    [Senate Hearing 115-419]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-419

    THE ADMINISTRATION'S FRAMEWORK FOR REBUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE IN AMERICA

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

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 1, 2018

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    32-989 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      Ranking Member
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                   Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 MARCH 1, 2018
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Chao, Hon. Elaine, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation..     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Barrasso.........................................    12
            Senator Carper...........................................    14
        Response to an additional question from:
            Senator Capito...........................................    33
            Senator Fischer..........................................    33
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Markey...........................................    34
            Senator Merkley..........................................    35
        Response to an additional question from Senator Moran........    37
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Van Hollen.......................................    38
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    42
    James, Hon. R. D., Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
      Works..........................................................    46
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    53
        Response to an additional question from:
            Senator Boozman..........................................    55
            Senator Capito...........................................    55
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    55
            Senator Van Hollen.......................................    56
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    59
            Senator Wicker...........................................    61

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Trump Upends His Own Infrastructure Plan With PPP Comments to
      Democrats, Eno Transportation Weekly, September 29, 2017.......   236
    Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax hike, lawmakers say, Politico,
      February 14, 2018..............................................   239
    Here's How the U.S. Chamber Would Rebuild and Modernize America's
      Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accessed March 15,
      2018...........................................................   243

    THE ADMINISTRATION'S FRAMEWORK FOR REBUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE IN AMERICA

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman
    of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman,
    Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Ernst, Sullivan, Carper, Cardin,
    Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and
    Van Hollen.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. Today, we will discuss the
    need to modernize our Nation's infrastructure and President
    Trump's plan for rebuilding infrastructure in America.
        This Committee has historically taken the bipartisan lead
    on infrastructure issues in the Senate. I am very pleased that
    Secretary Chao and Assistant Secretary James have come to our
    Committee first to discuss the infrastructure principles shared
    by President Trump on February 12.
        Our infrastructure drives the health, well-being, economy,
    and prosperity of the Nation. We depend upon it to move people
    and goods, to get to our jobs, to protect our homes from floods
    and disasters, and to provide our families with clean water.
        For too long, we have not prioritized the needs of these
    infrastructure systems. Funding has not kept pace with our
    infrastructure; needs and burdensome Federal regulations have
    slowed efforts to spend the money efficiently.
        The time has come to make a significant investment in our
    roads, bridges, ports, and water systems. The Administration's
    plan proposes to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of
    Federal money to generate well over $1 trillion of
    infrastructure impact.
        Part of this can be accomplished by cutting Washington's
    red tape. President Trump's plan prioritizes streamlining. This
    will allow needed projects to start quicker and finish faster
    for lower costs.
        As States, counties, and towns wait to obtain permits from
    Washington, costs for projects rise, and time is wasted. It
    should not take a decade to permit a project that takes only
    months to build. We need to speed up project delivery.
        The President's plan calls for a 2-year or less limit for
    Federal approvals on projects. That is a common sense approach.
    Only in Washington is 2 years considered a quick turnaround. We
    need regulatory streamlining so we can build these projects
    faster, smarter, better, and cheaper. The President's plan also
    makes the infrastructure needs of rural America a priority.
        A significant portion of the Federal money proposed in the
    President's plan is designated specifically for rural States.
    Rural communities need to have an equal seat at the table as we
    address infrastructure needs. What works in Baltimore or
    Chicago may not work for smaller communities like Cody, Casper,
    or Cheyenne, Wyoming. We need an infrastructure plan that
    includes projects for both.
        Better roads and water systems across America help us all.
    Everyone benefits from safer highways and dams in rural
    communities. Any plan should have significant and sustained
    funding levels for rural areas.
        On the Environment and Public Works Committee, we are
    making good bipartisan progress on legislation to address
    America's water infrastructure. We are working side by side on
    water infrastructure legislation that we plan to pass later
    this year. We need to expand that bipartisan cooperation to
    roads and bridges as well.
        America prides itself on its ingenuity and commitment to
    provide infrastructure that meets the needs of its people. I
    believe we can work in a bipartisan way on legislation that
    will make our infrastructure even better. That process begins
    today by hearing more about the President's plan.
        I would like to thank both Secretary Chao and Assistant
    Secretary James for joining us today and for the insights they
    will provide for the Committee.
        I would now like to recognize our Ranking Member, Senator
    Carper, for his remarks.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning. It is great to see our Secretary, and I want
    to be among the first to congratulate our new Assistant
    Secretary with the Army. Thank you for your willingness to
    serve, and we look forward to working with you. It has been a
    joy to work with both of you through the confirmation process.
        Welcome, and we are glad to see you.
        I am disappointed to learn that Administrator Pruitt is
    unable to testify before us today despite EPA's important role
    in the improvement and development of drinking water and
    wastewater infrastructure. Having said that, we are delighted
    that the two of you are here. I thank you for joining us.
        As we consider a potential infrastructure bill, it is
    helpful to hear from you, and we were glad to finally receive
    the Administration's proposal last month. My statement says it
    will largely be up to the Congress. I will be honest with you.
    It is up to you--the two of you--as well. It is up to the
    Administration. It is up to a lot of people. This is a shared
    responsibility.
        A big part of it is on us. We have a pretty good working
    relationship here. Hopefully, that will help us along the way.
        The Chairman and I agree on a lot of things. We disagree on
    one or two. However, we agreed on the need for the Federal
    Government to be a good partner to States when it comes to
    investing in our infrastructure.
        As a former Governor and State Treasurer, I know it is hard
    to ask a State to go from an 80-20 funding formula, for
    example, for roads--80 percent Federal to 20 percent States; it
    is hard to flip that and go from 80-20, where the Federal
    Government plays the major role, to 20-80 where the States are
    expected to put up the 80 percent. It is hard to make up that
    slack.
        Some of us in the Senate met with a bunch of Governors on
    Capitol Hill this week. We had a good conversation about this.
    They are concerned, and you might imagine why. They are not
    anxious to accept that view. I think folks in Wyoming and
    people--Governors and so forth--would all be reluctant to take
    that deal.
        It is one of a number of places where I think the math of
    the Administration's plan does not add up. Last week some
    economists up the road from us in Philadelphia at the
    University of Pennsylvania modeled the Administration's
    proposal, and have been modeling it for a while.
        They found out that at most it would spur an additional $30
    billion in State, local, and private infrastructure spending.
    Think about that--an additional $30 billion in infrastructure
    spending. That is a far cry from what the Administration is
    promising.
        On the campaign trail, I think the President basically is
    saying we are going to put $1 trillion into infrastructure. The
    folks at the University of Pennsylvania at the Wharton School
    of Business are saying, I don't think so.
        I am also concerned about the Administration's proposal to
    give projects incentive awards based almost entirely on the
    percentage of non-Federal money they would raise, regardless of
    project quality and benefits. I think we might want to rethink
    that. I think there is something to be said for more money for
    the leveraging of non-Federal money with the Federal money but
    project quality has to be among the considerations.
        Does this make it safer? Does this reduce pollution? Does
    this make easier for us to get from place to place and that
    kind of thing? Particularly, I am disappointed though by the
    degree to which the Administration is focusing on sweeping
    rollbacks to our Nation's bedrock environmental protections.
        I am committed to delivering projects quickly. I know you
    are, too, but safely guarding environmental projections does
    not always achieve time savings. In fact, I think it rarely
    does. Doing so would potentially put our communities at risk
    and can deprive the residents who would be most affected by
    these projects from making their voices heard.
        There are a number of ways to speed up projects. Putting on
    my old Governor hat, we were able to do those without
    environmental harm, including many this Committee helped enact
    into law and that this Administration is choosing, at least
    thus far, not to implement. For example, we could ensure that
    permitting agencies have enough funding to quickly complete
    reviews. We could enhance coordination tools and implement new
    authorities in 2020 that Congress already passed.
        Unfortunately, the Administration has done the opposite by
    proposing to cut permitting agencies' budgets and slashing
    funding for the Department of Transportation's Infrastructure
    Permitting Improvement Center by two-thirds. That does not
    really speed us up. That does not give us the expedited process
    we all want.
        Congress--thanks to the efforts of this Committee--created
    the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council in 2015 to
    coordinate and expedite permitting. That was in 2015. I am told
    that no executive director of the Federal Permitting
    Improvement Steering Council has been appointed. It has been 3
    years.
        Major rulemakings at DOT would implement streamlining
    provisions in the FAST Act and the MAP-21 Act, that I and many
    of our colleagues have supported, has not been finalized. It
    has been 3 years, and in some cases, 5 or 6 years. Frankly, one
    of the best ways to speed up projects is to provide long term
    funding, program certainty, and make grant awards in a timely
    manner.
        Listen to this. Time and again, research has shown that
    inadequate funding is the most common factor delaying water and
    transportation projects. Unfortunately, so far this
    Administration is holding up grants and delaying funding
    decisions. DOT released a funding notice for the INFRA Grant
    Program 8 months ago but still has not awarded the $1.5 billion
    Congress provided for that program. It has been 8 months.
        In the first three-quarters of 2017 EPA awarded only a
    third as much grant funding as the agency did over the same
    period of time in 2016. The Department of Transportation's 2019
    budget proposes cutting funding for all new transit capital
    projects, all new transit capital projects, to cut Amtrak
    funding and to just end the TIGER Program, which I think most
    of us think is a pretty good program.
        For an Administration allegedly interested in efficiency in
    infrastructure--we are, too--it is frustrating to see so many
    critical programs being canceled, mismanaged, or underfunded.
    It is particularly hard to take this Administration's proposal
    to spend $200 billion on infrastructure seriously when that
    proposal is paired with a budget that would cut $240 billion
    from existing infrastructure programs.
        Instead of funding our Nation's aging water infrastructure,
    the President's fiscal year 2019 budget proposal for the Corps
    of Engineers provided by Secretary James is down approximately
    4 percent below the fiscal year 2018 request. For the first
    time in 20 years the President's budget for construction for
    this important entity is below $1 billion.
        In addition to these budget cuts, the Administration
    authorized no new starts in investigations to fund project
    studies and no new starts in construction. That is cutting off
    the pipeline for new Corps of Engineers projects.
        These cuts are disturbing given the Corps' backlog. I
    mentioned this 2 weeks ago, Madam Secretary, in our meeting
    with the President at the White House.
        The Corps' backlog is $96 billion and growing. My
    understanding is we are looking at a budget proposal around $6
    billion. We have a backlog of $96 billion, and we have a budget
    proposal for the Army Corps of $6 billion. It will be a while
    before we get through that backlog, Mr. James.
        Worse, the proposal would shift the burden for financing
    these projects almost entirely onto local stakeholders. Can
    some of them do more? You bet they can. Should they do more?
    You bet they can, but we have to be realistic, too.
        Our country depends on water infrastructure investments in
    part because such infrastructure helps expand our GDP. We need
    to do that. Each Federal dollar spent on civil works programs
    generates $5 in revenue to the U.S. Treasury, and--listen to
    this--$16 in economic benefit.
        The current budget proposal ignores the inherent Federal
    role the Corps plays in stabilizing our economy, the important
    role. These proposals are placed on the Corps and the sectors
    of our economy it supports through what could be a death spiral
    if we are not careful. The Administration appears to ignore
    these clear benefits in developing their budget proposal while
    selectively using a benefit to cost ratio to kill nationally
    significant projects.
        In closing, let me briefly discuss revenues. Secretary
    Chao, when you testified before us last May you told us that
    the Administration's Infrastructure Task Force was looking at
    two issues, permitting and pay-fors. To be honest with you, I
    was surprised when I finally saw the Administration's plan
    devoted 15 pages to permitting while the word pay-for failed to
    appear even once. Maybe I missed it, but I do not think so.
        My colleagues have heard me say more than a few times that
    if things are worth having, they are worth paying for. For
    decades we have relied in this country on a user fee approach
    to pay for much of our infrastructure, especially our
    transportation infrastructure, roads, highways and bridges. In
    years to come we will see an ever growing number of electric
    and fuel cell powered vehicles on our roads that do not use
    gasoline or diesel fuel.
        In anticipation of that growing trend, 3 years ago we
    adopted right here in this Committee legislation that called
    for a multi-state pilot alternative revenue mechanism to fund
    roads in America. We call it Vehicle Miles Traveled or words to
    that effect, the road user charge. Over the next several years
    we should grow the number of States in that pilot and
    eventually run a national pilot of that funding approach.
        Eventually we are going to morph away from taxing gas and
    diesel. We will have all these hydrogen projects on the road
    eventually and all these electric projects on the road. They
    are not going to buy any diesel fuel or gasoline, but we need
    to make sure they are going to be paying their fair share.
        Unfortunately, that proposal is still a few years away.
    Meanwhile, we have a growing shortfall in the Highway Trust
    Fund to address.
        Fortunately, several of us were in a meeting I alluded to
    earlier with the President and our Secretary last month when he
    repeatedly declared his strong support for a 25 cent per gallon
    increase in the Federal gas tax on gasoline and diesel fuel.
    That could become one important additional source of funds to
    help us pay for the improvements we need.
        At first, I thought he was kidding, Madam Secretary, but he
    was not. When I talked to him later, he indicated he had been
    talking about this for weeks.
        Bo Simpson had something like roughly 4 cents increase in
    gas and diesel tax over 4 years, going forward. I presented
    that to the President 2 weeks ago, as you recall, and he said,
    that is not enough, Tom. We need to do more. Twenty-five cents,
    we should do it now.
        He said he would give us air cover, political cover, and I
    thought, God bless you, Mr. President. If he is serious about
    that, if he is serious about something along this line, we can
    do a deal here. We can get this show on the road.
        Finally, let me say I believe there are others as well that
    would find that bipartisan support. With the Administration's
    support and the President's promised leadership, I hope we will
    be able to find agreement for a much needed source of new
    revenues to fund our critical infrastructure needs while we
    also pursue other promising ways to get better results for the
    transportation dollars we spent.
        In those 15 pages I talked about of permitting reform,
    there are some good ideas. There are some that are not, but
    there are some good ideas there, too.
        I understand figuring out how to pay for things is always
    the hard part, but we were not sent here to just attack all the
    easy things. We were sent here to do some tough things, to have
    difficult conversations, and make tough choices to achieve
    better outcomes.
        I heard yesterday from our colleague and friend, John
    Cornyn, with whom I was with in the gym this morning. He told
    us he does not know if Congress will have time to do something
    on infrastructure in this session. I gasped when I heard that,
    shared with me by a reporter the other day.
        I talked with Senator Cornyn about that today. He did not
    think he had said that. That is great. I hope he didn't because
    we have plenty of time, and we ought to have plenty of time to
    do infrastructure and transportation. That is what people sent
    us here to do. They want us to do the hard things.
        If we do, with apologies to Mark Twain, we will amaze our
    friends and confound our enemies. Let us do both.
        Thank you so much. Thank you for letting me go on.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        I would like to now welcome our guests: Hon. Elaine Chao,
    Secretary, United States Department of Transportation; and Hon.
    R. D. James, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
        I would like to remind the witnesses that your full written
    testimony will be made a part of the official hearing record.
    We ask that you please keep your statements to 5 minutes so we
    may have time for questions.
        I look forward to hearing your testimony beginning with
    Secretary Chao.
        Madam Secretary.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. ELAINE CHAO,
              SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Ms. Chao. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
    members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be
    here today.
        Infrastructure is the backbone of our world class economy.
    It is the most productive, flexible, and dynamic in the world.
    It is a key factor in productivity and economic growth. Yet,
    the challenges are everywhere.
        With respect to surface transportation infrastructure,
    traffic congestion and delays cost drivers nearly $160 billion
    annually. About one-quarter of our Nation's bridges are
    structurally deficient or in need of improvement. More than 20
    percent of our Nation's roads are in poor condition, and the
    transportation needs of rural America, which account for a
    disproportionately high percentage of our Nation's highway
    fatalities, have been ignored for too long.
        That is why 12 government agencies have been supporting the
    President on a comprehensive Infrastructure Initiative, which
    the President announced as a priority in the 2018 State of the
    Union address. Transportation is just one component. The
    Initiative includes--but is not limited to--drinking and
    wastewater, energy, broadband, and veterans' hospitals as well.
    It is designed to change how infrastructure is designed, built,
    financed, and maintained in communities across the country.
        The goal of the President's proposal is to stimulate at
    least $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investment, which
    includes a minimum of $200 billion in direct Federal funding.
    The guiding principles are to: one, use Federal dollars as seed
    money to incentivize infrastructure investment; two, provide
    for the needs of rural America; three, streamline permitting to
    speed up project delivery; and four, reduce unnecessary and
    overly burdensome regulations.
        In addition, a key element of the proposal is to empower
    decisionmaking at the State and local level. They know best the
    infrastructure needs of their communities.
        Half of the new infrastructure funds would go toward
    incentivizing new State and local investments in
    infrastructure. A quarter of the Federal funds will be
    dedicated to addressing rural infrastructure needs, as
    prioritized by State and local leaders. As a former Secretary
    of Labor, I am pleased to note this plan also has a work force
    component to help workers access the skills needed to build
    these new projects.
        The department is also implementing the President's One
    Federal Decision mandate announced in August 2017 to help speed
    up the delivery of new infrastructure and reduce costs. In
    fact, the Department is working on a new process to handle the
    permitting of complicated, multi-agency projects to meet the
    President's new expedited time line.
        In addition to permitting reform, the department is doing
    its part to help grow the economy and create jobs through
    regulatory reform. Costs associated with new DOT regulations
    decreased by $312 million in 2017, and the department is on
    track to decrease these costs by at least $500 million in 2018.
        By incentivizing new investment in infrastructure,
    eliminating overly burdensome regulations, providing support
    for rural America, and streamlining the permitting process, the
    department is helping to improve our quality of life and build
    a brighter future for all Americans. This Administration looks
    forward to working with all of you on these very important
    issues affecting our country's economy, vitality, productivity,
    and also quality of life.
        Thank you again for inviting me, and I will be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Chao follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you so very much for your
    testimony.
        Mr. James, please proceed.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. R. D. JAMES,
            ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

        Mr. James. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    Committee, and Ranking Member Carper.
        I am honored to testify before you today on the
    Administration's recently released infrastructure plan and the
    water resources needs and challenges of our Nation. I look
    forward to working with you to advance the delivery of our
    Nation's water resources infrastructure through innovative
    approaches and streamlined processes.
        The Army has played a significant role in the development
    of the Nation's water resources in the past. The Army maintains
    our Nation's coastal navigation channels, inland waterways,
    dams, navigation locks, flood control levees, and hydropower
    plants.
        These projects help prevent flooding in our river valleys
    and along our coasts and facilitate the movement of
    approximately 2 billion tons of waterborne commerce. They also
    provide 24 percent of the Nation's hydropower.
        Much of our Nation's infrastructure is aging, as you know,
    and requires significant amounts of resources to maintain. The
    traditional approach to constructing and maintaining these
    projects is not sustainable.
        The Administration's infrastructure legislative principles
    released on February 12, 2018, provide a common sense approach
    to addressing these issues. The legislative principles directly
    applicable to the Civil Works mission fall within six general
    areas.
        The first is water resource infrastructure. The
    Administration's principles would remove barriers and provide
    new authorities to expedite the delivery of infrastructure
    projects through a variety of mechanisms focused on revenue
    generation, streamlining project delivery, and innovative
    acquisition approaches.
        The second area is inland waterways. For this area, the
    combination of new and existing revenue streams combined with
    non-Federal partnerships would enable greater efficiencies and
    innovations for our Nation's inland waterways.
        The third area is associated with incentives in the form of
    grants to non-Federal entities. These are intended to encourage
    innovation, accelerate project delivery, and increase State,
    local, and private participation.
        The fourth area pertains to the Water Infrastructure
    Finance and Innovation Act. This Act provides for incentives in
    the form of low cost loans, which are intended to encourage
    innovation, accelerate project delivery, and increase State,
    local, and private participation.
        The fifth area involves environmental reviews and
    permitting. In addition to broad environmental and permitting
    reforms, the principles would further streamline the Civil
    Works Section 404, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act,
    and Section 408 programs to timely support decisions while
    maintaining the environmental protection provided by the law.
        Finally, the last area applicable to Civil Works'
    responsibility is divestiture. The infrastructure legislative
    principles authorize Federal divestiture of assets that would
    be better managed by State, local, or private entities. The
    Administration's infrastructure proposal is an opportunity for
    the Army to apply new financing approaches and streamline the
    processes to meet current and future needs of the Nation.
        I recognize the importance of streamlining environmental
    reviews with the goal of shortening timelines to an average of
    2 years while still protecting the environment. In particular,
    I am looking to eliminate redundant and unnecessary reviews,
    concurrencies, and approvals.
        In addition to the Administration's legislative proposal, I
    will look internally at the Civil Works organization's
    authorities, policies, regulations, and procedures to identify
    opportunities for increased efficiency and effectiveness. I
    want to stop focusing on the process and focus on the results.
        Simply put, the Army must ensure that we put the Federal
    funds we are entrusted with into the ground effectively and
    efficiently. To me, let's move the dirt is the goal.
        In closing, the time has come for us to focus on outcomes
    as we rebuild America. The way we use our water resources
    significantly impacts the economic advantage afforded to us by
    our river systems. It will determine if we protect and restore
    the capital assets afforded healthy ecosystems, and it will
    determine how we protect life and property from the coast to
    coast threat of flooding.
        I look forward to working with this Committee in the future
    to improve the ways that we can invest in our water resources.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. This
    concludes my statement. I look forward to taking any of your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much to both of you. We
    appreciate you being here today.
        Many of the members of the Committee are here looking
    forward to asking questions. Before we do that, we have two
    pieces of housekeeping.
        One is, in order to assist Chairman McCain in his absence,
    Senator Inhofe is going to be chairing the Senate Armed
    Services Committee hearing today. I ask permission of my
    Republican counterparts that as he arrives, he be allowed to be
    recognized for questions at that time.
        The second is that we have a series of three roll call
    votes beginning at 11:45 a.m. It is my intention to complete
    our hearing by noon in order for all of us to fully participate
    in the voting on the floor.
        With that, Madam Secretary, thank you again for being here.
        Earlier this year Congress passed a budget that designated
    an extra $10 billion a year for infrastructure. As the head of
    the governmental department that spends the most Federal
    dollars on infrastructure, would you agree, Madam Secretary,
    that an extra $10 billion per year would make a substantial
    difference to States, including Wyoming, Delaware, and others,
    and is a good start in our efforts?
        Ms. Chao. There is approximately $4 trillion in
    infrastructure needs in this country, so every dollar counts.
    Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. I am showing you a chart, Madam
    Secretary. As you can see from the chart, on average, highway
    projects take the longest time to complete the environmental
    impact statements, longer than rail, longer than public
    transit, longer than electricity transmission. It is the
    highway projects, on average, that run 6 and a half years.
        Do you agree that streamlining is critical in terms of
    speeding up the needed investment in our Nation's highways?
        Ms. Chao. Absolutely. There are many private pension funds
    that are very interested in investing in public infrastructure.
    Yet, in a number of States, the private sector is disallowed
    from participating in the financing of public infrastructure.
    That is one issue.
        Two, while I see a great deal of enthusiasm from the
    private sector, pension funds, and others to participate, one
    of the hurdles they face is the lack of ready projects to be
    financed. If the permitting process can be speeded up and also
    from a common sense, less bureaucratic way of doing things,
    they can be streamlined, and it will actually make more
    projects available for the private sector to invest.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. James, the Committee has already held
    two hearings this year related to enacting the Water Resources
    Development Act legislation. In light of those hearings, it is
    clear that the Corps needs to have the right tools and
    flexibilities to carry out water infrastructure projects.
        If implemented, how would the Administration's
    infrastructure framework ensure the Corps has the proper means
    at its disposal for important water infrastructure projects? I
    can think of one in Wyoming, the Jackson Hole ecosystem
    restoration. How do we make sure those are delivered
    efficiently, effectively, and at the lowest cost for the
    American taxpayer?
        Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, you just discussed with the
    Secretary the situation I feel has held up our way of doing
    business in the Corps for a long time. That is the fact of
    multiple agencies overseeing the environmental impact
    statements as we go through developing those.
        Under President Trump's plan, there would be one agency in
    charge of that, one decision, one agency, and the agencies will
    work together with the understanding that they do not have 6
    years to complete an environmental impact statement.
        As far as the other things the Corps does, part of it is
    planning, designing, engineering, and finally getting to
    contracts and construction. We are trying. The Corps has
    already internally made great steps and strides toward
    improving their process.
        I am working with General Semonite and his key staff. We
    will further dig into that and try our best to address it so
    that those processes do not take as long, and what money we are
    afforded can then be put in the ground rather than in the
    process.
        Senator Barrasso. We appreciate General Semonite being
    here.
        You have testified a number of times before the Committee.
    Thank you for being here with us today to join in the
    discussion.
        Mr. James, current authorities allow the Corps to receive
    funding from other entities such as natural gas companies and
    railroads to augment existing regulatory resources. It is done
    so that permit evaluations can be expedited under Section 404
    of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
    Act.
        What benefits or drawbacks do you foresee if this authority
    were to be expanded to allow the Corps to receive funding from
    any non-Federal entity to augment existing regulatory
    resources?
        Mr. James. Sir, I would like for you to give me the
    opportunity to let my staff get back with you immediately on
    that. I have thoughts, but I do not want to give you the wrong
    information on that, if you will, sir.
        Senator Barrasso. I would also ask that they look into if
    there are any additional considerations that would help the
    Committee understand what additional authorities would help the
    Corps further expedite the processing of evaluating the
    regulatory permits.
        Mr. James. Absolutely. We will work on that and get back to
    you. I appreciate that.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Secretary, you have only been on the job
    for a short while, and you have shown great wisdom in your
    response to that last question. When you do not know the
    answer, say so. Tell us you will get back to us, and make sure
    you do. That would be great.
        Secretary Chao, I mentioned in my opening statement that
    the folks at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of
    Business--including an economist who I think was a former Bush
    Treasury official--evaluated the Administration's claim that
    $200 billion in spending will somehow produce $1.5 trillion
    overall.
        The folks at the Wharton School of Business stated that the
    Administration is off by 98 percent. In other words, for every
    $100 it has claimed, the amount of money being generated, funds
    being generated from this proposed spending, 98 percent of that
    will never materialize. Other experts, including the Heritage
    Foundation, of all people, have looked at Wharton's report and
    say it is spot on, which kind of surprised me.
        Let me give you a chance to respond to these experts and
    briefly walk us through how we take $200 billion and turn it in
    to $1.5 trillion even though States tell us they are cash
    strapped, and we know the vast majority of projects to repair
    or replace infrastructure will not attract private investment.
    Explain how that works.
        Ms. Chao. Obviously, we disagree with both the Heritage
    Foundation and the Wharton Institute. It actually takes people
    with real life business experience to know how it works.
        We see it in the TIFIA loans, with the Build America
    Bureau, and also with the RRIF loans. We give $1 that leverages
    $14, basically in credit, and of the $14, there is 40 times
    leveraging overall investment spending. We see it every day in
    the Build America Bureau.
        Senator Carper. I am not from Missouri, but on this one,
    you are going to have to show me.
        Madam Secretary, the department elite has a key role in
    negotiating a win-win situation outcome on fuel economy and
    greenhouse gas tailpipe standards with California. I have been
    concerned that no real negotiations with California have
    occurred to date.
        I am also concerned about press reports that the
    Administration may choose to weaken the standards far more than
    any automaker has asked for. I have asked them all. I have
    asked Detroit, I have asked 10 of them, what do you need in
    terms of standards. They said not as much as the Administration
    apparently thinks we are asking for. We are not.
        We need a win-win situation here. This is ripe for a win-
    win situation. I want to ask your commitment to do two things.
    I do not think they are too difficult things to do.
        As the process moves forward, let me ask you to commit to
    do two things. One, I have heard that the Transportation
    Department and EPA staffs are not working together as well as
    they can and should in this regard.
        I just want to ask if you will direct your political and
    career staff to answer all of EPA's questions about the
    Transportation Department's model and analysis quickly and
    completely. That is my ask.
        Ms. Chao. I would be more than glad to answer
    transportation questions. As for what happens at the EPA, I
    will talk with the Administrator, but it is up to him.
        Senator Carper. I want to make clear I am asking you to
    direct your political and career staff to answer all EPA's
    questions about the Transportation Department's model quickly
    and completely. That is what I am asking.
        Ms. Chao. I will do what I can, but I do not understand
    that question. If it is another jurisdiction, I cannot make
    them answer that.
        Senator Carper. We are asking your department to answer the
    questions asked by another part of the Administration, EPA.
        Ms. Chao. Right, and I cannot do that. They have to answer
    their own questions.
        Let me also disabuse you of the idea that we are not
    working together on this, because we have been. In fact, we
    have held almost daily meetings at the White House with EPA and
    the Department of Transportation on this issue, and California.
        In fact, I have had the Acting NHTSA Administrator, Heidi
    King, fly out to California several times in an effort on our
    part to try to come together and understand and work together
    with California. From our point of view, I feel quite confident
    that we have really tried.
        Senator Carper. Madam Secretary, I am going to ask you to
    hold it right there, because what I have repeatedly heard from
    EPA, from within the Department of Transportation, and from the
    folks in California, the CRRV, that there are no active
    negotiations underway, that the give and take you are telling
    us about is not occurring. Let us have an off-line conversation
    about that.
        What I have heard is deeply concerning, and I want to make
    sure you are hearing the same thing I am hearing.
        Ms. Chao. If that is happening, I want to know about it, so
    thank you for bringing that up.
        Senator Carper. We are talking about permitting reform. We
    have done a lot. We need to do more. My hope is we will have an
    oversight hearing that actually looks back to 2012 legislation,
    what we asked for and what has been done and one that looks at
    2015 legislation, what has been asked for and what has been
    done.
        I will ask three questions for the record. Why has the
    Administration failed to appoint an executive director to the
    Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council? You have had
    several years to do that.
        Why has the department not finalized all the MAP-21 and
    FAST Act streamlining rules? In some cases, you have had 3
    years. In other cases, you have had 5 or 6 years to do that.
        Why has the Administration proposed to cut the budget for
    permitting agencies, including the DOT's Infrastructure and
    Permitting Improvement Center?
        Those are legitimate questions. We do not have time to
    respond to those today, but those are good questions and need
    to be answered.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        I would like to submit for the record about TIFIA and RFIA
    because the history of these programs has successfully
    demonstrated that Federal funding can be significantly
    leveraged. We have testimony from Jennifer Aument to this
    Committee in July 2017.
        Without objection, that will be submitted.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Carper. May I make a similar unanimous consent
    request to submit the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School
    analysis that indicates only 2 percent of the moneys in fact
    would be generated?
        Ms. Chao. I would be more than glad to provide comments to
    that as well.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate you coming to me. I am chairing the Armed
    Services Committee hearing at this time, but what we are doing
    here is so significant. I am very excited and positive about
    it.
        Just to clarify, we have been in contact with our
    committees, two committees, Commerce and Environment and Public
    Works, the White House, and the Administration many, many
    times. We got a good running start, and good things are
    happening.
        I was encouraged by the President's proposal. I think we
    can all come together, and there is no better evidence of that
    than a joint Wall Street Journal article written by Senator
    Whitehouse and me just last week.
        I ask unanimous consent that it be made a part of the
    record at this point.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2989.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2989.020

        Senator Inhofe. I am very serious when I say this, Madam
    Secretary, because Senator Whitehouse is one of the more
    progressive Democrats. I am a conservative Republican, and we
    agree on this stuff.
        There is an old document nobody reads anymore called the
    Constitution that tells us what we are supposed to be doing
    here, defending America, and they called it post roads back
    then, so we have every intention of doing that.
        The Harvard Harris Polls show that 84 percent of Americans
    responded that we need to invest more in our infrastructure,
    and then they talk about different methods of paying for all
    this.
        I do think when we look at this we need to consider the
    additional revenue that will be coming in as a result of the
    increase in economic activity. It works out for each 1 percent
    increase in economic activity; it develops about $3 trillion
    over 10 years of additional revenue.
        This worked back in the middle 1960s with Kennedy and
    certainly worked with Reagan. That needs to be considered.
        Secretary Chao, I will be looking forward to working with
    you. Our Oklahoma Department of Transportation has shared with
    me that for each year of delay of a project, 3 percent of cost
    actually goes up. Timing is important.
        When funding is scarce and hard fought to earn, it can
    really limit what our States and local entities can accomplish.
    I appreciate the Administration's recognition of this fact with
    their focus on project delivery reform.
        We did a great job in the FAST Act with a lot of the
    project delivery reforms. It was huge, so we got a lot more
    miles done than we would have otherwise. At that time, I
    chaired this Committee, and Senator Boxer was the Ranking
    Member. We did accomplish some things.
        Can project delivery be both timely and environmentally
    sound? I would ask you to respond to that, if you would.
        Ms. Chao. Of course. Out of the 30 different regulations
    required by the FAST Act, everything has been done except for
    two. They should be coming out by June of this year.
        On the other issues about one Federal decision announced
    last August 2017, this actually addresses more than the FAST
    Act. It addresses multi-departmental, multi-agency
    coordination.
        We are finding as we implement what the FAST Act has asked,
    there are larger problems about permitting that spans the
    entire Government, which is why we need to tackle the rest of
    the permitting processes in the other departments on a multi-
    agency basis.
        Senator Inhofe. Your first response, people should pay
    attention to that. We have actually done that. It has been done
    now, so we can do it again.
        Secretary James, I do have a question I want to ask you
    concerning the Corps of Engineers. However, it is a long one,
    so I am going to submit that for the record if that is all
    right.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this priority.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to start with Mr. James by asking you about the
    tribal villages along the Columbia River that we had a chance
    to discuss before. These are the villages that were flooded by
    building dams on the Columbia River. We rebuilt the city that
    served the Caucasian population but did not fulfill our
    commitment to the Native American tribes to rebuild their
    villages.
        I think you indicated some interest and support for this. I
    just wanted to check in and see if you are prepared to help
    champion getting this long overdue commitment done.
        Mr. James. Yes, sir. I do think that is the right thing for
    this country to do. The tribes that were moved out of their
    homeland areas have been promised housing in other places. We
    should do that as a Nation. There is no question about that. I
    look forward to working with you in the future and will help
    with your efforts in doing that.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. I sure appreciate
    that.
        Secretary Chao, I wanted to ask you about the basic
    question of Buy America and Buy American referring to U.S.
    sourced steel and inputs for what we build as a U.S. Government
    and Buy America, U.S. sourced steel and other products for
    projects funded by American grants, U.S. Government grants.
        In his inaugural address, President Trump said, ``We will
    follow two simple rules, buy American and hire American.'' Is
    the President still standing by this pledge for buy American?
        Ms. Chao. Absolutely, at the Department of Transportation.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, because here is the thing. Buy
    America is not mentioned at all in your infrastructure
    proposal. It is not mentioned in the context of the
    transportation and water projects; it is not mentioned as a
    requirement in the infrastructure grants; it is not mentioned
    in the issue of relocation of utilities; and it is not
    mentioned in the requirements for the airport improvement
    program, so on and so forth.
        Can you pledge to insert Buy America and Buy American into
    these proposals so that we will buy American made steel?
        Ms. Chao. There is an executive order outstanding on
    January 20, so I think it is quite clear that is governed by a
    different authority. But you make a good point, and I will
    certainly consult with the White House on that.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Actually, unless it is in the
    legislation issuing these grants, it will not actually be
    compelling. I would like to work with you to achieve that
    vision and that objective.
        Ms. Chao. If I may add one other thing, we are actually
    applying the Buy America to all these grants, so thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. I appreciate that a great deal.
        The second thing I wanted to explore is the challenge of
    whether we are simply moving chairs around on the deck of our
    infrastructure Titanic. In that regard, I have a chart I would
    like to show you.
        This chart shows that the President's budget is taking a
    total of $280 billion out of infrastructure: out of the TIGER
    grants, $5 billion; out of the Highway Trust Fund, CBO
    estimates $164 billion; out of the new starts, almost $20
    billion; out of Amtrak, $7.6 billion; Army Corps of Engineers,
    $14 billion; CDBG, $30 billion; home grants, incredibly
    important to so many areas for housing, $9.5 billion; public
    housing capital, $19 billion; the Economic Development
    Administration, so important in rural areas, $2.5 billion;
    aviation, $3.6 billion; and rural water, $5.1 billion.
        These total $280 billion. If we look at what is going on
    here, we are cutting $280 billion for infrastructure here and
    adding $200 billion over here. That is a net loss on
    infrastructure. How does that fulfill the vision of an
    aggressive infrastructure program?
        Ms. Chao. I think there is a disagreement about the purpose
    and use of Federal funding, which is obviously a discussion
    point for us and why we are all here.
        The numbers you mentioned are compared to the 2018 fiscal
    year. If you look at 2017, it is actually not a cut; 2018 went
    up, and therefore, that is how you consider it a cut.
    Nevertheless, the FAST Act increases the mandatory portion by
    more than 4 percent. Overall, the DOT budget is pretty much the
    same in 2019 as well. The $200 billion that has been moved has
    been inserted into the infrastructure proposal which is in
    another part of the overall Federal budget.
        Senator Merkley. I thank you for your answer. I am not
    persuaded by it. It appears to me we are not making the type of
    commitment we are pretending to make. I will close with this
    because my time is up. How quickly it passes.
        Folks back home are saying--let me get this straight. We
    take our resources and build something. The Federal Government
    puts in a tiny amount of money, and then they take credit for
    it. This is the 80-20 versus the 20-80 split we heard
    previously.
        They are saying, we simply do not have the 80 percent, so
    we will not build under this structure. Quite frankly, they
    consider it a bit of a farce to put in a tiny bit of money and
    then claim credit for the entire thing. There is a lot of
    concern that this is not really going to fly in terms of
    motivating or enabling infrastructure that we desperately need.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
        Senator Moran.
        Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Madam Secretary and Mr. James, thank you for being here.
        I have just a couple of comments before I ask questions of
    the Under Secretary.
        For you at the Department of Transportation, I want to
    raise the topic of hours of service, a topic that never seems
    to end, at least in my life as a representative of a rural
    State in particular. For you Madam Secretary, I want to raise
    the mandate on the electronic logging device.
        There is a 90-day extension that expires March 18, a few
    days from now. I need your help with the Federal Motor Carrier
    Safety Administration working with the livestock industry to
    delay the implementation of ELD.
        This really is an hours of service issue, and how do you
    haul livestock, live animals, and comply with the mandate, the
    hours of service law. From a humane and common sense point of
    view, what we have to date does not work, but the rubber, so to
    speak, is hitting the road because of the ELD mandate changing
    the method by which truckers record their hours of service.
        There is a petition pending, a request for a delay. March
    18 is around the corner. That is a 5-year delay request, but
    this issue needs more attention than just this issue of
    electronic logs. I thank you for your nodding yes and hope that
    is a suggestion that you will help us try to find a solution in
    the matter of just a few days.
        Ms. Chao. I am very concerned about this issue. I have
    heard a lot on this issue from various rural Senators and
    Congressmen. Exemptions or waivers are one way, but we are also
    tied legislatively, so we hope to work with you on addressing
    that on a larger basis.
        Senator Moran. We are working legislatively in the
    appropriations process, potentially in the omnibus bill, but
    March 18 is a very short period of time. They have allowed a
    90-day delay, which gets us to March 18, which we appreciate,
    but it does not go far enough.
        Second, Madam Secretary, in your confirmation hearing, I
    submitted to you a question about the commercialization of rest
    areas. You indicated in your written response that you would
    adhere to the existing law.
        Congress has voted on the issue of commercializing rest
    areas, and overwhelmingly--I think the vote was 86-20 that
    voted against this commercialization.
        I do not have a specific question, but I would just
    highlight for you your answer to me. The present plan in front
    of us from the Administration does include commercialization
    proposals.
        Again, as a rural legislator interested in those local
    businesses and franchisees, we have a concern about that
    commercialization and the competition that could come in an
    unfair way.
        Ms. Chao. I hear you.
        Senator Moran. Thank you, ma'am.
        To the issue of water resources, in 1 minute, 58 seconds, I
    want to raise two topics with you. One is the way that lack of
    resources is a common denominator, a complaint that you would
    have and that I would have in regard to our ability to do water
    resource projects.
        I wondered about the process by which the Army Corps of
    Engineers has now gone to a three phase process in what used to
    be a two phase process. We now have the feasibility phase, the
    PED phase, and the construction phase.
        Mr. James, my question is has there been any consideration
    of reducing those three phases to two? Because once we get
    through the first two phases, which take a period of time, then
    there is no money for the construction phase. Can we shorten
    the first two phases into one in the hope that those projects
    are not lingering as long as they do today waiting for the
    funding?
        Mr. James. Those are internal negotiations going on inside
    the Corps of Engineers. To answer your question, those are
    three completely different things. We are looking at
    streamlining. We know we want to quit wasting a penny here if
    we can and add the pennies and put a dollar to ground. That is
    what we want to do. I have the commitment from General
    Semonite, and we are going to do that.
        However, the three phases you talk about I think we will
    streamline each one of them, but I am not sure we could do away
    with both of those, I mean one of those, because they even have
    different types of engineers and planners working on them.
        Senator Moran. I thank you for your answer. If you will
    follow up with me, that will be fine.
        Mr. James. I will do that, sir.
        Senator Moran. Thank you very much.
        My final point to you is I have noticed a particular
    problem we have in Kansas related to the Corps. I will not ask
    a question because I am out of time. But I would highlight for
    you, we have ongoing dam work that the surface of the dam is a
    State highway. That requires a detour over the dam for the next
    several years while construction is ongoing.
        There are no resources to provide the detour route around
    the dam construction the Army Corps of Engineers is involved
    in. We need the Army Corps of Engineers to work more closely
    with State and local governments in advance of making the
    decision so that a solution can be found for alternative
    routes.
        Mr. James. That is very reasonable.
        Senator Moran. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Moran.
        Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I thank both of our witnesses.
        Secretary James, I want to talk about our high priorities
    for Maryland and our region in regard to environmental
    restoration and sites for dredged material. I asked you a
    question specifically about Poplar Island, which is an ongoing
    project in the President's budget. I first want to acknowledge
    General Semonite's letter that I received this past week in
    which he has completed the Chief's report on Mid Bay, which is
    the next staging area to continue the program.
        I appreciate General Semonite's comment, ``I consider this
    a very important project for our ecosystem and navigation
    system.'' That is what Poplar Island was authorized for, the
    first of its kind that would be a win-win situation for our
    navigation and for our environment. Congress specifically
    authorized it for that purpose and has funded it.
        I understand in the President's budget submission, he
    reclassifies the project to compete solely on navigation rather
    than on the dual purpose and provides $21 million of funding
    which is an inadequate amount of money. We hope to address that
    during the appropriations process.
        I am not sure legally what basis the President has in the
    budget submission to change the authorization by Congress. I
    would just ask your cooperation to please check the legality of
    that but more importantly, to work with us because the bottom
    line is we want to be able to continue this policy which has
    been extremely successful for navigation and environment where
    we have the local community strongly supporting the site
    locations, and we have been able to maintain our channels.
        My request is if you would personally take a look at this,
    work with us, and work with the regional delegation so that we
    can make sure Poplar Island can receive what it needs for its
    last diking and be able to complete its mission. We then hope
    to transition to Mid Bay.
        Mr. James. How much time do I have?
        Senator Cardin. If you are going to tell me, I agree with
    you completely, you can take as much time as you want.
        Mr. James. I have been briefed on this area, the dredging
    and the Poplar Island situation. I could not answer that if you
    posed it as a question right now for sure. My staff will get
    back with you on the specifics, and I will be happy to work
    with you as we go forward.
        Senator Cardin. I appreciate that.
        Mr. James. I have an overall theme and feeling on dredging
    and dredge disposal in our country. The fact of it is that a
    lot of our dredged material placement is turned down and not
    allowed because of ``environmental objections.'' It actually
    prevents dredging, due to the increase in cost, from taking
    place. It is not just up the north coast; it is all around. As
    we move forward, as I can get out of the cradle, I intend to
    talk to the other permitting agencies about that and see if we
    can agree on a way forward.
        Senator Cardin. I appreciate that.
        I will return the question; how much time do you have? If
    you do, I would invite you to join me, Senator Van Hollen, and
    others to visit Poplar Island. I think seeing it would be
    extremely important in understanding what has been achieved by
    keeping our channels open but also the restoration of a major
    part of the Chesapeake Bay, a former habitable island that now
    is a plus for our environment.
        I welcome working with you on that issue but recognize that
    Congress specifically did authorize that project.
        Mr. James. Thank you.
        Senator Cardin. The second point I want to make, Mr.
    Chairman, in the remaining seconds, is to Secretary Chao.
        I am not going to go through all the revenue issues. I do
    not understand how we are going to get to $1.5 trillion. I do
    not understand the $200 billion because I think it is recycled
    money, so we are not really putting up any more.
        I say that recognizing that we have challenges. In the
    Washington region, I have a special interest. I commute back
    and forth from Baltimore every day. It is a challenge. We need
    better transit; we need better commuter rail; we need better
    ideas on rapid rail.
        Obviously, we have to work with the community to make sure
    that what we do is consistent with what the community wants,
    but we need to have the resources in order to move those
    forward. These are substantial investments that under the
    current funding laws are going to be a challenge to get. We
    need additional funding in order to achieve that.
        The last point I really want to put on the table is that we
    have a tremendous backlog in maintenance. Before we build a lot
    of new roads and bridges, are we sure that our current roads or
    bridges will not collapse? Do we have a commitment to maintain
    our infrastructure as part of this initiative?
        Ms. Chao. The overall funding for roads and bridges in
    America is assumed 84 percent by the States and local areas.
    Actually, the Federal funding is only 14 percent. Putting that
    aside, I think maintenance is very important. We want to work
    with you on that.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
        Senator Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I want to thank Senator Moran for bringing up the EDL
    mandate issue. I want to go a little further and ask Madam
    Secretary if there is a specific date on which the DOT will be
    getting back to our livestock haulers on that.
        Again, the time period is running out. It is just about 2
    weeks away. We do need to have an answer there. Do you have a
    date that we can expect the DOT to respond?
        Ms. Chao. I think the larger problem is the hours of
    service. If we do anything, it will be another extension.
        Senator Ernst. OK.
        Ms. Chao. Another waiver.
        Senator Ernst. Waiver.
        Ms. Chao. That is not a permanent solution, so we need to
    have a legislative fix of some sort.
        Senator Ernst. I do agree. We can expect that waiver to
    occur before the mandate runs out?
        Ms. Chao. I am sympathetic.
        Senator Ernst. OK. We hope to see that.
        Ms. Chao. A decision will have to come up before March 18.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Secretary. I did hear from a
    hauler yesterday that they are very, very concerned about this.
    Thank you for that.
        I would like to also visit with you, Secretary, about rural
    broadband. I was really glad to see that the Administration
    recognizes the importance of rural broadband deployment and
    making it eligible for funding in the framework of a rural
    infrastructure program.
        The Federal broadband loan and grant programs, such as the
    FCC's Universal Service Fund High Cost Program and the USDA's
    Rural Utilities Service, are already in place. I am wondering,
    why then did the Administration decide not to do direct funding
    through the existing programs?
        Not all States are going to have the level of expertise or
    programs in place to efficiently build out their broadband. I
    do understand the significance of doing block grants to the
    States, but why are we not utilizing existing programs? Do you
    maybe have some thoughts there?
        Ms. Chao. I will look into that. I have not seen it, but
    you brought it up. Basically, 25 percent of the funds will go
    to rural America, and then it is going to be up to the Governor
    and the States as to how they want to spend that. Broadband
    obviously is one area we would encourage them to pay some
    attention to.
        Senator Ernst. Absolutely. Broadband is very, very
    important to rural areas. I do understand that we will have a
    quarter of the dollars allocated for the infrastructure package
    going to those rural areas.
        However, we also want to make sure there is expertise
    involved with building out some of those broadband networks. We
    will encourage you to go in and look at that or those working
    on that program just to make sure those dollars are as
    efficiently used as possible for rural areas.
        Ms. Chao. Let me add one more thing. That goes through the
    FCC.
        Senator Ernst. Yes, thank you. I appreciate that. We will
    want to work with the FCC on that, but we are glad it was
    included in the infrastructure package.
        Secretary James, of course I am going to bring up one of my
    favorite topics, our Cedar Rapids flood mitigation project. It
    does apply to a number of other Senators as well that have
    projects affected by the benefit to cost ratio.
        I sent a letter to you and General Semonite in early
    February looking for answers to some of the questions I have
    about how the Corps determines which low BCR projects are
    funded under the significant risk to human safety exception.
        I have posed this question numerous times to both General
    Semonite and Director Mulvaney. We have not really figured out
    how those determinations are made for that safety exception. Do
    you have an update on how those determinations are made and
    when I will be receiving an official response?
        Mr. James. No, ma'am. Since your letter, I have not been
    updated on that. I did ask the question, and the answer at that
    time, which was a short answer because we were weaving through
    everything, was that there has not been one excepted since
    2012, I think it was.
        That is not a very good answer, and I am not giving you
    that for an answer. If you will allow me a few more days to get
    deeper into it myself, I will give you a call, meet with you,
    or whatever and try to figure this out.
        The way the budget is written and the other factors that go
    into making that determination of BC ratios just will not fit
    for the Corps to legally do that work right now. However, I
    want to look forward with you and work a way forward to see
    what we can do on it.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. If it does require
    a legislative fix, we need to figure that out so that rural
    areas, those low cost of living or low property value areas do
    have a fighting chance to be considered.
        Mr. James. Yes, ma'am. I cannot suggest that to you, but I
    can give you any information you ask for.
        Senator Ernst. Yes. As far as the safety issue as well, a
    life in Iowa is just as valuable as a life in California or New
    York.
        Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, last month the NTSB issued reports on two
    rail accidents that occurred last year in Queens, New York, and
    Hoboken, New Jersey. In these reports, the NTSB found that
    engineer fatigue caused by undiagnosed severe obstructive sleep
    apnea resulted in the crashes in both instances.
        This is not a new issue. The engineer of the train that
    derailed in the Bronx in 2013 also suffered from undiagnosed
    sleep apnea. This is a problem in other modes of transportation
    as well, including trucking.
        Addressing this problem is on the NTSB's most wanted list
    for transportation safety improvements. All of this is why I
    was very troubled when the Department of Transportation
    announced it was withdrawing a proposed rule on screening rail
    engineers and truck drivers for obstructive sleep apnea.
        Given you have withdrawn the proposed rulemaking, what does
    DOT intend to do to address this very real and urgent safety
    concern?
        Ms. Chao. Senator, since you brought it up, I will take
    another look.
        Senator Gillibrand. OK. Thank you very much. I am very
    grateful.
        The second issue is about the Federal Transit
    Administration, which is an agency of your department. It has
    issued a rating of medium to low for the Gateway Program's
    Hudson Tunnel Project, which is the second lowest possible
    rating. This rating means that the project is not eligible to
    move forward to the next phase in obtaining a Federal New
    Starts grant.
        How did the FTA take into account the funding the States of
    New York and New Jersey have committed to providing for the
    local share of the project, which is 50 percent, over $6
    billion?
        Ms. Chao. First of all, this rating was done by the career
    folks, so it occurred in the FTA multi-layers before it even
    comes up to the political appointees.
        No. 2, we are not anxious for a fight on this. But for New
    York and New Jersey to consider funds debt that we have given
    them as part of their equity back to us is something that we
    disagree with. In our calculation, New York and New Jersey are
    putting in 5 percent not 50 percent.
        We will continue to talk about this. But using TIFIA loans
    and RRIF loans as part of equity is not how we define equity.
        Senator Gillibrand. Right. But the Administration has
    spoken about a desire to have more local skin in the game when
    it comes to funding infrastructure projects, so that the
    Federal Government is not bearing the full cost. Do you think
    that Federal loans which require repayment by the State or the
    local entity count as having skin in the game for the purpose
    of providing local cost share?
        Ms. Chao. It is like a mortgage. If you have to put in 20
    percent mortgage, and you get another loan and you put down
    your down payment as for the 20 percent, that is not really
    equity. That is just another second mortgage that further
    encompasses the house.
        Senator Gillibrand. Right, but if you are only putting in
    loans and not putting in any funding through grants, it means
    that we are paying for the whole project.
        Ms. Chao. No, because our loans are 50 percent, so you are
    counting back the 50 percent we are giving to you in loans as
    equity.
        Senator Gillibrand. Right, but we are paying for it. The
    same way you actually own the house, you own the house.
        Ms. Chao. Over time, but there has to be some equity in
    there. I do not want to argue with you because this is a huge
    issue. It is huge to you, it is important to me, so let us
    continue to work on it. I think it is a further definition of
    what equity is and what the local participation is.
        Senator Gillibrand. OK. How would you like to work forward
    to move this project forward?
        Ms. Chao. I am open to your suggestions as well but perhaps
    we should get our groups together. I will have our staff work
    with your staff.
        Senator Gillibrand. Let us do that. Thank you.
        Ms. Chao. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank both of you for being here today.
        Madam Secretary, I am very excited about the
    Administration's attention to rural development, particularly
    in infrastructure. I am pleased about the 25 percent proposed
    funds that would address the unique needs of rural America. I
    echo Senator Ernst's feelings on the broadband issue.
        Let me ask a question. We have received a lot of questions
    on how you are going to match this, what States are going to
    do, and what private entities are going to do. Obviously, in a
    State like West Virginia, private investment would be very
    difficult to attract.
        Because the Administration says raising new non-Federal
    revenue will be given a 50 percent weight, I live in a State
    that is very challenged, cash strapped, and rural; however,
    last year our voters voted via referendum to approve a sale of
    $1.6 billion in road bonds. You might ask how we did that. We
    did it with a lot of push from the Governor and the Secretary
    of Transportation. We also did it because there was a feeling
    from the ground up that we needed to do something about our
    deteriorating infrastructure on the State level.
        At one of our institutions in West Virginia is a radio guy
    named Hoppy Kercheval, and he came up with a great advertising
    theme. I am recommending this to you. It was FTDR. He just
    played it every day on statewide radio. It stands for fix the
    damn roads, and it worked.
        I want to make sure, even though this was passed last fall,
    that when we move forward with this infrastructure, we are
    going to be able to retroactively grab that money as part of
    our match. I know it is in the infrastructure proposal, but
    when it talks about years 0 to 1, you only get X percent. It is
    unclear how much weight we are going to be able to have for the
    $1.6 billion we have, as a cash strapped State, already put
    into something we feel very passionate about.
        I would just bring this to your attention. I do not know if
    you have a comment on this, and where you think this goes. The
    States that have already made this move do not want to be left
    out and only be looking forward instead being able to look
    retroactively to a year or two previous.
        Ms. Chao. I want to compliment West Virginia for its
    creativity and innovation. It can be done as has just been
    shown. Two, I also understand that not every rural region or
    State can have that kind of access or can do that.
        That is why the rural component of the infrastructure
    proposal is not competitively bid but would be somewhat on a
    formula basis. Of course that is subject to the will of
    Congress. What you are talking about is a look back.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Ms. Chao. The look back currently is 3 years.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Ms. Chao. But I hear you, and I will go back to the White
    House and talk to them about it.
        Senator Capito. Just a little more specificity in the rural
    area. I know I have been in numerous meetings with you and
    others where those of us who represent rural areas really
    emphasize the difficulty of attracting that private capital.
        Thank you.
        Secretary James, I wanted to talk to you about our
    waterways and the fiscal year 2019 budget request from the
    Corps. The Lower Mon locks, which are important obviously to
    moving cargo down through the Ohio River, were built in 1907.
    They are very antiquated and need repair. Our barge operators
    have already supported a tax increase, but they are not seeing
    the dollars coming to the areas most frequently utilized.
        I would like to ask you why does the Administration not
    propose spending any money on the Lower Mon Kentucky or
    Chickamauga projects in fiscal year 2019?
        Mr. James. The reasoning, as I understand it in my short
    time being on the job, is they do not meet the benefit-cost
    ratio that is required for those kinds of work.
        Senator Capito. Are you saying it is down on a priority
    list, or are you saying we are just going to close them, and
    let them deteriorate to where they can no longer be used? What
    is the long term plan here?
        Mr. James. I do not have that yet, ma'am.
        Senator Capito. Maybe we could work together on it.
        Mr. James. I would be happy to work with you further on it.
    I apologize, but I just do not have a grasp on that. I do know
    that is why no work has been done on them, and they have not
    been budgeted, because of their BC ratio.
        That is about it that I know right now, but I would be
    happy to go forward working with you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary James, first of all, let me thank you for your
    testimony.
        I just want to associate myself with Senator Cardin's
    comments and questions with respect to both the success of
    Poplar Island in the Bay and the Mid Bay project. They are
    really important to navigation for the channel for the Port of
    Baltimore.
        I look forward to working with you and your team. We have
    been and will look forward to continuing to work with you and
    your team on that.
        Secretary Chao, thank you for your testimony.
        When it comes to modernizing our infrastructure, this is an
    issue that brings people together. I remember the night
    President Trump won. The one substantive issue he talked about
    was modernizing our infrastructure. A lot of us would have
    liked to see us move earlier, but we are glad to try to move
    forward now.
        I guess my question does go to the simple budget math. One,
    I have serious questions about the leverage ratios in what used
    to essentially be a Federal program. Our highway program is 80-
    20. You have flipped that on its head for the purposes of this
    new proposal to 20-80.
        I support many of these private-public partnerships. You
    and I have worked together on the Purple Line in Maryland. We
    believe that will be a successful private-public partnership,
    but if you look at the funding sources, almost half comes from
    the Federal Government.
        That was really required to leverage both the State and
    local component as well as the private component as part of
    that project. I think there are very serious questions about
    the leveraging math that is being used.
        I have a question about the overall budget math, following
    up on Senator Merkley's question because it really does seem
    like an effort to give with one hand. Of course we cannot give
    in terms of this transportation plan because we do not know the
    funding source for the Federal share, and taking away with the
    other.
        What is your estimate of the current 10 year shortfall in
    the Transportation Trust Fund?
        Ms. Chao. As I mentioned, the mandatory part of the
    department increases 4 percent, so pretty much the budget is
    the same. It is also the same compared to fiscal year 2017. It
    ramped up for 2018. That is what people are comparing to but in
    2017, that was always the level.
        Senator Van Hollen. I serve on the Budget Committee. We
    just had OMB Director Mulvaney recently.
        Ms. Chao. The $200 billion actually is put in for the
    infrastructure.
        Senator Van Hollen. I know that is a separate fund. You are
    putting in $200 billion, but we do not know what the source of
    funding exactly will be, but you are cutting, as Senator
    Merkley pointed out, in other parts of the budget, well over
    $200 billion in infrastructure.
        For example, you were just talking to Senator Capito about
    rural areas. You cut $5.1 billion in the 10-year budget out of
    rural water and wastewater grants. When you add it all up,
    including the shortfall.
        Ms. Chao. That is not in my budget.
        Senator Van Hollen. I know, but it is the case, is it not,
    that one of the uses of the $50 billion that can go to rural
    areas is for rural and water infrastructure? Isn't that part of
    the plan?
        Ms. Chao. My infrastructure portion is only transportation.
        Senator Van Hollen. I am talking about this whole plan.
    Senator Capito raised the importance of the $50 billion plan.
    One of the eligible uses for that is water and sewer. The
    President's budget cuts $5.1 billion from that pot of money.
    That is just one example.
        The other big one is the shortfall in the current
    transportation program that allows for Federal 80 and State 20.
    My question is, do you have any plan as the Secretary of
    Transportation to fill that estimated $160 billion shortfall
    over the next 10 years?
        Ms. Chao. That whole issue about the Highway Trust Fund has
    to be addressed because it is solvent until 2020 because of the
    FAST Act.
        Senator Van Hollen. I just want to know if--as of today--
    you have a plan.
        Ms. Chao. I want to work with Congress on that.
        Senator Van Hollen. OK.
        My last question, Mr. Chairman, goes to following up on
    Senator Carper's question.
        The President has now said on a number of occasions that he
    does support an increase in the gas tax to fund this $200
    billion plan. My question is very simple. Does the President
    mean what he says about increasing that?
        Ms. Chao. You should ask the White House.
        Senator Van Hollen. Have you been in meetings with him?
        Ms. Chao. Yes, I have.
        Senator Van Hollen. Has the President told you he supports
    an increase in the gas tax?
        Ms. Chao. I think you need to ask the White House.
        Senator Van Hollen. I am asking you.
        Ms. Chao. I do not divulge conversations with the
    President. I think every Cabinet member will say that.
        Senator Van Hollen. OK. We are talking about a $200 billion
    plan which many of us think is already too small to start. The
    leverage assumptions, many of us think, are way off, but even
    that $200 billion is right now a hallucination until we have a
    real funding source. I am just curious if the President meant
    what he said.
        Ms. Chao. I agree with you we need to find pay-fors. That
    is very important. There is no agreement on that, so we need to
    work on that.
        Senator Van Hollen. I am just wondering if the President
    has found a pay-for, which is what he has said, in the gas tax.
    But we will follow up, if he has not told you, the Secretary of
    Transportation.
        Ms. Chao. You will have to ask the White House.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
        On Nebraska Statehood Day, the Senator from Nebraska,
    Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is Nebraska's
    birthday, and I am pleased to be here. I thank the panel for
    coming.
        Secretary Chao, I was pleased to see that the
    Administration included provisions to delegate review and
    permitting authorities to the State. This builds on the work
    Congress did with SAFETEA-LU and also with MAP-21 to delegate
    that NEPA authority to the States.
        My Build USA Infrastructure Act includes similar
    provisions. Under my proposal, the States would be given the
    purview over the design, permitting, and construction
    authorities currently under the Federal Highway Administration.
        In your view, what do you see as the benefits of delegating
    these authorities to the States? I see them as being able to
    stretch current tax dollars so we can move forward with
    infrastructure projects.
        What is your view, Madam Secretary?
        Ms. Chao. First of all, State and local authorities know
    best what the needs are within the community. We want to be a
    partner to the States. Two, as you mentioned, they know best
    also how to leverage, work, and partner with other sources of
    capital and revenues.
        Senator Fischer. Right. Many of us tend to focus on where
    new revenue is to come from. One of my deepest concerns is how
    we can better spend the revenue, the taxpayer money, we are
    already charged with spending in a responsible manner. Thank
    you.
        As you know, Nebraska is currently in the process of
    assuming NEPA authority for transportation projects. Can you
    provide me with an update on that process?
        Ms. Chao. It has been a great pleasure to work with
    Nebraska. You need to go back to the Department of
    Transportation and let them know we have really enjoyed working
    with them. We hope to sign the MOU very shortly.
        Senator Fischer. Oh, good. That is wonderful to hear.
        We tend to benefit from consistent formula funding for
    infrastructure projects in the State. It seems unlikely that
    Nebraska will benefit from some of the President's proposals
    when it comes to incentive programs or transformative projects.
        Would it be correct to say the President's infrastructure
    proposal intends to supplement current infrastructure funding
    mechanisms such as the Federal Highway Administration's formula
    funding programs instead of replacing those programs?
        Ms. Chao. You are absolutely right. The dollars we are
    talking about are on top of what is in the budget ordinarily
    and on a formula basis.
        Senator Fischer. As I was looking through the proposal, 80
    percent of the funding under the Rural Infrastructure Program
    would be allocated to the Governors to provide States with
    flexibility. You mentioned that earlier. It is based on a rural
    formula.
        My question here is the rural formula is based on rural
    lane miles and rural population. But how does the
    Administration plan to define rural for the purposes of this
    funding? I know across the Federal Government there are many,
    many definitions for rural. What are you specifically looking
    at?
        Ms. Chao. You were also talking about leveraging the
    funding. We are very concerned about rural America. On the
    specific question, I have to confess, someone told me, and I
    cannot remember now for the life of me. Let me get back to you
    with an answer on that.
        The whole issue as to how we define it, I think, but rather
    than speculate, I was told this, and I just cannot remember. I
    will get back to you on that.
        Senator Fischer. That would be great. For example, a lot of
    times, rural gravel roads are included in a formula, paved
    roads; the current definition used by the Federal Highway
    Administration, I would be interested to know if you are
    looking at the USDA, some of their definitions of rural as
    well.
        If you could get back to me, that would be great.
        Ms. Chao. I will certainly do so.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Also on the rural infrastructure program, the proposal
    included language to develop rural interstate projects. An
    important interstate expressway project we have in Nebraska is
    in our panhandle. That is the Heartland Expressway. It is part
    of the larger Ports-to-Plains Corridor that runs north to south
    across this country.
        When it is completed, the Heartland Expressway will provide
    greater access for our agricultural products to the country and
    help to have this multi-lane, divided highway access. Can you
    elaborate on how rural interstate projects would qualify for
    rural funding under the President's proposal? Is there anything
    specific on rural interstates, especially when they connect
    through States from Canada to Mexico, like the Ports-to-Plains
    Project?
        Ms. Chao. The department has sent guidelines and
    principles. We did not send legislative language. That is an
    indication that we want to work with the Congress on how to
    define some of these things.
        Senator Fischer. We will look forward to working with you
    on that.
        Thank you so much, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
        Welcome to both of the witnesses.
        Let me start by saying we have heard a great deal in the
    course of this hearing about rural infrastructure. I would like
    to focus a little bit on coastal infrastructure. America has
    coasts. Some of us represent States that have coasts.
        Along those coasts, we are seeing very serious predictions
    of very considerable sea level rise, including predictions that
    continue to come from the Federal Government under this
    Administration. Working with NOAA, Rhode Island is looking at
    as much as 9 feet of vertical sea level rise by the end of the
    century.
        If that were to happen, Amtrak is gone through Connecticut.
    The map of my State would have to be redrawn. A considerable
    amount of our wastewater infrastructure, which tends to be low
    because of where it stands in the gravity flow, has to be
    relocated. Coastal highways, coastal evacuation zones, and
    flood maps mean an enormous amount of work has to be done to
    prepare for what we now have been very strongly told by the
    Federal Government is coming at us.
        I am a bit concerned that words like coastal, sea level
    rise, or storm surge--things we have to live with and prepare
    for--do not appear in the infrastructure plan. I am hoping that
    as we develop this plan, you will be accommodating of that fact
    and of our coastal States' needs that infrastructure be
    designed, redesigned, and maybe even relocated for the
    foreseeable prospect of that kind of damage.
        Ms. Chao. Senator, you and I have talked about this issue.
    I know that it is highly important to you.
        Senator Whitehouse. I may not be the only one. There are a
    bunch of us that are coastal.
        Ms. Chao. You have brought this up many times with me. I
    had not thought about that, so let me take a look at the
    outline.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. I just want there to be a
    little reflex in your mind that whenever you hear rural, you
    also think, rural and coastal, rural--oh, and coastal.
        With the Corps, unfortunately, we are not much better off,
    Mr. James. The Corps' proposed fiscal year 2019 budget asks for
    about $1.5 billion, $1.481 billion to be exact, for its Flood
    and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Program.
        Out of that, $1.48 billion, we can identify $40 million
    that is marked for coastal projects. The remaining $1.44
    billion is marked for inland projects. When you look at what is
    coming at our coasts, when you look at what NOAA is telling us
    to expect, when you look at what the Department of Defense is
    telling us to expect, when you look at the preparations the
    Navy has to make for its Navy bases, it is really hard for me
    to understand why there has to be a 37 to 1 ratio in favor of
    inland projects over coastal projects. How do you defend that
    to coastal States?
        Mr. James. Sir, I remember discussing this with you during
    my confirmation hearing.
        Senator Whitehouse. I can be like a bad penny; I keep
    turning up on this stuff. I think every one of my colleagues
    would be equally exercised if an essential feature of their
    State was overlooked completely by a factor of 37 to 1.
        Mr. James. My answer to you on that suggestion is that it
    is not 37 to 1, it may be 37 to 1 of the entire dollars, but
    all of the projects are processed and considered the same,
    whether they be coastal or inland. That tells me there is just
    a lot more inland projects that require flood damage assistance
    than coastal.
        Senator Whitehouse. I do not want to be in a position in
    which the budget does not authorize funding for coastal
    projects, that it is $40 million out of $1.4 billion, with the
    result that people do not apply because they look at that
    budget and say, it says in huge letters the coastal communities
    are not welcome here.
        Maybe they are not participating because they take a look
    at this and say, oh, my gosh, this is all for inland and upland
    stuff. That is an invitation for us to stay away. I do not want
    to be in a situation where we are not getting projects because
    of the budget, and you are saying that is because there are not
    enough projects in there.
        There is a circularity to that argument that leaves coastal
    communities in real trouble. I do not think coastal projects
    should be second class citizens in your budget by this kind of
    a factor of 37 to 1.
        I know Mississippi is important. I know it floods. I know
    there are upland floods in other places. But for crying out
    loud, when you are looking at a 9 feet sea level rise coming
    along our coasts, there is a lot of infrastructure work that
    needs to be done to prepare for that.
        I hope you will find a way to send a signal to our
    organization and to coastal communities that coastal projects
    are, in fact, welcome here and are, in fact, a key, a critical
    part of the Army Corps' task.
        Mr. James. I have no problem with that. That was not my
    personal thinking to begin. I was just trying to explain to you
    if we had 100 flood risk damage reduction projects in this
    country and 50 were coastal and 50 were inland, from what I
    understand right now, it would be equal application to those
    two areas.
        Senator Whitehouse. We will see. That is not what the
    signal is from the budget.
        I just want to close by saying I do not ascribe this to
    you. I do not think you personally have any distaste for
    coastal projects. We have talked our way through this before. I
    have full confidence in your personal judgment, but the Army
    Corps is a big bureaucracy, and 37 to 1 is a very big signal in
    a budget. I will leave it at that.
        Thank you.
        Mr. James. Senator Whitehouse, as important as it is to
    you, I will get with the Chief and his team, get with my team,
    and let me get back with you. If I have said anything that is
    not right or if I was right, let me make sure.
        Senator Whitehouse. I appreciate that. You have been great
    to work with. Thanks.
        Mr. James. Let me make sure.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate, Madam Secretary and Secretary James, your
    being here. I think the Administration's principles on
    infrastructure actually were a really good start. We appreciate
    the opportunity to work with you.
        I want to reinforce what Senator Carper said earlier. I was
    a bit surprised by the leadership in the Senate, on my side, on
    the Republican side, saying they did not look like they were
    going to have time. We should make more time. If we do not have
    time, let us work weekends.
        Every American believes this is important. I think it is a
    great opportunity for bipartisan support. I am not sure what my
    leadership was talking about, but I think this is a huge
    priority. I know it is for you, Madam Secretary, and the
    President. Let us get to work. We should create time. This is a
    good opportunity. You are seeing it here in this hearing.
        Secretary Chao, I want to thank you for the Alaska visit
    and the summit we had on infrastructure. The Sterling Highway
    is now starting to move forward. It only took 25 years of
    permitting delays. Other than that, it is starting to look
    good.
        In your previous comments this morning on the importance of
    permitting, you touched on it a bit. Can you talk a bit about
    this whole idea of the funding actually for infrastructure in
    some ways can be a function and will be a function of how
    aggressively we address permitting reform, meaning if you have
    significant permitting reform?
        You know I have a bill, the Rebuild America Now Act. Mr.
    Chairman, I would like to submit for the record an op-ed I had
    with the head of the Laborers International, Terry O'Sullivan,
    on the importance of permitting reform.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Madam Secretary, can you touch on that,
    how permitting reform is actually, in some ways, a driver of
    how much money we are going to be able to get with regard to
    particularly private sector money into broader infrastructure
    in America?
        Ms. Chao. As was mentioned, with every year's delay in
    permitting, there is an increase of a minimum of 3 percent.
    Project costs increase every year the longer they are stretched
    out.
        Second, the permitting aspect, we are not talking about not
    protecting the environment; we all care about the environment.
    We are talking about common sense ways to reduce duplicative,
    redundant, sequential permitting which can actually be done
    concurrently, or we can have sister agencies share information.
        As of now, within the Department of Transportation, one
    office in Transportation does their own study; they do not
    share with another office at the Department of Transportation,
    thereby lengthening the whole process. The other thing also
    with permitting is the private sector, which is very eager to
    finance a lot of these public infrastructures, would be
    deterred if indeed permitting were to add years of delay and
    increase their risk.
        Senator Sullivan. On highways, the average time it takes to
    permit a bridge in New Jersey, New York, or Rhode Island is
    like 6 or 7 years. If we could bring that down to 1 year or a
    year and a half, you will have less uncertainty and more
    private sector dollars.
        By the way, as you know, Madam Secretary, the UK, Canada,
    and Australia all permit infrastructure projects in a year,
    year and a half, or 2 years. This is not something radical. The
    radical position is how delayed we are. Isn't that the case?
        Ms. Chao. Yes. In fact, when you talk about Sterling
    Highway, when I went to visit Alaska, it was actually 35 years
    in the making, to get that to a remote Alaskan village that
    really needed help.
        Senator Sullivan. You are not going to get private sector
    money.
        Thank you. We want to continue to work with you on that.
        Secretary James, I wanted to talk briefly about wetlands.
    My State has over 60 percent of the Nation's wetlands--60
    percent in Alaska for the whole country. We have wetlands
    totaling approximately 270,000 square miles. That is larger
    than the State of Texas.
        When we have Section 404 permitting requirements with the
    Corps and EPA, and the mitigation requirements that come with
    that, it is almost always a disproportionate cost and delay
    with regard to infrastructure in Alaska.
        We will have some questions for the record. I wanted to ask
    you very quickly, a number of us have been looking at the Clean
    Water Act, relevant regulations from the Executive agencies
    from both Democrat and Republican administrations previously
    that give Federal agencies sufficient flexibility and latitude
    to take Alaska's unique circumstances into consideration of
    wetland permitting processes because the vast majority of the
    wetlands in the country reside in my State.
        It just takes an inordinate amount of time to get through
    the Section 404(c) permitting. Can I get your commitment, Mr.
    Secretary, to work with us on these kinds of flexibilities that
    we believe already exist in the regs and the laws, to work with
    you and your office on this kind of flexibility on Section
    404(c)?
        Mr. James. Yes, sir. I would be happy to.
        Senator Sullivan. I want to thank you again, and General
    Semonite, on the work you have done with regard to the Port of
    Nome. You may have heard just recently there was a cost share
    agreement between Nome and the Corps for the study of the port
    there. I think we have made good progress on that. I appreciate
    that.
        Mr. James. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        I would like to point out the vote is going to start in
    about a minute. We still have four people to ask questions. We
    have 5 minute rounds. I am going to have to ask you to please
    hold it within the 5 minutes for each of those.
        Senator Markey is next.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I welcome you here, and clearly we want to have a huge
    infrastructure program that opens up in our country. We need it
    desperately.
        The way I look at the formula in the Trump proposal is that
    it takes $200 billion in existing Federal infrastructure money
    and repackages the same money as a new program. Then, in step
    two, it flips the formula from 80 percent coming from the
    Federal Government and 20 percent from local and State
    government to 20 percent coming from the Federal Government and
    80 percent that would come from the State and local
    governments.
        Maybe it is like the miracle of the loaves and fishes; it
    did work 2,000 years ago. But I just do not think it is going
    to work here where the local governments cannot come up with 80
    percent of the money and the reason we need national
    infrastructure bills is that they need the help and they need
    the Federal Government to come in.
        I will be honest with you. My fear is I just think that
    Wall Street will say, we will come in and help, but they will
    have to be paid. That is going to be tolls they are going to
    want to impose on drivers, on communities as a way of getting
    paid. That is how Wall Street operates.
        As a result, it changes the relationship between the
    infrastructure in our country and ordinary citizens. I just
    think they will wind up being tipped upside down and having
    money shaken out of their pockets ultimately to pay for
    infrastructure that historically, under the 80 Federal and 20
    local funding, was subsidized by the government in order to
    make sure the roads are there for everyone.
        I have a big problem with the math. I just do not think it
    is going to work. I agree when Wharton and the Heritage
    Foundation agree upon something, and they are agreeing with Ed
    Markey, that there is new recombinant political DNA that is out
    there that requires a better explanation of how these projects
    will get built.
        I do know that Wall Street would love to have the National
    Environmental Policy Act to just be gutted and be dramatically
    watered down. That is what this infrastructure proposal does.
    It takes the constitution of the environment for the last 50
    years, the National Environmental Policy Act and makes
    fundamental changes.
        One, it would cut the amount of time the public has to sue
    over bad projects from 6 years down to 150 days. That would be
    great if you want to be a Wall Street firm and get a quick
    return on your investment.
        However, if you are a community, and all of a sudden you
    hear there is a brand new road coming through a whole section
    of town, and you are told you have 150 days to mount a battle
    against a Wall Street law firm that is just going to truncate
    your rights, that is going to be, I think, something that is
    very disastrous for local communities all across the country.
        Second, the bill also expands the ability of agencies to
    simply decide that certain types of projects have no
    environmental harm at all; the agency decides it. It is a
    single agency, by the way. One agency would make the decision.
        Secretary Zinke would be able to decide that pipelines can
    go through parks, and the other agencies would not be able to
    get into the middle of that. Similarly, the EPA would be
    truncated in their ability to be able to make decisions that
    were appealable because the Secretary of Transportation would
    make all of these decisions, and the agencies would not be
    involved.
        I just have a problem with the formula. I would like to
    give you a chance to respond to it because that is the core of
    it. The money is not sufficient, and the environmental reviews
    are truncated.
        Ms. Chao. I do not have that.
        Senator Markey. Whatever you can do.
        Ms. Chao. I think it is important to emphasize that we want
    to do this on a bipartisan basis. As we go forward, these are
    issues you are concerned about. Let us talk about them.
        Senator Markey. I still have 12 seconds to say that if it
    is not changed, if there isn't a fundamental change made, then
    citizens are going to wind up with their environmental
    protections being watered down. They are going to be tipped
    upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets to pay
    for the fees in our country.
        Ms. Chao. As I mentioned, we have no intention of diluting
    any environmental protections. If you look at the bureaucratic
    way in which permitting occurs, a lot of it does not make
    sense. They are redundant, duplicative, replicate one another,
    and discourage communications among sister agencies. There are
    many, many ways in which the permitting process can be
    streamlined and improved without compromising on environmental
    protection.
        Second, on the roads and bridges, the 80-20 rule only
    applies to interstate; 84 percent of the roads and bridges that
    are in each State are funded by the State. The Federal
    Government's share is only 16 percent. Overall, infrastructure
    is traditionally actually funded by the States. It is only for
    the interstate that the Federal portion comes in.
        Senator Markey. Which is the essence of this.
        Ms. Chao. The infrastructure is everything actually. The
    infrastructure proposal is whatever a local community wants.
    They decide and make a targeted appeal to this competitive
    process. The more creative and innovative they can be in
    financing, meaning if they can get more private sector and
    other party involvement, they actually will be in a better
    position to win the Federal grants.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Markey. I appreciate
    your questions.
        Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here. We appreciate your hard work. We
    also appreciate the fact that you are honoring your commitment
    to make yourselves available periodically. It is very, very
    helpful.
        Secretary Chao, I would like to ask you a question. It is
    not under your purview in the sense that this is a water
    question. However, since you are such a major player in the
    infrastructure package, I really think we are in a situation
    now where you cannot think in terms of just one thing.
        We can put in our roads, runways, and railways, but if you
    do not have the water infrastructure to back that up, it simply
    does not work. We are in a situation now where things are
    aging, and there is a tremendous need.
        Senator Booker and I have introduced the Securing Required
    Funding for Water Infrastructure Now, the SRF WIN Act. We have
    had tremendous success with outside organizations and multiple
    sponsors in Congress.
        We are trying to make it such that we allow the State
    Revolving Funds--the SRFs--to bundle multiple drinking water
    and wastewater projects together and submit them to the EPA for
    approval through the Water Infrastructure Financing and
    Innovation Act, the WIFIA Act, the WIFIA Program.
        Because every State is AAA bond rated, and all of our
    projects have ratepayers, the SRF WIN Act really answers some
    of the concerns of Senator Markey in the sense that we can have
    tremendous leveraging ability. These are not grants. These are
    actually getting paid back.
        As a result of that, I really would encourage you, as you
    are putting together these things, to look at this. Hopefully,
    the Administration can support, and hopefully you can support
    it in an effort, as I said, to take the dollars we can and
    leverage as much as we can in a common sense way.
        Ms. Chao. I will bring this back to the White House and
    also the EPA Administrator.
        Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you very much.
        Secretary James, it is good to have you here also.
        Arkansas is a rural State that relies heavily on
    agriculture, as you know very well. In fact, we are the No. 1
    rice producing State in the country, third in cotton, and the
    list goes on and on. Ag is No. 1 in our State, as it is in so
    many other States throughout the country that we forget about,
    and adds about $16 billion to our economy. Many hardworking
    Arkansans rely heavily on the inland waterways and ports to
    ship their crops across the Nation and export them all over the
    world.
        Tell us the consequences for rural and agriculturally
    dependent States if we do not invest in our Nation's inland
    waterways and ports. Do you feel that the Administration's
    principles for infrastructure properly address America's inland
    waterways?
        Mr. James. I do feel that the infrastructure bill does
    address the waterway system. His submission of that bill to us
    allows us to be able to move forward. It does cover our inland
    waterway infrastructure.
        You and I know this. For the other members and for the
    record, if the inland waterway of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
    River shuts down, everything from mid-Oklahoma down to the
    Mississippi River would be shut off. It is a huge amount of
    prosperity, a huge amount of interstate commerce that comes
    from that.
        The same goes for every other running navigable stream in
    our country. A lot of them are provided by locks and dams as
    most of our inland waterway infrastructure is in locks and
    dams. The Mississippi below Cairo, Illinois, is not; it is a
    free flowing stream which requires a lot of maintenance due to
    the major flooding that the lower Mississippi Valley receives.
        Without the navigation, there is no way. Grain would be
    spoiled on the ground, and our balance in trade would quickly
    go out the back door. Because, as I understand it, for years
    and years and years now the balance of trade has been supported
    by the agriculture community.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
        Thank both of you again for your hard work. We appreciate
    it.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
        Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
        Out of respect for my colleague, I want to try to go really
    quickly.
        First, just a hearty thank you to both of you for your
    testimony, your commitment to your jobs, and the mission of our
    country.
        Secretary Chao, I am grateful to have you here again. Thank
    you for your willingness to engage with my team and the other
    four Senators dealing with this Gateway project. You have been
    incredible. We had a meeting at the White House with the
    President just on this issue. You came to Senator Schumer's
    office for what I thought was a very constructive dialogue.
        You indicated to Senator Gillibrand that to deal with some
    of these issues, we probably need to get our teams together
    again. Would you be willing to commit to meeting again with
    Senator Schumer and us as we did a few months back?
        Ms. Chao. Of course.
        Senator Booker. Great.
        Ms. Chao. I would also add that Gateway is not one project.
    There are nine projects involving $30 million.
        Senator Booker. Multiple projects. You and I are both
    familiar and do not need to state for the record, but time is
    running.
        The second thing is, you committed also that you will come
    up and visit us and see the project. We have had Republicans
    and Democrats do it. It is stunning to go through the tunnels
    and see the crisis. That commitment stands, right?
        Ms. Chao. I have been trying to do that.
        Senator Booker. I know. You and I have been trying to work
    our schedules.
        Third, the multiple projects that are involved, I heard the
    back and forth between you and the Senator on loans, how they
    are counted and the like. Is that the standard now for all
    projects in America that the Federal commitment does not count
    as a State commitment, the loans? Is that new?
        Ms. Chao. I am not so sure this is new. It has always been
    that way, No. 1. Second, we would disagree; there was never any
    Federal commitment. It was a verbal commitment, a verbal
    sentence given at a rally, a political rally no less. There was
    no commitment from the Federal Government.
        Senator Booker. No, no, I understand. But the downgrading
    is because of?
        Ms. Chao. It has always been this way. Loans are not
    counted as equity.
        Senator Booker. That contradicts your Web site. Can I read
    what your Web site says?
        Ms. Chao. OK.
        Senator Booker. From the FHWA Web site, it says ``TIFIA,
    the proceeds of a secured TIFIA loan, will be used for any non-
    Federal share of project costs required under Title 23 or
    Chapter 53, Title 49.'' That is what your Web site says. It
    contradicts what you are saying here.
        Ms. Chao. Then I need to look at it. Thank you for bringing
    it to my attention. I will take a look at it.
        Senator Booker. OK. Take a look at that. We should have a
    fair standard because I know these programs. This would crush
    every area of our country if you shifted that to what you
    represented to the Senator. Your Web site says this, and my
    familiarity with that.
        Ms. Chao. Thank you for bringing it up. That is not my
    understanding, but let me take a look at it.
        Senator Booker. I really appreciate that.
        The last thing is to champion the great work you guys are
    doing. The Department of Transportation's efforts on the
    Gateway Tunnels' environmental impact statement has been
    amazing and inconsistent with what everyone has been saying,
    let us cut the regulatory time.
        My understanding is the Gateway Project Development
    Corporation has finalized their environmental impact statement
    and is on track for a final EIS pending DOT approval at the end
    of March. This is an incredible achievement. They are literally
    cutting in half the typical amount. This is actually you all
    cutting bureaucracy and cutting time. I just want to make sure
    of commitment by the Department of Transportation and
    everything is on schedule to achieve something we all can brag
    about as testimony to the Trump administration's cutting red
    tape. Can we make sure we get that done by March 31 as was
    committed?
        Ms. Chao. I would love to promise you that. I don't know
    whether I can. I will take a look at that.
        Senator Booker. OK. Because we have made incredible time.
        Out of respect to my colleague, I will end early.
        Ms. Chao. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. I thank Senator Booker for being so
    generous with his time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Carper.
        Secretary Chao and Secretary James, it is so nice to see
    both of you again.
        Secretary Chao, I see a lot of philosophical similarities
    between the President's infrastructure proposal and the goals
    of DOT's Infrastructure to Rebuild America Grant Program
    established last year, the INFRA Grant Program.
        I understand both seek to align Federal investments with
    national and regional economic goals. There is some emphasis on
    leveraging Federal funds with non-Federal funding, including
    public-private partnerships and also to promote innovative
    solutions to improve project delivery. Is it fair for me to say
    that?
        Ms. Chao. Yes.
        Senator Duckworth. As you know, the 75th Street Corridor
    Improvement Project in Chicago, which is part of the CREATE
    Project, meets all of INFRA's program goals. The project
    provides robust national and regional benefits, would increase
    national freight and passenger railway activity, and is
    reflected by the support of nine different Midwestern States,
    each of the Class I railroads, and numerous corporate
    interests.
        In fact, a study by the University Illinois highlights that
    three-quarters of the CREATE Program's impacts would actually
    occur outside of the Midwest. More than 65 percent of the
    project costs are already committed through a public-private
    partnership.
        Given the robust support and alignment of the goals of all
    levels of government, the environmental review and record of
    decisions are also complete, so the project can move forward as
    soon as you give it the green light. I am asking that you give
    this critical project your full consideration as you finalize
    the INFRA grant awards moving forward.
        Ms. Chao. I will certainly do so.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Do you have a sense of when
    the INFRA awards might be announced?
        Ms. Chao. We have to get the TIGER grants out which will
    hopefully be in the next 2 to 3 weeks. After that, then we will
    turn to the INFRA so hopefully by the summertime if not sooner.
        Senator Duckworth. OK. Back to the infrastructure proposal,
    the Administration is calling the plan a major investment in
    our Nation's infrastructure. Yet, as my colleagues have noted,
    the President's fiscal year 2019 budget cuts more
    infrastructure than would be invested.
        How is this a major infrastructure investment when you
    propose spending less than we already do?
        Ms. Chao. I think this is a policy difference. We can talk
    more about that. What is important is that this infrastructure
    proposal needs to be done on a bipartisan basis. If we can
    separate out from the budget, go forward, and take a look at
    the infrastructure, we very much look forward to working with
    both the majority and the minority in the Senate and the House.
        Senator Duckworth. We are going to need more than $200
    billion to be able to move forward.
        Ms. Chao. Absolutely we are. That is where we need to have
    the private sector involved, and we need to leverage the funds.
        Senator Duckworth. Also, I would like to state that I join
    my colleagues who mentioned their concerns for our livestock
    haulers with the EOD deadline coming up. I have heard from
    people in Illinois who haul cattle, hogs, and even equine. This
    is a real issue in our ag States. I would appreciate your
    attention to that.
        Mr. James, as I know you are aware, our inland waterways
    have long enjoyed a Federal-private partnership through a
    diesel fuel tax paid by barge operators that covers 50 percent
    of the cost associated with maintaining and modernizing our
    locks and dams.
        I was troubled to hear that the Administration's budget
    seeks to alter that longstanding relationship by promoting a
    per vessel fee to fund our aging locks and dams. Again, as you
    know, that is a non-starter for commercial operators who would
    bear the cost.
        Would it be easier and more practical to consider
    alternatives that allow the Corps to keep some of the revenues
    that you already generate but are required to deposit into the
    U.S. Treasury like recreational fees and hydropower revenue?
        For example, with the hydropower revenue, you generate
    around $1.5 billion that goes into the Treasury. If we could
    keep a small percentage of that within the Corps of Engineers,
    you could actually apply some of that to some of the associated
    cost with the maintenance.
        Mr. James. Senator, that is an interesting proposal that I
    have heard many times throughout my career, even before I
    became the ASA. It is a very interesting proposal. I would be
    willing to look at some numbers with you or the Committee at
    any time that would be of interest to you. It is very
    interesting to me. Thank you for that question.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you very much for your interest.
        That is all the questions I have.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
        I appreciate the members being here.
        I have a request for a submission for the record. We, at
    the Committee, received numerous requests for submissions for
    the record from different organizations impacted by the
    infrastructure policy.
        In order to ensure the full breadth of the policy options
    are included in the record, I ask unanimous consent that they
    be added to the record.
        Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. No objection.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. I want to make two unanimous consent
    requests.
        I just want to say to both of you thanks for being here and
    thanks for your willingness to take on tough jobs. Albert
    Einstein used to say, ``In adversity lies opportunity.'' There
    is a lot of adversity here but actually a lot of opportunity.
        I think with your leadership--the leadership of our
    Chairman and other Democrats and Republicans--we can make
    progress. We really need to on these fronts. I look forward to
    doing that.
        In the spirit of that thought, Mr. Chairman, I have two
    unanimous consent requests to submit for the record. One, I ask
    unanimous consent to submit for the record the White House
    infrastructure proposal summary document that states that
    overall, for highways, ``28 percent of funding is Federal.''
        I would also note that the same document indicates that if
    we look at just capital expenditures, Federal funds currently
    support more than half of all spending on highways--not just in
    Delaware, but in the United States across the country.
        I have a second unanimous consent request, if I could, Mr.
    Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent to submit for the
    record the January 2018 GAO report entitled Highways and
    Transit Projects. In that report, GAO notes that it previously
    reported that 99 percent of highway projects are not being held
    up by complex NEPA reviews. Meanwhile, Federal Highway
    Administration officials expressed ``Categorical exclusions
    still constitute the vast majority of NEPA reviews for highway
    projects.''
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. The time has now expired on the vote, and
    we need to get to the floor. I do want to thank the members who
    have attended.
        I especially want to thank our esteemed guests, Madam
    Secretary, as well as Assistant Secretary James. I want to
    thank you for your time, and I want to thank you for this
    crucial discussion regarding the Administration's
    infrastructure plans.
        People may submit additional questions for the record. The
    record will remain open for 2 weeks.
        Thank you again for being here and joining us.
        With that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]