    [Senate Hearing 115-480]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-480

        ADDRESSING AMERICA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 28, 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
    35-123 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
                  Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               NOVEMBER 28, 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..     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Braceras, Carlos M., P.E., President at American Association of
      State Highway and Transportation Officials, and Executive
      Director, Utah Department of Transportation....................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Barrasso.........................................    19
            Senator Carper...........................................    22
            Senator Boozman..........................................    26
            Senator Duckworth........................................    28
        Response to an additional question from Senator Fischer......    30
    Lanham, Robert, Vice President, Associated General Contractors of
      America........................................................    31
        Prepared statement...........................................    33
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Barrasso.........................................    43
            Senator Carper...........................................    45
            Senator Boozman..........................................    46
    Corless, James, Executive Director, Sacramento Area Council of
      Governments....................................................    48
        Prepared statement...........................................    50
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Barrasso.........................................    60
            Senator Carper...........................................    61
        Response to an additional question from Senator Duckworth....    66

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Testimony by American Association of Port Authorities............    86
    Statement for the Record of The American Society of Civil
      Engineers......................................................    88
    Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from the Intelligent
      Transportation Society of America (ITS America), November 28,
      2018...........................................................    92

        ADDRESSING AMERICA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
    406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito,
    Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan,
    Cardin, Gillibrand, Markey, 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 address and modernize our
    Nation's surface transportation infrastructure.
        This Committee has historically taken the bipartisan lead
    on infrastructure issues in the Senate; 2018 is a good example.
    It has been a banner year for moving infrastructure legislation
    forward. In March of this year President Trump signed into law
    legislation from this Committee to reauthorize and enhance the
    EPA's Brownfields Program. This legislation is going to help
    clean up contaminated sites for reuse. It will spur much needed
    infrastructure development on abandoned industrial sites.
        In October President Trump signed America's Water
    Infrastructure Act. As the most significant water
    infrastructure bill passed in decades, the America's Water
    Infrastructure Act is going to grow the economy, cut Washington
    red tape, and keep communities safe.
        America's Water Infrastructure Act will upgrade and
    maintain aging dams and irrigation systems, increase water
    storage, and deepen nationally significant ports. It authorizes
    funds to repair aging drinking water systems so that
    communities across America have access to clean drinking water.
    It authorizes important projects. It will create jobs and grow
    our economy. It will benefit Americans for years to come.
        I believe the bipartisan successes on water infrastructure
    and brownfields cleanup can be replicated for America's surface
    transportation infrastructure as well.
        Our surface transportation infrastructure drives the
    health, the well being, and the prosperity of the Nation. We
    depend on highways, roads, and bridges to move people and
    goods, to get to our jobs, and to visit our loved ones. Simply
    put, surface transportation infrastructure connects all of us.
        But for far too long we have not prioritized the needs of
    these vital infrastructure systems. New funding is needed to
    keep pace with the demands, and burdensome Federal regulations
    have slowed efforts to spend money efficiently. The time has
    come to cut red tape and make significant investments in our
    roads and bridges, investment necessary to keep the Highway
    Trust Fund solvent.
        In a hearing last year in this Committee, Wyoming
    Department of Transportation Director Bill Panos stated in
    written testimony that ``Using the current predominantly
    formula based FAST Act approach to distribution would ensure
    both rural and urban States participate in the initiative.'' He
    said, ``It will also help push the benefits of any new
    infrastructure initiative out to the public promptly.''
        Now, I agree. Using the formula based approach will
    expedite the delivery of future infrastructure spending.
    Existing formula funding systems allow flexibility for both
    rural and urban States to use Federal money to its best
    advantage. What works in Los Angeles or Chicago may not work
    for smaller communities like Cody or Riverton, Wyoming.
        We also need to update the law to allow our States to build
    faster, better, cheaper, and smarter. When we make significant
    investments in our Nation's infrastructure, we need to be sure
    that money is being used as effectively and efficiently as
    possible.
        By cutting Washington's red tape, we can ensure that better
    roads and bridges can be delivered faster. As States, counties,
    and towns wait to obtain permits from Washington, costs for
    projects rise, and time is wasted. It shouldn't take a decade
    to permit a project that only takes months to build. We need to
    speed up project delivery, and I believe it can be done without
    sacrificing environmental safeguards.
        We also should explore new technology both in how we build
    and how we drive can reduce costs, can improve safety, and can
    increase the longevity of our roads and bridges. Better roads
    and bridges across America help all of us. Everyone benefits
    from safer highways, well maintained roads, and resilient
    bridges.
        America prides itself on its ingenuity and commitment to
    provide infrastructure that meets the needs of its people, and
    I know that my good friend, Senator Carper, agrees that it is
    up to our Committee, working together as we did on water
    infrastructure, working with the Administration to move forward
    with legislation to improve our highways, our roads, and
    bridges well into the future.
        We are a Committee that gets things done. We want to
    continue on that road and get a highway infrastructure bill
    passed next year.
        I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Carper for his
    remarks.

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

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome to our witnesses, our guests, colleagues. I want to
    thank our Chairman for pulling us together this morning for
    signaling a clear interest in working seriously toward long
    term surface transportation reauthorization not at the middle
    of next year, not at the end of next year, starting right from
    the get-go.
        I have long believed that transportation infrastructure is
    an area where our Committee can again lead in a bipartisan
    fashion. The Chairman has mentioned the Water Resources
    Development Act.
        Ben Cardin has slipped off to another hearing in Foreign
    Relations, and Jim Inhofe has done the same thing in the Armed
    Services, but I just want to say to them and their staffs,
    everybody on the Committee and our staffs, Democrat and
    Republican, how proud I am of all of our collective efforts and
    grateful for our Chairman's leadership.
        I believe that next year we are going to have another
    opportunity to work on legislation that improves the state of
    our Nation's infrastructure. I focus hugely on what is a major
    role of Government. Lincoln used to say the role of Government
    is to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves. I
    would put a finer point on that and say a major role of
    Government is to help create a nurturing environment for job
    creation and job preservation.
        That is a big part of what we are responsible for, and
    roads, highways, bridges, rail, airports, ports, you name it, a
    big part of that nurturing environment. It is hugely important,
    and fortunately, this Committee has a lot of jurisdiction over,
    so we are going have fun working on this.
        Our Committee's minority members, our staffs are ready to
    go to work with our Republican colleagues when the new Congress
    convenes in a little more than a month. I say that knowing we
    face significant challenges in reauthorizing our surface
    transportation programs, the most important of which is the
    need to identify sustainable sources of funding to address the
    growing deficit in the Highway Trust Fund. This, my friends, is
    always the 800 pound gorilla in the room, as we know.
        In the last decade Congress had to transfer more than $140
    billion into the Highway Trust Fund because the Trust Fund
    revenues were insufficient to meet our investment needs.
    Additionally, Congress resorted to passing more than a dozen
    short term extensions of the transportation program the past
    decade, which created significant uncertainty for State and
    local agencies, and not uncommonly, added cost, significant
    cost because of that uncertainty to these projects.
        Funding uncertainty leads States to stop or slow down many
    projects. If highway authorization expires or funding runs out,
    the Federal Highway Administration is unable to reimburse
    States for Federal aid projects already underway and make it
    impossible to approve new projects.
        As we begin work on a new authorization of the Federal
    programs, one of our primary goals should be to avoid another
    series of short term extensions going forward, and that means
    having a bill passed before our current authorization expires
    in 2020.
        Albert Einstein once said, ``In adversity lies
    opportunity.'' That has been one of my guiding principles for
    as long as I can remember. I think it probably is for a lot of
    us. I believe that the opportunities to improve our
    transportation programs in the next few years are great,
    despite the challenges, the adversity that we are going to face
    along the way.
        New technology, new data are going to enable us to
    modernize how we plan, how we build, how we operate and use our
    infrastructure. We ought to look for ways to ensure that
    Federal programs support innovations that improve mobility,
    improve safety, air quality, and other goals as well.
        We can't have a conversation about surface transportation,
    though, without talking about climate change and the
    increasingly extreme weather that accompanies it. Our
    transportation sector is a major contributor to climate change,
    and our roads, bridges, railways are also extremely vulnerable
    to the effects of extreme weather fueled by climate change.
        According to the National Climate Assessment Report
    released last week by 13 Federal agencies, ``Expected increases
    in the severity and frequency of heavy precipitation events
    will affect inland infrastructure in every region, including
    access to roads, the viability of bridges, and the safety of
    pipelines.'' Our next infrastructure bill must respond to this
    threat by focusing on a more resilient and sustainable
    transportation sector to protect communities nationwide.
        Safety is another area which demands our close attention.
    Motor vehicle crashes have consistently been the leading cause
    of preventable deaths in our country, overtaken only recently
    by the opioid epidemic. More than 37,000 people are killed on
    our roadways each year. We can't continue to just accept this
    level of loss. Safety must be a top priority, and our
    investment decisions must reflect that prioritization.
        In closing, let me reiterate that I am encouraged by the
    bipartisan consensus on the need to invest in our
    infrastructure, particularly transportation. I truly hope that
    this will be the first of many opportunities to engage in a
    bipartisan discussion, in this room and outside of this room,
    to identify areas of agreement where we can work together,
    which, as we all know, is a primary reason our constituents
    sent us here in the first place, to work together and get some
    things done, like we did last year. Actually, like we did in
    the last week with the Coast Guard reauthorization bill. I
    thank those on this Committee who played a role in developing
    compromise there on ballast water and VIDA Blue.
        I want to welcome each of our witnesses, and thank you all
    again for joining us today, for our conversation. We look
    forward to learning and to hearing from you in just a minute.
        Thank you so much.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator
    Carper.
        We are now going to hear from our three witnesses today.
    First, we are going to hear from Carlos Braceras, who is
    President of the American Association of State Highway and
    Transportation Officials, AASHTO, and Executive Director of the
    Utah Department of Transportation. We will also hear from
    Robert Lanham, who is the Vice President at the Associated
    General Contractors of America; and James Corless, Executive
    Director for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
        I would like to remind the witnesses that your full written
    testimony will be included as part of the official hearing
    record, so please try to keep your statements to 5 minutes so
    we will have time for questions. I look forward to hearing the
    testimony from each of you.
        Let us begin with Mr. Braceras.

     STATEMENT OF CARLOS M. BRACERAS, P.E., PRESIDENT AT AMERICAN
    ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS, AND
         EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Braceras. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
    Carper, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to appear today and address the surface
    transportation investment needs faced by our country.
        My name is Carlos Braceras, and I serve as the Executive
    Director of the Utah Department of Transportation and as the
    President of the American Association of State Highway and
    Transportation Officials, AASHTO. It is my honor today to
    represent both the great State of Utah and AASHTO, which
    represents all 50 States plus the District of Columbia and
    Puerto Rico.
        State DOTs have the utmost appreciation for your
    Committee's leadership to shepherd the FAST Act in December
    2015. This legislation has ensured stability in the federally
    supported passenger rail, freight, safety, highway, and transit
    programs through 2020.
        To further build on the Federal surface transportation
    solid foundation, we believe that it is now time for all
    transportation stakeholders, led by Congress and the President,
    to begin work on reauthorizing the FAST Act and to ensure a
    smooth transition to the next long term bill without the need
    for disrupted extensions.
        AASHTO has already initiated, earlier this year, an
    extensive 18 month effort to develop and present our
    reauthorization policy recommendations this next October. As
    the FAST Act reauthorization gets underway, we recommend that
    Federal funds continue being provided through the existing
    formula based structure directly to States, rather than looking
    at untested approaches that will require more time and
    oversight.
        Building on the federally funded State administered highway
    program established over a century ago, Federal investment in
    all modes of transportation have allowed States and their local
    partners to fund a wide range of projects that serve the
    interest of the Nation as a whole. Formula funds work because
    they serve all corners of our country, improving mobility and
    the quality of life in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
        Even with the FAST Act, however, the investment backlog for
    transportation infrastructure continues to increase, reaching
    $836 billion for highways and bridges, $122 billion for
    transit. The percentage of Federal investment in transportation
    and water infrastructure has declined substantially from almost
    6 percent of total Federal spending in the 1960s to only 2.5
    percent by 2017.
        While Federal investment has lagged, States have stepped up
    in the meantime to fill the gap, with 31 States successfully
    enacting State level transportation packages since 2012. In
    Utah, our legislature recently adopted a State fuel tax and
    indexed both the fuel tax and registration fee to keep pace
    with inflation. Also, we are going to be the second State in
    the Nation to implement a road usage charge program.
        But efforts by Utah and other States to fund the system
    ourselves are not enough. The Federal Government must step up
    its share of investment, and it will not be easy. Just to keep
    our current FAST Act funding levels, Congress has to find $90
    billion in additional revenue for a 5 year bill or $114 billion
    for a 6 year bill.
        At the same time, the purchasing power of the Trust Fund
    revenues has declined substantially due to the flat per gallon
    motor fuel taxes that have not been adjusted since 1993, losing
    half of their value over the last quarter-century. That means
    the Federal highway programs are expected to experience a 51
    percent drop after the FAST Act in 2021, and the Federal
    transit programs would have to be zeroed out in 2021 and 2022.
        In the past, similar shortfall situations have led to cuts
    in Federal reimbursements to States on existing obligations,
    leading to serious cash flow problems for States and resulting
    in project delays. Simply put, this is a devastating scenario
    that we must do all we can to avoid.
        In addition, the FAST Act included a $7.6 billion
    rescission of unobligated highway contract authority to take
    place in 2020. This is a budget artifice that disrupts
    transportation planning and timely delivery of projects. The
    cumulative effect of rescissions with over $22 billion enacted
    since 2002 can wipe out the entire balance of contract
    authority held by States, which will lead to hard funding cuts
    to dollars promised under the FAST Act.
        We must take advantage of the short window that we have
    right now to head off the dual threat of a funding cliff and a
    rescission in 2020. If we miss this opportunity for action, the
    extremely costly and disruptive scenario for transportation
    programs around the country will become all but inevitable.
        State DOTs remain committed to assisting Congress in the
    development of policies that will ensure long term economic
    growth and enhance quality of life. You can be fully assured
    that AASHTO and the State DOTs will continue advocating for the
    reaffirmation of a strong Federal-State partnership to address
    our surface transportation investment needs.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today,
    and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Braceras follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [[Page 30]]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [[Page 31]]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much for sharing
    your best thoughts. We appreciate your comments.
        Now, Mr. Lanham.

    STATEMENT OF ROBERT LANHAM, VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATED GENERAL
                         CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA

        Mr. Lanham. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
    distinguished Committee members, thank you for convening
    today's hearing.
        My name is Bob Lanham. I am a highway and bridge builder
    from Houston, Texas. I have the pleasure this year of serving
    as vice president of AGC. AGC is a national organization of
    26,500 businesses that are involved in every aspect of the
    construction business in all 50 States, Puerto Rico, and
    Washington, DC. AGC members build the Nation's infrastructure;
    its highways, bridges, airports, transit systems, rail
    facilities, and other transportation projects that keep America
    moving.
        Mr. Chairman, in my written testimony I stress several
    themes. The main overarching theme is that the time for
    infrastructure investment is now.
        As the Committee knows, there has been much talk at the
    White House and on Capitol Hill over the last 2 years about
    investing in and upgrading the Nation's infrastructure. While
    the Congress has moved infrastructure authorizations and
    provided new investment for current Federal infrastructure
    programs, more needs to be done.
        The American people, President Trump, bipartisan Members of
    Congress, and those of us in the stakeholder community have all
    expressed support and the need for a bold and robust
    infrastructure vision. There is no reason not to invest in our
    infrastructure now.
        AGC has long recognized and advocated for the need to
    invest in more types of infrastructure, from highways, roads,
    and bridges, to runways and water systems. As such, we have
    recommended to the Congress and the Administration that any new
    infrastructure plan should be broad based. However, we should
    caution that any new proposal must not ignore one of the
    gravest threats to the transportation investment in this
    Nation: the long term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.
        Shortly after the FAST Act expires in September 2020,
    additional revenue of some $20 billion per year will be needed
    just to maintain current funding levels. Failing to address the
    Fund's solvency ongoing revenue shortfall leaves open the
    possibility of disruption and uncertainty for States, as well
    as the construction industry. AGC urges the Congress and the
    Administration to act sooner, rather than later.
        In the past funding uncertainties and short term extensions
    have led to project delays, cancellations, higher costs, delays
    of improvements that affect safety, efficiency, and economic
    development. If in fact the Congress acts on a broad based
    infrastructure bill, and we hope you do, failure to address the
    structural flaws in the Highway Trust Fund will undermine any
    potential benefits from such bill.

    [[Page 32]]

        Increasing the motor fuels tax is the simplest and most
    effective way to achieve this goal, but several other viable
    revenue alternatives exist. We believe the Highway Trust Fund
    revenue construct must include three things: one, a reliable,
    dedicated, and sustainable revenue source derived from the
    users and the beneficiaries of our surface transportation
    system; two, resources sufficient to end the chronic shortfalls
    and support increased investment; and three, be dedicated
    solely to surface transportation improvements.
        Adhering to these principles would assure the States and
    the Federal Government that we will continue to be a reliable
    partner with the States and local governments in the funding
    and delivering of a safe transportation network that meets our
    Nation's needs, both economic and growth.
        Further, as the Congress potentially considers a
    comprehensive infrastructure proposal, it is important to
    recognize that two previous authorizations, the FAST Act and
    its predecessor, MAP-21, both reformed the Federal surface
    transportation programs in a manner that emphasized meeting
    national goals, while providing States flexibility. Given this
    admirable policy achievement, we do not need to create new
    programs or add additional procedures to deliver additional
    surface transportation investments as a part of any
    infrastructure initiative.
        To quite simply put it, our recommendation is for the
    Congress and the Administration to take this generational
    opportunity that presents itself in a broad, robust
    infrastructure bill to once and for all end the cycle of short
    term extensions and provide growing revenue to address our
    needs. This newfound certainty and the additional investments
    should allow for the reauthorization of the FAST Act prior to
    its expiration in 2020.
        Unfortunately, none of the themes in my testimony are new.
    I imagine that you have heard them before, time and time again.
    But what is different today is leaders on both ends of the
    spectrum are supportive of such a proposal, and this Committee
    and its leaders are an essential component in making this
    happen.
        I am thankful for the opportunity to testify today and look
    forward to any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lanham follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [[Page 48]]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so very much for your
    thoughts and your testimony. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Corless.

    STATEMENT OF JAMES CORLESS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SACRAMENTO AREA
                         COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

        Mr. Corless. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
    members of the Committee, I am James Corless, Executive
    Director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and I
    am honored to be here today representing our Council, which
    represents 22 cities and 6 counties in the greater Sacramento
    region.
        As you know, I am from California, but I am also from the
    heartland of California. Our region is not coastal in
    California; we are central and inland. We are not deep blue; we
    are a patchwork of reds, blues, and purples; and 85 percent of
    our land in our region is rural. We are truly a microcosm of
    America.
        Senator Carper, you like to quote Einstein. I like to quote
    my 13-year-old daughter, who says, ``Daddy, Sacramento, we've
    got some problems and challenges, but we're real, we're
    genuine, and we've tackled them head on.'' In that spirit, I am
    here this morning to talk about four major points that we
    really think you need to address in the next authorization
    bill: funding, innovation, long term planning, and bridging the
    urban-rural divide.
        On funding, my two colleagues here have said much that I
    would agree with, and I am not going to repeat that, but I will
    say one thing. We are going to have to come up with a successor
    to the gas tax sooner or later, whether it is sooner or later.
        I think there were comments in the media this morning that
    seemed to suggest, perhaps, that I was against a miles-traveled
    fee, and I want to just correct that for the record. I am not
    against a miles-traveled fee in terms of something that will
    replace the gas tax, but hear me out on this. This is very
    important that we address it.
        Twenty miles traveled on a two-lane rural road is not the
    same as 20 miles traveled on an urban interstate at 9 a.m. at
    peak hour, rush hour traffic congestion. They exact different
    costs. The urban interstate is going to require us to build
    billions of new infrastructure, so we want to manage that
    demand. We can manage that demand through effective pricing. It
    is not just about the miles you travel; it is about when you
    travel; it is about how you travel.
        So, in the next authorization bill we want more pilot
    programs. We want to be able to be more creative. We want to
    test pricing schemes much like the utility sector now prices
    utilities. Most things in the private sector are priced by time
    of day, by peak travel. We do not do this in the transportation
    sector, and we need to correct that.
        Second point on innovation. New technology innovation--you
    all know this--is coming faster than we know it. Now, we made
    advances in MAP-21 and the FAST Act, but we are falling further
    behind in terms of the speed of technology and things that are
    transforming our sector. From the local level, as important as
    the Federal program is, it seems out of touch, given where
    technology is.

    [[Page 49]]

        In the Sacramento region, we have started a program called
    Civic Lab. This was a really interesting idea. We took 20
    teams, cities, counties, and transit agencies, and we
    challenged them to come up and solve their transportation
    challenges with a couple of rules: you can't spend a lot of
    money, you have to use technology, you have to use creative
    problem solving, and must partner with the private sector. We
    did an umbrella procurement. We allowed them to pull off our
    umbrella procurements so they didn't have to go through their
    own procurements to partner with private sector companies.
        The projects that came out were truly inspirational. A low
    income project to move youth to summer construction jobs so low
    income youth could actually show up on time, at 7 a.m. every
    day, through a shuttle service; on-demand transit for a rural
    community where you couldn't make fixed route public transit
    work to get folks to work and to jobs on time; a new traffic
    management program that can help one of our more popular rural
    farm areas deal with peak hour congestion during harvest
    season.
        But here is the rub: we can't take our Federal funds and
    actually use them to fund these projects. We don't have that
    eligibility and that flexibility, and we need that. If you want
    to embrace innovation, we have to do that.
        USDOT made a huge stride with its Smart Cities Challenge,
    and I say recreate that, but do it for communities of all
    sizes, urban, rural, and suburban, and even State level
    programs that would be State versions of a challenge for
    communities to use technology and innovation to come up with
    quick and effective low cost solutions.
        In terms of the planning process, it is too slow, it is too
    cumbersome. We have too much to do. It is too much of a check-
    box exercise. The future is changing rapidly, and we need our
    planning process to be quicker, easier, more meaningful, and
    more data driven. USDOT can do a lot in this regard. We
    actually are using one of its datasets that it procured for the
    entire Nation. It is a great use of its economy of scale. We
    also need USDOT to help build the capacity of our agencies.
        Finally, bridging the urban-rural divide, we have had a
    program now for 10 years that we call the Rural-Urban
    Connection Strategy, and we learned, first and foremost in that
    program, that broadband and high speed communications are seen
    as a form of transportation for our rural communities. We need
    eligibility in our Federal funds to allow those kinds of
    communication networks and broadband to be funded right along
    transportation; it is equal to or greater than in terms of the
    need of rural communities, as it is as mobility and roads and
    highways.
        With that, I would be happy to answer any questions, and
    thank you again for the invitation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Corless follows:]

    [[Page 50]]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [[Page 67]]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, we appreciate the testimony of all
    of you. We are going to start with some questions.
        I want to start, Mr. Braceras, if I could, with you. Utah,
    Wyoming, Senator Fischer, who is on this Committee from
    Nebraska, when she was in the State senate she chaired the
    transportation committee in the State for Nebraska; I chaired
    the transportation committee in the State of Wyoming.
        We have a poster board here we are going to pull up that
    just kind of shows the bottom part, the orange I-80 heading to
    Utah, Wyoming, and then to Nebraska. The orange is where we are
    today. The green is where we are going to be in the next decade
    or so, with expanded amounts of traffic going back and forth.
    Clearly, that is where all the action is traffic-wise in
    Wyoming. Lots of the State doesn't have that kind of traffic,
    but we see it there, and then going down to Denver, Colorado.
        The Congressional Research Service has come up with this
    map about freight traffic specifically. As you know, for every
    one of the big trucks, that is like 4,000 cars in terms of the
    impact on the roads, so we are going to see that.
        What can be done, do you think, to help ensure that
    interstates in rural States like ours in many ways, as well as
    Nebraska, can keep pace with the increasing interstate
    commerce, as well as the commuting that goes along?
        Mr. Braceras. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. It
    is interesting how connected we are as a Nation and how our
    transportation system is really providing that connection.
        When there is a big snowstorm in Wyoming and I-80 shuts
    down----
        Senator Barrasso. Like it did on Sunday.
        Mr. Braceras [continuing]. The trucks back up into Utah,
    and we, on our variable message signs, are indicating the
    conditions of what I-80 is looking like in Wyoming, and
    truckers are making a decision of where they are going to spend
    their time because their hours of service are limited.
        I think the point that our Nation depends on a connected
    transportation system, and it needs to function, and it needs
    to be reliable and dependable for this to work. When you think
    about the purpose of a transportation system, every single
    transportation system in the world was created around the
    fundamental purpose of growing an economy and improving quality
    of life. It is as simple as that. And if our system is not
    functioning well, it impacts our entire country.
        So, I tell people in the State of Utah that I need a
    Federal transportation program, I need a Federal transportation
    vision because I need the roads to function in Nebraska, in
    Wyoming, in California in order for my Utah companies to be
    successful.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that for us to
    recognize that even though we are connected with the
    transportation system, that every State is unique, and regions
    within States are unique, and it is important for us at the
    Federal level to recognize that they are different. Most
    solutions are best done when they are done with locals and
    being done together, so if the Federal Government could work
    with States and with regions to be able to provide the
    flexibility to find the solutions that work for that region,
    then we

    [[Page 68]]

    can start to address the transportation system for the entire
    country.
        Senator Barrasso. You still believe--I think it was in
    testimony that was given by your organization in the House--
    that using the highway formula funding, as opposed to trying to
    recreate something, is the way to go?
        Mr. Braceras. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. As I stated in my
    oral testimony as well, it is a tried and proven method of
    delivering the highway program. We have been doing this now for
    about 100 years. We can make sure that we deliver the
    appropriate program, essentially the right project at the right
    time for the right region in the most efficient and effective
    way with the existing Federal funding formula program that is
    in place today.
        Senator Barrasso. This is for you, Mr. Lanham. We had a
    hearing earlier about ocean plastic and the oceans that are
    affecting plastics and what could be used, how plastics could
    better be used. This was a hearing that we had on plastics, and
    it was interesting, the Washington Post had an article last
    month headlined Plastic Bottles May Become Part of Roads
    Surface, trying to find what we could do with all of the
    plastics that are out there.
        The article explains that using recycled plastics in road
    and highway construction can make our roads and highways
    actually more resilient, that is what they are claiming there.
    In other words, using plastic waste can make our roads last
    longer, save taxpayer money.
        What do you think about the idea of actually using
    innovative materials, or others, about recycled tires and
    things to use in road building, and is there a future in that?
        Mr. Lanham. Mr. Chairman, we are big supporters of it and
    have been doing it for a very, very long time as a company.
    Williams Brothers Construction Company, we constructed 24 miles
    of Interstate 10 west of downtown Houston. The existing
    roadway, every piece of that was recycled and reintegrated back
    into the construction of the new freeway; nothing was thrown
    away. So, though that is not new materials, we didn't have to
    go to the quarries to obtain aggregates recently mined; we were
    able to reuse the materials and integrate.
        I think other products are out there. We have used ground
    tires in asphalt pavements. There are opportunities, I think,
    out there to continue that innovation. What needs to understand
    is how the business works in construction with regards to
    economic drivers and costs, and how it ends up affecting the
    State in the price of their projects.
        We look at things in mass and volume. If I have a project,
    and I need 100,000 tons of aggregate to produce the pavements
    for this job, somebody asked me can I use some crushed
    porcelain in there, I say, what is the volume available? A
    thousand tons. OK, it has become a nuisance for business, as
    opposed to being an actual commodity throughput.
        So, those are the kinds of things that need to be weighed
    in the discussion, but it has been proven, we can effectively
    recycle and maintain quality product for the taxpayer.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Carper.

    [[Page 69]]

        Senator Carper. I was looking forward to this hearing when
    I saw who was going to testify, and you have exceeded my
    expectations. This like a smorgasbord of good ideas and good
    advice, so thank you for all of it.
        I had a visit a month or so ago in my office from folks
    from Hyundai who have a couple of plants in this country, a
    Korean company, and we were talking about fuel efficiency for
    the vehicles that they are going to be building in the future.
    I remember being at the Detroit Auto Show about 10 years ago.
    The car of the year that year was the Chevrolet Volt. It was a
    hybrid combination battery and regular gasoline driven engine.
    It got about 38 miles on a charge. This last year the car of
    the year at the Detroit Auto Show was the Chevrolet Bolt. It is
    just a straight electric vehicle, battery, and it gets about
    140 miles to the charge.
        Folks from Hyundai came by and they told me that about in a
    year or so they are going to be launching some new model
    vehicles that will be all electric and that will get, I think
    they said, about 250 miles to the charge. They are not going to
    buy any gasoline; they are not going to buy any diesel.
        We have some States that are showing us the way of how to
    make sure that the folks that are not contributing through
    traditional user fees to the building and maintenance of our
    roads, while actually contributing to reducing the threat of
    climate change and extreme weather that we are seeing
    everywhere almost every week.
        A couple of us on this Committee, including our Chair and
    Senator Inhofe and I, I think Senator Cardin as well, met with
    the President several months ago. He brought us in to talk
    about transportation infrastructure. I was surprised; I
    expected him to basically talk for an hour and then say we were
    finished, but he talked for a few minutes and then said what do
    you all think. I shared with him an idea that George Voinovich
    and I suggested to Bo Simpson almost 10 years ago, and the idea
    was to restore the purchasing power of the traditional user
    fees, gas and diesel, 4 cents a year for 4 years, and then to
    index going forward.
        I suggested to the President that that might be a good
    idea, and he cut me off. He cut me off, and he said, that's not
    enough. He said it ought to be 25 cents a gallon, and it should
    be now. He said, I know there will be a lot of political
    pushback on that, but he said, I will take the heat for that.
        Later in the day I talked to Elaine Chao, our Secretary of
    Transportation, and I said, was he serious, did he really mean
    that? She said, he has been talking about it every week for
    weeks.
        So I think, as a former Governor, the key in getting stuff
    done on the financing side is leadership, whether you are the
    Governor for your State or you happen to be President of the
    United States. If the President will show that kind of
    leadership, we can make a whole lot of progress.
        We have provided under previous legislation, as you know, a
    national pilot for about a dozen States for road user fees. How
    is that going? Any ideas? Any thoughts?
        Go ahead.
        Mr. Braceras. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
    There are a couple activities taking place. There is a
    coalition of 14 west

    [[Page 70]]

    ern States that are involved in what we call RUC West, Road
    Usage Charge West, and we have been working together for----
        Senator Carper. I call that rock and roll.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Braceras. It is almost that cool. My wife rolls her
    eyes.
        But we got together, and what we are doing is, we are
    trying to learn even the questions to ask on what it takes to
    implement a road usage charge. So the State of Utah has been
    participating in this for the last 6 years, and what we do is
    we provide funding and we do little projects, all working
    together to be able to start to move this idea forward.
        This last legislative session we brought this to our
    legislature, and we had this discussion about it, and we
    thought they would maybe sponsor a small pilot program on their
    own. Instead, they passed legislation instructing us to
    actually implement a voluntary program for road usage charge
    for alternative fuel vehicles, essentially the electric
    vehicles, because they see very much this transition that is
    happening. It is clearly an inflexion point in the technology
    for automobiles where it is going to be electric vehicles, and
    it is going to happen faster than most people think.
        So, by January 2020 we have to have a program turned on to
    actually have an implemented program. So, we are going to learn
    from this, and expectations are that we are going to expand
    this as we become more comfortable with how to do this.
        The importance in transportation--and Bob mentioned this in
    his testimony--the connection between the use and how much you
    pay for that usage or how much impact you make on that system,
    that connection is an important one, and a road usage charge, I
    believe, provides the ability to make that connection, and it
    also provides the opportunity to price appropriately. As Mr.
    Corless said in his testimony, it is important to recognize
    that 5 miles in rural Utah is quite different than 5 miles in
    urban Utah, and one of the points that we have been selling to
    our--not selling--excuse me. One of the points, as we have been
    working with the Farm Bureau in Utah and the rural members of
    our State, is that it will give us the ability to not charge on
    non-public roads. So, if you are running on a private road, you
    won't be charged for that usage, and that is something that is
    becoming attractive.
        So I think there are ways to be able to implement a program
    that will help us carry the transportation forward. But I don't
    think this is something that happens in the next 5 years; I
    think it is important to look at the gas tax. That is going to
    be the way we fund transportation, I believe, for the next 20
    or so years, but we need to recognize a transition is taking
    place.
        Senator Carper. All right.
        My time has expired. Let me just ask Mr. Lanham and Mr.
    Corless, do you approve this message?
        Mr. Lanham. Yes, sir.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Corless.
        Mr. Corless. Senator Carper, I think the Federal Government
    will only follow the States on the next system of pricing. I
    think we have 5 to 10 years to get more than 25 States to
    really implement what Utah is doing and other States, so we
    have to get on with it. We have a short term problem and a long
    term problem,

    [[Page 71]]

    but that long term problem is going to come at us very quickly,
    and I think we need a majority of the States to be out there
    deploying so the Feds can pick up the best ideas coming from
    the States and localities.
        Senator Carper. Good.
        All right, thank you very, very much. Thanks for your
    example in Utah, especially.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me, real quickly, try to get three things in, crowded,
    just so I can get your comments, and if there isn't time to do
    it, we can do this for the record. This will be for all three
    of you. Those three things would be work force development, our
    freight program, which we have included in the past, and then
    also the project delivery problem.
        Starting off with the work force development, I am very
    proud, and I think you know this, Mr. Lanham, because you have
    a lot of good members in Oklahoma. You have probably heard me
    say this before, but we had a Governor once named Bartlett. He
    and I, when I was in the State senate--and we are talking about
    way back, before most of you guys up here were even born. Back
    in the 1960s we started that program. We started that for
    Oklahoma. It has been a leader for a long period of time. In
    fact, we have recently extended that.
        One of the problems we have in work force development--and
    I want to get comments from each one of you on that issue--is
    one that is across the board. When we did the FAA
    reauthorization bill, I put an amendment on there that you had
    experimental pilot programs to develop work force development
    program in the FAA reauthorization bill.
        Anyone want to comment on that issue, work force
    development? Now, you are doing a good job. I know that you
    guys put forth programs where you can hire people right out of
    these technical programs, and that has been very, very
    effective in Oklahoma.
        Mr. Lanham. Part of what we call our OJT, on the job
    training, program where we liaison with the technical schools
    or can work with the vocational training out of the high
    schools, but yes, sir, works well. It is a major emphasis and
    focus for AGC of America. We are partnering with AASHTO,
    Federal highways. We have a pilot program trying to go. We have
    five States that have signed on that are working with a test
    project on how to integrate work force development.
        We are battling a lot of cultural stigma with regards to
    most of our challenges. It is not with professional trades,
    engineers; it is with the construction trades, the carpenters.
    And that is not a college bound career. We are offering
    alternatives to young people and well paying careers, and how
    do we reach through that bias that seems to be out there.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you. Is it fair to say that you
    have had comparable success in other States that you have had
    in Oklahoma? Because you have had success in Oklahoma.
        Mr. Lanham. We have, yes, sir.
        Senator Inhofe. That is good.

    [[Page 72]]

        On the issue of the freight program that we had, Mr.
    Braceras, I notice you made a comment in your written testimony
    on an Oklahoma company, an Enid, Oklahoma, company, so you are
    familiar with the problem.
        I was chair of this Committee when we did the FAST Act, and
    we developed a program for the first time, a freight program.
    Any comments to how that seems to be working right now or areas
    for improvement on that?
        Mr. Braceras. Thank you, Senator. That program is working
    very well for the State of Utah. To me, the freight program was
    a clear recognition by this Committee and Congress of the
    importance that the transportation system serves for freight.
    When you think about it, the freight is that connection for
    people. Even if you are not out there using the roadways, you
    depend on the freight that is being moved by the highway system
    and the rail system. So I consider the freight program one of
    the really good additions that came about. And we are doing
    projects right now that we could not have gotten to and would
    not have been able to prioritize but for the freight program,
    so thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, good.
        Mr. Lanham, it was an off the record comment that you made
    in response to something Senator Barrasso stated. The Federal
    formula program has worked. That is one of the few things in
    government that seems to be working. It does take into
    consideration the needs of various States; they have a lot of
    input. When you come up with a formula, and you introduce a
    comprehensive bill, and everyone is mad about it at this table
    over here, you have done a good job.
        Any other comments on the two subjects that I brought up on
    this?
        All right, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all three
    of our witnesses.
        I live in Baltimore and commute to Washington, so I have a
    vested interest in us getting this right. Tomorrow, Senator Van
    Hollen and I have a breakfast meeting in Montgomery County. It
    is about 40 miles from my house, and where the meeting is is
    about 10 miles from the Capitol, and I will be commuting about
    3 hours tomorrow morning. We have a challenge in this region,
    and we have a challenge in this country, so this issue is
    critically important to all of us.
        The FAST Act passed in 2015. We hailed it as a major
    accomplishment, and it did give us predictability through
    September 30th, 2020. This Congress should have dealt with
    infrastructure. We were not able to deal with the
    transportation infrastructure; we did do it with water, and I
    agree with the assessment of that being a great accomplishment.
    But we are going to have to deal with it in the next Congress.
    It has to be done.
        What I would like to just get your views on is that
    legislation we passed in 2015, it had acceptable balance
    between highways and transit; it dealt with major projects of
    national significance; it continued creative financing through
    the TIFIA program, provided

    [[Page 73]]

    local flexibilities. We have already talked about that,
    including the transportation alternative programs. Dealt with
    the regulatory system; tried to streamline that process.
    Senator Inhofe mentioned some of the other areas in dealing
    with freight.
        Now, I would like to just get your view as to what area of
    change would you like to see most as Congress looks at a
    multiyear reauthorization of our transportation infrastructure.
    I would illuminate that I hope we would all agree is our No. 1
    priority, that is, the size of the program, making it as large
    as possible, obviously requiring revenues; and then, second,
    making it as long multiyear as we possibly can because of the
    predictability of these projects having a longer lead time, the
    more aggressive we can be on infrastructure in this country.
        So, recognizing we want a robust program, we want it
    adequately funded. Some of us do serve on the Finance
    Committee, so we are going to have to deal with that issue. But
    the EPW Committee is the principal committee on this issue, and
    I would just welcome your thoughts as to where you would like
    to see improvement on the FAST Act as it relates to the issues
    that are under our Committee's jurisdiction.
        Mr. Braceras. Thank you, Senator, for that question. We
    have made significant progress over the last, I would say, 15
    to 20 years in how the program is being delivered right now.
    There has been a lot of work done in streamlining the project
    delivery.
        And when I use that word streamlining, I hope it is not
    looked at in an offensive way. The flexibility that Congress
    has given to State DOTs, we have assumed NEPA, the
    environmental process. The State of Utah has taken over that
    responsibility, and it clearly has allowed us to do the right
    thing at the right time for our citizens. We are the biggest
    champions of the environment in Utah; that is where we live,
    that is what we love, and our citizens hold us accountable for
    that, so I thank you for that flexibility in that area.
        I would ask that we continue to look at options for
    providing additional flexibility for how we use the funding
    that we have available to us. One of the things that we do
    aggressively is we exchange Federal money for State money for
    our locals. Our locals don't do as many Federal projects as we
    do, and they struggle with the process. So, they line up, and
    we exchange at 85 cents on the dollar, and we give them State
    money that gives them the flexibility to deliver the projects
    that they need for their citizens, and they can deliver it more
    effectively and efficiently, and we then manage the Federal
    program because we do it every day.
        So, I think that is an example of how the Federal money
    brings some restrictions with how we deliver these projects,
    and it doesn't have to be as complicated as it is. If Congress
    and the Administration can focus and be partners on the
    outcomes of what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to
    save lives, we are trying to lower the total cost of ownership
    of our infrastructure by doing the right project at the right
    time. And we are trying to improve mobility so you don't have
    to spend 3 hours commuting to a meeting that probably shouldn't
    take that long. This is all about quality of life and our
    economies, so if we could focus on those outcomes more, provide

    [[Page 74]]

    flexibility for States and locals to be able to deliver the
    program, I believe we can make another step forward.
        Mr. Corless. Senator Cardin, three things quickly. First is
    innovation and technology. I think we do have some programs in
    the current FAST Act, but we have to make it real. We have to
    go beyond just sort of eligibility. We have to really push a
    whole different thought process around ITS, innovation
    technology, and really imbedding those in how we operate the
    transportation system, No. 1.
        Two, I think we have to strengthen regional planning, rural
    planning, build capacity among organizations like mine.
        Then finally, I think--I credit Utah for this but also the
    State of Virginia--doing a lot of very quantitative data driven
    project selection using data. We have to basically re-instill
    trust among the public that those investments, limited dollars,
    are getting the biggest bang for the buck. I think Virginia has
    gone from zero to 60 with its SMART SCALE process. It did that
    after it passed a major revenue increase at the State level. It
    is transparent. People understand what benefits they get from
    those projects.
        We have to get into that across all the States and all the
    regions in the country, and I think the USDOT can have a strong
    role in helping build that capacity for us on the data side.
        Mr. Lanham. Senator, I would just add two more things that
    have been discussed. One is backup on work force development. I
    think there is an opportunity to provide for work force
    development encouragement in the next reauthorization. The
    second is, continue to look for opportunities to add what I
    would call contemporaneous reviews in the NEPA process and the
    permitting process. There are still some opportunities where
    those things can run concurrently instead of consecutively and
    save some time, because we end up with a duplicate process, and
    I think we have a hard time explaining that to the public, what
    we do.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
        Senator Wicker.
        Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I have
    to say that this has been a very disappointing hearing. I was
    hoping you would choose some magicians to come in here, perhaps
    some alchemist to tell us how to stir a pot of lead, get it to
    the right temperature, and turn it into silver and gold, and we
    wouldn't actually have to pay for infrastructure.
        But here we have learned, and we are hearing it from both
    sides of the aisle, presumably even from the President of the
    United States, that if we want to build roads and bridges and
    infrastructure, we have to come up with some revenue solutions
    to actually pay for this. So, I am just heartsick and
    disappointed that we are having to go down this path.
        But since we are, Mr. Braceras, you are saying that the
    Highway Trust Fund is a solid mechanism for delivering the
    funds in the right way, is that correct?
        Mr. Braceras. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. And you think for the next 10 to 20 years
    the gasoline tax is going to be the way to put money into that
    Trust Fund?

    [[Page 75]]

        Mr. Braceras. I believe so, yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. OK. Do you advocate or have you given any
    thought to going from the per gallon to a percentage of the
    price, as some States have done?
        Mr. Braceras. Yes. In the State of Utah we haven't made
    that jump, but we have indexed the gas tax, and the gas tax
    rises based on CPI.
        Senator Wicker. So it is the same result.
        Mr. Braceras. It is close to the same result. The
    legislature has put a cap, but it is a pretty high cap, on how
    high that will continue to go, and every year our tax
    commission makes that adjustment based on the cost.
        Senator Wicker. When was the last per gallon enacted?
        Mr. Braceras. In 2015.
        Senator Wicker. OK. And what is it?
        Mr. Braceras. Today, it is sitting at 29----
        Senator Wicker. I am asking the Federal.
        Mr. Braceras. The Federal rate is 18.4 on gas.
        Senator Wicker. And when was that implemented?
        Mr. Braceras. In 1993.
        Senator Wicker. OK. What if we had indexed that back at
    that point? Where would we be?
        Mr. Braceras. We have lost about 50 percent of our
    purchasing power, Senator, since that point. Now, based on what
    you set as an index, I don't know if you would completely make
    that up, but we would not be fighting. In my opinion, we are
    fighting two battles: we are fighting the inflation battle that
    is a pretty powerful one, and we are also fighting the fact
    that we haven't made a change in so long.
        Senator Wicker. So, if we had just kept it even with
    inflation, we would be 50 percent better?
        Mr. Braceras. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. Or words to that effect. Now, your
    organization also has published a matrix of illustrative
    surface transportation revenue options which would be ways, in
    decades to come, to move to other forms. And then we have been
    talking about this user fee or whatever the terms are, vehicles
    per mile and things like that.
        Let me ask you, Mr. Braceras, which of those options do you
    think are the most viable going forward?
        And then if Mr. Corless and Mr. Lanham could follow up and
    explain exactly mechanically how this works and we
    differentiate between rural roads and private roads and
    interstate highways in our ability to collect the revenues, and
    are there privacy concerns that you think are real in terms of
    vehicle owners having to give out that information.
        Mr. Braceras. Senator, I will speak for Carlos Braceras as
    Executive Director of the Utah DOT in this response. Yes, I
    think the gas tax is the way to go in the future. As an
    association, we provided a menu of options, and over the next
    18 months we want to home in on a better way of providing
    advice to Congress on what options are available.
        But as you have the challenge of getting all your members
    on the same page, we have the same challenges, 52 members to
    get on the same page as well. But I believe the gas tax is the
    way to go in

    [[Page 76]]

    the near future, and I also believe that road usage charge,
    which is the term we are using instead of VMT, but road usage
    charge is the path forward for a longer term fix to this, and
    we need to start transitioning in.
        Senator Wicker. OK, so how hard is it to differentiate? How
    do we do that, between the rural roads and the interstates and
    private roads?
        Mr. Lanham. Senator, you can differentiate, but it will
    require technology that we have seen some pushback with GPS
    tracking. Obviously, where you have driven has been an issue
    for many groups with regards to privacy; on what road was I
    driving at what time. But that is exactly the information we
    need because engineers, the smart ones, that is exactly how
    they design these roads, is what kind of traffic is going to be
    on and when. So, I think it feeds to the managers of the system
    how to better take care of the roads and design them better in
    the future when we actually have better data in the entire
    network.
        Senator Wicker. How do we do it, Mr. Corless?
        Mr. Corless. Well, Senator, either you do odometer
    readings, which is very imprecise and every road is the same,
    every mile is the same, or you do it with what is already the
    technologies installed in most vehicles; you have a device
    using GPS, it knows where you are going. There are definite
    privacy concerns.
        The good news about us having 5 to 7 years is I believe we
    can work those out. But I think we have to be precise; we have
    to use GPS, because there is a fairness issue that I brought
    up, and I don't think every mile is the same if you travel
    rural versus urban.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Wicker. Staff has been
    instructed, based on your admonition, to make sure that for the
    next Committee hearing we will have an authoritative, credible,
    and accurate alchemist to make a presentation.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
    attending to that.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for your testimony. I really want to pick up
    on Senator Wicker's questions because I think we all recognize,
    on a bipartisan basis, we have huge infrastructure needs in
    many areas and obviously in surface transportation, and a big
    gap between those needs and the resources available, and I
    think the political stumbling block really has been identifying
    a way that we can bring in those revenues.
        As I understand the testimony of all of you, in the short
    term, you believe some kind of increase in the Federal motor
    fuels tax is the way to go. Is that correct for all three of
    you?
        Mr. Braceras. Yes.
        Mr. Lanham. Yes.
        Mr. Corless. Yes.
        Senator Van Hollen. And just in terms of the politics of
    this, as you look around the country now, that is still the
    primary funding mechanism for States, is it not?
        Mr. Braceras. Yes.
        Mr. Lanham. Yes.

    [[Page 77]]

        Mr. Corless. Yes.
        Senator Van Hollen. All right. And that is true in States
    that are dominated by more Republican Governors and
    legislatures, as well as Democratic Governors, right? And you
    increased it in Utah in 2015 and a lot of other States in the
    last 5 years increased their gas taxes?
        Mr. Braceras. Thirty-one other States.
        Senator Van Hollen. In the last?
        Mr. Braceras. Thirty-one other States since 2012.
        Senator Van Hollen. Since 2012. So I just think, as we look
    at both the short term and then the longer term, it is
    important to look at some of the State activity. And I agree,
    as we look to the long term, the States are also sort of
    examples of innovations that we should see how they test out
    and whether we can adopt them.
        In the absence of additional Federal funding, States, or
    certainly localities that are able to do it based on the
    concentration of populations, are moving forward more in the
    area of public-private partnerships, is that right?
        Mr. Braceras. Yes.
        Senator Van Hollen. And can you talk about how that has
    sort of picked up around the country? I know in Maryland, for
    one of our major transit projects, the Purple Line, it is a
    public-private partnership. So, can you talk about the examples
    of where that has worked well, but also some of the potential
    horror stories that people encounter with public-private
    partnerships and where you see that fitting in to this
    equation?
        Mr. Braceras. I am not sure if I can come up with a horror
    story, but I think the important thing on a public-private
    partnership is, again, one size does not fit all in these
    because we are not all the same. A public-private partnership,
    I have characterized to our legislature before, is really
    everything on the spectrum.
        If you look at when we went into design build to deliver
    projects, that is an increase in the public-private partnership
    when you are working with the contractors and the consultants.
    Or construction manager-general contractor, that is another
    movement on the scale of a public-private partnership.
        Maybe this is the horror story. We have evaluated doing
    full tolling on a brand new freeway facility as a public-
    private partnership, and the public pushback was tremendous
    against that because there was a fear that they were going to
    lose their ability to control; they were going to be one level
    away from being able to control.
        But we also do public-private partnerships right now in our
    rest areas, where we work with private companies to provide
    facilities and features in our rest areas that we couldn't have
    done before. We do public-private partnerships with our Web
    based applications, where we will provide advertising
    opportunities. Our legislature is going to move a bill this
    session.
        We have talked about doing it with our IMTs, Incident
    Management Teams, but our public safety officers did not want
    to have commercialization of those Incident Management Teams,
    but we are going to do courtesy patrols that will be public-
    private partnerships.

    [[Page 78]]

        So the idea is, I think, a very important one that we need
    to continue, and it is going to continue to evolve in the
    country, and I believe there are opportunities for public-
    private partnerships whether you are in a rural State or in an
    urban area as well, so it is not one size fits all.
        Senator Van Hollen. Got it.
        Mr. Corless. Senator Van Hollen, I am a big fan of public-
    private partnerships. In a small scale, with a Civil Lab
    program, that is what we have been experimenting with in
    Sacramento, California.
        But I do want to say something that I think is very
    important. I don't believe that a public-private partnership is
    the way to generate revenue that is just sort of sitting out
    there mythically waiting on the sidelines; it is a way to
    manage risk. That is really the benefit of P3s, is that it
    manages risk; it puts it in the private sector. In order to do
    that well, we in the public sector have to be good dealmakers;
    we have to understand actually how to make a deal and what the
    private sector brings and what we need in terms of the public
    interest.
        But with a few exceptions, toll roads perhaps being one of
    them, we are not making a profit in the transportation sector.
    That is not what we are doing. We are moving people and goods
    and bits of information. We decided long ago that movement was
    a public good, so there is not, generally speaking, a profit
    there. So we have to be careful that this is not some sort of a
    recipe for them coming to save the Federal transportation
    program. It is a tool which we should be using far more often.
        Senator Van Hollen. And let me be clear. I think private-
    public partnerships are an innovative way to try to leverage
    some additional resources. As you say, the goal is not to make
    a profit, and that is where public oversight is absolutely
    essential, kind of a utility type model. There have been some
    examples, like parking garages, where all of a sudden people
    were paying a much bigger fee, and it was going into bank
    accounts of some Wall Street banks.
        So I am just suggesting that if we don't get our act
    together at the Federal level and increase the Federal funding
    component of what we do here, you are going to see more
    pressure for leveraging additional funds through public-private
    partnerships. And while they may be available in both rural and
    urban areas, they are going to be more available in urban
    areas, so I am just encouraging everybody to come to the table
    to come up with a solution for Federal revenue.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
        We have a briefing with the Secretary of State and
    Secretary of Defense coming up within about 25 minutes, so if
    we could try to keep it to 5 minutes each.
        Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Corless, you indicated earlier that you really like the
    idea of the options that are made available so that we can
    address local needs based upon what the demands are in an urban
    versus a rural area, and I got to thinking it sounds good
    because in South Dakota we are rural, and to be able to do this
    is helpful for us. Yet at the same time, one of the benefits of
    having a Highway Trust

    [[Page 79]]

    Fund, and one that has stood the test of time over literally
    decades, has been that this has been a Trust Fund for
    infrastructure development, and we restrict it to that.
        The more lenient we are in terms of what is included in
    that means, then, that we risk the chance that the public will
    see this as one more opportunity to tax them for those areas
    that may be somewhat related to transportation, but not
    necessarily for brick and steel and so forth, and asphalt.
        Talk to me about how you view this in terms of the urban
    challenges you face and how we still keep that sense of
    confidence in the public that gas tax money is going to go to
    roads and bridges, and not to other types of designs and
    attempted changes of, as you say, moving people at the right
    time of the day as opposed to actually building concrete roads.
        Mr. Corless. It is a great question, Senator. Let me be
    clear. I think to keep the trust in the Trust Fund we have to
    keep it focused on transportation, on moving people, goods, and
    information. I don't advocate for any more mission creep than
    that.
        However, I do think that we are at a point now in our
    transportation system where we need to actually begin to
    transition from constructing to operating. We have high poverty
    in our rural areas. Moving people from point A to point B
    sometimes takes operations funding.
        To be clear, the Trust Fund was set up to build the
    interstate system. It was set up as a construction program, so
    it is a question in front of you in terms of how much you want
    to allow some operations. There is some flexibility already. We
    have the congestion mitigation air quality funds, CMAQ, the STP
    block grant funds. We are able to use some eligibility in some
    of those.
        I don't think we should transition to an entirely
    operational program, but I do think it is in the Federal
    interest to basically be a seed investor to get some of the
    best ideas out there going, but to limit it, say, for a 3 year
    window on some of these more operational improvements. That is
    how we use our CMAQ funds. I think we could actually extend
    that into other sources of funds so that we can get the most
    innovative projects possible.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Mr. Braceras, your thoughts. Once again, I think this is
    the biggest threat we have to being able to pass a long term
    project, is making sure that we can find the appropriate split
    between, as Mr. Corless has suggested, operational needs versus
    construction and reconstruction needs.
        Your comments?
        Mr. Braceras. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I believe focus is
    very important in what we do. That is how we are going to
    develop the trust that we need from our citizens to be able to
    deliver this program. In the State of Utah, maybe we are lucky
    in this way. Our Federal money makes up about 20 percent of our
    total program, so we have the gas tax that I talked about
    earlier, but we also have just over 21 percent of the State-
    wide sales tax that goes for capacity projects. So, we focus
    our entire Federal program on the simplest maintenance projects
    that we have on the State, so we are doing pavements and bridge
    projects, and we can very clearly show

    [[Page 80]]

    what that program is delivering for our citizens, and it really
    is that focus, I think, is important.
        So, as you consider where you want to go with the next
    reauthorization, I believe being very clear on what you are
    trying to achieve with the Federal program is going to be
    important. We are going to put a man on the moon type of thing.
    But that is a very important part, I believe. We have to
    provide that vision.
        Senator Rounds. Mr. Lanham, we are going to run out of
    money, according to the forecast right now; the Trust Fund is
    there. What should be the focus of the Trust Fund resources we
    have?
        Mr. Lanham. Senator, I think we need to take a hard look at
    what our mission is on the Federal level and what it is that we
    need to be able to spend money on, and what should be the local
    responsibility. I think we are at a point where I think do we
    have the money? Can we afford it? If we can't, then what do we
    need to be doing with it on a priority, and that is what we
    need to focus on. I think we stretch too far with too little,
    and we are not completing things.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
        For the Senators just arriving, we have a briefing with the
    Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense in about 15
    minutes, so I am going to ask that people try to stay within
    the 5 minutes.
        Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and
    Ranking Member Carper, for holding this hearing today to
    examine our Nation's transportation infrastructure needs.
        In the Northeast, and in New York in particular, we are
    faced with the challenge of aging infrastructure that has
    outlived its useful life and needs repair or replacement. On
    top of that, climate change fueled sea level rise and extreme
    weather threaten to put our infrastructure at risk if we do not
    rebuild it in a more resilient way.
        Our rail infrastructure is literally crumbling. Our century
    old Hudson Tunnel, used by Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and
    hundreds of thousands of New Jersey transit commuters each day
    are at serious risk of failure. This already aging tunnel has
    been made worse by flooding and corrosion during Super Storm
    Sandy. Closure of that tunnel would shut down Amtrak service
    for people trying to get from New York, Boston, and Providence
    on one side of the Hudson River to cities like Newark,
    Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Washington, DC, on the other
    side. It would be nothing short of a disaster, and an avoidable
    one at that.
        That is why I cannot talk about our infrastructure needs
    without mentioning this fact: every day the current
    Administration delays moving forward with the Gateway Program,
    they are gambling not just with New York's economy, but the
    economy of the entire Northeast region. The Administration
    should stop stalling and work with New York and New Jersey in a
    constructive way. They should begin by releasing the
    environmental impact statement for the Hudson Tunnel so that we
    can move this critical project forward.

    [[Page 81]]

        We also need to ensure that we are fully investing in our
    subways, commuter railroads, bus services. At a minimum, we
    need to protect the 20 percent set-aside for mass transit in
    the Highway Trust Fund.
        But we can be doing even more to deliver additional dollars
    for transit capital and maintenance projects. Funding is
    necessary to fix safety problems and expand capacity to keep up
    with the demands of riders who will rely on public
    transportation to get around. We shouldn't be waiting for
    trains to break down or crash into platforms, or multi-hour
    delays that are basically leaving our commuters stranded,
    unable to get to work on time. There is such a sense of urgency
    in our city right now that we have to do something to improve
    our subways and commuter railroads, so we have to get serious
    about the problem.
        New York's infrastructure challenges are not limited to
    just rail and transit. According to our most recent data, there
    are more than 18,000 structurally deficient bridges in our
    State, including the Brooklyn Bridge. We also need to think
    about our roads and highways, and how to integrate technologies
    like autonomous vehicles that have very different operational
    requirements than existing vehicles, and that includes
    everything from roadway signage to lane markings to pedestrian
    safety. There are also many rural highways in upstate New York,
    as there are across the country, that will prove challenging
    for these vehicles to operate safely on.
        I hope that Congress looks forward to the next surface
    transportation reauthorization in 2020, as well as other
    legislative priorities for infrastructure. We have to take a
    comprehensive approach that provides funding necessities for
    highways, bridges, railroads, safe and resilient investments
    that meet our transportation and mobility needs.
        Two questions with my minute and 40 remaining.
        Mr. Corless, what more should Congress be doing to invest
    in public transit and ensure that transit agencies have the
    ability to maintain their existing infrastructure and meet the
    current and future capacity needs of riders?
        Mr. Corless. Senator Gillibrand, thank you for that
    question. Even in Sacramento we are now having over 40 days a
    year above 100 degrees. Our light rail system is breaking down
    due to the heat, and we are stranding people, and they are
    walking along the train tracks.
        So whether it is the New York Metro region or a city like
    Sacramento, here is the fact: we have aging mass transit
    infrastructure that was funded federally in the last five
    decades that is now actually about to fall apart, and you
    cannot do that with just simple FTA formula funds, so we need
    some sort of infusion, a pilot program, if you will, to rebuild
    the transit systems big and small across the country, because
    the formula funds are not going to do that, and it is getting
    past the point of being unsafe.
        Senator Gillibrand. And what would be the consequences for
    transit riders if funding of the mass transit account of the
    Highway Trust Fund was reduced or eliminated?
        Mr. Corless. It would be pretty catastrophic, because I
    think, again, you are already seeing--I don't have to tell you
    about the New York subway and Amazon moving over to Long Island
    City.

    [[Page 82]]

    You are having a hard enough problem as it is. So I think the
    connection between transportation in general, transit in our
    major metro areas and economic prosperity is strong, and we
    can't lose it.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
        Thank you, all of you, for participating.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
        As I turn to Senator Capito, we are going to conclude the
    hearing a few minutes before 11, so that gives time for 5
    minutes for you and 5 minutes for Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank all of you for being here today. It has been an
    interesting conversation. I am from a rural State, West
    Virginia, and we would be benefit immensely from future
    investments in surface transportation. Some people think
    Senator Byrd has paved the entire State of West Virginia, but
    we still have things like the King Coal Highway and Coalfields
    Expressway and Corridor H that we are looking on, and they are
    different highways to build because of our terrain. I am sure
    Mr. Braceras can identify with that, being from a mountainous
    State as well.
        But just last year West Virginians voted via referendum to
    approve a $1.6 billion in road bonds to fund projects across
    the State. I talk about it quite a bit because our State is
    known to not be one of the wealthier States, wealthier
    citizens, but our citizens really sort of rose up and said this
    is important to us. We use our roads frequently, we are rural,
    we use them for everything, and crumbling bridges and potholes
    and other things that are difficult for us are very important
    to everyday lives of everybody citizens. So $1.6 billion is
    quite a big stretch.
        And you noted in your testimony, Mr. Braceras, that 33
    other States have made other improvements, 31 States have
    raised their gas tax, which we did that as well.
        So, what I would like to see in a future infrastructure
    package is a reward to the States that are really stepping up
    and putting their bang for the buck by their States, and I
    would like to know, if anybody would like to respond to that in
    terms of how you think that the State really taking that
    initiative.
        You mentioned the Federal input into Idaho was only, what,
    22 percent. That is pretty impressive. What would your comment
    be on that?
        Mr. Braceras. I think, recognizing that States are stepping
    up and filling the needs, the citizens clearly need and want
    transportation systems to work; they depend on it every single
    day.
        Senator Capito. And it is a political winner, too.
        Mr. Braceras. I had a phone call from the Wall Street
    Journal right after the legislature raised the gas tax in 2015,
    and they said, well, isn't Utah a pretty red State? This is
    unusual for a conservative State.
        And I said, you know what, it is a conservative principle
    to take care of what you have and have a lower cost of
    ownership, and that is what our legislature saw, is that by
    investing in infrastructure, they were actually saving the
    taxpayers money in the long run; and that is difficult because
    you are looking at a longer I call it political

    [[Page 83]]

    timeframe is not really the same as an engineering timeframe
    sometimes, or economic timeframe, so it becomes difficult to
    do, but you have to develop that trust.
        So it is very critical, I believe, for this Nation to be
    able to step up and develop what I call a world class
    transportation system. If we are going to continue to be
    leaders in this world, we need a world class transportation
    system.
        Senator Capito. Let me ask you, Mr. Lanham, a question. I
    am a big proponent of expanding our broadband infrastructure,
    which I think goes hand in hand with our surface
    transportation. In your experience of building, what are you
    seeing advances around the country in terms of dig once kind of
    propositions where you are putting the infrastructure in for
    fiber and other things at the same time you are doing
    improvements to the road transportation or building a new road?
        Mr. Lanham. Yes, ma'am, Senator. We see a lot happening in
    that area. It is complicated, too, because there are so many
    different entities that own these facilities to get them to
    come to the table, because they are providing service for the
    public, they are occupying the public right of way free of
    charge, and yet they provide nothing but headaches to my
    friends for trying to execute projects. But we are seeing come
    and trench, where in one spot everybody goes in at the same
    time; better engineering, better documentation about where they
    are at.
        So, what we see is then building a library of information
    that we will be able to protect that asset in the future
    because we know where it is at and what is actually there with
    an accommodation for expansion.
        Senator Capito. Well, thank you for that.
        The other thing I would comment, one of the comments you
    made about constructing a toll road in Idaho, we had a very
    similar experience in West Virginia where it was simply a 30
    mile four lane to make four lane, and the local folks just
    really got very, very upset. I mean, it was going to be $4 both
    ways. That is a lot of money.
        So they were going to opt to go back down on that dangerous
    two-lane, which defeats the purpose of building a safer
    highway. So sometimes toll roads may be an answer in a lot of
    cases, but in rural areas it is really, really tough to have
    localities buy into that.
        Thank you all very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
        I just want to say a word about smaller coastal communities
    and the infrastructure needs that they have. I know Utah is not
    very coastal, and even Sacramento isn't very coastal.
        Mr. Corless. Not yet.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes, exactly.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Whitehouse. We are working on it. Our problem in
    Rhode Island is that by the time Sacramento gets coastal, there
    is a hell of a lot less of Rhode Island, and we don't want that
    to happen.
        But we have, in my State, about 10 to 11 inches of sea
    level rise since the hurricane of 1938, the really monster
    storm that hit us

    [[Page 84]]

    back then. So not only do you stack up that extra sea level for
    the next big one, but it is not that way just along the shore,
    it is also that way all the way out to sea. So, when you are
    dealing with storm surge, you have that whole higher heap of
    ocean out there that is now surging ashore.
        People aren't very expert yet on how you correlate
    additional sea level rise to storm surge. You know it is at
    least about 10 to 11 inches. It could be a lot more. So we have
    communities who are facing this problem. We have communities
    where, in a storm, you have to figure out where you pre-deploy
    a fire truck.
        Senator Gillibrand was here. One of her neighborhoods
    burned in New York because the fire and the fire trucks were
    separated by a flooded area. If that happens, it is a terrible
    thing for folks.
        So there is this whole new planning for increased sea level
    risks, storm risks that coastal communities are facing, and
    people are starting to get on their case. Moody's is starting
    to judge their municipal bonds based on sea level rise storm
    surge kind of risks and how ready they are for that. Freddie
    Mac is warning of a property values collapse in coastal areas,
    which would have a terrible effect, obviously, on the tax base
    of those smaller communities, so there is a warning coming from
    Freddie Mac along with the warning from Moody's.
        And if they turn for help to FEMA and try to figure out
    from FEMA maps what this risk looks like, they are being
    misled, because our experience has been that FEMA maps are
    spectacularly wrong. We have had to do State level and local
    work in Rhode Island to do the coastal mapping, Mr. Chairman,
    because FEMA is unreliable as a partner in terms of the
    accuracy of its mapping.
        And it is not just Rhode Island. When the big hurricane hit
    Houston, there was a 50 percent error between what FEMA
    predicted in terms of flooding and what flooding actually took
    place.
        So, if you are in a coastal community, you have your
    municipal bond people looking at you with a glinty eye saying,
    what is up, are you ready for this? You have Freddie Mac
    saying, by the way, these property values you depend on to pay
    for your municipality might collapse, so there is not just a
    lot of money pouring in. The mapping that you have to rely on
    to make these plans is not reliable. And there you are as a
    town manager trying to figure out how the hell do I handle
    this.
        So I love the conversation that we are having about
    infrastructure. I am all for very big investments in
    infrastructure. But before you do the infrastructure, you have
    to have the plan so that the community can get it right. And I
    think we have a big gap right now in helping particularly
    coastal communities plan for this. It may be that the weird
    temperature considerations that you described in Sacramento,
    Mr. Corless, are a similar kind of analogy, something new that
    small communities have to deal with.
        I know that Phoenix, Arizona, for instance, is having to
    entirely figure out how it redoes its emergency response
    staffing because it gets so hot for so long there that people
    can't work out of doors in that heat; and if you are a
    firefighter, you can't decide to work indoors that day, you
    have to go where the fire is.
        So they have to wholly redo how they staff, and they have
    to have a whole extra team for cooling people down. It changes
    the

    [[Page 85]]

    way they work. The airport had to be closed because the tarmac
    was melting and the air was too thin for jets. So there are all
    these problems that emerge, and it is really hard for local
    communities faced with these problems to think their way
    through them with no support in a very constrained municipal
    budgetary environment.
        So, any way in which you all working on this can help keep
    your focus on this and your attention on this, I think it is
    really, really important. Just going back and rebuilding in
    place what we already built is probably not going to work. We
    have to understand how dramatically the climate is changing.
    And if we are going to build 30, 40, 50 year projects, we have
    to be planning for the full lifecycle of those projects.
        So my time is out, and I just urge you to think about that
    as we work forward. Infrastructure is great, but these peculiar
    and changing conditions that are driven by climate change and
    carbon emissions absolutely need to be taken into account, and
    we are leaving small communities stranded without the support
    to help them work through a lot of new science and a lot of new
    engineering.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator
    Whitehouse.
        Thank you to each of our witnesses who are here. We are
    very grateful. We are going to leave the hearing record open
    for 2 weeks in case others have questions. They may provide
    written questions. We would appreciate your written responses.
        I want to thank all of the members for attending, as well.
    I especially want to thank our esteemed guests for their time.
        Yes.
        Senator Carper. All I want to say is we have a lot of
    hearings in this Committee and other committees that we serve
    on. Some of them are really good; some of them maybe less. This
    was terrific. You all did a great job, and I just want to
    applaud you and thank you for being here. It may serve as a
    catalyst and give us some good ideas to work with. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you again.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

    [[Page 86]]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]