[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]