[Senate Hearing 112-817]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-817
TRANSPORTATION'S ROLE IN SUPPORTING OUR ECONOMY AND JOB CREATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 26, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-222 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arizona
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 26, 2011
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 3
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey 6
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 60
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 61
WITNESSES
Martinovich, Hon. Susan, president, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, director, Nevada
Department of Transportation................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Dorey, William, director and past president/CEO, Granite
Construction Company........................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 32
Poupore, Raymond J., executive vice president, National
Construction Alliance II....................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 39
Johnson, Wayne, manager, Carrier Relations, Owens Corning........ 39
Prepared statement........................................... 42
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Participants in a Briefing on March 29, 2010:
Lewis, Michael P., director, Rhode Island Department of
Transportation............................................. 67
Saletin, Jeffrey, real estate developer...................... 70
Cardi, Stephen, president, Construction Industries of Rhode
Island..................................................... 73
Statements:
The American Society of Civil Engineers...................... 83
Voigt, Gerald F., P.E., president and CEO, American Concrete
Pavement Association; Acott, Mike, president, National
Asphalt Pavement Association; Garbini, Robert A., P.E.,
president, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association;
Wilson, Jennifer Joy, president and CEO, National Stone,
Sand and Gravel Association; McCarthy, Brian, president and
CEO, Portland Cement Association........................... 88
Nagle, Kurt J., president and CEO, American Association of
Port Authorities........................................... 91
TRANSPORTATION'S ROLE IN SUPPORTING OUR ECONOMY AND JOB CREATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Baucus, Cardin
and Whitehouse.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. The hearing will come to order.
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to the first
hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee for the
112th Congress. I am very happy to be here with my Ranking
Member, Senator Inhofe.
Before I begin to make my remarks about today's hearing, so
before we start the clock, I want to take a personal privilege
to just thank the committee for all of our work last year. I
thought it would be worthwhile, and I will put this in the
record, to quickly go through, just reflect on our significant
accomplishments.
The committee approved 69 pieces of legislation in the last
Congress. We worked to enact 30 bills, including both measures
that EPW reported and bills in EPW's jurisdiction for which the
committee contributed directly to the Senate passage and
enactment.
I would like to again thank the Members of the committee
across the aisle. Their cooperation and bipartisan efforts were
critical to our success.
I am going to just mention a couple of measures that we
passed, and recognize the Members whose hard work contributed
to the passage of the bills. Multiple Members worked on the
HIRE Act, which took important steps to create jobs for
American workers, including of course, what we did in that
bill, was the extension of highway transit programs. I would
like to say that Senator Inhofe was extremely important in
making sure that we extended the highway programs. Because it
would have been a disaster for our States.
Senators Carper and Voinovich worked to pass the Diesel
Emission Reductions Act. Senators Klobuchar and Crapo worked
together to pass the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood
Products Act. Senators Cardin and Voinovich and numerous others
worked to pass the bill that ensures the Federal Government
pays its fair share of storm water pollution fees for Federal
buildings around the Country.
I was so proud that Senator Inhofe and I worked together to
introduce and pass the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act,
which strengthened and clarified standards to protect people
from toxic lead in drinking water by reducing the allowable
lead content in drinking water pipes, pipe fittings and
plumbing fixtures. When we did this, we worked with all the
parties concerned. It was a proud moment. It was hard to get
something done, because just one colleague, as you know,
Senator, could have stopped that bill. But due to your efforts
on your side of the aisle, and I worked on mine, we were able
to clear the decks and do this.
So I just want to say, there has been a lot of talk about
bipartisanship after the tragedy affecting our colleague and
friend, Gabby Giffords. We wish her all of our strength to get
well.
But I want to say that we work together. When we don't
agree, we don't agree, and that's fine. We understand. But we
do in this committee work together and get some very important
work done. I will put the whole statement of mine into the
record and again thank everybody.
So I will make my comments on today's hearing in 4 minutes.
I would like to reiterate that economic recovery and job
creation are top priorities for this committee. That is why we
are having our first hearing on transportation. Transportation
is so key, and it has a lot of bipartisan support. I am working
closely with Senator Inhofe on the next Surface Transportation
authorization.
Last night, I saw with the Chairman of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, John Mica, at the
State of the Union. He agrees with me, that enacting a
transportation bill should be a priority. It was really great
to sit with Congressman Mica yesterday. I think it was a symbol
of the fact that we are going to work together.
I was pleased to hear President Obama highlighting
investments in transportation as part of the State of the Union
address. I welcome his commitment. I am already starting to
work, again, with Senator Inhofe's staff, other colleagues and
across the aisle and across the Congress divide, the House and
the Senate, together to get a hearing.
Today's hearing, which is focused on transportation's role
in supporting our economy and job creation, is part of our
early effort to get a bill going in 2011. I don't think it is
good to keep extending the old bill, extending and extending
it. We have new challenges, new priorities, and we have new
demands. We need to update those.
I want to say again something I say often. According to the
Department of Transportation, every $1 billion in Federal money
for transportation that is matched by State and local funds
creates approximately 35,000 jobs. These jobs are needed today.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2010, the
unemployment rate in the construction industry was 20.7
percent, 20.7 percent, more than twice the Nation's
unemployment rate of 9.4 percent.
High unemployment in construction has a big impact on our
overall economy. According to the American Road and
transportation Builders Association, the transportation
construction industry in the United States supports the
equivalent of more than 3 million full-time jobs, generates
over $80 billion, and it is nearly 3 percent of the U.S. gross
domestic product.
So we are talking about jobs, we are talking about benefits
to the traveling public and shortened travel time, increased
productivity, improving travel time reliability, improving
safety, reducing congestion. We know that a good transportation
system will enhance the productivity of businesses and
individuals. I could tell you from my State, when I talk to my
people, regardless of their party, regardless of what they do,
regardless of whether they are middle class or they have
someone driving them in a car, they are spending too much time
in a car. They like their car, but not that much. They would
like to have it be a much more efficient system. I don't think
there is disagreement anywhere on that.
So in closing, I will cite the Texas Transportation
Institute's 2010 Urban Mobility Report: American's waste 4.8
billion hours a year sitting in traffic due to congestion. This
translates to almost $4 billion in extra fuel consumed, $115
cost to the Nation when you factor in the cost of fuel and the
lost productivity.
Our witnesses today are testifying on behalf of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Associated General Contractors of America, American
Road and Transportation Builders, National Asphalt Pavement
Association, National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association,
International Union of Operating Engineers, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners, National Industrial Transportation
League. So we have everybody here today, from labor, from
business, from government.
I said that was my last point, but in my 10 seconds, well,
I actually went over, let me say this. I am a little disturbed
at what the House did when they said they had torn down that
wall that separates the Highway Trust Fund from everything
else. We need those funds for transportation. They shouldn't be
raided for anything else. They shouldn't be used to mask the
deficit.
I don't know how everyone on the committee feels about it.
But I just want to say, as Chairman of this committee, I am
going to do everything I can to make sure that that wall is not
torn down. Because this is a priority for our Nation.
Thank you very much, and I am very happy to yield to
Senator Inhofe and give him a couple extra minutes if he has
some interesting things to say, in addition to his normally
interesting things.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Madam Chairman, I have a brief opening
statement that I will submit for the record. Let me just
comment on a couple of things, responding to your comments.
It disturbs a lot of people that Barbara Boxer and Jim
Inhofe are good friends. We really are. People don't understand
it. We don't have a lot in common. When she talks about things,
needs in California, they are not always the same that we have.
In this committee, this is a huge, some of my House colleagues
don't understand that this committee, Environment and Public
Works, is the same as two committees in the House. They have
the T&I, I used to be in that many years ago, Transportation
and Infrastructure, then of course the other stuff is in their
environmental and other committees.
But we have it all. In ours, we disagree. Right now, one of
my major efforts is to try to explain to people how this over-
regulation stuff is costing, there is a price tag to it. I am
talking about endangerment findings, the things we are going to
be doing, the boiler MACT, the utility MACT, the ozone, the
hydraulic fracturing, all these things that they are trying to
do through the EPA that I think are costing.
It is an interesting thing, I commented when I was
introducing myself to our panel, I have a lot in common with
them, because I used to do that for a living. I was a builder
and a contractor, not in roads, but in other things. So I
understand from a different perspective how this goes. But
Barbara and I agree wholeheartedly, well, let me put it this
way, she is a proud liberal, I am a proud conservative. I was
ranked, currently ranked No. 1 by the National Journal as the
most conservative member of the U.S. Senate.
Yet, I am a big spender in some areas, three areas. For
example, it would be national defense, infrastructure, what we
are talking about today and then others, unfunded mandates,
which I think some of the people in this room know what that
is.
So I really do want to have a robust bill. When we did our
bill in 2008, it was Barbara and me, hand in hand, going in
there, taking on a lot of the people who didn't want to do
this. It was difficult. But it was a very robust bill.
Secretary LaHood was in my office this morning. We were
talking about, what can we do with just the trust funds that
are out there, if you take the transit part out, you would be
talking about around $230 billion in a 6-year bill. It is not
adequate. I think we would probably say, or you would probably
agree that it really just doesn't even maintain what we have
today. This is something that we really need to do.
I am going to throw out one thing that is not popular with
a lot of the liberal thinkers. Back in the old days, when I was
in the House, before I came to the Senate in 1994, we always
had surpluses in the Highway Trust Fund. What that did was
attract other people, hitchhikers to come in and get in on that
deal, because there was a surplus there. As a result of that,
there are a lot of things that are in the Highway Trust Fund,
that come out of the Highway Trust Fund, that I don't believe
should.
Now, here's the dilemma I have, and I am just going to drop
it on the whole committee and the witnesses, that our problem
in getting the bill that we need to get is really not as much
the Democrats as it is the Republicans. Because I can hear it
right now, we will get them to the floor and say, wait a
minute, we have museums in here and we have these other things.
My thinking is, the best way I could get the full cooperation
of the Republicans, if we took this back the way it was
originally. We had the Highway Trust Fund, and people who paid
to use our highways were, confined it to maintenance, new
construction, bridges, highways. That would be sellable to the
conservative community.
It is a hard thing to do, because I know there are a lot of
people who disagree with me on this. But it is just something
that you and I talked about before that we may have to kind of
get a little--I have to take away that argument. I guess that
is the best way of saying it.
So anyway, I am just as enthusiastic about trying to get a
robust bill as my Chairman is. We are going to do everything we
can. I appreciate you folks coming from the unique positions
you are coming from, because you can ask questions a lot of
bureaucrats can't. So I appreciate it and this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
As we begin the 112th Congress, I think it very appropriate that
the committee starts with a hearing on the importance of infrastructure
spending on jobs and the economy. The Chairman and I share a very
strong belief in Federal infrastructure spending and the need for a
robust multi-year highway bill. I am frequently ranked the most
conservative Senator, most recently by the National Journal. The
Chairman is a proud liberal. Yet, we are a great team on infrastructure
issues.
I'd like to take a moment to comment on last night's State of the
Union. I have always said that government has three spending
responsibilities: defense, infrastructure, and unfunded mandates. We've
heard President Obama talk about infrastructure before, but there has
been little follow through. For example, the President's so-called
Stimulus bill, which was largely sold to the American people as a way
to improve our infrastructure, actually spent less than 3 percent on
repairing the nation's crumbling roads and bridges. Another example was
this past Labor Day's announcement where he promised a $50 billion plan
for infrastructure, but no action ever followed and he never spoke of
it again. In light of this, I was interested to hear him highlight our
infrastructure needs again last night. I hope he actually follows
through. If he is serious this time, I am committed to working with him
and Senator Boxer, as I have always done, to address our nation's
infrastructure needs.
The challenges of getting a highway bill completed this Congress
are significant, but I hope we are going to overcome these challenges.
For years, I have been leading the fight in Washington for increased
spending on transportation and infrastructure, because I believe
strongly that there are very few forms of government spending that are
beneficial to our citizens and the economy. Infrastructure spending is
one of them.
Many of my colleagues do not view infrastructure funding as one of
our primary Federal responsibilities. Yet there is an undeniable link
between a robust economy and a strong transportation network. As we
move to address our debt crisis, I will ensure the need for public
infrastructure funding is part of the deliberations. That said, it
can't be business as usual.
The trust fund has always enjoyed large surpluses, and over time,
policies have been added that were not the original intent and are not
consistent with the compact we have with those that pay the gas tax.
I'm always surprised by some of the things that are funded, like State
capitol domes, ferry boats for tourists, and recreational bike trails.
I know these types of things only make up 3 or 4 percent of the bill,
but they give people an opportunity to demagogue the entire program as
wasteful and misguided. It is the same as earmarks, which make up less
than 1 percent of discretionary spending. I won't be able to get my GOP
colleagues to support a bill that does not refocus trust fund dollars
on our crumbling infrastructure.
There are tremendous challenges involved in passing a multi-year
highway bill, but the most immediate is that the Highway Trust Fund can
no longer support spending significantly more funds than we collect in
gas taxes. Congress must be very bold in crafting a highway bill that
balances the funding realities with the tremendous needs of our
infrastructure, which is the backbone of our economy. We have avoided
this conversation for several years now, but if we fail to act, the
consequences will be severe. They can no longer be ignored. I look
forward to working with Senator Boxer and the rest of my colleagues on
striking a balance that is both responsible and passable in the Senate.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you. I think everything has
to be on the table, and we have to look at every single thing,
from both sides' perspective and try to hammer something out. I
look forward to it. A real leader in transportation has
arrived, Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
With the President's message last night and our necessary
focus here on infrastructure, I think that we are maybe
arriving at a point in time when we are going to get serious
about this and get things done. The Country has arrived at a
crossroads; we can move our economy forward and create jobs by
strengthening investments in our roads, bridges and mass
transit systems. Or cut these investments and see our
infrastructure crumble in front of us.
As President Obama noted in last night's State of the Union
address, the United States will lose its competitive edge if we
don't invest in our future. The Country is on the edge of some
significant disintegration with our infrastructure. It is a
subject that I have worked on since I have been here. The fact
that we haven't made much progress doesn't speak well for me.
But the fact is that we haven't had the appetite or the
willingness to put money into something that has a long-term
payoff and look forward to the shorter-term things that satisfy
current interests.
Incredibly, some want to solve our economic problems by
cutting investments in our infrastructure. It doesn't make
sense. In my State, the largest public works project in our
Country, a much-needed a long-planned a second rail tunnel
under the Hudson River, was just canceled. A lot of work had
gone into it. We had commitments on the funding. But we had
disagreements within the administration of our State.
This project would have created 6,000 construction jobs
annually, and added another 44,000 permanent jobs when
construction was completed. As we have seen, two other States,
Ohio and Wisconsin, just dropped plans for major high speed
rail projects. Now, if our Country continues on this path, we
are going to fall behind countries like China, surging ahead in
the global race for high speed rail, freight rail and
transportation infrastructure. China's investments will
dramatically boost its trade capabilities and strengthen its
standing as an economic powerhouse. Investing in transportation
infrastructure is a jobs program that would help put our
Country back to work.
For every dollar invested in infrastructure, the economy
reaps $1.59 in return. That is a pretty good yield. Across
America, hundreds of thousands of construction workers are
ready to get to work and build the infrastructure we
desperately need to carry us into the future. Those who say we
can't afford these investments are ignoring some of the
greatest public works achievements in our Country's history.
Construction began on the George Washington Bridge in 1927, not
a particularly good year to be engaged in major projects. It
continued through the Great Depression, opening for traffic in
1931. Today, that bridge, right in my neighborhood, I live a
few blocks from it, carries more than 50 million vehicles
annually. I am not depending on my count, that is what the Port
Authority is publishing, 50 million cars. Can you imagine what
our Country, let alone my State of New Jersey would look like
now if we had thrown up our hands during the Depression, said,
sorry, we can't afford a new bridge right now? New Jersey would
not be the vibrant State it is today if we failed to make those
investments during the last century.
We have a proud history of making transportation a
priority, as demonstrated by great public works projects like
the Interstate Highway System. It remains the envy of the
world. We would be making a huge mistake if we put progress on
pause. We have to arise to the occasion again, because these
aren't just investments in transportation. They are investments
in our people and our future prosperity.
Just for a moment, look at what is happening in China,
building railroads that will be going in the hundreds of miles
an hour. While America, I think, retreats more toward the
rickshaw. It is quite a reverse of conditions. We can't let
that happen.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Well, we will have to take the rickshaw
section of our bill and change it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Madam Chairman, you might tell our people
who are here, our witnesses and others who are here present,
the reason we don't have more Members here, the Chairman and I
don't know who our Members are. We are to find out today. This
is not the President's fault, it is not the Democrats' fault or
the Republicans, but a little bit of everybody's.
Senator Boxer. Right.
Senator Inhofe. This should have been done a month ago.
Senator Boxer. Right. I think right now, as we speak,
Senator Reid has called a meeting to decide who is on the
committee. I think Senator McConnell has done the same for this
morning.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Senator Boxer. But just from what I know, we'll look pretty
much the same. A couple less people, but we'll look pretty much
the same on our side. I don't know about, and even Senator
Inhofe doesn't know exactly.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chair?
Senator Boxer. Yes?
Senator Lautenberg. Is it fair to say the verve will
continue?
Senator Boxer. The verve will continue, yes, the bipartisan
verve.
All right. We are going to get to our wonderful witnesses,
who are so important today. I am really looking forward to your
testimony.
So we will start with Ms. Susan Martinovich, director,
Nevada Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN MARTINOVICH, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS;
DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Martinovich. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman
Boxer, and other distinguished Senators.
I am Susan Martinovich. I am the president of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and
director of the Nevada Department of Transportation. I thank
you for the opportunity to provide you with information on the
importance of transportation to the economy and to creating
jobs.
On behalf of the State DOTs that I represent, I need to
make this first point as clear as I can. Federal Transportation
funding is crucial to State, the economy and job creation. We
need to continue the Federal aid program and sustain nothing
less than current levels of funding.
A year ago, in a report titled Projects and Paychecks,
which documented the thousands of construction jobs Congress
funded in 2010, I said the following: ``When you put money into
transportation, you are putting engineers and contractors to
work, and putting to work the people who provide the materials,
the gravel, the asphalt and the concrete.'' So what I can tell
you from personal experience in Nevada is that transportation
investment creates jobs.
It also comes with a return. It is a return that can be
seen, touched and used. It is used by billions of users every
day and for decades to come. That truly is sustainability.
Last year, States delivered $24 billion in stimulus funding
which is repaving 35,000 miles of highways, repairing 1,300
bridges and reducing congestion and improving safety. The
overall investment being made by Federal, State and local
governments in highways, transit, rail, ports and airports each
year comes to approximately $240 billion. You both mentioned
the jobs that are created with that investment.
My written testimony details what this investment to
infrastructure means. You can see the numbers, and you know the
large magnitudes of numbers, including access for billions for
travel and the tourist industry, that is one of Nevada's and
many States' major economies.
But I don't want to go into specifics. I want to talk about
the importance of highway dollars to the people that I work for
in Nevada. We recently had an overlay maintenance project on
Interstate 80 through Lovelock, Nevada. Lovelock is 90 miles
from Reno, and like many rural parts of this Country, that is a
very, very, long, desolate 90 miles. An owner of one of the
motels in town told me, during construction, that the hotels in
town were busy, the restaurants were busy, the stores were
busy, and it really kept people from being laid off from their
businesses. He asked me then, when would we start on another
project.
Contractors in our State tell me that they need a backlog
of 3 years of work to keep their crews together. Currently,
many see only 6 months on the horizon. With that uncertainty,
they can't plan or buy equipment or supplies, and they can't
assure jobs for existing staff, let alone include training or
internships for apprentice or minority worker programs. That
really hits home to me on a personal level, as my son is a
sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps, recovering from serious
wounds. He and many of his fellow Marines spent time in
Afghanistan building infrastructure. Transportation is an
industry that can provide jobs for these warriors. They are
jobs that they are skilled to undertake, but they are not
assured to be there.
The answer I gave that hotel owner in Lovelock, and the
design professionals who work for us, and the contractors and
the suppliers that we depend was, I didn't know. I don't know.
Investment in transportation should be easy. It has been said
that there are no Republican or Democrat roads, highways, buses
or bridges. We all know that investing in Transportation puts
people to work immediately. Most importantly, the American
public can really see what the money that they are investing
goes toward. They can see long-term results.
I am going to end my testimony with a quote from General
Roy Stone, who was the Federal official in charge of highway
improvement in 1892. He said the following, and I believe it
still holds true today: ``The tax of bad roads is more evenly
distributed than any other. It falls alike on producer and
consumer, but with a special weight on the poor in towns and
cities who depend on good roads to make a living. Road
improvement would bring relief to every class, and give years
of prosperity to the whole Country.''
Senators, States believe that jobs are at stake and that
our future is at stake. We talked about the economy and
competition worldwide. We need Congress to pass a well-funded
highway and transit program this year that is also multi-year.
If you can help, we will do everything we can to help you, and
we will deliver.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Martinovich follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Director Martinovich. I
thought you were very eloquent, and we thank your family's
contribution to this Country. We really do. How is he doing?
Ms. Martinovich. He is doing wonderful. The medical
research that occurs and the care that our soldiers get is just
phenomenal, and the support they have for the families is
wonderful. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
You have also given me an idea, one I will talk to my
friend about, who is such a leader at protecting our men and
women in uniform. Maybe there is a way that we could talk about
jobs for our wounded warriors. I think that is related to this
bill. Thank you.
Mr. William Dorey, director and former president and CEO of
Granite Construction, Inc., on behalf of the Associated General
Contractors of America and the American Road and Transportation
Builders Association, welcome back.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM DOREY, DIRECTOR AND PAST PRESIDENT/CEO,
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Mr. Dorey. Thank you. My clock is broken, so you may have
to give me a high sign if I start to run a little long.
I am Bill Dorey, recently retired from Granite Construction
Company. I spent 42 years there in the transportation
construction business. I started in 1968, very small central
California paving company. Over the course of the last 42
years, a very dedicated group of people managed to grow that
company from a private central California business to a
national business with revenues approaching $3 billion and a
company that is now traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
So it has been a lot of fun. I learned a lot along the way.
Certainly gained, I think, a perspective with regard to
transportation in this Country. Our business today builds work
from Alaska to New York City. Probably the most notable project
we are involved in today is the transit facility rebuild at the
World Trade Center, the Path Station. We are very, very honored
to be part of that project.
I am here to offer a perspective on what I think is a
crisis in this Country as it relates to Transportation. We own
a huge network of facilities. We are not maintaining them. As a
result, they become less and less efficient, because we are not
putting the investment back into those facilities that we need.
I think President Obama talked about this last night, I think
he was right on target with regard to investing in our
infrastructure.
Senator Inhofe suggested he was a spender. I would argue, I
think it is an investment. There is a big difference between
just spending money to be spending it an investing it to get a
return. I think the infrastructure in America is an investment
and we do need to prepare our Country to compete with countries
that have either made that commitment or are making that
commitment to build their infrastructure. There are some very,
very tough customers out there that we have to compete with on
a global scale. We absolutely cannot allow ourselves to be
operating without the appropriate tools.
There is an undeniable need for maintenance, minimal
maintenance in this Country. This is not me necessarily saying
this. There have been numerous blue ribbon panels that have
been assembled over the last several years. The most recent one
was the President's National Commission on National
Responsibility and Reform. This panel came to the same
conclusion that others had, that we are not making the
investment in infrastructure that we need to, and we are
falling further and further behind. We are not keeping pace
with growth. Vehicle volumes and the use of our system, our
system is basic for economic growth and it is basic for
sustainable job creation, particularly sustainable job
creation.
There should be no dispute that the money we spend to
maintain and grow our infrastructure is an investment. If you
think about the Interstate system that was built in the 1950s
and 1960s, think about what that did for our economy. Had we
not done that, where would we be today? I would argue that we
have received a tremendous return on that investment. We
created millions of jobs directly and millions more indirectly.
Most businesses could not exist without that infrastructure. We
can name them: tourism, manufacturing, warehousing, trucking,
agriculture, forestry, mining, retailing and so on. As I think
Senator Boxer suggested, ARPA has some facts around that
subject, 78 million jobs are dependent on transportation, $2.8
trillion in payroll, $235 billion in State and Federal payroll
taxes.
We are not keeping up. Many are suffering. I do want to
talk a little bit about the job situation in the construction
industry, because we are feeling it directly at Granite. There
is a 20 percent unemployment rate in the construction industry.
It is staggering. I have not seen anything like this in my
career. Demand for construction materials is down 30 to 40
percent. Specifically at Granite, in 2007, we had 2,200
salaried professional and administrative staff. We currently
have 1,500. We have laid off 700 people. These are our salaried
employees, not including our craft workers, where man hours are
down over 40 percent relative to where they were in 2007.
This is a huge, huge problem for the American workers. It
has been devastating for the families. Frankly, some of these
families have worked for Granite their entire career, they have
never worked any place else. We were faced with the very, very
difficult decision of letting them go and trying to keep our
company strong.
I don't expect government to spend money to employ people.
I don't think that is government's job, simply to spend money
to employ people. But I do expect government to invest in the
basic infrastructure that will support our economy. I am asking
you to invest in America. Let's consider some statistics.
Our interstate system was built in the 1950s and 1960s, and
it is old. It had a design life of 20 to 40 years, and it is
like an old car. If we don't take care of it, it is going to
cost us more later than it will today. Sooner or later, you
have to buy a new car. You just come to that, no matter how
much you would like to not do that, sooner or later, you have
to invest in a new one. We are behind the capacity curve. We
are putting more and more cars on fewer and fewer lane miles
all the time. One hundred and fifty thousand bridges in this
Country are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. In
California, that number is 29 percent of the bridges in
California fall into that category. That is one in four.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Dorey, you have gone over, but you are
so interesting. How about another 2 minutes?
Mr. Dorey. OK, I can finish up.
A quarter of our urban roadways are substandard or poor
condition. Vehicle miles traveled in California has grown 10
times faster than lane miles and continues to do so. If there
is any wonder why we have congestion, that is it. Senator
Boxer, you, I think, raised the question of the Texas Institute
study. I am not going to repeat that. But interestingly enough,
if USA Today is correct, that 4.8 million man hours compares
closely to the 6 billion man hours that we waste filling out
our tax returns. So that might put some perspective on how many
hours that really is.
The reason we are in this spot is because we haven't raised
the primary funding mechanism for transportation in this
Country since 1993. Over that course of time, inflation has
eroded probably close to half of the purchasing power that we
had in 1993, and fuel efficiency, by the way, has eroded even
more purchasing power, as we are collecting less and less per
mile driven because our cars and trucks are more efficient.
That is good news and bad news, all at the same time.
Efficiency is great, we should push for that always. There are
lots and lots of other reasons, other benefits from that. But
we are not collecting enough money to take care of our system.
We can fix this problem. If we do this right, we can
energize our Country. We can put people to work and we can
encourage, I believe, fuel efficiency at the same time, which
has merit. We cannot do this with short-term stimulus cash.
This is a long-term proposition. I do not believe we should
spend money we don't have.
So I am a pretty conservative guy. If we are going to do
this, we have to raise the money to do it. I do not think we
should be spending money that we do not have. We cannot, by the
way, rely on public-private partnerships to do this for us. It
won't do it for us, and I can talk more about that if you like.
It is a bipartisan issue. We need a fully funded transportation
program right now to build the infrastructure of the United
States. I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dorey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by William Dorey to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. The House is signaling its desire to move forward with
a 6-year bill funded at current revenues, about $34 billion a year
(down front the current $41.5 billion). What would be the real impacts
of this lower level on the U.S. economy?
Response. Reducing transportation funding to $34 billion per year
will guarantee that our transportation agencies will not have the
necessary resources to keep up with the simple maintenance of our
existing transportation system. Our transportation agencies are being
asked to maintain an aging infrastructure with primary funding provided
from a fuel tax that has not increased since 1993. The purchasing power
of the fuel tax has been eroded by inflation and fuel-efficiency
improvements to such a degree that, even at current funding levels, we
are deferring critical maintenance. In addition, we will be unable to
build the new capacity required to keep up with our growing population
and to support a growing economy.
With regard to employment, reducing transportation funding will add
more pain to an already devastated construction economy.
Despite the spending from the Recovery Act, the construction
industry is already one of the hardest-hit segments of our economy. As
I shared in my written testimony, construction sector unemployment
stands at above 22 percent, and the construction materials industry has
experienced decreases in demand for its products of 30 to 40 percent.
According to the Transportation Research Board, we need an
additional $50 billion each year in funding to properly maintain our
Nation's transportation infrastructure, and we need an additional $100
billion annually to meet the growing infrastructure needs of our
economy.
According to the recent report commissioned by the National
Chamber Foundation, our nation's transportation infrastructure is vital
to the success of our major economic sectors, accounting for 84 percent
of the U.S. economy. Keeping our economy competitive is vital to the
employment of our citizens and the economic health of our country. We
must not yield to the pressure to cut our infrastructure investment
funding. If we do, we will be risking further erosion of our economy
and our quality of life.
If Congress chooses to decrease its investment in infrastructure
when it should be increasing it, Congress will ensure increased
unemployment and decreased economic activity in the construction
sector. Failure to maintain our transportation system will guarantee
increased congestion and safety concerns, lost time, and higher
maintenance obligations in the future.
Question 2. I can't tell you how many hours the Chairman and I have
put into trying to convince some of our colleagues that short-term
extensions and the uncertainly of not having a long-term bill in place
have on jobs and the economy. Can you please describe in your
experience the impacts of short-term extension on State DOTs and the
construction industry?
Response. The design and the construction of an integrated
transportation system that will be needed to ensure our ability to
compete in the future is complex and will require a long-term
commitment. This is not a 1-year or even a 6-year commitment if we want
to do it right. If we do it right, we will energize our economy. We
have the necessary agencies in place, staffed with committed, qualified
people to plan and design our future. It is not efficient, and maybe
not even possible, however, to keep America in front of our competitors
if we attempt to build our future infrastructure without long-term
funding commitments. Stopping and starting or trying to build our
future with funding that will not even address the simple maintenance
of our existing system will not get the job done.
The major infrastructure investments facing this country, including
new rail projects and increases to the capacity of the vital commerce
corridors needed to move goods and services, require multiyear planning
and project execution. The stopping and starting of our planning and
building effort as a product of uncertain funding levels, as well as
mixed messages from elected leadership, is not helpful to our ability
to deliver these critical multiyear projects. While I will defer to the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to
opine on specific projects that are being delayed or canceled, I can
assure you that companies like ours will not be investing capital in
new equipment until we arc certain there will be adequate long-term
program funding to justify the investment in that equipment.
On a more personal note, at Granite we have had to reduce our
workforce to size our business to match the demand for our services.
This has dramatically affected many of our employees, whom we can no
longer support and have had to let go. The construction industry can
and should play an important role in rebuilding America's competitive
capability. It is time to get serious about building the next-
generation transportation system. We can do it if we commit to a long-
term (20-year) plan and develop dependable funding to pay for it.
Committed, stable and robust funding should come directly from users
and should not require support from the general fund. I am happy to
share my thoughts regarding the details of how that funding should be
developed if you are interested.
Question 3. Many people from both sides of the aisle strongly
believe the highway program needs to be reformed. From a State's
perspective, what changes, if any, would you propose to make the
program work better?
Response. There is a simple answer to this question and a more
complex answer.
The simple answer is that government sometimes spends money we do
not have on projects we cannot afford and which do not provide a return
to the taxpayer in the form of efficiency improvements. It may not
always he crystal clear which projects provide the highest return, but
to the extent possible we should require some economic analysis to
justify how we spend our transportation dollars. We should (at least
for now) fund projects that are shown to be necessary for critical
maintenance and projects that improve the efficient flow of people,
goods, and services. I also think we should (to the extent possible)
further delegate the project selection process to the local officials
who are closest to the issues in their communities.
The more complex reform question is in regard to our vision for the
future of transportation in America. The transportation system of the
future can transform the Nation if we have the vision and the
commitment to build it. This vision should include dedicated truck
corridors to relieve congestion on our traditional highways and improve
safety for our traveling public. It will likely include technology that
will improve the capacity of existing highway systems, and it should
include the integration of public transportation to a greater degree
than it currently is. All of this is possible and, I would argue,
critical if we want to be a leader in the twenty-first century. This
will require strong leadership and commitment from Congress.
The thinkers, agencies, and engineering talent are waiting on
Congress to give them the green light to begin. Much of this vision is
currently being constructed in other countries that are determined to
get ahead of the United States. The technology already exists. The
first step beyond committing to be the best and communicating that
vision is to commit to robust, dedicated and dependable funding to make
the vision a reality.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Dorey. I know how emotional
you get when you talk about all these layoffs, because I know
you have seen the pain. We thank you very much.
Our next speaker is Mr. Poupore, executive vice president,
National Construction Alliance. We welcome you.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND J. POUPORE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION ALLIANCE II
Mr. Poupore. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
Inhofe and the distinguished Members of the Environment and
Public Works Committee.
On behalf of the National Construction Alliance II, a
partnership between two of the Nation's leading construction
unions, the Operating Engineers and the Carpenters, I want to
express our appreciation for the opportunity to join you today.
The two unions of the Alliance represent nearly 1 million
workers, many of whom built the Nation's transportation
infrastructure.
Let me get right to the point, Chairman Boxer. The NCA II
believes that an investment in transportation infrastructure
right now in the short term is the single most important public
policy initiative that we can take by the Federal Government to
re-energize the national economy. Dedicating precious resources
immediately to transportation, even in this time of fiscal
constraint, makes sense, because first and foremost, it targets
resources to the hardest-hit area of the economy, the area
where jobs are most needed, the construction sector.
Second, taxpayers are getting unique value in the
construction marketplace with their investments. Under-utilized
capacity in the industry has meant that bids are coming in
lower than the engineers' estimates, enabling State and local
governments to complete more projects and stretch tax dollars
farther. As you know, these investments are literally the
framework upon which the American business competes in the
global economy.
Let's give the private sector the tools that they need to
keep America the most productive, efficient Country in the
world. I will let the National Industrial Transportation League
and others speak to the long-term benefits of transportation's
role in the economy. I will focus my comments on the essential
feature of the transportation investment to the National
Construction Alliance: immediate job creation. Tens of
thousands of members of the Operating Engineers and the
Carpenters are out of work. Some have been unemployed for more
than 99 weeks and lost their extended unemployment insurance
benefits. Many local unions have been delivering social
services to members rather than promoting their industries and
matching skilled members to employers' work force needs. Times
are tough. Once-proud local union halls have been transformed
into food banks.
Because the transportation industry is still suffering the
worst unemployment that it has seen in a generation, an
investment in infrastructure would inject public resources into
the place it is needed most. An important analysis by the
Federal Highway Administration of employment impacts related to
highway investment say that over two-thirds of the direct jobs
created by transportation investment are in construction. The
same Federal Highway Administration study estimates that around
10,000 direct construction jobs are created with every billion
dollars invested in transportation.
The current national unemployment rate, as you mentioned,
Madam Chairman, is 20.7 percent, far and away the highest
unemployment in the industry sector and more than double the
unemployment rate of the national economy. Since December 2007,
construction has lost almost 2 million jobs.
Labor market problems in the construction industry are
acute. Fixing them will no doubt help solve the economy's
larger problems. Paychecks for these construction workers will
drive broader consumer demand for goods and services.
But I want to put a finer point on that 20.7 percent
unemployment, Madam Chairman. The Super Bowl is coming up in a
couple of weeks. That stadium where Dallas plays holds 100,000
people. Picture 100,000 cheering fans in that stadium. Now
picture 100,000 out of work construction workers. Now picture
20 stadiums--that is what it is--20 stadiums full of unemployed
construction workers that want to build our Nation's
infrastructure, that want to work with their hands to help
create the platform, the infrastructure that we need to compete
in the global economy.
You want to reduce the deficit? Put these people to work.
They will be taxpayers instead of tax eaters. That is what we
need to do.
Yesterday I was up in Minnesota, and I met with the
chairman and CEO of Ames Construction, his name is Ray Ames. He
has a whole yard full of equipment sitting there. A lot of
people not working. But he was telling me on the point of value
for your dollar, if you have a billion dollar project now, you
are doing it for about $250 million less than you were doing it
3 or 4 years ago. So it is a great value for the taxpayers of
America.
Furthermore, when you build a road or a bridge today, it
lasts over 50 years, another great investment. So Madam
Chairman, we need to put America back to work. The people that
I represent need jobs. That is why I am here, that is my voice.
I totally agree with everybody else on the panel here what is
needed. But we need help. As labor, we are willing to work with
you and your committee. We appreciate the work that you have
done in the past. We too believe that we need to protect the
Highway Trust Fund, protect those firewalls, as you mentioned
in your opening remarks. Very important to us.
To my colleague on the panel, I would like to say that, in
the labor movement, we have a program for veterans. It is
called Helmets to Hard Hats. I can give you some information
after.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this great
committee. Let's put America back to work. We want to be No. 1.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Poupore follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Raymond Poupore to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. The House is signaling its desire to move forward with
a 6-year bill funded at current revenues, about $34 billion a year
(down from the current $41.5 billion). What would be the real impacts
of this lower funding level on the U.S. economy?
Response. From a construction union perspective, and the impact on
construction workers, a reauthorization bill at $34 billion a year
would he devastating. Construction unemployment is officially at 23
percent according to U.S. Department of Labor figures from January.
Construction unemployment would continue to be crippled for years to
come if Congress were to adopt these lower authorization figures. Over
and beyond the negative employment impact, a $34 billion funding level
is completely inadequate to address this country's surface
transportation infrastructure needs and provide the necessary levels of
investment to allow us to compete more effectively in a global economy.
Question 2. I can't tell you how many hours the Chairman and I have
put into trying to convince some of our colleagues that short-term
extensions and the uncertainty of not having a long-term bill in place
have on jobs and the economy. Can you please describe in your
experience the impacts of short-term extensions on State DOTs and
construction industry?
Response. Again, from the perspective of construction employees,
short-term extensions do not allow for State DOTs to plan and implement
larger, more complicated highway projects which would generate greater
employment opportunities workers. Short-term extensions only lend
themselves to short-term projects with fewer construction workers
required to complete them. A long term, robust surface transportation
reauthorization provides the binding necessary to plan major
infrastructure investments and therefore, with a long term funding
stream the State DOTs are in, a ``go'' mode and able to make the
necessary infrastructure investments to get their States'
transportation projects upgraded because they can count on a long term
funding strategy.
Question 3. Many people from both sides of the aisle strongly
believe the highway program needs to be reformed. From a State's
perspective, what changes, if any, would you propose to make the
program work better?
Response. The one point I would like to emphasize is that project
delivery should be expedited. Reasonable environmental safeguards can
be protected, but activist groups and others who seek to challenge
major highway and transit projects should be given one ``bite of the
apple'' and not be able to drag out opposition to projects over many
years. This not only unnecessarily increases costs, but delayed
projects preclude employment of the construction workers who are
prepared to build them. There is way too much red tape from conception
to actually building a road. Delays caused by various mandated studies
can take up to 10 years.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much for your eloquence. The
whole panel has been, from each side, just really eloquent.
now our final speaker, Mr. Wayne Johnson, manager, Carrier
Relations, Owens Corning, on behalf of the National Industrial
Transportation League. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE JOHNSON, MANAGER, CARRIER RELATIONS, OWENS
CORNING
Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Madam Chairman, and Members of
the committee. My name is Wayne Johnson, and I am the manager
of Global Carrier Relations at Owens Corning's headquarters in
Toledo, OH. I am also representing today the Industrial
Transportation League. I am chairman of the group's highway
committee. We have about 600-, 650-member companies in our
association.
We appreciate the opportunity to address the importance of
the Country's transportation infrastructure to our economy and
job creation. Owens Corning, the company I work for, depends
heavily on transportation infrastructure and moves over 570,000
shipments per year using all transport modes. Our production
input and getting products to our markets depends on whether
our company succeeds or fails. We are highly dependent on a
viable transportation system that allows us to reach our
customer in the United States and abroad in a timely and
efficient manner.
Delays caused by congestion on our highways, rail yards,
intermodal connections and our ports leads to inefficiencies,
longer transit times, missed schedules, production
interruptions and so on. All these factors add cost to the
manufacturing and distribution process. That inhibits our
ability to add new workers and produce our products. Without an
efficient transportation network, our return on investment is
marginalized, since we are not able to make and sell our
products efficiently and effectively.
This is precisely why your hearing today is so important,
not just for my company, but to the Nation as a whole. Ignoring
the importance of improving our national transportation system
places additional inefficiencies and uncompensated burdens on
American industry and our economy. This translates into
additional financial strain for companies and reduces our
ability to make investments in people and equipment.
Simply put, America is under-investing in its
transportation infrastructure system. Ignoring this fact means
we are not recognizing how it supports our economy and creates
an environment for U.S. companies to sustain themselves and
develop new opportunities for investment and growth. The
consequences of under-investment and further neglect of our
transportation infrastructure will compromise America's
industrial competitiveness.
For those companies that export, like Owens Corning, that
will mean we will fall behind overseas companies in competition
that is global and relentless. For major importers, like
retailers, it would mean that the costs will soar for
consumers. For exporters and importers, and the companies that
do all the business of the United States, the result is the
same. They will not be able to add jobs we all know that are
needed to put our economy back on track.
While our economy is improving, great recession has masked
the problems we will see when the full recovery takes place.
The truth is that these difficulties never went away. The choke
points, the backups, the delays and other indicators of a
deteriorating freight transportation system that are commonly
discussed among supply chain and logistics professionals around
the Country did abate during the recession. As we pick up steam
and resume normal and growing production and consumption
cycles, the underlying problems of the infrastructure neglect
and deferred investments will again make themselves known.
To keep our infrastructure working, making improvements
cannot be turned on like a light switch. It requires years of
planning and committed resources to make it happen. Through all
our past efforts, we have never seriously considered or
attempted to put in place a national freight transportation
policy. Broadly speaking, this policy should integrate all
transportation modes and supporting infrastructure in a
comprehensive fashion. We can begin working toward this
objective through the passage of a comprehensive multi-year
surface transportation authorization bill.
As part of this legislation, we must not permit the raiding
of funds from the Highway Trust Fund, as has been proposed. As
it has been for over a decade, this dedicated fund must
continue to be used for the purpose for which it was
designated. Users of our Federal highways should see the
Federal taxes they pay go to maintaining and improving and
expanding capacity on our highways, bridges, systems
connections, and not for the purposes which have nothing to do
with Transportation.
Madam Chairman, 2011 is the year Congress must consider the
authorization of a multi-year transportation authorization
bill. We in industry understand the difficulties that you and
your colleagues have in advancing a bill in the fiscal and
political environment which demands reductions in government
spending. Respectfully, I would ask that you look at spending
on transportation infrastructure as an investment in the
American economy and America's future, and not just a taxpayer-
funded program.
I would hope that Congress would use the time it takes to
consider a bill to discuss consequences of further delays in
improvements to our transportation infrastructure. This dialog
should also explore new substantial sources of revenue that
might be applied to make the necessary investments to
transportation possible. For the record, the League, the
National Industrial Transportation League members have said
repeatedly that we will be willing to pay our portion and our
share of the costs, as we are both users and beneficiaries of
the freight transportation systems. We are only too aware of
the enormous cost of adding capacity and maintaining what we
have and squeezing more out of what we have. Regardless of what
the financing mechanism involves, whether it is taxes, user
fees or other sources, the moneys we pay should not be diverted
to non-transportation programs.
Madam Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to be here
today. If I can answer any questions, I will be happy to do so.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
For the benefit of Members, this is the order of arrival:
Boxer, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, Cardin and Baucus. Boxer,
Inhofe, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, Cardin and Baucus.
So I will start, everybody will have 5 minutes for
questions, or you can use it as an opening, whatever you want
to do.
I would start of by asking Mr. Dorey, what would the impact
be on the construction industry if transportation was funded on
an annual basis through the regular appropriations process,
rather than through long-term authorization with guaranteed
funding?
Mr. Dorey. I want to make sure I understand the question.
Is the question, what would happen to the industry if we simply
spent what we collected in user fees?
Senator Boxer. No. The question is, rather than doing a
highway bill for 3 years, 4, 5 or 6, where we flesh out the
programs, so we know what it is, if we just scrapped all that,
and some have suggested this, not anyone I know on this
committee, and going just to appropriators to appropriate what
they thought was necessary, a year at a time?
Mr. Dorey. I can't comment on that. I suspect that my
colleague to my right here could be a very good resource.
My observation is this. To properly plan infrastructure,
the 21st century transportation system, what I characterize as
the transportation system of the future, it is going to be
different than the one we have today. It is going to be more
efficient, should be more efficient. It is going to be
organized differently. I am not sure I can tell you what that
is going to be, but I know it is going to be different, I know
it is going to be better. It is going to take some thinking, it
is going to take some planning to do that.
We have the DOTs and various other terrific agencies in
this Country to do that planning. But they can't do it if they
don't know that there is a stable, reliable revenue stream to
support that construction. You think about it from a practical
standpoint, there is no point in having and spending all that
intellectual energy to plan that system in the future if you
know you can't build it. That is what we are faced with today.
Senator Boxer. I don't have a lot of time left for my
questions, but I think you hit the nail on the head there, and
you worked your way to it, that knowing that you had this
reliable stream, we have to fight it out every year.
Mr. Dorey. Have to have a reliable stream.
Senator Boxer. I am going to ask Ms. Martinovich a
different question. What would have been the impact on the
construction industry if the Recovery Act hadn't been passed? I
would ask Mr. Poupore to comment on this. If the Recovery Act
hadn't been passed to provide additional funding for
transportation during these last 2 years.
Ms. Martinovich. Thank you, Madam Chair. The impact would
have been, the construction industry would have laid off people
sooner. I think it bought more time to keep people working,
keep supplies there. It also allowed the States to do
improvement to infrastructure. We are behind in the condition
of our pavements and our structures. So it provided that wave
and that jolt of building and maintaining it. But what it did
is it delayed a lot of workers from being laid off, and bought
some time.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Poupore.
Mr. Poupore. Yes, Madam Chairman, the unemployment numbers
in construction, as bad as they are, which is, depression
numbers would have even been worse if we didn't have the
stimulus. The only issue I had with the stimulus, there wasn't
enough invested in infrastructure. I think we took a big knot
for that with some people making comments about shovel-ready
projects and stuff. Fact is, I did testify in front of the
other committee last year actually on the stimulus. I do know
that John Mica was very supportive of having a much larger
investment in infrastructure back at the time of the stimulus,
but we never, of course, got there. We only got, out of the
total money spent, 3 percent to infrastructure.
Senator Boxer. Right. Well, I think the Chairman and the
Ranking Member agree on that point.
My last question, the importance of funding to the States.
We are going to see the transportation authorization expire on
March 4th. It is coming right behind us. So I would ask Ms.
Martinovich, what would be the impact on State departments of
transportation if the funding for that extension were to be cut
or delayed?
Ms. Martinovich. Madam Chairwoman, in building on what my
colleague said, is that right now, not knowing what is
happening after March 4th, I will not be putting out projects.
I cannot guarantee that projects will go out after March 4th,
because I don't know how they are going to be funded. My own
State can't pick up the difference between what we typically
match the Federal funds with, whatever that percentage with,
not knowing if we are going to be reimbursed.
So it is fits and starts. If we can't plan, others can't.
Senator Boxer. I think this is a really important point for
every member of this committee. We are going to have to work
hard to get this taken care of, sooner rather than later, or
our States are not going to be moving forward with projects. A
lot of us don't like this extension, extension. We really need
to get to the larger bill. But until that time, I hope we can
work across the aisle to eliminate this potential crisis. We
have already heard of stadiums full of unemployed people, and
businesses that are suffering and struggling.
Anyway, I am very pleased that you are all here to answer
those questions.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Poupore, I had a very interesting experience doing the
coin toss at the Oklahoma-Texas game. It wasn't much of a game.
But I was standing out there and doing the coin toss, 100,000
people, and until you mentioned that, it really didn't even
register to me, and I do this for a living, that it would
appear that there would be 20 times that number of people who
would be unemployed right now.
Mr. Dorey mentioned some unemployment figures. Have you
gotten together, are we all in agreement in terms of what has
happened, in terms of unemployment in your industries?
Mr. Dorey. I believe we are.
Senator Inhofe. That is an important part of it. The most
important part, however, is that one of the two major functions
of Government, and you have heard me say over the years,
national defense and infrastructure. We need to keep in mind
that, I think back, Madam Chairman, when you and I put
together, and several others on this committee also, the 2005
very robust bill, even with that authorization bill, that
really did nothing more than to maintain what we had today.
So I think each one of you in your testimony has said we
have to do it. That is fine. We all know, there is not a person
up here at this table on this side or probably in this room
that doesn't agree that we have to do it. Our big question is,
how are we going to do this?
I mentioned something, a problem that I personally have
with the conservatives in the Republican party. To win them
over, we have to go back to, as you mentioned, Mr. Poupore, go
back to what is originally intended for bricks and mortar and
streets and maintenance and bridges and new ones and maintain
what we have now. That is when we had the surpluses. You heard
in my opening statement that I said we have gotten away from
that. I know it is very difficult, because there are a lot of
things that are worthwhile projects that don't fall that into
that category.
In reality, I think that if you add all of that up, with
the exception of mass transit, it wouldn't be more than 3
percent. But 3 percent is all it takes on the Senate floor for
someone to go there and talk about State capitol domes and
museums and bike trails and all these things that are not, the
American public, when they go to the pump and pay their tax,
expect to receive.
Now, that might be what I will have to have to get the
Republican support to join the Democrat support to get this
done. I just would like to kind of put the mark in the sand now
that we are going to have to start addressing it from that
perspective, if we are going to be able to get conservatives to
join in and recognize what is really important on here, and
that is what we originally intended.
I started way back in the House, in the T&I committee, and
then came to the Senate in 1994. So I have been involved in
this for many, many years. I would like to have you comment on
what you think about the idea, is if we were able to come up
with a bill that merely had those things that, up until about
10 years ago, were considered good projects and worthy projects
and allowable projects for funds from the national trust fund.
Start with you, Mr. Poupore.
Mr. Poupore. Senator Inhofe, to be honest with you, I
wasn't aware that there were other things in the infrastructure
bill that aren't real infrastructure. When I talk about
infrastructure, I talk about roads and bridges and
transportation systems and water systems and what it takes to
compete. In the global economy. I would think that when you buy
a gallon of gas, you would think that that is money that goes
into the Highway Trust Fund.
Senator Inhofe. See, that is what the general public
believes, until they hear someone on the Senate floor start
talking about other things that have nothing to do with
transportation.
Mr. Poupore. I mean, I don't know all those specific
issues, other than when I talk about infrastructure to my
members, that I what we are talking about, the roads that we
build and drive on and what it takes to get the goods to
market.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I am using up too much of my time on
that one. I think we are trying, I am getting my point across.
For me to get something done, you have to help me, and I have
to have support out there in saying, we want to get back to
building roads and bridges. Yes, Mr. Dorey, we support that.
Mr. Dorey. I would like to comment on that. I think it is a
very good question, and I think you raise, whether it is a real
concern from the standpoint of how big it is, I suppose it is
debatable. But certainly from a perception standpoint, it is a
real concern.
Senator Inhofe. It is perception.
Mr. Dorey. I would encourage all of us to think about how
we figure out what the right stuff to build is with the revenue
that comes from, in this case our user tax revenue. It would be
hard for me to defend a bike path. Having said that, if we have
a congestion issue at a particular location, and the
alternative is to tear down that interchange and rebuild
another one to the tune of $100 million or whatever it might
take, versus some other alternative that may not be made out of
concrete or blacktop, maybe it is a public transportation
alternative, and that is cheaper than tearing that interchange
and doing it in the traditional way, it is hard for me to
consider why we wouldn't consider that.
Now, that may be an altogether different question than how
you fund it. I don't know. But we need to be smart about what
we build. I think we are at a point now where we can't be
wasting money just building stuff because we want to build it.
We have to be building the stuff that brings the highest rate
of return to our case.
Senator Inhofe. My time has expired. I want to say this,
you are right, the problem there is perception. That is 3
percent, it doesn't make any difference, people think it is 90
percent. Remember the earmark debate out there? Everybody
thought the earmarks were 99 percent of discretionary spending.
They are 1 percent. So it is the perception. I don't want
people to go out there and talk about something that is totally
unrelated to transportation. That is my goal.
Last, the Chairman is right. She said that, she and I had
an amendment, actually, to that stimulus bill. Three percent,
you are right, Mr. Poupore. That is outrageous when you stop
and think, if we could have had, if that up to 30 or 40
percent, and whether they are shovel-ready or not, we happen in
Oklahoma to have enough stuff ready that we could get done, as
you well know, Susan. Anyway, we are with you on wanting to do
that. I would like to see, from the message last night, some
action that we are actually, before we do anything stimulus,
that we can turn as much of that into the very subject of this
committee, I think it would be very helpful.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, we had a really terrific briefing under the
auspices of this committee in Rhode Island last March to
discuss the impact of the Recovery Act on our transportation
infrastructure, with the participation of our Director of
Transportation, Michael Lewis, who has been rehired by our
former colleague, Senator Chafee, who is now the Governor, to
stay in that position, which is good news, a real estate
developer named Jeffrey Saletin, and the president of the
Construction Industries of Rhode Island, Stephen Cardi. I would
like to put the transcript of that hearing into the record, if
I could have unanimous consent.
Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced material follows on page 67.]
Senator Whitehouse. One of the things that was significant,
to echo the points that our speakers have made, the developer,
Jeffrey Saletin, had a piece of property in Johnston, RI, that
had been abandoned for decades. It was a decrepit old shopping
mall. One of the reasons that the property was in disrepair was
that the main access road to it was under-sized, rundown, the
exit was unsafe, it made a very unappealing road frontage.
So with the assistance of the mayor of Johnston, Mayor
Policina, we were able to get funding for that front
improvement and behind that came tens of millions of dollars in
private investment. What was an abandoned eyesore along one of
Johnston's main routes is going to be developed into a very
successful shopping plaza.
So I wanted to share that from the hearing, because it
confirms what we are saying. This isn't about just putting
picks and shovels and bulldozers and paving machines into the
ground. It is about the follow-on effect when that
infrastructure is present. I contend, as I think my colleagues
agree, that we are woefully behind in this. My question for the
witnesses is, what do you think is needed? What data points can
you give us to become better advocates for what is needed to
maintain and improve our current transportation system?
The data points that I have are these: DOTs conditions and
performance report shows that about 53 percent of highway miles
traveled by Americans are on roads that are in less than good
condition; that almost 30 percent of our bridges are
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and it is
higher in the northeast, where I am from; that there is an
annual investment gap of about $27 billion just to maintain our
current systems, and if you look at improving them to meet
needs of growth, then the investment gap is annually nearly $96
billion; that we are only spending 2 percent of our GDP on
infrastructure, our competitors in Europe are spending close to
5 percent, and our main competitor, China, is spending close to
9 percent of its GDP on infrastructure. We are down 50 percent
from the 1960s in terms of Investment as a percentage there of
GDP.
So those are the data points that I have. I would love to
have, in the 2 minutes that remain, those of you who have some
additional data that can help us arm ourselves for this debate
give us any further information on how far behind we are.
Ms. Martinovich. Senator, thank you. I will be quick, a
couple points. AASHTO does agree and supports the information
that you just provided. On a more at-home, with Nevada, it is
that almost 70 percent of the goods that come into this Country
come in through the west coast, and then they travel across the
western States into the east. So that is very particular for
our infrastructure, and of the roads that the Department of
Transportation owns. We carry almost 80 percent of that heavy
truck traffic. And we are responsible for that.
So a lot of the western States are responsible for the
interstates, Interstate 80, I-15 and the other roads. So for us
to keep that going, we need the time and the money so we can
make sure goods are traveling across the States and this
Country. Thank you.
Mr. Dorey. I would direct you to my written testimony, it
has some of those data points in it. In my oral presentation, I
talked about what I think one of the most compelling data
points is, and this is a California statistic, but I think it
is relevant to most growing populations. California's vehicle
miles traveled is growing 10 times faster than lane miles.
TRIP, which is a very respected third party transportation
data organization, suggests that congestion costs the average
American $750 per year in wasted time and fuel. Crumbling roads
cost an additional $590, additional, in vehicle maintenance per
year. Here is a really important data point: deficient roadway
conditions contribute to more than one-half of U.S. fatalities.
More than drunk driving, speeding, or failing to use seat
belts. If this is anywhere close to being true, and it is not
my statistic, if it is anywhere close to being true, we have a
lot of work to do to keep America safe.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. My time is expired.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Martinovich, first, we all noted
your family situation, you talked about your son having been
injured. We all wish him a full and speedy recovery. That is
one of the things that we have to contend with in our things
that we are doing today, and that is to make sure that we take
care of our veterans. As we would like them to come forward and
serve, we want to make sure that if they do, we pay all the
expenses necessary for them to come back in the same condition,
at least, as they left. I am sorry to divert, but that is a
topic that we have to deal with regularly.
The theme, obviously, runs through very quickly to jobs. To
jobs. It seems to me that the transportation construction
industry is one of those that has such an able work force,
ready to go to work tomorrow if necessary. Where could we find
a better investment for our future than in doing that? So the
question I raise is, Mr. Dorey, where do you think the funds
ought to come from to take care of the needs that you have all
outlined that we have? You talked about funding.
Mr. Dorey. I think they should come from the users. How we
extract those fund from the users and invest them in the----
Senator Lautenberg. Extract them is right.
Mr. Dorey. Yes. How we do that I suppose is open for a lot
of debate. I have a point of view, I am not sure we have time
to debate that. But I think it should come from the users.
Senator Lautenberg. Anybody disagree with that? Yes, where
would you think, sir?
Mr. Johnson. I don't necessarily disagree. What I would say
is that shippers are willing to pay their part. We have said
that all along. We use the transportation, we depend on it
desperately, we need a good infrastructure. So we are there, we
are willing to pay our part.
Senator Lautenberg. Trucking industry----
Mr. Johnson. Trucking, shippers, manufacturers.
Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. Willing to pay their part.
Mr. Johnson. Right. We need increased productivity on our
highways to keep our costs down.
Senator Lautenberg. Coming from New Jersey, our geographic
structure puts us as a major course for traffic going north and
south and vice versa. We have really heavy duty on our roads,
truck traffic is enormous. It is very hard to keep up with it.
Talking about allocation of funds, we look at it not just for
our taxpayers to pay their share, because their share then
includes lots of other traffic that is supporting our national
well-being. How you do that is a serious problem.
The Federal Commission has recommended the creation of a
national freight transportation program. Current Federal
investments have largely focused on highways and aviation to
move our freight. Very little investment really in rail or port
infrastructure. Might a focus on what we can do to improve
those facilities make a difference in relieving the present
structure of some of the traffic problems that would cause the
deterioration and meet the construction that we seek?
Ms. Martinovich. Senator, I think that they would. But the
transportation system has to act as a system, that everything
works together. The roads can be designed to help with the
transit, and get people in buses, if there is reliability. The
goods and movement can happen through rail or through the ports
and other ways. So it needs to act as a system and work
together.
So if you improve one, I think there is benefit in the
whole picture.
Senator Lautenberg. Might a separation of freight and
faster traffic on the roads make things easier to work with and
more efficient?
Ms. Martinovich. Yes, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Dorey, you talked about the current
design, and not really facing up to the problems or the
opportunities that you have out in the future. We talked about
technology and almost driverless cars on the road, and making
more efficient use of the highways. I don't know quite how you
do all those things. But one thing I do know, I was a
commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
before I came to the Senate. My focus there, and I used to run
a company called ADP, and we had a lot of traffic out there
delivering payroll checks. There were constantly, even in those
days, and I don't want to tell you how far back it goes, you
will think I am talking about horse and wagons, but the fact of
the matter is that what we saw 50 years ago in terms of traffic
congestion has not changed, only to worsen.
So thank you, Madam Chairman, for this discussion. The
witnesses were very good. The common theme, jobs, get to work,
get America going again, is a very important one.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Madam Chair, thank you for conducting this
hearing. I would ask consent that my opening statement be made
part of the record.
I want to thank all of the witnesses. I strongly agree with
the consensus here that we need to get a surface transportation
reauthorization enacted, it needs to be long-term, it needs to
speak to the investments that are necessary and it needs to be
adequately funded. So I support strongly the general consensus.
I just want to take issue with Senator Inhofe's explanation
of what he calls the 3 percent. Mr. Dorey, I want to agree with
your comments about, we need to look at multi-modal
transportation in the discussion. We have to be more efficient
in the way that we design the transportation infrastructure for
the future. Yes, the overwhelming amount of dollars that are
going to be authorized are going to be for traditional types
and modes of transportation, whether they be roads or whether
they be bridges, or whether they be conventional transit issues
that we have confronted in the past.
But we need to look at smarter ways. I think your example
of the interchange is exactly right. I live in Baltimore. We
are looking for ways of connecting the waterways of Baltimore
with our transit. That may be seen by Senator Inhofe in that 3
percent, which has me concerned. Because we believe we can save
considerable money by bringing people into Baltimore through
our waterways, rather than building another transit line or
another major highway.
So I think we need to take a look at ways that we can
connect and be more efficient. Baltimore was designed by
Olmsted. And he connected communities through green space. We
are looking at ways of trying to connect communities again so
they don't have to use our roads, so we don't have to build as
many roads. To me, that saves money in our transportation, and
it is the right investment for our Nation.
So Madam Chair, I just really want to make a point. I think
every dollar that we authorize has to be spent efficiently and
appropriately for transportation in this Country. But let us
not be afraid to look at alternative ways that can save money,
create jobs, and then have more dollars available for the
expensive projects that we know we need to build, such as high
speed rail, that is going to be necessary to connect our
cities. We have to do this in a more cost-effective way.
I want to thank Senator Inhofe for getting me excited about
this bill, and have more conversation about it. But I hope that
we do look for creative ways. I think the witnesses here have
really added to this debate. I thank you for the constructive
manner in which you have presented this. Mr. Poupore, I think
the numbers you gave on employment, I am going to agree with
Senator Inhofe, I think we can't visualize how many Americans
have been adversely impacted because we don't have construction
going on, and how important construction is to the economy of
America. If we can get our economy back on track, believe me,
we are going to have a lot more opportunities to build the
infrastructure we need for the future.
So I found the hearing very helpful, Madam Chair, and I
thank you very much for calling it.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from the
State of Maryland
Good morning Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, Members of the
committee and our panel of witnesses. It's great to be starting another
session of Congress and immediately launching into matters concerning
authorizing the next surface transportation bill. This must be a top
priority for EPW, Senate Banking and Commerce Committees, and for
Congress on the whole.
The focus of today's hearing on the correlation between
transportation and job creation and economic growth is precisely why
authorizing a new transportation bill must be done soon. Fast and
efficient intermodal transportation systems, both figuratively and
literally, drive our nation's economy. Better development of a seamless
intermodal transportation network is critical to sustained economic
growth and keeping America competitive in an increasingly globalized
economy.
Most of our witnesses here today can testify to the job creation
potential that lies within the transportation infrastructure
construction itself. Without a doubt, road projects create important
domestic jobs that need to be restored to our economy.
However, I want to highlight the bigger role transportation plays
in fueling domestic productivity and economic growth, with a focus on
maximizing the efficiency of transportation system to best serve
residential and commercial communities.
Travel delays on congested roads and highway have tremendously
negative impacts on lost work hours, worker productivity, and
commercial logistics. This is especially true in urban and suburban
communities where freight, commercial personal transport all mix
together to create enormous traffic jams affecting everyone involved.
Improving the overall functionality of our complete transportation
system is what it means to improve the ``livability'' of our
communities, because being stuck in traffic for 2 to 3 hours a day, is
no way to live. This is an unfortunate reality for all too many
communities, the Greater Washington Metropolitan Area being one of the
worst, stemming beyond mere inconvenience, into being a genuine drain
on our economy.
Freight transport in Maryland is a perfect case-study for why
developing livable communities, emphasizing multi-modal transportation
options, is important to our Nation's economy. It also demonstrates the
interconnectivity of all transportation sectors.
The Port of Baltimore is an enormous economic engine for Maryland
and the entire eastern half of the country. Annually, the Port handles
47.5 million tons of domestic and imported cargo, valued at $45.3
billion. The efficiency in which the cargo moves in and out of the port
is largely based on how congested the highways and railways are around
Baltimore, which is directly affected by the number of cars on the
road.
Maryland's consolidated transportation plan takes a comprehensive
approach to developing the state's transportation system and not
developing the modes separate from each other. This interconnected
approach helps improve efficiencies across the board.
For example, Maryland's plans to develop new transit lines in
Baltimore, in between Prince George's and Montgomery Counties inside
the Beltway, in Northern Montgomery County are designed to provide
increased transportation options for the large and growing commercial
residential communities.
Improving transit in these communities will provide a faster and
more reliable transportation option for people to use to get to and
from work. Getting more people to use transit systems will alleviate
congestion on area roads and highways which will improve the shipment
and delivery of goods to regional markets.
The creation of new jobs in the transportation sector will result
from working to meet national transportation goals designed to improve
transportation efficiency.
Improving local and regional transportation systems at the micro
level will have tremendous economic benefits at the macro level. Making
these improvements starts with this committee and our colleagues on the
other Senate Committees we must work with to put together the next
transportation bill.
While investments in transportation infrastructure are required for
the U.S. to remain competitive in our global economy, the Federal
Government's role extends beyond these investments to Federal
transportation and energy policy.
In prior hearings, we've heard that we need to get people out of
their cars and into fast, convenient, and reliable mass transportation
systems. That will take a major investment. Such an investment improves
the quality of our travel and supports the increasing demands that
commerce places on the roads and railways of our country.
This required investment is not for convenience but is a necessity
to help our Nation's economy to continue to grow in the longer term.
It is my belief that Federal investment in public transportation
should be a national priority. Our nation receives extraordinary public
benefit from mass transportation systems. These systems take thousands
of cars off our congested highways. Transit takes tons of pollutants
out of the air we breathe and moves people efficiently into and out of
our most important commercial centers.
Congress must encourage smart growth through funding transit-
oriented development with upgrades to transit facilities, bicycle
transportation facilities, and pedestrian walkways.
Congress should create Federal tax incentives for employers who
provide telecommuting to their employees. Telecommuting has
successfully reduced traffic and energy use, and the EPA reports that
if just 10 percent of the nation's workforce telecommuted just 1 day a
week, Americans would conserve more than 1.2 million gallons of fuel
per week.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and to working with
my colleagues on this committee and with our colleagues on Banking and
Commerce to define the appropriate role the Federal Government should
have in our Nation's surface transportation system and to identify and
address our national surface transportation investment needs as a means
of improving economic growth.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Baucus is next. I just want to say how happy I am
to see him here. He has such a heavy workload as Chairman of
the Finance Committee. I want to work so closely with him. He
has the tough job, essentially, of trying to figure out new
ways to fund the Highway Trust Fund. We are going to work very
closely with him and lighten his load on that, this committee
will.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have together a
tough job, getting all this put together.
Thank you very much for holding this hearing. Just a couple
of points here. One is the obvious, namely, this is a non-
partisan issue. We are all in this together. Sometimes that is
an overworked word, working together, but that is clearly true
in this case. There is great strength and synergy in working
together. I compliment all of you for making that point very
clear and encourage you to keep it up, I know you will, and
remind people that you are working with of that very
phenomenon. This is totally non-partisan.
Therefore, it is an opportunity for us here in the Congress
to make very significant headway, plow ahead, well, maybe some
of these issues are partisan, this is one that is not. So let's
get going here, let's get the funding we need and the
programming we need and maybe even set an example. That might
be a bit too ambitious, but at least let's try to take
advantage of the opportunity.
Second, and these are just random points, I would remind us
all, in States like Montana we are also very much a part of all
this. We are a rural State. We have more, I think, we have more
Federal highway miles per capita than any other State in the
Nation. We are a highway State. This may sound strange, but we
love our highways. A, we need them; B, we have a beautiful
State, we like driving our roads from one town to another.
Billings to Bozeman to Missoula is just gorgeous scenery. I try
not to offend my colleagues, it is not like driving in some
other States, but it is driving in a very beautiful State, we
really like our highways and need them.
In addition, I might remind everyone that most truck
traffic in Montana does not originate or end in Montana. We are
somewhat of a through State. Ms. Martinovich alluded to that,
I-90, I-15, a lot of trucks go through our State. Therefore,
those folks on the west coast through east coast and mid-
America depend heavily on having very good highways. In our
State, too, so there is less damage to the vehicles and so
forth, and we can move very quickly.
These are wonderful people, folks who work construction
jobs. I one day a month work at some job at home, wait tables
all day long, show up at 8 in the morning with a sack lunch, I
have worked in highway jobs, hospitals, what-not. I have had
six or seven highway jobs in the last couple of years. I have
operated all kinds of equipment, made a lot of mistakes on that
heavy equipment. Been at the working end of an idiot stick, lot
of shovel work and so forth. But they are just wonderful,
wonderful people, the heart and soul of America, these men and
women. They are not complaining, through a lot of hard work in
all kinds of conditions. It is important to keep that in mind
as well.
The points that you made, Mr. Johnson, are so, so obvious
and so important, about the just-in-time inventory, and that it
is so important for American businesses so they can get their
inventory right there, they have to be very efficient.
My main point here is that we have to create an even
greater sense of urgency than we have thus far. This is serious
stuff. The President touched on it in the State of the Union
message last night, when he mentioned the importance of a good
infrastructure system in America. Not only in absolute terms,
but also on a comparative basis, compared with what other
countries are doing. I don't know how many of you have seen the
Chinese interstate system, China is constructing 55,000 miles
of interstate. We have about 44,000 miles in America.
I have been on those highways in China. I was amazed, I got
off the plane in Chongqing, Central China, a couple of years
ago. First of all, at the airport, it was one of the most
modern airports I've ever seen. It blew me away. Our counsel in
Chengdu, not so far away, was quite upset that no American
company bid on that airport. German companies did, but not
American. Those jobs were over in China, but still those could
be a lot of American jobs, too.
Then I drove on a highway. This was one heck of an
interstate. It was big. There are 33, 34 million people in
Changqing area. Its fancy hotels, and the highways, that is
just one location, one country, and the President basically
alluded to this last night when he said, it is essential to the
economy, this is where we build a highway. Katie bar the door,
doesn't make any difference what communities we plow through,
that is where we build these highways. We can't do that in this
Country. But we still can maintain, upgrade, and build a much
better system.
So we can be the envy of the world like we were when we
built the interstate. We were it, in America. Well, it is an
opportunity for us to be it again. That raises questions about
financing. We all know the problems and the plight of the trust
fund, the user fees and so on and so forth. I strongly
encourage you to light a fire under yourselves and your
membership, and find really creative ways to figure out how we
can use the same financing mechanisms and find some new ones.
We have to have additional dollars somewhere, just by
definition, or we are going downhill. Maybe some borrowing
mechanisms that you have in mind, in addition to the usual user
fees.
I am reminded too, this is not totally on point, we had an
earlier transportation bill, wasn't too many years, it was a
good number of years ago, where we got that additional 4.3
cents, it was transferred from the general fund to the trust
fund. That gave us extra money. That was the second to last
major bill. Robert Byrd went around and got all the main groups
in a room.
There were about maybe 20 or 30 people. He went around the
room and he talked to each person. He started with,
figuratively, representatively, you, Mr. Johnson, OK, Mr.
Johnson, you tell me what you and your organization is doing to
get this bill passed. You tell me right now. He went all the
way around the room, each person. He said, I am going to invite
you all back here in 2 weeks and I am going to ask you again
what you have done in the last 2 weeks. He did it. I was in the
room. I was very, very impressed, as a way to help gin things
up.
We are here to pass hopefully good legislation. But we work
for all of you and we are the representatives for the people
who elect us. We need to get you all fired up even more, so
that this is put more on our front burner rather than our
middle burner or back burner. I am just issuing this challenge,
because you have a very sympathetic committee here, very
sympathetic, and we want to help out.
I tell people sometimes that work for me, I don't want to
have to kick you, I want to have to rein you in. Make me rein
you in, not have to spur you, make me rein you in because you
are doing too much. That is my challenge is to make us get to
the point where we have to think about maybe reining you in,
because you are doing too much.
I just thank you so much, Madam Chairman, for this hearing.
It is so important, it is so needed. There is such a sense of
urgency here. I stand ready to work with you to do all I can to
get this accomplished.
I have a lot of things to say but that is the main point. I
hope we have a good followup hearing. What I might do, now that
I am thinking about it, maybe we can call each of these
wonderful people back and ask them at this hearing, what have
you done? What is the progress report? How many more people are
lined up to do what? What are the benchmarks, what are the data
points? Names, dates and places, that kind of thing. It may or
may not work, Madam Chairman. You are the chairman, that is
your decision. I am just trying to help find ways to get us
moving along.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Madam Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing on the
significance of transportation to our overall economy and to job
creation.
The president touched on these things in his State of the Union
address.
Another president from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, once said:
``The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of
people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot
so well do for themselves--in their separate and individual
capacities.''
That is the Federal role in funding roads, highways and bridges. In
the 20th Century, that perspective enabled us to build the world's
leading transportation network, with Federal leadership.
As I have said numerous times, rural areas rely heavily on the
Federal-aid highway program.
My home State of Montana is a highway state. In fact, we like to
say Montana is like one big neighborhood with really long streets.
The one thing we know for sure in Montana is that our
transportation system serves us all.
Our roads serve Democrats, Republicans, Independents and everyone
in between. I urge my colleagues to recognize that we can unite around
this issue because not only does our transportation system cross county
and State lines, it reaches across party lines.
Most of the highway users in my State aren't even actually from my
State. Data from the Federal Highways Administration shows that 62
percent of all truck movements in Montana neither originate nor end in
Montana. That figure is almost 20 percent higher than the national
median for states. It shows how interconnected our economy is--
regardless of State borders.
Montana relies on federally funded roads for its tourism industry
where 90 percent of our non-resident tourists enter the State by car
during Summer.
We also need good roads to transport beef, wheat, oil, gas and
other products to distant sites across the country and to coastal ports
for trade with far-off places like Latin America and Asia.
According to University of Montana economist Patrick Barkey, that
export economy is precisely where Montana is best positioned to achieve
growth in the near future, which simply wouldn't be possible without
reliable infrastructure.
Our national network fostered innovation such as ``just-in-time
delivery'' and ``supply chain management'' that provide great
convenience to American businesses and consumers.
But, as we learned during a hearing on Global Competitiveness in
the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, places like Europe,
China, India, Brazil and other areas have recently dedicated great
resources to establishing and upgrading their own infrastructure
networks.
This has enabled those countries to achieve considerable growth of
their own in the 21st Century, while capitalizing on those farm-to-
market, just-in-time, and supply chain management innovations.
We clearly need to do more. National unemployment in the
construction sector remains dangerously high at almost 20 percent.
Where Montana's economy remains weak is also in the construction
sector.
Applying the Federal Highways Administration metric--where one
billion dollars in Federal-aid highways money creates or supports more
than 34,000 jobs--there are more than 18,000 jobs in Montana depending
annually on our Federal highways program. Transportation funding under
the Recovery Act supported approximately 5,000 more jobs in Montana.
Still, employment in Montana's construction sector has seen a 35
percent decline in employment since 2007, even with the influx of
Recovery Act funds.
Incidentally, I was especially struck by the House Transportation
Committee's report that Ms. Martinovich highlights in her written
testimony where construction projects under the Recovery Act saved us
more than $800 million as a nation in unemployment checks.
We have an opportunity to work together to create jobs TODAY--and
build a better way for our kids and grandkids to navigate the Nation
for tomorrow. To win the future as the president said. We may not do it
all with this bill, but this bill is the start.
My bosses in Montana expect us to work together and help create
jobs.
As I see it, perhaps there is no other better issue area that we
can truly come together regardless of party politics and work toward
our goals of creating jobs.
Transportation investments help us to do both while leaving our
nation in better shape for future generations.
This is the year to pass a Highway Bill. Our economy needs it.
Senator Boxer. Well, let me respond first of all, your
words are music to my ears, because I am a big believer in
working with the stakeholders. As a matter of fact, the
extension that we got done together, the last time, I would
just like to say, would not have gotten done without all the
help of the various organizations, including the Chamber of
Commerce, and the unions and everybody working together to push
that extension through for a longer period of time. Because
there was some talk of just doing an extension for 30 days or
60 days.
So I am a great believer in the Robert Byrd-Max Baucus idea
of working together. We know what to do here inside the Senate,
but we need to have people on the outside helping us tell our
colleagues, because they are not necessarily, they are busy on
their committees.
I think, if I could say, Raymond, your eloquent, all of you
were eloquent, but this notion of how many stadiums, Super Bowl
stadiums? Twenty Super Bowl stadiums full of unemployed
construction workers.
Senator Baucus. In my State, it is a 35 percent decline
since 2007.
Senator Boxer. We do have, and Bettina is reminding me, we
have a bipartisan meeting planned with all of the groups,
Boxer-Inhofe are calling it. So we are already on it.
What I love about being in the Senate is hearing different
expressions from different members from other parts of the
Country than mine. I have never said, I am going to rein you in
or spur you on. But that is something I might do now in the
future.
Senator Baucus is right. This is so critical. We cannot
afford to pass up this opportunity. We need a multi-year bill.
It has to be robust. We have to strip out things, I agree with
Senator Inhofe in general. To me a bike path is a way of
transport. A lot of my people use it to get to work, I will
tell you that right now.
But there are other areas, if there are museums in this
bill or other things somehow, that is not right. So I have
already asked my staff to go through the old bill and circle
any of these things, even if it is a small amount, we can't do
that. This has to be an infrastructure bill. Safety is
included, there are other things we can do, but they have to be
all related.
Let me ask unanimous consent to insert statements in
support of action on the transportation bill from the following
organizations, which will also be called in and be sitting
around the next table: American Society of Civil Engineers; the
American Concrete Pavement Association; the Asphalt Pavement
Association; the Ready-Mix Concrete Association; Stone, Sand
and Gravel Association; Portland Cement Association and
American Association of Port Authorities. I will do that.
[The referenced material follows on page 83.]
Senator Boxer. I wanted to just take a moment, a very swift
moment to say, welcome to Randall Iwasaki. Where are you,
Randall? We are so happy you are here, executive director of
the Contra Costa California Transportation Authority. We are
very happy to have you here.
We are fired up and ready to go on this and we need all of
you to help us. So we are looking forward to further hearings.
Thank you. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.]
Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho
As we talk about national transportation issues, we must ensure
that Federal legislation continues to distribute highway funds in a way
that recognizes that there is an important national interest in
transportation investment in and across rural states, not just in more
heavily populated areas.
I'd like to point out a few of the many advantages there are to
investing in rural states. A good transportation infrastructure
provides resources allowing people to move safely and efficiently to
school, work, around town. It also facilitates the relationship between
the farms, factories and distribution centers and their consumers by
getting product into stores. Rural states often serve as a bridge for
truck and personal traffic between states, thus advancing interstate
commerce and mobility, a factor which has become increasingly important
with the abandonment of many rail branch lines. Finally, it enables
people and business to traverse the vast tracts of federally owned land
and provides access to the scenic beauty in our State and elsewhere.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]