U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

78–920 PDF 2013

THE FEDERAL ROLE IN AMERICA’S 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

(113–1) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Edward G. Rendell, Cochair, Building America’s Future ........................... 5 

Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce ............. 5 

Terence M. O’Sullivan, General President, Laborers’ International Union of 

North America ...................................................................................................... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, of New York .................................................................. 47 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ................................................................... 49 

Hon. Timothy J. Walz, of Minnesota ...................................................................... 50 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Edward G. Rendell ......................................................................................... 51 

Thomas J. Donohue ................................................................................................. 58 

Terence M. O’Sullivan ............................................................................................. 77 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, request to submit written testimony from the Water Infrastructure 

Network ................................................................................................................ 18 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

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

written testimony ................................................................................................. 81 

American Public Works Association, Elizabeth Treadway, PWLF, President, 

written testimony ................................................................................................. 85 

American Society of Civil Engineers, written testimony ...................................... 92 

Building America’s Future Educational Fund, Building America’s Future: 

Falling Apart and Falling Behind (2012) ........................................................... †

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Wade Henderson, 

President and CEO, written testimony .............................................................. 96 

Water Environment Federation, Jeffery A. Eger, Executive Director, letter 

to Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, and Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of West Virginia, February 13, 2013 .................................................. 99 

† ‘‘Building America’s Future: Falling Apart and Falling Behind’’ can be found 

online at the Government Printing Office’s Federal Digital System (FDsys) 

at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-113HPRT79795/pdf/CPRT-113HPRT 

79795.pdf. 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 78920.001

February II. 2013 

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

Members, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Staff, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Full Committee on "The Federal Role in America's Infrastructure" 

PURPOSE 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Wednesday, February 

13,2013. at 11 :00 a.m. in Room 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive 

testimony related to the Federal role in America's infrastructure. At this hearing. the Committee 

will underscore the importance of infrastructure to the U.S. economy and examine the role of the 

Federal Government in providing safe, efficient, and reliable infrastructure. The Committee will 

hear from the President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the former Governor of 

Pennsylvania and current Co-Chair of Building America' s Future. and the General President of 

the Laborers' International Union of North America, 

BACKGROUND 

The Federal Role in 1I1fraslrueture 

Infrastructure provides a strong physical platform that facilitates economic gro\\th. 

ensures global competitiveness, and supports national security. Providing the Nation with this 

platfonn has long been recognized as a Federal responsibility that is shared with States and local 

govcmmcnts. 
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 78920.002

Adam Smith, one of the most influential thinkers in the history of economics and the 

author of the Wealth of Nations (1776), argued the three essential duties of government are to 

provide security, preserve justice, and erect and maintain public works to facilitate commerce. 

Smith believed the government must play this role because an individual or group of individuals 

could not pay to build these public works on their own. On the other hand, a government could 

construct such infrastructure, and those facilities would pay for themselves by facilitating 

commerce. 

The Founding Fathers also understood the importance of connecting the country through 

trade and travel. They recognized that robust infrastructure is necessary to achieve that goal. 

However, one of the greatest weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation was that it provided no 

means for Congress to regulate commerce between the States. This weakness was underscored 

by a dispute between Maryland and Virginia regarding navigation rights on the Potomac River. 

This dispute prohibited the Nation from connecting the country through a coordinated system of 

canals and portage roads across the Allegheny Mountains. The Founders remedied this weakness. 

by clearly tasking Congress with fulfilling this obligation in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 

of the Constitution directs Congress to establish post roads and to regulate interstate commerce. 

The two Supreme Court cases of Monongahela Navigation Company v. United States, 

148 U.S. 312 (1893) and Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U.S. 24 (1907) have further highlighted the role 

and responsibility of Congress in providing public infrastructure. Monongahela Navigation 

Company held, in part, that the Federal Government has the power to regulate commerce 

between States even if it means condemning and appropriating a lock and dam on a navigable 

waterway, and Wilson held that the Commerce Clause ofthe United States Constitution 

authorizes Congress to establish an interstate highway system. These cases settle any question as 

to the constitutionality of Federal investment in the Nation's infrastructure. 

From the Transcontinental Railroad to the Panama Canal to the Interstate Highway 

System, Congress has continued to invest in infrastructure to ensure the connectedness of the 

Nation and to support the needs of the American people. 

The u.s. Transportation System 

Today, the Nation's transportation system is an extensive network of highways, airports, 

railroads, public transit systems, waterways, ports, and pipelines that provide a means for 

taxpayers to travel to and from work and to conduct business. Over 4,059,399 miles of public 

roads connect with 19,782 airports, 161,195 miles of railroad, 242,306 miles of public transit 

route miles, 1,735.237 miles of pipeline, 25,320 miles of navigable waterways,l and 360 

commercial ports2 

The United States transportation system provides businesses and consumers with access 

to goods and services and creates jobs and generates revenue. Transportation-related goods and 

I C.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Pocket Guide 10 Transportation. January, 

2013. 

2 American Association of Port Authorities, Us. Public Port Facts, February 8. 2013. 

2 
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 78920.003

services made up 10.2 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product in 2011, or $1.6 trillion.) 

Transportation-related expenditures accounted for 16.7 percent of spending by the average 

American household in 2011, which is second only to housing expenditures.4 Over 12,086,000 

jobs in the United States were transportation related in 2010.5 The role of the transportation 

system in each person's life cannot be overstated. 

The importance of the Nation's transportation system can be better appreciated by 

observing how the system is utilized by people and businesses. In 20 10, the system carried over 

2.9 trillion vehicle miles (including cars, trucks, motorcycles, and buses), over 564 billion 

passenger miles by air, over 35 billion passenger miles by rail (including transit and Amtrak), 

and over 2.5 billion passenger miles by other modes of public transit,6 

The assertion that the transportation system is the lifeblood of the Nation's economy is 

evidenced by the enormous amount of goods that travel on the system. In 2011, the system 

carried over 1.47 billion tons of merchandise (including imports and exports) by waterways, over 

8.2 million tons of merchandise by air, over 207.8 million tons of merchandise by truck, over 

142 million tons of merchandise by rail, and over 122.9 million tons of merchandise by pipeline. 7 

, Ibid. 

'Ibid. 

5 Ibid. 

'Ibid. 

7 Ibid. 

WITNESS LIST 

The Honorable Edward G. Rendell 

Co-Chair 

Building America's Future 

Thomas J. Donohue 

President and CEO 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Terry O'Sullivan 

General President 

Laborers' International Union of North America 

3 
(1) 

THE FEDERAL ROLE IN AMERICA’S 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in Room 

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

of the committee) presiding. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The committee will come to order. I first want to 

welcome everybody to today’s first hearing of the committee in this 

Congress, and the subject matter is critical to the importance of the 

national economy. But I first need to start with something a little 

unpleasant but I need to make this statement before I go on. I 

want to make a short apology. Last night I was quoted in response 

to the President’s State of the Union Address that I implied he was 

lying about CEOs that wanted to invest in a country that has highspeed rail. This type of incendiary rhetoric is not my style at all. 

I regret using those words, and while I continue to disagree with 

the President on this point, I do not think the President is a liar, 

and I think it is important I start that off as we move forward in 

a very positive way. 

Again I am pleased that everybody is here. It looks like we have 

a full house. I expect a lot of Members to come in on our side of 

the aisle. If you hear a gavel, seniority rules, but if a more senior 

Member comes we are going to go to the Members that were here 

at the beginning. So I figure you are here on time, you get to be 

rewarded. 

I am pleased to welcome our distinguished witnesses: the Honorable Ed Rendell, former Governor of the great Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. He is also the cochair of Building America’s Future. 

Thank you, Governor, for being here today. 

Tom Donohue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce and a real advocate for transportation, I appreciate you 

and all your work you have been doing over the past couple of 

years. 

And Terry O’Sullivan, the general president of the Laborers’ 

International Union of North America, thank you for taking the 

time to be here today. I can’t wait to hear what you have to say. 

Transportation is important. It is about people and how they live 

their lives, how they get to work, how they get their children to 

school, how they buy food, clothes and other necessities, and how 

families visit one another around the country. It is also about business. Transportation is critical on how the supply chain functions, 

2 

how raw materials get to factories, how goods get to the markets, 

how food gets from the farmers to our kitchens, and how energy 

products move from production areas to consuming areas. An efficient national transportation network allows business to lower 

transportation costs, which lowers production costs and enhances 

productivity and profits. It allows American business to be competitive in the global marketplace and for our economy to prosper and 

grow. 

One need only to look at our Interstate Highway System and see 

how that investment in our national transportation network has 

benefited our Nation and caused tremendous economic growth over 

the past two generations. 

The Federal Government has historically played a role in transportation. Remarkably, the event that unexpectedly led to the Constitutional Convention was a longstanding dispute between Virginia and Maryland regarding navigation rights on the Potomac 

River, regarding transportation improvements proposed by George 

Washington. 

George Washington was determined that the new Nation must 

have the capacity to be connected through effective trade and communications through transportation and infrastructure projects. 

However, Washington’s efforts to extend navigation required a formal treaty between Maryland and Virginia and elaborate approvals 

from other States in the Continental Congress. To settle that dispute he convened a meeting at Mount Vernon, which was unsuccessful, and then he continued to work on it and then they called 

another convention in Annapolis in 1786 to deal with the Articles 

of Confederation and how they would move forward on this issue 

of navigation rights, and that summit failed. And as the participants left they understood that if they were going to be a United 

States they had to improve the Articles of Confederation. 

This is a very real sense that the Constitutional Convention and 

the Constitution itself were in response to meeting the transportation and commerce needs of a young Nation, notably the Commerce Clause. It gives the Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and create, in the words of the Preamble, a more 

perfect union. Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution contains the Commerce Clause, which says, to regulate commerce with 

foreign nations among several States and the Indian tribes. And 

Article I, Section 8, clause 7, to establish post offices and post 

roads, and those post roads of the 1780s and 1790s are the highway system and the byway system that we use today. And we continued to invest over the centuries from the Transcontinental Railroad, to the Panama Canal, to the Interstate Highway System. And 

why, why do we do this? To ensure that the Nation was connected, 

support the needs of the U.S. economy and the American people. 

Our national transportation system binds us together, physically 

binds us together. As President Dwight Eisenhower observed, without the unifying force of commerce and transportation we would be 

a mere alliance of many separate parts. Congress must renew its 

commitment to providing a robust physical platform upon which 

the American people in business can compete and prosper. 

You know the consequences of inadequate transportation and infrastructure. A major event that compromise safety and efficiency 

3 

of one mode can create a ripple effect throughout the entire system, 

impeding freight and passenger mobility. 

Last Congress we made solid progress towards addressing our infrastructure needs by passing surface transportation and aviation 

bills. And I give great credit to Chairman Mica for his leadership 

on both those efforts. 

But there is more work to be done and this committee takes the 

lead on promoting legislation that addresses our Nation’s infrastructure needs. First up is WRDA, Water Resources Develop Act, 

which was last enacted in 2007 and ideally that bill should be reauthorized every 2 years. In September the Passenger Rail Bill expires and so we need to be working on that, dealing with safety 

and rail and also the passenger system in this country. And then 

the Surface Transportation Bill, which expires in September of 

2014, which we are working on and we will use this hearing today 

as a kickoff and start working making progress towards that bill. 

We can be successful, we must be successful. It needs to be a bipartisan effort. We need to build consensus and work together. It 

will promote competitiveness and economic growth. We need to 

focus our resources where they are most needed, and I still believe 

we need to go further when it comes to reform programs. Spending 

taxpayer dollars wisely is needed. And those reforms moving forward to continue to do that to give the States the flexibility to 

speed up the time it takes to do the major transportation projects 

saves us time, saves us money. 

Investing in our transportation system is our shared responsibility if we want to ensure prosperity of the Nation for future generations. Every day I talk to my colleagues about the importance 

of our transportation system. The Nation’s fiscal issues present 

many challenges and we are faced with difficult choices, but the 

consequences of inaction are dire. If we are successful, and I believe we will be, then we can facilitate economic growth and ensure 

Americans’ quality of life for years to come. 

And with that I would like to recognize the ranking member of 

the full committee, Mr. Rahall, for an opening statement. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for calling this kickoff hearing as your chairmanship begins, and it could 

not be on a more pertinent topic of our Federal role in transportation and infrastructure investment. 

I want to first welcome, although they may have just left, a delegation with whom I just met from the European Parliament Committee on Transportation and Tourism chaired by Chairman Brian 

Simpson. So I welcome them to our hearing today. 

Throughout our Nation’s history the Federal Government has 

played a vital and inextricable role in the development of our infrastructure and the various transportation modes it supports. Our 

Founding Fathers enshrined a Federal role for transportation in 

our U.S. Constitution and the leaders that followed made the hard 

choices to build the Transcontinental Railroad and the Interstate 

Highway System. Together these investments connected our Nation 

from sea to shining sea and paved the way for a new age of American opportunity and prosperity. 

Today infrastructure investment remains an essential component 

of our economic competitiveness and ability to create desperately 

4 

needed, good paying jobs. Despite the critical role that the Federal 

Government has played in the development of infrastructure for 

generations, it now faces an uncertain future. The hard choices of 

the past have given way to a political will that never sees beyond 

the next election. It is time to recognize that Congress must again 

make hard choices. We must again move beyond rhetoric in support of infrastructure and recognize that it is indeed about the 

money. 

Will we find the necessary resources to increase investment in 

infrastructure and ensure that we leave our Nation better off for 

the next generation? It begins with budget sequestration, which 

will hit the Federal budget in just 7 legislative days. If Congress 

allows the sequester to go into effect this self-inflicted wound will 

cut infrastructure investment and eliminate thousands of good paying jobs. The sequester will cut about $1 billion from the U.S. Department of Transportation, $600 million from the Army Corps of 

Engineers, and $4 billion from transportation infrastructure programs in fiscal year 2013 alone. 

But the sequestration’s impact on our transportation infrastructure would be minimal, it would be minimal compared to some of 

the budget proposals that we have recently seen put forward in 

this Congress. The chair of the Budget Committee, for example, 

has indicated that this year’s budget resolution will require a balanced budget within 10 years. Now a balanced budget, certainly it 

is a laudable goal, but if the budgetary priorities chosen to balance 

the budget in 10 years closely mirror those that Chairman Ryan selected when he proposed to balance it over 30 years ago in the last 

Congress, the Federal Government will go from playing a leading 

role in infrastructure investment to just being one of the extras. 

Rather than cutting Federal investment, we need to be doing 

more, much more in my opinion to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and put Americans back to work. One way we can do this 

is by making sure that our Federal investments in highways, 

bridges, public transit and passenger rail systems, airport projects 

and water infrastructure projects are crafted with American, American workmanship and support good paying American jobs. 

I will soon be introducing legislation, which I invite Members on 

both sides of the aisle to join me in cosponsoring, a bill that ensures our transportation infrastructure investments will be 

stamped Made in America. By closing the critical loopholes in our 

Buy America laws we can ensure that these investments, financed 

by the U.S. taxpayers, will be used to create and sustain good paying jobs in our local communities, not outsourced overseas. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I do welcome our witnesses today, 

three very good friends, Terry O’Sullivan from the Laborers’ and 

Tom Donohue from Chamber of Commerce. We back a few years 

on this issue in his previous hat, as well as good friend the former 

Governor of Pennsylvania. I look forward to hearing their comments about financing and ensuring that our Nation’s critical infrastructure investments continue to support jobs, economic growth 

and a strong middle class in this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. Again I would like to welcome our witnesses here, thank them for spending some time with 

5 

us today. I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your written testimony has been made part of the record we 

would like to keep you around 5 minutes, but I know you have an 

awful lot, the three of you, to say. So we will probably be a little 

bit liberal with that 5 minutes this morning. 

So with that, I recognize Governor Rendell for his statement. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD G. RENDELL, COCHAIR, BUILDING AMERICA’S FUTURE; THOMAS J. 

DONOHUE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND TERENCE M. O’SULLIVAN, GENERAL PRESIDENT, LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA 

Mr. RENDELL. Good morning, it is a pleasure to be here, and let 

me say as a proud Pennsylvanian it is a pleasure to take part in 

your first hearing as chairman. 

Politicians, myself included, always talk about American 

exceptionalism. We talk about it, but I believe we have mostly recently given lip service to the term ‘‘American exceptionalism.’’ We 

can’t be an exceptional country without a first-class infrastructure. 

And let the record show we don’t have one anymore. 

In 2005, the World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. infrastructure number one in the world for economic competitiveness. Now 

8 years later we rank 14th in the same study. Our air transport 

infrastructure ranks 30th in the world behind countries like Panama and Malaysia. Our port infrastructure ranks 19th in the world 

behind countries like Estonia and Iceland. 

It is no surprise as China has put $3.5 trillion into its ports in the last 10 years, Brazil has put $250 million into developing the 

Acu Port, which is bigger than the island of Manhattan. We don’t 

even allow the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to fully fund port 

development and dredging. Only two ports on the east coast will 

be ready for Panamax. It is a disgrace. I don’t want to hear anybody talk about American exceptionalism who is not ready to invest 

in our infrastructure. 

Building America’s Future, the group that I founded along with 

Mayor Bloomberg of New York and Governor Schwarzenegger of 

California, issued a report 2 years ago and updated it last year 

called ‘‘Building America’s Future: Falling Apart and Falling Behind.’’ And let the record show we are falling apart literally and 

we are falling behind our competitor nations. 

[The report is available at the Government Printing Office’s Federal Digital System (FDsys) at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT113HPRT79795/pdf/CPRT-113HPRT79795.pdf.] 

Infrastructure is important for three reasons, it affects our public 

safety. We have seen that time and time again. It affects or quality 

of life, and most of all it affects our economic competitiveness. Metallurgical coal is highly prized. It is the food substance for the production of coke. China has a need for metallurgical coal despite the 

fact it is a big coal producing country. It is found in Australia and 

the U.S. Both countries are high labor cost countries, but Australia 

can produce and send metallurgical coal to China for one-fourth the 

cost the U.S. can because they can move their metallurgical coal 

6 

from where it is mined to their port cities infinitely faster, more 

efficiently and more capably than we do. Goods movement is one 

of the keys to economic competitiveness, and we are getting our 

brains beaten in. 

Now the American taxpayers understand that. In the last four 

elections, taxpayers have approved transportation initiatives by 61 

percent in the tough year of 2010 and 77, 76 and 78 percent in the 

last three elections. It is Red State, Blue State, it doesn’t matter. 

In Charleston the voters voted to raise their own sales tax to make 

the port of Charleston competitive because Charlestonians understand that their economy depends on a viable, effective efficient operating port. The American people get it, not uniformly, there are 

some examples of referendums that are being turned down, but for 

the most part they vote for tolling, taxes or borrowing to finance 

and fund infrastructure. 

The Federal Government can’t do this alone, we understand that. 

State and local governments provide 75 percent of current infrastructure funding, but the Federal Government must be a player. 

Let me draw your attention to one part of the stimulus that I 

think we will all agree was enormously successful, and that was 

TIGER grants. TIGER grants were successful because for the first 

time we had a vehicle for multistate projects, where States could 

band together and come in and ask the Federal Government for 

help on a project that benefited many of them. Pennsylvania participated, as you know, Chairman Shuster, in two projects, the National Gateway and the Crescent Corridor. The National Gateway 

and Crescent Corridor each had multiple States involved, one was 

Norfolk Southern and the other was CSX. They were responsible 

for opening up freight in the eastern half of the country. I was able 

with the help of my fellow Governors to persuade a number of Governors, all six of us, to go in and put our own State money in. The 

companies put in about 40 percent of the money, but these projects 

would not have been underway producing good jobs were it not for 

the TIGER grant program. TIGER gave funds to both projects and 

they are both among the best things we have done for freight rail 

in this country in the last 50 years. 

Now Building America’s Future has some specific recommendations, and I know I am running short on time but let me run 

through them quickly and then I am happy to answer questions. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Take your time. 

Mr. RENDELL. First, we think there should be a short-term boost 

in infrastructure spending above and beyond MAP–21, and I think 

the Congress did a good job on MAP–21, a lot of key reforms, 

speeding up the process, cutting down the delays in environmental 

regulations, the increase in funding for TIFIA. MAP–21 was a very 

good step in the right direction, but we need a short-term influx 

I think along the lines that the President proposed. But if we do 

it, if you do it, we suggest you put a rider in called use it or lose 

it. When we met with the President 2 months after his election in 

Philadelphia in 2008, we recommended use it or lose it. By use it 

or lose it I mean if a State doesn’t get its share of that money, out 

the door; if jobs aren’t being created, if money isn’t being put into 

roads or bridges then the State should lose the money. Under current Federal standards if the State obligates the money that is conVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Apr 11, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\2-13-1~1\78920.TXT JEAN
7 

sidered enough, but obligation doesn’t mean work begins, it doesn’t 

mean money is being spent, it doesn’t mean jobs are created. 

You all know the impact of infrastructure spending. DOT and 

other experts estimate that for every billion dollars of infrastructure spending, 25,000 well-paying jobs are created and, Congressman Rahall, jobs that cannot be outsourced. And just think if we 

did $50 billion like the President recommended, that is 1 million, 

over 1 million well-paying jobs that can’t be outsourced. 

But we think that we need much more than that. We think we 

need to be able to step back and look at the long-term infrastructure needs of the country, not just transportation. But how about 

our electric grid? Think of all the jobs we would create if we took 

a power line that is above ground and buried it. We would never 

have a Hurricane Sandy again, we would never have a winter 

storm Nemo again, we wouldn’t have people in danger of freezing 

to death. Just think of the jobs we would create. 

Now, it is obviously an expensive proposition, but is it worth it? 

Well, you know the CBO in 2008 in a study estimated that we 

could spend $185 billion a year more on infrastructure and it could 

be justified by the economic and societal benefits that would be created. So we think—and we have written the President and asked 

for a commission appointed by the President and by legislative 

leaders to study and develop a 6-month study, a quick study, study 

and develop ways, one, identify what our needs are, our real needs, 

set priorities and figure out ways, and funding suggestions to give 

the Congress and the administration. Unfortunately we haven’t 

gotten a reply from the President to the letter we sent him on November 1st, but we think that type of commission with experts, 

former elected officials, academicians, people who know the business is a great idea. 

Next we need an infrastructure bank. An infrastructure bank 

works. Ranking Member Rahall, you said you had the European 

folks in. The European Infrastructure Bank loans out hundreds of 

billions of dollars a year and they make money. They not only cover 

their administrative costs, but they actually make a profit. Even 

though the interest they charge is fairly low, they make a profit. 

You could fund $50 billion of loan capacity for $5 billion. Under 

Federal regulations you only have to do $1 for every $10 of loan 

capacity. Five billion dollars would produce fifty billion dollars. 

When you think of the success of the TIFIA program and think of 

the demand that exists for TIFIA, to create an infrastructure bank 

that could loan out $50 billion, just think of the projects that would 

be undertaken by doing that. I know there are issues involved in 

the infrastructure bank, but I think it is important enough that we 

should resolve them. 

Tolling, you should lift the ban on States tolling Federal highways, highways that were built with Federal funding. Let me give 

you an example of a small State, Rhode Island. Rhode Island and 

Pennsylvania are two States that don’t toll I–95. They grandfathered in all the States that tolled it at the time Congress passed 

the regulation barring State tolling. Rhode Island has enormous repair needs on I–95. Tolling would produce $39 million a year for 

Rhode Island. With that $39 million flow they could produce a half 

billion dollars to repair I–95 along the stretch that goes through 

8 

Rhode Island. Without it they have no chance, and that stretch of 

I–95 will continue to deteriorate. The same thing is true in Pennsylvania. You know that I applied for one of the slots to toll I–80 

and I was turned down by the United States DOT even though it 

is really the only way to continue to fund all of the needs in I–80 

because of its elevation and the weather that it endures. So unlock 

and free the States to toll their roads. I know there is a theory that 

you paid for it once, but yes, you pay for a car when you buy it, 

but you also pay to maintain it year after year after year. 

TIGER, we have to find a mechanism, maybe through the infrastructure bank, where we make money available for regional and 

multistate projects, for projects that States can’t do alone, and you 

can’t build. For those people who say let’s get out of the business, 

Federal Government, well think about it, you can’t have 50 separate highway systems, because if you go through Pennsylvania you 

have got to get through to Ohio. If you take a freight train through 

a State the freight train has got to have a compatible rail bed to 

go to the next State. You have to have a vehicle. And it is very important to create a vehicle to replace TIGER. TIGER produced the 

best in transportation projects, the most meaningful, well 

prioritized projects. 

Gas tax. I know it is a difficult time to consider taxes, but I think 

we have to fund our transportation system and I think the inescapable reality is for the short term that will require an increase in 

the gas tax. Over the long term we can have a form of vehicle miles 

traveled tax and there are unobtrusive ways of doing so, the technology is literally being developed that can do it in a nonintrusive 

way as we sit here and speak. 

And lastly BABs. BABs, Build America Bonds, was an enormously successful part of stimulus as well. The Federal Government helps States defray the cost of their own borrowing. The 

States still pay the majority of the cost of the borrowing but because the Federal Government participates it doesn’t have to—if it 

is $100 billion the Federal Government doesn’t pay $100 billion, 

the States pay the lion’s share of it. But that extra help on paying 

off the debt service for BABs made BABs incredibly popular and 

incredibly useful for the States. 

So there are ways we can help, and let me conclude by saying 

two things. Number one, you are both right. There has to be a continuing Federal role for all the reasons I discussed and you are 

going to hear that as well from Mr. Donohue and Mr. O’Sullivan. 

There has to be a continued Federal role. 

Number two, American exceptionalism, if we believe in it, if it is 

not just words, if it is not just puffing, it is time to put our money 

where our mouth is. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Governor. 

Mr. Donohue. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, I am tempted, Mr. Chairman, to say amen 

and let you go on. But first, Chairman Shuster and Mr. Rahall, it 

is very good to see you again, and Mr. Petri and all people I have 

dealt with while at the Chamber but more particularly when I was 

the ATA. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for coming to our infrastructure conference today, which is going on right now. You did 

a great job and people were very pleased to have you there. 

9 

Now, look, everyone here today agrees that infrastructure is important to our economy, to our country and to our fundamental way 

of life. We all agree that it is a topic worthy of a robust and honest 

discussion and debate. And we all agree that this debate is taking 

place against, as the Governor said, a few important realities. 

First, our infrastructure needs are highly significant. Second, the 

economy is weak and the Government treasuries are not full. 

Third, there has been a longstanding Federal role in infrastructure 

and that must continue. 

Fourth, whether justified or not, we are facing a credibility gap. 

Many of our fellow citizens still equate infrastructure with pork, 

with politics of waste, with inefficiency, and without a lack of serious priority setting. I would agree with you that most of that is not 

true, but we have got to deal with that reality. They are legitimate 

concerns of our fellow citizens that we need to go out and deal 

with. But none of this changes the fundamental fact that we have 

got to build and maintain a superior, globally competitive infrastructure and we have got to get the job done one way or another. 

There are many extraordinary things we have done in infrastructure. America’s capacity to run its supply chain from a technological point of view, from a management point of view, from a 

competitive point of view is phenomenal, but it is risked every day 

when the infrastructure we run it on is deteriorating. 

The Chamber has its own ideas on how to do all of this, some 

of which you may like and some of which you may not. The one 

thing we can’t do is neglect the problem. If we do, conditions and 

performance will get worse. I promise you it will not get better 

while we sit here and look at it. Materials, labor and land will get 

more expensive, we will miss opportunities for more dynamic 

growth, competitiveness and job creation, and we will also forego 

opportunities to save lives. 

So what does the Chamber think? We think we are going to have 

to raise more money. I thought the Governor raised a lot of issues. 

Would I agree on all of them? No, but I think they are all worth 

discussion. From a business standpoint, if you need something that 

is going to provide a good return, you have to go out and invest 

in it and buy it. That is why we are willing to pay more in gas and 

diesel taxes for something we know is going to make us more productive and efficient and lower our costs. 

The Chamber supports reasonable increases in gas taxes that are 

phased in and indexed to inflation. That should cover the Federal 

responsibility for several years until, as the Governor said, we can 

figure out a related revenue system. 

The private sector is also prepared to pump as much as a quarter 

of a trillion dollars into private-public partnerships, or P3s. Barriers to private investment, including regulations and administrative procedures that make project delivery take far too long, should 

be removed or reformed. Every State should have laws that not 

only allow but welcome P3s. Public-private partnerships introduce 

innovation in financing, project building and project delivery, they 

ease the strain on Federal and State budgets and they free up public money for projects that can’t attract private investment. We 

ought to be doing more of them more often. 

10 

The bottom line is that there is no path to a 21st-century infrastructure for a 21st-century economy without increasing both public and private investment. 

So let’s talk about reforms. Though more funding is necessary, it 

will not be sufficient. We can’t build the case for more public investment if taxpayers aren’t convinced we are being good stewards 

with their money. Congress must end, and they are always working 

on this, waste, and target funding for the highest priorities. We 

have got to be careful about that. That means focusing on a sensible mix of solutions, not a single prescription, projects based on 

actual need and not on politics or ideology, and projects that get 

the biggest bang for the buck, jobs, economic growth, safety. That 

is why we appreciate MAP–21, as the Governor indicated, the 

freight provisions there. Done right, real freight plans should help 

us prioritize and figure out where to put the bucks. 

In addition, we can no longer allow cumbersome and expensive 

processes, environmental or otherwise, that delay or kill infrastructure projects. 

By the way, I will tell you on the energy side where, if you look 

at real spending across the board, a huge percentage of it has 

something to do with energy, it could be as much as 60 or 70 percent. There are 351 projects that could have been done over the 

last few years and they are not there because of the ‘‘not in my 

backyard, not in my neighborhood’’ sentiment. And this is something we really have to look at. It takes too long to build anything 

in this country, and that discourages private investment, increases 

cost, and undermines public confidence. 

I was in—30 seconds—I was in China about 3 years ago. I remember this trip and I was in this 60-story hotel, beautiful, brand 

new in Shanghai. I looked out and there was a hole down there. 

They were building a hole, and there was a camp down there. I 

came back in 11 months and there was a hotel higher than the one 

I was in in that hole. Why? We don’t want to do it this way, but 

they had a camp, they had people work 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week, different people, and got that done. We don’t have to go 

there, but we damn well have to compete. And that means that we 

have got to get busy and make some of this work. 

So this committee made a great start with MAP–21 and you had 

a lot of courage to do it, and we look forward to reforms in the 

water resources bill this year. 

So now let me conclude where I began. Neglect is not an option. 

Sitting on your seat and watching this thing is not going to work 

anymore. Our infrastructure system is a national asset. We built 

it up over generations, we have a responsibility to the people that 

invested in it before and the people that will use it in the future 

to go forward on this. It has fueled economic growth, enhanced our 

competitiveness, created a lot of good jobs, sustained our security. 

If well maintained, boy, that is the big question, it can continue to 

deliver outstanding benefits to all Americans. 

So I am pleased this committee has brought together a diverse 

group of stakeholders to share ideas and to create a dialogue on 

how we are going to do this. Closing the gap between needs and 

resources is going to require just plain old-fashioned leadership. 

Everybody has got a bigger appetite than they have got the capacVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Apr 11, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\2-13-1~1\78920.TXT JEAN
11 

ity to consume it, and we have got to make choices. Nobody likes 

choices, we have to make them and I am not going to like all of 

them, but we need to move forward. We need big solutions. So it 

is time to put the smallness of politics aside and come together as 

this committee has done over the years to make this work. 

Transportation is a great opportunity to prove that Democrats 

and Republicans can work together, that States and the Federal 

Government can each play an appropriate role, that businesses are 

stepping up to help meet a major national challenge, why the 

Chamber was founded, and that all parties can come together to 

actually get something done for the good of the Nation. We are 

ready to do our part. Just do it. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Donohue. 

Mr. O’Sullivan, you are recognized. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and distinguished members of the committee. On behalf 

of the Laborers’ International Union, the men and women who 

dedicate their lives to building America, I want to express our gratitude for the opportunity to speak to you today. Mr. Chairman, it 

is an honor to be at the first hearing under your leadership. We 

respect your willingness to take on what will be a tremendous challenge. We are confident that your commitment to our Nation and 

your family’s legacy of safeguarding our fundamental infrastructure will serve you well. I am also honored to be here with two 

good friends, Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 

Governor Ed Rendell of Building America’s Future, both fine leaders of organizations with whom we share the goal of building a 

modern and lasting American infrastructure. 

LIUNA members helped build the critical infrastructure of our 

country, but we don’t only build. Like all working people, we rely 

on the basic infrastructure of America every day. This foundation 

of our great Nation was created with a strong Federal role, and it 

must be maintained and strengthened with a strong and vibrant 

Federal role. There is no better example of the need for strong Federal leadership than the state of our Nation’s infrastructure. The 

simple fact is you can’t talk about solving a $2.2 trillion problem 

without a Federal role. We can’t fix the 26 percent of our bridges 

that are deficient or obsolete without Federal leadership. Without 

a strong Federal role we can’t address the fact that each day 7 billion gallons of clean drinking water is lost to leaking pipes or that 

each year 50 billion gallons of sewage overflows. Nearly 50 percent 

of the locks on our inland waterways are functionally obsolete. By 

2020 that will increase to 80 percent unless there is a strong Federal role. 

Mr. Chairman, we believe in an all of the above solutions, user 

fees, public-private partnerships, new sources of revenue and increased efficiencies. But at the end of the day it is clear that Federal Government must lead. We commend this committee for making that the topic of its first hearing. 

With all due respect, the challenge we are facing as a Nation is 

beyond the capacity of any one city, any one county or even any 

one State to address solely on its own. Without strong Federal action we will stay in the path we are on, investing 2 percent of our 

GDP in infrastructure while China invests 10 percent, free falling 

12 

towards a Third World infrastructure. We need a new Marshall 

Plan to tackle this crisis, a new way to think about and invest in 

the basics of America. We need the same inspiration, dedication 

and visionary leadership that made us the first country to land on 

the Moon, allowed us to win the Cold War and to become a beacon 

of hope and promise around the globe. If we accept this challenge, 

we can build America and build our economy at the same time. 

The construction industry is in its worst downturn in 40 years. 

There are 2 million fewer jobs in the industry today than there 

were in April of 2006. The construction unemployment rate is currently 16.1 percent. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, 

there is real suffering within the construction workforce and the solution is staring us in the face. Needed infrastructure investment 

would create millions of jobs, and investing now protects taxpayers, 

because every year of inaction costs $150 billion due to further deterioration. There is no doubt we will need to put our collective efforts and heads together to tackle this issue, but it is a no-brainer 

that we must get started now. The decisions and actions of this 

committee will be life altering and as historic as the decision to 

build our Interstate Highway System. Our challenges are great, 

our hurdles are high and building the world to move forward won’t 

be easy, but this committee can leave behind real assets that will 

benefit taxpayers and our entire Nation for generations to come. 

This isn’t a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, every single 

American benefits from good roads, safe bridges, clean drinking 

water, efficient airports and waterways and good jobs. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to offer this testimony. We at LIUNA are eager to 

work with you and know that together we can build America so 

America works. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you much, Mr. O’Sullivan. 

I just want to remind those on my side of aisle we are going to 

recognize you in order of you being here before the gavel went 

down by seniority and anybody who came in after that we will go 

in that order. And I will brutally enforce the 5-minute rule as we 

move forward because there are a lot of Members here today. So 

keep your eye on the clock, both sides of the aisle. I will brutally 

enforce the 5-minute rule. And I will start with myself and make 

sure I fall within the 5-minute rule, to lead by example. 

Governor Rendell, in your experience as a Governor I know you 

have dealt with the issue of trying to do something with user fees, 

you have dealt with a tolling issue, you tried the public-private 

partnership. With that experience just as a Governor, what do you 

believe the role of States should be working with the Federal Government—how should the States and the Federal Government 

divvy up or divide up their roles in funding infrastructure and 

moving these projects? 

Mr. RENDELL. If I were king of the world, I would keep the basic 

system of how the Federal Government allocates money to each 

State. I think you have got to keep that for political reasons, et 

cetera. But then I would put money aside for large projects, the 

projects that are important to us 10, 15, years down the road, the 

freight system we have got to build and build from coast to coast. 

And I would put money somewhere and I would suggest the infraVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Apr 11, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\2-13-1~1\78920.TXT JEAN
13 

structure bank would be the place to put it. But you can put it in 

DOT, you can create some sort of permanent TIGER program and 

make that competitive. The best thing about TIGER is that it was 

competitive and you won or lost based on the value or the benefit 

to the United States of America. I wouldn’t put all of the money 

there because obviously each district has to get some money for its 

own individual needs, but create that second tranche of money 

where competitiveness is the rule, where prioritization is key, 

where cost-benefit analysis is the thing that drives it, and where 

it is part of a national plan. We haven’t had a national plan since 

President Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System. There 

is no national plan. If I were to ask—and there are Members who 

know a whole lot more about transportation than I do, if I were to 

ask one of you what is our plan for a freight system by 2014, could 

anybody give me an answer? 

Mr. SHUSTER. We don’t have an answer. That is what we are 

going to develop though over the coming years. 

Mr. Donohue, I know the Chamber has an econometric analysis 

and it found that if the Nation placed higher priority on transportation we could add nearly a trillion dollars annually to the GDP. 

Can you talk about the best practices you saw the States using and 

apply that to the national level? 

Mr. DONOHUE. It is very interesting to go out and look what innovative States do. Every few months we have a number of Governors, Democrats, Republicans, in for a day to talk about innovative States, what are they doing to survive in a time of exploding 

regulation in their own State and federally, what are they doing to 

prosper with less money and a lot of the traditional sources and innovation has been great. I mean public-private partnerships are 

up, getting individual industries to make investments, working, as 

the Governor indicated, on some of those TIGER issues that came 

out, looking for ways to bring industry in who are going to also participate in this process. It is—by the way, I made a note here. I 

am going to send you all the stuff from today’s conference that has 

all the numbers in it. But the bottom line is one of the great 

strengths in this country, as opposed to the EU, in other words we 

built this country State by State by State and then to a central 

Government. They are trying to invent something that is really 

quite interesting. And we have a way and the Governors have always been the innovators in this country, they have always been 

the people that were close enough to what was going on that they 

would find new ways to do something. And I am sure, Mr. Chairman, I am watching this love fest here with the former Governor 

and the new chairman, I am sure you are going to get all that stuff 

and you sort through it and we will help you. That is where the 

innovation is. Let’s go get it. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Donohue. My time has expired. 

With that I yield to Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank all, Mr. Chairman, and thank all three of 

you for your powerful testimony this morning. I know I heard all 

three of you correctly that there is a need for a Federal role in 

transportation. I think you, Mr. O’Sullivan, made that very loud 

and clear and I appreciate it. Just to ask each of you again and 

just a quick response to this and then I will move on in regard to 

14 

a Federal role, but each of you support this Federal role in transportation investment as opposed to the so-called devolutionists who 

would turn it over to the State and have the State raise their own 

money and make their own transportation policy and decide which 

roads on their own will be built? You support a Federal role versus 

devolution? Yes, yes, yes? 

Mr. RENDELL. Sure. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Absolutely. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. RAHALL. Now let me move on. Of course the big issue is, as 

I said in my opening testimony and each of you have addressed it 

as well, is money. That is the big elephant in the room and how 

we pay for it. I believe I also heard each of the three of you say 

that all options should be on the table. Is that a yes, yes, yes? 

Mr. RENDELL. Yes. 

Mr. DONOHUE. They should all be on the table. We prefer some 

to others. 

Mr. RAHALL. I understand that, but all options should be on the 

table. Yes, yes, yes? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. All of the above unequivocally. 

Mr. RAHALL. Both Chairman Shuster and I both have said that 

in the public arena and privately and elsewhere. Where we need 

some help though of course is coming up with the political will, if 

you will, the political courage, whatever you want to describe it, 

and I am not very optimistic that is going to come from this institution, all sides included when I refer to this institution. 

So I would ask you, is it not incumbent upon each of you to reach 

out across the Nation in a grassroots effort to members of your coalition, members of your organization to help bring that political will 

upon us here inside the beltway, to help build support out in America where I believe they see it a little more clearly than we do within the fog of the beltway about the need to come up with revenues 

to finance transportation? This is something they can see that benefits them and they way of better roads, more good paying jobs, all 

the issues that each you have referenced in your testimony. How 

do we build that type of support to come from the outside to the 

inside of the beltway? 

Mr. RENDELL. Congressman, I don’t know if there are any Virginians, I assume there are some, on the committee, but BAF had 

a forum down in Richmond, and the Tidewater mayors had delivered that morning a letter to Governor McDonnell and the General 

Assembly in which they said they needed more transportation 

funding. And they said, Governor, consider when we are dealing 

with our taxpayers, explain to our taxpayers what the cost of inaction is, the cost of doing nothing. To raise fees and gas taxes according to inflation in Pennsylvania, which I wanted to do my last 

year as Governor, would have cost the average driver about $120 

a year in Pennsylvania, but statistics show that drivers in anything 

close to a metropolitan area will idle cars long enough that they 

waste over $200 of gasoline in a given year, $200 in gasoline. So 

if spending that $120 can do something to reduce congestion, it can 

save money. The cost of inaction is high. 

I mean consider—and I know you probably all heard this statistic, since 1980, 33, almost 33 years, since 1980 the number of 

15 

cars on American roads and highways has increased by 104 percent. How much do you think our lane miles have increased? Four 

percent, four percent, one hundred four to four percent. The cost 

of inaction, the actual dollar cost to inaction costs our citizens more 

than a reasonable increase in revenue. 

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Donohue? And what I am looking for is something more than the joint releases with AFL–CIO, which I commend you for, being for all of the above but move beyond that. 

Mr. DONOHUE. I think there are a couple of issues here. First of 

all, we have all been out talking about, A, the need. Everybody 

agrees to the need, and you can go out and get the citizens all to 

agree, yes, we need the fix this and we would like to have that and 

that is very important. It then comes down, as you very effectively 

said, to money. And you know I would from my point of view, and 

I know Terry and the Governor have been out talking about this, 

say that after 20 years, 20 years, we might consider a small increase in the Federal fuel tax and to go beyond that to say in that 

period of time that miles per gallon in trucks and cars have significantly improved. So therefore, and you can argue about the math, 

we are not getting the money that we would have gotten if they 

were the same miles per gallon for the roads. Everybody agrees to 

that, and you go to the money, and we talk too much about the 

money and not enough about the benefits. But, and I am going to 

be very straight about this, when we do talk about the money then 

the press come up here, or goes over to the White House, or goes 

over to the Transportation Department, and everybody is falling all 

over the floor to say that you won’t have anything to do with that. 

Well, the bottom line is we will go out and raise a lot of noise, we 

will go out, as you will, and we will get people all over the country 

to talk about it, but maybe you could improve by just saying nothing instead of saying, hell, no. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman’s time has expired. And with that 

I recognize the subcommittee chairman of Highways and Transit, 

Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. I thank you all very much for 

your testimony. We have been getting report after report from different academic and industry and other groups, associated equipment distributors, you name it, who have all been saying basically 

we have got to address this problem for the good of the economy, 

for the good of our country, and for the future of our economy. 

But there is an old saying in Washington, don’t tax me, don’t tax 

thee, tax the fellow behind the tree. And I am sitting here in awe 

to see Tom Donohue representing the business sector of our economy saying we need to be responsible, tax us, because we think it 

is necessary—could you expand on this? And I think the Truckers 

Association after having resisted it for a while—— 

Mr. DONOHUE. They are saying the same thing. 

Mr. PETRI. Could you explain why this is? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Yes, I think there are a couple of things. First of 

all, there is all kinds of tax things going on all over the country 

right now. But the bottom line is this is a user fee, this is a fee 

that lets us get from place to place and move our goods from place 

to place, and as the Governor indicated, there are more and more 

tolls and there are other fees, but the bottom line is what shippers 

16 

are looking for is a system that allows them to move their goods 

to their customers in a time dependable way, whether it is in rail, 

whether it is in trucks, whether it is in barges, which are huge, no 

matter how it is. And the bottom line is we are all smart enough 

to know if you are staying with the same amount of money you had 

20 years ago and you heard the Governor talk about the massive 

increase in the movement of people and goods, it is just insane not 

to say this is a cost of doing business. It is not a tax on your income, it is not a tax on your retirement, it is not a tax on your 

house. It is a fee to use the Nation’s infrastructure for the public 

good. 

And I have been saying this, Mr. Chairman, for a long, long time, 

but finally the holes are getting big enough that people are starting 

to listen, and you can count on we are here, the truckers are here, 

all of the other folks will be here, the unions will be here, and we 

even have the Governor. So we are way ahead of the game. 

Mr. PETRI. Just to follow up on that, too, and I think this is in 

a lot of people’s minds, the interplay between new technology and 

the physical infrastructure is very important and we have seen a 

lot of improvements in efficiency as people manipulate data and 

then execute after doing all of that. But there is an opportunity for 

a lot more. We are going to see automated vehicles within our next 

generation on our highways and all the rest of it. 

Can we be doing a better job of laying out the future and why 

it is important to invest in that future than we have been doing? 

It seems to me there is a story to be told that people are hungry 

to hear. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, Mr. Petri, it is going to be a long time before we can beam it up, Scotty, but there is a lot we can do to sequence, to order the movement of people to improve vehicles, to reduce emissions, and all of that is underway. But until which fix the 

primary system in transportation and in the other infrastructure 

issues, you haven’t got a firm ground to build on. And I believe that 

giving people the confidence that we are going to fix the things 

really in order, getting them to support us in that puts us in a position to do exactly what you talked about. 

But you can go chase all the technology you want, you still have 

to move hundreds of millions of people in cars and trucks and 

trains and airplanes. And if we cripple that system, you can forget 

the technology. It will help but it only works if you have something 

to apply it against. 

Now, Governor, you are up. 

Mr. RENDELL. And interestingly it is a little like short-term, 

long-term. To get that technology and to deploy it may have some 

upfront costs, but in the long run it will seriously reduce our costs. 

Perfect example, we know what the technology is to put American 

aviation back among leaders in the world, it is out there, it is satellite, it is GPS, it is on your car. We have a land based radar system. It is a joke around the world what our system is. It is not 

hard, it costs some dollars. Well, not many and who should pay for 

it? The little old lady who never flies or maybe flies once a year, 

she shouldn’t pay for it. But someone like myself who flies 70, 80 

or 90 times a year I should pay for it because you should increase 

the passenger facility charge. Good Lord, they are charging 25 

17 

bucks for a bag, 25 bucks for a bag that doesn’t do anything to improve our air transportation system. Raise the PFC, the Federal 

share of the PFC. Let’s get going. What are we waiting for? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Governor. With that I would like to 

recognize Mr. DeFazio for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have 

a statement from Mr. Bishop, he couldn’t be here, and from the 

Water Infrastructure Network, I would like to enter into the 

record. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement follows:] 

18 


Insert offset folio 4 here 78920.004

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK 

Testimony 

By 

The Water Infrastructure Network - WIN 

liThe Federal Role in America's Infrastructure" 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

February 13, 2013 

WIN is a broad based coalition of the nation's leading construction. engineering, labor. 

conservation and municipal water and wastewater treatment providers. The WIN Executive 

Committee is comprised of'the American Council o/Engineering Companies (ACEC), the 

American Public Works Association (APWA), the American Society orCivil Engineers (ASCE), 

the Associated General Contractors or America (AGC), the International Union o(Operating 

Engineers (IUOE), the Laborers International Union ()fNorth America (LIUNA), the National 

Association ()(Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), the National Rural Water Association 

(NRWA), and the United Association (UA), 

1 
19 


Insert offset folio 5 here 78920.005

Introduction 

Chainnan Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall, you are to be commended on the timeliness of 

today's hearing on "The Federal Role In America's Infrastructure." The Water Infrastructure 

Network (WIN) believes the forty year partnership between local, state and federal governments 

in financing our nation's Clean Water Infrastructure is one of the great economic and 

environmental success stories of our time. However, our nation is facing a water infrastructure 

funding crisis and without decisive action the tremendous water quality gains of the past four 

decadcs could be lost. Recent studies conducted by the U.S. Environmental Agency, the 

Congressional Budget Office and the Water Infrastructure Network have all placed the shortfall 

in clean water infrastructure funding at over $400 B during the next two decades. 

Investing in our nation's water infrastructure has historically been a bipartisan priority for the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and WIN is committed to working with you to 

continue these critical investments. Today, Clean Water Infrastructure directly supports 

manufacturing, agriculture tourism and fishing industries that contribute more than $300 B 

annually to our domestic economy. 

Throughout the 40-year history of the Clean Water Act, Congress has made significant changes 

to the funding mechanisms for water infrastructure, reflecting the fiscal and infrastructure 

challenges before our nation. Twenty five years ago, this Committee played a lead role in 

crafting the State Revolving Fund. a measure that has funded thousands of wastewater treatment 

projects across the nation. Sadly, federal investment in the Clean Water SRF has shrunk to less 

than $1 B a year. 

Our nation is again at a crossroads with respect to how state and local governments, in 

partnership with the federal government, are going to fund our nation's water infrastructure. 

WIN looks forward to working with the bipartisan Membership of the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee to address America's water infrastructure funding challenges. 

The Water Infrastructure Funding Crisis 

The United States is facing a water infrastructure funding crisis. As noted above, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Congressional Budget Office and the Water Infrastructure 

Network have all placed the annual shortfall in clean watcr infrastructure funding at over $20 B 

for the next two dccades. Remarkably, most experts believe that this assessment of our nation's 

pending clean water infrastructure needs is probably low. 

2 
20 


Insert offset folio 6 here 78920.006

Failure to address this infrastructure funding crisis has real and significant implications for 

public health, the environment and the long-term economic success of our nation. Water and 

wastewater treatment improvements that begun in the first part of the 20th Century stand today as 

the greatest public health measures that our nation has implemented. Cholera, dysentery, and 

hepatitis A and B have been nearly eliminated in our nation. We have only to look abroad to see 

the importance of our nation's water infrastructure - waterborne pathogens still kill millions of 

people each year around the globe. 

America's success economically has been inextricably tied to our nation's rich endowment of 

clean water. Clean water-dependent industries such as agriculture, commercial fishing, and 

tourism contribute hundreds of billions of dollars annually to our economy. We simply cannot 

afford to postpone critically-needed investments in our nation's water infrastructure. 

Strong Bipartisan Support for Water Infrastructure Funding 

Funding for our nation's clean water infrastructure has enjoyed broad bipartisan support over the 

past four decades. A prime example of the bipartisan support clean water infrastructure 

legislation has enjoyed is the $18.6 billion Water Quality Investment Act (H.R. 1262), passed by 

the House of Representatives during the III th Congress on a vote of 317 -10 I, with all but three 

Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee supporting its passage. Chairman 

Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall supported the Water Quality Investment Act both in 

Committee and on the House Floor. 

Closing the Water Infrastructure Funding Gap 

It will take innovation and increased funding at all levels of government to effectively address 

America's water infrastructure funding needs. The water infrastructure financing challenges we 

face have been a century in the making and it will take all of the best ideas that have been 

developed to meet this challenge. WIN believes that legislation considered, and in a number of 

instances approved by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee over the past decade, are 

the basis for a Clean Water Funding Bill that could command broad bipartisan support both on 

and offthe Committee. Components of a 21 st Century Clean Water Infrastructure Compact 

include: 

1. Reauthorization of the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund 

WIN strongly supports reauthorizing the State Revolving Funds for wastewater projects with 

modifications to lending tenns and the inclusion of measures to improve efficiency and etticacy 

of the Clean Water SRF. These measures have been vetted through exhaustive Congressional 

Hearings and approved by the full House of Representatives twice in the past decade. 

3 
21 


Insert offset folio 7 here 78920.007

2. Development of a TIFIA Program for Water Infrastructure 

WIN believes that the development of a TIFIA-like program for water infrastructure makes scnse 

and we are pleased that water infrastructure funding legislation advanced by Chairman Gibbs 

and Congressman Bishop in the 11th Congress embraced this financing concept. Many 

members of WIN, including ACEC, the Associated General Contractors of America and the 

American Society of Civil Engineers have worked first-hand on the implementation of the TIFIA 

program in the financing of highway projects and believe that this program is potentially better 

suited for financing water infrastructure projects. Since FY 2005, TIFIA has leveraged $122 

million in annual funding into $2.2 billion in annual funding for transportation projects. 

Unlike highway construction projects, financing water projects with a TIFIA-like program would 

not be contingent on establishing a new toll or fee. Water and wastewater treatment and 

collection systems already impose usage rates and charge fees to their customers. Debt financing 

for capital replacement, expansions, and repaying loans is based upon and guaranteed by 

dedicated revenues raised for those purposes. While, according to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, less than 7 percent of highway projects have the financing profile (the ability to 

collect tolls and fees) needed to participate in the TIFIA program, over 90 percent of water 

projects across the nation have the appropriate financing profile to participate in a Water TIFIA 

Program. WIN and its members have shared their thoughts on the development of a TIFIA-type 

program with the Committee and the Administration and are looking forward to working with 

the Members of the Committee to perfect this approach 

3. Expanded Use of Private Activity Bonds 

WIN believes that Private Activity Bonds (PABs) have an important role to play in helping to 

close the water infrastructure funding gap, and should be a tool included in the toolbox. 

Currently, each state is limited by federal law in the amount ofPABs that may be issued for 

nineteen categories of projects, ranging from housing projects to student loans. This volume 

cap results in water infrastructure projects having to compete with more visible projects. Because 

water and sewer projects tend to be "out-of-sight, out-of-mind," they don't attract public 

attention until there are disruptive water main brakes or massive sewer overflows. We would 

propose lifting the volume cap on P ABs for water infrastructure projects, giving communities the 

option to access private equity partners that seek the advantage of tax-exempt bonds, and 

providing the infusion of billions of dollars of private capital investment lor water and 

wastewater projects at a nominal cost to the federal government. 

4 
22 


Insert offset folio 8 here 78920.008

4. Laying the Groundwork For A Clean Water Trust Fund 

Another water infrastructure financing tool which has received significant attention in recent 

years is the development of a Clean Water Trust Fund. WIN believes that long-term dedicated 

funding for water infrastructure is one of the long-term solutions to our nation's water 

infrastructure funding challenge. 

Dedicated trust funds are a time-tested methoa for financing our nation's critical infrastructure. 

Though not perfect, dedicated trust funds have financed the majority our nation's highway and 

airport infrastructure construction. This Committee, starting with Clean Water Trust Fund 

legislation developed by Congressman Duncan when he was Chairman of the Water Resources 

and Environment Subcommittee, has embraced the concept of establishing a Clean Water Trust 

Fund for our nation's water infrastructure. As general funds become scarcer, we believe that a 

deficit neutral, long-term, dedicated funding source for water infrastructure construction must be 

one of the tools in the toolbox. 

The Water Infrastructure Network remains committed to working with the Committee to identify 

viable funding sources for a Clean Water Trust Fund. 

Conclusion 

The Water Infrastructure Network is extrcmely encouraged by the Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee's efforts to develop the next generation of water infrastructure 

financing and funding legislation. The Committee has a long history of dcvcloping and 

advancing water infrastructure funding legislation that can eam broad bipartisan support. 

Federal investment in water infrastructure continues to make eminent economic and 

environmental sense. WIN look forward to working with the bipartisan leadership of the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to perfect the innovative water infrastructure 

financing tools of the future. 

5 
23 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we are going to try a technological 

experiment here. They have been working on the room, there it is, 

OK. Mr. Rahall referenced this issue. If you look at the screens you 

see at the top there is a brand spanking new highway and that 

would be of course the Kansas Turnpike, circa 1956. It kind of ends 

abruptly on a strange angle. That would be Amos Switzer’s farm 

field Oklahoma, circa 1956. Oklahoma and Kansas had a deal that 

the turnpike would be extended. However, Oklahoma got into financial difficulties, didn’t extend it and for years people launched 

themselves off the end of this beautiful new road into the farmer’s 

field and he towed them out for free. He probably could have made 

a lot of money, and he didn’t plant at that end. 

So this is devolution. There is some now who think this is a new 

idea, that we should devolve the duty of Federal transportation 

back to the States despite the fact it is in the Constitution, despite 

the fact that George Washington did canals, Abraham Lincoln did 

railroads, Eisenhower did the interstate and Reagan did transit 

into the Highway Trust Fund. We tried it, it doesn’t work. So I just 

wanted to make and kick off for the point about devolution. 

Now to our funding problems, Mr. Donohue, you mentioned indexation. I would like to throw an idea at you here because it involves both indexation and the idea that right now we have record 

low capital costs which we are not taking advantage of for the investments to make in this country. I would suggest if we could find 

a dedicated revenue source; i.e., indexation, that we might borrow 

a bunch of money upfront on pretty short-term bonds that we could 

get for very, very low rates to really jump start the Trust Fund, 

and I have got numbers to back it up. If we indexed the gas tax 

to both the highway cost construction index and, you mentioned 

this and referenced it, to fleet fuel economy you would both not be 

losing value because of inflation and construction. And secondly, 

you wouldn’t be losing revenue because we are becoming more efficient. It would pick up about a penny a year per gallon, which of 

course the last time I drove by Exxon Mobil it went up more before 

I got by—I don’t mean to pick on anybody. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Or down. Up and down. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Not on the west coast. We are just going up. We 

are headed to 5 bucks a gallon since Memorial Day. 

Mr. DONOHUE. You have got other problems on the west coast 

with the State. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yeah, but anyway, so what do you think about that 

idea? So if we did double indexation and we capitalized it and had 

a dedicated revenue source, paid it off over say 10 years? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Three sentences. Number one, we would sit down 

and talk about that. You saw in our testimony we have—we believed that indexation, I am not exactly sure what you are saying, 

but I would be very willing to look at it with our friends. The second thing is indexing is a good idea because it makes life a little 

easier up here because you don’t have to come back all the time, 

adding a little more help. And, third, however, while we are talking 

about these very low rates, remember, these very low rates are put 

there by the Fed to try and get us out of this mess we are in. They 

are artificial in their reality. 

24 

And, by the way, at the rate—and this is not a political statement, we all look at the rate deficits are going up, you can count 

on one thing, the price of money will go up. Now, I can’t tell you 

when. So one of your great arguments, if we could do this Thursday 

and get something on before that happens, that would be a good 

idea. But we will take a long look at that, and we have some folks 

that are looking at that subject with people in the industry. Let’s— 

let’s get serious, let’s talk soon. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I will provide you some specifics. 

Mr. Rendell. Governor. 

Mr. RENDELL. Congressman, let me say it is a great idea. Number one, that was one of the reasons for the success of BABs. At 

a time when there was no money available, BABs allowed States 

to go in and borrow. It made a huge difference, number one. But, 

number two, look in the palace of truth and justice, the long-run 

answer to all of our problems in my judgment is there should be 

a Federal capital budget. You are the only governmental subdivision in the United States of America that does not have a capital 

budget. Actually, the Defense Department does. But other than 

that, you are the only political subdivision in the country that 

doesn’t have a capital budget. And that is what it is about. It is 

borrowing as a way of investing at the present time to build things 

that have a return on investment. Every company does it, every 

State does it, every county does it, every city does it. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I couldn’t agree more. I think 

that it is those kinds of things that come out of this committee that 

will, as we look at how our core funding of infrastructure in this 

country going forward, the expansion of that, and the other creative financing mechanisms that have been discussed in the past 

will be discussed in the future, are the way that—that we move 

forward. 

So I know on behalf of our organization, as Tom has mentioned, 

any and all options we think we should consider because the ends 

result, it is about more, more, more, and not less, less, less. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on 

kicking off the year with this hearing. 

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

Next I want to recognize the vice chair of the full committee. 

Don’t start his clock yet because I have got to make a little pitch. 

The vice chairman, Mr. Duncan, is going to head up a special panel 

this year, kick it off later in the spring, dealing with intermodalism 

and movement of goods. And the goal of that committee, which will 

be stood up for 6 months, or panel, is to make recommendations, 

legislative language, to the committee as we move forward on the 

next surface transportation bill. So I look forward to seeing the vice 

chairman’s work. It is going to be extremely important work. And 

I think most of you, if not all of you in the room, will be very interested in what he is going to produce for the committee. And with 

that I recognize the vice chairman. 

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

And I am pleased to realize that under your leadership this is, 

once again, going to be a very, very active committee. And I want 

to thank all of the witnesses for being here and their testimony. I 

25 

have been in meetings with Governor Rendell and Mr. Donohue, 

and I have heard them several times. I know they believe strongly 

in all of this. And I have always said that, you know, I am a very 

conservative Republican, but people in California sometimes use 

the airports in Texas, and vice versa; people in New York use the 

water systems in Florida, and vice versa; people in Ohio sometimes 

drive on the roads in Tennessee, and vice versa. So there is a very 

important local role, there is a very important State role, but there 

is also a very important national role in all of these projects. 

I just came from another committee in which we had a hearing on the 100, roughly $100 billion we have spent on Afghan reconstruction. Which is just a small portion of what we have spent on 

the war over there. And the Inspector General said that we have 

many billions of projects that are now in the pipeline and just beginning to start and new contracts being issued. Most people seem 

to think that because we are pulling out troops that that means 

that we are stopping. But we are going to be spending many, many 

billions in Afghanistan for many years to come. 

And I, for one, think it is way past time that we start putting 

our own country and our own people first once again because there 

are many things that need to be done here. He talked about money, 

billions that have been spent on a road that is not there and hospitals and clinics that they are not even sure exist, and so forth. 

So it is unbelievable, the waste and corruption. 

One question I have, and that is about all I am going to have 

time for. I have chaired several subcommittees on this—in this 

committee. Three. And in all of those, we have heard about how it 

takes usually about three times as long to do any project here as 

it does in almost any other developed country. 

Mr. Donohue talked about a skyscraper hotel being built in 11 

months or some short amount of time. And I have never forgotten 

when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee that the newest runway 

there, which is several years old now, took 14 years from conception to completion but it took only 99 construction days, which they 

were so relieved to get all the approvals, they did it in 33 24-hour 

days. And I have heard similar things on all these road projects 

and everything else. And almost always it is environmental laws 

and rules and regulations that cause these delays. 

I would like to know if any of you have any suggestions or ideas 

on how we can get the environmental groups to allow us to move 

faster on these projects or—we saw that everybody came together 

on the I–35 bridge project because they were—there was no other 

choice. And we did that very quickly. 

Do you have any thoughts or suggestions along those lines? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Well, Congressman, I couldn’t agree more that 

the regulations, the red tape, and the approval process is way too 

slow. I don’t know that I have any recommendations. One would 

hope that the same sense of urgency and a very unfortunate situation with the I–35 bridge would be the same sense of urgency that 

we have with environmental groups, with labor groups, with the 

business community when it comes to rebuilding our infrastructure. 

But I think as part of any process, as we look at how we pay 

going forward to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure I think that 

26 

is something that certainly needs to be looked at. Because I am not 

sure what we are going to accomplish in the long term. If we identify projects and the time between identifying a project from the 

time that the implementation and start of that project is 14 years, 

then we are headed down the wrong path and we are not going to 

accomplish the goals of this committee, the goals of rebuilding our 

infrastructure in this country. But I think it is a critically important issue. 

Without having solutions, I think if we don’t get our hands 

around it, no matter what we do as a committee and as a country, 

we won’t be as successful as we need to be. 

Mr. RENDELL. Congressman, what I would suggest is, on all 

these things, environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, that the Congress, after some good research, put time 

limits in the legislation and allow a waiver to be granted to extend 

those time limits, but the waiver would have to be issued by the 

Secretary himself or herself. And the Secretary would have to report to Congress in writing why the waiver was granted. 

You know, it is amazing what bureaucrats can do when they are 

tested. When we got the stimulus money in Pennsylvania—actually, before we got it. We got it March 1st—I brought all of my road 

builders and contractors together, and I brought all of my 

PennDOT bureaucracy together, and I said to everyone, we are 

going to spend this money fastest of any State in the country. And 

actually, we did, we were tied with five other States, I think Tennessee was one of them, in spending the money quickly. What I 

said is, normally, you have got 90 days to respond to an RFP. You 

have got 45 days. 

All of you contractors tell me you are desperate for work, you can 

respond in 45 days. PennDOT, you normally take 90 to 120 days 

to review the RFPs and make a selection, you have got 30 days. 

Guess what happened. It worked. It worked. Not one thing fell 

through the cracks. It is amazing when we push the system. Where 

is it written? It is almost like it is in the Ten Commandments that 

an environmental impact statement must take 2 years. No. No. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I will say amen to that, Governor. 

Mr. RENDELL. Thank you. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Just one sentence to add to that. If you would 

limit the environmental argument to one set of lawsuits and not repetitive, repetitive, repetitive lawsuits, you would cut the thing 

way back. 

Mr. RENDELL. Excellent. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I now recognize the gentlelady from the District of 

Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank— 

I want to thank the witnesses because of how you laid the groundwork for what the committee could well do, could well accomplish 

this year. And I appreciate the way in which this committee has 

started. 

In the last Congress, we got the fewest bills passed since they 

have been counted in U.S. history. So it is noteworthy that one of 

those bills was an infrastructure bill. The fact that we were able, 

given the contention of that Congress, to pass an infrastructure bill 

says something about its priority for the American people, and the 

27 

fact that arrayed here today is a Democratic Governor, a Republican, I presume, president of the Chamber of Commerce, and the 

president of one of the most important unions involved in infrastructure, is a way, it seems to me, to lay the groundwork for what 

we are going to do or hope to do. 

Let me get to what concerns me. 

As important as it was that we broke through and actually did 

get an infrastructure bill last Congress, it was for only 2 years because it was based on the gas tax, and it runs out after 2 years. 

It amazes me, particularly since I chair a subcommittee that has 

to do with real estate and construction, it amazes me how little innovation there has been in the work we have done in financing infrastructure. 

So my question really has to do with keeping us from developing 

a 2-year pattern. And I need to ask you what happens in the States 

when you get funded only for 2 years. 

But, Mr.—Governor Rendell talks about TIGER grants where the 

private sector was involved I think you said 40 percent. Talks 

about taxes and borrowing, and mentions the European infrastructure bank making money. 

Mr. Donohue, who just tells it like it is, if you want something 

to be done, you have got to pay for it. Although in your testimony 

you called it a gas tax, in answering questions, you called it what 

it is, a user tax. Since when should we give people who use the 

roads a pass on paying for those roads? And I guess pass it on to— 

in some general way, to the extent we can to everybody else. 

So I would like you to help us avoid the expiration of the present 

bill and just going again for another 2-year bill. 

If you had your druthers and we come to the expiration of the 

surface transportation bill that we enacted last year, would you 

just enact another 2-year bill? How would you find a way to get, 

for example, public-private partnerships as a core part of the bill? 

And, for goodness sakes, an infrastructure bill as part of the bill? 

Should they be part of a surface transportation bill rather than 

things that the States are trying out here and there? How—save 

us from another 2-year infrastructure bill because we are relying 

on the same gas tax that we know it is going to run out in 2 years. 

Governor Rendell, would you like to start? 

Mr. RENDELL. Well, it is a very good point. It is very difficult for 

States to plan. We try to plan. And we do have 5-, 6-year plans ourselves. It is very difficult to plan when there is not a Federal bill 

that is significant in number of years. It makes it impossible because we have no idea what money is coming in and what terms 

the money is going to be given to us. 

Ms. NORTON. Does that affect which project you start? 

Mr. RENDELL. No question, no question. With a 2-year bill, the 

tendency is to spend the money on ‘‘Fix it First.’’ By the way, ‘‘Fix 

it First’’ is not necessarily a bad idea. We should be doing a lot of 

‘‘Fix it Firsts,’’ but there is in every State a project that is really 

important to unlock economic growth and development. There is 

not a Governor or any of you who couldn’t point out a project in 

your State that is necessary that doesn’t exist now, but that is necessary to unlock all sorts of growth and development. No question 

about it. Even if it is just a 6-mile spur to the turnpike from a 

28 

newly developed business park that doesn’t have one. So, yeah, it 

makes it very difficult. When the Congress does temporary fixes, 

it makes it very difficult. But it also makes it very difficult to have 

any long-range planning. And I actually believe we should have a 

long-term infrastructure plan for the country. And it should be 

transportation as well as all of the other things that go into our 

infrastructure. 

When a Hurricane Sandy happens, it destroys transportation infrastructure, but it also destroys water infrastructure and other 

types of infrastructure as well. So I would like to see us do it the 

way a business would do it, sit down and figure out where we want 

to be 10, maybe 15, maybe 20 years down the road and plan for 

it. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Gentlelady’s time has expired. With that, I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Webster. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Pays to show up early. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I have a question. There are all kinds of means 

of transportation, one of which has not been, except just in passing, 

mentioned today, and that is transportation through pipelines. Has 

each of your organizations endorsed the XL pipeline? Publicly? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Yes. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Resoundingly, yes, sir. 

Mr. RENDELL. Building America’s Future hasn’t taken a position 

on it, but I personally, as a Democrat, have said we should make 

the Keystone Pipeline part of an overall energy bill. 

Mr. WEBSTER. OK. Thank you for those answers. 

I have one question of you, Governor. You have mentioned several times about an infrastructure bank, which sounds like a great 

idea. I think it is a great idea. And that somehow, some way, that 

money would be distributed to the States. 

My question would be, as a former executive of a State, which, 

in some cases, tend to make you—you have your kingdom, and you 

mentioned that, that, you know, you don’t want everybody telling 

you what to do, you want your own thing. Would you be—would 

you think that we could identify corridors that would not necessarily be just instate corridors to use that money on, in that they 

would be multistate corridors that we would identify not only for 

roads, but also rail and other things connecting ports to ports or 

seaports, airports, all of that, do you think that that is a Federal 

role? 

Mr. RENDELL. Not only do I think it is a Federal role, but if I 

was drafting and crafting the infrastructure bank legislation, that 

would be the number one priority of the bank. The number one priority of the bank would be for projects beyond State borders, for 

multistate projects, for projects that do connect port to port. I 

mean, Congressman Shuster can tell you about both the Crescent 

Corridor and the National Gateway projects because they were 

both freight rail projects that went through multiple States, both 

of them went through Pennsylvania. And they created not—not the 

construction jobs that were raising the heights of bridges and 

things like that, but permanent jobs. They created tens of thousands of jobs all along the route as those corridors went through 

Pennsylvania. 

29 

It was amazing, the intermodal facilities that were built in places 

like Chambersburg, not far from you. So, yeah, I think that would 

be the number one task of the infrastructure bank. We don’t need 

an infrastructure bank to decide whether Kansas is going to build 

an addition to Route 64. Kansas should make that decision. But we 

do need an infrastructure bank if Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado 

come to us and say we need a—we need a freight rail link between 

these five cities. 

So, yeah, I think that should be the primary goal of the infrastructure bank, primary priority of the infrastructure bank. 

Mr. WEBSTER. One other question about that. 

Would somebody else like to respond to that? Mr. Donohue? Mr. 

O’Sullivan. 

One other question to you, just because you were a Governor, I 

think it is important to understand where the States would be. 

A lot of times—in most cases, the Federal Government has no 

land-planning or use-planning authority; that is usually given to 

the local communities. 

And so many times the local communities will make decisions 

that greatly impact the Federal road system and highway system, 

and yet we have nothing to say about what is done there. And my 

question is, do you think there is any way we could balance that 

to say that, look, you have these feeder roads coming into, quote, 

U.S. highways that we are funding and—either partially or fully, 

and yet we have no control over the amount of traffic and the level 

of service that goes down as soon as those feeder roads are expanded. Do you think there is any opportunity for us to input in 

any way in that? 

Mr. RENDELL. Sure. I think you could build in as—to your own 

distribution criteria. 

Just like, I think Mr. Donohue said, give priority to the States 

who, in certain Federal funding, give priority to States who make 

the maximum effort on their own in funding. You could key the distribution of your money to things like that. I think you could make 

them depend, and they could be one of the criteria that funding decisions are judged on. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Anyone else want to respond to that? 

I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Webster. 

With that, recognize the gentleman from Everett, Washington, 

Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill likes to note that he 

thinks I am from the second-best Everett in the country, Everett, 

Washington, whereas he is from Everett, Pennsylvania. We differ 

on that. On that point. But we don’t differ on the point we are having, hearing today. 

And that is—you know, essentially what I heard you all say is 

that our success in this country when it comes to infrastructure 

doesn’t happen by accident, it happens on purpose. It has happened 

on purpose for the last 200 years by us purposefully using the Federal role to both kick-start enhance, complement, State and local 

government funding in transportation infrastructure. 

And I think we have lost the sight of that over the last several 

years, not just—not just 2 years, 4 years, 6 years, 8 years, but over 

30 

the last—over the last several years, that our success happens on 

purpose, and by purposefully investing in infrastructure, we can be 

more successful than we have been. 

And there is a lot of examples of that. Just, one, quickly from my district. There is a county that I represent that has $50 million in 

bridge repair that needs to be done. As a proxy for its income in 

this county, about half the kids in the largest city in this county 

are on free and reduced lunch. There is an indication here the population of that county is in no way able to tax itself at a level that 

it can repair $50 million worth of bridges by itself. The State help 

is necessary, there is Federal help that is necessary. 

So there is a—there is definitely a role here. 

One issue we haven’t touched on, and I am not sure it is most 

appropriate. Maybe Mr. Donohue is most appropriate for this is— 

has to do with NextGen and the air traffic control system and the 

investment that we need to make in that. Which is largely technology-based, as it turns out. 

But if the Chamber has a specific idea about how to structure financing for that in a way that is, you know, most fair, have you 

all come to a conclusion on that? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Congressman, I am thinking about that. I am not 

ducking it. There are a lot of creative financial approaches that we 

can take here. And there are great experiences that have been had 

in the States, and there are fundamental realities, as you say, that 

some things can’t be done at home alone. And I think we can come 

to some of those resolutions and as soon as we make one fundamental decision, and that is we are going to increase the revenues. 

Because right now to talk about this idea or that idea gets very, 

very difficult unless, A, we are willing to increase the revenue and, 

therefore, we have a means to do creative financing or effective financing—I like that better—on top of it. But you are not going to 

get anywhere until you do the fundamental issue of giving this 

committee and the larger piece of change to figure out how to exercise its responsibility. 

I am a big, big fan of States off doing what they ought to do. I 

live in Maryland. And in Maryland and Virginia, we have spent 25 

years arguing about what we are going to do about the beltway. 

And I—and that needed everybody to work together on it. And a 

big Federal role. But every year we wait, it gets worse and worse 

and worse because of different congestions, different building 

projects. 

So let’s fix the fundamental deal and then let’s get a lot of smart 

people like yourself together to figure out what we ought to do to 

build on top of that to take care of the projects the Governor was 

talking about, to take care of the projects you are talking about. 

And we are not ducking that at all. I represent people that do creative financing all the time. But the fundamental issue is you have 

to be in business to do it. And what we are doing is putting us in 

a difficult position. 

Mr. LARSEN. Governor. 

Mr. RENDELL. I think you know my answer. I would raise the 

PFC and bond off it. If you raise the PFC, you could get all the 

money you need to have NextGen started immediately and finished 

fairly quickly. 

31 

Mr. DONOHUE. And you could note for yourself that while the 

Governor gave his answer, I wasn’t shaking my head ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. LARSEN. Let the record show. And if there is a group of start 

people that want to get together, talk about that, I will join them 

if they will allow someone who is not so smart to be there. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from Washington. With 

that, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And in full disclosure, 

I am from Texas. And I have been in the automobile business for 

41 years. So—and I also agree that the Federal Government has 

a major role in maintaining our infrastructure. I agree with all of 

you on that. 

Question I would have, though, what do you all see—what would 

the 18.4 cents look like, what would it rise to? What do you see it 

rising to if we raise the tax necessary to do the things we are talking about, things we need? Do you have an idea what that 

would—— 

Mr. RENDELL. Unless I am wrong, and someone correct me if I 

am wrong, penny on the Federal tax brings in $9 billion? Is that 

right? Anybody? $1.7 billion, per penny. $1.7 billion per penny. So 

you would have to raise it fairly significantly to make a difference. 

But you would phase it in. You wouldn’t have to do it all in 1 year. 

And I know people keep saying with the economy what it is, this 

is not a great time to raise any tax, particularly a tax that impacts 

on individuals. But you could phase it in over a period of time. 

And, again, if you wanted to do some things upfront, if you had 

a phased-in schedule, you could bond off it, you could do something 

very creative. I mean, we do it all the time. We do it all the time. 

We raised our tolls and we bonded off—the toll increase was locked 

in for 25 years, and we bonded off the toll increase. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Also would help—I am sorry, Tom. 

Mr. RENDELL. No. Go ahead, Congressman. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I said, also would help, too, if all the money went 

in it account it was supposed to go into. 

Mr. RENDELL. No question. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. You know, I would like to see a figure on that. 

We may check that out, if all the money was supposed to be where 

it is, how much we would have in that account today. 

Mr. DONOHUE. You know, the point is, if you do this over a number of years, if you get up to 12, let’s say you go 15 cents. This is 

only part of the equation. It is the Federal money, it is the State 

money, it is the local money. If you—if you got 15 cents over a relatively quick period of time, maybe 3 years, something like that, 

all of a sudden at least you are getting back to where you were. 

And a little bit ahead. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And I would just say this, too, something that you 

have touched on is a lot of people are not thinking about but the 

CAFE standards with what they are. I personally don’t think the 

CAFE standards do our transportation infrastructure that much 

good. But the fact of the matter is, when they have to reach a goal 

of 53 miles per gallon, I think it is 2020 or something like that, 

we are going to have to come up with a way to offset that and posVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Apr 11, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\2-13-1~1\78920.TXT JEAN
32 

sibly have more people paying in the system that are not paying 

in the system. Do you agree? 

Mr. DONOHUE. I agree that the people that use the system, and 

eventually if we keep changing all of these issues, some of the people that benefit from the system directly are going to have to put 

up the money. And we want to be a part of that discussion and 

that decision. But the bottom line, we are not talking about personal income tax, State income, real—we are talking about the tax 

to use the facilities, to move the goods and people of this country, 

and to protect our safety and our national security. And we need 

to get on with it. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Congressman, I—I am not sure what the number is, Tom talks about 15 cents. I mean, that is a good number. 

I mean, we haven’t raised a gas tax since, what, 1993, indexed, 

for argument’s sake, they talk about anywhere from 30 to 32, 34 

cents. Anything would be an improvement of expanding how we— 

the core base of how we fund infrastructure. And I think we certainly need to look at that. I am encouraged by what is going on 

with the number of States across the country. Of looking at their 

own gas tax, of increasing the gas tax. Those are encouraging 

steps. This committee and this meeting today is certainly encouraging in commitment of looking seriously at how we fund our infrastructure needs going forward. 

But I think it is critically important because we—we support 

user fees, we support the gas tax, we have to get real about it. I 

look at it this way—I think our union does, I think we all do, is 

that we have a $2.2 trillion problem. And we all know that. So I 

am not sure what the number is, but we need to get closer to satisfying what the infrastructure needs of this country are now, over 

a period of time. But it needs to be a relatively short period of time, 

or I think that no matter what we do, we are going to be extremely 

disappointed at the end of the day, 5 years or 10 years or 15 years 

from now, about what our infrastructure looks like. And support 

what the Governor talked about of having a national plan of what 

we want our infrastructure to look like 10, 15, and 20 years out. 

Mr. RENDELL. And, Congressman and Mr. Chairman, I think one 

of the most important things this committee can do is start looking 

at some form of vehicle miles traveled tax. There are, as I said, 

technologies that I know of that are extremely less intrusive than 

the original VMT that could truly resolve this problem in a fundamental way and get away from the fact that whatever we do with 

the gas tax, it is going to have a declining yield. There is no question about it. But it doesn’t mean that people are using the roads 

less, they are using the roads more. So we have got to find a fairer 

way to do it. I would envision 5, 10 years down the road that we 

wouldn’t have a gas tax, we would have some other form of user 

fee. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Donohue is champing at the bit. I will give you 

10 seconds. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Yes. I think what the Governor is doing with his 

time and energy is very important for this country and for our infrastructure. I would just like to say he is the most creative conservative taxer that I have seen. That is his 15th idea on a way 

to raise the revenue. We are ready to go on a user fee and other 

33 

related creative issues. I am not sure we want to go as far as he 

does yet, and I don’t want the people that are covering this to be 

out saying that I have jumped off the bridge. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Donohue. 

With that, Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before 

I make a few comments, I would like to suck up to you for 1 

minute. Mr. Chairman, you should know that I represent the original Everett, Everett, Massachusetts. And more importantly, my 

mother had the great foresight to name me Michael Everett 

Capuano. So when the earmarks come back, just remember that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I will yield to you. I will give you the first place 

in Everett standing in the country. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I didn’t really come 

prepared to ask a whole lot of questions simply because it sounds 

like we are all on the same page, pretty much, or at least the same 

chapter, which is nice for a change. But I do want to make a few 

points. First of all, I think it is important for people to know that 

are listening to this that virtually every single penny that is spent 

on infrastructure in this country supports private enterprise. Federal employees, State employees, city employees do not build or repair bridges. We hire private entities to do that, almost exclusively. 

And I think that that is an important fact a lot of people forget. 

I also think it is important for people to realize, look, whatever 

we do here, everybody agrees we need more revenue. We should do 

whatever is right. Because the truth of it is—we are going to talk 

politics, which I know we are not supposed to—we are going to get 

as much grief for a nickel as we get for a dime as we get for 15 

cents. We should figure out what is right, what we need, what is 

good for the future of this country and do it and accept the political 

consequences. Because, in theory, I thought that is what we ran for 

office to do, what is right. 

I guess I want to defend my environmentalist friends. I am an 

environmentalist by any measure of the term. Yet I also know that 

there are some things that get in the way. And I think the problem 

up until now has always been those people who say, oh, the environmental regulations are too tough. I actually agree with you. But 

the result, the reaction to that shouldn’t be then to just throw them 

all out. The reaction should be, which ones are the problems? Let’s 

get to work, let’s figure it out. I am not looking—I cannot support, 

I will not support a destruction of our environment. I am not looking to go back to the 1950s. I am looking to somehow find a balance 

to actually make progress on infrastructure in a way that is environmentally sensitive. And I believe it can be done. 

So for those of us who are concerned about it, instead of just saying, oh, the environmentalists are all the problem, let’s throw them 

out, if you do that, fine, you are going to lose again and we will 

lose, those are of us who actually want to build something, will lose 

as well. We should together and figure out exactly what the problems are and exactly how to figure it out. 

I guess the last point I want to make before I make a comment, 

one last comment, is on infrastructure bank. I just want people to 

be warned about infrastructure banks. The concept is fine for a 

rare occasion. But the concept is problematic if you simply say let’s 

34 

borrow today and pay for it with money tomorrow. It appears and 

it does—it is necessary on occasion. I had to do it for a mortgage, 

otherwise, I couldn’t get my house. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts basically did it to pay for the Big Dig. We also did it a 

few years ago to do something called the Accelerated Bridge Program out of the stimulus. Which means today, the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts, approximately 30 percent of every Federal dollar 

coming into Massachusetts has already been spent. 

Now, OK. Those are two emergencies, we had to deal with them. 

It happens. But if you do it all the time, you are going to find yourself, those of you who spend more than a few years here, you will 

find yourself in a situation where every Federal dollar that comes 

into your State has been spent by your predecessors. So be careful 

about how far we go down the road on infrastructure banks. 

And, lastly, I guess I want to say, Mr. O’Sullivan, my guess is 

that I probably have 100 percent voting record with your organization. That is a guess, but if not 100, pretty damn close. 

Mr. Donohue, I am not so sure that my numbers are that good 

with you. But I have got to tell you, I am getting a little nervous. 

We agree on taxes on roads. We agree on comprehensive immigration reform. Is there any chance maybe we agree in investment on 

research? 

Mr. DONOHUE. I think the research tax credit is an intelligent 

thing to do. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Donohue, are you going to take any of these 

things into consideration on my score this year? Because I would 

like to get up above single digits. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Wait a minute, now, Congressman. Don’t get carried away. I will start at the other end of the curve and come forward. But I would like to congratulate you for the position you 

have just taken on those three issues, and I will certainly keep it 

in mind. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to quit while I am ahead. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Mr. Congressman, if I could just say thank you 

on behalf of the members of my organization. Thank you for your 

vote. 

Mr. RENDELL. Can I just respond, Mr. Chairman, to one thing 

about the infrastructure bank? The infrastructure bank as was in 

the Kerry-Hutchison bill, did not have any grant authority. It was 

all loan authority. And so the Federal Government would not— 

again, if the European infrastructure bank is a barometer, the Federal Government wouldn’t lose a dime. We wouldn’t be encumbering anybody with debt, we would actually be making a small 

profit. We would cover the administrative costs of the bank itself 

and make a small profit. 

The European infrastructure bank is a key part of how Europe 

does its infrastructure and it doesn’t wind up costing anybody anything. And you can control that by just making sure that the infrastructure bank only had loan authority. Now, I—I would do it as 

a mix of loans and grants. But you can deal with that by just giving it loan authority. And $5 billion of loan authority would allow 

you to loan out $50 billion to projects that would be funded by 

the—in great part, by the private sector. This money would be the 

35 

money that puts the project together that lets money in, and it 

could create an awful lot of development. And if we are not going 

to do something in terms of writing big Federal checks, and my 

guess is we are probably not, we should look at something like 

that. I mean, it is the theory behind TIFIA. I assume, Congressman, you voted for the significant increase in TIFIA, which was a 

great idea. Because TIFIA winds up leveraging just a whole boatload of money—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Governor. 

Mr. RENDELL. That and other things. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Appreciate it. 

With that, Mr. Coble for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman 

from Ohio for yielding. I appreciate that. 

Gentlemen, good to have you all with us. 

Mr. Donohue, in what ways would streamlining the regulatory 

and licensing processes help us to strengthen our infrastructure? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, Congressman, if we—if we short—shorten 

the amount of time it takes to get permits, the amount of time it 

takes to deal with land issues, the amount of time it takes to deal 

with environmental issues, from that first perspective, we would 

spend a lot less money doing it, we would get going much sooner, 

and the end-to-end costs would be less. Second, there are lots of 

other regulatory issues, many of which we have worked our way 

through. Some of the wage rates, some issues on safety and environmental issues, and we are making a lot of progress, particularly 

on in—Terry and I deal with this stuff all the time. The bottom 

line is, when regulation is bigger than the rest of the project, I 

think you have got a clue it is not working well. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Governor Rendell, not every Member of Congress, as you know, 

has a district that includes ports or waterways. Explain to us why 

these Members, without those facilities, should also have concern 

about having a modern inland waterway and port system in our 

country? 

Mr. RENDELL. Because without that, Congressman, there are 

businesses, manufacturers in your district that export. And the key 

to successful and competitive exporting is to be able to get the 

product from your State to a port, to have that port run effectively 

and efficiently, and get those goods on their way at the lowest cost 

in the fastest time available. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Donohue—and I will also hear from Mr. O’Sullivan on this 

one. The Chamber in the econometric analysis found that the Nation—if the Nation placed a higher priority on transportation, we 

could add nearly $1 trillion annually to our GDP. 

With that in mind, what policies or best practices that States are 

using can and should be applied at the national level by the Congress? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, we have talked to a lot of the States. We 

have done a lot of analysis on this. Our view is—and we just talked 

this minute—anything that we can do to shorten the timeframe between idea and conclusion, anything we can do to assure that financing and money is available in an intelligent way, anything we 

36 

can do to work carefully with our employees and our private sector 

to do some joint issues, which is happening more and more in the 

States, all of that shortens the timeframe, reduces the cost, and 

gives—this is very important, probably not in my testimony—when 

people see a result, when people—I can go drive on that road, I can 

go on that bridge, I can get quicker to go to work—all of a sudden, 

they get much more agreeable on the next deal. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, in other words, just generously lacing with 

some common sense might be a good way to say it. 

Mr. DONOHUE. You want to get everybody upset, but I think common sense would be a great addition. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. O’Sullivan, do you want to add that? 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. I don’t know that I could add much, Congressman. I agree with common sense and what Tom—Tom laid out we 

have to figure this out, we have got to shorten these periods. 

Congressman Capuano makes a good point. I mean, we have to 

be environmentally sensitive. But at the same time, we have got 

to be able to move product to market, move people from point A 

to point B, and we have got to shorten the time that it takes to 

do—to repair and rebuild our infrastructure. 

I also think that Tom just touched upon—we need the valueadded proposition of what people are getting when you talk about 

possible increases in gas taxes and those things. 

And I would just add that between American transportation mobility, which Tom heads up that our unit is part of, Building America’s Future, which the Governor has spearheaded for years, I 

think it is incumbent upon our organizations and other transportation organizations to work hand in hand with this committee to 

accentuate the reasons why we need to put more money, not less 

money, towards our infrastructure; why we need to shorten the 

timeframe of identification of a project to completion of a project. 

Because, in the end, our economy depends upon it, sorely depends 

upon it. And so does our ability to create much-needed jobs in the 

construction industry moving forward. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. I yield 

back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentleman. I just want to alert folks 

that at 1:15, we expect a vote. I know there is some time constraints on some of the panel members. 

So if you would—we are going to recognize everybody till 1:15. 

But we are going to adjourn when we go to vote. So if anybody 

wants to be considerate of other Members here that want to ask 

a question you shorten it up, quicken it up. And our panelists, if 

you can give snappy answers, we certainly would appreciate that. 

With that, I recognize Mr. Nolan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that in mind, I will 

withhold my questions. But I feel I would be remiss if I didn’t 

thank the panel. We have three extraordinary leaders here: From 

labor, from business, from combination of business and governance. 

And they have outlined a vision based on the needs for progress 

and development here in this country. And we would all do well to 

heed their good advice and find a way to enact and to implement 

that vision. 

37 

And I would remind everybody that being from Minnesota, and 

the talk about the need to fix our infrastructure and our bridges 

could not be more apparent where the bridges have literally fallen 

down, in the case of I–35, costing us the tragic death of many people and the great costs associated with that. 

And as you have all pointed out, this is America. We are and we 

can be exceptional, as the Governor pointed out. And let’s take the 

challenge that they have issued us here today. And let’s bring forth 

a good, strong bipartisan bill that implements the recommendations that we have heard here today. 

Thank you all very much, gentlemen. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Nolan. And that will be duly noted 

that you yield back about 4 minutes. Write that down somewhere. 

With that, I recognize Mr. Gibbs. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, panel, for being here. 

I want to maybe talk a little bit about water sites, since the 

water is, at least on a tonnage basis, about 90 percent of the 

freight goes through our water system. And, Governor Rendell, I 

want to thank you for your commitment on the RAMP Act, especially what is going on in Panama, what it does to our competitiveness if we don’t get our ports in order, as you know. 

We talked about it a little bit with Congressman Duncan about 

the costs of these studies and time. And I noticed in your testimony, at least two of you talk about the private-public partnerships, getting capital. And, you know, seems to me we have better 

chance of doing that if we restore some confidence in the private 

sector, that we are not going to run up a bunch of costs on the 

studies and the time. 

Does anybody have a—maybe a kind of a ballpark figure, 

percentagewise, what some of the costs of the studies are compared 

to the total project? 

Mr. RENDELL. That is a good question. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Forget the costs of the dollars that goes into the 

study. And it employs some people. Look at the costs of time. And 

the costs of time is much more expensive. You are paying interest, 

you got construction financing, you have got all the frustrations, 

the delays. You know, you can look at the studies. You were talking about poco. But serious deal, time is money. 

Mr. GIBBS. Because I have seen a couple examples, 15 years, $75 

million before the backhoe started. You know. And it just really 

frustrating. So I know in your—previously here in the committee 

talked about waivers and time limits and lawsuits. And, hopefully, 

that is something we can incorporate. Because I also want to also 

thank the chairman for his commitment to do a water bill, which 

I think is important. 

And along with that, on the—when we start looking at projects, 

you know, I think it might be a different water bill, I may be going 

on a little limb here, since I am chairman of the subcommittee. I 

know in the past—I wasn’t, of course, here—there was the earmark 

issue. You know, I think we should make sure we have a very 

transparent and accountable process. But things of regional or national significance, you might want to care to comment about how 

38 

we should maybe try to move that way in a new version or a type 

of water bill. 

Mr. RENDELL. Well, again, there was some debate on the infrastructure bank bill about whether it was transportation only. 

Again, if it was up to me, I wouldn’t make it transportation only, 

I would make it available to other things. But in this case, you are 

talking about water transportation. So it would be available for 

that. And that would be where you would go to get that type of sort 

of overview. And broad—in other words, there would be earmarks, 

but they would be competitive earmarks based on a cost-benefit 

analysis. That is what TIGER was. When you think about it, 

TIGER was earmarks. TIGER—money was given to a specific proposal. 

But it came after a competitive process which subjected each and 

every one of the applications to cost-benefit analysis. And you are 

right. There has to be a vehicle for specific projects. But that vehicle, to go back to I think the point Mr. Donohue made, the public, 

rightly or wrongly—and a lot of earmarks were very good and did 

a lot of things for Pennsylvania transportation. But the public 

never heard about those. And the whole earmark process poisoned 

the well for transportation funding. 

So in this case, you would have earmarks being given out, but 

given out by a group that is doing it on a cost-benefit analysis on 

national goals and priorities and things like that. By the way, the 

Congress could write in the criteria that the board members of the 

bank would use to decide which projects would be funded. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Donohue, would you like to expound a little bit 

more how to create these public-private partnerships and getting 

that private capital? 

Mr. DONOHUE. There are a lot of examples how this has happened. I was up in New York the other day with people that have 

a billion dollars they want to invest in this. What we need are 

projects that can be organized and financed in the short basis that 

are going to have a decent return. Some people think it is a gift, 

you know. But it is there. And we just—in the issues we just spoke 

about, in terms of how do we take all that delay out, you shorten 

the time and put the asset to work so that it is bringing in a return, you can get a lot of it. 

Mr. GIBBS. If I can conclude here, I just wanted to say, and you 

referenced the Olmstead Project. I have been there. I am very frustrated what is happening there. The cost overruns, about 90 percent of the capital budget is going to that one project. And we need 

to fix that. And in the future, need discussion on that. I have 

talked to the Army Corps of Engineers, but we are still a few years 

away. My time is up. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Time is up. I thank the chairman of the Water 

Subcommittee and look forward to working with you as we work 

on a water bill. 

With that, I yield to Mr. Maloney from New York. 

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I cannot exceed 

my colleague from Minnesota in many respects, I am going to beat 

the Rick Nolan rule or standard on 4 minutes yielding back. 

I just want to thank the panel for your testimony. I am a huge 

fan, Governor. Thank you for your leadership on infrastructure 

39 

over many years. I created the Public-Private Partnership Commission when I was in the Governor’s Office in New York, and we were 

a big fan of the work you were doing. I think it is very important 

that Democrats, especially, on my side of the aisle come to the 

table on these issues that have been brought up this morning, particularly the combination of sources, leveraging private capital, getting that capital off the sidelines and into projects. 

What the people of Hudson Valley need is hammers-on jobs. I 

look forward—I appreciate the role that labor plays in this. It is 

very important to get your guys off the couch and on these projects. 

The Tappan Zee Bridge is critically important to my region. You 

can’t look for any better example where we need that TIFIA Program to support that project. The Governor has been a great leader 

on this in getting design-build into the mix as well. Thank the 

Chamber for its flexibility on this. And I yield back my time. I 

thank the chairman for his leadership, and I look forward to working with all my colleagues on the committee. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Nolan. Again, somebody write that 

down. Four minutes to spare—Maloney. 

Mr. MALONEY. Don’t give it to Nolan. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sorry. I was so impressed with him that I—— 

Mr. Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to talk 

a little bit—the chairman, Mr. Gibbs, we have all been talking 

about projects of national significance and in what the Federal role 

is in determining how our highway dollars are spent. You know, I 

am from Texas. The Texas Department of Transportation published 

their transportation goals, ranging from a low of $10 million to 

widen a roadway in Jefferson in Chambers County, to over $16 billion to complete Interstate 69. And near and dear to the—my constituents in Corpus Christi, $600 million to replace our aging Harbor Bridge. 

You hear some people say, let’s just turn the money over to the 

States and block grant it and let them choose the priorities. How 

do you balance that with choosing what projects are of national significance? I don’t think we would have gotten the Interstate Highway System built through some of the less populated States. Where 

is the balance there? 

Mr. RENDELL. Again, it goes back to what I said. I don’t know, 

Congressman, if you were here earlier. I said I would leave the 

basic funding formula in place that distributes money to every 

State. But then I would create a second pool of money, akin to the 

TIGER grant program, maybe even a little larger, for projects of 

national significance. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So we had the President’s State of the Union. 

He had a lot of ideas, many of which I really liked. But are we falling into the trap that I think the President fell into with a laundry 

list of great ideas, but no how do we do them? You know, how do 

we fund them? What—what is the—you know, what is the impact, 

with a limited pile of money, how do we get there? 

Mr. RENDELL. Well, again, I think all three—and I don’t mean 

to speak especially for Mr. Donohue, I would get him in trouble. 

But I think we all agree that there should be some increased revVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Apr 11, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\2-13-1~1\78920.TXT JEAN
40 

enue flow, either temporary increase in the gas tax, changeover to 

a vehicle miles traveled type tax—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So the big concern with the miles-driven tax, 

which I think may end up being where we come, as we see more 

vehicles move to natural gas, electric, how do you ensure privacy 

as to where people are going with that and how do you pay it on 

a short-term basis rather than getting a bill from the Government 

every year for how many—when you don’t have the cash to pay it? 

Mr. RENDELL. It is a very good question. And it is why I suggest 

to the chairman that this committee look into that. There is a technology now that can do a VMT at the pump. Again, I am not sure 

I can explain it that well. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. It is an RFIT-type deal. Probably be how it 

would work. The pump would read how far you have driven. 

Mr. RENDELL. Exactly right. Without being intrusive in finding 

out where you drove and—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So you create an incentive, say, all right, you 

chip your car, you get the miles-driven tax, otherwise, we have 

jacked the gas tax up. So there is an economic incentive to move 

to that? Or you just move forward with vehicles manufactured after 

a certain—— 

Mr. RENDELL. I don’t think we can get vehicles manufactured— 

I mean, vehicle miles traveled quickly enough. I think you would 

have to raise the gas tax for a short period of time before there is 

a transition. But I think this committee, it could be the most valuable thing you do. I don’t know how you do your assignments, Mr. 

Chairman, but to really up-tempo a study of that. When—I don’t 

know if all of you remember Secretary LaHood came out in favor 

of looking at and transitioning to a VMT. And then the White 

House—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The problem with any increase here is that 

gasoline—it is almost like an overall tax. There are very few ways 

an individual can lower their consumption of fuel economically. You 

can cut out unnecessary trips. But most people don’t take many unnecessary trips. You go to work, you go to school, you go to the doctor’s office. How do you know, you know, without major capital investment in a new car, avoid that? Are we just—are we just asking 

the American people to pony up more when that is really all they 

are hearing now? 

Mr. RENDELL. Well, there are ways. I mean you would be surprised. Keeping your tires at the appropriate pressure, you would 

be surprised how much that cuts your gas bill. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Maybe we will read the tire pressure and there 

will be an alternative tax for not maintaining your tire. 

I will give a little time back. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Farenthold. And with that, Mr. 

Rice is recognized. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think you know 

where I have to go next. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes. 

Mr. DONOHUE. And I have to leave now or I can’t get there on 

time. And I want to show you the extraordinary relationship between labor and business. I yield my proxy to Mr. O’Sullivan. 

41 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, fortunately for some or unfortunate, you 

don’t get to vote today. But I know you have an important meeting 

and so by all means go and make sure you carry the good word to 

the individuals that you are speaking to in a few minutes. Thank 

you for being here, Mr. Donohue. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Thank you for your proxy. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Rice, you are recognized. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by thanking 

the chairman and the ranking member. I look forward to working 

with this committee over the next year. I consider it is a big privilege and honor to sit on the committee and look forward to learning 

and helping America grow. My priority since my first political office 

was only 2 years ago, I was the chairman of the county council in 

Horry County, South Carolina, where Myrtle Beach is. And my priority has always been jobs. And my name plate on my desk says 

jobs, jobs, jobs. 

I am very concerned about American competitiveness, about our 

infrastructure keeping pace with the rest of the world. It is not 

enough that we simply maintain our infrastructure, we have got to 

keep moving forward or we will be left behind. I have maintained 

throughout my campaign that spending money on meritorious infrastructure is not really an expense but an investment that pays 

returns. 

I want to tell you a little bit about my frustration and I am really 

going to repeat a lot of what has been said here today. We have 

got two major infrastructure projects in my district. And you have 

to keep in mind I have eight counties in South Carolina. National 

unemployment rate 7.8 percent, statewide unemployment rate in 

South Carolina about 9. Not one, not one of my counties is even 

at the State rate. I have Marion County in South Carolina, which 

is the highest unemployment in the State of South Carolina, 18.5 

percent. I have got Marlboro, which is number two at about 16 percent, and I have Dillon, which is number eight at around the 14- 

percent range. 

One of these projects that I am talking about is I–73, which 

would impact every one of those counties in a big way. Studies 

have been done—29,000 jobs, 21 percent annual return on investment to construct that road. We have been trying to get the permit 

now for 5 years, 5 years. And we are still dealing with the Army 

Corps of Engineers. And while I wonder about that—well, let me 

go to the next project. The second project is totally within Horry 

County, no Federal dollars involved at all. One, we couldn’t get any 

help from State or Federal Government. Voters stepped up and 

voted a local option sales tax to construct a series of road projects. 

One of the top ones was extension of road called Highway 31 and 

four-laning a road called 707. We had permits to do both of those 

projects independently, we had to move the intersection of the two 

roads a little way. Southern Environmental Law Center stepped 

up, said we need to relook at this because we are moving it, you 

have to get a new permit. The Army Corps said you need to join 

those two roads. Not only that, we need that resurveyed, but we 

want you to look it the last portion of Highway 31 you built 9 years 

ago in case you damage more wetlands than you told us you did. 

42 

And we will see you in 2 years, and that was 2 years ago. Thousands of potential jobs, no Federal dollars involved. It is not just 

that the Federal Government is not participating in helping us to 

progress, it is that the Federal Government is actually an anchor 

around our necks, and that even when there are no Federal dollars 

involved they are a burden, a wall holding up progress, holding up 

American competitiveness and sacrificing American jobs. 

I would just like your comments on that. 

Mr. RENDELL. Well, again I don’t think either of us would argue 

with you. You are dead right, particularly the second example is a 

great example. When we were trying to get dredging, Mr. Chairman, done in the Delaware River to make our port competitive, we 

had EISs and we had EAs and they had been done, and a group 

came in and said, no, you need to do another one. And we fought 

hard and actually won that battle and won that argument, but they 

seem to be endless. There was no material change at all. In fact, 

I actually talk about this a little bit in the book that I wrote. The 

reason they ask for a new environmental impact statement was because there was a school of sturgeon that had taken up residence 

in the Delaware River and they wanted to see the impact on the 

sturgeon. I said how long has the sturgeon been living there, they 

said 3 years. I said do you realize that we dredge every year just 

to maintain our current level and that means we blast. And how 

are the sturgeon doing? The person from OSHA said, well, they 

have grown, the school has gotten bigger. I said, well, there you 

are, they like it, they really like dredging, you know. Why do we 

need to do a new study? The sturgeon aren’t dying, the school is 

growing. 

I mean one of the Congressmen who is not here anymore used 

the term ‘‘common sense’’; we need common sense, simple as that. 

And we can’t be afraid to say that. And there is no reason that you 

need another EIS to go back to something that was done over the 

last 9 years. There are frustrating stories like that all over. 

And if Mr. Capuano was still here I would say we don’t want to 

get rid of any environmental regulations, we just want them to be 

conducted in a commonsense way, in a swift way, in a way that is 

fair and it doesn’t necessarily hamper growth and development. 

Mr. RICE. I may disagree with you there, there are a few I might 

like to get rid of. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman’s time has expired. We have to figure out how to legislate common sense. I don’t know if we can do 

that or not. 

With that, Mr. Radel from Florida is recognized. 

Mr. RADEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I dovetail right off that, I 

have had the honor of representing and serving Florida. I am a 

firm believer that a healthy environment means a healthy economy. But we are hearing it time and time again. You have DEP 

at our State level, EPA, Army Corps. 

Mr. RENDELL. OSHA. 

Mr. RADEL. OSHA, everything overlapping. And so what do we 

have, we need to look at both sides of the ledger here. We are being 

asked, we need to invest, we need to spend, spend, spend, but at 

the same time we are getting our credibility cut because of delays, 

which mean even more spending. 

43 

With that said, I would like to go back to a word that was used 

in theory of devolution, devolutionists. It sounds like a rock band, 

by the way. I think, Governor, you are well suited to answer this. 

Is there something we can do to push this down to the States? Instead of having the EPA in Washington clearing these projects, can 

we leave the jurisdiction up to the States? 

Mr. RENDELL. Actually I know Terry is going to want to jump in 

on that, too. That is another one of the problems, is that you have 

joint jurisdiction often. You have to deal with the Federal regulations and you have to deal with the State regulations. It doesn’t 

make a whole lot of sense. And there are ways to streamline this. 

By the way, I think you made some strides in MAP–21, you made 

some definitive strides, and I think all of us were pleased with 

that. We can do more, we can do more and you are right, State, 

Federal, those investigations if they are going to be carried out, let 

them be carried out contemporaneously. Why do we have a State 

investigation and then two-thirds of the way through the State investigation EPA starts to investigate. I mean again it does go back 

to common sense and it does go back to the people who are in 

charge of the regulators enforcing common sense. 

When I was Governor I never, ever overruled any of my regional 

DEP people on their environmental conclusion, but I sure as heck 

told them to get off the dime and get me an answer one way or 

the other in 30 days or 45 days. It can be done. And you did do, 

I don’t know—were you here for MAP–21? 

Mr. RADEL. No, sir. 

Mr. RENDELL. I think the Congress made some progress in MAP– 

21. 

Mr. SHUSTER. We did some of that. 

Mr. RENDELL. They could do more. 

Mr. O’SULLIVAN. I don’t know what I can add, but I said it before, and that is that as we have gone through this hearing today 

and talked about alternative methods of funding infrastructure 

going forward we hear time and time again the same complaint, 

Congressman, that you have the same problems that you have. I 

think as the Governor has laid out, if we don’t deal with the State 

and Federal role in how we reduce the amount of red tape, if we 

can figure out the funding we are still not going to be happy with 

the end result because of the examples that you brought up and 

other committee members brought to the table. 

So I think while funding is critically important so are the issues 

that you are bringing forth when it comes to taking a project from 

identification, to implementation, to finish. And if we don’t reduce 

that time, we are not going to be where we need to be 5, 10, 15 

years from now. 

Mr. RADEL. Noted. I yield my time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Radel. And with that I recognize 

the gentleman who represents the Brent Spence Bridge in Kentucky and Ohio. 

Mr. MASSIE. Of course you are going to hear about that bridge 

in my question, but thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the chairman 

knows, I am a hard nosed fiscal conservative, but I believe that we 

need to spend more on infrastructure and that is why I am glad 

to be on this committee. Not just because I realize the need and 

44 

the benefit of spending money on infrastructure, but because of the 

constitutional nexus that we have. And so it warmed my heart 

today to see Members on the other side of the aisle talking about 

the importance of the Constitution. I hope they feel the same way 

in other areas of the Government. 

My question is for the Governor today, and it comes from my experience as a county executive, struggling with a transportation 

budget myself and also from discussions with my own Democratic 

Governor Beshear in Kentucky, and that is when I first took office 

as county executive, the first thing I did was look at the transportation budget in the county because I felt that was of utmost importance to my constituents. We had a 6-year road plan. I found 

a 36-foot bridge on the plan that went to five houses on a dead end 

road, and I assure you there is no national significance to this 

bridge, and it was going to cost $400,000. So I asked the State engineer why the bridge was going to cost $400,000. He said because 

we are getting Federal money to build this bridge. And with the 

Federal money comes a need for an archeological study, a 

hydrological study and an environmental study. And talk about 

common sense, you don’t need a hydrological study, you go ask the 

farmer whose family has lived there for over 100 years, has the 

water ever been over this bridge, and he says no. So you build one 

just like it. I also think once you go over a certain level you had 

to start paying prevailing wage for this bridge. So an $80,000 

bridge became a $400,000 bridge because it took Federal money. So 

I talked to the Governor about this because we are always looking 

for ways to pay for the Brent Spence Bridge. This is where the confluence of I–71 and I–75 come together near Cincinnati and cross 

the same bridge; 4 percent of our commerce goes across this bridge. 

And I thought what if we gave the Governors more power? For instance, as I understand it, we can’t earmark programs but we sort 

of tie the Governors’ hands, we give the money in silos. And if I 

understand this correctly, some of the money has to be spent on 

small bridges in rural areas, some of it on beautification, some of 

it on recreational trails. And so—I don’t find a constitutional nexus 

or national importance for all of these things. 

So my question for the Governor is, would you like to see more 

flexibility on these funds, and if you were still Governor would you 

like to have been able to have more flexibility to take money maybe 

from the recreational trails or the beautification projects and spend 

it on infrastructure that was sorely needed? 

Mr. RENDELL. The answer is I think every Governor would want 

more flexibility and there is no question about it. But by and large, 

you are right. There are tranches like bicycle trails, et cetera, that 

become part of the Federal bill. But remember how the money, 

transportation money is distributed. You had an MPO that included your county, right? Or an RPO, rural planning organization, 

and the State let that organization vote on its priorities for the 6- 

year plan, am I right? So basically except for the tranches that 

come with Federal requirements, basically the States do have fairly 

free rein, and the Governors can influence the MPOs or RPOs by 

having the Penn DOT secretary. The Penn DOT Secretary says 

well, we would really like to do this or we would really like to do 

45 

that. But basically in the end the MPOs raise their hands and they 

set the 6-year plan in motion. 

So there is a lot of flexibility right now with the Federal money 

that comes in, there is no question. Are there tranches in there, 

generally small tranches that I would like to see left up to the individual State policy? Absolutely. But remember, the vast majority, 

the highest percentage of the money, 85, 90 percent, is distributed—those plans are set by the RPOs or the MPOs. And it always 

used to—when I was mayor it ticked me off that Philadelphia, 

which had 40 percent of the population of my MPO, got 1 out of 

17 votes, because there were other like 17 counties in the MPO. 

But that always bothered me. But again I think there is a lot of 

flexibility with the Federal dollars. What I would have suggested 

were I Governor of Kentucky is you do that project without Federal 

money, fund that yourself, $400,000, you don’t really need Federal 

money to get that done. And so you avoid all of the Federal requirements. 

Mr. MASSIE. The story has a happy ending. I gave the money back and got some State money and did it for $80,000 instead of 

half a million dollars. 

Mr. RENDELL. There you go, you did the right thing. 

Mr. MASSIE. But as I understand it from the Governor, he does 

get money from silos and can’t move it from one silo to the other. 

There is money we would like to spend on the Brent Spence Bridge 

that we can’t. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. We have a 

vote going on, we have 11 minutes left so we can probably get you 

two—you and Mr. Davis in if you shorten it up a little bit. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Mullin from Oklahoma. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to sit on this board. I sat here just for one reason. I own a 

company, which is construction companies. We spend over 40 cents 

on every dollar to comply with regulations that come in. One thing 

we can definitely hear among everybody here is that regulations, 

the red tape, the common sense has been taken completely out of 

these agencies and they are becoming more of a hindrance than 

they are to help preserve anything because our infrastructure 

around us in Oklahoma is definitely failing. And I can identify the 

agencies that cause us the biggest headache to complete projects or 

even to be able to start projects. And what I look forward to is the 

opportunity to work with everybody here to identify those agencies 

that have reached too far and bring them in and make them answer for what it is they are requiring us to do, because what we 

are doing is we are funding projects and we are sending it to the 

Government to just be able to do the project. 

And I yield back my time, but I do say, Mr. Chairman, thank you 

for allowing me to serve and thank you for taking the time to be 

here. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, we appreciate you, Mr. Mullin, being here. 

Someone with your experience, real world experience is going to be 

very, very helpful as we move through all these different bills, 

WRDA to the next highway bill. We look forward to the expertise 

that you bring. 

46 

And with that, final questions, Mr. Davis from Illinois. 

Mr. DAVIS. Final questions, I am the last guy. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I will make it quick. How many minutes do we have 

left? 

Mr. SHUSTER. You are going to get 5, but we have 9 to vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. Hey, I just want to say I hail from the great State 

of Illinois. Mr. O’Sullivan, please give my best to John Penn in the 

Midwest region, a friend of mine, somebody that I know we can 

work with on a regular basis to pass some major legislation that 

is going to help us rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. I see the 

need for that. It is a bipartisan issue that we all know. I want to 

thank both of you for coming in today and sitting here and answering the questions. 

To be honest, all my questions have been answered so I am not 

going to ask you anymore. I just want to reiterate locally how important it is to address some of the major issues in the regulatory 

environment to reduce the overall project costs. I am going to give 

you one example, a two-lane highway that is about to be finished 

into a four-lane highway from my hometown of Taylorville, Illinois, 

to Rochester. It was 18 miles back in 1988, first ever Federal funding in SAFTEA–LU I believe, and we had—it was estimated to cost 

$18 million to build that four-lane section, it is going to be finished 

this next year, yes, next year. And we are exponentially higher 

than $18 million. And a lot of it has do with the questions my colleagues have asked, the questions that the chairman has brought 

up. I would just urge us all to continue to work together, Democrats, Republicans, labor, business because we can make something 

happen. Under the leadership of Chairman Shuster whom I know 

wants to see a long-term transportation bill I think we can all work 

together to make it happen. 

Thank you again for coming today. I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Davis, and I want thank our witnesses today, appreciate your spending time with us. The discussion was broad and informative. We appreciate it and look forward 

to talking to you as you move into the future. Again thanks and 

safe travel. 

Mr. RENDELL. I can’t ask Mr. Davis why I spent 13 hours in 

O’Hare Airport on Monday? 

Mr. SHUSTER. I don’t think he represents O’Hare Airport so he 

is not going to take the blame for that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Aviation Subcommittee. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s 

hearing remain open until such time that our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in 

writing and ask unanimous consent the record remain open for 15 

days for additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in today’s record. 

Without objection, so ordered. And with that the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

47 


Insert offset folio 9 here 78920.009

5rdtenv~nt of rh2 '10noLlt)l~ 'ncn 3i<;hop 

Committe::: on Tnn;0Q(t3~iofl and Infrastructure 

Heari~g on (''Th2 F2deLtl Ral:; ~·n ;..\mcfka's Infrastructure" 

F:~bri.1-)[V tJ.2013 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for hoidin~ this hearing today on this extr2m21y important topic. 

\i\fhefl it come; to Am8ric~l5 infrastructurc) th2 role of d::~ Federal government;..; both critk31 and clear. 

N~ver h-a; the n~.;:!d Tor Feder~i investment be:;~.l g(eJt~[l and in my district, perhaps more u(g~nt both 

in th.= :;hort t2rm -n j long term. 

In mv d:3trictJ still deva;-tated bV the irnracts Of 53ndv, immediate Fedc:ral invc')tment will help 

r':!ouild our r;::u.J". our dun.:::s, and our W~S{t~\.;nt:::( f3dli;ic5-the underpinning; of onr local economy 

21,10 es')en~i·3i to o~!r d3Y to d~y lives. This short tsrn if)v23~ment is critical. but it is not ,)!I th3t is nt"33ded. 

In N:~'i'1 York Jnd ::lrnund th~ n'::t(iv;1, :3 \orq term F:::deral investment is ll'2eded ;n Am~rk:ills 

1nfr))~:ru-ctu(e to cr-8Jt<2 jobs and r~stoL~ dna s:t.~~n:~~hcn (HJr economy_ 

The foeL;) of toddY::) hi:arin:]; 'Nf!1 03 Idr~c;'I on the Federal !nVe;Cn12nt in th~ nation's 

trJn-;pDr t3tioil sy::;tern, including OU .... (03(:5, r"f!.s -and (:3nsi t systems; qnd wi(h:.>u[ question rheV are 

fundarn2nt::7f to OlJ( economic succe~5. rha .;udas':! tr,3n:.;portation bill the Congr:=s; pa,:;s2d L:t~t Vear 

m:.lSt b3 re~pn::2d rlS only ~he first step in 3 much ldtg2f investment in surface tcan5poftatiofl that the 

Fcdcnl gDverr.fn2n~ mu">t make over the nex~ ;,~ve(jl Y83(S W rebuild our crumblil"s r03ds and bridges 

and th~~ bu:;in2S')~5 th3t rely' on them for ';UCC2S:i. \lIfe cannot ignore hQ\;I/2V·~t! other looming 

in;;ostfLl'_tur2 112,::~cL..; t:lat 3(~ just as gre·~t and ;u 7 .: as lt1~p'.Jn:3nt to OW' economic futur.::. 

J\round the country, states report a il'?.2!d of clo5e to $300 bWion in wastewater trBatm~nt, pipe 

rep!dCel'l1?nt dod ;e;>3ir. and stormwater mand:;2mei'\t pr()jects over the next tV;f2fltv yea:s, This need Is 

e;;pecially pressing in many cities and commur.it12s vdcio:; "3 critical juncture in the ag2 and re!i3billty of 

their wat2( ir!fr;.'L.itructur2, with pipes and seVri:;e tr2a tmeDt facilities reaching the 2nd of th21r expected 

U5Bfu! ijf~. 

COile':!;")) over the nationfs waste\'V3t(~r inrf3structure has: been hj6h!:]ht~d in multiple 

governill:enta! n:~ports} including one by the U .. :;. Government Accountability Office (GAO) that found 

that tna int2grltv of the nation"s wastewat2r infrJsUUCHire is at risk of failure ir the;-e is no significant 

effort {O imprO,f8 the management of key 3S:;:'2t<;, slJch as pipelines and sewage treatment plants, 35 well 

3; d :ii'?,:lifk::Hl: investment in m3i(lt3in;n~! r-~:13bmtadn3, :md re91adng these a55-~'t~, 

!U:5t li;;~ our roads and bridg.?'); our \'h1 ;~:!W1t0r systems are c(umbiiq~, dnd ju::.t lik{,~ our roads, 

ti12 ~djjlji:: to invc:;t dnd (~bul!d th':s~ 3V>:2ffi> 1},'jJj tV.l'f2 ~ ripple affect flot juSt on YJf \M>lt2i quality bl't 

also \)fl JUt ':;·::;);wmy. Without::1 gr:?!.lt2r ;:-:d.~(al i;w2s':ment. commu:)ities tr.]t c:mnot upgrClde and 

BXP_F,d "::h..;::;; lfd)t.::water systems wHi fi0d ;~ ~--lrd:jr to 3~troJ::t ne\N business ::lod ~0 :EJHti n,;;w hom2s. 

·:'.(L;::'~~; :)q;: "'!~)~"l ,)(\::1 hOrn2$ \Vlli S2~~ tr';:>.::j,-,'~ :j;~ ;:0 ;c> :-tie dS :;hort t2rm fl~c~'> .1(2 SOl.1-;ht Current 

.li}~\·n;r-id~~0n') chJt :::ql,.E,118')$ [f\~n 1./Ld·~:J; th:? ldentlfi2d need to rnOd3(':.:~::! .md r,~:);!l( th2-;~:! 
48 


Insert offset folio 10 here 78920.010

systems are clearly not sufficient, and the time for a new approach to Federal investment and financing 

of these efforts is now. 

Last Congress, I introduced legislation that took an "all of the above" approach to wastewater 

financing, and I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle again and early in this new 

Congress to make that effort a reality. 

Similarly, this nation is facing a critical juncture in the capability and reliability of our ports, 

harbors, and our waterborne highways - the network of navigable waterways that make up our inland 

navigable waterways. In this country, our system of inland waterways and coastal ports plays an 

essential role in domestic and international transportation, the health of national, regional, and local 

economies, and the creation and preservation of thousands of domestic jobs. 

Like the nation's highways and mass transit systems, the condition of our navigation-related 

infrastructure is deteriorating before our eyes. While the "potholes" may be less obvious to the average 

American, the signs of age and neglect are equally as relevant, and the consequences to the U.S. 

economy are just are important. 

According to a recent report of the American Society of Civil Engineers, even if we just 

maintained the current, albeit inadequate, level of funding for our coastal ports and inland waterways, 

by 2020, there will be an estimated 738,000 fewer jobs in the United States that rely, in some fashion, 

on the goods and services moved on the water. 

Providing a 21" Century water transportation network will require sustained investment in the 

repair, replacement, and adequate maintenance of the nation's inland waterways and coastal ports, 

including maximizing the intended benefit of two Federal trust funds created to support such waterways 

and ports. However, the challenges of ensuring that sufficient funds are available for these activities is 

critical, and will require serious efforts by this Committee and this Congress to maximize the benefits of 

our marine and inland highways. 

In closing, I want to reiterate my belief that the Federal government has a clear and critical role 

in investing in all modes of our infrastructure, and the fact that we are holding this hearing makes me 

hopeful that the Chairman and the rest of my colleagues on this Committee agree. 

As Ranking Member Rahall pointed out, however, this collaborative view could be severely 

undermined however, by the looming cuts that would result if the sequester or the budget that will 

soon be proposed by the Chair of the Budget Committee, were to go into effect. Clearly, the impacts on 

Federal infrastructure financing that would result from these drastic budget cuts would be devastating 

and have severe impacts on our economy that will make it very difficult to recover. 

We have proven over the past few years that we really cannot do more with less, we just do 

less with less. When it comes to our infrastructure, the ripple effect that declining investment has on 

every aspect of our economy is clear and cannot be ignored. 
49 


Insert offset folio 11 here 78920.011

Sr· '<Ion Ih:'>i()('RAltC \VHlP 

CO\1\1I1IH- 0' Sn~,:\ce, Sf'\( I 

A'inTfCI!:\01,()(,l 

R\"KI:-..tj MF\mrR 

CO\l~llTnT 0;0.; TR.\ .... SPORI'\T!O:'\ 

A .... n I"I'R,\.qRI'CH RE 

S( HCO\I\lITill. 0" W \ITR 

·\\I·\lln\. 

0daw$~$~ 

PU",\St R[~SPO;\D !() 

WA~III"CiTO" 0111('[. 

?:-I6X 

[)'\ll-\~OI fltf 

J102 \1\1'11 AV[-\.II 

S\ if(' (100 

rx 7:'i:WI 

'1:2-XXX5 

S(BU)\!\11111'· 0\ 111(,11\\\)\ ,\,\'DT""""lf C!I:ungr£ss of tIle llnitcll i>tlltcs 

30U~ Distriri, [1'*«$ 

CO'GRFS<;fO:",\L BtACh C·nelS 

CH\lR, lilT" CnscREs .. 

\\.\\W.lI0( \~ (.()\/I.BJ()fl",~(),,1 

RII'.L.H.HHI,,\()\.(g' \1-\IL H()I ~l-_n()'v 

Statement for the Record 

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson 

House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 C?/:!,V_ ~ _~. / 

Heanng on: /(/7 {/Vi/V"" v V,-," 

The Federal Role in America's Infrastructure 

Mr. Chairman, I am heartened by the subject of this committee's inaugural hearing 

of the I 13th Congress, and share your view of the vital role that infrastructure plays 

in the U.S.'s ability to compete globally and grow our domestic economy. 

From the development of the transcontinental railroad system, to the Eisenhower 

Interstate System, and the 21 ,t century advances in high speed rail, the federal 

government's role in the development of infrastructure has been directly tied to our 

country's economic success and expansion. In order to maintain our Nation's 

competitive edge, we need to have the kind of infrastructure and multi-modal 

transportation system that can move goods and people efficiently and safely. Our 

economic output and growth as a Nation depends on it. 

While we are confronted with an aging infrastructure and serious fiscal limitations, 

this Committee has historically approached these challenges in a bipartisan 

fashion, and this has served to benefit our Nation. Investing in our Nation's 

infrastructure brings with it both long- and short-term gain. By building out our 

infrastructure we invest in our economic future, but we also create thousands of 

good paying jobs. 

I look forward to the testimony ofthe witnesses, and the continued role ofthis 

Committee in expanding and improving our Nation's infrastructure. 

PRI"lC)) O"RFCYCLEIJ PAPril 

t'i~~,:::>", 
50 


Insert offset folio 12 here 78920.012

Congressman Timothy J. Walz 

There is a broad consensus across the political spectrum that our nation's infrastructure system 

needs a strong investment in maintenance. upgrades and improvements. This sentiment is 

echoed by the business and labor communities, state and local governments, and consumers and 

families. Two areas in particular - the interstate highway system and freight rail are especially 

important to me and my constituents. 

The interstate highway system is the backbone of our nation' s infrastructure, ensuring that 

individuals. military supplies and commercial goods can access virtually every comer oflhis 

country in a safe and efficient manner. However. investments in maintenance and improvements 

have not kept up with the increase in commerce transported on these roads. For example, 

Highway 14 in my district stretches trom one end of Minnesota to the other, and serves as an 

essential link for citizens. Yet, most of Highway 14 remains a two-lane highway. This poses a 

safety risk and challenge to our rural businesses trying to transport their goods across the country 

and to our workers trying to get to their jobs. Without four lanes, these challenges will only 

increase. 

Freight rail is another important means of transportation that needs upgrading. In southern 

Minnesota, freight rail transportation is one of the most efficient ways for our farmers. 

manufacturers, and businesses to transport their agricultural products to markets in the U.S. and 

abroad, and to transport the coal we depend on to generate energy. This is why I continue to be 

concerned about the rising shipping costs our rural businesses continue to tace. I believe we can 

invest in our rail system while ensuring our businesses arc presented with fair market shipping 

rates. 

I have long been a supporter of improving our freight and passenger rail system, as well as our 

highway system, and I look forward to working on these issues this session as a member of the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 
51 


Insert offset folio 13 here 78920.013

BUILDING \ Co-Chairs 

Michael R. Bloomber& Mayor, New York City 

Edward G. Rendell, Former Governor, Pennsylvania 

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Former Governor, California 

Testimony of the Honorable Edward G. Rendell 

The Federal Role in America's Infrastructure 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

February 13, 2013 

Chainnan Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testifY before you on the urgent need for federal 

infrastructure investment. This hearing could not be more important as I believe 

this issue is one of the most urgent facing our country. 

I am here today as a co-chair of Building America's Future, an organization that I 

co-founded with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and fonner Governor Arnold 

Schwarzenegger. Together, we represent a diverse and bipartisan coalition of state 

and local officials working to advance infrastructure investment to promote 

economic growth, global competitiveness and better quality of life for all 

Americans. 

Infrastructure is all around us and is part of our daily lives. Electricity powered the 

alann clock that woke us up this morning; clean water came out of our showers; 

we used a broadband network to check our e-mail; and we traveled to this hearing 

by car, bus or subway. I took a train from Philadelphia and some of you may even 

have flown here from your districts. The point is, without a functioning and 
52 


Insert offset folio 14 here 78920.014

reliable infrastructure, our society would not operate as we all have come to expect 

in daily modem life. 

The federal government's role and investment in the nation's infrastructure is vital 

and indispensable. Yet, how we define the federal role is open to debate. As a 

former governor, I am a proponent of giving as much flexibility as possible to the 

states. Lifting federal restrictions on tolling is one such example. But without an 

overriding national vision and network, America's transportation infrastructure 

would resemble a patchwork of disconnected roads and rails; our aviation system 

would be untenable; goods movement would be greatly hindered; and the electric 

grid would be a disconnected system in each of the 50 states. And all of this would 

cost businesses and consumers billions of dollars. 

For too long, Washington has ignored the warning signs. Inadequacies in the 

electric grid that left 55 million Americans in the Northeast and Midwest without 

electricity for 48 hours in 2003; the destruction of New Orleans and other Gulf 

Coast communities due to inadequate levee systems in 2005; the shutdown of 

public transit systems, airports and freight rail along the East Coast affecting tens 

of millions and costing even more due to Hurricane Sandy. A functioning and 

reliable infrastructure matters. And Americans expect nothing less. 

We all know that for the United States to remain competitive in a global economy 

we must have a first class infrastructure. Our infrastructure - and the good policy 

making that built it - is a key reason America became an economic superpower. 

For years, the United States led the world in investing in transformative 

infrastructure projects - the Erie Canal, the transcontinental railroad, the world's 
53 


Insert offset folio 15 here 78920.015

largest airports, the Hoover Dam, the interstate highway system. But somewhere 

along the way we lost focus. 

For example, America's transportation network has been under-funded for 

decades. Only about 1.7 percent of U.S. GDP is spent on transportation 

infrastructure. That stacks up poorly against the nine percent being invested in 

China, the eight percent in India and the four percent in Canada. To put that into 

further perspective, American infrastructure spending in real inflation-adjusted 

dollars is about the same level as it was in 1968 when the economy was far 

smaller. 

According to a 2010 Congressional Budget Office report, total public spending on 

water and transportation (surface transportation as well as aviation and waterways) 

declined by 6 percent or $23 billion between 2003 and 2007. That decline reflects 

a decrease in real capital spending, especially by the federal government. 

Although the federal government represents roughly 25 percent of transportation 

and water infrastructure spending, it has provided much of the funding for 

operating and maintaining the nation's air traffic control system. Despite that, the 

United States is living with an outdated aviation system that doesn't serve the 

needs or expectations of 21 st century travelers or cargo shippers. As a result, the 

World Economic Forum ranks U.S. air transportation infrastructure 30th in the 

world, behind countries like Panama and Malaysia. 

Much of this is based on the fact that air traffic control is managed by the same 

ground-based radar system developed in the 1950's even though cutting-edge, 

data-driven and satellite-based systems are being implemented in other parts of the 
54 


Insert offset folio 16 here 78920.016

world. We need to do more to get the next generation air transportation systemNextGen - off the drawing boards and into operation. The nation needs a long 

term FAA bill. 

Fourteen. That is where the World Economic Forum has ranked the economic 

competitiveness of U.S. infrastructure. In 2005, we were ranked number one. 

Now we are getting beat by France, Korea and the Netherlands. And when it 

comes to the quality of our port infrastructure things are even worse as the United 

States is ranked 19th behind Estonia and Iceland. 

Late last year Building America's Future released Falling Apart and Falling 

Behind - a comparative analysis of the transportation infrastructure investments 

being made by the U.S. and our global economic competitors. As the title 

suggests, other countries are racing ahead of us by making smart, long-term 

investments in modem transportation networks such as rail, ports and electric grids 

to meet the demands of the 21 sl century global economy. 

A case in point is the investment in port infrastructure being made today by our 

global competitors in anticipation of post-Panama x vessels becoming the norm 

once the newly widened Panama Canal is completed. Since 2000, China has 

invested over $3.5 trillion in its ports. Brazil has invested over $250 billion since 

2008. And as a result China is now home to six of the world's busiest ports and 

the U.S. is home to none. Shanghai's port now moves more container traffic in a 

year than the top eight U.S. ports combined. Brazil's investment has gone into its 

Acu Superport, larger than the island of Manhattan, with state-of-the-art highway, 

pipeline and conveyor-belt capacity to ease the transfer of raw materials onto ships 

heading to China. 
55 


Insert offset folio 17 here 78920.017

Despite a large surplus in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the busiest u.s. 

harbors are under-maintained. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that 

full channel dimensions at the nation's busiest 59 ports are available less than 35 

percent of the time. We need to make certain that our ports remain economically 

competitive by passing a Water Resources Development bill and by ensuring that 

the revenues collected by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are spent for their 

intended purpose - not to mask the federal deficit. I urge you to approve the 

RAMP Act. 

The situation on our roads is not much better. The Texas Transportation Institute's 

2012 Urban Mobility Report was released last week showing that traffic 

congestion had Americans wasting 2.9 billion gallons offuel at a cost of$121 

billion - that equates to $818 per commuter. And no wonder when one learns that 

the number ofvehic1es traveling on American highways has increased by 104 

percent since 1980 yet the miles of new highway lanes have grown by only four 

percent. 

The growing congestion on our railway system plagues the nation's freight 

corridors, choking economic growth and development throughout every region of 

the country. In Chicago alone, the nation's largest rail center, congestion is so bad 

that it takes a freight train longer to get through the city limits than it does to reach 

Los Angeles. The cost to mine metallurgical coal in North America is the same as 

it is in Australia, but the cost to ship it to the coasts so that it may be exported to 

Asia is up to four times greater due to transportation and logistical costs. 
56 


Insert offset folio 18 here 78920.018

During this time of continued economic uncertainty and record federal deficits, 

some question why America should aggressively invest in its infrastructure. The 

answer is simple. Infrastructure is an economic driver and has the added benefit of 

creating long-term quality jobs. It improves the quality of our lives and it enhances 

our economic competitiveness. To put off investments in infrastructure - or worse, 

to devolve all responsibility to the states - is simply shortsighted. Further, interest 

rates are at record lows - meaning we can do more for less. 

What are we waiting for? 

Make no mistake. There are consequences to the federal government's failure to 

adequately invest in the nation's infrastructure. The American Society of Civil 

Engineers has recently issued a series of 'Failure to Act' reports that compared 

current and projected needs for infrastructure investment against the current 

funding trends in surface transportation; water and wastewater; electricity; and 

airports, inland waterways and seaports. The final report, released last month, 

documents that the total cumulative gap between projected needs and likely 

investment in these important sectors will be $1.1 trillion by 2020. It further 

documents that aging and unreliable infrastructure will increase the costs to 

businesses by $1.2 trillion and to households by $611 billion by 2020. 

To regain America's economic status as a world leader, Building America's Future 

recommends: 

• Creating a commission charged with producing a ten-year critical 

infrastructure plan - covering transportation, water, energy and broadband -

that makes significant new investments. The Congressional Budget Office 
57 


Insert offset folio 19 here 78920.019

has concluded that an annual investment of$185 billion would be 

economically justified. 

• Passing a long-term transportation bill. 

• Targeting federal dollars to economically strategic freight gateways and 

corridors. 

• Investing more strategically in projects of national or regional significance 

and that will deliver real economic returns. 

• Establishing a National Infrastructure Banle 

• Passing a Water Resources Development Act. 

• Passing the RAMP Act. 

• Getting NextGen up and operational as soon as possible. 

What Americans don't need are more band-aid fixes. No more filling the 

proverbial potholes. Rebuilding and modernizing America's infrastructure must be 

a priority and the federal government must playa significant role if we want to 

continue our quality of life and ensure that we remain economically competitive 

with the rest of the world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify on this very important 

issue. 
58 


Insert offset folio 20 here 78920.020

ON: 

TO: 

DATE: 

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Statement 

of the 

U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce 

The Federal Role in America's Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

February 13, 2013 

The Chambers mission is to advance human progress through an economic, 

political and sodal system based on individual freedom, 

incentive, initiative, opportunity and responsibility. 
59 


Insert offset folio 21 here 78920.021

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation representing the 

interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state 

and local chambers and industry associations. 

More than 96% of Chamber member companies have fewer than 100 employees, and many 

of the nation's largest companies are also active members. We are therefore cognizant not 

only of the challenges facing smaller businesses, but also those facing the business 

community at large. 

Besides representing a cross-section of the American business community with respect to the 

number of employees, major classifications of American business--e.g., manufacturing, 

retailing, services, construction, wholesalers, and finance-are represented. The Chamber 

has membership in alISO states. 

The Chamber's international reach is substantial as well. We believe that global 

interdependence provides opportunities, not threats. In addition to the American Chambers 

of Commerce abroad, an increasing number of our members engage in the export and import 

of both goods and services and have ongoing investment activities. The Chamber favors 

strengthened international competitiveness and opposes artificial U.S. and foreign barriers to 

intemational business. 

Positions on issues are developed by Chamber members serving on committees, 

subcommittees, councils, and task forces. Nearly 1,900 businesspeople participate in this 

process. 
60 


Insert offset folio 22 here 78920.022

Introduction 

Testimony of Thomas J. Donohue 

President and CEO 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Hearing on: 

"The Federal Role in America's Infrastructure" 

February 13, 2013 

Chainnan Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and distinguished members of the House 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss 

the value of a strong federal role in transportation infrastructure to support economic 

productivity, international competitiveness, and quality of life. 

I want to start by saying "thank you" to everyone who worked hard to pass the bipartisan 

transportation bills for surface transportation and aviation last year. Both the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and Moving Aheadfor Progress in the 21st Century 

(MAP-2l) made smart reforms to speed up much-needed improvements to our roads and bridges, 

public transportation systems, and the aviation network; rejected calls for significant cuts to 

federal investment; and ended years of short tenn extensions that created a great deal of 

uncertainty for businesses and infrastructure owners and operators. 

But there is no rest for the weary. This committee has a big agenda when it comes to oversight 

and implementation of current law, and authorizations of new measures. We look forward to 

working with you to improve the nation's transportation networks, and on safety, oversight and 

efficiency efforts that affect transportation carriers. 

Today, I want to focus on why it is so important that you are undertaking this agenda, and offer a 

few initial thoughts on how working with the private sector can help deliver the kind of 

transportation network this country needs. 

The measures this committee will consider will affect whether we can go to work, vacation, 

school, the doctor's office, and the grocery store safely, reliably, efficiently and cost-effectively. 

But transportation is much bigger than our personal experiences. Almost everything we can use 

somehow requires the transportation system at some point during the supply chain-the inner 

workings of producing and delivering goods and services. 

The United States' global competitiveness depends on ensuring that we have a 21st century 

infrastructure to support a 21st century economy. The responsibility is shared by all levels of 

government and the private sector. The federal government must take a leading role in making 
61 


Insert offset folio 23 here 78920.023

sure that transportation policies, programs and investments contribute to a strong economyincluding interstate commerce and international trade--rather than inhibiting economic growth. 

Without a first rate transportation system, we cannot maintain a first rate economy in the United 

States. 

The Economic Growth Imperative 

The U.S. economy is simply not growing quickly enough today to create jobs, lift incomes, 

expand opportunities, or contribute significantly to government revenues in order to reduce 

trillion dollar deficits. 

Economic growth should not be an afterthought. It should be job one. Economic growth must 

be front and center here in Washington-just as it is in many state capitals across the nation, led 

by innovative governors from both parties. 

The bottom line is that the U.S. cannot miss any opportunities to ignite economic growth, 

improve our global competitiveness, and create jobs. Without more robust economic growth, the 

U.S. will not create the 20 million jobs needed in the next decade to replace those lost during the 

recession and to keep up with a growing workforce; will not have the revenue to get the deficit 

under control; will not have the ability to keep pace with global competitors; and will not be able 

to provide our children and grandchildren with a better future. As we emerge from the deepest 

and most painful recession since the Great Depression-and as our recovery limps along-it is 

necessary to tap into every available source of economic growth available. 

And this committee can do something aboutjumpstarting economic growth. 

"Infrastructure is not the end result of economic activity; rather it is the framework that makes 

economic activity possible. ,,' "Over two years, one dollar spent on infrastructure construction 

produces roughly double ($1.92) the initial spending in direct and indirect economic output. The 

long-term impact is also significant, with a dollar in aggregate public infrastructure spending 

generating $3.21 in economic output (GOP) over a 20-year period.'" 

In other words, transportation infrastructure serves a long-term economic purpose: making it 

possible for us to live our lives and grow our economy. 

The U.S. Chamber Transportation Performance Index 

The Chamber's Transportation Performance Index (TPI), first released in 2010, demonstrates 

that enhancing the performance of transportation infrastructure is a vital part of creating 

sustainable, long-term growth ... growth our nation desperately needs . 

• https:llwww.uschamber.comlsiies/defaultlfiles/issues/infrastructure/files/LRA_Index_Economic_Analysis_2011_1 

0_17.pdf 

2 http://www.aednet.org/governmentlpdf-20 12/infrastructure_report. pdf 
62 


Insert offset folio 24 here 78920.024

The TPI comprises roughly 20 weighted indicators in each mode of transportation falling into 

three categories: 

• Supply, described as the availability of infrastructure, which is a key consideration for 

businesses when deciding where to locate their facilities; 

• Quality of service, the reliability of infrastructure, whether it supports predictable and 

transportation services and travel; and, 

• Utilization, whether current infrastructure can sustain future growth. Utilization is a key 

consideration for companies that look years into the future to inform the decisions and 

capital investments they make today. 

Together, the indicators provide a snapshot of transportation system performance. Much like the 

Dow Jones Industrial Index indicates financial market performance, the TPI is an aggregate 

measure that is a useful snapshot of the transportation system as a whole at a point in time, but 

by watching it over time, trends and fundamental system health are slowly revealed. 

57 

56 

55 .; 

54 ~ 

50 

49 -I 

48 .I 

Transportation Performance Index 1990-2009 

47 ~i __________________________________________________________ ___ 

_ National Transportation Performance Index - - - Five Year Moving Average 

The inaugural TPI, calculated for 1990-2008, reflected a six percent increase in performance 

over that period. In contrast, the U.S. population grew 22 percent, passenger travel grew 39 

percent, and freight traffic grew 27 percent. Given these facts, it is a testament to business 

ingenuity that the TPI was not worse. Businesses work around transportation challenges by 

scheduling deliveries in off-peak hours, implementing flexible employee work policies, and 

substitutiug information technology for transportation services. There are also countless stories 
63 


Insert offset folio 25 here 78920.025

of transportation infrastructure owners using the engineering equivalent of duct tape to hold 

infrastructure together and crafting creative operational strategies to enhance throughput. 

In the 20 II update, the data reflected a distinct uptick in the TPI. According to Dr. Susanne 

Trimbath, 

"Much of the improvement in the TPI may be attributed, in the final analysis, to 

the decline in economic activity in 2009. But that begs a question: If we can 

improve the performance of transportation infrastructure by stopping economic 

growth, is that progress? Of course, the answer is "no". Stopping economic 

growth is not progress; it is not a solution to the problem of poor performing 

transportation infrastructure in America. Likewise, although raising gasoline 

prices to $11 per gallon might solve the funding issue (Appleby 2009) it would 

have other consequences for economic activity .... The point is that a one or two 

year improvement in performance won't last without sustained effort. We will 

need to get out of our own way if we don't want this to fall back again when the 

economy rebounds in 2012.,,3 

From the TPI, the Chamber concluded that the following general policy and investment 

priorities, applied across all modes, could boost performance and therefore economic growth: 

1. Get transportation infrastructure to a state of good repair. 

2. Focus on reducing congestion and unlocking bottlenecks. 

3. Connect the modes: target last mile infrastructure and intermodal connections, getting out 

of modal silos and thinking big picture about the system as a whole. 

4. Create capacity for the future as cost-effectively as possible and build physical capacity. 

There is a clear federal role in ensuring that these priorities are advanced: jobs and a growing 

economy depend on it. 

Economic Importance a/Transportation Performance 

Econometric analysis using the TPI demonstrates that failure to address the transportation 

problems in this country undermines economic growth. There is a strong correlation between 

performance ("the degree to which the transportation system serves U.S. economic and multilevel business community objectives") and economic growth as measured by both Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP) and foreign direct investment. 

Everyone point decline or increase in the TPI correlated to a corresponding decrease or increase 

of 0.3 percent of GDP. A status quo scenario-largely unchanged priorities, policies, regulations 

and investment levels-translated to $336 billion decline in GDP by 2015. But there is good 

news: by following the lead of the states with top transportation infrastructure performance, the 

3http://www.uschamber.comlsites/defaultlfiles/issues/infrastructurelfilesI2009TPCUpdate_Economics_ White_Paper 

_110712.pdf) 
64 


Insert offset folio 26 here 78920.026

country as a whole could add nearly $1 trillion annually to GDP by investing in transportation 

systems that meet and anticipate the needs of business.4 

This analysis is unique because it examines the overall contribution to economic growth from 

well performing transportation infrastructure. It goes beyond merely charting the effects of 

spending and job creation during construction. Instead, the analysis provides robust, stable 

results showing that transportation performance is fundamental to maintaining a strong 

economy.s The findings of the TPI economic analysis are "different from studies on how 

infrastructure spending creates jobs in the construction industry or any of a multitude of 

costlbenefit studies in use today. By controlling for the primary factors known to impact 

economic development, we are able to segregate a change in the economy that is most likely 

attributable to the performance of transportation infrastructure.,,6 

The TPI econometric analysis also exposed a strong correlation between transportation 

infrastructure performance and foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States. There is a 

positive relationship between foreign direct investment (FDI) that opens new establishments in 

the United States-creating new jobs-and the performance of transportation infrastructure as 

measured by the index. 

According to the Organization for International Investment (OFII), companies based abroad 

investing in the United States and creating jobs for Americans provide 4.7% of private sector 

employment. That includes approximately two million manufacturing jobs, accounting for over 

17% of the manufacturing workforce. Quality transportation infrastructure unleashes 

competitive advantage by leading to lower production costs making U.S. businesses more 

efficient, making the United States a desirable location for new and existing businesses, and also 

making U.S.-produced goods and service more competitive in the global economy.7 

New enterprises established by FDI may be more dependent on transportation infrastructure than 

other types of infrastructure because of the need to move goods and people between the foreign 

country and the United States. According to studies done by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

most of what these firms import and about half of what they export is shipped from and to the 

parent company in the foreign country, making transportation infrastructure an important 

element of their location decision. The results indicate that a commitment to raising the 

performance of transportation infrastructure provides positive long-term value for the U.S. 

economy. 

OFII's report, "Building Competitiveness: American Jobs, American Infrastructure, American 

Global Competitiveness" concluded that, 

"America's infrastructure crisis is threatening America's global competitiveness 

because it is eroding the country's ability to attract and retain dynamic global 

4 http://www.uschamber.comlsites/defaultlfileslissues/infrastructure/files12011 %20Update.pdf 

5 http://www.uschamber.comlsitesldefaultlfiles/lra/files/LRA_ Transp _Index_Key _Findings. pdf 

6http://www.uschamber.comlsites/defaultlfiles/issues/infrastructure/fi!es/2009TPCUpdate_Econonllcs_ White_Paper 

_110712.pdf 

7 http://www.ofii.orglresourceslinsourcing-facts.html 
65 


Insert offset folio 27 here 78920.027

companies that create high-productivity, high-wage jobs. America's ability to 

meet the infrastructure needs of dynamic global companies increasingly lags the 

ability of many other countries-in contrast to much of 20th century, when 

America's infrastructure was a strong pull attracting these companies. In the 

United States, global companies have long been among America's most 

innovative. The U.S. subsidiaries of global companies, in particular, have long 

created and sustained high-paying American jobs based on substantial 

investments in ideas, capital, and exporting-much of which is based on lessons 

learned around the world."s 

This year, the Chamber will update the TPI and econometric analysis, and also calculate indices 

for each state. We look forward to providing the committee with the results in the fall. 

Transportation and the Chamber's American Jobs & Growth Agenda 

The U.S. Chamber works every day to build bridges to promising markets abroad, to tear down 

the barriers that shut U.S. exports out of foreign markets, and to secure a brighter future where 

international commerce generates economic growth andjob creation at home. 

The Chamber's 2013 American Jobs and Growth Agenda9

, includes priorities that are highly 

dependent on efficient, reliable and secure infrastructure: trade, investment and tourism; and 

expanding domestic energy production. 

Transportation & Trade, Investment and Tourism 

Markets outside of our borders represent 80% of the world's purchasing powerlO, 92% of its 

economic growth 11, and 95% of its consumers. They are accessed through transportation 

networks. More than 38 million Americanjobs 12 depend on trade. One in three manufacturing 

jobs13 depends on exports, and one in three acres 14 on American farms is planted for hungry 

consumers overseas. Exports alone supported approximately 9.7 million U.S. jobs in 2011, as 

every billion dollars of exports supported 5,080 jobs in the United States. 15 

The Chamber promotes expanding American trade, two-way investment, and tourism through an 

ambitious agenda to open international markets and reduce commercial barriers at home and 

abroad. Our country should make a major effort to attract more global investors; highperforming transportation networks draw foreign direct investment, because infrastructure 

supports predictable logistics, which are important to efficient trade. 

8 http://www.ofii.org/docs/OFIClnfrastructure_Paper.pdf 

9 http://www.uschamber.comlissues 

10 http://en.wikipedia.orglwikilLisCoCcountries_by_GDP_(pPP) 

11 http://data.worldbank.orglindicator 

12 http://www.tradepartnership.comlpdfjilestrrade_and_American_Jobs7.2010.pdf 

13 http://www. whitehouse.gov Isites/defaultlfiles/exports_progress_report.pdf 

14 http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.fastfacts 

15 ASCE, citing the U.S. Department of Commerce from March 12,2012 
66 


Insert offset folio 28 here 78920.028

"Globally, logistics costs have fallen from about 20 percent of GDP in the early 

1980s to less than 10 percent. However, delays and unpredictability greatly 

outweigh direct transportation costs (Arvis, 2010). Delays are mostly related to 

the performance of road, rail and port - not border crossings, the price of fuel, 

service pricing, etc. The lack of intermodal-connectivity and variable transit 

times does more than cause delays and raise costs. They also hamper the ability 

of firms to compete. Longer delays in transit mean having to hold higher 

inventories (e.g., to avoid shortages of inputs) - bearing the higher risk associated 

with warehousing and tying up capital for longer periods of time.,,16 

Unfortunately, much of the United States' transportation infrastructure--especially that which 

supports interstate commerce and international trade-is becoming less competitive with the rest 

of the world, and our closest competitors. 

"An examination of the data for the US and our nearest competitor, Canada, 

emphasizes the inefficiencies in our land transportation. A Canadian exporter 

typically moves their goods for export 766 kilometers, versus a substantially 

shorter distance for US exporters of only 484 kilometers. The difference in total 

cost is about 10 percent ($1,249 per container in the US versus $1,123 in Canada). 

The big difference is that US producers need more than 2 extra days to cover 

nearly half the distance. When exporting through ports and airports, US 

producers are able to cover 50 percent more distance in about the same amount of 

time as Canadian firms, but at a cost that is almost 60 percent higher (even with 

similar security measures in place). These inefficiencies put a burden on US 

companies that their global competitors do not face."17 

There are several examples of ways in which transportation infrastructure and related regulations 

or policies are undermining trade, investment and tourism. 

Waterways are critical to keeping our domestic supply chain competitive. There is a $14-per-ton 

cost savings for shipping on the inland waterways; this translates to farmer, shipper, and 

consumer cost savings, and reduced congestion on the roads and rails. 18 However, while the 

private sector constantly updates its operations, our 21st century economy relies on a 1930s 

technology for locks and dams. Fifty-seven percent of the 238 locks on the inland waterways 

system are over 50 years of age, well beyond their design life, with 34 locks older than 80 

years. 19 In 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported that locks were unavailable for 

157,000 hours due to either scheduled or unscheduled maintenance or mechanical breakdown. 

This translated to 6,500 days of downtime for the system?O As the ASCE report "Failure to Act: 

The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Airports, Inland Waterways, and Marine 

16http://www.uschamber.comlsites/defaultlfiles/issues/infrastructurelfilesl2009TPCUpdate_Econonllcs_ White]ape 

r_l10712.pdf 

17http://www.uschamber.comlsites/defaultifiles/issueslinfrastructureifilesI2009TPCUpdate_Econonllcs_ White_Pape 

cl10712.pdf 

18 http://www.waterwaysusers.usIIMTS_Final_Reporc 1 3 _ApriC20 I O_Rev _I. pdf 

19 http://www .national waterwaysfoundation.orgistudy/BeneficiariesolNavigable Waterways 14J an 11 Ver.pdf 

20 http://epw.senate.gov/publiclindex.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=ba5e92el-6596-4506-b41b7b037b406647 
67 


Insert offset folio 29 here 78920.029

Ports" clearly identifies, costs attributable to delays on the inland system were $33 billion in 

2010 and will increase to $49 billion by 2020. America becomes less competitive in the global 

marketplace with these consequential delays.21 

We know what one of the main problems in the United States is traffic congestion. Congestion 

is at an all-time high and will only get worse, according to the Texas Transportation Institute's 

2012 Urban Mobility Report.22 The study revealed that Americans spent 5.5 billion additional 

hours sitting in traffic in 20 II. Three hundred twenty-eight (328) corridors, while accounting for 

only six percent of the nation's total freeway lane-miles and 10 percent of the traffic, account for 

36 percent of the country's urban freeway congestion. In 2010, congestion (based on wasted 

time and fuel) cost about $115 billion in the 439 urban areas, compared to $113 billion (in 

constant dollars) in 2006. Most drivers "allow a little extra time" when driving during rush hour, 

especially for important trips like getting to the airport or picking up kids after school, but the 

message of the Texas Transportation Institute's congestion report released last week was clear: 

give yourself more time to get places. For the first time, the TTl study calculated just how much 

"extra time" you might need to build in to your plans. In Washington, DC, a 20 minute trip takes 

almost two hours in heavy traffic. That is a huge difference when trying to make a flight or 

being on time to pick up the kids at school. Translate concept from your personal life to 

businesses that use the transportation system every day and then start doing the math: UPS 

carries six percent of US GDP within its system every day. If each UPS delivery driver is 

delayed 5 minutes per day, it costs UPS $105 million a year. What if each UPS delivery driver is 

delayed two hours on a 20 minute trip just once a year? 

Aviation is the only mode of transportation that can both quickly and efficiently move people 

and goods around the United States and the world. A strong federal role is essential for safety, 

oversight and air traffic efficiency. However, the United States risks falling behind Asia, the 

Middle-East, and Europe as being the global aviation leader, a role we have held since the 

Wright Brothers' first flight. Necessary maintenance and modernization investments must be 

made to renew and upgrade aging aviation infrastructure and to put in place a state-of-the-art air 

traffic control system, known as NextGen. The U.S. aviation industry is the physical internet, 

connecting small communities, people and commerce to the global economy. In 2011, recordhigh U.S. air-travel exports ($36.7B) drove largest air-travel trade surplus ($5.6B) since 1992. 

Aviation is also important to the freight supply chain. Dayton International Airport in Dayton, 

Ohio, is playing a key role in economic development. Dayton International Airport is 

strategically located less than one mile from a CSX freight rail line and the intersection of 1-70 

and 1-75. With rail freight, air freight and truck freight convening at single geographic location, 

the Dayton area has a unique multi-modal logistics asset Through continued partnership with 

the FAA, the Dayton Airport and the economic development community can strategically attract 

businesses to this area related to interstate commerce and international trade. 

The Energy Economy and Transportation 

Developing more American energy, which can help address the nation's fiscal problems and also 

create millions of jobs while making the country more secure. 

21 http://www.asce.org/lnfrastructureiFailure-to-ActlAirports,-Inland-Waterways,-and-Marine-Portsi 

22https:lltti.tamu.eduJ, and http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/566377/2012-urban-mobility-report.pdf 
68 


Insert offset folio 30 here 78920.030

The United States has more oil, gas, and coal than any other country and is are now the largest 

single natural gas producer in the world. We are now in a position to export liquefied natural gas 

and coal, and thus reducing our trade deficit and bringing billions of dollars into the United 

States. The abundance of affordable natural gas is attracting good manufacturing jobs back to 

America, particularly in the chemical and steel industries. 

All of this adds up to a lot of jobs, growth, improved national security, and more revenues for 

government. 

According to the American Petroleum Institute, oil and gas companies already account for 9.2 

million American jobs and pump more than $500 billion into our economy.23 Over the next 20 

years, energy can create millions of additional jobs, spread all across this country. In the last few 

years, shale activity alone has created 1.75 million jobs. Between now and 2035, we can double 

shale's economic impact, double the number of jobs, and generate a cumulative $2.5 trillion in 

government revenues.24 We should continue with the next generation of nUclear power plants. 

And we should waste no time in pursuing research to develop alternative energy sources, such as 

wind, solar, and geothermal. 

To achieve these great benefits, the United States needs to safely open up new land to 

exploration. We have foolishly locked away too much of our resources on land and off our 

coasts. 

By fully embracing America's energy opportunity, we can accelerate growth, create millions of 

new jobs, free ourselves from some less-than-stable global suppliers, and create huge new 

revenues for government-which will help reduce budget deficits. 

Growth through energy production requires an efficient transportation system to move product. 

However, the regulatory environment has the potential to stop or substantially slow infrastructure 

improvements and expansion. Although the 112th Congress took bold steps in MAP-21 to speed 

up project delivery, there is more to be done. Opponents of energy production and expanded 

trade are trying to block transportation infrastructure advancements that are needed to promote 

trade and economic growth. 

The Chamber has spent the past three years studying the paralyzing effect that excessive 

environmental reviews have had on major infrastructure and energy projects, including port 

dredging, road building, and construction of power plants. Thousands of projects are delayed or 

killed outright each year because of endless environmental reviews and the legal challenges that 

accompany them. The Chamber's 2010 study Project No Project demonstrates that for energy 

projects alone, some 351 projects were stopped or significantly delayed by these reviews, at a 

cost of 1.9 million jobs each year that otherwise could have been made available to people who 

desperately needed them.25 

23 http://www .api.orgJpolicy-and-issues/policy-items/american-energy 1-/mediaIFiles/Policyl AmericanEnergy I American-Made-Energy _HiRes.ashx 

24 http://www.ihs.comlinfo/ecc/aiamericas-new-energy-future.aspx 

25 http://www.projectnoproject.coml 
69 


Insert offset folio 31 here 78920.031

In the case of energy, approximately 56% of all crude petroleum, 15% of all coal, and 24% of 

other fuel oils are transported over the nation's inland waterways. In 2010, more than 76% of 

America's international exports reach global markets though marine ports. Effectively, all of 

America's exports in commodities such as coal, fuel oils, gasoline, and crude petroleum are 

shipped by water. Including these fuels, plus agriculture, basic chemicals and nonmetallic 

minerals, maritime is the primary mode of export for 25 of America's export commodities.26 

And yet, last year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked the u.s. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Army Corps) to evaluate impacts outside of the United States for the energy exports 

that will go through the Gateway Pacific Terminal Project27 in Washington state at marine 

terminal as part of the environmental impact statement (ElS). The Gateway Pacific Terminal 

Project is a proposed deepwater marine port terminal connected to BNSF Railway's northern rail 

corridor that would give resource producers across the upper Midwest a new, more efficient and 

cost-effective way to get their goods to Asian markets. This was on the heels of the EPA request 

to the Army Co~s to prepare a cumulative impacts analysis of all coal export terminals at the 

Port of Morrow2 in Oregon earlier in 2012. 

A programmatic ElS of the kind requested would include a far-reaching analysis of coal exports 

from the Pacific Northwest to other parts of the world, and the attendant impacts on the United 

States of generating electricity abroad with that coal. There is no precedent for conducting a 

programmatic EIS with such a vast scope, and there is certainly no compelling reason to set such 

a precedent. A programmatic EIS is unnecessary because the major elements of the project are 

already operating and have previously been scrutinized (mining operations and rail transport to 

Washington). Courts have already determined that evaluating the foreign use of products sold by 

the United States to other countries a programmatic EIS is also inconsistent with the 

requirements of NEPA. 

The Gateway Pacific Terminal and the Port of Morrow projects are multi-modal and intermodal. 

It is important that the freight railroads, which are privately owned and operated-not 

government entities-have regulatory and operating environments that will allow them to 

continue investing in their own infrastructure and intermodal connections and operating their 

systems efficiently. As you consider rail safety and passenger rail legislation this Congress, I 

urge you to keep in mind that the decisions you make can either help support expanding our 

economy, or can impede that expansion. 

Recommendations 

To address some of the issues raised in this testimony, the Chamber respectfully urges the 

Committee to consider the following recommendations as it undertakes its oversight, reform and 

investment agenda. 

26http://www.asce.org/uploadedFilesfInfrastructurefFailure_to_ActlASCE%20Failure%20to%20Act%20Ports%20R 

e.port%20FINAL.pdf 

J http://gatewaypacificterminaLcornf 

28 http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/epa-letter-to-the-us-corps-port-of-morrow 
70 


Insert offset folio 32 here 78920.032

MAP-2I Freight Planning 

Canada took bold steps to create a seamless, trade-related transportation system that serves 

global supply chains and position Canada it as the trade superhighway into and out of North 

America with Transport Canada's Gateways and Corridors programs.29 Yet the United States 

lacks a national freight strategic plan. 

This committee must press states and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to fully 

embrace the reforms included in MAP-21, including the freight planning provisions. The 

Chamber is ready and willing to work with USDOT and the states to make freight planning 

successful. The freight plans must be multi-modal, reflect an understanding of business and 

economic trends, anticipate needs, and contain strategies that are informed by the businesses that 

and use transportation systems every day. Freight planning cannot be theoretical or idealistic; it 

must grounded in facts and reality. There are thousands of chambers of commerce and 

individual businesses around this country that are willing to inform freight plans and the 

resulting policies, programs and investments that support economic growth. To its credit, 

USDOT reached out to freight stakeholders at the beginning of this process; we look forward to 

continued engagement with the agency. 

Reform & Investment: Water Resources 

This committee must pass a WRDA bill with strong reforms that protects America's competitive 

advantage in marine navigation. George Washington, returning in the fall of 1783 from a tour of 

the Mohawk Valley, wrote to a friend concerning the Nation's natural waterways: "Prompted by 

these actual observations, I could not help taking a more extensive view of the vast inland 

navigation of these United States and importance of it, and with the goodness of that Providence, 

which has dealt is favors to us with so profuse a hand. Would to God we had the wisdom 

enough to improve them. " 

We should heed the words of that founding father and address the several navigation challenges: 

maintaining and repairing existing structures, dredging to needed depths such as those required 

to accommodate ships coming through the Panama Canal as soon as 2014, and constructing new, 

modem, expanded lock chambers to accommodate a 21st century transportation fleet. This is 

absolutely essential given the importance of exports to U.S. jobs and economic growth. 

The next WRDA bill must reform the Olmstead project and improve Army Corps project 

management and oversight. The greatest threats to the performance of the nation's inland 

waterway system are delays caused by insufficient operation and maintenance of the facilities. 

By 2020, traffic on inland waterways is expected to increase by 51 million tons of freight from 

2012, an overall 11 % increase. If investment needs for the nation's seaports and waterways are 

met over the next seven years, it will protect 738,000 jobs in 2020, and $697 billion in GDP.30 

29 http://www.tc.gc.calengiinnovation-gateways-and-conidors.htm 

3~ttp:f1www.asce.orgiuploadedFilesiinfrastructure/Failure_to_ActJASCE%20Failure%20to%20Act%20Ports%20R 

eport%20FlNAL.pdf 
71 


Insert offset folio 33 here 78920.033

Barge operators currently pay 50% of the cost of all capital projects and would agree to pay more 

than the current 20 cents per gallon user fee if they could be assured that dollars would not be 

wasted on massive cost overruns such as are being experienced at the Olmsted project. 

Construction of the dam at Olmsted has been ongoing since 2004. The Olmsted lock and dam 

project was first authorized in 1988 in the amount of $775 million: the Administration requested 

Congress increase the authorized cost to nearly $3 billion for FY2013, which Congress 

rejected?l Olmsted is monopolizing funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, delaying 

work on other important projects that serve the energy, mining, agriculture, and chemical 

industries. 

Project management is major issue, but it is compounded by the way Congress dribs and drabs 

out money. A General Accountability Office (GAO) report noted that, "Congress directs funds 

for many individual projects in increments over the course of several years. For example, a 

construction project to reduce flood damage in the Greenbrier River Basin of West Virginia has 

an estimated total cost of $158 million. The conference reports directed $1.5 million to this 

project in fiscal year 2009 and $1.4 million in fiscal year 2010."32 This approach does not use 

taxpayer dollars efficiently: it seems obvious that there must be changes in how this process 

works. Otherwise, project timelines will be drug out for years, increasing costs and delaying 

benefits, and when used on the navigation system, makes that low-cost mode of transportation 

unreliable giving our competitors in these low margin products a real edge. 

FAA NextGen Policies and Procedures & Industry Regulations 

The Chamber was pleased with the 2012 FAA reauthorization law's attention to expediting the 

transition to NextGen to add air traffic management system capacity. We applauded provisions 

allowing public-private partnerships to accelerate the equipage of aircraft for NextGen, which 

will create up to 32,000 jobs and $23.5 billion in economic growth over its five-year ramp-up 

period. 33 

However, NextGen also requires updating FAA policies and procedures that enable the aviation 

industry to benefit from investments already made. Such policies and procedures will enable the 

system to move air traffic more efficiently, improve on-time performance, reduce delays and 

improve the aviation sector's environmental footprint. Because the United States does not have 

a modernized air traffic control management system, delays cost customers, airlines and the 

economy $31 billion annually.34 Only inclusive ofpoJicies and procedures to accompany 

investment can NextGen support demand in business, passenger, and cargo traffic, and a globally 

competitive U.S. aviation industry. 

While there is a need for a strong federal role in modernizing aviation infrastrncture, the 

government must ensure it is not hindering growth through unnecessary regulation and policies 

that thwart operational freedom across the aviation industry. A prime example concerns 

31 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibinlcpqueryl?&sid=cp 112w7Wus&cn=hr462.112&dbname=cp 112&&sel=TOC_51268& 

32 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-819 

33 http://www.freeenterprise.comlinfrastructure/future-flightchanges-and-challenges-21 st -century-us-aviation 

34 http://www.airlines.orglPages/Annual-U.S.-Impact-of-Flight-Delays.aspx 
72 


Insert offset folio 34 here 78920.034

thousands of small to medium sized businesses that service the aviation industry: the failure by 

the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to issue security rules for repair stations (i.e., 

companies licensed/certificated by the FAA to work on air carrier aircraft) and the resulting 

prohibition on FAA issuing new foreign repair station certificates. The ban hurts U.S. industry 

because U.S.-based aerospace companies are prevented from tapping into rapidly expanding 

overseas markets, stifling job creation and growth for an industry that contributes $39 billion per 

year of total U.S. economic impact and employs 274,634 U.S. workers. 35 Put simply, the ban is 

hindering the competitiveness of the U.S. aerospace industry. TSA either needs to get the rules 

out (so the ban expires) or Congress needs to affirmatively lift the ban so that the industry is no 

longer punished for bureaucratic inaction. 

The Fiscal House: The Federal Budget + Transportation Funding & Financing 

Tax and entitlement reform is an essential item on the Chamber's American Jobs and Growth 

Agenda, because if we fail to address the threat of our exploding national debt driven by 

runaway deficit spending, changing demographics, and unsustainable entitlements, mandatory 

spending will soon consume every dollar the federal government collects, leaving nothing for 

education, national defense, or other essential programs-including infrastructure. 

As the Congress and the Obama Administration tackle getting America's fiscal house in order, 

there will be present opportunities to address revenue sources for transportation, particular 

ensuring that the need for drastic cuts or additional general fund bailouts for the Highway Trust 

Fund at the expiration of MAP-21 can be avoided, and that the current sources of user-based 

revenues for the Highway Trust Fund produce sustainable, predictable and growing cash t10ws 

until a new revenue structure can be identified and implemented. 

We all know two years from now it will be deja vu all over again-a Highway Trust Fund on the 

verge of bankruptcy, even better gas mileage further driving down receipts, a very tough budget 

environment, and liugering perceptions that transportation funding is pork barrel spending. 

Instead of experiencing Groundhog Day again in two years, why not seize the initiative now to 

set a new path ... a path that will ensure adequate funding for years to come and that money is 

spent wisely and on projects of the greatest national benefit? The federal government should not 

pass the buck to states and locals, nor should wait for money to grow on trees, or wish and hope 

that things will get better. There is no path to a 21 st century infrastructure for a 21 st century 

economy without increasing both public and private investment in transportation infrastructure. 

The federal government does and should share responsibility for investments in the nation's 

highways and public transportation systems, inland waterways, air traffic control, and ports. We 

are not talking about stimulus ... we are talking about maintaining the billions of dollars in 

investments made over generations and making strategic, prioritized choices to grow the 

economy in a fundamental, ongoing way. 

The federal government needs to provide stable, certain funding over a mUlti-year period. That 

is hard to do, especially for the investments that are supported by general funds-air traffic 

35 http://arsa.org/news-medialeconomic-datal 
73 


Insert offset folio 35 here 78920.035

control, water resources, and a portion of surface transportation, when the country's fiscal house 

is not in order. 

For example, aviation requires a robust general fund contribution, which supports the nation's air 

traffic control system. This committee has a long history of championing this investment, and 

the Chamber appreciates its support. The entire aviation industry agrees on this issue. Investing 

in aviation, through the general fund, contributes direct return in the form of jobs and economic 

growth. It enables the United States to be globally competitive, allowing products, services and 

people to travel internationally. It is a national network that serves not only commercial, 

business and general aviation, but also many other national interests. 

This is not to say that responsibility for investing in infrastructure falls solely on the federal 

government-or any government-or that there are not effective ways to leverage limited federal 

resources. 

There should be strong incentives for investment of private sector resources and leveraging of 

public dollars to the greatest extent possible. Barriers to private investment including regulations 

and administrative processes that make project delivery take far too long should be removed or 

reformed. Every state should have laws that not only allow, but welcome, private investment. 

The TlFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) program needs to scale up 

to make faster decisions in order to provide resources to any creditworthy project. It is one of 

the best deals around: each dollar of federal funds can support up to $10 in TIFIA credit 

assistance and leverage $30 in transportation infrastructure investment. 

Now, all of that said ... public-private partnerships and lower-cost federal credit programs are not 

substitutes for direct federal investment: they are financing and project delivery tools. Although 

there are many potential tools to provide financing assistance, these tools require cash flows. 

P3s are not substitutes for fixing the revenue problem facing the Highway Trust Fund, restoring 

faith in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by using the dollars in the HMTF for their intended 

purposes, or providing robust general fund contributions to aviation, water resources, or public 

transportation. They do not provide easy answers to tough issues. 

But how much is needed? 

The needs have been studied to death and quantified by many organizations including the U.S. 

Chamber, and the short answer is, "a lot more than is being invested at all levels of government 

or by the private sector." 

Much of America's transportation infrastructure-roads and rails, airports and seaports, inland 

waterways and airways-the proud legacy of generations past, needs repair, replacement, 

expansion and modernization. To head off this future and have a transportation system that 

supports a 21st century economy, the United States needs a high level of investment targeted at 

improving performance across all modes and across the country: we cannot just fix a few 

bottlenecks or address the problems in one city or state. 
74 


Insert offset folio 36 here 78920.036

Closing the gap between needs and resources is going to require leadership and political courage. 

And when you think, "we can't afford to do this," recall: 

• The economic costs of congestion on the ground, in the air, and at our ports. 

• The number of lives needlessly lost to poor roadway conditions. 

• The negative impact an aging transportation infrastructure system has on our ability to 

compete globally. 

• The lost opportunity to employ hundreds of thousands of people in construction and 

related industries by modernizing our highways, transit systems, airports, seaports, 

waterways, and rails. 

• The increased costs and decreased efficiency for American businesses. 

• The hundreds of billions of dollars annually in wasted fuel, lost productivity, avoidable 

public health costs, and delayed shipments of manufacturing inputs, consumer goods and 

other items critical to the underlying growth of our businesses. 

These things might not "score" at CBO or OMB, but the costs are real. 

Without smart investment the U.S. infrastructure American businesses will to lose ground to 

major international competitors. Recognizing the benefits of well-developed infrastructure, both 

less-developed and emerging market competitor countries are preparing their transportation 

systems to move away from producing low-wage goods to producing the types of products that 

require the specialization of labor that transportation infrastructure makes possible.36 

While the United States has maintained its position at the top of the overall World 

Competitiveness Yearbook rankings37, the U.S. sub-ranking for Basic Infrastructure has 

degraded since 2005. The World Economic Forum also perfonns an annual infrastructure 

ranking in the Global Competitiveness Report?8 The result is similar: U.S. transportation 

infrastructure is falling behind. 

This nation is faced with difficult fiscal circumstances. However, without proper investment and 

attention to our infrastructure, the United States' economic stability, potential for job growth, 

global competitiveness and quality of life are all at risk. Delaying investment will not make 

transportation problems go away. Instead, conditions and perfonnance will get worse. 

Materials, labor, and land will get more expensive and our businesses will be less competitive. 

Opportunities to save lives will be missed. Americans are already paying dearly for inferior 

transportation, through lost productivity, wasted fuel, and tragically, more crashes. 

But, it bears repeating, "How much?" isn't the only-or even most-important question, 

although it is a vexing issue and necessary problem to solve. We must do a better job planning 

and prioritizing. We must do a better job delivering projects faster. We must do a better job 

taking every opportunity to tap every possible source of capital so projects that simply cannot be 

36 http://[orum.uschamber.comlsites/defaultlfiles/2010_Enterprising-States.pdf 

37 http://www.imd.org/researchlpublications/wcy/index.cfm 

38 http://www.weforum.orglissues/global-competitiveness 
75 


Insert offset folio 37 here 78920.037

financed can be funded using the limited pay-as-you-go dollars available (e.g. resources not 

requiring repayment such as formula apportionments or grants). 

What the Chamber is Willing to Do 

The private sector can help in four significant ways. 

First, we're willing to pay to support public infrastructure. This includes paying more in user 

fees to shore up the Highway Trust Fund and ensure adequate investment. This is not a new 

position. The Chamber has been saying this to Congress every chance we can for years. We all 

know the dire condition of our highway and transit systems. It's going to make money to fix itit's that plain and simple. The money is running out, so we need to phase in a moderate increase 

in the gas tax over a number of years and index it to inflation. Shippers and truckers are all on 

board to pay a little more as long as the money goes to where it's needed. 

Second, we're prepared to invest private capital. When it comes to private investment in public 

infrastructure, we are prepared to pump as much as $250 billion in private capital into publicprivate partnerships. More states must allow, by law, public-private partnerships. Governors 

and legislatures need to reduce the political and financial risk of private participation in these 

projects so investors know projects will be approved in a timely manner and will have a good 

possibility of a decent return. 

But remember that not all transportation infrastructure is "public." America's freight railroads 

operate almost exclusively over infrastructure that they build and maintain with their own private 

funds. And they are investing in their infrastructure. From 1980 to today freight railroads 

invested $500 billion-more than 40 cents out of every rail revenue dollar-in corridors, rail 

terminals, intermodal facilities, to maintain and improve their rail network infrastructure and 

equipment and anticipate economic growth.39 The freight railroad industry requires a balanced, 

common-sense regulatory system so it will continue making record investments using private 

capital. 

Third, we can provide our expertise and innovations to make infrastructure work better for 

travelers, businesses, shippers and carriers. It's not all about the money. We must make the 

transportation infrastructure that exists today work most efficiently, in the most cost-effective 

way. 

For example, according to Jim Bak, a spokesman for Inrix, who partnered on the Texas 

Transportation Institute congestion study: "There technology and the tools are there" to fix traffic 

congestion.4o Options include GPS systems that provide real-time traffic information and 

electronic tolling lanes such as the 1-495 HOT Lanes project. 

Andfourth, we're putting in the sweat equity to build the case for a world-class infrastructure 

system that will put Americans back to work, spur our economy, enhance our global 

competitiveness, reduce congestion and improve mobility and safety, and prove that American 

39 http://freightrailworks.org/ 

40 http://money.cnn.coml20 1310210Slnews/economy/traffic-jamsl 
76 


Insert offset folio 38 here 78920.038

can still get big things done. We're lobbying, we're educating, and we're building support. 

We're launching a new project, the Prospectus for Investing in America's Infrastructure, to 

engage the larger business community in the effort to articulate what the future of infrastructure 

needs to look like so that we can expand coalition of supporters and build the political will to 

reform, reinvent and reinvest in infrastructure. 

Conclusion 

When it comes to transportation, the federal government must take a leading role in ensuring the 

transportation system contributes to a strong economy rather than inhibiting economic growth. 

Our national transportation system is critical for long-term economic prosperity, supports 

Americans' high standards of living that have driven economic expansion, and is the backbone 

of our business supply chain. Lasting jobs grow where infrastructure works. 

The management and planning of the nation's transportation system is decentralized, and often 

localized, and is both public and private. The federal role is to make sure that this system 

functions well as a whole to support growth, competitiveness and a high quality of life. The 

federal role is also to look ahead and prepare for the future: the Chamber's business members 

large and small engage in long-term planning that relies on assumptions about the physical 

platform of our economy. 

AmeIica needs big solutions so it's time to put the smallness of politics aside. The Chamber 

calls upon all of America's leaders in and out of government to put country first. Transportation 

is a great opportunity to prove that Democrats and Republicans can work together, that states and 

the federal government can each play an appropriate role, that business is stepping up to hclp 

meet a major national challenge, and that all parties can come together to actually get something 

done for the good of the nation. We're ready to do it! 
77 


Insert offset folio 39 here 78920.039

L(iboi~~r~> 

! nter natioll<-!l 

Union of 

[\)v~th ,f\rnl:'nC:l 

Feel the Power 

TESTIMONY OF TERENCE M. O'SULLIVAN 

GENERAL PRESIDENT 

LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA 

TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13,2013 

On behalf of the Laborer's International Union of North America (LIUNA), the men and women 

who dedicate their lives to building America, I want to express our gratitude for the opportunity 

to be heard here today. 

Chairman Shuster, it is an honor to be at this first hearing under your leadership and the Laborers 

respect your willingness to take on what will be a tremendous challenge. We are confident that 

your commitment to our nation and your family's legacy of contributing to safeguarding our 

fundamental infrastructure will serve you well. 

By way of introduction, L1UNA is an organization of half a million workers in four hundred 

Local Unions across the United States who to go to work every day building America. We are 

proud to be at the forefront of the fight to highlight our nation's infrastructure needs and to 

represent the men and women in the trenches who can do something about it. 

Our commitment includes a long standing partnership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

through the Americans for Transportation Mobility. It includes supporting the work of Building 

America's Future and other allies. It includes being as vocal as we can on this issue and we are 

eager for it to include working with your committee as we have done historically. 

L1UNA members build our highways and mass transit systems, our bridges, our dams and our 

airport runways. We maintain sewer systems, dig tunnels, build pipelines and erect wind and 

1 
78 


Insert offset folio 40 here 78920.040

Ldb():eri)' 

! n't f'f n~l t l(lt),.l j 

Union of 

Feel the Power 

solar fanns. But we don't only build; like all working people, we rely on the basic infrastructure 

of America every day. 

Infrastructure is the foundation of our great nation. It was created with a strong federal role and 

it must be maintained and modernized with a strong federal role. Without a robust federal 

investment in our infrastructure networks, there isn't enough private money alone to get the job 

done. 

Taking care of America's infrastrueture is a core function and responsibility of the federal 

government with its origins in thc Constitution and I congratulate and commend this committee 

for addressing these issues at its first hearing. It's a responsibility we must live up to. 

We are facing dire needs and it is time to stop passing the buck and get serious about America's 

critical infrastructure. As I speak to you, our roads, bridges and highways and public transit 

systems are suffering from such a chronic under investment that the American Society of Civil 

Engineers (ASCE) predicts we will lose $1 trillion dollars in business sales, $324 billion in 

exports and $1.2 trillion in personal disposable income which will result in the loss of one 

million jobs annually by 2020, if the problem is not addressed. 

In 2012, after years of debate, Congress finally passed a surfaee transportation bill which 

invested $105 billion in our nation's surface transportation system. It's a good first step but in 

reality it's a patch and only a drop in the bucket compared to our actual needs. 

The statistics can seem overwhelming, numbing and are certainly beyond the capacity of cities or 

counties or even states to address: A quarter of our bridges are deficient or obsolete. Seven 

billion gallons of clean drinking water are lost to leaking pipes annually. Of the 257 locks on the 

more than 12,000 miles of inland waterways operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

nearly 50% are functionally obsolete and by 2020 that number will increase to 80%. 

This is America. We can't let this happen, especially when so many men and women are in need 

of exactly this kind of work. Our country needs a comprehensive plan to tackle this crisis, a new 

2 
79 


Insert offset folio 41 here 78920.041

LdborFr).' 

:n1prnatlon,j! 

Union of 

f'ol()lth t~~ncrlCl 

Feel the Power 

way to think about and invest in the basics of America on the scale of the Marshall Plan which 

rebuilt Europe after World War II. 

It was that kind of inspiration, dedication and visionary leadership that freed us to become the 

first country to land on the moon, to win the cold war and to become a beacon of hope and 

promise around the globe. 

That means that we must choose to make building America a priority and commit the necessary 

resources - a task which is easier said than done. However, that is what it will take to get the job 

done and it would be irresponsible not to do it. The nation's needs present a challenge, but if we 

accept, it we can build America and build our economy at the same time. 

As I speak to you, the construction industry has suffered the most sustained downturn in 40 years 

with two million fewer jobs in the industry than at the peak in April of 2006 and with the 

unemployment rate at 16.1% - the result is real suffering. 

The solution is staring us in the face. Adequate investment in surface transportation could create 

eight million jobs over four years according to the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation officials. Needed investment in water resource systems and our nation's domestic 

engineering production could also create millions of jobs. Not just good construction jobs, jobs 

throughout the economy across all sectors. 

Construction jobs are good jobs. They provide family supporting pay that benefits the working 

middle class who have been among the hardest hit by the recession. Americans are struggling 

with job loss, with foreclosures, with devastated retirement savings and with the very ability to 

simply make ends meet. And the work these men and women could be doing is critical to our 

country, making us more competitive in the global economy. 

Emerging nations such as India and China are investing four-times the share of their nation's 

GDP's in infrastructure as we are. It is not an overstatement to say that this will test the greatness 

3 
80 


Insert offset folio 42 here 78920.042

Ldbur(-'fs,' 

Feel the Power 

of America. The American workers who are proud to say they build for a living have a selfinterest at stake but their stake does not end with self interest. 

Investing now protects taxpayers, because for every year of inaction and delay the cost increases 

$150 billion more due to further deterioration, according to the ASCE. It will take a lot of effort 

to figure this out and make it happen, but it is a no brainer to get started now. 

We can help rescue our economy, rescue working America and leave behind real assets that will 

benefit taxpayers and our entire nation for generations to come. This isn't a Republican issue or a 

Democratic issue. There isn't a single American who doesn't benefit from and doesn't want 

good roads and safe bridges, clean drinking water and efficient airports, waterways, abundant 

energy and good jobs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony. We are eager and excited to work with you 

in thc future. Together we can build America so America works. 

# 

4 
81 


Insert offset folio 43 here 78920.043

American Association 

of Port Authorities 

Testimony of Kurt J. Nagle 

President and CEO 

American Association of Port Authorities 

Before the 

U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Hearing on 

"The Federal Role in America's Infrastructure" 

February 13,2013 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony for the record. Founded in 1912, 

the American Association of Port Authorities is an alliance of the leading public ports in the 

Western Hemisphere. Our testimony today reflects the views of our U.S. members. 

Beginning with the founding of Jamestown colony, seaports have served as a vital economic 

lifeline for America by bringing goods and services to people, creating economic activity, and 

enhancing our overall quality of life. 

Since the founding of our nation, there has been a clear and consistent federal role and an 

overriding national interest in developing and maintaining landside and waterside connections to 

America's seaports. Pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Congress, by statute, has reserved 

jurisdiction over navigable waters for the federal government. The General Survey Act of 1824 

granted the Army Corps of Engineers the authority to construct and maintain navigation projeets 

on behalf of the United States. In 1826, Congress passed the first Rivers and Harbors Aet and 

provided funds to the Corps to create specifie navigation projects. It is particularly crucial that in 

these challenging times the federal government continues core federal missions, such as 

-1-
82 


Insert offset folio 44 here 78920.044

transportation infrastructure investment, that directly impact America's economic vitality and 

national security. 

More than a quarter of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is accounted for by international trade. 

Freight movement through America's seaports supports the employment of 13.3 million 

American workers, and seaport-related jobs account for $649 billion in annual personal income. 

For every $1 billion in exports shipped through seaports, 15,000 jobs are ereated. 

In a recent member survey, AAPA found that public ports and their private sector marine 

terminal partners plan to invest more than $46 billion through 2016 in capital improvement 

projects to meet growing demand. 

To accommodate increasing trade volumes, there must be adequate, safe, and congestion-free 

access to our ports from both the land and water-sides. Under-investing in these connections with 

POlts will drastically impact our country's ability to compete internationally and meet U.S. 

demands. 

Unfortunately, in recent years the federal government has prioritized neither maintaining nor 

enhancing port-related infrastructure projects. On January 15, the American Society of Civil 

Engineers (ASCE) released a report on the impacts of under-investing in America's 

infrastructure. The marine ports and inland waterways section shows that an additional $15.8 

billion investment per year through 2020 (just one-tenth of the report's cumulative total) will 

protect nearly $700 billion in U.S. GOP, $270 billion in U.S. exports, 738,000 jobs, and $770 per 

year in household costs. Overall, ASCE projects America could see as much as a $4 trillion loss 

to its GOP by 2040 if we ignore U.s. transportation in frastructure needs. 

The report notes that land and water connections that affect the ports' ability to move cargo into 

and out of the country are oftcn insufficient and outdated. The resulting congestion and delays 

cause the goods we import to become more expensive, and the goods we export overseas to be 

less competitive in world markets. Because international trade is central to our economic wellbeing and seaports connect us with the rest of the world, keeping them modern, navigable, 

secure, and properly supported are core priorities for AAPA - and they must be for the nation as 

well. 

- 2· 
83 


Insert offset folio 45 here 78920.045

The volume of trade through America's seaports creates a prominent target for ten'orist and other 

attacks. The ports are international borders that the federal government has a constitutional 

responsibility to secure. The potential vulnerabilities of seaports are many and growing; given 

the overwhelming number of ships and containers that pass through seaports every day the 

federal government has a clear interest in their protection, and has created programs in the past to 

attempt to address this need. 

Today, as we confront a host of international challenges, from sputtering economic growth to 

national security concerns, we must realize that the continuing vitality of our seaports is of 

critical importance. 

The ports, however, cannot work alone to maintain and improve this infrastructure. They rely on 

partnerships with the private sector and the federal government. 

In efforts to streamline government and reduce the deficit, it is vital to recognize that not every 

federal dollar spent is the same. Federal investments in seaport related infrastructure that 

connects American industry to international markets is an essential, effective utilization of 

limited federal resources. They pay enormous dividends through increased international 

competitiveness, long-term job creation, economic prosperity, and over $200 billion in federal, 

state, and local tax revenues. 

At AAPA, we're hopeful that the federal government's current efforts at implementing 

provisions of 2012's MAP-21 transportation bill will result in the creation ofa coherent and 

effective national freight policy and strategy. Such a national strategy and the necessary federal 

investment to support it will ensure that American-made products are more competitive around 

the globe, American manufacturers and consumers pay lower prices for the goods that they need, 

and American jobs are sustained and created here at home. 

Passage of the Water Resources Development Act, which Chainnan Shuster has made his top 

legislative priority, is critical to maintaining and expanding water navigation channels. It 

provides opportunities to modernize U.S. ports and streamline the Corps of Engineers navigation 

program to meet the needs of today and the future in a more timely and efficient manner. 

- 3-
84 


Insert offset folio 46 here 78920.046

It is heartening that Chainnan Shuster, Ranking Member Rahal!, and other members of the 

Committee have brought these issues front and center in the l13th Congress. It is critical that 

Congress recognize the need for federal investments in transportation infrastructure. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to include this testimony as part of this hearing's written 

record. 

- 4-
85 


Insert offset folio 47 here 78920.047

AMERICAN PUSH( WORKS ASSOCIATION 

Tbe Federal Role in America's Infrastructure 

Statement of 

Elizabeth Treadway, PWLF 

President 

American Public Works Association 

Totbe 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

February 13,2013 
86 


Insert offset folio 48 here 78920.048

Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall and members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to submit testimony for this hearing on the federal role in America's 

infrastructure. I am Elizabeth Treadway, President of the American Public Works 

Association (APWA). I submit this testimony on behalf of our 29,000 members. 

APW A is an organization dedicated to providing public works infi-astructure and services 

to millions of people in rural and urban communities, both small and large. Working in 

the public interest, APWA membcrs plan, design, build, operate and maintain our 

transportation, water supply, stormwater, wastewater treatment, waste and refuse disposal 

systems, public buildings and grounds and other structures and facilities essential to our 

economy and quality oflife nationwide. In addition, public works officials are first 

responders, responsible for all-hazards preparation, response and recovery. 

Our nation depends on efficient, resilient, well-maintained infrastructure to sustain and 

create jobs, provide mobility, strengthen our economic competitiveness and protect 

public health and safety. But that infrastructure is aging, underfunded, deteriorating. It is 

also increasingly vulnerable to catastrophic disasters, as evidenced recently by Hurricane 

Sandy in the mid-Atlantic and northeast. Our nation cannot remain economically 

competitive if our transportation systems are inadequate, our bridges are crumbling and 

our water systems are leaking and in need of repair or replacement. 

The needs are clear and documented. Nearly one in four bridges is rated deficient. The 

latest Texas A&M Transportation Institute study finds that congestion cost the U.S. $121 

billion in 2011, more than $800 per commuter. US Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) data show that the nation (all levels of government) invests roughly half of 

what is needed to improve the current state of our roads and bridges. The Congressional 

Budget Office reports that the Highway Trust Fund, the source of revenues for roads, 

bridges and public transportation, is generating insufficient revenues and is unable to 

sustain investment levels and beginning in 2015 meet all its obligations. 

Similarly, the state of the nation's water resources infrastructure is dire. Investments 

made in critical water and wastewater infrastructure through the Drinking Water and 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs have fallen short, the needs far outstrip 

available funding and local jurisdictions struggle to fund infrastructure capital projects. 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) most recent clean water and 

drinking water needs assessment surveys, local communities will need $300 billion in 

wastewater and $335 billion in drinking water infrastructure improvements for capital 

expenditures over the next 20 years. 

The Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), a broad-based coalition oflocal elected 

officials, drinking water and wastewater service providers, state environmental and health 

administrators, engineers and environmentalists, and others estimate that the nation's 

water infi-astructure needs are between $500 billion and $600 billion over the next 20 

years. 
87 


Insert offset folio 49 here 78920.049

We cannot afford to allow thesc needs to continue to go unmet. Infrastructure's 

economic importance to our nation is crucial. Wastewater and drinking water 

infrastructure protect public health along with important natural resources such as our 

oceans, rivers and streams vitally important to tourism, travel and recreation. Clean 

water dependent industries such as agriculture, commercial fishing and recreation 

generate billions of dollars to the economy each year. 

Our millions of miles of interconnected roadways and thousands of public transportation 

service systems move people and goods worth trillions of dollars annually. The 

transportation industry alone represents 10 pereent of the nation's gross domestic product 

and supports nine percent of the nation's workfbrce. 

Investment in infrastructure generates jobs. WIN estimates that every $1 billion invested 

in waster infrastructure eapital creates nearly 28,000 jobs. The Federal Highway 

Administration estimates every $1 billion of federal highway and transit investment 

generates thousands of jobs. 

Indeed, the benefits of infrastmcture investment to our economy and our quality oflife 

are significant and substantial. 

Transportation 

Our nation cannot remain eeonomically competitive with the rest of the world if our 

transportation system is left inadequate and crumbling. Investment to improve and repair 

our deteriorating surface transportation network will build the foundation for long-term 

and sustained economic growth. A continued federal role in funding our national, 

regional and local transportation systems remains vitally important to job-creation, 

economic health, safety and welfare of our country. 

Every community has a stake in the hlture of our transportation system. Local 

governments own about 75 percent of the nearly four million-mile roadway network and 

nearly 51 percent ofthe nation's bridges (nearly 300,000 bridges under local control) and 

manage about 90 percent of the transit systems. With nearly every trip beginning and 

ending ou a local road, street or sidewalk, a strong local-state-federal partnership is key to 

ensuring a safe, seamless and efficient multimodal transportation system. 

Because there is a critical need for increased investment at the national level to build and 

maintain our nation's transportation network, we cannot wait until 2014 to begin the 

process of working on a new surface transportation measure to succeed MAP-21. 

We must act now. This is why. The gap is growing ever wider between transportation 

needs and motor fuel tax revenues available to meet them, and a funding and financing 

crisis is already upon us. MAP-21 provides a short-term, two-year investment in our 

transportation system. Our nation and our economy, however, need a well-fimded, multiyear surface transportation authorization that provides a sustainable funding source for 

the future, strengthens local decision-making authority, direct resources to local priorities 

and does more to streamline and aceelerate the project delivery process. 

2 
88 


Insert offset folio 50 here 78920.050

We recommend an approach that clearly identifies and dedicates revenue sources to 

provide reliable funding for the filII costs of construction, operation, maintenance, 

preservation and reconstruction of national and regional multimodal surface 

transportation systems to effectively move people and goods to serve our economy, in a 

safe and environmentally sustainable manner. 

We support a mix ofrevenue options to ensure necessary funding sustainability, 

including: raising the federal motor fuel tax and indexing it; exploring the transition to 

vehicle-mileage fees; and expanding access to innovative financing tools. 

Protecting and preserving existing transportation facilities is an important priority for 

federal investment. Others are and should remain enhancing safety, improving 

movement of freight, providing multimodal solutions to address urban congestion and 

developing and supporting sustainable transportation systems. 

Another federal priority needs to be committed leadership and action to reduce the time it 

takes to complete federal-aid projects. It simply takes too long and costs too much to 

implement projects using federal dollars. Oversight can be duplicative, inconsistent, 

inflexible and wasteful. Smaller projects in particular may require a disproportionate 

share of time and resources to complete them. Aggressive steps need to be taken to 

remove unnecessary and wasteful barriers to implementing infrastructure projects in a 

timely, cost-effective and efficient manner, while retaining appropriate protection of our 

citizens and the environment. 

We applaud the provisions in MAP-21 aimed at expediting project delivery and are 

committed to working with the Congress and federal agencies to implement them and to 

continue to find new ways to make needed progress to streamline project delivery. 

Federal investment and action in accordance with these priorities are central to ensuring a 

sate, sustainable and efficient transportation system for the future. 

Water Inf,'astructure 

Passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 established a strong, collaborative 

partnership among local, state and federal governmcnts to deal with the nation's water 

quality pollution. This strong collaborative partnership achieved vast improvements to 

the health of the nation's waters, led to increased economic development and job creation 

and protected the public hcalth. In recent years, however, the federal commitment to a 

strong, collaborative partnership with the states and localities on the front lines of 

improving the health of Amcrica's waters has crumbled, much like the nation's 

in frastructure. 

Moreover, investment in the nation's infrastructure has historically enjoyed broad 

bipartisan support. Yet, in recent years, this bipartisan approach to addressing the 

nation's water infrastructure funding needs has waned and local governments have been 

forced to shoulder more and more of the burden for paying for costly infrastructure 

repairs and upgrades at time whcn local economies are still struggling to recover from the 

3 
89 


Insert offset folio 51 here 78920.051

economic downturn ofthe past few ycars. Dccades of chronic undcrinvestmcnt in our 

nation's water infrastructure is jeopardizing public safety, our economic competitiveness 

and environmental hcalth. 

The water and wastewater treatment improvements that began with the passage ofthe 

CWA improved public health, the environment and led to economic succcss nationwide. 

The passages of the CW A led to the elimination of waterborne pathogens that endangered 

the public health. Without a signi1icant investment and a strong recommitment to the 

fcderal, state and local partnership, the gains of the last 40 years may be lost and the 

strength of the nation's economy will be compromised. 

Recent funding cuts to fedcral water quality programs have served to undermine state and 

local community efforts to address local water infrastructure needs. The lack of funding 

for watcr and wastewater infrastructure threatens the public health, the environment and 

the economic wellbeing of the nation. The original construction grants program signaled 

a strong federal commitment to collaborating with state and local partners to address 

water quality pollution. Then in response to changing fiscal conditions, this Committee 

worked in a bipartisan manner to create the Clcan Water State Revolving Fund (CWSR) 

program to address the continued infrastructure funding challenges facing local utilitics. 

Thc elimination of the construction grants program, and in recent years decreasing 

appropriations to the State Revolving Fund programs, have dramatically hindered local 

governments' ability to keep up with their infrastructure fimding needs, just as new and 

increasingly expensive federal mandates are imposed on utilities. Increased federal 

investment is needed to address the ever widening infrastructure funding gap and to help 

local partners meet unfimded mandates, rehabilitate existing infrastructure and continue 

to provide Americans with safe, reliable water infrastructure systems nationwide. 

APWA members take a lead role in the effective management of facilities protecting 

water quality and are too familiar with the challenges local jurisdictions face keeping up 

with the demand for clean, safe water. Currently, local governments pay for over 95 

percent of the investment in water infrastructure, and the federal share continues to bc cut 

while EPA routinely upgrades water quality standards and imposes additional unfunded 

mandates on already strained local budgets. 

Successfully addressing the challenges facing local governments in meeting their 

infrastructure funding needs requires a recommitment from the federal government to a 

strong collaborative partnership with state and local connterparts. Congress should 

demonstrate a recommitment to the federal, state and local partnership by working in a 

bipartisan nature to address the CUlTent water infrastructure funding crisis by: 

• Reauthorizing and fully funding the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund 

(SRF) Program to ensure consistency and give communities the ability to leverage 

federal dollars and plan capital improvements in order to ensure public health, 

safety and environmental quality. Special consideration should be given to 

providing low interest or zero interest loans, principal forgiveness and grant 

4 
90 


Insert offset folio 52 here 78920.052

funding to cnsure that small and rural communities can meet their water 

infrastructure funding necds. 

• Considering enacting ncw funding mechanisms such as innovative financing 

proposals that will provide additional funding opportunities, likc the lifting of 

state private activity bond caps, the creation of a Water Infrastructure Financing 

Authority program similar to the TIFIA program administered by US DOT, or the 

cstablishment ofa Water and Wastcwater Trust Fund similar to the Highway 

Trust Fund, to providc much needed new money to address the current water 

infrastructure funding gap. 

Despite the best efforts oflocal govcrnments, the nation's water infrastructure funding 

gap continues to grow while local budgets arc faced with numerous competing needs and 

where ratepayers are struggling to pay for increasingly expensive services or to service 

municipal bonds that were used to pay for much needed infrastructure improvements. 

Failure to addrcss this infrastructure funding crisis has real and significant consequenccs 

for the public health, the environment and the economic health of the nation. Federal 

investment in water infrastructure funding makes economic and environmental sense, but 

without a strong recommitment by the fcderal government to a collaborative relationship 

with its statc and federal partners the gains from the past 40 years will bc lost and the 

economic hcalth of this nation will be compromised. 

We call on Congress to address the widcning infrastructurc funding gap by reauthorizing 

the Drinking Watcr and Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs and by creating 

dedicated, long tcrm source ofncw federal funding to addrcss the widening infrastructure 

funding gap. 

Emergency Management 

In an agc when natural and manmade threats are constantly changing, a resilient nation is 

only as strong as its critical infrastructure system~. Infrastructure not only needs to 

withstand disasters, but also endure daily use. Infrastructurc systems function as our 

communities' lifelines. 

The responsibilities of local public works agencies, guardians of many of the nation's 

critical public infrastructure systems, are key to the daily welfare of communities. Public 

works officials scrvc at the forefront when disaster strikes, playing a crucial role in 

prcparation, response and recovery operations for all hazards and emergencies, including 

events such as blizzards, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, pandemics or terror 

attacks. Public Works professionals are often the only first responders qualified and 

capable of providing services during disaster recovcry efforts such as dcbris or snow 

removal and operating pumping and drainage systems after a flood. 

Increased fcdcral invcstment in infrastructure will strengthen public works' first 

responder role in disaster assistance and public works' all hazards approach toward 

cffective mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery activities. 

5 
91 


Insert offset folio 53 here 78920.053

Investing in our nation's critical infrastructure systems, specifically in pre-disaster 

mitigation projects at the state, local and tribal levels, will reduce loss of life, personal 

property damage and reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. Mitigation 

practices are a daily function for public works, given that maintaining critical 

infrastructure systems help safeguard communities before disaster strikes. 

The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council published a study in 2005 which found that every 

$1 the Federal Emergency Management Agency invested in mitigation projects saved 

society approximately $4. Effective mitigation efforts can not only break the cycle of 

repeated damage and reconstruction that can paralyze communities but also improve 

recovery times if a community is damaged. 

Conclusion 

Our nation's infrastructure is a vital public asset that supports commerce, promotes 

economic activity, sustains jobs and protects public health, public safety and the 

cnvironment. But its current state of under funding and deterioration, the growing 

unfunded mandates and burdensome, excessive "red tape" threaten our ability to maintain 

and improve it, jeopardizing what the citizens we serve value and expect most: safe and 

efficient roads and bridges, clean and safe water, infrastructure better able to withstand 

disasters. A strong federal recolfunitment, in partnership with state and local 

government, to invest in our roads, bridges public transportation, drinking water, 

wastewater and other vital public infrastructure will mean a better quality of life and a 

stronger economy. 

Chairman Shuster and members of the Conunittee, thank you for holding this hearing and 

taking our testimony. We look forward to working with you and offer our assistance, 

experience and expertise. 

6 
92 


Insert offset folio 54 here 78920.054

Washington Ollice 

!01 ConStitutIOn Ave, N W 

SUite 375 E.'1sl 

D (' 20001 

Web· httpf!ww\\.asceorg 

Statement of 

The American Society of Civil Engineers 

On The Federal Role in America's Infrastructure 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

February 13, 2013 
93 


Insert offset folio 55 here 78920.055

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)' would like to commend the House 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for holding a hearing today on the federal role in 

infrastrueture. Addressing the needs of the nation's infrastructure has been a key priority for the 

federal government dating back to the foundation of our country. The Society is pleased to 

present to the Committee our views why a federal role remains critical in improving and 

maintaining the nation's infrastructure. 

Infrastructure's relationship to public safety, national security, and economic competiveness, 

makes it clear why a strong infrastructure system has always played a critical role to the H:deral 

interest. In fact, infrastructure spending and the federal government have a history that dates to 

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that gave Congress the power to "establish post 

offices and post roads." The country has expanded significantly since that time, and with it the 

nation has needed to expand its infrastructure in order to maintain a modern economy. 

During the 20th Century, the federal government led the way in building our nation's greatest 

infrastructure systems from the Intercontinental Railroad, to New Deal programs, to the 

Interstate Highway System, and the Clean Water Act. Since that time, federal leadership and 

investment have decreased, and the condition of the nation's infrastructure sutTered. 

Unfortunately, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the total of all federal spending tor 

infrastructure has steadily declined over the past 30 years. 

Additionally, at this time most infrastructure investment decisions arc made without the benefit 

of a strong national vision. A strong national vision must originate with strong federal leadership 

and be shared by all levels of governmcnt and the private sector. With the state role in 

infrastructure evolving, it becomes important for the federal government to oversee the broader 

program in order to create a cohesive system to benefit the entire country. Therefore, without a 

national vision, or federal leadership, infrastructure will continue to deteriorate and economic 

growth wi II be stifled. 

An Aging Infrastructure System 

The results of years of under investment can be seen in tramc and airport congestion, unsafe 

bridges, dams and levees, deteriorating roads, and aging drinking water and wastewater 

infrastructure. ASCE's 2009 Report Cardfor America's Infi'astructure graded the nation's 

infrastructure a "D" based 011 15 categories and stated that an investment of approximately $2.2 

trillion over five years would be needed to maintain the national infrastructure in a state of good 

repair. This total need number represents capital spending at all levels of government. However, 

1 ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national civil engineering organization. It represents more 

than 146,000 civil engineers individually in private practice, government, industry, and academia who are dedicated 

to the advancement of the science and profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and 

professional society organized under Part 1.501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. www.asce.org 
94 


Insert offset folio 56 here 78920.056

even with the current and projected investments from federal, state and local governments over 

that same five year period, the "gap" between the overall need and actual spending will exceed 

$1 trillion by the end of the five year period. If the nation continues to under invest in 

infrastructure and ignores this backlog until systems fail, we will incur even greater costs. 

As the Committee begins work in the 1131h Congress, our nation's infrastructure will require 

significant attention. Congress has not reauthorized a Clean Water Act since 1987, a Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA) since 2007, and the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act will expire in September. The National Dam Safety Program has not been 

reauthorized since it expired in 20 I 0, and, surface transportation programs while authorized 

through 2014 still require a sustainable revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund to be viable 

in the future. Each issue also acts as an example for why the federal government must continue 

to playa role in funding different facets of our nation's infrastructure. 

Infrastructure and the United States Economy 

While taken for granted by most Americans, our infrastructure is the foundation on which the 

national economy depends. As the economy grows, these infrastructure assets must be 

maintained and improved accordingly. For example, the current transportation system was 

originally built in the 1950s and 19605 at a time when the country had different transportation 

needs and a smaller population. While the Interstate Highway System is a shining example of a 

focused national vision for the nation's infrastructure, an ever expanding population and a 

growing economy requires these aging infrastructure systems to kecp pace. 

Since 2011, in an effort to see how significant investments are to the nation's intrastructure. 

ASCE released a series of economic studies that answer a critical question what does a "0" 

mean for America's economy and what is thc rcturn on investment we can expect to see. The 

Failure to Act studies compare current and projected needs for infrastructure investment against 

the current funding trends in surface transportation (highways. bridges. rail, transit); water and 

wastewater; electricity; and airport and waterborne transportation. The series concluded with a 

final report, Failure to Act: The Impact of Curren! b!frastructure Investment on America's 

Economic Future, which found improving the condition of OUf nation's aging roads, bridges, 

power lines, sewer systems, ports and waterways is critical to protecting 3.5 million jobs. 

The final summary report found that between now and 2020, investment needs across key 

infrastructure sectors total $2.75 trillion, while projected expenditures are about $1.66 trillion, 

leaving a total investment gap of$I.1 trillion. This gap leads to consequences like congestion, 

water main breaks, and blackouts and brownouts that cost households and businesses money, 

creating a drag on our economy. However, with an additional investment of$157 billion a year 

between now and 2020, the U.S. can eliminate this drag on economic growth and protect: 
95 


Insert offset folio 57 here 78920.057

• $3.1 trillion in GDP; 

• $1.1 trillion in U.S. trade value; 

• 3.5 million jobs; 

• $2.4 trillion in consumer spending; and 

• $3,100 in annual household income. 

In order to avoid the severe economic impacts that would be caused by failing to invest in our 

infrastructure at home, the federal government is allowing other countries to make up where the 

United States is failing. It is long established that money invested in essential public works can 

create jobs, provide for economic growth, and ensure public safety through a modem, wellengineered national infrastructure. By improving the nation's deteriorating infrastructure system 

both economic and job creation opportunities will be provided, while creating a multi-modal 

transportation system for the Twenty-First Century. 

Conclusion 

Infrastructure is the critical engine supporting the nation's economy, national security, and public 

safety. It is the thread which knits the country together. To compete in the global economy, 

improve our quality of life and raise our standard of living, we must successfully rebuild 

America's public infrastructure. Faced with that task, Congress must continue to fund 

transportation, clean water, and water resources projects. Additionally, Congress must clearly 

define the federal role in infrastructure investment to allow state and local governments the 

ability to properly meet the needs of their communities. 

ASCE looks forward to working with the Committee as it develops a new Water Resources 

Development Act and begins work to reauthorize surface transportation programs. ASCE also 

looks forward to sharing with the Committee our 2013 Report Cardfor America's Infrastructure, 

which will be released on March 19,2013. The latest report will include a new infrastructure 

category, grading for the first time the nation's marine and inland waterway ports, as well as the 

15 categories from the 2009 Report Card. 
96 


Insert offset folio 58 here 78920.058

Conf8foncc 

TESTIMONY OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE LEADERSHIP 

CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

HEARING ON 

"THE FEDERAL ROLE IN AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE" 

UNITED STATES HOUSE TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 

February 28, 2013 

Washington, DC 

Chainnan Schuster, Ranking Member Rahal!, and members of the Committee: I am Wade Henderson, 

President and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Thank you for the 

0ppoltunity to submit testimony for the record on the "The Federal Role in America's Infrastructure." The 

critical need for federal infrastructure investment is one of the most urgent and important issues facing 

our nation. 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a coalition charged by its diverse membership 

of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons 

in the United States. Founded in 1950 by A. Philip Randolph, Arnold Aronson, and Roy Wilkins, The 

Leadership Conference works in support of policies that further the goal of equality under law through 

legislative advocacy and public education. 

I applaud the Committee for holding this hearing on a matter of great significance to the civil and human 

rights community. For The Leadership Conference, transportation policy is a key civil rights issue and 

one that is critical to ensuring opportunity for all. As our nation begins to recover from the recent 

recession, the federal government must help lead the way through sensible infrastructure investments. 

Making necessary repairs and updates to our network of roads, ports, bridges, and railways will improve 

our country's competitiveness and enhance our shared prosperity, while creating and preserving jobs. 

While this Committee considers the numerous proposals which will come before it ahead of the next 

federal transportation bill, we strongly urge focused attention on: continued investments in public 

transportation; the capacity of infrastructure investment to create and sustain much needed jobs; and the 

importance of maintaining public participation in transportation decision making. 

Investing in Pnblic Transportation 

As we work to strengthen the networks which transport essential resources and goods, it is critical to 

remember the important role infrastructure investments play in transporting and employing everyday 

Americans. Smart and equitable transportation systems connect us to jobs, schools, housing, health care 

services--and even to grocery stores and nutritious food. Millions oflow-income and working-class 

people, people of color, and people with disabilities live in communities where quality transportation 

options are unaffordable, unreliable, or nonexistent. The choices we make with respect to federal 
97 


Insert offset folio 59 here 78920.059

transportation policy-what we build, where we build, who builds it, what energy powers it- have an 

enonnous impact on our economy, our climate, our health, and on our ability as a society to achieve the 

American Dream. 

Transportation investments to date have produced an inhospitable landscape for low-income people, 

people with disabilities, seniors, and many people in rural areas. People of color are disproportionately 

disadvantaged by the current state oftransportation. Nineteen percent of African Americans and 13.7 

percent of Latinos lack access to automobiles, compared to only 4.6 percent of Whites.; Racial minorities 

are four times more likely than Whites to rely on public transportation for their work commute." The cost 

of car ownership, underinvestment in public transportation, and a paucity of pedestrian and bicycleaccessible thoroughfares have isolated urban and low-income people from jobs and services. Because 

many people with disabilities do not have the option to drive cars, lack of access to other modes of 

transportation disproportionately harms them as well. Similarly, seniors and people in rural areas often 

have limited transportation choices. 

An expansion of public transportation funding is necessary to support the reliance on public transportation 

and the number of people living outside city work centers. Since 2009, 85% of transit systems have either 

cut service or raised fares or both.'" Dedicating transit investments for operating purposes will help stop 

the fare increases and service cuts and allow for more bus and rail service on existing lines, fare 

reductions, and frec transfers. 

Preserving Public Participation 

We agree with the emerging consensus that the preservation and modernization of our transportation 

infrastructure can only be completed through a partnership of federal, state, and local government. 

However, this process must also include the input of members ofthe underserved communities who most 

rely on transportation infrastructure. Under MAP-21, the opposite approach was taken, and several 

regrcssive changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) diminished the ability of 

individuals to review and comment on projects before they were already underway. Finding innovative 

ways to make project delivery more efficient will be an important part of accomplishing America's 

infrastructure goals, but leaving communities out of the process is not the right way to do so. The 

negative effects of some transportation decisions--dissecting neighborhoods of low-income families and 

peoplc of color, physically isolating them from needed services and businesses, and disrupting onccstable communities--are broadly fclt and have lasting effects. When these individuals are ignored, 

transportation decisions and spending inevitably fail to benefit all populations equally. The report of our 

sister organization, The Leadership Conference Education Fund, "Where We Need to Go: A Civil Rights 

Roadmap fbI' Transportation Eqllit)'.," discusses some of these effccts and is the first in a series of reports 

examining the key roles transportation and mobility play in the struggle for civil rights and equal 

opportunity. 

In drafting the next surface transportation reauthorization bill, we urge this Comm ittee to study the 

lessons from MAP-21 and explore alternative strategies for expediting the approval and review process. 

Developing a more inclusive approach will not only help ward off externalities, but, will also lead to 

better results for all parties. Open engagement with local communities often yields common-sense 

solutions to problems which can streamline the overall process. This is particularly true for smaller 

infrastructure projects under $5 million and projects in the "operational right-of-way" which were 

2 
98 


Insert offset folio 60 here 78920.060

exempted from NEPA review under the last transportation bill. Legislative categorical exclusions such as 

these have the effect of shielding federal decisions impacting local communities from public scrutiny and 

shutting the public out of the decision making process. By allowing the public to comment on proposed 

actions, the impacts, and potential alternatives, federal agencies can avoid costly delays and future public 

opposition. 

Fostering ,Job Creation 

The Leadership Conference applauds the Committee's determination to harness the job creating potential 

of infrastructure investment. The construction industry has suffered the greatest downturn in 40 years and 

despite recent progress, lingering unemployment still afflicts towns and cities throughout the United 

States. Certain communities have been struck especially hard, with unemployment rates in the AfricanAmerican community holding at almost double the national average. Repairing and modernizing 

America's infrastructure can help address this situation by creating hundreds ofthousands of good paying 

jobs. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that 30,000 direct and indirect jobs are created for 

every $1 billion invested in highway construction. 

Not only can these jobs not be shipped overseas, they can also be targeted to alleviate unemployment in 

areas where help is most desperately needed. This Committee should consider access and training for 

infrastructure jobs. By doing so, Congress can help ensure healthy and shared economic growth in the 

years to come. 

As this Committee plots a path forward on updating Ollr aging infrastructure, there is ample opportunity to 

lay a foundation for more equitable transportation options that will serve us well into the future. We urge 

Congress to invest in transportation infrastructure, including public transit, in a responsible way that will 

build a nation where every person, whether in an urban area or fUral hamlet, can participate and prosper. 

There is much at stake for the civil and human rights community in developing and improving our 

nation's federal infrastructure. As Congress considers how best to rebuild and repair our nation's roads, 

bridges, railways and ports, and where and how to prioritize investments in public transportation and 

pedestrian and bicycle access, it's vital that the needs of communities of color, low-income people, people 

with disabil ities, seniors, and the rural poor are considered and incorporated. 

Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. 

I Brookings Institution and UC~Berkeley, "Socioeconomic Differences in Household Automobile Ownership Rates" at 

http://gsppi.berkeley.edu/faculty/sraphaelfberubedeakenraphae1.pdf.lbirty-three pen;ent of poor African 

Americans and 25 percent of poor I,atinos lack automobile access, compared to 12.1 percent of 

poor whites. PolieyLink, "The Transportation Prescription: Bold New Ideas for Healthy, Equitable 

Transportation Reform in America," http://wyvw.convergencepartnership,org!atflcffOIo7B245a9b44. 

6ded-4abd-a392-ae58380ge350%7Dn'RANSPORTATIONRX.PDF at 16. 

"Based on U,S. Census data. Clara ReschovskJ', "Journey to Work: 2000," Census 2000 brief. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2004). http://v.ww.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-33.pdf. 

l!!Amalgamated Transit Union - http://www.atu.orgiaction/atu-cope 

3 
99 


Insert offset folio 61 here 78920.061

Water Environment 

Federation' 

the water quality people" 

February 13, 2013 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Incoming·Chairman 

Transportation & Infrastructure Committee 

u.s. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall 

Ranking Member 

Transportation & Infrastructure 

Committee 

U.5. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: Federal Support for Our Nation's Essential Water Infrastructure 

Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahal!: 

As the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee moves forward with an aggressive 

agenda in the 113" Congress, the Water Environment Federation (WEF) strongly urges 

you to make federal support for water infrastructure a high priority. Infrastructure 

investment is a great concern to our members, and we are greatly encouraged by the 

topic of the Committee's first hearing: f'The Federal Role in America's Infrastructure." 

We know that this hearing has a broad focus, but hope that it will highlight the critical 

state of the nation's drinking water, clean water, and stormwater infrastructure, and the 

important role the federal government can play in improving it. We recognize that the 

Committee will have a full and busy agenda over the next two years, and respectfully ask 

that you give equal and necessary consideration to water infrastructure and water policy 

issues as you execute the Committee's responsibilities, 

WEF is a not~for-profjtj non-partisan educational association that values its reputation 

for connecting Congress with the technical expertise and experience of our over 36,000 

individual members and 75 affiliated Member,Associations. WEF provides education and 

training for thousands of water quality professionals who clean water and return it safely 

to the environment. Approximately half of our members are the professionals who 

operate municipal water facilities located in congressional districts across the nation, 

while the other half are consulting engineers, scientists, researchers, equipment 

manufacturers and other technical experts. WEF hosts the largest annual water 

conference in the world, WEFTEC, and is the leading North American publisher of 

technical and scientific titles in wastewater, stormwater, water reuse$ and water science. 

WEF members have proudly protected public health, served their local communities, and 

supported clean water worldwide since 1928. 
100 


Insert offset folio 62 here 78920.062

We know that as congressional and national leaders on infrastructure matters, you are 

acutely aware of the water infrastructure challenges our nation is facing. WEF is the 

founder of the Water for Jobs campaign, which is a partnership of leading water 

associations, organizations and companies working together to ensure that we make 

investment in water infrastructure a national priority. As a result of this campaign, the 

2012 Republican and Democratic National Platforms include water infrastructure 

investment language and reference the positive impact on job creation, economic 

growth, and health (see the GOP Platform, We Believe in America, pp. 1 and 5) and the 

Democratic Platform, Moving America Forward (pp. 40-41, 34, and 49). The campaign is 

now working to transform these platform commitments into meaningful action. 

Our crumbling water infrastructure is reaching a critical stage as the gap between 

investment needs and available funding continues to grow. With this crisis comes 

incredible opportunity - 40 years of data clearly demonstrates that investing in water 

infrastructure boosts the economy. With millions of Americans out of work, the timing 

could not be better to reinvest in our essential water infrastructure. It is estimated that 

$1 billion invested in water and wastewater infrastructure can create over 26,000 jobs 

as well as spur innovation and the development of new technologies. Conversely, if we 

fail to bridge the investment gap by 2020, unreliable and insufficient water 

infrastructure will cost the average American household $900 a year in higher water 

rates and lower wages; American businesses can expect an additional $147 billion in 

increased costs and the economy will lose 700,000 jobs. 

The American public consistently identifies water infrastructure as in need of significant 

investment and rejuvenation. Studies show that 95% of Americans ranked water as the 

most important service, 88% of American's feel that the government should be 

accountable for fixing and maintaining the nation's water infrastructure, and 77% of 

American's are very concerned about the state of the nation's water infrastructure. 

American's hold these strong feelings because they recognize that water is vital to the 

wellbeing of our nation on many different levels, which include: 

protection of public health; 

increased economic development; 

protection of the environment; 

improved community livability; 

manageable water rate increases that are not harmful to family and business budgets; 

and 

climate change adaptation to provide resilience and protect communities and 

businesses. 

There will likely be a variety of legislative proposals introduced during the 113th 

Congress to directly or indirectly address these issues. In the past WEF has been an 

advocate for several of the existing funding mechanisms, including reauthorization and 

full funding for 
101 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 63 here 78920.063

the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program. WEF has also been 

urging Congress to authorize a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (WIFIA) 

program that will supplement funding for projects that cannot obtain SRF funding, and 

to lift the volume cap on Private Activity Bonds (PABs) to finance water and wastewater 

projects. 

In summary, there are number of viable mechanisms available to address the need for 

increased investment, and there is clearly strong public support for Congressional 

action. 

WEF urges the Committee to act during the 1" Session of this Congress to provide 

increased support for water infrastructure. We have heard clearly from our members 

that this is a priority, and we know they stand ready to support specific legislative 

proposals. We urge you and your colleagues to work together and seek common 

ground on proposals that answer the American public's call for greater support for 

water infrastructure. 

Thank you once again for holding a hearing on America's infrastructure, and for 

providing WEF with an opportunity to submit written comments. We look forward to 

working with you during the 113'h Congress and welcome the opportunity to further 

discuss is and any other water-related matters that come before the Committee. 

Respectfully, 

Jeffery 

~\1t A. Eger 

Executive Director 

cc: The Honorable Bob Gibbs 

The Honorable Tim Bishop