentives, it is capacity, infrastructure and work 

force capacity. Those are the two limiting factors that business 

leaders talk to me about all the time. We need capacity in terms 

of infrastructure, roads, bridges, also ports, waterways. And they 

need the capacity in terms of skilled work force, work force training. So I am very, very interested in this. 

I am going to repeat a comment I made at the last hearing we 

had in this committee on the subject. I want to encourage us to all 

sort of cut to the chase on the financing side. We tend to spend 

months around here talking about pie in the sky, financing ideas 

and having this broad debate that is pretty irrelevant in the real 

world. I would like to encourage us, May isn’t that far away, right? 

So I think it is time to cut to the chase. 

In my opinion, and I am open to other ideas, in my opinion, that 

real world cut to the chase reality includes three big options. 

Maybe there are others, and I would love to hear them. But it includes three big options. First of all, the traditional gasoline tax, 

increasing that. In my opinion, that need to include a tax offset for 

middle class families, so that at least everyone except the very 

wealthy don’t pay more Federal taxes, either on the income tax 

side or the withholding side. I think as a practical matter, there 

needs to be that sort of hold harmless if we increase the gas tax. 

I think that is a political reality, particularly on the House side. 

50 

No. 2, a concept Senator Boxer mentioned a few minutes ago, 

which I am certainly open to if we do it right, which is repatriation 

of foreign income and elements of business tax reform. And No. 3, 

increased domestic energy production with that royalty and that 

revenue dedicated to infrastructure. I think that is the short list 

of real world, practical, doable solutions. But again, I am open to 

other ideas. 

So my question is, do you have a reaction to those three categories of ideas, and would you add anything to that shot list of 

doable, realistic financing ideas? 

Mr. HEMINGER. Senator, I will go first. I mentioned in my testimony I served on one of the national commissions that was created 

a couple of bills ago. We spent the better part of 2 years looking 

for an alternative to the gas tax, and we couldn’t’ find one. 

Now, the general fund, obviously, is large enough to support an 

infrastructure program. But I think we have seen recently with all 

of these extensions the peril of relying on the general fund. The 

general fund has a lot of other things to do. In our State of California, we have had very bad experience being in the general fund 

and competing with other general fund priorities. So having a dedicated user fee I think is far superior. I really don’t think there is 

any other revenue source large enough and consistent enough to 

support the program. 

Senator VITTER. Any other thoughts? 

Mr. BRACERAS. Yes, Senator, I think there are some key principles that Congress should consider when they take up this challenge. And that is the one of sustainability, one that will allow it 

to grow, one that is user-based and one that is transparent to the 

users. The users need to understand what they are paying for and 

what they are getting. 

So I agree with Mr. Heminger, a gas tax is a very direct way to 

do it. People understand where it is coming from, where it is going. 

In the State of Utah, we are addressing our growth. We are growing very fast. We are addressing our growth in terms of the mobility needs with the sales tax. The legislature has determined that 

17 percent of the statewide economic activity is coming through the 

transportation sector. So they have decided that 17 percent of that 

statewide sales tax will be dedicated just to the mobility portion 

and the gas tax is being used to preserve, maintain and operate 

that transportation system. 

So Mr. Chairman, user base, one that is not a one-time funding 

source, but an ongoing funding source, provide sustainability and 

start to address some of the inflationary issues that we are dealing 

with as well. 

Senator VITTER. Any other thoughts? 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, Senator Vitter. I think we are supportive also 

of the gas tax. We think it is really the simplest way to put a user 

fee in place. It really does also encourage sustainability and energy 

conservation, so anything we can do to use less gasoline will be 

promoted by the additional tax. 

We also think it is affordable. We have seen that big correction 

in the cost of fuel in the last year, and we think to the most extent 

that is going to continue for some time to come. 

51 

Mr. ROWEN. To the affordability of the middle class, almost my 

entire work force is definitely middle class. We think about their 

incomes, because they get it from us. We think about their expenses. But the other thing we have to realize is that over the last 

15 years there has been a significant economic advantage to gas efficiencies of most automobiles. 

So if you think about the impact of the tax, because it is paid 

on a per gallon basis, it can be somewhat mitigated because of increased efficiencies of gasoline. 

Mr. RIORDAN. One last comment, if I may, Senator. Manufacturers in general are very supportive of user fees in order to pay for 

infrastructure, pay for maintenance, pay for repair. One of the key 

concerns that we have is making sure it is sustainable, which I believe that a user fee would be. 

Concern on repatriation is that it may not be sustainable. It is 

not so visible, and it may be an easy solution from the standpoint 

of having a perception of something else paid for, but back to the 

comments that were made before, we believe it is critical that the 

costs line up with development and that it is a transparent basis 

for everybody. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you all very much. I appreciate all of 

your testimony and all of your work. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When Senator Vitter 

and I worked together on funding ideas, I want to pick up on his 

point. That was the reason I asked you, Mr. Braceras. I know that 

Senator Lee believes in devolving. And I know Senator Hatch believes in the trust fund. But he and Senator Wyden need to come 

up with a plan. 

Now, I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, I just want 

to put into the record a memo that I put together with various 

funding sources. Could we put that into the record? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

Senator BOXER. OK. And I want to make it clear that Senator 

Vitter and I totally agree that there ought to be an offset if we go 

with a higher gas tax for middle class and working poor. We have 

put it out here in this paper. If the option chosen is a 6 cent gas 

tax increase, the average household drives 15,000 miles a year, 

then the average household will pay an additional $36 in gas costs. 

Therefore, the household would receive a refundable tax credit of 

$36. 

So it is pretty straightforward. Because we all don’t want our 

middle class to be paying more. This makes sense. 

I also want to point out, Mr. Chairman, something that I fail to 

mention as often as I should, which is the cost to the automobile 

owner of roads that are in disrepair. You keep going over those 

roads, and you know what that does to your car. I am trying to get 

the average cost. But it is significant. 

So when we do repair our roads, we are saving costs. It is true, 

it is sort of hidden. But it is there, and it is very important. 

So in this paper that I put out, I sent it over to Congressman 

Ryan and Congressman Levin over there. I never heard back from 

them. Everyone just seems to be hiding underground here. So I 

52 

never heard back from them. Finally I heard from Congressman 

Levin, he said thank you for your ideas. I was hoping for a little 

more. 

But what we did is we said, one way to go is the Chamber of 

Commerce way, which is an increase in the gas tax and with an 

offset. That was one way to go. Another way to go was following 

the Virginia model, which is replace all existing highway trust fund 

fees with one fee on the wholesale price of fuel. That is the way 

they went. 

Another is adjusting existing fuel fees, and that is all going to 

be in the record for you to see. Another is the repatriation, plus a 

smaller increase in the gas tax. And then another is a new fee on 

the sale of new and used vehicles, which if you put a 4 percent fee 

on the sale price of new and used vehicles, you get $89 billion over 

6 years, which is enough to fill the hole. And another is an honorbased fee on vehicle miles traveled. We also felt, and I know this 

is controversial, that we ought to look at different bonding authorities. Because the Build America bonds have been very, very successful. 

So here is the thing. I will put this in the record, and it doesn’t 

reflect anybody’s opinion but mine. But it shows that I am willing 

to go to all of these and give an offset to the middle class and working poor for that. Reports show that crumbling roads cost $750 per vehicle each 

year. Can you imagine? That is wear and tear. So all this talk 

about $36 pales in comparison to the benefit of this. So I am going 

to close and say this. I am working with the construction industry 

to get us all together in April, Republicans, Democrats, business, 

labor, everybody in between, State, I met with the National Association of Counties yesterday. And I think frankly, I am a person 

that used to organize around issues. I still organize around issues. 

If I don’t see anything moving forward, if there is just a lot of hohum, I think we need to get together and stand together and show 

the desperate situation we are in. I know no one hates these short 

extensions more than my chairman. He hates it because of how expensive it is. 

So can I ask each of you if you would be willing, if we do put 

together such a bipartisan event, would you be willing to either 

come or send a statement? I am seeing everybody nodding yes. 

Well, that means a lot to me. Because I think you are such compelling witnesses, and I thank the Majority and the Minority side for 

bringing together such a wonderful, astute group. I am just saying 

now, I am very calm on the outside. But on the inside, I am not 

calm. 

Senator INHOFE. You are a tiger. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I am not calm. Because I don’t like where we are 

headed now. I don’t see it. The only action I see is from this committee. And it is great. But where is everybody else? 

So I want all of you who are here today and in the audience, 

please these other committees and the House people. They all say 

they want to do something. But they all said that the last time and 

we got stuck with this little extension which is really dangerous for 

our economy. It is dangerous for our citizens. It is costly, it is bad. 

53 

So on the inside, I am absolutely desperate to get this done. As 

Steve said, it is not so much about my State—it is. We need the 

Federal help. But honestly, it is about most of the other States. Because we do have that long construction season. With climate 

change, we don’t even have rain any more, it is the saddest thing. 

For whatever reason it is, we do have a drought. And we do have 

a longer construction season than anyone else. So we have fewer 

problems in this regard. And we can advance funds, because we are 

a nation State, we are I think the seventh or eighth largest nation, 

considering our GDP. 

This is about the Country, one Country under God. That is what 

this is about. So Mr. Chairman, I just am so grateful for your leadership and look forward to continuing our working together. 

Senator INHOFE. The one thing you didn’t mention, the reforms 

that come. I have to say this in a complimentary way about Senator Boxer, because there are some things that we did in our reforms, and this goes back to 2005, it goes to the 27-month bill, that 

I didn’t really think we were going to be able to get those two. That 

is a huge thing from a conservative perspective and advantage. 

By the way, I might mention I am visiting with the ACU this 

afternoon on this very subject, which I will cover in just a minute. 

We are joined now by Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

the ranking member, because I was on the conference committee 

for MAP–21 and we just had our West Virginia transportation folks 

in yesterday. Some of the reforms that were in that bill, we are 

reaping the benefits, they were very complimentary on how it is 

working State to Federal. Hopefully we can continue to do that. 

One of the things I wanted to ask about, and I apologize for not 

being here for the initial testimony, is the public-private partnerships. That is another thing that I heard my State DOT, is we are 

really maxing this out in West Virginia, going in a cautious way. 

But it is incredible to me the amount of savings that these three 

Ps can do for a State and really stretch our dollars. Route 35 in 

my old congressional district is a great example. We are about 

ready to let a contract, or they have a request for bids right now. 

So I would just ask one question, and I have two questions. So 

whoever wants to answer this, maybe Mr. Braceras. What experiences have you had with the experience of PPPs, and do you have 

any suggestions for the next generation of PPPs? 

Mr. BRACERAS. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I think 

first of all you have to look at what you would define as a P3, a 

public-private partnership. It is really a spectrum of how you do 

your work. We outsource almost all of our design engineering, most 

of our construction engineering and obviously all the construction. 

We were the first State to utilize design-build on a highway infrastructure, one of the first States to use construction manager general contractor. 

Basically, the more we can define outcomes that we want to 

achieve and leave the means and methods to those who are doing 

the work, the better we are going to see better outcomes, we are 

going to see better value and return to the taxpayers. So I encourage further any expansion, any abilities to help bring the private 

sector in as partners in delivering our program. We are a relatively 

54 

small State, and some people look at P3s as maybe under a tolling 

arrangement. We have done some analysis on that. We have also 

looked at availability payments in doing this as well. 

So all of these are tools. I don’t believe they are a financial answer to our transportation system. But I think they are important 

components that we need to keep available. 

Senator CAPITO. I think they add predictability, too. And at this 

point, when we have low interest rates, this is really where we 

should be maximizing this opportunity. 

I am going to pivot here to Mr. Riordan and ask a question on 

ground level ozone. Ozone in a highway hearing, yes, we wonder 

about that, but they are very linked, as you know. EPA recently 

proposed a change to the national standard for ground level ozone 

that will most likely end up between 60 and 70 parts per billion. 

We don’t know exactly where they are going to set that standard. 

But my entire State would be out of compliance, the State of West 

Virginia, meaning significant highway projects that are vital to 

West Virginia could be delayed or compromised. And those jobs 

would be lost. 

Let me just give you an example. If you have ever been to the 

Greenbrier, which I hope you all go and please visit, it is a very 

rural part of West Virginia. That county is Greenbrier County. 

That would be out of compliance with the new ozone limits that are 

being talked about. 

So I would ask you a question. What difficulties could States face 

in implementing these new measures to meet a more stringent 

ozone standard? 

Mr. RIORDAN. It is a very significant concern on the part of manufacturers, Senator. I think the challenge that we see as manufacturers and again, based on my role as the chairman of the Small 

Medium Manufacturing Group which represents 12 million of the 

13 million manufacturing folks that are working here in the U.S., 

a key concern is will it only defer or delay increased costs from a 

highway standpoint, but the broader concern that we have as it relates to, as you move closer to the effectively background level of 

ozone, costs go up exponentially and the benefits go down dramatically. Our concern is very, very significant as it relates to, back to 

your point of the entire State of West Virginia. Our analysis shows 

that about 97 percent of the U.S. potentially would be in a non-attainment zone, which would de facto freeze development from a 

manufacturing standpoint. So this is a huge concern, not only as 

it relates to our quest in terms of moving the Highway Bill forward 

and continued infrastructure development, but the broader manufacturing industry at hand. 

Senator CAPITO. Right, and then that obviously is transportation 

projects as well, particularly larger ones. 

So Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I know this is an area 

where you have great concern as well. It is amazing to me that we 

are going to put new standards on ozone regulations when the compliance hasn’t even been achieved to a significant amount in the 

former standards that were placed upon the rest of the Country. 

So I want to join with you and shed a light on this and see how 

we can do this better. I think there are lots of ways we can. 

Thank you all very much. 

55 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Senator Capito for bringing up the question of 

ozone. There are two things I find frustrating about this new rule. 

Jurisdictions that have made progress in actually lowering the 

ozone level are now being rewarded with the back of the hand and 

being found in non-attainment, after having made progress. Also so 

many areas, including perhaps, you are familiar with DeSoto County in Mississippi, which is a suburban county of Memphis. There 

is nothing that the activities in DeSoto County have done to raise 

the ozone level. It comes from the west and it comes from the metropolitan area. And yet development and job creation are being stifled in this suburban county, through no fault of their own. And 

there is really very little they can do to prevent it, since the ozone 

comes from someplace else. So thank you, Senator Capito, for mentioning that. 

Mr. Braceras, let me preface my question with a fairly lengthy 

beginning. The President recently issued an executive order. It exposed the area where Federal agencies will be required to follow 

floodplain management, expands it from the 100-year floodplain to 

the 500-year floodplain. Currently there are projects to raise roads 

to above the 100-year floodplain to address the risks. Now that will 

not be enough. 

There will be increased costs because of limitations on building 

in the floodplain. There will also be costs for mitigating any impacts to the floodplain and complying with ‘‘zero rise’’ policies that 

say a project cannot have the effect of increasing flooding. The rule 

would be used by Federal agencies overseeing new infrastructure 

projects in transportation, energy, housing and water supply. Agencies will be required to choose one of three approaches when building or completing maintenance to infrastructure. One, use the best 

available climate science, or two, build two feet above the 100-year 

flood elevation as a 1 percent annual chance of flooding that instance, or three, build to the 500-year flood elevation. There is a 

.2 percent annual chance of flooding in that instance. 

The rule could have significant impacts to the distribution of 

Federal highway aid, USDOT TIGER grants, HUD CDBG grants, 

Federal loan guarantees, FEMA flood insurance and flood plain 

management and disaster response programs. What impacts related to cost would your member agencies face, Mr. Braceras, if 

they were required to build or repair Federal highways two feet 

above the current 100-year flood elevation? 

Mr. BRACERAS. Senator, I always struggle with specific answers 

being given to States in terms of how to solve issues. Everything 

that we do we need to evaluate the risks, the benefits and the costs 

associated with that and make strategic decisions on what is best 

for the taxpayers, their safety and bring that all together. 

Now, Utah is a relatively dry State. But believe it or not, we 

have areas that are dry washes that have been defined as navigable waterways and require extensive permitting in order to make 

decisions. I would be concerned about the ability for States to make 

the proper decisions for infrastructure preservation. So if we are 

going to have to touch a piece of roadway or bridge, and as soon 

as we touch it we are going to need to bring it up to a new standVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:28 Aug 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94979.TXT VERN
56 

ard, that keeps States and municipalities from doing the right 

treatment at the right time and thereby costs taxpayers more in 

the long run and maybe creates unsafe conditions. 

So every time we make a decision, we should evaluate it in the 

context of the benefit cost in the larger picture, not just regarding 

a specific resource. 

Senator WICKER. And when you mention cost, that is cost for 

mitigation, for change design or change location, or for different or 

more expensive materials. Would anyone else on the panel like to 

jump in and help us understand this issue better? Mr. Riordan? 

Mr. RIORDAN. Senator, we have significant concerns on the 

broader context of obviously this, along with the waters of the U.S. 

regulations that are being promulgated. In our mind, frankly, it is 

similar to discussion we just had on ozone, where NAM has put together a study that shows the ozone regulation would be the most 

expensive rule ever promulgated within the Federal Government, 

costing a potential $2 trillion. 

A key concern is, I don’t have the facts behind what this proposed regulation would cost in terms of floodplain. But again, it is 

a question of, as I would call it from a manufacturing standpoint, 

what problem is it we are trying to solve here, and is this the most 

cost-effective way of doing it. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

We are going to recognize Senator Rounds, but let me kind of announce this, so that my two members who were not here at the 

opening of this meeting. I commented that confession is good for 

the soul, and I confess that 25 years ago, Connie Mack from Florida and I were the two fathers of devolution, until we realized why 

it wouldn’t work. The reason that Senator Boxer brought up my 

concern as it affects our defense system is that I was the ranking 

member on the Senate Armed Services Committee in addition to 

working on this committee. 

So after everyone is all through and gone, I am going to ask you 

to go ahead and continue down to respond to the questions that I 

first asked. You have done a pretty good, and Senator Rounds 

brought it up, but I want to talk about it in a little more detail. 

Senator Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to followup on the line in terms of the streamlining 

that could be done to save dollars. I think that is one of the most 

important things we have to do, in order to maintain credibility 

when it comes to how we spend tax dollars, whether they be at the 

State level, local level or at the Federal level. 

Sometimes I am not so sure that we are seen as looking at saving dollars here at this level. In fact, every time we seem to get 

involved in a project, it gets more expensive. A lot of that has to 

do with a regulatory process that creates expense. I understand 

there are good people who have good desires to have things work 

appropriately and to protect natural resources and so forth. But it 

comes at a cost. And part of the cost is that people who are paying 

those taxes wonder why it costs more to get projects done. 

If we are going to ask States to increase gas taxes or if we are 

going to ask people to pay a higher gas tax or any other type of 

57 

a tax, I think we ought to be able to show them that we are doing 

the best we can to be efficient in the delivery of those services. 

Could you help us a little bit with any suggestions you may have 

in terms of how we streamline the process, save dollars, and for 

lack of a better term in the business community, talk about getting 

more bang for our buck? 

Mr. HEMINGER. Senator, I would like to return to the word that 

Carlos used. It is risk. I think we have designed a system now that 

tries to suck every little bit of risk out of a project development 

process, and in doing so, we have guaranteed that everything will 

take too long and cost too much. I think we need to be candid with 

the American people that if you want it to go faster, we might have 

to take a little risk, and something might go wrong and we might 

have to start over and do it again. 

But we have been doing that to a considerable extent in our region, in our State, where we have begun design activity before we 

have an environmental clearance. And we are taking a risk that 

the environmental process won’t surprise is with something. And 

sometimes we are surprised. But more often than not, and we have 

gained that time on the schedule by taking that risk. 

I think the more the Federal Government can formalize that 

process and be a partner in taking some risk, I think risk-taking 

and entrepreneurship is rewarded very often. But sometimes you 

fail. I think we have to be willing to fail a little bit more to make 

our system work better. 

Mr. BRACERAS. Senator, following on Steve’s comments, the only 

one who doesn’t make a mistake is somebody who doesn’t do anything. What I try to encourage our Staff in the Utah Department 

of Transportation is to be innovative and to try new things. 

What I talked about in my testimony is anything we can do to 

move toward an outcome-based program as opposed to one that has 

been for many, many years focused on process, and that is true 

with State level agencies as well as with Federal agencies. We have 

almost gotten to the point where people are afraid to make a mistake. And the best way not to make a mistake is not to make a 

decision. So during the process, we can pull that process out and 

draw that process out longer. There is no real reward for getting 

to that outcome, to that final decision point. 

So anything Congress can do to identify what the goals are and 

that all Federal agencies and State agencies understand what 

those goals are, as few restrictions on that process, because that allows innovation to come into play and allows us to be able to focus 

on how we are going to achieve. Once people own the how, once 

those people doing the work have the ability to determine how they 

are going to accomplish that goal, they become accountable and you 

find innovation taking place. 

So outcome-based, less process-based. 

Senator ROUNDS. Anyone else? 

Mr. RIORDAN. Senator, in my testimony I mentioned that our 

costs of transportation delays, poor productivity, customer frustration adds about 1 percent to our costs. Several Senators earlier 

today mentioned the cost of car repairs. Mind you, that is only the 

tip of the iceberg on the consumer side. 

58 

I think the business community clearly understands and can 

quantify the impact to it. But eventually a lot of that gets passed 

on to consumers, one way or another. I think what the broader concern is the visibility behind what does this really cost the average 

middle class person, in terms of car repairs, delays in their own 

personal life, being late for work and getting docked against that, 

and all the other drama that goes with the poor and deteriorating 

infrastructure we have. 

I think we talked about $36 gas tax increase compared to a lot 

more than that. How do we make what I would describe as the 

business case to the broader U.S. consumer of understanding that 

and recognizing this gas tax increase is a bargain? Any business 

person would take this deal in a second with a five to ten to 20 

times payback. 

Mr. GARDNER. I think we talked about before really any opportunities to simplify processes and challenge the status quo is well 

supported by us. We are seeing some of the intents of that in the 

programs. We talked about environmental permitting is really 

probably the biggest bottleneck. So anything we can do in that area 

is going to be helpful. 

I think the most important thing is just to make sure that we 

are making the right investments and that the investments are focused on congestion and road quality. Because we can directly correlate congestion to additional costs for our industry. 

Mr. ROWEN. Leadership. It is all about leadership. Get the message out. We have all heard today, and every one of us sitting in 

this room today understands that raising the gas tax is going to 

save virtually every American money, if not a lot of money, in other 

areas. So you simply have to, the American public will buy something that is a good deal. They are great at recognizing deals. 

I think that the fear that comes out of the political process of the 

concept of raising taxes is, can be mitigated by leadership, by a 

clear, concise message that you are doing this to make things better for all Americans, and in the end, it is money well spent. 

Senator ROUNDS. Mr. Chairman, I think the group here that has 

answered the question tells us, No. 1, they are prepared to make 

an investment, but they expect us, with leadership, to provide that 

it is done as transparently as possible, and the delivery, if we are 

going to expect people to put more dollars into the system, we are 

going to make a commitment that we will see that they are spent 

as efficiently as possible. I think that means we have a big job 

ahead of us. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Senator Rounds. We are 

going to recognize Senator Carper, but I want to make a comment 

here about this. A lot of people don’t understand what we are talking about. First of all, I would like to have us not really talk about 

a gas tax increase. It is a user fee. Now, user fees are popular. 

Look at the inland waterway user fee, the stakeholders, those who 

are paying for it are the ones who want to have it. So I think that 

is a good way of putting it. 

Second, keeping in mind, as I said in my opening statement, that 

this is what we are supposed to be doing here. Read the Constitution. In fact, I will quote something if you will bear with me a second, Senator Carper. 

59 

Senator CARPER. Take all the time you want. 

Senator INHOFE. The American Conservative Union, in their document that they helped us get this passed on the 27-month bill, 

they are saying, ‘‘Not passing a bill will hurt our already suffering 

economy.’’ And then the two elements, quoting the Constitution, 

the two elements that are the most basic responsibilities of the 

Federal Government are national defense and the development of 

a national transportation infrastructure. 

I say this, and we have to keep saying it, because somehow, people forget what we are supposed to be doing here in Washington. 

This is what our founding fathers said, it was their idea. It was put 

forth. The reason I mention that Senator Boxer talked about my 

concern over defense is that I had that job as ranking member on 

Armed Services. So I made quite a study, I say to my good friend, 

Senator Carper, of Eisenhower and the statements that he made 

back when he first gave birth to this concept. 

The last one I will leave with you, he said, ‘‘InterState commerce 

doesn’t stop at the State boundaries. No State is an island,’’ as you 

repeated from my statement before. It is just as much about national defense as it is interState commerce. That is what we are 

talking about here. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I am Tom Carper, and I approved this message. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. As the senior Senator from first State to ratify 

the Constitution, I applaud your use and reference to the Constitution here this morning. 

Welcome, everybody. It is great to see you. Thank you so much 

for joining us and trying to help us find our way through an important issue. Colleagues hear me talk a lot about our jobs. Our job 

is not to create jobs. My job as Governor was not to create jobs. 

Our job is to help create a nurturing environment for job creation. 

And you can’t do that without a great transportation infrastructure. 

Since 1993, as you know, when we set the Federal gas tax at 

18.4 cents, 42 States have increased their State gas tax rates. 

Twenty States have taken action to increase revenues for transportation in just the last 5 years. Eight of these were either in 2013 

or 2014. I understand that 12 more, another dozen, are considering 

action this year or next. 

How many of these States have said, we are ready to go it alone 

and we don’t need a Federal partner? How many of those States 

have said that? Let’s go down the list. Mr. Braceras? 

Mr. BRACERAS. Thank you, Senator. The State of Utah has made 

an amazing commitment to transportation. Utah recognizes that it 

is the backbone and one of the foundational elements for our economy. So we have made a large commitment, almost 20 percent of 

our statewide sales tax goes to transportation, 24.5 cent gas tax 

goes to transportation. But we rely on a Federal transportation system, and it is very important to us. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Heminger, how many States have said, well, we are ready 

to do this by ourselves, we don’t need that Federal money? 

60 

Mr. HEMINGER. Certainly not California. In 1993, the statistics 

you are quoting, Senator, our gas tax was 16 cents. It is 46 cents 

today. So we are certainly willing to do our share. But we are looking for a Federal partner to come along with us. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Same question, Mr. Riordan. 

Mr. RIORDAN. Senator, I am not familiar with the specific facts 

in the State of Wisconsin, but I don’t believe they are willing to go 

it alone. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Gardner. 

Mr. GARDNER. I am also not familiar with the State of Illinois, 

but I can say that we are supportive of a federally directed program, because our business relies on the complete transportation 

network to deliver our products. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. And finally, Mr. Rowen. 

Mr. ROWEN. Senator Carper, earlier I was talking about the geographical significance of Pennsylvania, the fact that so much traffic 

going into the northeast goes across Pennsylvania, and then the 

geographical impact of the weather on the Pennsylvania roads. So 

there is just no way Pennsylvania could be forced to pay for all the 

maintenance of the roads in Pennsylvania. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. My staff, at my request, did some 

analysis. They found in States that have raised revenues for transportation, 90 percent of legislators who voted for a revenue increase won their primary, won their general election. They were reelected. But so, over 90 percent of them were Republicans, just 

under 90 percent of them were Democrats. What lessons can we 

take from that information, from action at the State level? Mr. 

Rowen? 

Mr. ROWEN. Pennsylvania just elected a new Governor. And he 

was elected on the idea that he was going to tax natural gas coming out of the State. So the idea that, and I understand it is a different kind of a tax, but Pennsylvania looked at the need for infrastructure and said, we need to get more revenue. And Governor 

Wolf was honestly willing to put on the table that process. So he 

clearly did exactly what you are recommending. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Gardner. 

Mr. GARDNER. I think it demonstrates that the general public is 

willing to support this additional tax. As we have talked about already this morning, it just makes good business sense. A small increase in your annual costs has payback in terms of reduced repair 

costs to cars and certainly for businesses, it has a great payback 

in terms of reducing congestion. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Riordan, any lessons learned 

you think we could take from those statistics I just cited? 

Mr. RIORDAN. Good question, Senator. I believe that the American public clearly believes in the fairness principle of user fees 

make sense for people who are using the roads and infrastructure 

that goes with that. That said, I think manufacturers in general 

support all the above discussion in terms of how to fund this as it 

relates to recognizing, back to the chairman’s comments earlier, 

about the criticality of the infrastructure, whether it is public-private partnerships or other mechanisms here. But this issue is 

much, much too important to leave languish. Because frankly, we 

61 

continue to lose ground against our major competitive countries, 

China in particular. And frankly, our long-term best interests are 

best served by getting off of this and developing a coherent, longterm approach. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time is about to 

expire. Can I just have one more minute? 

Senator INHOFE. We actually had two rounds. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

I want to touch again on what you just said about all of the 

above. Because we have an all of the above energy policy, which 

I think is good. For many years, and we talk about our baseload 

for electricity generation, for many years it was coal, it was nuclear, 40 percent coal, 20 percent nuclear. Coal is still, close to 30 

percent, is going to be significant for, I think, a long time. Natural 

gas is close to 30 percent now I am told. But those were basic, the 

baseload. 

I think for transportation funding, we need a baseload. And I believe maybe most appropriately it is the user fee. The baseload 

could include things like, we are going to open up some new lands 

off of Virginia or North or South Carolina or Georgia, there would 

be leased income from that, there would be, if there is oil and gas 

out there, there would be some revenues generated. That could be 

part of the all of the above approach. Then we could actually find 

ways to save money. The Department of Transportation has a 

bunch of ideas. 

When the last 2-year transportation bill was put into effect, I 

think they looked hard to find ways, how to rebuild roads, highways, bridges in a more cost-effective way. So that could be, if you 

will, part of the all of the above approach. 

But I have been thinking a lot about it, and I think the President 

has a proposal. I am not a big fan of repatriation, but the President 

has an interesting proposal and that could be part of an all of the 

above approach as well. So thank you for mentioning that term. 

Back to you, Mr. Heminger, if I could. Again, my question was, 

what kind of lessons should we take away from the fact that over 

90 percent of the Republican State legislators got re-elected after 

voting for user fee increases and almost 90 percent of the Democrats got re-elected? What should we take from that? 

Mr. HEMINGER. I think the simple answer is that most Americans do understand the user fee concept. It is sort of the PR genius 

of our profession that we have labeled a user fee the gas tax. And 

I don’t know when we started doing that. But that was our original 

sin. 

But the public understands that they are paying a fee that will 

be used to fix their roads and transit systems. They get that connection and they support it. 

Senator CARPER. I like that, original sin. That is good. 

Mr. BRACERAS. Senator, I agree with Mr. Heminger on the need, 

that it needs to be linked to the user. That is an important concept. 

But I also believe that the public needs to know what they are 

going to get for their investment. They need to know what those 

outcomes are going to be, and we as government officials need to 

be absolutely transparent on how their money is used and what we 

62 

achieve with their money. I think if you can demonstrate that, the 

public can recognize a good business deal. 

Senator CARPER. Good, thank you. We often talk about the jobs 

that could be created from a full-funded transportation bill. I have 

heard 600,000 jobs, 700,000 jobs. A lot of jobs for people, frankly, 

who have been looking for work for quite some time. We also need 

to think about the investments we could make in our transportation infrastructure that could have broader economic impacts. 

A recent report by McKinsey Global Institute found that the U.S. must spend at least, get this, $150 billion more a year on infrastructure through 2020 to meet our Country’s needs and to maintain global economic competitiveness, $150 billion. The up side of 

this was that in doing so, it would add 1.5 percent to our annual 

economic growth and create at least 1.5 million jobs. So that is 1.5 

percent addition to economic growth and about, almost 2 million 

jobs. From your perspective as owners and users of this system, 

does any of this sound even close to being true and accurate? Mr. 

Braceras? 

Mr. BRACERAS. I don’t have the numbers off the top of my head, 

Senator, but yes, absolutely. I think we talk sometimes too quickly 

about the benefits of a transportation bill and what they have on 

the construction industry. And those are important jobs. But really 

what is important is how well the transportation system works for 

the business owners who we have here today. They will make different and more effective decisions if they have a transportation 

system that is safe, reliable and has the lowest cost of ownership 

for them. 

So I think that is the important part of our transportation system. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Heminger. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Senator, I don’t think it is an accident that what 

we regard as the golden age of the American economy in the last 

century coincided with when we were building the interState system, any more that I think that it is an accident that when you 

see the economies in Asia and to some extent in Europe taking off 

because of infrastructure investment, that is not a coincidence, either. We need to get back to that business here in America. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Riordan. 

Mr. RIORDAN. Senator, manufacturers in general absolutely agree 

with the points you made. Frankly, the National Association of 

Manufacturers has developed a similar study that shows the same 

kind of comprehensive benefits available to us if we are smart and 

move this forward. 

Senator CARPER. Good, thanks. 

Mr. GARDNER. Senator, we also agree. I think what we have seen 

in manufacturing is that for every job we create, there are probably 

another two and a half jobs that are spinoffs as well. So it is quite 

probable, what you are seeing there. From our company’s perspective, we are making investment decisions based on what we see in 

terms of infrastructure today. So any commitment we can make to 

that infrastructure will help us make better decisions. 

Senator CARPER. Good. And last, but not least, Mr. Rowen. 

Mr. ROWEN. It is incomprehensible, as a business owner, for an 

entity or organization not to invest in infrastructure, if all the ecoVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:28 Aug 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\94979.TXT VERN
63 

nomic numbers say that the amount of money you invest will pay 

dividends tenfold over in the future. It is incomprehensible that 

could happen. And this is a Country that we talk about capitalism. 

Capitalism is the root of our economy. This is a capitalistic concept. 

It is a business decision, pure and simple. As leadership, you simply have to sell it. You have to sell it first to the people who make 

the decisions, so it is your Congress that authorizes this. Then you 

have to simply sell what is an absolutely obvious decision, a business decision, to the American public. 

Senator CARPER. Good. I think it was Andrew Jackson who used 

to say, one man with courage makes a majority. Mrs. Jackson said, 

one woman with courage makes a majority. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. But we need some men and women around here 

with courage, political courage, to do what I think most of us know 

needs to be done. And I am encouraged that some folks on this 

committee, a number of my folks in the Democrat and Republican 

party here in the Senate and hopefully in the House will be willing 

to show that kind of leadership and courage. If we do, people will 

join us. 

I think at the end of the day, we will be rewarded for that. Leadership has been defined as the courage to stay out of step when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune. I think people want us 

to make the right decisions. My hope is that we will. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Very good, very good, Senator Carper. 

As I said, I want to give the last three an opportunity to respond 

to the question that I opened up with. I say to my friend, Senator 

Carper, who is one, a lot of people are not aware that our old friend 

from Florida, Connie Mack and I, 25 years ago, were the fathers 

of devolution until we realized that it wouldn’t work. So they are 

responding, and we had just gotten through two of them. 

But before doing that, we have our Secretary of Transportation 

here, Mike Patterson. Hold your hand up, Mike. 

And of course, everybody knows Gary Ridley. 

Let me ask one question to you, Mr. Rowen. You said something 

I didn’t know. Did you say, did I understand there is some dedication of part of the revenue that is derived in the, either from natural gas or oil in Pennsylvania under your new Governor? Is that 

correct? 

Mr. ROWEN. Under the previous administration, it was my understanding that they were charging an impact fee at extraction. 

But I believe that amounted to something like 1 or 2 percent. 

Senator INHOFE. But it was something, a recognition. See, most 

people think when you are talking about oil and gas production 

that we are talking about the western United States. That is not 

true anymore. 

Mr. ROWEN. No, absolutely not. 

Senator INHOFE. With the Marcellus in Pennsylvania and New 

York, I have heard arguments, pretty persuasive arguments in 

Pennsylvania, that it could be your second largest employer right 

now. So it is a major thing. 

And that is a source. And that source was one of the three that 

Senator Vitter brought up. No one responded to that, the other two 

but not that. Would anyone want to respond to that in terms of a 

64 

partial source that is out there? If we can get to the point in this 

Country when we start, and we will get to this point, start really 

having the Federal land give us the benefits that we are currently 

getting from State and private land, while we have gone, increased 

by 61 percent in State and private, we have actually decreased by 

6 percent in Federal. I see that as an opportunity to go out and 

develop a new, consistent source to supplement any changes that 

might be made in the user fee. 

Does anyone want to refer, make any comments about that portion of his suggestion? 

Mr. HEMINGER. I guess, Mr. Chairman, just in one respect, as 

you know, the Federal gas tax is not levied on consumers. It is 

really levied at the refinery, and everybody down the chain just reimburses the one ahead of them. So to the extent that you already 

have the tax at the refinery, it is not too much farther to take it 

back to the place where you are digging it out of the ground. 

Senator INHOFE. Very good point. 

Mr. HEMINGER. So it seems to me from the user fee perspective, 

it would be consistent. One thing I would be concerned about is, 

I know oil and gas exploration can be a pretty risky business and 

it can go through cycles. I think one thing we always look for, and 

you have been emphasizing, is predictability and reliability of the 

revenue stream. 

Senator INHOFE. Any other comments? 

Mr. RIORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with Mr. Heminger’s 

comments. And one other additional point is the transparency that 

goes with that, whether it is the wholesale level or extraction level. 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. 

Mr. RIORDAN. But I think it is important to be clear and transparent in general as well as with the American public relative to 

where this is coming from, and again I would echo the comments 

of the hit and miss concern that the extraction level, the faucet can 

turn on real hard and it can’t turn off real hard, as you know. 

Senator INHOFE. I understand that. Also, I might suggest there 

is a way of doing this in a more consistent basis. I come from an 

oil and gas State, and we know how to do those things. Any comment on that, Mr. Gardner? 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes. I was going to say that I think the Federal 

leadership is absolutely critical. We need a complete, integrated solution across the United States. I think the gas tax, or a user fee, 

is a very simple concept that can be sold, and we see it supported 

at the State level. 

I would also say that the States and all the companies that use 

the systems also need to demonstrate they are making investments. I can say from an Ingredion perspective, we are investing 

in transportation management systems so we can be smarter with 

the use of trucks. We are maximizing payloads so we can use less 

trucks and we are redesigning our distribution network to minimize the number of miles. 

So we are making our effort. I think we need a complete, integrated solution to beat this problem. 

Senator INHOFE. We have actually gone over our time, but since 

I initiated a question to be responded to by all five, I think Mr. 

65 

Heminger was as far as I got. Any comments for the last three having to do with devolution? 

Mr. RIORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I think you, as they say, hit the 

nail right on the head. This is one of the fundamental legs of the 

service and the contribution from the national or the Federal Government. I find it hard pressed, and frankly, manufacturers in general find it hard pressed on how the Federal Government can walk 

away and pass the problem of funding or not back to the States. 

The criticality of the interState highway system, as you alluded to 

earlier, was very much dependent upon planning and vision at the 

Federal level. I think we would strongly encourage that to continue. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, thank you. Agreed? 

All right. Let me thank our panelists. You have been very helpful. We have held you longer than we had said we would. But the 

intensity of this issue is so significant. As you have witnessed, it 

is one that is bipartisan. It is one that we all know. I think one 

of my jobs is to kind of explain the Constitutional requirements 

that we are talking about when we talk about a system. 

So we are going to try to make this work this time. I remember, 

I have been at this for so long, I remember back when I was in the 

House T&I Committee, we had one problem with the Highway 

Trust Fund. We had too much surplus. Are you guys old enough 

to remember that? Well, we did. And we all know what happened 

to that, and that is why we need to get back and start doing the 

job that the Constitution says that we should be doing. 

With that, we will adjourn. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

66 


94979.024
67 


94979.025
68 


94979.026
69 


94979.027
70 


94979.028
71 


94979.029
72 


94979.030
73 


94979.031
74 

Æ