    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY [MAP	21] PROGRAM
                                 CONSOLIDATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC ASSETS

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 8, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-146

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                          http://www.house.gov/reform
                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    25-914 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio                  Ranking Minority Member
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee       CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                    Columbia
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
    CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TED LIEU, California
    MICK, MULVANEY, South Carolina       BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                   STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    MARK WALKER, North Carolina          MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    ROD BLUM, Massachusetts              BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    JODY B. HICE, Georgia                PETER WELCH, Vermont
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
    WILL HURD, Texas
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama

                       Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
    Michael Kiko, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Transportation and Public
                                     Assets
                               Sarah Vance, Clerk

                                     ------

                 Subcommittee on Transportation & Public Assets

                         JOHN L. MICA Florida, Chairman
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois, Ranking
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR. Tennessee            Member
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              MARK DESAULNIER, California
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin, Vice      BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
        Chair

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on December 8, 2015.................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Thomas Echikson, Chief Counsel, Federal Highway
      Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
        Oral Statement...............................................     4
        Written Statement............................................     7
    Mr. David S. Zachry, Chairman, American Road and Transportation
      Builders Association
        Oral Statement...............................................    12
        Written Statement............................................    14
    Mr. Carlos Swonke, Director, Environmental Affairs Division,
      Texas Department of Transportation
        Oral Statement...............................................    22
        Written Statement............................................    24

        MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY [MAP-21] PROGRAM
                                 CONSOLIDATION

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, December 8, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Assets,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:14 p.m., in
    Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Mica, DeSaulnier, and Duckworth.
        Mr. Mica. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome everyone
    and call this hearing of the subcommittee of Government
    Oversight and Reform. Our subcommittee's title is
    Transportation and Public Assets. I call this hearing to order.
        Welcome, everyone. And we will probably have some votes,
    but I would like to try to get our witnesses heard, and if we
    have to go back and forth, we will have to recess during those
    votes.
        The title of today's subcommittee hearing is ``Moving Ahead
    for Progress in the 21st Century'' talking about MAP-21 and
    some of the program consolidation elimination and where we are
    with that.
        We have three official witnesses. The Federal Highway
    Administration, Department of Transportation has two folks who
    will be participating also.
        So the order of business will be opening statements, and I
    will start with mine and will defer to other Members. We will
    leave the record open for a period of 10 days for additional
    testimony or comments from Members or questions for our
    panelists.
        So with that, I will start with my opening remarks, and
    then I will yield to Ms. Duckworth.
        Today's hearing is being called--it is kind of interesting
    because this is the eve, the end of MAP-21 legislation we
    adopted a little over 3 years ago, and I had the chance to
    chair the committee at that time. It is commonly known as MAP-
    21. And within the last few days, we have enacted new
    legislation, FAST legislation, I guess, is the nickname for it.
    But it carries on where a lot of the policy which was
    established in MAP-21 some 3 years ago set forth a whole series
    of significant changes, some consolidation, some elimination of
    programs, and also importantly, devolution to some of the
    States. We tried to expedite a process, tried to eliminate,
    again, some of the duplications, and save taxpayers money, put
    more money in the hands of those who are actually doing these
    infrastructure projects.
        So this is one of the first times that we have had a chance
    to look at where we have been with MAP-21, and then we want to
    build on that with the new legislation just signed into law.
    And if there are some problems with operational standpoint from
    the Department, I know they try to comply but I think this is a
    good time to see how they have complied and get some of the
    facts as to what they have done to try to streamline the
    process, eliminate some of the duplication, and then devolve to
    those closest to projects the actual responsibility.
        So we know that section 1301 of MAP-21 tasks the Secretary
    with identifying opportunities for States to assume
    responsibilities for again a whole host of activities,
    permitting being one of them, and then actually operating and
    functioning in some of the responsibilities previously tasked
    in Washington to the Federal Government.
        So we said specifically in the bill that we want that done
    in a manner that protects public health, the environment, and
    also involves public participation.
        So today, we are here to see again, take an inventory of
    where we are, where we have come, and where we need to go. We
    will look at the secretarial responsibilities such as
    environmental permitting or determinations regarding
    environmental rule. We want to judge if DOT has made available
    some of those opportunities for States. We will probably hear
    some problems. We will probably hear some success stories, I
    think, from one of our witnesses.
        So our focus today is, again, whether the provisions of
    MAP-21 that were intended to make DOT more efficient and
    provide more flexibilities and devolve responsibilities to the
    State and other entities are in fact achieving the objectives
    we set out for.
        So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and
    participation. I think this can be a very positive lead into
    the new legislation that we have just adopted.
        Mr. Mica. So those are my opening comments. Let me now
    yield to our distinguished ranking member Ms. Duckworth.
        Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will have to
    rely on your expertise since I was not here when MAP-21 was
    passed. And I am sure the institutional knowledge that you have
    will be very valuable in this hearing.
        I want to thank you for holding today's hearing on MAP-21.
    This important bipartisan legislation included very important
    provisions that consolidated service transportation programs
    and mandated the use of performance management measures.
        Congress has an essential oversight role in ensuring that
    these good government reforms are implemented properly, and I
    look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the state
    of that implementation.
        Last week, I was proud to join 358 of my colleagues in the
    House to pass the FAST Act, which authorizes approximately $300
    billion to be invested in Federal highway and public
    transportation projects over the next 5 years.
        Most importantly, this bipartisan act addressed my three
    transportation policy priorities, it provides States and
    industry with a certainty, it strengthens public safety, and
    invests in innovative, multimodal transit solutions. When I
    travel home to Illinois' Eighth Congressional District, my
    local transportation community is constantly asking me why
    Washington can't come together to compromise on a long-term
    solution, and they have grown frustrated with the short-term,
    kick-the-can, bandaid fixes that prevent States and local
    government from effectively planning long-term projects.
        So I am especially pleased that Congress has worked in a
    bipartisan manner to craft legislation that includes 5 years of
    funding at adequate levels. I am particularly relieved that,
    according to the Illinois Department of Transportation, the
    FAST Act will provide my home State with nearly $3 billion in
    public transit investments, the fourth-highest allotment behind
    only New York, California, and New Jersey, and approximately
    $7.5 billion in total highway investments.
        However, it is important to note that while the FAST Act
    represents progress, it is far from perfect. Indeed, I am
    cosponsoring the GROW AMERICA Act, which authorizes $478
    billion to rebuild our infrastructure over a 6-year period. I
    am on record supporting a bill that would provide States with
    even greater levels of investment and certainty than the FAST
    Act.
        In my view, investing in American infrastructure is the
    ultimate taxpayer win-win. It sustains well-paying American
    transportation industry jobs and it creates new ones. Investing
    in American infrastructure is one of the most effective fiscal
    policy options to increase economic growth and employment. And
    yet, despite our nation's crumbling system of roads and bridges
    and the public support for investing their tax dollars in local
    projects that create new American jobs, Congress remains unable
    or unwilling to dramatically increase investments in our
    transportation system.
        At the same time, the American Society of Civil Engineers
    gave America's roads a grade of D in its 2013 Infrastructure
    Report Card, and furthermore, their 2014 report card for my
    home State of Illinois the findings are just as disturbing. The
    report states that severe traffic congestion costs Illinois'
    economy billions of dollars in lost productivity each year.
    Congestion is estimated to cost approximately $4 billion
    annually for the Chicago area alone, and 42 percent of
    Illinois' major roads are in poor or mediocre condition.
    Driving on those roads cost Illinois motorists $3.7 billion a
    year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs. This is
    simply unacceptable, especially when multiplied by 50.
        The FAST Act is a step in the right direction, but further
    action is needed. I would simply note that it is my hope that
    over the next 5 years Congress can work in a bipartisan fashion
    to develop a truly sustainable and long-term infrastructure
    solution for our nation.
        Throughout our nation's history, our economic growth has
    been driven by significant infrastructure investments from the
    construction of the Erie Canal in 1807 to the creation of the
    transcontinental railroad in 1869 to President Eisenhower's
    visionary establishment of the interstate highway system in the
    1950s. It is our responsibility to preserve this proud legacy
    and continue in making important investments to enhance
    America's ability to thrive and compete well into the 21st
    century.
        Again, I would like to thank you for holding the hearing,
    and I yield back.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady. And again, we will leave
    the record open for other Members who wish to submit a
    statement.
        And now, I would like to recognize our panel of witnesses.
    I am pleased to welcome first Mr. Thomas Echikson. And he is
    the chief counsel at the Federal Highway Administration,
    Department of Transportation. Mr. Echikson is accompanied by
    two experts from the Federal Highway Administration, and I am
    going to swear them in, too, which we will do everyone in just
    a few minutes. One of those is staffer Brian Bezio, chief
    financial officer of the Federal Highway Administration. The
    other is Mr. Peter Stephanos, who is director of the Office of
    Transportation Performance Management of FHWA.
        I also welcome Mr. David Zachry, chairman of the American
    Road and Transportation Builders Association.
        And then our other witness is Mr. Carlos Swonke, and is the
    director of Environmental Affairs at the Texas Department of
    Transportation. We appreciate his traveling up to be with us
    and his participation today.
        So I want to welcome all of you. This is an investigations
    and oversight subcommittee, so I will ask all of you to stand
    and the two that are behind you that are going to testify,
    raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Mica. All of the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
    And we will let the record reflect that.
        I am not sure who has been before us before, but we try to
    have you give us a little 5-minute presentation. If you have
    lengthy materials you would like added to the record, just
    request that through the chair.
        So we will proceed and we will hear from Mr. Thomas
    Echikson, Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway Administration,
    USDOT. Welcome, sir, and you are recognized.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                    STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. ECHIKSON

        Mr. Echikson. Thank you, Chairman Mica and Ranking Member
    Duckworth. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss
    program consolidation under MAP-21 and provisions within it
    that are designed to accelerate project delivery.
        With me today are Brian Bezio, our Chief Finance Officer;
    and Peter Stephanos, Director of our Office of Transportation
    Performance Management. They are experts in some of the topics
    you may wish to discuss today and are available to answer
    questions, as am I.
        Before discussing MAP-21, it's important to mention that
    just last Friday President Obama signed the Fixing America's
    Surface Transportation Act, the FAST Act, into law, marking the
    first long-term transportation funding bill Congress has passed
    in 10 years. Though the FAST Act isn't perfect, it reflects
    bipartisan compromise and ends the long cycle of uncertainty
    for State DOTs. I assure you that the Department is already
    hard at work implementing the FAST Act, and we will continue to
    do so in the days and months ahead.
        MAP-21 consolidated FHWA's programs into a smaller number
    of broader programs. These new programs, however, retain and
    continue the eligibilities that have previously existed. This
    modified program structure provides our grantees with greater
    flexibility to deliver projects more efficiently. It also
    allows our grantees to make data-driven decisions in order to
    meet performance targets.
        Notwithstanding MAP-21's program consolidation, the same
    activities previously authorized remain eligible for funding
    under MAP-21. As such, neither the number nor the complexity of
    the projects and activities that we oversee has diminished.
    Throughout the country, FHWA personnel remain focused on
    overseeing a $42 billion program that is going to grow over the
    next 5 years, protecting taxpayers by ensuring that Federal
    funds are spent in accordance with the law. In fact, more than
    two-thirds of FHWA's employees are located in our field offices
    working directly with State DOTs to deliver projects.
        The cornerstone of MAP-21's Federal highway program
    transformation was the adoption of a performance-based program.
    The Department has been working diligently to finalize the
    performance management rules. As the GAO has recognized,
    completing these rules has been an arduous task. The
    performance management requirements cover a number of areas at
    varying maturity levels. In some cases we have had to establish
    the new methods, standards, and data sources necessary to
    implement an effective national program. Because State and MPOs
    will need to comply with these new requirements, it has been
    particularly important for DOT to engage with these
    stakeholders and carefully consider the impact on them.
        FHWA is looking forward to the benefits that performance-
    based policy framework will bring in terms of helping States
    focus their expenditures where they are most needed.
    Implementing the performance management requirements and
    assisting States and MPOs as they transition towards this
    framework remains a priority at FHWA. We believe performance
    management is a key tool to prepare the Federal-aid Highway
    Program for the future.
        MAP-21 also included provisions designed to support
    innovation and improve efficiency in the delivery of
    transportation projects, and this complemented the successes of
    FHWA's Every Day Counts partnership with states, local
    governments, and the private sector. We believe these
    provisions, together with our EDC efforts, are helping move
    projects from concept to completion more efficiently, saving
    time and money and allowing the public to enjoy the benefits of
    upgraded infrastructure more quickly.
        Immediately after passage of MAP-21, FHWA began working
    aggressively to implement these provisions by conducting
    outreach sessions with stakeholders, issuing guidance, and
    working collaboratively with other Federal agencies. These
    efforts helped us advance rulemaking and guidance documents in
    accordance with statutory deadlines and identify and resolve
    concerns from agency partners. We have now completed all the
    project delivery rulemakings with a statutory deadline and
    continue our broader efforts under EDC to improve and expedite
    the delivery of highway projects.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the invitation to appear
    here today on behalf of FHWA. This concludes my remarks, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Echikson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Mica. Okay. And they are not going to give opening
    testimony, but Brian Bezio and Peter Stephanos, come on up and
    take your chairs here.
        And we will turn to the next witness, which is Mr. David
    Zachry, chairman of the American Road and Transportation
    Builders Association. Welcome, sir, and you are recognized.

                      STATEMENT OF DAVID S. ZACHRY

        Mr. Zachry. Thank you, Chairman Mica, Representative
    Duckworth. I'm David Zachry. I'm CEO and president of Zachry
    Corporation in San Antonio, Texas, and I'm here today on behalf
    of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association
    where I'm honored to serve as the Chairman.
        Chairman Mica, if I can begin by commending you for your
    leadership over many years in working to cut through the
    bureaucratic red tape that has plagued transportation project
    planning and approval process. You made great contributions to
    this effort as the lead author of MAP-21. We also appreciate
    the Subcommittee convening this session to review progress in
    this area since MAP-21's enactment.
        Project delays not only waste federal resources, they also
    delay mobility and safety enhancements and stifle job and
    economic growth. The 2012 MAP-21 surface transportation law
    commendably and appropriately attempted to shorten the 9 to 19
    months or years it takes to plan, gain approval of, and
    construct a major new federally funded highway project.
        Among MAP-21's many significant reforms was an expansion in
    the use of categorical exclusions, or CEs. A CE is used when
    projects create minimal impacts on the environment. Under MAP-
    21, most TE projects were automatically classified as CEs,
    including those in response to emergency situations and
    projects undertaken within an existing right-of-way.
        These--the use of CEs can shave years off an environmental
    review process. For example, the emergency CE was put in--put
    to use in May 2013 when a truck hit the I-5 Skagit River Bridge
    in Mount Vernon, Washington. Application of the CE allowed
    repairs to the bridge to begin within 24 hours of the accident
    and allowed the bridge to reopen to traffic after only 27 days.
        MAP-21 also expanded the opportunity for states to conduct
    their own environmental reviews. Both California and Texas have
    taken advantage of this opportunity. Ohio is poised to do the
    same, and Florida and Utah have also indicated their interest.
        The initial results are very positive. California said it
    has been able to reduce the amount of time for most--for the
    most complicated environmental review documents by years.
    Though Texas was only approved for the program late last year,
    it is estimated an average time savings of 25 percent for
    project reviews. However, it's important to note that these, as
    well as many other MAP-21 reforms, are discretionary, not
    mandatory. The more state and federal agencies choose to use
    the opportunities afforded by MAP-21, the greater will be its
    impact.
        On a separate topic, MAP-21 included a provision
    originating in the House Reauthorization Proposal directing
    USDOT to provide transparency regarding the use of Federal
    highway funds. Similar to what the Federal Government did with
    the highway funds spent from the Economic Stimulus Bill, this
    tool had the potential to provide a real tangible connection to
    the taxpayers by explaining exactly how the money they sent to
    the Federal Government is spent on projects in their states and
    communities. More than a year after expiration of the MAP-21,
    these efforts have yet to be started.
        Mr. Chairman, we commend the USDOT for telling the public
    how $27 billion in highway stimulus funds were spent. The same
    treatment should apply to the $80 billion in core highway
    improvements that occurred over the same time period.
        Unfortunately, there are not many examples yet of the time-
    and money-saving benefits MAP-21 reforms could provide. The
    MAP-21 reforms are aimed at large, complex, very expensive,
    multiyear projects. Without the assurance of stable and
    predictable long-term Federal funding, States are often
    reluctant to proceed with these types of projects. The recent
    enactment of a 5-year reauthorization bill should help remedy
    this concern.
        Mr. Chairman, Representative Duckworth, ARTBA deeply
    appreciates the opportunity to take part in today's discussion.
    I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Zachry follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Mica. Thank you. We will hold questions and we will now
    hear from Carlos Swonke. He is the director of environmental
    affairs, Texas Department of Transportation. Thanks for being
    with us. You are recognized.

                       STATEMENT OF CARLOS SWONKE

        Mr. Swonke. Thank you. Chairman Mica, Ranking Member
    Duckworth, my name is Carlos Swonke. I am the Director of the
    Environmental Affairs Division at the Texas Department of
    Transportation.
        TxDOT appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony to
    the Subcommittee meeting here today and to provide our
    experiences with implementing some of MAP-21's environmental
    streamlining initiatives.
        Since the--since its passage and subsequent rulemaking,
    TxDOT has taken advantage of many of the streamlining
    provisions. In my testimony, I've also offered comments on
    program consolidation and total interoperability.
        TxDOT environmentally approved over 1,800 projects last
    year. Our project delivery program involves billions of dollars
    worth of projects and is highly dependent upon an environmental
    process that is efficient and predictable. Provisions in MAP-21
    helped us to improve our efficiency and the predictability of
    the environmental process. I'll provide some specific examples
    here.
        Section 1313 of MAP-21 made permanent the Service
    Transportation Project Delivery program, which allows States to
    assume environmental approval authority under the National
    Environmental Policy Act typically reserved for the Federal
    Highway Administration. In September of 2014, FHWA finalized
    the rule establishing the program. On December 16 of last year,
    TxDOT and FHWA executed the Memorandum of Understanding
    allowing TxDOT to participate in the program.
        The general benefits of NEPA assignment come from the
    removal of a layer of review in the environmental process and
    the increase in independent decision-making of the State DOT.
        Even though we have been in the program for a year, it is
    difficult at this time to quantify the time savings we've
    realized. The reason is because larger projects may have an
    environmental review that extends several years. As such, we
    have not had the opportunity to start and finish a large
    project with the NEPA assignment authority. I will say that we
    are seeing a trend that shows that projects being approved with
    an environmental assessment of NEPA classification, these
    projects are taking closer to 2 years as opposed to the average
    of about 3 years prior to NEPA assignment.
        I can also say that smaller projects--time frames for
    smaller projects that are approved with categorical exclusion
    determinations are now being measured in days and weeks instead
    of months or years. I'll talk more about the MAP-21 categorical
    exclusions in a moment.
        I feel confident in saying that TxDOT's transition to and
    implementation of NEPA assignment has been successful. We are
    seeing time savings. I can also say that our internal program
    is more organized and our process more predictable. The success
    is owed to TxDOT leadership, who have been tremendously
    supportive, and TxDOT environmental staff, who are committed to
    making the program work.
        As you probably know, California has been working under
    full NEPA assignment program since it was authorized as a pilot
    program 8 years ago. TxDOT is the first to pursue full NEPA
    assignment under the MAP-21 changes. I know of at least four
    other states that are pursuing NEPA assignment at this time.
    They are Ohio, Utah, Florida, and Alaska. The six of our States
    talk frequently. FHWA has also been helpful in facilitating the
    conversation between the States on this issue.
        Now, I'll transition over to the MAP-21 categorical
    exclusions and mention one in particular. Section 1316 of MAP-
    21 created the new categorical exclusion for work done in the
    operational right-of-way. FHWA finalized the rule for this new
    categorical exclusion on January 3 of last year. TxDOT has
    utilized this categorical exclusion about 343 times over the
    past year. It is sometimes used for routine work where another
    type of a categorical exclusion may have applied, but we've
    also used it for larger projects where a more time-consuming
    environmental assessment would have been necessary without the
    availability of this categorical exclusion. In these instances,
    it has been a terrific time-saver. Given all this talk about
    time savings, you may begin to wonder about compliance or if
    the environment is being sacrificed in any particular way.
        To prepare for NEPA assignment in our program, we made our
    internal process more rigorous. This was also in part to
    prepare for the audits by FHWA, as required by the program. I
    think it's fair to say that our analysis of project impacts and
    emphasis on regulatory compliance is as strong as it's ever
    been.
        I've mentioned here what I think are the largest MAP-21
    game-changers for our environmental program. There are
    certainly a number of other MAP-21 provisions that we've used
    and we've found to be beneficial. With the limitation on time,
    I'll offer up information on these as you see fit or as follow-
    up, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Swonke follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Mica. Thank you all. We have about 3 minutes before we
    are going to have to go vote, and you might want to get a--yes,
    I was going to say you might need a little bit more time.
        I understand also, Mr. Swonke, you may have to leave to
    catch a plane. Is that true or ----
        Mr. Swonke. No.
        Mr. Mica. You are okay?
        Mr. Swonke. I'm okay.
        Mr. Mica. Oh, good. You are going to have dinner with us.
    Thanks.
        Okay. Well, we are going to recess in just a minute and I
    want to pick up with questions. What have we got? So let me
    think, probably recess for about a half-hour. Yes. Probably
    recess for about a half-hour. We will probably have two votes.
    If you could sort of be back around a little after 3:00, we
    would appreciate it, and then we can get to the questions. So
    we will stand in recess until that time and appreciate your
    indulgence. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Mica. I would like to call the subcommittee hearing
    back to order.
        And, unfortunately, this is going to continue this
    afternoon for a little while, these interruptions, but we do
    want to proceed. And I will make sure and we will keep the
    staff advised as to how much time we consume with questions.
    But we will go to some questions, and I will start. And then we
    will afford Ms. Duckworth or the minority as much or more time,
    whatever they need.
        This is sort of a meat-and-potatoes hearing. It is not a
    flashy one with indictments planned, at least this week. But in
    any event, the purpose of it is, again, as we pass MAP-21, our
    intent was there to try to discontinue some programs at the
    Federal level or consolidate programs. I have a status of MAP-
    21 consolidation. Do we have copies of this that we can give to
    the witnesses? Maybe we could. But it says 52 programs
    identified by DOT has being affected, some 31 programs were
    allegedly discontinued, and then it says 15 programs
    consolidated into other programs. Two programs' eligibilities
    included research programs to program set-aside and one program
    with many eligibilities contain transportation alternatives and
    one program continued substantially changed.
        Now, we heard Mr. Echikson talk a little bit about what DOT
    had done. I asked a question as to how--and he described some
    time setting standards that he basically also testified that
    basically they had finished most of that setting the standards,
    if says needed time to set standards, and then you testified it
    is now completed or it has been completed for the most part,
    and personnel were used in that process.
        So far, we can find only about 20 FTEs that may have been
    eliminated. Maybe you could tell us where we are now. In your
    testimony you spoke to, again, some positions being needed to
    get us to where we are and where we might go. That is a long
    question but maybe you could respond.
        Mr. Echikson. Well, what MAP-21 did, the way I like to
    think of it is you had a pie, Federal-aid highway pie. It's 40
    billion, 41 billion, now 43 and increasing. Before MAP-21 there
    were 50-odd programs so you have 50 slices of that pie. Now,
    post-MAP-21, we've got six or seven slices of the pie but the
    pie itself is the same size. The types of projects that are
    being done are the same size. So while the programs were
    consolidated or sometimes eliminated, all the projects that
    we're overseeing and all that work in terms of providing
    stewardship and oversight to the states continues. So it really
    doesn't affect our FTEs.
        Mr. Mica. Some were devolved to California and Texas, for
    example.
        Mr. Echikson. Well, that's correct, under our provision
    where we assigned NEPA to Texas and to California. The people
    who were responsible for doing that work, that was some of the
    work they were responsible for in our field offices. They have
    now other work that they do to oversee the State program.
        In addition, in both California and in Texas, we still are
    ----
        Mr. Mica. Has there been no diminish in personnel needed
    for Texas and California?
        Mr. Echikson. There ----
        Mr. Mica. Because they are pretty big states. I mean Texas
    just testified 1,800 projects. Is that correct?
        Mr. Swonke. Yes, that is correct. Yes, in the past year.
        Mr. Mica. Okay. You actually came into play about a year
    ago ----
        Mr. Swonke. Exactly.
        Mr. Mica.--the approval.
        Mr. Swonke. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. But that took over 2 years to get the approval,
    right?
        Mr. Swonke. It was approaching 2 years, yes ----
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Mr. Swonke.--when you start with our State legislation,
    too, the MOU, yes.
        Mr. Echikson. Right, so we negotiated--I think we had to
    promulgate the rule. They had to agree to waive sovereign
    immunity, and then it took about a year with Texas really being
    the first one we had in the post-MAP-21 where we had one of
    these MOUs. We're nearly final with Ohio and we just last week
    received an application from Utah. And so I think with Texas
    paving the way we've ----
        Mr. Mica. Okay. You have answered some questions. I know
    Florida was trying, when Ananth Prasad was the Secretary, to
    take over the IJR, interchange justification process report, at
    the state level, and I think another State had already done
    that. Has Texas taken over IJRs?
        Mr. Swonke. Texas has not taken over the IJRs yet.
        Mr. Mica. Well, and he told me it was just a few months.
    Now, he has been gone a year, and I asked most recently Florida
    if that had been taken over, and they said no. What is the
    story there in trying to get more approvals done? A lot of what
    we looked at, too, in the permitting, the same requirements
    were at the state level that were at the Federal level, so we
    were just going over the same thing at the Federal level,
    whereas we were trying to get the State to assume that. And
    then you set the standards. They had some approval process, but
    it hasn't worked out exactly the way we intended it because we
    still have almost as many Fed people working on the projects as
    we had before.
        Mr. Echikson. Well, we have devolved in Texas in
    particular, you know, a lot of the responsibilities. And IJRs,
    I'm going to need to get back to you. I don't know the specific
    story as far as ----
        Mr. Mica. Do either of these guys know, your ----
        Mr. Echikson. That's not really their area ----
        Mr. Mica. No? No?
        Mr. Echikson.--of responsibility ----
        Mr. Mica. Okay. Could you ----
        Mr. Echikson.--but we can get back to you.
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Mr. Echikson. Sure.
        Mr. Mica. But, again, trying to devolve as much as we can
    to the states, we don't have to eliminate positions but through
    attrition we can absorb some of the positions. But somehow, it
    doesn't seem like our original intent to consolidate, to
    eliminate as much of the Federal role. And again, you have got
    a couple big states now taking that over. Ohio is a good-sized
    State, maybe Florida, Utah. But at some point the rules have
    been set. We don't need all of those rule-setting people.
        Is it correct that there are only about 20 positions that
    have been eliminated?
        Mr. Echikson. Well, I would not tie any elimination of
    positions to MAP-21. We have in fact reduced our FTEs ----
        Mr. Mica. That is not good news.
        Mr. Echikson. As I explained, the purpose of MAP-21--or we
    see it as there was a reduction in the number of programs, but
    our responsibility is to oversee the Federal-aid Highway
    Program remained. And it still requires--we've got fewer people
    now overseeing a larger program.
        Mr. Mica. Well, only larger the last week?
        Mr. Echikson. Well, $42 billion program and ----
        Mr. Mica. And that should be overseeing at a smaller level
    because you have two big states which now have more
    responsibility at the local and State level than they do at the
    Federal.
        Mr. Echikson. They have responsibility to do their NEPA
    work, their environmental work, and we no longer in California
    and to some extent in Texas--there's a transition period
    because we're still carrying on some projects. Those people's
    responsibilities have been--we no longer have people doing
    that. They're exercising other responsibilities to oversee the
    program.
        I'd also point out in Texas and California and in any other
    State border projects, projects that cross state borders or
    international borders, remain the responsibility of FHWA.
        Mr. Mica. You can see that, but again, I don't know, maybe
    we need to get an inspector general to look at what is going
    on. Maybe we need sort of an analysis of what can be done as
    effectively at the local level with some Federal check-offs.
    Or, again, you testified you had set standards and that work is
    now complete, and you don't see any possibility of reducing the
    personnel?
        Mr. Echikson. I wouldn't tie it to that. I think a lot of
    the work we've done to implement the project--I mean, we've
    implemented rules, issued guidance, particularly those that had
    statutory deadlines ----
        Mr. Mica. And that is done.
        Mr. Echikson.--to expedite delivery of projects and ----
        Mr. Mica. That is done. Now, you would audit--it would be
    more of an audit or from time to time modifying those rules,
    but it doesn't seem like you need the full-court press of
    Federal bureaucrats doing that.
        Maybe Mr. Swonke--I am telling you it was very difficult to
    get anybody to come and testify. They are all terrified of DOT.
    And now, with authority for 5 years, they are afraid you all
    are going to hammer them if you come and say something. I don't
    like that at all. If I have to put bags on their head and
    subpoena them and bring them in here, we are going to find out
    what we can do more efficiently getting information from people
    who were seeing it.
        But I go back to the district, in Florida, I go around the
    country, and I am hearing the same thing. The Feds still have
    our--they are just moving the red tape around, and the intent
    and purpose of MAP-21 wasn't just to do that. So I don't know
    if you want to comment and risk all of your Federal funding,
    Mr. Swonke. Go right ahead. What are you seeing?
        And actually, this is a good news story because they have
    taken it--and a tangential question, have you all sent out
    anything to the State DOTs saying that we now have completed
    the rules, we now have these things, standards in place, and
    that you can do such-and-such?
        Mr. Echikson. Well, we ----
        Mr. Mica. Has there been such a communication?
        Mr. Echikson. We have been in constant--we're constantly in
    communication. We have an office in every State that works very
    closely ----
        Mr. Mica. But if you have a letter ----
        Mr. Echikson.--with the State DOTs ----
        Mr. Mica.--that has gone out to them, I would like to see
    that as part of the record, okay?
        Mr. Echikson. Yes, Sir.
        Mr. Mica. If I you haven't, well, maybe the staff--we can
    ask Secretary Foxx to get something out because it does take a
    while to get the rules of the game in place. The rules are in
    place, and now, we want folks to know what the opportunities
    are, relieving some of your responsibility. You could probably
    do great things in Washington, and again, we could also
    eliminate some of the red tape.
        But back to Mr. Swonke, tell us your experience and where
    you have been. You have seen the process and then what do you
    see is the potential?
        Mr. Swonke. Yes. I think, first off, getting into the
    program, the NEPA assignment program, you know, there is that
    time frame, but I think Tom did explain well that we started
    into or towards pursing the program prior to the final
    rulemaking. And that was, you know, with the approval and the
    working relationship with Federal highways that we had, moving
    towards that, saying we'll work with you to apply--to get your
    application going despite the rules not being finalized yet.
    And so we very much appreciated that working relationship.
        And so that, combined with our internal process, reworking
    and waiting for the final rule to come out and then getting our
    MOU executed, I think, you know, that should--is probably not
    the typical time frame for the--to gauge what it takes to get
    entry into the program because we were first and we were
    started before the final rule was in place.
        Working with our FHWA should be a division office and
    headquarters as well. They were very supportive in getting us
    into the NEPA assignment program. And so the--you know,
    especially from the headquarters level, their cooperation and
    their understanding of getting us ready, I think, is something
    that we would describe as a partnership. So I would say that
    that has been a--that was a positive experience.
        Mr. Mica. Okay. And do you see the potential for this--
    well, for your role in taking on more responsibilities, is that
    possible? Do you think you will need additional legislation to
    accomplish that? And is there anything in the new legislation
    you think that will help you move forward even faster?
        Mr. Swonke. I think the way it is laid out that now the
    application process in the MOU is very workable in the states
    that I mentioned earlier that are pursuing it now, have moved
    along fairly quickly. You know, the MOU that we negotiate or
    worked with Federal highways with has been used as a template
    moving forward and ----
        Mr. Mica. Okay. Is that the same that California is using?
    Are they both--other than the names, but are they basically the
    same?
        Mr. Echikson. There are some differences because California
    was in a pilot program before MAP-21, and we're actually in the
    process of renewing California's assignment and ----
        Mr. Mica. And you have one MOU that would be available for
    the states that want to sign up?
        Mr. Echikson. It is absolutely--I think what we'll see in
    Ohio is very, very close. There's a ----
        Mr. Mica. And how long would the ----
        Mr. Echikson.--distinction ----
        Mr. Mica.--Ohio approval process--you said about a year for
    ----
        Mr. Echikson. For our process?
        Mr. Mica. Yes, to do the MOU and ----
        Mr. Echikson. Well, the MOU itself was probably close to a
    year, maybe 10 months or so. But again, there were some
    exceptional issues with that.
        Mr. Mica. Okay.
        Mr. Echikson. So Ohio, I believe we received the formal
    application in April, and we're--it should be done by the end
    of this year. So that's a shorter period of time, and I
    anticipate with the recent application from Utah that we will
    move promptly.
        There is a process that has to go through. There's a public
    input ----
        Mr. Mica. Right.
        Mr. Echikson.--that needs to be sought and so on, but I
    think the process has reduced. And everybody sort of
    understands, as Carlos explained, the states are in contact.
    They know what we're looking for and what's expected of them.
    And we also assist them. We provide training on certain steps
    that they need to take responsibility for, how to do legal
    sufficiency reviews, how to do, you know--and we train them in
    how to do the work well.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Zachry, what have you seen from the road
    builders' standpoint? How is MAP-21 doing? Maybe you have seen
    some experience now in Texas and California. Are you seeing--
    now, some of you did testify that, let's see, California has
    sped up the process. I don't know how much. Texas, you said,
    about 25 percent of the time was whacked off?
        Mr. Swonke. That's what we're looking at. Again, we're
    still looking at that data but it looks like we can--we're--we
    should be able to achieve 25 percent. And that's essentially
    what California has documented for their reduction in time is
    about 25 percent.
        Mr. Mica. And what are you hearing from your contractors
    and road builders, Mr. Zachry?
        Mr. Zachry. Mr. Chairman, we--what we hear is--and what we
    see, and speaking as a contractor in Texas, not in the capacity
    as the chairman of ARTBA, what we see is, frankly, more
    projects coming to bid, coming out to be executed. Again,
    speaking on my own personal behalf, I don't know exactly which
    of those projects a categorical exclusion was used on, but they
    tended to be smaller projects for which that would be an
    appropriate usage, and there've been--the number of projects
    has increased quite a bit ----
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Mr. Zachry.--in the last 12 to 18 months.
        Mr. Mica. But the expedited categorical is--well, that is
    expedited also and handled under your MOU, right, and
    California's. But in general, we have also allowed for an
    expedited categorical exclusion for the Department, right? What
    are you seeing there, Mr. Echikson?
        Mr. Echikson. Well, we have completed all the rulemakings
    and issued new categorical exclusions. We have programmatic --
    --
        Mr. Mica. When this ----
        Mr. Echikson.--agreements with the states where ----
        Mr. Mica. How long has that been in place?
        Mr. Echikson. I'd have to get back to you, but I believe
    the rule was--the final rule was issued about a year ago ----
        Mr. Mica. So that took about 2 ----
        Mr. Echikson.--but I can ----
        Mr. Mica.--years to get that in place. And maybe again,
    staff, we can ask either inspector general or GAO to look at--
    probably want to try to get a year snapshot and see what
    improvements have taken place again. And our intent was to try
    to eliminate red tape, to try to speed up the process.
        We base some of this, you know, on that--was that Highway
    35, the bridge collapsed, and I stood on the bridge with
    Members. We, Mr. Oberstar and I stood on the Floor right after
    the bridge collapsed and said we would work together to
    expedite the replacement of that link in the interstate. And I
    think 435 days later I stood with about a dozen Members of
    Congress on the bridge, and that was how many days it took to
    replace that bridge, to finish the project through permitting,
    through construction.
        And that was the beginning of a working relationship with
    Ms. Boxer and other--California has some of the toughest
    environmental laws and regulations in the country. But we said
    if you could do it there, you should be able to do it anywhere.
    And what we did is we replaced an unsafe bridge with a safe
    bridge. The bridge that was built many decades ago was not
    built with any considerations like we have today for the
    environment. So we stopped dumping polluted water and runoff
    into the Mississippi River. We actually improved the quality of
    the natural waters, a safer bridge, and we did it in record
    time, which also saves a record amount of money because a lot
    of the--instead of building structures, you are paying for red
    tape and process. So that was one of our models.
        And then California was a great example because California
    has been hit with natural phenomena of earthquakes, and in
    fact, they have had to rebuild things. And they do it in the
    best fashion, environmentally sensitive attention, and also in
    rapid fire, which is what we are trying to speed up.
        I have more questions but I have been rejoined by our
    ranking member. I am only 14 minutes over. Is that--so you have
    got plenty of time just to--I will let her ask some questions
    and we will try to keep it moving.
        Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my
    late return. I was under the impression we were going to do
    another vote right away so I was sitting there and they say,
    oh, no, no, no, 10 minutes so they will probably interrupt us.
        But I would like to discuss the need for significant
    investment. MAP-21 was important legislation, and now that it
    has been replaced by the new long-term reauthorization, the
    FAST Act, I sort of want to be sure to continue the spirit of
    investment.
        In the Chicagoland area, we have 200 bridges that have been
    deemed--and I probably am not getting the technical terms
    correct, but unsafe but okay to be used or substandard but okay
    to be used. And I wonder what that means, and I would like to
    know where those are so that I don't drive over them or have my
    baby over them.
        But, Mr. Echikson, can you explain, you know, why the 5-
    year legislation with consistent funding is important to
    enabling states to move forward with transportation projects,
    especially when you have something like 200 bridges? You can't
    really--you know, my understanding, you can't really replace
    them all, but to sort of look at the long-term effect of the
    importance of this type of funding for State and municipalities
    in terms of infrastructure projects.
        Mr. Echikson. Well, having a long-term bill provides
    stability, certainty so that states and localities can do their
    planning. And even on particularly larger projects, they know
    the money is going to be there.
        I would agree with you that FAST is a start. We--there's a
    2013 Status of the Nation's Highways and Bridges Transit
    Conditions and Performance Report that was submitted to
    Congress, and as of 2010, the backlog of unmet highway and
    bridge needs has grown to--had grown to about $800 billion.
    Addressing that backlog would require about $145 billion per
    year. We as a nation spend about $100 billion per year. So
    we're not even keeping up with that need.
        FAST is absolutely a great start. It provides that
    certainty. But I would agree more funding, as we had proposed
    in the GROW AMERICA Act, is needed.
        Ms. Duckworth. Mr. Zachry, with the capability that we
    have, if we were to, you know, be able to fund as much as we
    want with the capacity for bridge builders and road builders,
    how long is it going to take us to actually invest and actually
    do the work if we were to go after, you know, all of the
    infrastructure, the bridges and the roads in this nation? I
    mean I would think that the sheer volume of what needs to be
    done, even if we threw a ton of money at it, it is going to
    take a while.
        Mr. Zachry. It would take a while. I have actually never
    even in my wildest dreams thought about that scenario if there
    was so much money to do it. You know, you've got issues of
    workforce development and the skills to actually go out and
    execute the work, the public entities, the DOTs. FHWA has to
    administer it and track it. You've got all of the permitting
    processes that have to go through. If you had an unlimited
    amount of money to go and try to address it, it would likely
    still--it would still take you a decade to--or something--I'm
    making up a number.
        Ms. Duckworth. Right. Right.
        Mr. Zachry. It would take many years. And remember that
    every time you put a road or any transportation system, an
    airport, anything in service, it immediately starts to degrade.
    And so you've also got maintenance costs as the system gets
    expanded. You have an ongoing maintenance requirement that in a
    lot of states is as significant as a capacity expansion
    requirement or greater. And so it's--just because we're
    spending more money doesn't mean we're not going to have to
    continue to spend more money.
        Ms. Duckworth. Can you compare where we are to other
    nations that we would be competing against? You know, we have
    talked extensively about the fact that the lack of investment
    in our infrastructure is something that is actually hurting our
    economy where we are not able to--it is costing us money, it is
    costing commuters money, it is costing businesses money. But,
    you know, in your position as head of your organization, can
    you talk a little bit about what is happening internationally
    and where do we stand in competition with countries that are,
    you know, our economic partners but are also our competitors,
    places like, you know, Europe and Asia.
        Mr. Zachry. I don't have that information in front of me
    but I'd be happy to get that for you.
        Ms. Duckworth. Okay. Does somebody else ----
        Mr. Zachry. I know the general discussion is that in
    certain countries, emerging countries, in China and others,
    that they spend a greater percentage of their GDP on
    infrastructure than we do in the U.S.
        Ms. Duckworth. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Echikson, can you
    address that a little bit and maybe describe briefly the master
    performance goals established by MAP-21 for the Federal highway
    programs as well?
        Mr. Echikson. I would need to get back to you on how our
    expenditures compare with other nations, but I'm sure we have
    that information and we'll get it to you.
        The national performance measures is--well, we've done a
    series of rulemakings. We have proposed all the rules save one.
    We're hoping to get that out in the first--so there's six total
    rules. The last one hopefully will be in the first quarter of
    2016. We're moving to finalize the first Performance Management
    Rule, which deals with safety. And the second Performance
    Management Rule should also be some time in at least the first
    6 months of 2016. And then there's associated rules. There's an
    update to the Highway Safety ----
        Mr. Stephanos. Improvement.
        Mr. Echikson.--Improvement Program, thank you. And also our
    Planning Rule ----
        Ms. Duckworth. So ----
        Mr. Echikson.--an Asset Management Rule, excuse me.
        Ms. Duckworth. So once you have completed your part on the
    rules, how long do the states have to establish the--I mean how
    long do you have after you have established performance
    measures for the states to implement their targets?
        Mr. Echikson. I'm going to turn this one over to Mr.
    Stephanos, who could probably answer that more accurately than
    I could.
        Mr. Stephanos. They have one year from the effective date
    of the final rules to establish targets.
        Ms. Duckworth. To establish targets. And ----
        Mr. Stephanos. And ----
        Ms. Duckworth.--do you have, as part of the rules or how
    long--how far out they can make those targets?
        Mr. Stephanos. We've proposed that the two--there's three
    rulemakings that propose the measures. Two of them have been
    issued as proposals. So for the safety rule it's one year, so
    they're setting safety targets for the end of the next calendar
    year. And then for our pavements and bridges, they're setting
    targets looking out two and four years. But in both cases those
    targets need to be incremental steps that lead towards longer-
    term expectations that would be documented in their long-range
    plan or asset management plan.
        Ms. Duckworth. So you will set the maximum measure for the
    target, right, the time period that they can take. Is that what
    you would consider the baseline or is that just the maximum? I
    guess my question is do you establish a baseline and then say,
    okay, here is the baseline for this particular target but you
    can take longer but we prefer this to be the baseline? And once
    the targets are set, can you modify them?
        Mr. Stephanos. Yes, I'm sorry. I may have misunderstood
    your ----
        Ms. Duckworth. Okay.
        Mr. Stephanos.--question about timing. When I was referring
    to the time frame, it's the time horizon that they're setting
    the target to so ----
        Ms. Duckworth. Right.
        Mr. Stephanos.--for example, they want to reduce fatalities
    by a certain number by the end of the next calendar year. The
    base that--we aren't through rulemaking establishing any
    minimum standards of what that target shall be. The baseline
    that they base the target on is documented--is proposed in the
    rulemaking, what they already use and where that data is to
    come from. It would be the most recent data that they would
    have had available and that we have available in the national
    data source.
        And then they do--to answer your second question about
    adjusting that target, for the safety target for 1 year we're
    proposing that they don't have an opportunity to adjust that.
    They set it and they're held accountable to it. But for the
    payment bridge targets, the four year target that they would be
    setting at the two year point they have an opportunity to
    adjust those targets. How they adjust them and why they adjust
    them would be documented on a website so there's transparency.
    And then this would recur every two years after that point.
        Ms. Duckworth. Okay.
        Mr. Echikson. If I could just add, it's--just to be clear
    is we set the measure so ----
        Ms. Duckworth. Okay.
        Mr. Echikson.--fatalities, rate of fatalities, the number
    of fatalities, it is the State's responsibility to set the
    target in the manner that Mr. Stephanos just described.
        Ms. Duckworth. If that happens and they fail to meet the
    target, what happens? What are the consequences of a State
    meeting a target that they themselves set to try to meet your
    measure? What are the consequences?
        Mr. Echikson. It depends on the target, but for the safety
    target, if they fail to make significant progress towards that,
    they would have to invest certain amount of money to improve
    their performance there.
        On some of the other targets, pavement, bridges, and some
    of the performance management 3, the congestion and freight and
    air quality, they may have some reporting requirements, so
    additional reporting requirements. And under the FAST Act,
    which we're just trying to get a handle on, there's a new--if
    they fail to meet the freight target, they need to provide a
    report explaining how they're going to achieve that target in
    future years.
        Ms. Duckworth. Would their funding be affected? Because
    here is the thing that I am worried about, right: Illinois is a
    State that is on the verge of bankruptcy. We are in deep
    financial trouble. So you could have a State like Illinois that
    has set a target but finds that it is not meeting--does not
    have the funds to meet that target. But then can the Federal
    funding then be cut as a result of them not meeting their
    targets, which puts them further in the hole?
        Mr. Echikson. No, their funding is set by statute. They
    will get the same amount of money.
        With respect to the safety provisions, if they fail to meet
    their safety targets, they'll have to just spend more of that
    money to address those safety issues.
        Ms. Duckworth. So that is how you would enforce the State
    targets is the statute has that mechanism in it?
        Mr. Echikson. Correct.
        Ms. Duckworth. Okay. Is there any incentive for states to
    exceed their targets? What if they do really well, or to
    encourage them to pursue more ambitious targets?
        Mr. Echikson. We think--and again, I might have Pete expand
    upon this, but we--you know, we're trying to be as transparent
    about this as possible and so we're setting--I think the plan
    and idea is that a lot of this information is going to be out
    there in the public. So if a State fails to set an adequate
    target or sets a very easy target, that information is going to
    be available to the entire public. So I think there's an
    incentive for the states just based on that--you know, having
    all of this information be transparent to try to set targets
    both that are realistic that they can achieve but that are
    ambitious as well.
        Ms. Duckworth. Do you feel that the--and anyone on the
    panel can answer. Do you feel that the deadlines set in the
    legislation in the MAP-21 were too ambitious?
        Mr. Echikson. Well, I think, as the GAO reported, some of
    the rulemaking, particularly in the performance management
    area, were very ambitious. It was developing a whole new
    program, new standards, new methods, new data. We're moving
    through that, and as I said, I expect at least within the next
    6 months we will have two of those three performance management
    rules final, and we'll have the other one proposed. So, yes,
    they were very ambitious. We're working as expeditiously as we
    can to complete them.
        Ms. Duckworth. Well, I am encouraged to hear about the
    progress that is being made with the rulemaking. I think it is
    important to balance a need to have rules promulgated in a
    timely manner, as well as the need to ensure that the rules are
    actually carefully vetted and stakeholders are given the
    opportunity to express their views. So I thank you for the hard
    work that you are doing.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Well, thank you. You know, I was reading the
    letter that you all sent us September 22 and looking at the
    projects, and then you had listed projects--I mean not projects
    but programs that you had consolidated or eliminated. I count
    12 programs that say not continued under MAP-21 program is
    spending down prior balances. So I count 12 that would be
    eliminated at the federal level. Is that right, Mr. Echikson?
        Mr. Echikson. That's correct. The states are responsible--
    that money is still available for the states to spend, and
    they--you know, we're encouraging them and working with them to
    ----
        Mr. Mica. Would we say after that this could result in some
    reduction in positions at the Federal level?
        Mr. Echikson. Again, with all due respect, the size of the
    Federal-aid Highway Program hasn't changed. The eligibilities
    for these different programs are now captured under, say, the
    Surface Transportation, the STP program, a lot more flexibility
    for the states to focus those expenditures as they deem
    appropriate.
        Mr. Mica. But it doesn't require the same Federal
    oversight? All of these--maybe you could send us, too, a list
    of who was involved in those positions previously, and then
    where they have been absorbed to.
        Mr. Echikson. I can see what we can get you, but we're not
    organized by program. We're organized by function. So we have
    people ----
        Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, function, the Appalachian Development
    Highway System, it says not continued under MAP-21. So was
    there somebody in charge of that before? I can get your old
    directory and look these people up.
        Mr. Echikson. There may have been somebody in charge of
    that program but ----
        Mr. Mica. Do you guys know, the two--was there somebody in
    charge of that before, people in an office? Was there an
    office?
        Mr. Bezio. That was a function within an office. There was
    a person that--one of their collateral duties was to oversee
    the Appalachian Development Highway System ----
        Mr. Echikson. Yes.
        Mr. Bezio.--and they still do so. Those balances are out
    there for states that--balances are available until expended,
    so those balances will spend down over many more years going
    forward. So it's one of their many collateral duties in their
    office ----
        Mr. Mica. So you can't really get rid of a program per se?
        Mr. Bezio. You--it--eventually, it'll be eliminated ----
        Mr. Mica. Yes, that is what I am saying ----
        Mr. Bezio. It eventually will be ----
        Mr. Mica.--but that was 3 years ago. This is, last time I
    checked, 2015, 3 years.
        Mr. Bezio. Right.
        Mr. Mica. I am not sure if we took care of this in new
    legislation. I am sure we didn't. But I have got at least a
    dozen here you reported to me on that situation, not to
    mention--consolidation I can see, consolidated with another
    one. But this says spending down prior balances and how long
    they would go. We don't do earmarks anymore, so I have got to
    find out from the Transportation Committee your progress in
    spending these balances down.
        Now, I could have probably--Mr. Echikson, I could have
    probably given a better case than you did on what you have
    done. If you go back and look at what you sent me--I should put
    this in the record and I will for you.
        Mr. Mica. In 2003 you had 2,366 FTEs. We were administering
    $30 billion, 31. It was 30.8. In 2012 you had $40 billion and
    you had 2,302, which is fewer people than in 2003. See, I would
    have touted that. Tell Foxx that you guys need to tout yourself
    on that kind of stuff. But then in 2014 that is where we went
    down to 2,281. Now, what I would like to do is to either have
    GAO or the IG come back and tell us--you are telling us how
    many projects you work on, and I think we need to look at
    those. This is dollars. What are you going up to in this
    program under MAP-21 for the next year, do you know, Echikson?
        Mr. Echikson. I believe it's around $43 billion.
        Mr. Mica. So it is going up $3 billion. But I want to go
    back and look at anecdotally and chronologically the number of
    projects that were involved. So let's get that from either them
    or the IG or GAO when we do this little report. So we will see
    how many actual projects you were doing. You have $3 billion
    more. Well, it is only $1 billion more because it is 42
    currently. And then we will look at these dozen programs and
    how long the spending down of prior balances is expected to
    continue. Maybe we can get the prior balances for all of those
    programs. So those are some of the things we would like to see.
        Now, I have a couple of other questions. In the bill we
    opened the door for--and here you go, Echikson. Again, this
    gave you some new responsibilities under public-private
    partnerships. I am familiar with the one we have in central
    Florida, which in record time was open. I hope it wasn't just
    because I was Chairman. But we are doing a $2.4 billion adding
    tolls to the center median. We kept free lanes free. As the
    federal Government, my philosophy is the Federal taxpayers
    already paid for them so we shouldn't be charging for them
    again. But we said the right-of-way inside medians, some of
    those assets could be converted as long as they were adding
    capacity.
        Now, we had the $2.4 million central Florida project. Maybe
    Zachry or Echikson, some of you guys might know how many others
    have taken advantage of a similar expansion of capacity through
    a public-private partnership. And that would be--Echikson, here
    is where you pipe in and you say, well, we have new
    responsibilities like your new road in central Florida, Mr.
    Mica. We add that in. Any idea, Zachry?
        Mr. Zachry. I don't have a number, Mr. Chairman ----
        Mr. Mica. If you do, maybe you could check that, get it
    back to ----
        Mr. Zachry. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
        Mr. Mica. I would like to see did that have an impact. I
    know it did in my community. I have heard of several others
    looking at that option.
        Echikson, do you know anything about it?
        Mr. Echikson. Well, our TIFIA office works very closely
    with--and has helped in ----
        Mr. Mica. You raised TIFIA and I did a billion in TIFIA,
    didn't we? And I think it went down by 60 percent. Can you tell
    us what ----
        Mr. Bezio. I believe it's $287 million in the FAST.
        Mr. Echikson. Yes.
        Mr. Stephanos. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. Yes. So it has actually gone down. Did we spend
    out the billion in TIFIA?
        Mr. Bezio. It is not fully spent down but I ----
        Mr. Mica. That is one of those ----
        Mr. Bezio.--have information in front of me.
        Mr. Mica. But obviously, there isn't as much money
    available. I am not happy about that. That was a real screw up
    they did ----
        Ms. Duckworth. Yes.
        Mr. Mica.--transportation infrastructure financing.
        Ms. Duckworth. They are not spending it.
        Mr. Mica. Well, and that is another good question for these
    guys is finding out how many TIFIA programs they had, how many
    people were involved, and how much was spent down and how much
    was unspent. They may have done that in taking the money down.
    I don't know if that was a reason. At one time I heard there
    were four or five times the dollar number of requests that we
    had or even more, but now we have lessened that. Do you know
    anything about that, Zachry?
        Mr. Zachry. Well, sir, I've heard that same general
    statistic that you had. I saw something recently about the
    percentage of TIFIA funding that was utilized by each State.
    And I think the largest was actually Texas that had availed
    itself of 20 percent of the total program dollars from TIFIA.
    But again, I don't know how many specific projects were tied up
    with either TIFIA or on a P3 basis.
        Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, and does anyone know anything more
    about the public-private partnerships, any information on that?
        Mr. Echikson. I have a little more information ----
        Mr. Mica. Yes, go ahead.
        Mr. Echikson.--which is you mentioned the I-4 project.
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Mr. Echikson. I think that was what you were referring to.
    We've used P3 projects on the Goethals Bridge, the Portsmouth
    Bypass in Ohio, and SH-22 is now--or 288, excuse me, is taking
    advantage of the P3 process. On TIFIA we have 59 TIFIA loans
    that we've closed. So it has been a very effective project.
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Mr. Echikson. We're fully supportive of public-private
    partnerships.
        Mr. Mica. Well, see, and, Echikson, next time you come in
    and say, oh, Mr. Chairman, because of your great work on MAP-21
    and you put more into TIFIA, we did 59 projects that required
    more personnel because of what you did on the public-private
    partnerships. You have got yours in Orlando and then you just
    named the others, make sure to get a list of those because I
    want to use that. But that does take more personnel, too.
        I don't mind giving DOT additional personnel, but also our
    intent was to try to devolve as much as we could of the red
    tape that Mr. Swonke talked about that I can't get the others
    to come and testify on that you are still imposing because some
    of those folks have stayed in DOT even though we have tried to
    devolve some activities, as many as possible to the local
    level, and they have a new role justifying their existence. And
    that is what concerns me. Do you see my point?
        Mr. Echikson. I do but I would say we're fully supportive
    of the devolution of certain requirements. The CEs, the states
    are responsible for all these CEs. They have to report to us
    but there's not much--there's limited oversight by FHWA except
    when they tried to create a new CE. But on the CEs that were
    developed in the statute ----
        Mr. Mica. And then ----
        Mr. Echikson.--that you referred to ----
        Mr. Mica. And then, again, you could come in and say that
    we have gone from whatever it was, more back in 2003 with less
    money, and I am sure it would be less projects and doing more.
    So I am trying to make your case for you for DOT. I will help
    you out with the testimony next time.
        Mr. Echikson. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. All right. But I think it would be very helpful
    if we look at this, where our success is, where we can get you
    out of the red tape business, where we can devolve to the
    states, where they could get more money back quicker to the
    states because they turn the projects around quickly.
        You told me you went to 1,800. What was like your previous
    record?
        Mr. Swonke. We were--that's about what we've done in the
    past couple of years, but before that, it was more below 1,500,
    more like in the 12 to 1,400 range.
        Mr. Mica. You are talking actually what you testified to
    about 25 percent more efficiency out of it. When we did the
    road show for the MAP-21, we took the committee across the
    country, and we just heard one place after another cut the red
    tape, there are things that we can do locally, less in
    Washington, more State and local, and we could get the money
    out faster, get the projects done and approved faster. And
    sometimes you don't want to degrade the environment in any
    event, but sometimes there are very similar--and in fact, I
    think California and some of the states have even tougher
    environmental requirements than the Federal Government. Is that
    not the case, Mr. Zachry, Mr. Echikson?
        Mr. Zachry. At least our perspective, yes, sir, that
    California has very rigorous environmental standards that as a
    general rule exceed Federal ----
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Mr. Zachry.--requirements.
        Mr. Mica. And we negotiated MAP-21. Of course, Ms. Boxer is
    still the ranking person there, but she was chair and she
    wasn't going to give one inch on any issue regarding the
    environment that she felt wasn't being protected by actions and
    MAP-21.
        Well, I think this hearing is really just to sort of take
    the temperature of what we have done with the last bill, the
    new bill is coming in. If we have to, we can do some technical
    adjustments with Chairman Shuster and others, but what we want
    to do is get the biggest bang for the buck. If you need more
    personnel and we have programs at the Federal level that
    warrant them, we want to make certain that you have adequate
    resources and personnel.
        I think it would be very good, and I will talk to the
    Secretary and we will ask the Secretary to see if he can send
    out a letter now saying that some of these standards have been
    set to the states and that we have maybe even a model of MOU
    and see if there is more interest in devolving. That is our
    intent, Congress' intent. Nobody has to do it, but letting the
    states know that it is there. We have hammered out some of the
    details to get us there and here is an example. I think that
    would be most helpful.
        Mr. Zachry, you know, you guys are building them and we
    want to get the maximum for the money. We need to know from you
    where there are any opportunities for moving this whole process
    forward faster, can be realized. And a lot it can be the
    administration. We have got new legislation in place but we can
    work with Secretary and others to get these things done.
        And I really appreciate Mr. Swonke risking his entire
    transportation program and his relationship with DOT to risk
    coming here today. You are the only one I could find in the
    entire country. The others ran like scalded rabbits.
        Mr. Swonke. My pleasure.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. DeSaulnier, do you have any questions?
    Welcome, sir.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Since I walked in and you were talking
    about California environmental rules and Senator Boxer, I just
    had a question to the FHWA. In California we did get, when I
    was still in the Legislature, a lot of input from our
    contractors in Caltrans about water permits and I wonder
    without, from my perspective--pardon the expression--diluting
    the protection either in the California Environmental Quality
    Act or NEPA. Do you look at those kind of things in terms of
    effectiveness and maybe making it--if there are obstacles to
    getting done efficiently? Because we get a lot of that from the
    contractors.
        Mr. Echikson. We absolutely have taken several steps to
    expedite those and coordinate those reviews. Just recently, we,
    along with the Corps of Engineers, reissued the Red Book, which
    is all about aligning environmental reviews. We're supporting,
    at least on the federal side, the use of a single environmental
    document that all the different federal agencies can and should
    rely upon. So we take several steps to try to coordinate that
    and expedite that. We have a permitting dashboard that's up for
    certain projects. We have an eNEPA project where all the
    environmental documents can be shared electronically instead of
    by hand with copies being sent around. It's all to try to
    expedite and reduce the time it takes to permit and proceed
    with a project.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. And do you measure those outcomes over time
    to see if they are still getting the environmental outcomes you
    want to but help facilitating getting the projects up and done?
        Mr. Echikson. I don't know that we've had it in place all
    those efforts long enough to make that sort of evaluation, but
    that's something we're always looking at to ensure that what
    we're doing is protective of the environment.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. And then just on a different subject matter
    but somewhat similar, I read on, I believe, your website or
    DOT's website about performance standards in general and that a
    lot of states are taking leadership. I think Washington,
    Minnesota, Massachusetts come to mind. So just watching what
    they are doing when it comes to performance standards for the
    future, both what you have in the act but potentially new ones,
    do you continue to engage with the State agencies when it comes
    to performance standards?
        Mr. Echikson. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to,
    but in terms of our Performance Management Program, we--one of
    the important things, because it is a completely new program
    with a lot of new requirements for the states and localities,
    is we've engaged with our stakeholders extensively to ensure we
    get their input and to ensure that whatever we ultimately
    finalize is--sort of minimizes the administrative burden that's
    being placed on them.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. So it would be twofold, and one would be
    just project delivery on the new capital side and then the
    maintenance and operations. So, for instance, Washington has
    something called a Gray Book where they actually every quarter
    they measure both investments in the corridor, capital
    investments, improvements and maintenance and operations, and
    then they tell the public what the results have been in terms
    of congestion. So do we do things just to make sure that we are
    mindful that, these as the expression goes, the states are the
    laboratories and we are keeping up with them or at least being
    apprised of it on both sides, project delivery and then
    maintenance and operations of the system?
        Mr. Echikson. I think I'd have to get back to you. I'm not
    quite sure. I mean in terms of our Performance Management
    Program, we're absolutely building off of what states are
    doing. We're trying to build a national program. In terms of
    project delivery, we work--obviously, the states are the
    laboratories of democracy, and if they've got great ideas,
    we've got a whole program called Every Day Counts that works
    very closely with the states and, you know, pushes forward new
    and innovative ideas so that we can expedite project delivery,
    one that Mr. Mica mentioned before about the bridge.
        We've got a whole new sort of bridge program where we
    install these bridges promptly. They're sort of precast
    prebuilt bridges that are dropped into place. That was all the
    result of our Every Day Counts program. So we're trying to do
    different things, working with the states to expedite project
    delivery, as well as ensure protection of the environment.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Appreciate that. I appreciate that, Mr.
    Chairman. And if you can get me any material, I would be
    delighted to look at it.
        Mr. Echikson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mica. Any additional questions, Ms. Duckworth?
        [Nonverbal response.]
        Mr. Mica. Well, I want to thank you for participating
    today. We made some progress. We are also finding some new ways
    to develop projects. I attended a conference with Bobby Scott
    down in Orlando, assimilation conference, and one of the
    technologies we saw there that was developed for assimilation
    was training bridge inspectors. It is hard to replicate some of
    the training and also have bridges that are defective and going
    out. It is very costly, time-consuming. But I was quite
    impressed with some of the advances for training personnel, see
    what is out there, what is safe, some of the monitoring now we
    have of the bridges. And some of those are new programs. And
    you have got to put this stuff in your next testimony of new
    things you are doing.
        But there is a lot of good news. We always try to strive to
    do better, and you have given us some information today. We are
    going to ask you for additional questions, fill-in-the-blank.
    So we are going to leave the record open.
        I have the testimony of Michael P. Melaniphy, and he is the
    president and CEO of American Public Transportation, APTA. We
    will put that in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Mica. He is not with us but has a wealth of suggestions
    and recommendations, observations.
        Then, there being no further business, again, I want to
    thank our witnesses and, too, their participants for being with
    us today. And we will adjourn this hearing. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]