Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





	BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA

	=======================================================================

	(115-1)

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	COMMITTEE ON
	TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	FEBRUARY 1, 2017

	__________

	Printed for the use of the
	Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure



	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]









	Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
	committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

	______

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

	23-844 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
	-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
	Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
	DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
	Washington, DC 20402-0001























	COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

	BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
	DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
	Vice Chair Columbia
	FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JERROLD NADLER, New York
	SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
	DUNCAN HUNTER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
	ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
	LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
	BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
	BOB GIBBS, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
	DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
	JEFF DENHAM, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
	THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JOHN GARAMENDI, California
	MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
	SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Georgia
	RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
	MARK SANFORD, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
	ROB WOODALL, Georgia DINA TITUS, Nevada
	TODD ROKITA, Indiana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
	JOHN KATKO, New York ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
	BRIAN BABIN, Texas Vice Ranking Member
	GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
	BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
	DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
	MIKE BOST, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
	RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
	DOUG LaMALFA, California DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
	BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
	LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
	PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
	JOHN J. FASO, New York
	A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
	BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
	JASON LEWIS, Minnesota



















	CONTENTS

	Page

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

	WITNESSES

	Frederick W. Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FedEx
	Corporation:

	Testimony.................................................... 7
	Prepared statement........................................... 62
	Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Andre Carson
	of Indiana................................................. 77
	David W. MacLennan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
	Cargill, Incorporated:

	Testimony.................................................... 7
	Prepared statement........................................... 79
	Ludwig Willisch, President and Chief Executive Officer, BMW of
	North America:

	Testimony.................................................... 7
	Prepared statement........................................... 84
	Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Andre Carson
	of Indiana................................................. 90
	Mary V. Andringa, Chair of the Board, Vermeer Corporation:

	Testimony.................................................... 7
	Prepared statement........................................... 91
	Richard L. Trumka, President, American Federation of Labor and
	Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO):

	Testimony.................................................... 7
	Prepared statement........................................... 103
	Responses to questions for the record from the following
	Representatives:

	Hon Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon........................... 110
	Hon. Andre Carson of Indiana............................. 111

	PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

	Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., of Georgia.................. 59
	Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty of Connecticut............................ 61

	SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

	Letter of February 1, 2017, from AAA, et al., to President Donald
	J. Trump, submitted by Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee
	on Transportation and Infrastructure........................... 113

	ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

	Statement of Matt Smith, President, Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of
	Commerce....................................................... 123
	Statement of the National Association of Small Trucking
	Companies, submitted by Hon. Brian Babin, a Representative in
	Congress from the State of Texas............................... 125

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



	BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA

	----------


	WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2017

	House of Representatives,
	Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
	Washington, DC.
	The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 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. Good
	morning. I want to welcome you all here to the first full
	committee hearing of the House Transportation and
	Infrastructure Committee for the 115th Congress.
	I want to welcome our new Members; we have about 14 new
	Members on the committee. And, of course, welcome to our
	returning Members. I look forward to working with each and
	every one of you during this Congress, which I believe will be
	a very, very busy Congress. And our committee will be very,
	very busy.
	This morning's hearing is about looking into the future and
	how we build a 21st-century infrastructure for America. But
	before we begin, I would like--I think it is important for us
	to remember some of the successes that the committee has had in
	the last Congress.
	Our committee worked in a bipartisan fashion, was
	incredibly productive over the last 2 years. We were able to
	move large, complex pieces of legislation to improve America's
	infrastructure. The FAST Act [Fixing America's Surface
	Transportation Act], the WIIN Act [Water Infrastructure
	Improvements for the Nation Act], our PRRIA [Passenger Rail
	Reform and Investment Act] and Amtrak reforms bill, the PIPES
	Act [Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing
	Safety Act], the Coast Guard Authorization Act, and other
	committee bills are now law because we were able to build
	consensus and get things done for the American people. Our
	track record speaks to the hard work of our Members and our
	staff.
	For our new committee members here today, take note. Our
	goal is the same level of success for this Congress, so get
	ready to roll up your sleeves and get to work, or get ready to
	jump in the ditch with the pick and the shovel. We got a lot of
	work ahead of us.
	America's infrastructure is the backbone of the economy. As
	a people, we are bound together by our values, our dedication
	to our liberty, our freedoms. But physically, we are bound
	together by our transportation network. And this is a large
	country, and it wouldn't be the great country it is today if it
	wasn't for that physical connection, coast to coast, northern
	border to the southern border States. And from the beginning of
	our very First Congress that authorized the first Federal
	lighthouses, the transcontinental railroad, to the Panama
	Canal, to the Interstate Highway System, to the Nation's
	airports, the Federal Government has played a vital,
	constitutional role in ensuring the American people and our
	economy are connected through infrastructure.
	And, in fact, those of you in the audience, behind you we
	put up two of which I think are important pieces of history.
	First, Adam Smith, ``The Wealth of Nations,'' talking about
	what Government's to do for the people. And basically, it boils
	down to three things. It is: provide security, preserve
	justice, and erect and maintain infrastructure to promote
	commerce. So that is a fundamental role of Government, whether
	it is the Federal Government, the State government, or local
	governments.
	And then, of course, the Founding Fathers, who all read
	Adam Smith, when they penned the Constitution, article I,
	section 8 talks about powers of Congress to protect the common
	defense, regulate commerce, and to establish post roads. And,
	of course, the post roads today are the highways and byways of
	our Nation.
	And I am proud to say that the first highway authorized and
	appropriations went to to build a road happened to go through
	my district and the home of one of our witnesses here, Mr.
	Trumka, right through Fayette County and Greene County,
	Pennsylvania, the national road, which is Route 40 from
	Baltimore to the Ohio Territories.
	So, again, from the beginning of the founding of our
	Nation, it is important to--and that highway, by the way, is
	over 200 years old. It was finished in about 1815 or 1816. So,
	again, from the beginning of our country, the Federal
	Government has had a role, and it needs to have a strong role.
	And a strong infrastructure means a strong America, an
	America that competes globally, supports local, regional,
	economic development, and creates jobs. However, our
	infrastructure will face significant challenges in the future,
	and we are facing challenges today to rebuild it.
	But in the future, the forecasts predict that our
	population will grow from about 320 million just last year to
	400 million by 2051. The movement of freight is expected to
	increase by 40 percent over the next 30 years. And I have--
	right in my district I have Route 81 that is a two-lane--or,
	excuse me, a four-lane highway that--it is--it looks like a
	railroad at night, because there are so many trucks on it, so
	much freight, so much commerce moving on that highway. And that
	is just one roadway in America. And there are many, many others
	that look like that.
	By the end of the next decade, air travel demand is
	expected to increase from 750 million passengers annually to 1
	billion. And transportation technology continues to evolve.
	Driverless cars, commercial drones, and commercial space
	transportation are just a few examples of this change, but more
	changes are coming. Our infrastructure policies have to keep
	pace with these changing technologies. We must be able to meet
	our infrastructure needs of today, but also be poised to tackle
	the challenges of tomorrow.
	One thing November's election taught us was that the
	American people are ready for their elected officials to
	rethink the way we do things here in Washington and challenge
	the status quo. This election also raised the profile of
	infrastructure in the minds of the American people and
	policymakers. In fact, I believe this was the first time a
	President ever mentioned the word ``infrastructure'' in an
	inaugural address.
	This feeling of optimism is echoed by over 400 associations
	who wrote in support of investing in infrastructure and fixing
	the Highway Trust Fund. Their thoughts are contained in this
	letter, which I believe I have here--I am supposed to hold it
	up, but I don't know where it went--this is the letter, 400
	different associations have signed it. And I would like to
	enter into the record.
	Without objection, so ordered.
	What this means for us, it means that we now have a unique
	opportunity. The wind is at our backs, and it is time to act on
	our infrastructure's needs. President Trump made a promise to
	the American people that he would reassert America's greatness.
	And from my perspective, that means ensuring that America is
	competitive in the crowded global marketplace of today and
	tomorrow. It means reimagining and building and rebuilding a
	21st-century infrastructure, leveraging resources from all
	levels of Government and the private sector.
	Modern infrastructure lets our people, goods, products, and
	crops get where they need to go more efficiently and at less
	cost. Improved roads and bridges reduce bottlenecks and
	problems that slow the flow of commerce.
	Modern infrastructure is an aviation system with truly
	modern, efficient, and transformational air traffic control
	technology. It is ports and waterways that let our farmers and
	manufacturers move their crops and products to remain
	competitive with other nations. It is rail systems that focus
	on more effective, efficient service in regions of the country
	where rail transportation works well. It is pipelines that can
	transport the energy products that will power us into the
	future. It is infrastructure that is resilient when natural
	disaster strikes. It is infrastructure that can be built
	faster, unburdened by bureaucracy and impediments to private
	investment. And it is infrastructure that encourages innovation
	and unleashes the next revolution in mobility.
	Modern infrastructure means jobs, because when
	transportation efficiency improves the bottom line for our job
	creators, then they can put more people to work. That is my
	vision for a 21st-century infrastructure, and it can be
	achieved if we work together and build it.
	I welcome our panel of experts here today, look forward to
	hearing from you. And your organizations have a unique
	understanding of our infrastructure needs. And as I look out
	there, they are all the users of the system and people that
	build the system but, again, use the system. And we really
	appreciate your taking the time to be here, from all of you.
	The positions you hold at your organizations are at the highest
	level, and I know that your schedules are very demanding, so we
	really appreciate you being here. And I think it demonstrates
	the importance of what we are talking about here today.
	Your companies and workers depend on the functionality of
	our transportation system networks, so your perspectives are
	critical to helping us shape the future of America's
	infrastructure.
	And with that, I would now like to yield to recognize the
	ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, for a statement.
	Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much share the
	sentiments you have expressed. I was interested to learn that
	the first earmarked highway project in America did run through
	your district.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. DeFazio. So that is--hopefully we can----
	Mr. Shuster. It wasn't my father.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. DeFazio. We can--is that the one they named after your
	dad? OK. And I hope we can bring back congressionally
	designated spending, where we set priorities for some small
	amount of our annual investment. We know our districts and our
	States better than Washington, DC, bureaucrats of either party.
	I also agree with your sentiment about challenging the
	status quo. I am going to talk about that now. The status quo
	has been, we are frozen in amber. We are refusing to invest in
	our infrastructure. Yes, the FAST Act was good. But part of it
	is paid for with funny money that will never show up because we
	didn't have the guts here to increase user fees.
	It is time to confront these issues. The American people
	get it. A number of all-red States have raised their gas tax.
	Nobody has been recalled or lost their election. The people get
	it. They are tired of sitting in congestion. So I am going to
	talk about real things.
	OK. Let's index the gas tax--radical proposal. We can index
	it to construction cost, inflation, fleet fuel economy. Gas
	will go up maybe 1.2 cents a gallon next year. Anybody think
	they are going to lose their election over that?
	But if we do that over the next 30 years, we can issue 30-
	year bonds, tranched. We tranche the bond issuance of $500
	billion, which would mean $20.3 billion additional per-year
	expenditure, and we would make the Highway Trust Fund whole
	through the next three authorizations, and we would bring the
	Nation's infrastructure to a state of good repair in 14 years.
	And I think that's what the President called for last week
	in Philadelphia. He said, ``Fix it first.'' We do need to fix
	it first. We need to fix the 140,000 bridges that are falling
	down. We need to fix the 60 percent of the pavement on the
	National Highway System that doesn't just need another coat of
	asphalt, it needs to be totally restructured. And we need to
	deal with the $90 billion backlog in our transit systems, just
	to bring them up to a state of good repair, let alone offer new
	options.
	My plan would both allow us to bring it up to a state of
	good repair in a reasonable period of time, and to make new
	investments because it would make the Highway Trust Fund whole.
	That is all we would have to do, just index the gas tax,
	dedicate it, and issue the 30-year bonds.
	Now, second, let's talk about, again, a little bit of
	political will. We are collecting a tax every day from every
	American consumer who buys any imported good. They are paying a
	tax. And that tax is supposed to go to maintaining the Nation's
	harbors. Well, it isn't. Half the money, about, on an annual
	basis, goes into harbor maintenance work.
	That is why we have a $22 billion backlog to be able to
	accommodate the new ships, in addition to funds needed for
	failing jetties and other things. We are only spending half of
	the tax the American people pay every day. Every year. The rest
	of it is being diverted into la-la land. It is pretend deficit
	reduction. It is theoretically sitting in a $9 billion account
	in the Treasury.
	If we waive the House budget rules, and we spend that $9
	billion--which we took from the American people--for the
	purpose for which it was intended, and spend the full tax every
	year for the next 10 years, we could invest $27 billion in our
	harbors. That means they would be ready to receive the big
	ships, we would take care of that $22 billion shortfall, and we
	could repair the jetties and make other improvements. That
	money is already available.
	We don't need a new tax, we just need to push the Budget
	Committee objections and some of the appropriators out of the
	way and say no, we are going to make it into a real trust fund,
	like we have for surface, and we are going to actually spend
	the tax for the purpose for which it is collected. Now, all
	that takes is a little bit of a challenge to the status quo.
	You don't even have to raise a tax.
	And then, third, our airports are in serious trouble: $32.5
	billion backlog to accommodate growing passenger demand. You
	have all been there. You have gone through what are essentially
	Greyhound bus stations instead of state-of-the-art terminals.
	Now, we haven't allowed them to increase the passenger facility
	charge. I have talked to all the airports.
	The largest airports have said to me, ``Look, let us raise
	the passenger facility charge, a user fee only on people who go
	through that airport, and we will forgo the AIP [Airport
	Improvement Program]. You can give that money to the small and
	moderate-sized airports, so they can do needed projects, and we
	will pay for our own projects with bonding, by dedicating an
	increase in the PFC [Passenger Facility Charge].'' Many of
	these airports are bonded out.
	Now, the airline industry says, ``Oh, if you increase the
	PFC by $2, nobody will ever fly again. They will all get in
	their cars.'' Oh, you can charge me $50 to put my bag in the
	overhead, and I will keep flying and smiling. But if I had to
	pay $2 so I don't have a Greyhound bus experience when I go to
	fly on an airplane and stand in these unbelievable lines
	because we have inadequate capacity, I won't ever fly again? I
	mean that is total B.S. We all know that. They have some
	economist somewhere locked in a closet who claims he can prove
	it. What they are afraid of is if airports expand we might have
	more competition. If we have more competition, that might mean
	that prices of tickets go down. That is the real reason that
	they object.
	So that takes a little political will. So here are three
	steps we could take to put nearly $600 billion to work, some of
	it tomorrow. Remember, there is a provision in the FAST Act
	that I got in there that says any additional funds allocated to
	transportation spend out immediately through the formulas we
	have already adopted. We don't have to go through a multiyear
	process, we don't have to go through debates, or anything else.
	I would hope that we would add in congressionally designated
	spending for some portion of these new projects. But, other
	than that, no other changes are necessary.
	The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, waive the House budget
	rules, spend the money we have taken from the American people.
	And, yes, stand up to the airlines and say, ``Look, come on,
	you know, we want people to have a good experience both in the
	air and on the ground. Let's rebuild America's airports to meet
	the additional demand with a small addition on the passenger
	facility charge.''
	Now, passenger facility charge is in the jurisdiction of
	this committee. Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is a shared
	jurisdiction, obviously. And then, of course, the indexation of
	the gas tax would have to be approved by our colleagues on Ways
	and Means. But I think if we joined together--like we did when
	we got an increase in the gas tax over the objections of many
	in Congress by having a bipartisan coalition to increase the
	gas tax in 1993, the last time it was increased--we could do it
	again. I hope that we can join and make common cause in these
	areas, because we do need to rebuild our country.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. And now I would like
	to welcome, again, our panelists. Thank you for being here. I
	will introduce you now in group, and then start the testimony.
	But first off, Mr. Fred Smith, who is the chairman, CEO,
	and founder of FedEx Corporation. FedEx is a Fortune 500
	company with over $50 billion in annual revenue. FedEx moves 12
	million packages daily through the global transportation
	system, which gives them great perspective on the challenges
	that we faced.
	Next, Mr. David MacLennan--Lennon, like Lennon, John
	Lennon, there. Good job, Cohen.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. Shuster. Sorry about that. Chairman and CEO of Cargill,
	Incorporated. Cargill is the largest privately held corporation
	in the United States, producing food, agricultural, financial,
	and industrial products throughout the world. Cargill exports
	more than 200 million tons of dry bulk cargo each year, and it
	is a $120 billion-a-year corporation.
	Mr. Ludwig Willisch, president and CEO of BMW America. BMW
	has invested over $7 billion to build and upgrade its
	manufacturing plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina, which
	employs nearly 9,000 people. Since it opened in 1992, American
	workers have produced 3.7 million vehicles, exporting 85
	percent of them through the Port of Charleston.
	And next, Ms. Mary Andringa, chairman of the board of the
	Vermeer Corporation, based in Pella, Iowa. Vermeer manufactures
	and distributes agricultural, forest, and utility equipment to
	over 500 of its global dealerships. It exports 30 percent of
	its parts worldwide, and annual sales of over $1 billion.
	And finally, Mr. Rich Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. The
	AFL-CIO is the umbrella organization for over 50 U.S. unions
	representing 12.5 million working men and women. And, of
	course, a fellow Pennsylvanian. Welcome to each and every one
	of you, and I look forward to your testimony, and looking
	forward to working with you as we move forward.
	I now ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full
	statements be included in the record.
	Without objection, so ordered.
	And since your written testimony has been part of the
	record, we would ask you to limit your oral testimony to 5
	minutes.
	And with that, we will start with Mr. Smith. Please
	proceed.
	Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Shuster. I don't think your mic is on. Is it?
	Mr. Smith. Yes, it is now.
	Mr. Shuster. Pull it a little closer to you, maybe.
	Mr. Smith. Is that better? OK.
	Mr. Shuster. There you go, thanks.
	Mr. Smith. I served in the Marine Corps, so I have to be
	instructed carefully.
	[Laughter.]

	TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
	OFFICER, FEDEX CORPORATION; DAVID W. MACLENNAN, CHAIRMAN AND
	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CARGILL, INCORPORATED; LUDWIG
	WILLISCH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BMW OF NORTH
	AMERICA; MARY V. ANDRINGA, CHAIR OF THE BOARD, VERMEER
	CORPORATION; AND RICHARD L. TRUMKA, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
	FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
	(AFL-CIO)

	Mr. Smith. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. DeFazio. Let me
	say hello to a couple of old friends, Representative Cohen, who
	represents our hometown headquarters, and Representative
	Duncan, from the more prosperous eastern part of our State. So
	it is good to see you.
	As you mentioned, my written statement is in the record. So
	let me make a few points. I think at FedEx Corporation we are
	uniquely situated to comment on these matters. I am proud to be
	here representing over 450,000 FedEx team members around the
	world. We have four transportation companies that are affected
	by these infrastructure questions: FedEx Express, the largest
	all-cargo and express air carrier in the world; FedEx Ground,
	the second largest ground parcel network; and FedEx Freight,
	the largest less-than-truckload system in the United States;
	and finally, FedEx Trade Networks avails itself of the maritime
	transportation.
	We serve 220 countries, link 99 percent of the world's GDP,
	operate 650 aircraft, serve 375 airports, operate 150,000
	motorized vehicles. As you mentioned, we move 12 million
	shipments on average per day in the nonpeak season. We fly 255
	million miles each year. And last year FedEx vehicles drove in
	excess of 5 billion miles on our highways. We strongly support
	a modernized transportation system that includes the best air
	traffic control system, updated sea and airports with the
	latest in technology, and well maintained and expanded highway
	systems.
	So let me talk briefly about all three of those. Improving
	the ATC system, ensuring transparency and the payment for that
	system, and assuring irrelevant provisions are not added to the
	legislation should be priorities of this committee. We support
	an independent ATC system, and believe that such an enterprise
	will work more effectively and efficiently than the current
	one. The new ATC system must be allowed to operate as a bona
	fide stand-alone business organization separate and apart from
	the Government and responsible to its users.
	Regarding the interstate road system, our interstate system
	is now over 60 years of age. It is in desperate need of
	updating. Nearly 70 percent of all freight tonnage moved in the
	U.S. moves on trucks. I think you mentioned that, Mr. Chairman.
	We need both short- and long-term investment. The surface
	transportation industry has been virtually unanimous in
	supporting an increase in the Federal system to pay for this
	system. First, through the gasoline and diesel system, and
	moving to a user fee system, given the emergence of noninternal
	combustion engines in the form of electric and hybrid vehicles,
	some of which we are operating in Washington, DC, as we sit
	here today.
	And lastly, we strongly support a new Federal standard to
	move the twin trailer limits in this country from 28 feet to 33
	feet for the less-than-truckload and ground parcel businesses.
	Quite frankly, these networks are being overwhelmed with the
	growth in e-commerce. Thirty-three-foot twin trailers are
	permitted in certain States. We have operated them for many
	years. They are safer, save millions and millions of gallons of
	fuel, reduce emissions. They take vehicles off the road, which
	gets to the congestion issue that you were talking about, Mr.
	Chairman.
	I might point out that the standard in Mexico is twin 40-
	foot trailers. So this is not a big stretch. This would have an
	instant improvement, environmentally and in the national
	productivity in our less-than-truckload and ground parcel
	networks.
	Let me just close with saying to you there has been a lot
	of conversation in Washington these days about trade. FedEx is
	ardently in support of expanded trade, not less trade. We
	certainly acknowledge the protectionism and mercantilism,
	particularly in China. But the secret to that is to expand our
	access to their market, not shut down the trading system that
	has made this country so prosperous.
	Thank you for giving me the time to make these remarks.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Now, Mr. MacLennan.
	Mr. MacLennan. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio,
	and distinguished members of the House Committee on
	Transportation and Infrastructure, I appreciate the opportunity
	to be here today. I am Dave MacLennan, I am chairman and CEO of
	Cargill. We provide food, agriculture, financial products and
	industrial products to the world, and our mission is to nourish
	the country and nourish the world in a safe, responsible, and
	sustainable way.
	Our company is a great American success story. It was
	founded in 1865 by William W. Cargill, with one small grain
	warehouse in Conover, Iowa. That elevator almost went bankrupt
	just a few years later, when the railroad stopped coming to
	Conover. Mr. Cargill knew that transportation drives growth in
	agriculture. So he followed the infrastructure. And today we
	have 150,000 employees in 70 countries around the world.
	Thank you for your past leadership on reauthorization of
	WRDA, and--as well as the passage of the FAST Act. I am
	encouraged by the interest of this committee in modernizing our
	Nation's infrastructure, and eager to discuss the challenges
	facing our agriculture support system.
	For much of our history, America's infrastructure has been
	the envy of the entire world. It has allowed our country to
	become the economic powerhouse that we are today. And certainly
	for agriculture in the rural communities which serve
	agriculture, moving product for trade and export is critical.
	But while many other countries are building the roads, ports
	and railways of the future, we are falling behind.
	Infrastructure investments will allow American companies to
	compete effectively with our counterparts abroad and create
	long-term growth that will benefit and create jobs for all
	Americans.
	Twenty-first-century infrastructure includes shiny objects
	like electric cars and microgrids and high-speed rail. But as
	exciting as those new technologies are, we also need to think
	about our traditional transportation assets. So my testimony
	will focus not on the shiny objects, but on the ones that can
	get rusty, like rails, roads, bridges, and the waterways of
	rural America.
	Mr. Chairman, agriculture is the largest user of freight
	transportation in the United States, claiming 31 percent of all
	ton-miles, according to the USDA. And in our world of thin
	margins, when infrastructure fails it ripples up the supply
	chain, and we all feel it.
	Cargill supports multiple modes of transportation. What is
	most important to us is making sure our customers can get their
	goods from point A to point B in an efficient, safe, and
	sustainable manner. Unfortunately, our Nation's transportation
	infrastructure is under unprecedented strain. Our inland
	waterways struggle because of aging locks and growing demand.
	Our seaports are not deep enough to accommodate newer and
	larger ships. Our railroads are experiencing capacity
	constraints, and our bridges and roads are crumbling, receiving
	a D rating from the American Society of Civil Engineers.
	If our ports fail, we cannot link Pacific Northwest grain
	farmers to the global market. If our locks and dams fail, we
	can't move the road salt that we mine in Louisiana up the
	rivers to keep roads safe in the winter in Pittsburgh. If our
	bridges crumble we cannot cost-effectively truck fertilizer to
	family farmers in Platte City, Missouri. And if our railroads
	are over capacity, we can't ensure enough ethanol makes it to
	New Jersey to be blended into gasoline for our cars.
	We know what it looks like when one mode of transportation
	fails and the consequences ripple up the supply chain. In 2005,
	when Hurricane Katrina shut down the gulf ports, we lost the
	ability to transport grain on our Nation's waterways. Losing
	this very efficient transportation capacity greatly impacted
	the price of corn paid to farmers, with U.S. corn prices
	falling 30 cents a bushel. In 2005, the U.S. corn crop was 10
	billion bushels, so that is $3 billion in lost market value at
	the time.
	In the chairman's home State of Pennsylvania, crumbling
	bridges near our beef plant in Wyalusing were recently bypassed
	for replacement. Reduced weight limits made them impassable for
	our carriers. And in the rural town where we employ more than
	1,700 workers, trucks moving beef to our customers, are focused
	to reroute, which adds millions of dollars in cost to our
	business today.
	So, in closing, our ability to fix our infrastructure,
	compete in the global market, and keep our economy growing will
	be influenced by the decisions of the people in this room. I
	urge you to invest in the food and agriculture and rural
	economies by reinvesting in the state-of-the-art transportation
	systems that we all know clearly got us here in the first
	place.
	Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share
	Cargill's views with you today, and I look forward to answering
	your questions.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
	Mr. MacLennan. You are welcome.
	Mr. Shuster. Mr. Willisch, you may proceed.
	Mr. Willisch. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, and Ranking
	Member DeFazio, and members of the committee, for inviting me
	to participate in today's hearing. My name is Ludwig Willisch,
	and I am the head of the Americas for the BMW Group. I
	represent the more than 70,000 people who have jobs provided
	and supported by BMW in the U.S. alone. This includes 655
	dealerships across 48 States; 11 distribution centers in 8
	States; our headquarters in New Jersey; design studio, tech
	office, and testing facilities in California; a bank in Utah;
	financial services in Ohio; BMW Technology Corporation in
	Chicago; our carbon fiber manufacturing facility in Washington
	State, and BMW Manufacturing in South Carolina.
	Over the last two decades we have invested $7.5 billion in
	our South Carolina plant, now the largest facility in our
	global network. What is more, this plant earns BMW the title of
	the largest exporter of vehicles in the United States by value.
	We estimate that BMW had around $10 billion in U.S. dollars to
	export last year, alone.
	We have a talented team and achieve much within our
	company. However, no one in this industry can go it alone.
	Every auto company relies on a network of suppliers, service
	providers, reliable infrastructure, and the right regulatory
	framework to deliver for our customers. In this spirit, I would
	like to give you a sense of how important these issues are
	through BMW's eyes.
	The current BMW X3 was designed by an American, Erik
	Goplen, out of our Los Angeles design studio, Designworks. Once
	the design was finished, it was sent to Munich for engineers to
	take the car from page to pavement. The next step is production
	in the United States. Our logistics network in South Carolina
	includes 40 nearby suppliers, the Greer Inland Railway Port,
	and the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport. We rely on these roads,
	rails, and runways every day.
	A finished X3 leaves the plant by rail, with the majority
	heading to the Port of Charleston for international export to
	140 countries. On this point I would like to give special
	thanks to the committee, and in particular Chairman Shuster and
	Ranking Member DeFazio and Representative Sanford of South
	Carolina, for their support of the Water Resources Development
	Act. The Port of Charleston is absolutely critical to export
	success of BMW and a number of other companies.
	The remainder of the domestic vehicles are trucked to BMW
	vehicle distribution centers in States across the country. From
	those distribution centers, the X3 is then delivered to dealers
	in 48 States. Reliable transportation and infrastructure is
	vital to operating our business every day. Looking ahead at
	future mobility technologies, infrastructure becomes all the
	more important. Industry is making significant investments in
	automated vehicles, or AVs, to move them from test track to
	street.
	There are ways for the Government to support these efforts.
	Some of these opportunities are fairly straightforward. For
	example, the sensors and cameras in automated vehicles rely,
	among other things, on road markings and signs to orient and
	drive. Consistent AV performance can suffer if roads do not
	have adequate lines, road conditions are unpredictable, or
	signs and signals are all different. Consistent performance is
	vitally important, as it lays the foundation for customer
	trust.
	Other areas of necessary Government support are more
	involved, but crucial to the long-term success of AVs. BMW
	welcomed the Federal AV Policy Guidelines as a positive first
	step in creating a regulatory framework for AVs. Industry
	regulators and the public need to continue meaningful
	conversations to move forward. There is a lot of work to be
	done. But with so many stakeholder groups aligned on the
	desired outcomes, I am confident we can find a path forward.
	This is an opportunity that requires all stakeholders to
	bring their best ideas and open minds to the table. I look
	forward to continuing our conversation and working together to
	make tomorrow's potential a reality.
	Thank you very much.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
	Ms. Andringa, please proceed.
	Ms. Andringa. Thank you, Chairman Shuster and Ranking
	Member DeFazio and members of this committee, for hearing a
	little bit about what it means for manufacturers to have an
	updated infrastructure system.
	Our company, Vermeer, was started 70 years ago by my dad,
	with one employee, one product, and really, distributing
	products locally. Today we have over 2,000 employees and 160
	different products. And I realize those numbers are small in
	comparison to my fellow board members and panel members here,
	but, you know, it represents, really, a lot of small and
	medium-sized businesses.
	In our country, 50 percent of GDP and over 50 percent of
	employment is connected with small and medium-sized businesses.
	And so, what my dad needed for infrastructure back in 1948 is
	different than what we need today. And as chair of Vermeer and
	former CEO, I have also had the opportunity to chair the
	National Association of Manufacturers, which represents 12
	million men and women who manufacture every day. When I first
	became involved with the NAM, we talked about how our goal was
	that the U.S. be the best place to manufacture. And in order
	for it to be the best, we need to have good, top-notch
	infrastructure. It has been at the top of our list for many
	years.
	So, in a company like ours, when we bring over 2,000 people
	in from anywhere from 30 to 70 miles' driving distance one way
	every day, we need safe, reliable roads for them to get to work
	safely, and also to be able to get home safely to their
	families.
	We also have 50 trucks, which ride every day into Vermeer
	with parts and pieces and go out as whole goods. So we need the
	good roads for that. Of the major roads in the U.S., 65 percent
	are deemed deficient. And also, I think we have to understand
	that road conditions often are a significant factor in
	fatalities on our roads.
	We also have hundreds of sales and service people who work
	with our distribution networks who are in urban areas, and they
	are dealing with congestion, particularly in the urban areas,
	and traffic delays, and sometimes a lot of frustration getting
	trucks in and out of the urban areas to our dealerships and to
	our customers.
	One of the things I thank this committee for is the work
	that you did on the FASTLANE grant. Because of that, we are
	going to now have an intermodal location in Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
	which is much closer to us than trucking containers to Chicago
	or Kansas City. That will help relieve some congestion that we
	have had in getting containers to ports.
	Bridges have been mentioned before, but I know just in
	Iowa, 21 percent of bridges in Iowa are deemed deficient. So
	again, it is a safety and a congestion and delay opportunity
	that we can fix.
	Airports are definitely in dire need of updates. We ship
	400 to 500 packages to our customers daily with air. We also
	buy a lot of commercial tickets, over 3,000 a year. And yet we
	have a lot of frustration with delays and airports. And I think
	some of the work that needs to be done yet on the longer term
	Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill is extremely
	important. Air traffic controllers are, in many cases, working
	without data and technology. And also, as we look at that
	NextGen implementation, the estimates are that that would be
	able to reduce delays by 35 percent, which would be
	significant.
	Manufacturers use energy, all kinds of energy. So it is
	very important that we have good and solid transmission lines.
	And it is really the internet of everything. So it's the way we
	communicate with our customers, with our dealers, with our
	employees in the United States and around the world, that makes
	broadband infrastructure so important.
	And it is also important because today we have smart
	machines in our factories. We also have smart machines out on
	job sites. And many times they are communicating with the asset
	owners.
	Over the last years, Vermeer has been involved in
	continuous improvement, or the Lean journey. And one of the
	things with Lean is you need to have flow. So you need to have
	flow of goods coming in on a timely basis, and you need to have
	whole goods going out on a timely basis.
	But another aspect of Lean is total productive maintenance.
	And I think that one has some applications to infrastructure.
	It is when we take a machining center, maybe a $1 million
	machining center, and periodically tear it down to the parts
	that are going to fail--we know they are going to fail--and we
	replace them. And the result is that we reduce our downtime on
	those machines, like, 70 percent, and we also reduce our cost
	of maintenance. And it seems to me that manufacturers know a
	lot about investing in our infrastructure to make sure we have
	a sustainable future. And I think that is the same kind of
	investment, proactive investment, we need in our infrastructure
	system in the United States.
	So, I would just like to say that this discussion has been
	going on for quite a while, and I really implore you all to
	take some major steps. We need a sustained, focused effort to
	really reverse the decline, and to make sure we have the
	infrastructure that we need to produce safe transportation,
	productivity, and also great jobs here in the U.S.
	So, thank you for the work your committee does.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Now Mr. Trumka, please proceed.
	Mr. Trumka. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
	DeFazio, members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here
	with you today. This committee is known for working together
	and setting aside partisan differences and getting things done
	for the good of the country, and I want to thank you for that.
	In recent years you have passed many pieces of important
	legislation, and this year will bring FAA reauthorization, and
	hopefully a major new infrastructure bill. Our Nation faces
	challenges that are gray, and the task ahead is very daunting.
	We are all familiar with the American Society of Civil
	Engineers estimate that our infrastructure deficit is
	approaching $4 trillion. Yet closing that gap is only the first
	step. The reality is our infrastructure is rapidly becoming
	technologically obsolete. To truly be competitive in the 21st
	century, we must invest in the transformative infrastructure of
	the future: this century's version of the transcontinental
	railroad and the National Highway System.
	Our failing infrastructure may be an obstacle and a
	challenge, but fixing it is really a powerful opportunity.
	During his campaign, President Trump spoke about $1 trillion in
	new infrastructure investment. We believe that is the right
	scale to be talking about, trillions. And the labor movement is
	ready to work with this committee to turn words into actions.
	Look at this panel before you. Business and labor may not
	agree on a number of things, but we do agree on the need for
	serious investments in America's infrastructure. In the
	aftermath of the 2016 election, there is no clearer mandate
	from the American people. And it should surprise no one that
	infrastructure is a top issue, because the American people have
	endured an infrastructure that has been underfunded and
	crumbling for decades. We want investments that create good
	jobs, that meet the real needs of our economy. Any other path
	takes us backwards, because investments in infrastructure
	create the foundation for a long-term growth.
	Building the infrastructure of the 21st century is vital to
	both our Nation's competitiveness and to the hopes of
	hardworking people to lead better and more prosperous lives. So
	the labor movement is ready to fight here in Washington and
	across our great Nation to see a transformative and inclusive
	infrastructure program enacted. We need to bring 21st-century
	technology and good jobs to the entire country, to places as
	diverse as West Baltimore and my rural hometown, Mr. Chairman,
	of Nemacolin, Pennsylvania.
	And once that investment is made, the labor movement stands
	ready with the most highly skilled and well-trained workforce
	to get the job done. One trillion dollars in new infrastructure
	investment would make a big difference to working Americans,
	and put our Nation on the path to sustainable prosperity. How
	we invest matters. It must be real investment, and it must
	create good jobs.
	And let me be clear. If we want good jobs, we have to have
	high labor standards and protections for people who build and
	maintain and operate our infrastructure.
	That is not all. We need to make sure public money is used
	to support American jobs, American resources, and American
	products.
	Finally, it is imperative that we invest at the lowest cost
	of capital to the public. Anything else simply sacrifices jobs
	to Wall Street. So, finding significant sources of funding may
	be politically difficult. But the cost of inaction is
	unacceptably high. And it is real, and it is growing. Labor has
	and will continue to consider all types of funding, including
	our traditional support of user fees to fund surface
	transportation. Done right, other resources or sources of
	revenue could help. However, solving our Nation's vast
	infrastructure needs will require major levels of public
	investment.
	I will be blunt, Mr. Chairman, we need to be bold, and we
	need to be aggressive. We need to be the America that can, not
	the America that can't. We are eager to work with the leaders
	of both parties to make this investment a reality and help cure
	some of the problems that the country faces and my colleagues
	at this front table face. We stand ready to do that, Mr.
	Chairman.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. Now we will go to
	questions. I will start, and I want to direct it at Mr.
	Willisch and Mr. MacLennan.
	I appreciate that Ms. Andringa was very specific on
	projects that affected her business. Both of you made reference
	to it, but as we are looking at the 21st-century
	infrastructure, what in your world of Cargill and BMW--what are
	the specifics? Where do we need to invest for manufacturers
	like you to be successful and to continue to grow?
	Mr. Willisch. Well, very obviously, the first thing is
	roads. That is where our cars are operated. And that includes,
	as I said before--because we are on the verge of a big change,
	as far as drive trains are concerned, as far as automated
	driving is concerned. So road markings are really crucial to
	the working of an automated car.
	The second thing is, of course, when it comes to
	infrastructure, it is the ports that really matter to us, which
	we need to both send cars into 140 countries from this country,
	or receive parts and stuff that we need to build those cars
	with. So those two things are really, really crucial to us.
	Mr. Shuster. And to your bottom line, if that port isn't
	efficient, if that port can't take those bigger ships coming in
	to Charleston, that affects your bottom line.
	Mr. Willisch. Absolutely. And just think. We just dredged
	the harbor of Charleston so it can have bigger ships that can
	go through the new Panama Canal, because all cars that we ship
	to Asia go through the Panama Canal.
	Mr. Shuster. Right.
	Mr. Willisch. So it is really vital to us.
	Mr. Shuster. And one thing is you've mentioned about the
	number of cars you export. According to what I see, you export
	more cars than General Motors.
	Mr. Willisch. Yes. Yes, we do.
	Mr. Shuster. And producing----
	Mr. Willisch. Who would have thought?
	Mr. Shuster. Yes, exactly.
	Mr. MacLennan?
	Mr. MacLennan. Mr. Chairman, yes, I mean, it is kind of
	like your kids, you don't want to pick one over the other, and
	we use highways, we use railcars, we use barges, and they are
	all interconnected. I mean, you know, you have a bit of a
	disruption in one, it flows back through the supply chain.
	I would say, relative to our business, and especially our
	focus in the rural economy, in the agricultural economy, I
	think rivers, ports, the waterways, they are environmentally
	efficient. They can carry bulk. They can only go so far,
	obviously. You know, they are limited.
	But I think, you know, rivers and ports and the access to
	the grain and the things that we move up and down, the products
	that we move up and down, we moved 97 different products on the
	river system in the last year.
	And the other statistic that I found rather staggering is
	that in the last year our Nation's locks were closed for over
	141,000 hours. So if you think about the disruption to the
	system--call it the backward ripple effect in the supply
	chain--I think I would probably focus on, for us, waterways,
	locks, the river system as being important.
	Mr. Shuster. And that has a huge impact on your bottom
	line.
	Mr. MacLennan. Significant impact on it, huge impact on our
	bottom line and the bottom line of our customers.
	Mr. Shuster. All right, which is the point of if you don't
	pay for it in the front end, you are going to pay for it on the
	back end.
	Mr. MacLennan. Exactly. Pay me now or pay me later.
	Mr. Shuster. Right, right.
	Mr. Smith, you have the broadest use of the transportation
	system. We are in the 21st century. You know, should we be
	really targeting--and if we had to--if you had to pick one or
	two that really have a huge impact on what you do in the States
	and globally, which modes would you think are the most
	efficient?
	Mr. Smith. Well, as I said in my remarks, Mr. Chairman,
	modernize the ATC system, expansion and the maintenance
	upgrades of our Interstate Highway System. There are 28
	interstate highway projects that are basically engineered and
	could move forward if the funding was there to do them.
	I don't think there is any question about the fact that
	President Eisenhower in the 1950s, launching the Interstate
	Highway System was one of the most important things that led to
	the prosperity of this country. And we are simply not expanding
	it and maintaining it to the extent that we need to.
	And, of course, I mentioned the--you don't have to do
	anything in terms of funding to approve the 33-footers. Those
	are the three things that we think would have profound and
	near-instant improvements in the Nation's infrastructure.
	Mr. Shuster. And improve your bottom line, which helps
	reduce the cost to customers, ultimately.
	Mr. Smith. Well, it improves our bottom line. And the thing
	that is just the nemesis for many parts of the country, the
	congestion continues to increase. And absent these investments
	in the infrastructure, that is not going to stop. So it is
	going to get worse and worse. And I--the--Mr. DeFazio's
	remarks, I think, were spot on. I mean we have got to pay for
	it, and get started on it.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. With that, I will yield
	to Mr. DeFazio for questions.
	Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman--and it
	was just mentioned by Mr. Smith and others referred to it--the
	cost of congestion. So I have taken it upon myself to create an
	infrastructure cost of congestion clock, which I have posted on
	the Democratic side of the website. Hopefully it could be on
	the full committee site.
	And for reference purposes, since this President has
	promised that he wants a major infrastructure plan, is
	expressing some frustration that it doesn't seem to be at the
	top of the agenda, I want to reinforce that. And this clock
	will recognize, on a daily basis, the cost of congestion to the
	American economy.
	And, as you can see, it is running right now. And this is
	since the day the President was inaugurated. So I share the
	President's frustration, and hope that this committee can raise
	these issues to the top of the agenda, or the 100-day agenda.
	This reflects the cost, both to individuals and to business, in
	terms of congestion and delay. And, just for average people, it
	is 84 minutes stuck in traffic since the day of inauguration
	because of undue congestion.
	With that, let me go back to my proposal. Is there anybody
	on the panel--and now, Mr. Trumka, you represent millions of
	individuals, so you can speak for them. And all the rest of you
	are in business, and use fair amounts of fuel directly or
	indirectly in moving your goods or in moving goods. Does
	anybody here think that a one-half of 1 percent increase in the
	cost of diesel would cause an undue disruption to the American
	economy, or a taxpayer revolt that would threaten people's
	political careers? Because that is what my plan would do. It
	would be about one-half of 1 percent, if we index the per-year
	increase.
	So, OK, that is great. And I think, when you look at that
	number, it looks like a pretty darn good investment.
	I would like to go back also to the harbor issue. We have--
	and probably, even Ms. Andringa, you probably import or export
	goods, too--so I think we have four people here directly
	involved in the import or export of goods, and some frustration
	about that.
	If you are importing goods, you are paying the tax. And I
	am just wondering, what do you think of the proposal that we
	should actually take the taxes that were collected to maintain
	our harbors and do away with this artifice of putting them in a
	theoretical bank account at the Treasury, and actually spend
	them to deepen and improve our harbors. Anybody got any
	reflection on that?
	Mr. MacLennan. I will take the bait.
	Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. MacLennan. So you said it effectively in your opening
	remarks, Congressman. I mean we have got this money that has
	been collected. We have paid it, it is there, and we need it.
	So, obviously, you want to get good, effective, scalable
	projects. But, you know, given what is--I mean, for example,
	the expansion of the Panama Canal, we are seeing more traffic
	on our riverways. I talked a few moments ago about the need for
	more efficient river traffic. It is environmentally efficient.
	And you can get over 50,000 bushels on 1 barge, and you can get
	1,000 bushels on a regular-sized truck.
	So, I would support your proposal to spend the money,
	invest the money that has been collected from the users of the
	system.
	Mr. DeFazio. I would reflect that Congress did--although
	most don't know it--increase the inland diesel waterway user
	fee, diesel tax, in a yearend budget deal 2 years ago. Kind of
	had to hide it. We had advocated for that, but were shut down
	as we went to the floor. But later it got snuck into the
	yearend budget deal. It made a lot of sense. And this--in this
	case, we don't have to increase it, we just have to spend the
	money as it comes in, and spend the money that has been
	accumulated.
	Mr. Smith, you referenced 20 projects. Were those major
	choke points that you said were already designed?
	Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. I have a list of them right here:
	North-South corridor, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, U.S. Route
	220, Pennsylvania, New York, Raleigh, Norfolk corridor, North
	Carolina and Virginia, I-69 corridor, U.S. Route 59. They are
	all right there. The DOT, if you put a funding mechanism, you
	can----
	Mr. DeFazio. What are the----
	Mr. Smith [continuing]. Get started on them right away.
	Mr. DeFazio. What do they add up to? Did you add them up,
	by any chance, or----
	Mr. Smith. In terms of money?
	Mr. DeFazio. Yes, cost.
	Mr. Smith. I don't have the----
	Mr. DeFazio. OK.
	Mr. Smith [continuing]. Dollars invested here. But just the
	route extensions that would improve the national productivity,
	reduce congestion.
	Mr. DeFazio. Sure, thank you. OK. And, Mr. Trumka, some
	people question, say, ``Well, gee, we really don't have the
	people to support and do the work, if we make these major
	investments. There just aren't enough workers out there.'' I
	mean, look, the unemployment rate, theoretically, is down to 4
	percent.
	Could you reflect on that, whether or not there is a ready
	and trained and available workforce if we did a major
	infrastructure push?
	Mr. Trumka. I would be happy to. According to the latest--
	the latest--BLS reports, there are still 670,000 construction
	workers that are out of business. That doesn't include
	discouraged workers who have stopped looking for the jobs. It
	also doesn't include things like design engineering, operation,
	maintenance, and warehousing, which are in a different
	category. All of those are available, as well.
	This is the best-known secret in the United States: other
	than the military, the U.S. labor movement trains more people
	every year than any other institution out there. No university
	does it better. We have highly skilled people. We are putting
	people through those apprenticeship programs on a regular
	basis. We are reaching in to disadvantaged communities, rural
	communities, with classes that will help them qualify, get
	through our entrance exam, and qualify as a career. So there is
	an ample supply of skilled workers ready, anxious, and willing
	to go to work.
	Mr. DeFazio. Excellent, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you. With that, Mr. Barletta.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Growing up in the
	road construction business, I learned that private industry
	needs long-term planning and dedicated funding sources in order
	to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. It is simply a fact
	that no employer will make plans to hire more workers or
	purchase $1 million pieces of equipment without long-term
	security in Government contracts. And no State or local
	government, being a former mayor, can make long-term plans
	without certainty in Federal transportation spending. Do you
	all agree?
	That being said, can any of you speak to how uncertainty
	and short-term fixes to the Highway Trust Fund have impacted
	your ability to move goods and services around the country?
	Anyone who wants to take a stab.
	Mr. Smith?
	Mr. Smith. Well, as has been brought up several times, the
	population and the commerce of the United States has gone up at
	a far, far faster rate than the expansion of the interstate--
	the Federal highway system, which is the backbone of our
	Nation's logistics system. Seventy percent of every pound that
	is moved in the Nation's commerce is moved on the highways.
	That is not to say other modes aren't equally important, but we
	have allowed the highway system to atrophy for lack of
	maintenance. And, equally important, we have not added to it.
	And that was the point of me referencing these 20 projects that
	are out there that are basically designed.
	So, you can't expect national productivity and economic
	well-being to improve unless you address these infrastructure
	issues. And in my mind it is just a matter of paying for it. I
	mean the system is there.
	Mr. Barletta. You know, spending on infrastructure will
	grow the economy more than anything that I know. When there is
	a lot of infrastructure work, people will make good money.
	There is no question about that. When they make good money, you
	know what they do? They spend it. They spend it right in our
	local economies, which helps everyone, not just the
	construction workers, not just the construction companies, not
	just the manufacturer of equipment. It helps the waitresses and
	waiters and little restaurants and diners. It helps everywhere.
	So, it is an investment. And I said it will grow the
	economy more. So spending on infrastructure is not the same as
	putting money into another program where you are just providing
	services. There is a return on that.
	Mr. Smith. And I might just add I think my numbers are
	correct. We are now at levels of Federal infrastructure
	spending that have not been seen since 1948 as a percentage of
	GDP. So it is going to get worse and worse, unless the Congress
	decides to fund these projects.
	And, as I mentioned, the industry that uses these systems,
	the surface transportation business, has been wholly in support
	of increasing or adjusting the Federal gasoline and diesel
	taxes for years, and replacing them with some sort of new user
	fee system because of natural gas and electric vehicles that
	will use them in the future.
	Mr. Barletta. And I agree, the American people are OK
	paying it as long as they know where it is going, and we make
	sure that every penny that we take from them is used to the
	best that we could.
	Pennsylvania is home to over 120,000 miles of State and
	local highways, many of them which cross through my district. I
	know for a fact of economic development projects that would
	happen if there was access to our transportation system. There
	is no question.
	Can you please explain what role highway accessibility
	plays in determining where you locate your facilities and how
	such accessibility affects your ability to efficiently get your
	goods to the customers?
	Mr. MacLennan. I will start, Representative, and we employ
	about 900 people in your district. We have a chocolate business
	in Lititz, and we also have a beef business. So if you think
	about the traffic that uses the local highways, in terms of
	delivering raw materials, taking the developed product--the
	chocolate, the beef--and moving it on, it is a significant
	consideration. Is it the only one? No.
	And going back to your first comment about do you need
	absolute certainty, no. But it is a world of volatility and
	uncertainty and complexity. It is a significant variable. So I
	would say that we will invest, you know, despite the
	uncertainty, but it certainly would help and encourage us in
	specific locations, knowing there is going to be expanded rail,
	waterway, or highway access. It would attract our capital to
	new investment. Thank you.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Barletta.
	Ms. Norton?
	Ms. Norton. May I thank Chairman Shuster for opening this
	year by having--I think he has done this before--this across-
	the-board comprehensive hearing on our Nation's infrastructure.
	And I applaud what this committee has done, very bipartisan
	committee. Not only the WRDA bill, the FAST Act, even when the
	rest of the Congress has not been moving as rapidly in its own
	mission.
	The FAST Act, of course, is the latest version, passed in
	2015. And I think the committee deserves the compliments of the
	committee for passing the first comprehensive highway
	transportation bill in a decade. But I have to tell you that it
	broke my heart that, in order to get even a small bump--that is
	to say an increase, we had to reduce the bill from a 6-year
	bill to a 5-year bill. And, of course, the bill had to contain
	a number of gimmicks, as well. And that is even given the best
	efforts--and I must tell you, extraordinary bipartisan
	efforts--and there was great agreement on this bill.
	The present strategy for our infrastructure is delay. That
	strategy is prohibitively expensive. We are not even doing
	maintenance. So what it means is that billions of dollars that
	those who had the guts before us have invested in our
	transportation infrastructure, which made this country what it
	is today, that that is crumbling, as well.
	So here is something that I championed, and that was done
	with great bipartisan support in the FAST Act. And it is such a
	small amount, it makes me blush. But it can--it is a provision
	that provides $20 million in grants to the States to themselves
	come up with alternative sources of funds for the Highway Trust
	Fund. As you know, the Highway Trust Fund--and I ought to, I
	suppose, give this to Mr. Smith--as you know, the Highway Trust
	Fund has just been stuck now, and we are doing nothing to
	replenish it.
	Mr. Smith, the reason I thought this was a question for you
	is I noted in your testimony something that surprised me. And I
	thought it was important to note that FedEx supports a broad
	mix of revenue sources in order to avoid overreliance--here I
	am quoting you--on a single option. I take it that single
	option is the one we have been using, which, of course, will
	run out even before this bill runs out, the gas tax.
	In light of the fact that we are asking the States to give
	us ideas about alternative sources, can I ask you, Mr. Smith,
	why you think the gas tax alone will not be sufficient? And
	what kind of alternative sources do you think should be put on
	the table so that, even if we were able to get the Highway
	Trust Fund with the gas tax, we would have additional sources
	to get going? Any ideas you have would be much appreciated.
	Mr. Smith. Yes. Well, let me give you three, but let me
	address, again, the Highway Trust Fund. As I have said a couple
	of times now, we at FedEx, and virtually every entity in the
	commercial transportation surface transportation business that
	I know of, supports an increase in gasoline and diesel taxes
	indexed from the cap that was placed on them in 1994. So,
	having said that, here are three issues.
	First, the transportation system is moving away from
	complete reliance on internal combustion engines. There are
	increasing uses of electric and hybrid electric vehicles. And
	in the heavy freight area--I was in Oklahoma recently at the
	ribbon-cutting for our new compressed natural gas facility for
	FedEx Freight. So those two technologies are not captured by
	today's gasoline and diesel system. There needs to be
	something, a vehicle mileage tax or some other mechanism to
	fund use of the Federal highway system by those types of
	vehicles.
	Second, we are strongly in favor of a revised United States
	corporate tax code, because we are not competitive. I think Mr.
	Trumka will agree that blue-collar folks need equipment and
	investment so they can have a high income level. Bulldozers,
	trucks, planes, whatever the case may be. So we are not
	competitive, and we are particularly not competitive with our
	global taxation system.
	There is only one other industrialized country in the
	world, Chile, that has a global tax system. So if we went
	tomorrow to a territorial system with some level of taxation to
	prevent gaming--8 percent, or whatever the case may be--there
	would be hundreds of billions of dollars that could come back
	in this country tomorrow that could provide funding for
	infrastructure.
	And the last idea is congestion pricing. I mean we all know
	today when you go through a bridge or a tunnel in New York, or
	wherever, you don't have to go up and pay somebody taking the
	money. We have a little RFID tag there that says you are paid
	going into Manhattan. That type of technology is cheap, it is
	available. It has been successfully tested down in southern
	Florida in order to reduce congestion by putting congestion
	pricing there, giving you incentives to use high-occupancy
	lanes, or to operate in noncongestion periods of time. That
	could be another source of revenue. So those are three.
	Mr. Shuster. The gentlelady's time has expired.
	Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Shuster. With that, Mr. Gibbs is recognized.
	Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. MacLennan, in your testimony you talked about how
	important the locks are in our river system, which I agree with
	you 150 percent. Are you aware--well, let me back up a second.
	We are able to get the Olmsted Lock and Dam project going
	forward. Got kind of off a different funding source that frees
	up money for the Lower Mon, the Kentucky and the Chick locks.
	And you might not be aware, but I am sending a letter today to
	President Trump, along with about two dozen of my colleagues,
	to make sure that they are aware that, in the current funding
	for the Army Corps, the Olmsted is taken care of, but the three
	locks, the three priorities--Lower Mon, Kentucky, and Chick--
	are not.
	And we want to make sure they get the funding here in the
	next few months. Because if they don't, they will be possibly
	shut down and delayed, and the cost will be exponential, and
	going up. So I just wanted to make you aware of that, because I
	know you, especially at Cargill, understand the importance of
	our inland waterway system. So, you know, if you have a chance
	to weigh in with the Trump administration on the importance of
	that funding, I would appreciate that.
	Mr. MacLennan. Yes, thanks for making me aware.
	Mr. Gibbs. I just wanted to mention that.
	Ms. Andringa, in your testimony you talk about, for
	manufacturing too, our water infrastructure--be it our drinking
	water, the aging pipes, and all that--and you talked about
	Representative Duncan's private activity bonds lifting the cap.
	Are you aware that I have a bill that is H.R. 465, dealing with
	integrated planning with the EPA that will help give our local
	municipalities the flexibility in their planning and their
	permits to get to their goals they need to get to but maybe
	can't do it in the 5-year permitting and have a goal which will
	help get the projects done, but it would also be more efficient
	and not--the ratepayers that can't pay that.
	So I just wanted to bring that to your attention, that
	there are some other initiatives going on. I don't know if you
	are aware of it, the EPA's integrated planning, which they say
	they support, but they haven't done a lot to get it going, so
	we are going to try to codify it in this legislation.
	Ms. Andringa. Well, thank you. And thank you for making me
	aware of that. You know, we have talked about a lot of
	different kinds of infrastructure here this morning, and,
	really, they are all vitally important to our economic well-
	being, and certainly to us, as industry, manufacturers, and
	labor.
	And the NAM did a comprehensive report, really, on building
	to win. It includes really good data about things like water,
	and waste water is another one that is important, as well as
	the ports. Light rail, we haven't talked a whole lot about
	that, different transit systems. But, of course, roads and
	bridges and ports are vitally important, and probably the
	biggest numbers that we need.
	But I would also like to say that there are quite a few
	ideas in here about ways to fund this, and Congressman DeFazio,
	it is some of the same things you mentioned earlier.
	And the other thing I just want to say is that, as
	manufacturers--and I think you have heard it here, and I feel
	we are all preaching to the choir in this room, but we as
	manufacturers have to invest in our business. My dad was
	extremely conservative financially. We basically didn't have
	debt, and always tried to finance our own growth. But the one
	thing that he always said is we have to keep updating our
	equipment in the plants. Our welders, our machining centers,
	the tools that our employees use.
	Mr. Gibbs. No, I--yes. I fully understand that.
	Ms. Andringa. Yes.
	Mr. Gibbs. I just wanted to make it clear that----
	Ms. Andringa. No, anyway, I think what the point----
	Mr. Gibbs. We need funding, but I also want to make it
	clear there are ways we can be more efficient in doing things.
	And the integrated planning bill which I introduced is part of
	that----
	Ms. Andringa. Yes, yes.
	Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. At least on the waste water side of
	things. That is one of----
	Ms. Andringa. And again, I think manufacturers and those of
	us here are willing to invest.
	Mr. Gibbs. Yes, that is great.
	Mr. Willisch--did I say it right? In your testimony you
	mentioned making significant investments in mobility
	technologies, and automated driving, and autonomous vehicles. I
	recently learned that these investments--during discussions we
	have in Ohio, we have the Transportation Research Center
	located in central Ohio that provides for automotive testing
	services, and planning to build a winter indoor testing
	facility. So they have got thousands of acres there now, and a
	lot going on.
	I would like to hear any thoughts you might have on how
	proving grounds and testing centers play a role in developing
	these new technologies BMW would be interested in.
	Mr. Willisch. Well, first of all, I would like to say that,
	of course, the safety of people driving our vehicles is
	paramount to us. So we would not--never go ahead and test cars
	that are not fully developed with actual consumers.
	So, having said that, we are and will do a whole lot of
	testing before we have any automated vehicle available to the
	public. So that might be a thought, as well, yes. We have to
	test, and we have to be quick, because that is going to be a
	technology that is going to be----
	Mr. Gibbs. I just want----
	Mr. Willisch [continuing]. Around in the next 3 or 4 years.
	Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. To highlight that this testing
	ground we have in Ohio is state of the art, and doing it--an
	inside test facility would be beneficial. I want to make sure
	you are aware of that facility.
	Mr. Willisch. Thank you, yes.
	Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. And my time is up. I yield back.
	Mr. Shuster. Ms. Johnson?
	Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
	and thank you very much for holding this hearing, you and the
	ranking member.
	I know that every member of this panel is aware that we are
	in desperate need of making additional investments in order to
	build up and maintain our crumbling highways and railways and
	waterways and airport infrastructure. At the same time, we are
	also dealing with a great deal of technologies, and we are
	dealing also with nonresilience in materials that we use, which
	causes us to have to do some projects over and over again.
	I still await the President's package coming over with a
	lot of enthusiasm, but I am very concerned about all of you
	commenting on how the industry is experiencing changes. One of
	the things that struck me, I went to Germany to the BMW plant
	last year, the year before, with the President. And it is a
	huge plant. It was larger than this complex. But I didn't see
	10 people working there. They were all robots. And I wonder.
	What is that going to have to do with the workforce in this
	country, and how do we handle it? And have you had any of those
	thoughts?
	Mr. Willisch. But we still have 70,000 people working in
	that plant you were referring to, so that is--it is not totally
	empty.
	Ms. Johnson of Texas. We walked almost the whole day
	looking, and I saw about 10 in the whole plant. But the number
	is not nearly as significant as the process. And looking toward
	the future.
	People think of infrastructure producing a lot of jobs. And
	in many industries, that is not necessarily the case. And I
	wonder how it is going to impact your industries as we look at
	infrastructure.
	Yes, Mr. Smith?
	Mr. Smith. Well, I have to tell you I am optimistic about
	this. As everybody in this room knows, with the beginning of
	the last century about 50 percent of the population in America
	was in agriculture. Now there is less than 1.5 percent of
	people in this country working in agriculture, and we are
	producing more agricultural products than we can consume, and
	it is one of our biggest exports. About 1 in 3 acres in the
	United States is produced for export.
	So, there are people in the container shipyards handling
	those exports. There are people in the railroads handling them,
	and so forth. So I am very confident, as things automate in
	other sectors of the economy, there will be plenty of good-
	paying jobs, as long as our educational system keeps up with
	it. And in Tennessee, as Congressman Cohen will tell you, we
	just passed a law, as I understand it, where any student in the
	State can go to junior college for free. And that will be the
	bedrock of people learning new skills to operate in these
	different environments.
	I have been to BMW in Germany, and where all those people
	that Ludwig is talking about, they are not on the factory
	floor, but they are up in the offices, doing design and
	computers, and designing the robots, and things of that nature.
	So, as long as we have a climate where business wants to invest
	in the United States, and an educational system that supports
	people being trained for these new technologies, I am very
	confident that things will be OK.
	In our industry, for instance, I don't think we are going
	to go to fully autonomous trucks, but I do think we will go to
	trucks where the truck driver becomes much more productive.
	They will have an auto-pilot. It will be safer, fewer
	accidents. They may have a robot truck following it that allows
	them to operate. And I think that is the trajectory that we
	will go on, as long as we incent investment, and we have the
	proper educational systems to support it.
	Mr. Shuster. The gentlelady's time is expired. Before we
	go----
	Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. I was just getting
	started.
	Mr. Shuster [continuing]. Mr. Cohen has a----
	Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Since my name was mentioned, I want
	to thank Mr. Smith for the reference to junior college. All of
	that money is from the State lottery that you helped me, after
	18 years of effort, push across the line to fund that. Thank
	you, and thank you, Tennessee, for the State lottery.
	Mr. Shuster. Thanks for the commercial.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. Shuster. Mr. Webster is recognized.
	Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question.
	Mr. Smith, you brought up Florida. I am from Florida. And
	the toll facilities down in Miami-Dade up to Fort Lauderdale,
	which were just on the interstate system, but there are several
	local expressway authorities that charge tolls on their roads,
	all the roads they have built. Then we have the Florida
	Turnpike Enterprise, which goes through the center of our
	State. And I am sure your trucks use those.
	Do you think that--especially the ones with the flexible
	congestion-type tolling, where it goes up and down, which is a
	good Republican idea--you pay for what you get--do you think
	the Federal Government should get involved and tell us--we have
	local toll roads, we have State-run toll roads. Do you think
	they should get in that? Is that a way to enhance the revenue?
	Mr. Smith. Yes. As I was saying to Ms. Norton, as we move
	to more natural gas-heavy trucks and more electric and hybrid
	vehicles on the highway, you are not going to have gasoline or
	diesel taxes to fund the Federal highway system. So the most
	productive system, in our mind, is some sort of RFID system
	that allows you to collect a user fee for those types of
	vehicles to use the Federal system.
	Once you have got that system in place, which is very
	simple with today's technology--that is why I used the example
	of going through the tunnels in New York, nobody even pays any
	attention to it any more--so it can also be used for congestion
	pricing and to incent people to have more occupants in a
	vehicle. So you can get a lot of productivity out of our
	transportation system.
	And I might point out, Congressman, that we have been
	operating 33-foot twin trailers in Florida for years very
	productively. And our drivers tell us they are safer. And that
	reduces traffic on your highways, both Federal and the State-
	funded divided highways you have down there.
	Mr. Webster. Yes. I remember in olden days, when I was in
	the State legislature, we approved that and it was good.
	I was just saying do you think that it would best be done
	by the Federal Government to use that, as opposed to State or
	local? I mean State and local do things that are local. They
	try to improve their--but in the end, how about if there were
	dedicated freight traffic roads that were paid for through
	tolls? Is that something you would be in favor of?
	Mr. Smith. Absolutely. It would take a lot of trucks off
	the road and--but having said that, I think you can get an
	awful lot of productivity on our existing expanded and improved
	highway system, doing the things that I just mentioned to you.
	You don't have to have dedicated truck lanes, but that would
	certainly be something that could be looked at.
	As to State versus Federal, I don't think it makes that
	much difference, provided there is a dominant design, there is
	a common technology standard that allows the VMT to be
	administered the same in Florida as it is in California, or
	Connecticut, or what have you. That is the main thing, right
	there.
	Mr. Webster. OK. Thank you so much. Yield back.
	Mr. Shuster. Mr. Larsen?
	Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Smith, first off, on ATC and ATC reform, some folks
	have said that to privatize the system, the reason to do that
	is because airlines aren't receiving enough NextGen benefits.
	But I know in Memphis there has been some investment in
	NextGen, and FedEx, I believe, has directly benefitted from
	that investment in NextGen. Could you just cover that for us?
	Mr. Smith. Sure. We were the prototype location for a
	NextGen application which allowed us to narrow the separation
	between landing aircraft and aircraft taking off. It has been a
	spectacular success. It has improved the productivity of the
	FedEx operation there, saved tens of millions of gallons of
	fuel, allowed us to serve our customers more efficiently, and
	keep on time.
	A NextGen application nationwide, but particularly in the
	Northeast, which is the linchpin of the whole ATC system,
	because of the population density and the proximity of major
	airports one to another, there is the opportunity to vastly
	improve the productivity of the Nation's air traffic control
	system with the types of technologies that we demonstrated and
	prototyped at our major hub in Memphis, Tennessee.
	And I might add something here that is a little-known fact.
	In terms of the number of customs entries--not tonnage, because
	sea freight, obviously, carries more tonnage than air cargo--
	the largest port, in terms of customs entries in the United
	States of America is Memphis, Tennessee, where our super-hub
	is.
	Mr. Larsen. Yes.
	Mr. Smith. And the productivity of that hub, and the
	commerce of the United States because of those improvements in
	ATC pioneered by FedEx with the FAA in Memphis has vastly
	improved the productivity not just in Memphis, but the entire
	national economy.
	Mr. Larsen. Thanks. Mr. Chairman, you didn't reset my
	clock. I think there was a minute 30 and----
	Mr. Shuster. Mr. Larsen, I just looked and I said, ``That
	was 5 minutes?''
	Mr. Larsen. Yes, I know. It seems like a long time
	speaking.
	Mr. Shuster. You put me to sleep.
	Mr. Larsen. Yes, yes.
	Mr. Shuster. No, I don't think his clock was----
	Mr. Larsen. All right. So I got about 3 minutes or so? Yes.
	Mr. Shuster. Three minutes?
	Mr. Larsen. Yes, OK, great, thanks. I noticed. Thanks.
	Mr. Trumka, in your written testimony you discussed this,
	but you didn't really cover it in your oral testimony. Can you
	talk about the--sort of the marriage of workforce development
	and apprenticeships with infrastructure investment, and maybe a
	lesson for us as we approach infrastructure investment?
	Mr. Trumka. We view--we believe that we have the best
	skilled workforce in the world. We train more people every
	year. We bring people out of the neighborhood to be able to
	create a very, very, very effective workforce.
	Infrastructure, we think, is really a job-creator for this
	country. How it is financed will have an effect on how
	important or how widespread the job creation is. If a Buy
	America provision is expanded, and we think it should, it will
	have a greater impact on the number of jobs that are created.
	If more waivers are created, then taxpayers' dollars will be
	used to drive down wages and encourage outsourcing.
	That is why, on all the types of funding that we look at--
	private partnerships, for instance, have a limited
	applicability here, because they need a revenue source. So they
	won't apply to repair and maintenance, they won't do much in
	the rural areas. And if they do come about in those limited
	areas, we would like to see--we would need to see 13(c)
	protection, Davis-Bacon protection, domestic preferences,
	protection for rail and public-sector workers, so that those
	public dollars aren't used to drive down wages and actually
	suppress the economy and dampen the economy, but actually grow
	it.
	So how you do it is important. We are full-scale behind
	infrastructure, because, as every witness here has said, our
	country depends on it. Our competitiveness depends on it. And
	we are anxious to get started and put people back to work.
	Mr. Larsen. Thanks. Mr. Willisch, in talking about road
	sensors and markings and such, you know, when we talk about
	building roads, bridges, highways, we don't talk about painting
	lines on the road, usually. But what you are essentially
	saying, I guess, is that we need to be--for the--to support
	automated vehicles, we need to be rethinking a little bit the
	definition of infrastructure to support autonomous vehicles. Is
	that true?
	And then, does BMW have something more complete that you
	can offer the committee? Not in your answer, but just maybe for
	us to read later.
	Mr. Willisch. It is not really that complicated. We just
	need continuous marking, and that should be there, anyway. So
	it is not that we have to have a special thing for automated
	driving, it is just, you know, that the marking is continuing
	on the roadside and in the middle.
	Mr. Larsen. Yes.
	Mr. Willisch. So it is not a really specific BMW----
	Mr. Larsen. Just that simple?
	Mr. Willisch. Yes, it really is that simple.
	Mr. Larsen. OK. All right. Thank you.
	Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. With that, Mr. Massie
	is recognized for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just received some
	great news yesterday in Kentucky, but it is going to present
	another transportation infrastructure challenge to us. The
	Amazon Prime Air announced they are going to put their hub at
	the CVG Airport. And I would just say to Mr. Smith we have got
	UPS and we have got DHL, as well, in Kentucky. You are welcome
	to come over any time. It is a challenge we would love to face.
	But the challenge that it presents is how do you use the
	existing infrastructure, or how do you upgrade it, and how do
	you pay for it so that you can accommodate growth like that?
	You know, with UPS, DHL, and now Amazon Prime Air hub there,
	all feeding into I-71 and I-75, which are interstates that
	haven't changed a lot--the bridge they cross, the Brent Spence
	Bridge, was built 50 years ago, before any of that logistics
	infrastructure for North America was moved to Kentucky. And so
	now we are dealing with this. And I would say there is not a
	person here today, you know, testifying that isn't affected by
	that corridor, the I-71/I-75 corridor.
	But the real challenge, to Mr. DeFazio's point, is how do
	you pay for it. Because we know in northern Kentucky and
	southern Ohio we need a bridge. We are debating about where the
	next bridge goes. The bridge that is there, thankfully, was
	built with American engineers and American labor, and American
	steel. So it is--the reason that it is obsolete is it just
	can't carry the traffic that is there. So we need another
	bridge. We are having a robust debate about where that bridge
	should go, and how to pay for it.
	Mr. DeFazio had some good ideas, I think. And it scares me
	every time I agree with somebody on the other side of the
	aisle. You know, I like that he is in favor of user taxes,
	instead of taxes, per se--user fees, instead of taxes. But
	before I go back to my red district and ask them to index the--
	you know, the fuel tax to inflation and cost, I need to
	convince them it is a real user fee, and that the money is not
	being leaked out for other things that--where there are users
	who aren't paying a fee. For instance, bike paths,
	beautification, mass transit.
	If we could convince them that all the incremental money
	that is going into that fund is actually going to the
	infrastructure for the users that are paying for it, I think it
	would be a much easier sell. So I would just--you came a little
	ways toward me, I am coming a little ways toward you.
	And also, on the passenger facility charge, I think you are
	on to something there. There is two ways airports are funded.
	There is a tax that comes to the Federal Government, and then
	they ask mother may I, and we give them--we dole them back out
	the money. But there is another way, with the passenger
	facility charge, where they have local control and decide how
	to spend that money. So I would go you one better and say why
	don't we just get rid of the passenger facility charge cap, and
	let the airports decide. And then they wouldn't need to come to
	the Federal Government and ask for their taxes back.
	So, what do you think of that? If I yield to the ranking
	member----
	Mr. DeFazio. I have just advocated a small increase. I
	think the----
	Mr. Massie. Well, I don't want to increase. I want to take
	the cap off.
	Mr. DeFazio. That would be a market-based approach, in a
	sense. But I think I can hear the screams coming from downtown,
	from the--I mean now you are--you know, we are not just talking
	a couple of bucks. I mean, who knows? I mean it might----
	Mr. Massie. Well, I----
	Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. The cost of putting your bag in
	the overhead.
	Mr. Massie. Let's test the free market. But it is--I do--I
	did want to point out one of the benefits of serving on
	multiple committees is you see there might be solutions to
	problems that aren't all within one committee.
	I serve on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
	and I found out there we spent $100 billion building
	Afghanistan. Not on military funding, rebuilding Afghanistan.
	And the inspector general tells us the infrastructure we are
	building there is crumbling the day it is built. A lot of it,
	not all of it. And it is $100 billion. We are on the hook for
	$10 billion more over there. I would love to bring that over
	here and spend it on projects that are going to benefit users
	in America.
	Finally, I have got a few seconds here. I want to ask--Mr.
	Smith mentioned the regulation on the length of the trailers.
	Are there other regulations, Mr. Smith, that we could lift that
	would let you use the existing infrastructure more effectively?
	Mr. Smith. Well, I am sure there are some out there, but
	none that compare with the instant improvement and productivity
	of the 33-foot twin trailers.
	Mr. Massie. Mr. Willisch, do you have some regulations you
	would like to see lifted?
	Mr. Willisch. Not really, what we would say--there is one
	specific one, no.
	Mr. Massie. Just all of them?
	Mr. Willisch. All of them, but what we need is consistent,
	we need rules and regulations throughout the Nation. This is
	what we need, and we need to have that----
	Mr. Massie. Consistent.
	Mr. Willisch [continuing]. Consistently, that we have a
	consistent planning base.
	Mr. Massie. Ms. Andringa?
	Ms. Andringa. Yes. On regulations I would say I think it is
	just important to know that for manufacturers, we have just had
	a lot of regulations coming our way. And just to be able to
	keep up with compliance--again, for mid-sized companies, small
	companies, it is really hard to have the experts. Sometimes in
	your business you have to go find those people so you can make
	sure that you keep up with all the regulations.
	We bought a software system a couple of years ago just to
	track all the new regulations that were happening every day.
	And we would see 100 to 200 new regulations every day. Now,
	maybe only 5 to 10 of those really applied to us, but it still
	takes time to filter through them and to understand them.
	And I know manufacturers did a comprehensive study on
	compliance and the cost of compliance, and some of those
	definitely would connect with our infrastructure. And it is
	anywhere from, depending on the size of your company, from
	$10,000 to $30,000 per employee per year to comply with
	regulations.
	So, I would say we just need to make sure that the
	regulations we have are consistent, and I think across State
	lines, but that we also make it possible for our companies to
	be able to comply with regulations.
	Mr. Shuster. The gentleman's time has expired.
	Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Massie.
	Mr. Capuano?
	Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
	go on record to say that whenever Mr. Massie agrees with us, we
	get nervous, too.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. Capuano. To the panel, when everything is said and
	done, everybody agrees we need to do something. We all know
	that. That is kind of like the easy, lowest hanging fruit there
	is. But there is a minor little point. You all run businesses
	or large organizations. Somebody has got to pay for this.
	And the question I have, really--and, Mr. Smith, to my
	knowledge--I have been listening to most of everything that is
	said, not everything--I think you are the only one who
	suggested a way, other than spending the Harbor Maintenance
	Fund, which I think is kind of ridiculous that we have to make
	that argument, the tax has been paid and sitting there. But,
	absent that, I am of the impression that everybody on the panel
	at least implied that you believe we need to put more money
	into the system.
	Now, we are talking about highways, but I would--I want to
	be real clear. I believe in--harbors are critically important,
	rail is critically important, and transit is critically
	important. Because, even if you are not moving goods through
	transit, your people are moving through transit, especially in
	the urban areas. All that being said, we need more money.
	Mr. Smith, you have made some suggestions, and I want to be
	real clear. Thus far, the smoke signals coming out of the new
	administration is somehow we are going to do this with just
	public-private partnerships. No new money.
	Now, I cochaired a group looking at public-private
	partnerships with Mr. Duncan last year, and we came to the
	unanimous, bipartisan conclusion that they have a role, and
	they are good, but they are no better than maybe--maybe--10
	percent of our needs.
	So my question for you is, first of all, do you agree that
	public-private partnerships can't do it all, can't even do most
	of it? And, if so, I would like to hear your suggestions--Mr.
	Smith, you already answered this part--your suggestions of
	where you think we should get the money. Because I will tell
	you that--I think it was about 3 years ago we had the president
	of the Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sit
	in that chair and tell us the Chamber of Commerce supported an
	increase in the gas tax. So, for me, that was my first time
	ever agreeing with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And--but at
	the same time, I would love to find a way, if--I am open to any
	way to fund this.
	And, Mr. Smith, do you think the public-private
	partnerships can do all of this?
	Mr. Smith. No. I think it is something that could do some
	things, but what needs to happen is to increase the gasoline
	and diesel taxes, which haven't been increased--the Federal
	ones, that haven't been increased since----
	Mr. Capuano. Have you told this to the new administration?
	Mr. Smith. Yes, of course.
	Mr. Capuano. Have you told this to my friends on the other
	side?
	Mr. Smith. Well, I hope they are listening right now, so--
	--
	Mr. Capuano. You just did.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. Capuano. Wake up, guys, wake up.
	Mr. Smith. But the answer to the question, yes, I told it
	to the----
	Mr. Capuano. Thank you.
	Mr. Smith [continuing]. Administration as late as
	yesterday.
	Mr. Capuano. Beautiful.
	Mr. Smith. And then, secondarily, I think we should move to
	some sort of RFID-based vehicle mileage----
	Mr. Capuano. You have no arguments with me on any of these.
	I am completely open.
	Mr. MacLennan, do you think the public-private partnerships
	can do the whole thing? And if not----
	Mr. MacLennan. No, I don't. So I think----
	Mr. Capuano. Where do you think we should get the money?
	Mr. MacLennan. So I am not the tax policy expert. I mean
	that is the crux of the issue, isn't it? It is a big spend. We
	have talked about the benefits that it brings to the economy,
	to jobs. So it has got to be some combination of private-public
	partnerships, effective tax policy.
	And also we would say that it has got to be balanced. But
	the users of the systems, whether it is rivers, roads,
	railroads, got to be--you have got to have some skin in the
	game. So it has got to be multiple constituents.
	Mr. Capuano. Have you expressed that to the administration?
	Have they asked?
	Mr. MacLennan. I have not been invited to----
	Mr. Capuano. Well, neither have I, so, you know----
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. MacLennan. I think you will get invited before I will.
	Mr. Capuano. I wouldn't count on that.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. Capuano. Mr. Willisch, what about you? Do you think the
	P3s can do it all, or do you think that we need to increase
	revenues?
	Mr. Willisch. Experience tells you no, you cannot do that.
	But otherwise, I can tell you a lot about developing cars or
	producing cars, or distributing cars. But I am not a tax
	expert, either, so I would limit my contribution here to those
	three fields, rather than talking about----
	Mr. Capuano. That is fair enough.
	Ms. Andringa, what do you think?
	Ms. Andringa. Yes, thank you. I concur with my colleagues
	that it has to be an all-of-the-above. That is what we talk
	about, as manufacturers. We are going to need the gas tax, user
	fees. We are going to need public-private partnerships, maybe
	bonding, infrastructure bank.
	And the thing that I think we just want to remember is the
	stimulus package that happened in 2009. I think a lot of us
	thought more money would go to infrastructure in that package.
	Mr. Capuano. So did we.
	Ms. Andringa. And it was, like, less than 10 percent. Now,
	there were other reasons, and we were in a different economic
	situation. But I think what is really important is that
	whatever package, bold package I hear coming from this group,
	is it does have to be--it really has to be used for what it was
	intended to be used for.
	Mr. Capuano. Totally agree.
	Mr. Trumka, I actually know your answer, but you should put
	it on the record, anyway.
	Mr. Trumka. No, we don't. We think partnerships have--
	public-private partnerships have a limited applicability,
	because they need a revenue source. And, in fact, if you are
	going to attract public capital, or private capital, that is
	dependent on having a Government source of--stream of revenue
	involved. And unless you can show that on a regular basis--5,
	6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years out, then private capital is not going to
	get involved, even for the small percentage of the jobs that
	they could do.
	We would support an increase in the gas tax. We think it
	should have been indexed for inflation years ago. We would also
	agree with my friend at the end of the table that it ought to
	be broadened to capture those, as changing technology goes by
	to capture more of those people, so that as electric cars and
	other forms of transportation that use highways and use the
	infrastructure in place, but skip out on it, they should be
	paying their fair share, as well.
	Mr. Capuano. Thank you.
	Mr. Chairman, I would just like to go on record as saying I
	love this panel. Thank you for having them.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. Shuster. I am glad we made you happy, Mr. Capuano.
	With that, Governor Sanford is recognized.
	Mr. Sanford. Two quick thoughts. One, I think it is
	important to give credit where credit is due. And with regard
	to BMW, I think it needs to be remembered the time that they
	came to South Carolina. It was 20 years ago. The textile
	industry was shifting out of our State. Manufacturing had been
	hit incredibly hard, and people were hurting.
	And you know, BMW made a bet on our State, and they really
	brought--they were the leaders in bringing in a new era of sort
	of advanced manufacturing. And so, in its wake, Volvo, and
	Boeing, and a whole lot of others have come. But it was BMW
	that started that ball rolling. And I think it is important
	that I acknowledge that.
	I think what is also interesting, though, is, from the
	standpoint of global capital allocation, you have made a bet,
	in part, based on market share and entry into the United States
	market. But I think, going back to, in essence, the
	conversation we have been having with regard to infrastructure
	and how you stay competitive, the question is would you make
	that decision today.
	And if there was one single thing as you compare investing
	in India versus China versus the United States, what would be
	the one thing that you would change?
	Mr. Willisch. Very clearly, we would make the same decision
	today. And just let me say that, just by our latest investment
	of $1 billion additionally--we have now spent about $7.5
	billion--we created almost another 1,000 jobs.
	So, I think, more or less, we would do the same thing today
	again, and we would be at the same location, with the proximity
	to the harbor of Charleston. I don't think we would change--
	maybe we would think about our start, which was a little rough
	in the first 2 years. But otherwise, we would do the same
	again.
	Mr. Sanford. I thank you.
	Then, let me extend this question over to you, Mr. Smith.
	You have been a visionary for a long time. You have been ahead
	of the curve, whether that is submitting a business plan in
	business school that was not exactly seen as the way to go, but
	you seem to be able to look around the corner. And I would ask
	you the same question with regard to competitiveness.
	You mentioned some good ideas, whether that is, you know,
	congestion pricing or territorial taxes. If you were, let's
	say, Donald Trump, and you look at this notion of being a chief
	executive in this country, and you look at, again, capital
	allocation, how do we attract and retain more in the way of
	capital that leads to investment and jobs, are there a couple
	other things that we haven't talked on today?
	Or, as you look around the corner at what comes next, are
	there things that jump out at you that you would say, ``You
	know, as a committee, you all ought to think about X or Y''?
	And let me throw in one last thought on that question. I
	think that one of the things that some of us struggle with with
	regard to taxes, not just a knee jerk reaction to a tax
	increase, but rather this notion of Thomas Friedman's flat
	world, and how indeed competitive the global marketplace is.
	And so, if you look at CBO numbers, what they show is that
	deficits are projected to increase rather dramatically. And
	that is in sort of a best-case scenario. What is interesting
	is, in essence, a deficit is simply a tax. It is a deferred
	tax. It is handed to the next generation, but it is a tax. The
	taxes are already going up.
	And so, what a number of us struggle with is not a knee
	jerk reaction to a gas tax or other things, but how do we
	retain competitiveness if, overall, our tax environment begins
	to look less competitive than some of the other choices that
	FedEx or BMW or other places have around the globe. Any pearls
	of wisdom or thoughts on that front?
	Mr. Smith. Well, assuming that regulations become more
	efficient, which the President started to do with his Executive
	order the other day--and you just heard an example down here of
	a wonderful business that--overwhelmed with regulations.
	But the single most important thing the United States could
	do to be more competitive is to lower the corporate tax rate
	for C-corporations. The top 1,000 corporations in America make
	50 percent of all capital investments. Those are the tools that
	I was talking about that make our blue collar workforce more
	productive and able to earn more. And the same time that that
	happens, we should go to a territorial tax system with some
	sort of appropriate tax rate to keep from gaming the system.
	I saw the other day Chairman Ryan talking about this
	suggested border adjustability tax being equivalent to a VAT.
	It is not. Mexico has both a corporate income tax--much lower
	than us--and a border-adjustable VAT, which everybody sees and
	is eliminated at the border.
	C-corporations pay about $300 billion in taxes. If you
	lowered the corporate tax rate and went to a territorial
	system, I have no doubt, from talking to CEOs in industries
	around this country, CAPEX, GDP goes up, tax receipts would
	increase. The top 5,000 C-corporations make 95 percent of the
	capital investments in this country. You can't apply the same
	rates to C-corps that--to pass-throughs. And that is the
	problem. That is what is driving this border adjustability
	concept.
	If you are a pass-through, a sub-chapter S, an LLC, and you
	want the corporate tax rate, then you can reincorporate as a C.
	And when you take that money out, you pay whatever the personal
	income tax rate is. But retained earnings in C-corporations are
	the feedstock of tomorrow. And the only way to pay those bills
	without increasing the deficit is increased GDP.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Governor.
	Mrs. Napolitano?
	Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen,
	everybody on the panel, I would like to refer to that saying up
	there: ``According to the system of natural liberty, the
	sovereign has only three duties to attend to.'' One, the third
	one, ``The duty of erecting and maintaining certain public
	works and certain public institutions, which it can never be
	for the interest of any individual or small number of
	individuals, and to erect and maintain,'' et cetera.
	Say it--that said, I hear what you have said in regard to
	the maintenance of bridges, roads, all of that. Do you know
	that the Army Corps of Engineers has a $40 billion construction
	backlog, a $20 billion operations and maintenance backlog, and
	appropriated only $4.5 million this year? Makes sense to you?
	Would you do that to your company? Anybody?
	[No response.]
	Mrs. Napolitano. So, I would, in all fairness to the
	administration, ask you to pose to them the question of whether
	we can continue on this road of not funding those that maintain
	the areas which you have a great interest in. Am I correct? Any
	comments?
	[No response.]
	Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Trumka, I am very happy to say that I
	am--take my hat off to the best workers that you have. They are
	recognized worldwide for their professionalism. And I hope that
	we understand that you build to last, that you do your work so
	that everybody knows that when a union person has done it,
	there is no change order, there is no backlog on things to go
	back and change.
	In regard to the increase, Mr. Smith, there is a current
	understanding that the electric batteries are now holding more.
	You are going to CNG. Are you considering going to electricity?
	Mr. Smith. We have a number of all-electric and hybrid-
	electric vehicles in our local pickup and delivery operations.
	Those are generally lighter trucks. In the heavy-truck sector,
	we are converting a significant amount of our infrastructure
	over to compressed natural gas. Neither of those are picked up
	in the current Federal gasoline and diesel excise tax.
	And so there would have to be a different system to pick up
	over the road operations of personal automobiles and heavier
	trucks that are natural gas-powered. That is why I suggested
	the RFID solution.
	Mrs. Napolitano. All right. The gas mileage is an issue. We
	have been debating of how we can collect more taxes from those
	that have electric vehicles, CNG. Somehow we have been on this
	conversation for years. We have yet to come to an agreement.
	Will you have any suggestions?
	Mr. Smith. Well, again, if you want to build
	infrastructure, it would be a relatively simple task, with
	today's technologies, to build an RFID reader system throughout
	our Federal highway system. A small tag, just like you have
	when you--if you are a regular user going through the tunnels
	in New York that read when you pass by and send you a bill on
	your credit card, I mean, that should be an integral part of
	infrastructure spending to develop an alternative electronic
	system that allows users to help pay for the system.
	Mrs. Napolitano. But it is easier for you to say. You try
	Government trying to come to an agreement.
	Mr. Smith. No, I understand. I have been testifying in this
	exact room for 43 years. So I have watched you all very
	closely----
	[Laughter.]
	Mrs. Napolitano. Precisely.
	Mr. Smith [continuing]. For many, many years. And over the
	last 25 or 30 years I think the whole conversation of this
	committee has been the inability of people that are in the
	Congress to support payment streams for things that we have to
	have. I mean that is the issue. It is not any failure to
	recognize we have got a problem here. It is an unwillingness to
	provide the funding to fix it.
	Mrs. Napolitano. Precisely.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Mr. Woodall is recognized.
	Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has to be said
	that, according to Mr. Smith's testimony, the first packages
	went out in April of 19, what, 73. So if 44 years ago business
	opened and you have been dragged in front of this committee for
	the last 43 of those years, we have some bigger problems that
	we need to work on together here, Mr. Chairman. That is just a
	show of respect to the generations of Shusters that have led
	this organization here.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. Smith. Seems like I have been testifying before
	Shusters for a long time.
	Mr. Shuster. I believe that.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your doing this
	panel to get us started this year. This is full of American
	success stories, each and every one. I certainly count the BMW
	success story as an American success story. I was going to
	school in South Carolina in 1992 when that announcement was
	made. And the sense of hope and optimism that BMW brought to
	that South Carolina community cannot be overstated. And the
	need for that hope and optimism today cannot be overstated.
	I represent the great State of Georgia. And, of course, our
	port in Brunswick is a large exporter of your product. Once
	upon a time, more product per production--more product was
	exported from that plant in South Carolina than any other
	automotive plant in this country. Is that still the case, do
	you know?
	Mr. Willisch. At least I have knowledge that it was the
	case in 2015.
	Mr. Woodall. I drive that point home because folks talk
	about infrastructure and getting goods to market and people
	building plants in America because that is where the consumers
	are. I want to talk about the fact that we have the best
	workers in the Nation, on the planet, that are teamed up with
	the best infrastructure in the world that lead to those kinds
	of exports. And I would love to have an export-driven economy,
	instead of a consumption-driven economy. And I appreciate what
	BMW does to help make that happen.
	Mr. Smith, I wanted to ask you about open skies. I saw it
	on the tail end of your testimony. Undoubtedly, competition is
	the key to making sure that we are all doing the very best we
	can. Competition is good for McDonald's and Burger King. It is
	good for politicians, and it is good for aviation. But I do
	worry about unfair competition. And I hear from our domestic
	carriers, not that they want a special carve-out to prevent
	competition, but they want a level playing field so that they
	can have fair competition.
	In your testimony it seemed to suggest that you dismissed
	their concerns as wanting a special carve-out instead of a
	level playing field. Could you speak to that, just for a
	moment?
	Mr. Smith. Well, no, sir. I don't dismiss the concerns of
	the three major passenger carriers at all. I would simply point
	out, as I have over and over again, there is a specific process
	and a provision in existing law that requires them to file a
	complaint. The reason they won't file that complaint is because
	they will not be able to demonstrate harm. Why won't they be
	able to demonstrate harm? Because they don't fly to the Middle
	East.
	And what they are trying to do through their opposition of
	open skies is to force travelers from Southeast Asia, India,
	and Africa to go over their code partners, or on their systems
	through Western Europe, as opposed to going through the hubs in
	the Middle East.
	So, if they want to have this fight, there is a provision
	to do that. They won't file under the existing provision to let
	everything see the light of day. So we don't support their
	position, because of their refusal to do that.
	Mr. Woodall. They--well, undeniably, being able to
	demonstrate that unlevel playing field is critical.
	I remember back in 2012 FedEx had that same concern about
	subsidies in the postal marketplaces around the globe,
	demonstrated that concern. I want to see those concerns
	demonstrated and eliminated. And I hope Secretary Chao is going
	to be able to give an open ear to that. FedEx is an amazing
	success story. You, as an individual, are an amazing American
	success story. And I am certain that keeping a level playing
	field is going to be that foundation on which we build more
	American success stories.
	Mr. Trumka, I wanted to comment on part of your testimony.
	Folks don't get to see your testimony written, they just listen
	to it. It is your overarching principles there at the very end.
	Number one--you could have listed anything as number one.
	And you said, ``Number one overarching principle is the program
	must include investments that are as transformative in the 21st
	century as railroads, highways, telephones, radio, and
	television electrification were in previous centuries.'' I just
	couldn't agree with you more. I get so tired of nibbling around
	the edges, and I don't see a hunger back home for maintaining
	roads. Folks believe that is the lowest part of the bar. Of
	course we are going to do that. Of course we are going to keep
	our commitment to that.
	What are we going to do to transform ourselves going
	forward? And I say that coming from a not particularly
	unionized part of the world down there in Georgia. Of all the
	things we can partner on, all the great American success
	stories that are there, I just want you to know how much it
	means to me, first hearing out of the gate we are talking about
	what we can do, golly, to be as transformative in the 21st
	century as those accomplishments were you mentioned in the
	20th.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having an opportunity for us
	to----
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
	Mr. Woodall [continuing]. Celebrate what we agree on.
	Mr. Shuster. You brought up my father's name, so whenever
	you brought it up I got to--impart some Shuster knowledge. So
	there has been a Shuster on this committee as long as FedEx has
	been in existence. So we are glad we have been able to work
	with you. And I hope your time in front of me was more pleasant
	than in front of my father.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. Shuster. Because I know how tough that can be.
	Ms. Titus is recognized.
	Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I greatly respect your 43 years, Mr. Smith. I have been
	here now--I am in my fourth term, and I have a similar
	experience. Nothing really has changed over those years, except
	my seat has moved back a little bit. We are having the same
	conversation, got the same rhetoric. Need to fix the
	infrastructure. We got the score of D minus on the engineers'
	infrastructure report card. All the options are on the table.
	We need to look at this. It is just a matter of paying for it.
	But there is no substantive plan.
	I commend the ranking member for trying to put out
	something on paper to say this is how we can fix it. But there
	is no plan, it is just a little dibs and dabs here and there.
	Everybody agrees we need to do something. Well, that is not
	going to get the job done.
	We have also heard a lot about maintenance of
	infrastructure, but I can tell you in the West, and in my State
	of Nevada, where you have had rapid growth and development,
	there is a tremendous challenge there, too. It is not so much
	repair and maintenance, but it is providing access. If you look
	at Nevada, we are $285 million shortfall every year for the
	next 10 years, just to build State highways, alone. So we have
	got to do something.
	Actually, my question goes to Mr. Trumka. I would like to
	ask him what he thinks about the suggestion that all our ills
	will be solved if we just give more corporate tax breaks to the
	big companies.
	And then, my second question, going back to the
	conversation about the public-private partnerships, how you
	would address those in terms of labor agreements, employment
	agreements. You know, everybody talks about those as though
	there are hundreds of them out there. There is really only a
	handful. And I can tell you that, in Nevada, where they are
	doing Project Neon, which is a big interstate project right
	downtown, they looked at doing one of these P3 agreements and
	decided it made no sense financially or from a maintenance and
	management perspective, and backed away from it.
	So would you address those two questions for me?
	Mr. Trumka. I certainly will. A lot of talk has been had
	about repatriation, first of all. And that, of course, is a
	lump-sum revenue source, one time. Previous repatriation plans
	have disadvantaged U.S. companies by giving tax breaks to their
	offshore counterparts. We would oppose any kind of tax system
	that encouraged or rewarded outsourcing off country.
	Further, any action on repatriation should not reward those
	who game the system by granting them overly low tax rates. So
	we would end the deferrals. We would be willing to look at a
	lot of different things, including border adjustment taxes,
	things of that sort, that would actually encourage production
	here, encourage manufacturing here. But we don't think that
	just cutting taxes is a solution because, in many instances, we
	can show you where low taxes have done nothing, and some of the
	biggest companies that have paid no taxes have still continued
	to offshore things.
	With regard to the private partnership stuff, how would we
	take care of that? First of all, they are of limited access,
	and limited use. They require a revenue source. And so repair
	and maintenance jobs, things of that sort. And even in the
	rural areas, where the revenue source would be low, are never
	going to get built. If you do them--and there are instances
	where we could see working with them--you still need to have
	the protections of 13(c), Davis-Bacon, domestic preferences,
	protections for rail and public-sector workers.
	And we would increase the Buy America provisions of that,
	as well, so that, in fact, those tax dollars, or even the
	private-sector dollars, are used to increase jobs here at home,
	and increase our economy, rather than drive down the wages of
	Americans here.
	We are willing to look at and work with people on a lot of
	different funding sources. But blindly saying all you have to
	do is reduce the income tax on corporations and everything will
	be fine simply doesn't square with reality.
	Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. I yield back.
	Mr. Shuster. Mr. LaMalfa?
	Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
	convening this. And indeed, a very good cross-section of
	interest on this fine panel today, representing a lot of what
	America is looking at for its transportation and materials
	transporting needs.
	So when I--you know, first time on this committee here, and
	I am excited about it. I hear a lot of conversation going on
	here about the different aspects of how we are going to
	accomplish things. And I just want to always remember that when
	I hear maybe a little is being done to get the funding, well, a
	lot is being done every day by every American family in paying
	the way for all of this, whether it is the gas taxes they fuel
	up, or the tax on tires, as well as the excise taxes that come
	along the way, and then on the products that they purchase when
	they--when a truck is carrying that--if you got it, a truck
	brought it, but a truck paid to get it there, as well as rail
	and ports.
	So there is a lot of ways people are already paying for
	this. And I think what really needs to have more attention paid
	to it is that--are we doing things as efficiently as we can
	with the dollars we have? Are the dollars being channeled into
	transportation infrastructure that people are paying at the
	pump?
	Interesting discussion on ports a little bit earlier. I
	don't know the--all the background on that particular port fee
	that isn't being paid completely towards using it for ports; I
	need to learn. But that is a great discussion. But people, when
	they are paying it, they certainly want to see those dollars
	get into the infrastructure and not go somewhere else.
	So, we have--I am from California, I am from the ag
	business myself, and surrounded by many people that are in
	agriculture, whether it is grain or fruit, nut crops, hay
	crops, you name it--timber industry. So they are very
	interested in a lot of the port aspects, as well. And being on
	the west coast, it is getting pretty tough with the port system
	we have there, with the load we have. And we--you know, we saw
	ag products suffer quite a bit just a couple years ago, when
	things weren't moving very well through the ports. So we are
	glad to see that moving well. A strong bipartisan effort in
	this town helped to overcome some of those challenges. So we
	need to keep that going. But we have issues with our ports, you
	know, dredging that needs to be done to keep, like, the ports
	in northern California moving well.
	We got to overcome the obstacles. And sometimes I see a lot
	going on with getting permitting done to do anything on, you
	know, port maintenance, adding the highway infrastructure. I am
	in the rice business, OK? And so when I saw some--this is not
	that many years ago they were going to infringe on a rice
	field, you know, pay the farmer for the land that was being
	taken in order to build up an overcrossing and a clover leaf.
	They were also concerned about the mitigation for the rice
	land, because they look at that as habitat. Now, that is
	someone's private property. And--but they are going to--they
	were worried about mitigating the land that was in a rice
	field. And that just kind of blew my mind, as a rice grower,
	that, no, I am--you know, so there is a lot of hangups on just
	getting these projects done.
	And so, when I am looking at the--how the folks in my
	district, they are especially going to be interested in what
	further can be done to--and I would point this to Mr.
	MacLennan, if you don't mind, on that. What do you see, as far
	as our rail system being able to get some of these products to
	port and trucking--but the main thing being the port aspects of
	moving sometimes very perishable products timely--through
	those, I mean, so we can remain competitive on the west coast,
	as well as the whole Nation?
	Mr. MacLennan. Yes. As you pointed out, Representative, the
	congestion--the port congestion in this country is the worst on
	the west coast. And so, when you have the congestion in the
	port facilities, it backs up the whole system. And, to your
	point, it creates all kinds of damages, losses relative to the
	value of produce. It impacts export markets.
	So, I think, you know, whether it is dredging, or
	increasing facilities for barges along the riverways, as I
	mentioned, a safety--but your particular district--not
	necessarily your district, but California in particular--is in
	the most need, relative to port facility improvement, which
	will improve our trade and our overall commerce, and the
	livelihood of the farmers.
	Mr. LaMalfa. And what do you see are roadblocks that we
	could handle in Government that don't necessarily mean, you
	know, an additional fee or a rate hike or something? What are
	some of the road blocks we could be doing that would be using
	the dollars we have in our system?
	Mr. MacLennan. Well, we have got the Harbor Maintenance
	Trust Fund is the quick answer. I mean we have got billions
	there in the taxes that have been collected, you know, waiting
	to be spent. So I think I would focus on that first, is getting
	the funding into the system, and through a--whether it is
	public-private partnerships, or, you know, the projects that
	are already underway that has been pointed out in committee
	from the Army Corps of Engineers, we are ready to go.
	Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
	Mr. MacLennan. With the funding.
	Mr. LaMalfa. I get concerned about permitting, as well,
	because there is----
	Mr. MacLennan. Yes, yes.
	Mr. LaMalfa. You know, let's get the work done, let's get
	the people to work doing the work that want to, and----
	Mr. MacLennan. You have got to have the efficiency.
	Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. MacLennan. Thank you.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Ms. Wilson is recognized for 5
	minutes.
	Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Shuster and
	Ranking Member DeFazio, for holding this important meeting. I
	am a new member of this committee, and I look forward to
	working with both of you and the entire committee to provide a
	21st-century infrastructure for our 21st-century businesses and
	communities.
	Thanks to all the witnesses who have testified here today.
	I am the founder of the Florida Ports Caucus and the chair of
	the Florida Ports Caucus, and we do a lot of work with ports.
	But when my--when I first arrived to Congress I would go to
	the floor every day and my mantra for Congress would be jobs,
	jobs, jobs. And I was concerned because we were unable to pass
	a jobs bill. And I had two great jobs bills that would create
	jobs, because I believe that if we employ everyone in our
	country, then we would have a better country. We wouldn't have
	people on--so many people looking to Government for help. We--
	everyone would be working.
	In my opinion, I think that--I want to ask a question,
	first of all, to Mr. Smith. And I want to first thank him for
	creating so many good jobs in my district for my constituents.
	I represent Miami-Dade County, which is home to several FedEx
	shipping centers and a significant regional hub for Latin
	America and the Caribbean, which we were happy to tour. I want
	to also acknowledge your--you for the diversity of your
	workforce. I was able to tour your operation in Paris, thanks
	to my dear friend, your senior vice president, Gina Adams. It
	was an extraordinary experience.
	In your written testimony, you warned that FedEx would not
	be able to continue to grow the economy and create jobs without
	improved infrastructure. And I was happy to hear you mention
	education. I am a former school principal, so I know how
	important it is for children to be educated to take the next
	level of jobs that we create. Could you please elaborate on the
	impact of delayed infrastructure investment on your company and
	sector?
	And also, you said that you believe user fees would help.
	And are you interested, or would you approve higher user fees
	to get this done? Because everything is stuck.
	Mr. Smith. Well, the answer to the last question is yes, we
	would support higher fees. And as I have mentioned several
	times, we have supported an increase in the Federal gasoline
	and diesel tax to do that.
	But let me give you one factoid which will just bring this
	in perspective. All of us know what it is like to buy a tire
	for our car. Over the past 20 years, our over-the-road vehicle
	tire utilization has been cut in half. So we are using almost
	100 percent more tires to produce the same mileage of
	transportation. Why is that? Because the road infrastructure
	has so many potholes in it, it is tearing up tires faster than
	what was the case before.
	The congestion, Mr. DeFazio's clock up there, is a real
	cost to business and a real cost to consumers. The cost of
	congestion is getting worse. It is preventing time-certain
	deliveries, which are important for things for hospitals and
	things of that nature. So there is a cost to the public, there
	is a cost to FedEx, there is a cost to UPS, there is a cost to
	Cargill by delaying these expansions and required upgrades and
	maintenance of the highway system.
	So thanks for your job as a teacher. My brother was a
	teacher. After parenting, it is the most important job in the
	country, in my opinion.
	Ms. Wilson. Right. Thank you.
	Mr. Trumka, in your written testimony you mention reducing
	poverty and inequality as a guiding principle for
	infrastructure investment. In your opinion, what infrastructure
	investments and policy reforms would best support poverty
	reduction?
	Mr. Trumka. I think there is two facets to that answer. One
	is we talked about automation and new technology, and that has
	always been important for a dynamic economy. And it is
	important in transportation. But that said, we can't use
	technology as an excuse to ignore the cost to workers,
	communities, and safety. If anything, technology should be used
	to combat inequality, not to ignore or accelerate the problem.
	And so, one point I would make is, as this committee looks
	forward, you ought to strike--I look forward to working with
	you so that we can strike the right balance between worker
	safety and progress.
	The system sometimes locks people out. And so we have to
	get them skills at the lower level. We have started, in our
	apprenticeship program, going back and doing remedial courses,
	offering remedial courses so that applicants have the necessary
	math skills--writing skills, reading skills, English skills--to
	be able to pass our entrance exam and get into the community,
	make sure everybody has that opportunity.
	Also, if you can't do--if you do public-private
	partnerships and you don't follow the protections of 13(c) and
	Davis-Bacon and domestic preferences and all of those things,
	tax dollars will be used to drive down wages, which will
	increase poverty in a lot more areas. And so we would guard
	against those, as well.
	And the projects ought to be spread through the country, so
	that there is a geographical look at it. So the rural Americans
	are getting a shot at some of the jobs and some of the better
	infrastructure, and thus--then looking more attractive to
	business to come into some of those rural areas. And we would
	urge the committee to look at that geographical spread, so that
	large segments of Americans aren't just locked out, that we
	don't just do this in populous areas, but we look at the rural
	areas, as well.
	Mr. Shuster. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. Lewis
	from Minnesota is recognized.
	Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
	coming today. It is very important that we hear from the
	experts in the field and doing the tough work. I represent a
	district in Minnesota that is primarily suburban, primarily
	automotive-dependent. We have got a couple of major interstate
	arterials through our district, 35 and 35E, and congestion is
	always a problem. Over 78 percent of the citizens in that
	district commute by car alone. If you add in pools, it is 87
	percent. So that is very high on our agenda.
	But Mr. Trumka said something interesting not long ago, and
	it is how we invest matters. And when I look at this, and I
	think when the committee looks at this, I hope, that we are
	going to look at the investments that have the greatest return.
	We all know that productivity is the key to rewarding both
	labor and capital. It is not a zero sum game. If we are more
	productive, everybody benefits. So, let me ask you--and let's
	start with my Minnesota friend, Mr. MacLennan. What do you
	think, when we look at roads, bridges, rail, certainly air
	traffic control, airports, broadband, transit? What is the
	biggest bang for the buck, in general, in--certainly that
	affects your industry?
	Mr. MacLennan. Well, thanks, Representative Lewis. I am a
	little biased, relative to making sure we take care of the ag
	economy. And I think the ag economy in Minnesota and the rest
	of the United States really can benefit from continued
	investment in our port system and our riverways.
	And I mentioned a little while ago that the efficiency of
	our riverway system relative to volumes that you can put on a
	barge. You can put over 50,000 bushels on a barge, maybe 1,000
	bushels on a truck, so it is environmentally friendly, but it
	does have limitations. So I think, relative to not forgetting
	the importance of the rural economy and the jobs, and the
	importance of the rural economy to the agriculture system, I
	think for us they are all connected. It is kind of a, you know,
	three-legged stool: rail, road, rivers, as well as ports. But
	for us I think it is riverways and barge transportation and
	ports.
	Mr. Lewis. Mr. Smith, you had mentioned the idea of moving
	to a system that is essentially a user fee system, or getting
	there, getting closer to that. And you talked about congestion
	pricing. That intrigues me a little bit, and it intrigues a lot
	of people who haven't just read Reason Magazine lately.
	But we have got a couple of interstates there that--
	sometimes during the day it is relatively free-flowing. But not
	at 7:30 and not at 4:30. Can you elaborate on that just a
	little bit?
	Mr. Smith. Well, congestion pricing would presumably move
	some of that traffic into the shoulder periods, where the
	highways aren't utilized as much. There are many people that
	don't have discretion in when they travel.
	But congestion is always on the margin. In other words, it
	is that last 3, 5 percent that causes gridlock. So moving a
	relatively small number of cars and trucks into the less
	congested time of the day makes the infrastructure more
	productive. That is what they showed down in Florida when they
	used congestion pricing.
	Having said that, the real key is to provide more
	infrastructure and alternative routings. You can't just solve
	the problem with some sort of technology and congestion pricing
	and incentives to use higher occupancy vehicles, and so forth.
	You have got to build the additional infrastructure that I was
	reading from a little earlier, that our interstate highway
	projects that--we could start building tomorrow if there were
	funds available to do it.
	Mr. Lewis. I think we do have to do exactly that. In fact,
	I used to say that the trucker is a lot more productive with
	the truck. Now we can include the road, too. They have got to
	get the infrastructure.
	Now, there are opponents to some of this. Real quickly,
	anybody on the panel? And I hear it in the Minneapolis-St. Paul
	metro area quite a bit, that, ``Well, this is great, but you
	can't build your way out of congestion.'' We hear that from the
	opponents of adding on to any infrastructure capacity. Anybody
	can comment on that if they like, but I hear that a lot.
	Mr. Smith. Well, that--to some degree it is like saying in
	Memphis, Tennessee, nobody would like to use a bridge across
	the Mississippi River other than the one we have, because it is
	so heavily utilized.
	Mr. Lewis. Yes, right.
	Mr. Smith. So you build another bridge, and all of a sudden
	you are amazed at how many people decide they want to go over
	there to avoid the congestion, or build a new shopping center,
	or whatever the case may be.
	So I don't think there is any question about the fact that
	the United States Department of Transportation, with the
	States, has a lot of wonderful projects to increase our
	capacity and reduce congestion.
	Mr. Lewis. Thank you. I yield back my time.
	Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Johnson from
	Georgia is recognized.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Mr. Smith, I suppose it
	has been kind of frustrating over the last several years to
	witness Members of Congress strictly adhering to their promise
	under the taxpayer protection pledge to oppose any increase in
	Federal Government tax revenues. Has that been as frustrating
	for you as it has been for many of us?
	Mr. Smith. Of course.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And you, of course, know what that
	taxpayer protection pledge is.
	Mr. Smith. That is Grover Norquist's pledge that you have
	to sign, right?
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. That is correct.
	Mr. Smith. Well, I would point out to you one thing here.
	Our senior Senator from Tennessee was heavily involved in the
	Inland Waterway Act. And it is my understanding that the
	various interests that are opposed to taxation became
	supportive, once the revenue source was redesignated as a user
	fee.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, do you mean that----
	Mr. Smith. That is the Inland Waterway Trust Fund funding.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So do you mean that there was an
	exception made to the Grover Norquist taxpayer protection
	pledge that resulted in new revenues----
	Mr. Smith. That is my understanding.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia [continuing]. To the Federal
	Government? Well, I think that is a wonderful event that has
	occurred. I wonder if we can duplicate it. Do any of you other
	panel members have anything to say about this strict adherence
	that we have seen towards this taxpayer pledge?
	While looking, of course, at the--at what was written out
	of our Constitution that our chairman put on the wall, it says
	the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
	impose--and excises. It doesn't say Grover Norquist shall have
	the power. What do you all think about that?
	And I see you raising your hand, Mr. Trumka.
	Mr. Trumka. Yes. I think it has had an absolutely horrible
	effect on the competitiveness of this country. We get further
	and further behind every year, because we don't have--we are
	starved for revenue to be able to do the basic infrastructure
	that this country needs, let alone the infrastructure we need
	to transform us into the 21st century.
	If you have a house, and the house--the roof starts to leak
	on the house, and you don't take care of it, it gets more and
	more and more and more expensive. The more we delay with
	infrastructure, the more and more and more and more expensive
	it gets, and the less and less and less competitive we get. I
	think we are all pretty much in harmony on the fact that
	infrastructure needs to be done, done now, and done at a very,
	very large scale.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And it is going to take increased
	revenues to do it right.
	Mr. Trumka. Absolutely. And can I just add one other thing?
	I wanted to comment to Congressman Lewis when he said what is
	the biggest bang for your buck. The best way to get the biggest
	bang for your buck is to get the lowest cost of capital for
	your buck. The lowest cost of capital spreads those bucks a lot
	further. And I will work with this committee to do that, to
	make sure that the funding source gets us the lowest cost to
	capital.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I think that is important.
	I also want to talk about another factor in profitability
	for businesses, and it is this issue of worker productivity.
	And I want to ask you all whether or not you believe that
	having a satisfied, well-paid workforce contributes to
	productivity and profitability when it comes to your companies.
	And, if so, then why would we support any measures that would
	hurt workers' ability to collectively bargain for issues that
	would create more productivity for workers?
	Mr. MacLennan. So I agree, that an engaged and happy
	workforce is critical to success. But I don't think that you
	have to have collective bargaining exclusively to achieve that.
	We have got about 70,000 workers in the United States, and some
	are union employees and some are not. And I think you can have
	engagement and productivity in both circumstances. So I don't--
	--
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, shouldn't workers be able to
	choose whether or not they want to be able to collectively
	bargain or not is----
	Mr. MacLennan. I think that is generally the case, is it
	not?
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, you wouldn't want to hurt
	that ability, would you?
	Mr. MacLennan. I think you want to give people the
	opportunity to be well informed, and to be able to make the
	choice that they feel is best for them, yes.
	Mr. Shuster. The gentleman's time has expired.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I think that is common ground
	that we can all agree to. And I thank you all for your--for
	being here today. And I thank the chair and the ranking member
	for having this hearing as our first hearing of this new
	session of Congress. It is so important.
	I also have a statement that I would like to introduce for
	the record.
	Mr. Shuster. Without objection, so ordered.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I yield back.
	Mr. Shuster. Mr. Smucker?
	Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a former business
	owner, a contractor, understood the importance of highway
	system that enabled us to move goods and employees to job
	sites. And in my particular area, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, when
	we had new highway systems, bypasses around bottlenecks built,
	it opened entirely new markets for our company, because we
	could get to a new market in an hour or so, which was sort of
	our limit.
	So, with that background, I am really happy to not only be
	part of the committee, but to be part of this hearing as the
	first thing we are doing in this session. We are really
	evaluating the impact of Government investment in our
	infrastructure system.
	And I want to share just a little bit of experience. I
	served in the Pennsylvania State legislature for--the State
	senate for 8 years. And we were successful in passing an
	infrastructure bill, basically a highway funding bill, after
	years of not having done so. Pennsylvania highways and bridges
	have a bad reputation, a high number of bridges that were
	rated, you know, insufficient. And we were able to get a bill
	passed.
	And this was in an environment--to the point that was just
	raised, this was in an environment where, at the same time,
	we--and with my support--my caucus, other Members, other
	Republican Members, we were turning our State budget inside
	out, looking for ways to save dollars and ensure that we were
	providing for more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. We
	literally went line by line throughout the budget and
	eliminated hundreds of line items, and reduced overall
	spending.
	But at the same time, we were able to pass a transportation
	bill that increased our funding for transportation. How did we
	do that?
	Number one, we said that we were there to focus on the core
	functions of Government. And there were a lot of areas where we
	shouldn't have been--it was better done in the private sector.
	But, you know, our infrastructure can only be done--can be done
	best, at least, or primarily can only be done through
	Government, and maybe public-private partnerships. We did some
	of that, as well. But it is a core function of Government
	critical to our environment.
	It was a lot of work there. But what it took--I think what
	took it over the finish line, and this is--maybe there will be
	a question at the end of this for whoever may want to answer.
	But really, what took it over the finish line was a well-
	coordinated, well-funded effort to educate the public on the
	importance of investment in our infrastructure.
	And we talk about the creation of jobs during the building
	of roads or whatever it may be. You know, there are also huge
	economic benefits--you have all talked about that--in terms of
	jobs created, economic growth, and so on. So I guess, you know,
	I saw it, whether it was the Transportation Association, the
	chambers throughout the State, the Pennsylvania State Chamber
	of Commerce, a coordinated effort to educate the public about
	the costs of congestion, of waiting in traffic, and so on and
	so forth, and about increased safety.
	So my question to you is what efforts are we making here,
	at the national level, to drive public support, to build public
	support for investment in infrastructure that we are talking
	about?
	Mr. MacLennan. I will answer quickly, which is I think it
	is a good point, because I think when it comes to
	transportation and infrastructure, what is most commonly
	thought about is I am spending a lot of time in my car, getting
	to and from work. And it is far more complicated in nuance than
	that. We have got railroads, we have got ports, we have got
	riverways, and we have got highways, and they are all
	interconnected.
	So I think the message that we in the private sector can
	help deliver, in conjunction with the public sector, is there
	is a cost, infrastructure is not just about highways, it is an
	interlinked system. And it is costing the country a lot of
	money and a lot of job opportunity.
	Mr. Trumka. We are already doing a lot of education with
	our central labor councils, our State, Feds, and all of our
	strategic partners, religious groups, environmental groups, and
	things of that sort.
	One of the things is to educate them. And most people don't
	know the figures, that the average commuter spends 42 hours a
	year----
	Mr. Smucker. That is the kind of--and I am sorry, I am at
	the end of my time, I am going to cut you off. But that is the
	kind of information that, you know--what we are talking about
	in the hearing room today that the public needs to hear.
	Mr. Trumka. Yes.
	Mr. Smucker. And that is how we are going to begin to build
	the kind of support we will need----
	Mr. Trumka. And we are doing that.
	Mr. Smucker [continuing]. To do that. So thank you.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Smucker.
	Mr. Lipinski?
	Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
	holding this hearing. And thank the ranking member for raising
	the important issue of how are we going to pay for this. I know
	it is not directly in our jurisdiction in this committee, but
	it is something that we really need to focus on.
	I want to move very quickly through a few things. The first
	I just wanted to mention. The Recovery Act funded some things
	that were--sort of expanded what--the definition of what some
	people may think of as infrastructure. But, for example, fire
	stations were funded. And those are important facilities,
	certainly critical for public safety. So I think we need to
	have a serious discussion about what the definition of
	infrastructure is going to be, not--we won't have that here,
	right now, but I just want to put that out there, that we may
	want to think more broadly, and include things such as fire
	stations.
	I want to move on to something Mr. Trumka had talked about
	earlier. In his inaugural speech, President Trump made a
	commitment to buy-American principles. Too often, waivers and
	loopholes allow agencies and grant recipients to avoid
	compliance with domestic content requirements.
	So, I am introducing a bill next week, the Buy American
	Improvement Act. And one of the things my bill does to improve
	transparency and accountability is to close some of these
	loopholes. The bill is going to require that any waivers be
	published in the Federal Register so that businesses would be
	able to better identify products that are in demand, and seek
	opportunities to work with the Federal Government.
	I want to ask Mr. Trumka if this will be helpful, and if
	there is anything else that you would want to expand on,
	anything else we can do to better make sure that we are buying
	American and hiring Americans.
	Mr. Trumka. Closing the loopholes would be tremendously
	helpful because, as it stands right now, the lack of that has
	had a devastating effect on a lot of industry: steel industry,
	auto industry, a number of others. We recommend four things
	along those lines.
	One is that the percentage requirements should be increased
	until we get to 100 percent American content requirements. The
	Buy America must attach all infrastructure, including, as you
	noted, fire houses, schools, and drinking water. The loophole
	should be closed and the process standardized. I think you
	mentioned that your bill would do that. You would have to
	publish it in the Register, any waivers, so that people would
	know what the standards are, how you meet them, and why you
	don't meet them.
	And DOT must implement, I think, a uniform and transparent
	standard for waivers, so that the law is followed as intended.
	I think those would have a very, very beneficial effect, create
	a lot of jobs in America, and make us, quite frankly, far more
	competitive.
	Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I wanted to move on. Something Mr.
	Larsen had mentioned--I want to ask Mr. Smith and Mr. Willisch
	if there is anything that you think needs to be--the Federal
	Government needs to do in regard to really facilitating
	driverless vehicles. I know they are going to be very important
	and already coming on to the road. Not just cars, but also for
	trucks. Is there anything either of you want to add, say that
	we should be doing in order to better facilitate this at a
	Federal level?
	Mr. Willisch. Well, very simply, potholes and discontinued
	markings stand in the way of automated driving. But those basic
	requirements should be fulfilled anyway for any car, any truck
	that is using American roads, or roads in the civilized world.
	So I would say this is the basic requirement that we have to
	fix.
	Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Mr. Smith, do you want to add
	anything?
	Mr. Smith. Well, I think that the way forward is to have
	the United States Department of Transportation have a
	standardized, nationwide certification process, just like we do
	for aviation. So if you want to make an airplane in the United
	States, the DOT, FAA doesn't tell you how to do it, but you
	have got to meet certain standards with your engineers, and
	then they certify.
	So, just as was mentioned, there need to be standards for
	the roads, the markings, the redundancies in all of the
	technology. The worst thing that could happen is for automated
	vehicles to be subject to a balkanized, regulatory system at
	the State level. So that is my suggestion to what you should do
	to promote autonomous vehicles.
	Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much. My time is up, I yield
	back.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Perry is
	recognized.
	Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
	taking your time to be here today.
	Private-sector financing of infrastructure seems to be a--
	at least a discussion, if not a cornerstone of the new
	administration. And I, too, am interested in that, specifically
	for transportation and how the private-sector can be used to
	improve the transportation system. I was privileged to sit on
	the P3 panel in this very committee that--we discussed a lot of
	those things. It is for some things, maybe not for some other
	things.
	But I am just wondering, anybody on the panel there, if you
	believe the committee should encourage and leverage the
	ingenuity of the private sector, if there is anything
	specifically that you would recommend in that regard that we
	should consider, look at, encourage, et cetera?
	Yes, ma'am?
	Ms. Andringa. Well, I think already a lot of the public-
	private partnerships have been in certain areas. Like I think
	in rail, in energy, and in telecommunications. So with some of
	those, there are already probably some best practices there.
	And again, I think we have all said we are going to need more
	than that, though.
	But looking at what has worked well in maybe those three
	areas would be something that could be replicated in some other
	areas of infrastructure. Because we have lots of areas of
	infrastructure.
	Mr. Perry. Anything particular in highway and surface?
	Ms. Andringa. You know, it seems like highways are such a
	huge area. We flow people and products all the time on
	highways. So I think looking at the Highway Trust Fund and how
	we can make that solvent for the future is probably number one.
	Mr. Perry. I will give you an example. I am sorry, Mr.
	Trumka, go ahead.
	Mr. Trumka. Well, I would just make two points. One,
	permitting reform would be helpful to get projects up and going
	quickly. And the second thing is, when you look at public-
	private partnerships, you still should look for the lowest
	source of capital, so that they aren't used to siphon off
	capital at a higher rate, rather than going back into
	infrastructure.
	Mr. Perry. So there is--and I would agree with you. I think
	there is a situation I know in the district I am privileged to
	represent along the Federal highway where there is a fair
	amount of business, but there is not a, you know, off ramp,
	there is not an interchange there. And the people that own the
	surrounding businesses have said, ``We would be interested in
	building it and charging people to come off of it to recoup our
	investment or whatever at some point, and working some
	arrangement out with that,'' but there is no vehicle for them
	to do that. Pardon the pun.
	You see any problem or downside to something like that at
	the Federal level?
	Mr. Trumka. Well, again, you are looking at the revenue
	source. And we would--if you are going to do that, you still--
	in the building of that thing you would still want to have
	section 13(c) and Davis-Bacon, and all of those things apply,
	so that it isn't used to drive down the wages of people in that
	community.
	Mr. Perry. But aside from those things, you don't have any
	issue with it?
	Mr. Trumka. Oh, if it can work, then we would work to see
	that it worked.
	Mr. Perry. All right. And Mr. Trumka in particular, with
	your exchange with the gentlelady from Miami-Dade, you
	mentioned inequality. I have a question for you regarding
	Davis-Bacon.
	Now, according to some studies, increases transportation
	project cost by over 9 percent. And I know that there is going
	to be little agreement on what the percentage is. From my
	experience running my own business, it increased the cost. But
	that is my experience, and we can--let's just--that is just
	some conjecture out there.
	But I would just ask you. The average current
	transportation project cost, for an average cost, is $1.5
	million. And the existing threshold stands at 2,000 since it
	was moved down in 1935. That is a long time ago. I am just
	wondering if you would be amenable to having a discussion about
	raising that threshold concomitant with inflation since 1935.
	There are many people in the United States that see this as the
	last vestige of Jim Crow, as it literally keeps out some people
	that want to get into the trades, but they can't because the
	threshold is so high that small businesses can't compete,
	because they can't get in.
	Mr. Trumka. Well, I would say no. I think, if anything, the
	threshold ought to be eliminated, because the Government should
	never, never, never, never be in a position of doing work below
	the community standard. That is all it does.
	It says--Davis-Bacon says the community standard is X. And
	if that person is paying less than X, they are paying less than
	the normal people in that community are paying. Not the Federal
	Government, but the people in that community. If you come in
	and you start using tax dollars to go below the community
	standards, you drive down wages for everybody. That was thought
	a bad thing, because it spirals us downwards. I still think it
	is a bad thing.
	And so, I would say eliminate the threshold all together.
	Mr. Perry. But you would agree that was not the original
	genesis of Davis-Bacon. I mean that was not----
	Mr. Trumka. It was the original genesis of Davis-Bacon, was
	to make sure that the Federal Government didn't use tax dollars
	to drive down wages.
	Mr. Perry. No, it was to keep out certain classes of
	workers, namely blacks and immigrant workers, from Federal
	projects.
	Mr. Trumka. Well, I totally----
	Mr. Perry. I can cite that for you. But OK----
	Mr. Trumka. I would totally disagree with you about that.
	Mr. Perry. Thank you. Chairman, I yield back.
	Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Lawrence is
	recognized.
	Mrs. Lawrence. Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio,
	thank you for holding this hearing.
	I was a mayor for 14 years. And during that time I had
	people come to me directly when water pipes, potholes needed to
	be fixed. And I got it done. But mayors across this country are
	very concerned now, because they are making financial decisions
	about the taxpayers' dollars in their community, and they
	knowingly know that their disinvestment in the infrastructure
	is going to have an effect, sooner or later.
	Mayors across the country--and there was an article in
	Politico, ``Highways Aren't Enough.'' We are at a critical
	time. And I am comforted to hear our plan for investing in the
	infrastructure. I am also encouraged by--one of the few things
	I am encouraged by is that this administration has made a
	commitment to invest in our infrastructure.
	Today we have a panel--business, labor, CEOs--talking to
	us, and we are all on the same page, Democrats and Republican.
	Maybe this is our time to really put the--put our actions and
	money behind what we all know should be happening.
	Mr. Trumka, I was very intrigued by your job training and
	apprenticeship programs. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I started
	the skilled trade caucus here in Congress. The average age of a
	skilled trade worker is 53 years old, and we have pretty much
	decimated the training and investment in a trained, skilled
	workforce. We do not have the number of young people entering
	into the skilled trades. We know that if we do this investment
	in the roads, we will get jobs. But they will be skilled trade
	jobs.
	So, Mr. Trumka, you have a--really, a birds-eye view of the
	challenge of the skilled trading apprenticeships. Can you talk
	to us about how we can invest, when we are doing our plan, that
	we are also training the workforce that can get the jobs?
	Mr. Trumka. Well, I can try. We have started partnering
	with community colleges to do remedial courses, but to do one
	other thing. We have also looked at small manufacturers that
	need maybe 10, 20, 30 people, and we have said we will provide
	those skills for you, we will train them, but you have to
	guarantee a job at the end of the mill.
	Mrs. Lawrence. Exactly.
	Mr. Trumka. And we have been working with them. And
	anything you could do to encourage that kind of commitment
	together, us getting people together and helping our
	apprenticeship programs--obviously, the more work you have, the
	more people you put through it, the more people you could put
	through the apprenticeship program, the remedial program, and
	put them to work.
	And the beautiful thing about the apprenticeship program is
	you are getting an education. When they come out they are two-
	thirds of the way to a bachelor of science degree.
	Mrs. Lawrence. Exactly.
	Mr. Trumka. They have an associate degree and they are
	getting paid the entire time that they are in the
	apprenticeship program. And it is helping our employer, because
	you have a mix between journeymen and apprentices that actually
	help us develop the skills necessary to go forward.
	Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
	Ms. Andringa. Yes, I would just like to also emphasize how
	important it is, I think probably for this committee, as
	others, to also work with the Department of Labor to show that
	these things need to work together, and I think across the
	Nation.
	And I know manufacturers have been talking about that, as
	well as infrastructure, for many years. A skilled workforce is
	so important. Just one example in the State of Iowa now, our
	Governor has made it a goal that at least 70 percent of high
	school graduates go on to something, either a 2-year program,
	which we are highly recommending, 4-year, or a good certificate
	program.
	Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
	Ms. Andringa. And again, that includes the apprenticeships
	and the internships and the co-ops.
	And I know our community has a career academy for our high
	schools, our local high schools, so that the students get time
	to do what we call real-world work.
	Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
	Ms. Andringa. And I loved it when I had a senior in high
	school come and work with a computer programmer for a couple
	weeks. This was like a winter program. At the end he said, ``I
	now have found a real-world application for algebra.'' And he
	was going on to a 2-year institution.
	Mrs. Lawrence. I want to--because my time is running out--
	--
	Ms. Andringa. Yes.
	Mrs. Lawrence. Mr. Smith, you have the truck drivers, and
	you have a real need for a skilled workforce there. Is there
	any--as far as roads and getting our skilled truck drivers
	together, do you see a connection here?
	Mr. Smith. Well, I think that the most important thing to
	get people on the roads that are qualified is to invest in the
	technologies that make the vehicles more safe, which we are
	doing to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
	And it makes the job more pleasant. As I mentioned, we should
	have auto-pilots in the vehicles to make it less boring, and so
	forth.
	Let me give you a real-life example. We have thousands of
	aircraft mechanics. And the whole job has changed because of
	digital technology.
	Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
	Mr. Smith. So we partnered with a community college in West
	Memphis, Arkansas. We are training these folks. They come in as
	apprentices. And those with full benefits, and so forth, are a
	fantastic job. Much higher paying than many college graduates.
	So I think business and the States at the community college
	level, working with businesses, can produce a lot of high-
	income, blue-collar jobs in the United States. They are not
	even blue-collar jobs any more, they are----
	Mrs. Lawrence. They are skilled trade jobs.
	Mr. Smith [continuing]. Computer-oriented.
	Mr. Shuster. The gentlelady's time is expired.
	Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
	Mr. Shuster. And I just urge Members to stay on 5 minutes
	or less. They are going to call a vote in about 1:15. I don't
	want to shortchange anybody, don't want anybody to not get a
	chance to ask a question.
	With that, Mr. Graves is recognized.
	Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
	thank all of you for being here, I appreciate your endurance.
	This has been very helpful, though.
	Ms. Andringa, if I remember correctly, you were on the
	President's export council, is that correct? The President--
	excuse me, President Obama, years ago, during the State of the
	Union speech, indicated his intention of doubling exports. And
	I don't remember the year, I think it might have been 2015.
	And, as I recall, nothing close came about. Could you talk a
	little bit about, looking back, where you see some of the
	course corrections that you wanted done, had you started over
	again?
	Ms. Andringa. Yes. That definitely was a goal. And we were
	making progress for a few years. But, to be honest with you,
	for us as an exporter, when the dollar went so high, our high
	dollar made it much more difficult to export, because we were
	competing with less cost from a lot of our competitors
	overseas.
	Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Did you see a role in investment
	in infrastructure at all----
	Ms. Andringa. I was on the workforce group, and we talked a
	lot about the skilled workforce that we need. And we also
	talked a lot about how to make sure we include small and
	medium-sized enterprises.
	Infrastructure was definitely one of the topics, and
	usually the Secretary of Transportation was at those meetings.
	So it was definitely connected. We talked a lot about ports, we
	talked a lot about water, but probably not as much maybe as we
	could have.
	Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. Many of your companies,
	you deal with logistics. And obviously, a critical part. Part
	of your calculation, Mr. Smith and Mr. MacLennan, it
	specifically gets back to looking at efficiency. You have to
	get products to certain places in certain periods of time. You
	look at different routes, you look at different modes of
	transportation, and you have to determine the most efficient
	way of delivering something.
	Similarly, we have talked in this committee today about the
	need for additional investment to recapitalize our
	infrastructure. But there has not been a lot of conversation
	about whether we are using the right prioritization system. You
	have to prioritize how you are going to get a product from A to
	B. Do you have any comments about the current system that we
	use to prioritize the investment of infrastructure dollars in
	the United States?
	Here is where I am going. We all know four-lane roads that
	don't have a single car on them. We all know four-lane roads
	that are bumper-to-bumper traffic. Do you have any thoughts
	about lessons learned, perhaps from your business, from your
	perspective, about how we could do a better job investing our
	existing dollars?
	I ran an infrastructure program for a number of years, and
	everyone's first go-to is we need more money. And I don't
	believe that is always the case. And I am not saying--I think
	we need additional capitalization here, but I also think that
	we probably can squeeze additional efficiencies out by doing a
	better job using the right metrics to prioritize investment.
	Mr. Smith. Well, I think that is true, and I think that is
	going to be a big source of focus of Secretary Chao. She is
	very good at this area, and she will prioritize the things that
	have the greatest national impact on the national productivity
	and efficiency. And I read off a litany----
	Mr. Graves of Louisiana. You did.
	Mr. Smith [continuing]. Of projects that would----
	Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Including my home State of
	Louisiana, which I appreciate.
	Mr. Smith. Well, one of them is right in Louisiana, that is
	right. So that is what we ought to prioritize, right there, and
	adding to and improving and updating our Interstate Highway
	System in the main.
	Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Mr. MacLennan, you would like to
	add----
	Mr. MacLennan. I would just add to that, that I think--you
	know, in a traditional capital allocation model you are looking
	at returns on capital. And, Rich, you mentioned lowest cost of
	capital. But I think, relative to infrastructure, I think
	sometimes you can put quantitatives aside and go to
	qualitatives. Get some quick wins. Get some very visible
	projects.
	And the congressman previously had asked about how can we
	educate the public. But, you know, I think it is not just
	necessarily about return on capital, but I think it is about
	speed, getting money into the system. Things that can get these
	bottlenecks done and get money into the system fast and
	visibly, I think is a good model to apply, a qualitative model.
	Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. Last question, and I
	want to ask you to be very brief so I can return some time
	back, but just very quickly, do you believe that there is an
	opportunity to increase utilization of waterways in an effort
	to help reduce congestion on highways?
	Mr. MacLennan. Absolutely. I have mentioned before about
	the efficiency of the waterways. And you can get more bulk, you
	know, from the agricultural economy onto our waterways. Your
	home State, I mean, we mine salt in Louisiana and ship it up
	the river and bring up fertilizer up the river, and it takes
	pressure off the highway system.
	So part of being the interconnected system, the opportunity
	here is invest across the board, rails, roads, ports, and
	rivers, and that frees up congestion on the highway system.
	Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
	Mr. MacLennan. Thank you.
	Mr. Shuster. Great question from the new chairman from the
	Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. Mr. Payne is
	recognized.
	Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
	ranking member for holding this hearing. Such a great cross-
	section of industry in this country, and issues around
	transportation.
	Mr. Trumka, you know, I come from--I am a lifelong resident
	of Newark, New Jersey. And the city's unemployment rate is
	currently around 9 or 10 percent. You know, yet, you know, my
	district sits at the doorstep of what could potentially be the
	Nation's largest infrastructure project in the coming decade,
	the gateway project.
	You know, billions of dollars of public investment are
	needed to make the gateway a reality. Can you speak a bit more
	about how large-scale infrastructure investments and training
	people--you know, just as the--training you were talking
	about--can help put our Nation back to work?
	Mr. Trumka. Yes, I--we are talking trillions. I think the
	deficit for old infrastructure is approaching $4 trillion right
	now. And the Society of Civil Engineers say it will take
	another couple of trillion dollars to get us into the 21st
	century. If you want to ease congestion on highways, maybe we
	ought to look at high-speed rail and train systems, like Europe
	does. They get people around a lot. All of those things can
	help with us and create jobs in the process.
	Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. And Mr. Smith, let me also say
	that my home town is a big hub for you, and we--you know, if
	you want to continue to expand there, we welcome that. But you
	know, there are quite a few people in my district that benefit
	from your company and being able to work for FedEx. And just
	wanted to say thank you. I was able to tour the facility when I
	first got to Congress, and found a very impressive operation.
	You and Mr. Willisch both spoke on the need to modernize
	our ports, our airports and our seaports. You know, we have
	seen Federal investment in the Port of Newark and Elizabeth,
	but much, much more is needed to stay competitive. Newark
	Airport is aging, as well. I know both of your companies rely
	on these critical ports to ship goods. Can you speak more
	specifically to investing the investments that our aging
	airports and seaports need to keep you competitive?
	Mr. Willisch. Well, we obviously--as we expand, just from
	2007 to today, we have roughly almost doubled our volume that
	we sell in the United States, which also means, for example,
	our facilities in Port Jersey need to expand. We are really
	trapped there, as far as the size of our facilities is
	concerned. We have no way to grow. So it really is one thing
	that we can get the right size of ships into the ports. And the
	other thing is, of course, the size of the port. Both
	absolutely crucial to us, and we have a lot of issues,
	especially in Port Jersey.
	Mr. Payne. Right. Yes, they--the dredging has been finished
	there, and they are working on raising the Bayonne Bridge--will
	help facilitate, you know, the type of commerce that you are
	talking about increasing.
	Sir, would you like to----
	Mr. Smith. Well, when I mentioned airports, Newark is a
	huge hub for FedEx. In most cases you have to separate airport
	infrastructure from passenger terminals and additional runways.
	In the case of the airport infrastructure, we pay landing fees.
	So we are a huge contributor to the maintenance and operation
	of Newark Airport. We pay 80 percent in Memphis, a huge
	percentage at our big hub in Indianapolis.
	On the passenger side of the house, just as Mr. DeFazio
	said, that has to be done through some sort of user fee like
	PFCs or what have you. And the main thing is more runways and a
	modernized ATC system to make the air transport network more
	efficient and have more capacity.
	Mr. Payne. OK.
	Mr. Smith. The latter are Federal responsibilities.
	Mr. Shuster. The gentleman's time has expired.
	Mr. Payne. Thank you. Thank you.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
	Mr. Babin?
	Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
	thank each and every one of you for being here, giving us this
	great information that we need.
	I am from Texas, and represent the 36th District. I have
	four ports, including the Port of Houston. And more
	petrochemical facilities than any other district in the
	country. And so, infrastructure and transportation is a huge
	thing for us.
	But, with--we are talking about user fees versus normal
	taxation. With a $20 trillion national debt and a $600 billion
	deficit coming up, looks like, funding is the 900-pound gorilla
	in the room. So I would like to start with Mr. Trumka, if you
	don't mind.
	One idea that is frequently coming up is to dedicate the
	revenues and royalties from resources that development--
	resource development which lie under our public lands. And--
	which is estimated in some cases to be several trillions and
	trillions of dollars, which would go towards construction of
	public works projects, which would include roads and bridges,
	and all the things that we have been talking about today.
	This would be American energy produced by American workers
	to finance and build projects with American labor that benefit
	American families. Is there any reason that you can give why
	such a concept might not be a top priority for an organization
	like the AFL-CIO, Mr. Trumka?
	Mr. Trumka. We would be willing to look at it. Of course,
	the devil is always in the detail. If it were a giveaway to
	anybody, rather than real projects like you just described, we
	would probably blow the whistle on it. But I think we would be
	supportive of putting Americans to work, having energy
	independence, and being able to create and repair our
	infrastructure in the process.
	Dr. Babin. Right, OK. And anybody else who would like to
	comment on that, as well?
	Mr. Smith. We would be fully supportive of it, obviously.
	As Mr. Trumka said, the details are important. But we are
	blessed with these energy resources here in the United States.
	We ought to produce them and use some of the revenues to
	develop new alternatives and fund infrastructure. It would be a
	great idea.
	Dr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Andringa?
	Ms. Andringa. Yes, I mentioned earlier--manufacturers are
	very dependent on energy and are always looking at all of the
	above, including wind and solar, but definitely traditional as
	well. And natural gas has been a very important thing for
	manufacturers.
	So I think it really could do two things: help
	manufacturers with the most effective cost for energy that we
	need to run our plants, but also from a source that could be
	used to help with some of the other issues in this country, and
	certainly provide jobs.
	Dr. Babin. Thank you. Anyone else want to add to that?
	OK, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and
	thank you very much.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Dr. Babin, thank you.
	Mr. Davis, final question.
	Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Babin, for yielding back the
	balance of your time.
	Dr. Babin. You bet.
	Mr. Davis. We appreciate it.
	Dr. Babin. You bet.
	Mr. Davis. Hey, thank you to the entire panel. Let me get
	quickly to my question. Coming from Illinois, I represent a lot
	of areas along the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, very
	concerned about water infrastructure. I am glad that that was
	addressed by many of my colleagues before me.
	But let me start with Mr. MacLennan. We have had Cargill
	testify before my other committee, the House Ag Committee, so
	it is great to have you here on the T&I Committee to talk about
	that nexus of infrastructure that really helps the
	manufacturing sector in States like Iowa, also helps the
	agriculture sector in States like Illinois that are, you know,
	slightly better agriculturally than States like Iowa, of
	course.
	Mr. MacLennan, can you articulate for the committee the
	importance of our Nation's inland waterway system, more so than
	what you did with some other questions? Specifically along the
	Illinois and Mississippi Rivers, where you have many of your
	facilities.
	Mr. MacLennan. So, as you know, Congressman, in your
	district you have locks 20 through 15 along the--the Illinois
	and the Upper Mississippi, riverways, transit, port are crucial
	for the rural economy, for the ag economy, for farmers to be
	able to get their crops to where they need to be.
	And we talked early on in the testimony about the world--
	the country going to 400 million people, the world going to 900
	million people--9 billion people, rather. And our States, the
	Midwestern States, are feeding the world. And if we can't get
	the grain--and we saw it when you had the polar vortex, and
	things freeze up, and you don't have appropriate
	infrastructure. It is--all creates a backlog. And so it is--the
	ports are the key--one of the key choke points for the ag and
	rural economy, to be able to get our exports to the rest of the
	world, to get the food where it is needed.
	Mr. Davis. Well, I completely agree. And I think we also
	agree for about 80 years we are--we have heard somewhat for
	about 80 years, but we have heard about long delays in our 80-
	year-old locks.
	Mr. MacLennan. Yes.
	Mr. Davis. And sometimes lasting hours at a time, because
	the infrastructure is falling apart.
	Mr. MacLennan. Yes.
	Mr. Davis. Those have a tremendously negative impact on
	your business, correct?
	Mr. MacLennan. Significantly negative impact on our
	business, and that of our farmer customers, as well.
	Mr. Davis. Absolutely. In 2007, do you know Congress
	authorized NESP, the--planning to rebuild our crumbling
	infrastructure along the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers?
	Mr. MacLennan. Yes.
	Mr. Davis. But in 2010 the Obama administration ended the
	preconstruction engineering and design work for NESP, and
	actually requested zero dollars in the last Presidential budget
	for this project. I think you and I agree that this is
	something that is very crucial, and we hope the next
	administration will look at this and also look at some of the
	most necessary improvements.
	Can you, though, explain to the committee and explain to
	the administration through this committee your--from your
	position, why do we need to expand the locks from 600 to 1,200
	feet?
	Mr. MacLennan. Because when you have chambers that are, you
	know, that small, you can't get the tow boats through as a
	unit. You got to break up the barges, you got to break up the
	bulk. It is time-consuming, it is expensive. And that means,
	when you have a higher cost and a slow--a less-efficient
	transportation system at the locks, which--as you know, it is
	not a sexy topic.
	I mean people think about highways and airports. But in our
	districts and our business, things like locks, ports, riverways
	are vital to the ag and rural economy. But when you add that
	cost and time, it flows back to the price that ultimately gets
	to the farmers. And so they are realizing that that economy is
	then impacted because they can't get their products through in
	an efficient way.
	Mr. Davis. Well, and last question. On a scale of 1 to 10,
	how do you rank the improvements on the Mississippi and
	Illinois and our waterway systems, and the need to do that for
	your customers?
	Mr. MacLennan. Ten.
	Mr. Davis. I was hoping you would say, like, 11 or 12, but
	10 will do. That is OK.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. MacLennan. So I will ``spinal tap.''
	Mr. Davis. OK.
	Mr. MacLennan. I will go to 11.
	Mr. Davis. Thank you, thank you. I really appreciate you
	being here, and thank you for your questions.
	And, you know, while I have got about 40 seconds left, I
	just want to say, you know, sometimes there are folks in my own
	party who don't believe we should invest in infrastructure. And
	we need to hear from you--and we did today--about how any
	investment in infrastructure helps to actually grow our
	economy, grow jobs, grow opportunity, and be a net benefit in a
	cost benefit analysis.
	And, Mr. Smith, quick question. Do you agree that we--when
	America invests in infrastructure, it is companies like yours
	that can continue to grow some of the best-paying jobs?
	Mr. Smith. No question about it.
	Mr. Davis. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you. And, with that, Mr. DeFazio for a
	closing statement?
	Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
	everybody. I think this was an excellent hearing. We kept you
	here a very long time. I think we found an incredible amount of
	common ground, and I intend to continue to push for us to
	actually finally put our money where our agreement has been,
	and get some of these things done.
	I just do want to note that the cost of congestion since we
	began the hearing for American individuals and business was
	$54,750,000. So it is time to stop that clock and get America
	moving again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. And I saw a sigh of
	relief on the witnesses when I said Mr. DeFazio for a closing
	statement, so I will be brief, also.
	First, let me say thank you very much for being here. I
	know each and every one of you has a tremendous demand on your
	time. So we can't thank you enough for being here. I got to say
	this is one of the best panels that I have ever been involved
	with getting testimony from. Again, you are coming from
	different places, you got different products, you do different
	things, but there is common ground, as Mr. DeFazio--and that
	point being there is common ground.
	Somebody asked the question about informing the public.
	That was Pennsylvania, it was Mr. Smucker. And Pennsylvania
	model was that they did inform the Pennsylvania citizens. It
	was really the private sector that went out and really made the
	pitch to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania to get them on board to
	do this.
	So again, as we move forward, we are going to do our part,
	but we hope you folks will be out there banding together in
	your associations to educate the American people to the very
	basic--we talk about--you know, Mr. DeFazio just pointed out
	$54 million. That is a lot of money. One hundred and twenty
	billion dollars or so is what we--every year in congestion.
	The average American has no--it is a lot of money, but they
	have no idea what that means to them. So talking to them about
	what it does to the cost of a package or foodstuffs or an
	automobile or your equipment, what that costs them in real
	dollars, you know, basically down to a cup of coffee--is it a
	nickel more or a dime more because of the congestion you face?
	I think that is really an important message that we all have to
	get out there to the public.
	But again, this was--can't thank you enough--very
	informative. But it is all about building that 21st-century
	infrastructure for America. And I know you are all committed to
	it. This committee is committed to it, and we are going to work
	hard to see that we get this done.
	So thank you very much for being here. And I would ask
	unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain
	open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to
	any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and
	unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for
	additional comments, information submitted by Members or
	witnesses to include in the record of today's hearing.
	Without objection, so ordered.
	I would like to again thank you very much for being here.
	And the committee is adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







	[all]


	</pre></body></html>