[Senate Hearing 115-740]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 115-740

                  REBUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE IN AMERICA:
                       ADMINISTRATION PERSPECTIVES

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________


                             MARCH 14, 2018

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation





                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
               





                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

55-170 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024










       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                   JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma               GARY PETERS, Michigan
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  JON TESTER, Montana

                       Nick Rossi, Staff Director
                 Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
                    Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel








                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on March 14, 2018...................................     1
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................     1
Statement of Senator Nelson......................................     3
Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    25
Statement of Senator Peters......................................    27
Statement of Senator Duckwort....................................    29
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    32
    Prepared statement from David H. Fialkov, Vice President, 
      Government Affairs, Legislative and Regulatory Counsel, 
      NATSO; and Brittney D. Koehler, Program Director, 
      Transportation & Infrastructure, Federal Advocacy, National 
      League of Cities (NLC).....................................    32
Statement of Senator Inhofe......................................    36
Statement of Senator Heller......................................    39
Statement of Senator Hassan......................................    40
Statement of Senator Udall.......................................    42
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    44
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    45
Statement of Senator Capito......................................    47
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    49
Statement of Senator Gardner.....................................    51
Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    54
    Boston Globe editorial dated February 13, 2018 entitled, 
      ``Our Russian `pipeline,' and its ugly toll''..............    55
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................    58
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................    60
Statement of Senator Young.......................................    62
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    64
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    67
Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................    69

                               Witnesses

Hon. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce......     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Hon. R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor....     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Hon. Sonny Perdue, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture.....    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Hon. Rick Perry, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy............    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    20

                                Appendix

Sean Strawbridge, Chief Executive Officer, Port of Corpus Christi 
  Authority, prepared statement..................................    73
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Elaine L. Chao 
  by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................    76
    Hon. Deb Fischer.............................................    77
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    77
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    79
    Hon. Bill Nelson.............................................    79
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................    82
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................    82
    Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................    84
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................    86
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Wilbur L. Ross 
  by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................    91
    Hon. Deb Fischer.............................................    92
    Hon. Bill Nelson.............................................    92
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................    95
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................    99
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   100
    Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................   102
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   104
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Alexander Acosta 
  by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................   106
    Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................   107
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   108
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Sonny Perdue by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................   112
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   112
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   113
    Hon. Bill Nelson.............................................   114
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................   114
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   115
    Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................   115
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   116
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Rick Perry by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................   121
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   122
    Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................   122
    Hon. Bill Nelson.............................................   122
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   123









 
                  REBUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE IN AMERICA:
                       ADMINISTRATION PERSPECTIVES

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in 
room SR-106, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Wicker, Blunt, Cruz, 
Fischer, Moran, Sullivan, Heller, Inhofe, Lee, Johnson, Capito, 
Gardner, Young, Nelson, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, 
Schatz, Udall, Peters, Baldwin, Duckworth, Hassan, Cortez 
Masto, and Tester.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    The Chairman. All right. Let's do this. Good morning.
    Today, we are here to discuss infrastructure in America. In 
1956, President Eisenhower and Congress saw the need to move 
people and goods quickly across the country and their vision of 
an interconnected nation paid off, helping to fuel years of 
economic growth. The infrastructure built in that era continues 
to fuel growth today, but now we face the challenge of 
maintaining and improving these critical assets. Our 
infrastructure needs are evolving in ways that would have been 
impossible to predict just a few decades ago. For instance, 
with the rise of the Internet and cell phones, we face the new 
challenge of building infrastructure to facilitate access to 
these technologies for everyone.
    The principle is the same today as it was then. Our nation 
must stay interconnected. Unfortunately, we are all familiar 
with the statistics, the 56,000 structurally deficient bridges, 
the 8 billion hours that Americans are stuck in traffic each 
year, and the list goes on. These statistics mean fewer jobs, 
less time with family, and lower growth. In rural states like 
South Dakota, millions of Americans lack access to reliable 
high-speed internet, and aging transportation links between 
agricultural communities and global markets hurt our farmers 
and ranchers.
    In response to these needs, President Trump released an 
ambitious proposal to rebuild the nation's infrastructure by 
generating $1.5 trillion in total investment over the next 10 
years. The proposal would speed project delivery and lower 
construction costs by limiting the permitting process to 2 
weeks and reforming workforce training programs.
    The participation today of five Cabinet Secretaries in 
today's hearing, something that I might add is extraordinary 
here on Capitol Hill, underscores the Administration's 
readiness and enthusiasm to work closely with the Commerce 
Committee and the rest of Congress on infrastructure. 
Collectively, we share the goal of developing a bipartisan plan 
that works for rural and urban areas alike.
    The Committee is joined today by a very distinguished 
panel. We have Elaine Chao, the Secretary of Transportation; 
Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of Commerce; Alex Acosta, the 
Secretary of Labor; Sonny Perdue, the Secretary of Agriculture; 
and Rick Perry, the Secretary of Energy.
    While the Senate Finance Committee will ultimately have to 
examine what we can afford and how we pay for it, we at the 
Commerce Committee first need to get the policy right and make 
sure that we're moving together with other relevant committees 
of jurisdiction. As we do so, I'd offer a few principles for 
the consideration of my colleagues.
    First, this is just not another highway bill. We will 
consider other infrastructure needs, such as rural broadband 
and water projects, and seek to break down barriers that are 
impeding the deployment of all types of infrastructure. Along 
these lines, the Administration's proposal takes a broad 
approach to infrastructure and offers several policy ideas to 
speed deployment.
    Second, we should build on our successful programs and, 
where necessary, remove inefficiencies. The Administration's 
proposal outlines important reforms to some existing programs, 
particularly on the infrastructure financing side.
    Third, we must ensure that any legislation is national in 
scope and that all areas are appropriately included. Rural 
communities face unique difficulties due to lower population 
densities and challenging geographies. I appreciate that the 
Administration's proposal acknowledges the acute needs in rural 
communities that lack necessary infrastructure. Investing in 
these areas of America will benefit the entire country.
    Fortunately, improving our infrastructure is an area where 
bipartisan agreement should be achievable. Both sides want to 
invest and modernize our infrastructure. Both sides want that 
investment to address an array of infrastructure needs, not 
only roads and bridges, but also needs like broadband and 
waterways. Both sides want to break down barriers for 
innovative technologies, and both sides want to make our 
existing programs work better. As exemplified by Ranking Member 
Nelson's willingness to work with me on infrastructure 
legislation, both sides can come together on this, and it can 
happen this year.
    Again, I want to say thank you to this distinguished panel 
of witnesses for being here today. I look forward to hearing 
your perspectives and suggestions for collaboration between the 
Administration and the Congress on infrastructure.
    I'm now going to turn to our Ranking Member, Senator 
Nelson, for his opening statement.
    Senator Nelson.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

    Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think it's quite 
significant that I can speak to our state, and we have two of 
the five Secretaries here from Florida, Secretary Ross, 
Secretary Acosta.
    What we know in Florida, the third largest state, growing 
at a thousand people a day, is emblematic of the additional 
demand and crunch not only to build new infrastructure, but to 
repair infrastructure, whether it's roads, bridges, and how 
many bridges--thousands that we have in this country that are 
structurally deficient, named that by the engineers--whether 
it's seaports, airports, sewer plants, water plants, expansion 
of broadband, all so desperately needed, particularly in a 
growth state, but even in non-growth states and rural states, 
where they're desperate to have broadband so their children, 
their students in school, can have the learning tools that 
others in urban areas that have access to 5G so that they have 
the equal opportunity to an education.
    But the question is: How are you going to pay for it? We 
went out and borrowed a trillion and a half dollars to pay for 
a huge tax cut. That's added to our national debt. The 
President has proposed an infrastructure plan, says $200 
billion, but there's no plan for how you're going to pay for 
it. How are you going to get members of the Senate to vote for 
the tax revenue in order to pay for these plans?
    We can all agree the infrastructure needs are absolutely 
overwhelming. Indeed, you saw what some of the dollars for 
infrastructure from the stimulus bill to help us get out of the 
recession, the severe recession that we were in, and yet we had 
sitting on the table the first project for high-speed rail to 
go right down the middle of Interstate 4. The right-of-way was 
already there, and the state of Florida and the Governor of 
Florida turned down $2.4 billion on the table to do that huge 
infrastructure project that the Florida Department of 
Transportation's study, in fact, showed would pay for itself in 
the first year, and by the tenth year would be making $30 
million a year. It was a missed opportunity.
    So how are we going to pay for it? Well, it ought to be 
clear we can't toll our way out of it. We've used toll roads in 
Florida very well, and it helps, but you can't expect all of 
the travelers of this country to go out and pay to get on a 
road.
    To address this infrastructure crisis, a few of our 
colleagues have put out a plan for a trillion dollars, a 
trillion dollars of infrastructure. We know it's there, but we 
also know that in order to pay for it, you're going to have to 
go back--could we not just--instead of a tax cut that went from 
35 percent corporate down to 21 percent, could we not bring 
that down 10 points to 25 percent, and use that additional 
revenue for infrastructure? This is real money, and it would be 
completely paid for, that trillion-dollar infrastructure plan.
    I'll give you just a couple of examples in closing, Mr. 
Chairman. We could expand I-4. We could rebuild the Howard 
Frankland Bridge across Tampa Bay. We could expand access to 
quality and affordable high-speed internet service. We could 
also upgrade the 9-1-1 system that is desperately in need of 
upgrading, and we could invest in projects like many in the 
testimony today will mention.
    So that's why I want to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and 
our colleagues on this Committee to see if we can come up with 
good ideas in which to move forward. The clock is ticking, and 
we can't afford to ignore the infrastructure needs of this 
country.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
    As I mentioned earlier, we have a very distinguished panel 
with us today, and we will ask, as much as members of the 
Cabinet can, to confine their oral statements to five minutes. 
We'll make sure that all the materials and statements are 
included as a matter of the record of the hearing. But it'll 
give opportunities for members of the Committee--and I suspect 
that we have a lot of people who want to ask questions--an 
opportunity to do that.
    So we'll start on my left and your right with the Secretary 
of Transportation, Secretary Chao.
    So, welcome. Thank you for being here, and please proceed.

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

    Secretary Chao. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and 
members of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity 
to be here today.
    Our nation's infrastructure is the backbone of our world 
class economy, the most productive, flexible, and dynamic in 
the world, and it's a key to our economic growth and 
productivity. But as you have heard, too much of our 
infrastructure is aging and in need of repairs.
    The challenges are everywhere. Traffic congestion and 
delays cost drivers nearly $160 billion annually. About a 
quarter of our Nation's bridges, as you have heard, are deemed 
structurally deficient, which means that they're in need of 
improvement, not that they are unsafe. More than 20 percent of 
our roads are in poor condition, and the transportation needs 
of rural America, which account for a disproportionately high 
percentage of our Nation's highway fatalities, have been 
ignored for too long.
    That is why 12 agencies have come together to help develop 
a comprehensive infrastructure framework, which the President 
announced as a priority in his State of the Union address in 
2018. Transportation is one component, which is why I am joined 
here by my fellow Cabinet Secretaries. The initiative includes, 
but is not limited to, drinking and waste water, energy, 
broadband, and veterans' hospitals as well.
    The goal of the President's proposal is to stimulate at 
least $1.5 trillion in investment spending and includes a 
minimum of $200 billion in direct Federal funding. The guiding 
principles are, one, to use Federal dollars as seed money to 
incentivize non-Federal infrastructure investment; two, provide 
for the needs of rural America; three, streamline permitting to 
speed up project delivery; and, four, reduce unnecessary and 
overly burdensome regulations. As a former Labor Secretary, I'm 
especially pleased that Secretary Acosta is here to discuss 
ways to help workers access the skills needed to build these 
new projects.
    Some estimates put our country's infrastructure needs at 
approximately $4 trillion. We cannot address a challenge of 
this magnitude with Federal resources alone or by borrowing. 
That approach will crowd out the capital markets, hinder 
economic growth and job creation. So the President's plan 
allows the private sector to help in the building of our public 
infrastructure. Nonprofit endowments and private pension funds, 
for example, have demand for a conservative investment, like 
public infrastructure, which have collateral that will not walk 
away.
    In addition, the private sector involvement helps to 
allocate risk. Under a well-structured transaction, if a 
project is not successful, the private sector bears the first 
loss instead of the taxpayers. The Department recognizes that 
different regions require different solutions. The private 
sector investment in public infrastructure is currently allowed 
in some form in 35 states and should be encouraged where 
appropriate.
    So the Department is also implementing the President's One 
Federal Decision, which was announced on August 15, 2017, to 
help speed up the delivery of new infrastructure and reduce 
costs. But they are not enough to achieve the President's two-
year timeframe. To accomplish this, the redundancies and 
inefficiencies stemming from multiple Federal agencies making 
decisions on a single project must be addressed.
    So, Mr. Chairman, Senator Nelson, thank you again for 
inviting me, and I look forward to answering all of your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Chao follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Hon. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, 
                   U.S. Department of Transportation
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    Our nation's infrastructure is the backbone of our world-class 
economy--the most productive, flexible, and dynamic in the world. It is 
a key factor in productivity and economic growth.
    But as you know, too much of our country's infrastructure is aging 
and in need of repair. The challenges are everywhere. Traffic 
congestion and delays cost drivers nearly $160 billion annually. About 
one-quarter of our Nation's bridges are in need of improvement. More 
than 20 percent of our roads are in poor condition.
    And the transportation needs of rural America, which account for a 
disproportionately high percentage of our Nation's highway fatalities, 
have been ignored for too long.
    That's why 12 agencies have been working to help develop a 
comprehensive infrastructure framework, which the President announced 
as a priority in his 2018 State of the Union address.
    Transportation is just one component, which is why I am joined here 
today by 4 fellow Cabinet Secretaries. The Initiative includes, but is 
not limited to, drinking and wastewater, energy, broadband and 
veterans' hospitals as well.
    The goal of the President's proposal is to stimulate at least $1.5 
trillion in infrastructure investment, and includes a minimum of $200 
billion in direct Federal funding.
    The guiding principles are to: (1) use Federal dollars as seed 
money to incentivize non-Federal infrastructure investment; (2) provide 
for the needs of rural communities; (3) streamline permitting to speed 
up project delivery; and, (4) reduce unnecessary and overly burdensome 
regulations. As a former Labor Secretary, I'm especially pleased that 
Secretary Acosta is here to discuss ways to help workers access the 
skills needed to build these new projects.
    Some estimates put our country's infrastructure needs at 
approximately $4 trillion in investment. We cannot address a challenge 
of this magnitude with Federal resources alone, or by borrowing. That 
approach will crowd out the capital markets, hindering economic growth 
and job creation. So the President's plan allows the private sector to 
help in the building of our public infrastructure.
    Non-profit endowments and pension funds, for example, have demand 
for conservative investments like public infrastructure, which have 
collateral that will not walk away. In addition, private sector 
involvement helps allocate risk. Under a well-structured transaction, 
if a project is NOT successful, the private sector bears the first loss 
instead of the taxpayers. The Department recognizes that different 
regions require different solutions. But private sector investment in 
public infrastructure is currently allowed in some form in 35 states, 
and should be encouraged where appropriate.
    The Department is also implementing the President's One Federal 
Decision mandate that was announced on August 15, 2017 to help speed up 
the delivery of new infrastructure and reduce costs. Recent reforms in 
the FAST Act and MAP 21 were helpful. But they are not enough to 
achieve the President's two-year time frame.
    To accomplish this, the redundancies and inefficiencies stemming 
from multiple Federal agencies making decisions on a single project 
must be addressed.
    So thank you again for inviting me. I look forward to answering 
your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Chao.
    Secretary Ross.

         STATEMENT OF HON. WILBUR L. ROSS, SECRETARY, 
                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

    Secretary Ross. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to 
testify on the President's infrastructure initiative.
    As President Trump has long said, our nation's 
infrastructure is crumbling, and we desperately need better 
roads, bridges, highways, railways, and waterways across the 
country. And if we are going to continue growing, creating 
jobs, and developing a 21st Century workforce, we must build 
this new infrastructure with American heart, American hands, 
and American grit.
    First, our plan will streamline permitting for 
infrastructure projects, remove unnecessary impediments to 
progress, and we will bring the process down from the current 
eight-year average to two years or less. Here in the room is 
the President's chart that illustrates the 120-some-odd steps 
required for infrastructure permit approvals. It's almost 
taller than I am--to wonder anything ever gets done. A faster 
process would provide certainty and free up capital currently 
wasted on red tape.
    Commerce is working hard on deregulation. Over the past 
year, the Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force identified 
over 50 deregulatory actions that will unleash American 
ingenuity. Many of these efforts focus on regulations that 
prevent or delay infrastructure projects. Notably, our National 
Marine Fisheries Services, NMFS, committed to reduce processing 
time for informal consultations under the Endangered Species 
Act from over 100 days to just over 50 days. By eliminating 
unnecessary steps, increasing tracking, and improving workforce 
management, we are already exceeding that goal.
    As you know, the Administration's infrastructure initiative 
proposes to leverage $200 billion Federal dollars to spur up to 
$1.5 trillion of total investment. To accomplish this, the 
Federal Government will partner with state, local, tribal, and, 
when appropriate, private sector stakeholders. To be clear, 
this is not privatization of infrastructure. Rather, we want 
targeted Federal spending that promotes state and local 
investment while incentivizing public-private partnerships. The 
goal is to amplify every taxpayer dollar and to restore control 
to local government.
    Today, I will focus on the $20 billion Transformative 
Projects Program that will be led by the Department of 
Commerce. Commerce chairs the Committee providing Federal aid 
for bold and innovative projects, transformative projects that 
would dramatically benefit communities across America, those 
projects that would not otherwise attract private sector 
investment without Federal incentives because of the risk. But 
their potential local and regional impact would provide 
significant bang for the buck if they succeed.
    Commerce is already prepared with ideas, surgically 
targeted projects, like regional hub concepts that link 
multiple states' economies, satellite-based broadband, new and 
expanded space ports, block chain supply chain management, 
augmented reality to improve city congestion, and new dredging 
technologies for deeper ports.
    Another good example is NOAA's precision navigation 
project. It transmits high resolution safety contours, tide 
levels, currents, wave heights, and other features to help 
mariners safely navigate congested waterways. The system was 
applied to the Port of Long Beach, leading to a four-foot 
increase in draft, allowing for larger ships and increased 
traffic. Tankers now can load $8 million more each than 
previously, and the total cost of the project was only $5 
million.
    Finally, Commerce is developing an infrastructure program 
for the Select USA Investment Summit this summer. It is the 
major Federal program to promote infrastructure and foreign 
direct investment. Last year, we had over 3,000 attendees. This 
year, the young King of Spain will be one of our featured 
speakers. Spain specializes in infrastructure.
    The Department is also assessing how to bring broadband to 
rural areas in support of advanced manufacturing, telemedicine, 
and the evolving digital economy. Commerce stands ready to work 
with Commerce to develop a comprehensive legislative proposal. 
The America First strategy must restore our crumbling 
infrastructure. It's essential to jobs, economic growth, and 
national security. It's time to build a stronger America.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. I 
look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Ross follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Hon. Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary, 
                      U.S. Department of Commerce
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the 
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the 
Administration's infrastructure initiative. Specifically, I look 
forward to describing the Commerce-led Transformative Projects Plan 
envisioned in the proposed legislation.
    As President Trump has long made clear, our Nation's infrastructure 
is crumbling, and we desperately need new and upgraded roads, bridges, 
highways, railways, and waterways across the country. If the United 
States is to continue creating jobs, developing a 21st century work 
force, and growing a strong economy, we must build new infrastructure 
with ``American heart, American hands, and American grit.''
    First and foremost, the President's legislative principles for 
rebuilding infrastructure, delivered to Congress on February 11, 2018, 
will involve continued elimination of regulatory barriers, streamlined 
permitting processes, and establishment of a ``one agency one 
decision'' concept for infrastructure permit applications. These vital 
efforts will reduce the cost of infrastructure projects by removing 
unnecessary and unacceptable burdens on businesses and governmental 
organizations seeking to start and complete critical projects. They 
will also eliminate redundancy where state and local governments can 
more efficiently authorize infrastructure projects.
    It is time for the Administration and Congress to expedite the 
current permitting process from the all too common eight-to ten-year 
timeline to a more reasonable two years or less. A two-year permitting 
process will spur additional infrastructure projects because investors 
will have more certainty on when they will receive Federal approval of 
proposed projects and free up capital otherwise wasted on byzantine 
amounts of red tape.
    The increased access to development created by deregulation, in 
addition to targeted Federal funding, will be leveraged to stimulate 
significant private sector and state and local investment generating 
$1.5 trillion in total new spending on infrastructure. And that total 
does not even include the significant Federal tax revenue that will 
result from the increased labor force demanded by such new construction 
projects, and cost savings from drastically fewer legal and compliance 
obligations related to permit review processes--more jobs, more 
economic growth, and a stronger America!
    Regulatory reform is already a key priority for the Administration 
and the Department. Over the past year, Commerce's Regulatory Reform 
Task Force, created pursuant to Executive Order 13777 on Enforcing the 
Regulatory Reform Agenda, identified over 50 deregulatory actions that 
are expected to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on American 
businesses and unleash economic activity. During Fiscal Year 2017, the 
Department did not implement a single new regulatory action that 
imposed significant costs on business--instead eliminating, delaying, 
or modifying all that were planned by the previous Administration.
    Further, the Department has already taken on a leadership role in 
the Administration's efforts to remove regulatory burdens that prevent 
or delay infrastructure projects. Notably, last fall, as part of the 
Department's report under EO 13783 on Promoting Energy Independence and 
Economic Growth, the National Marine Fisheries Services committed to 
implementing an average national 25 percent improvement in processing 
time for infrastructure project informal consultations under the 
Endangered Species Act. The Department is currently exploring ways to 
reduce processing times. In the interim, NMFS has taken a number of 
administrative steps, including reducing unnecessary review steps in 
the consultation process, increasing tracking, and workforce management 
to improve timeliness. Through these efforts, the Department is already 
exceeding that 25 percent goal.
    Each of the Department of Commerce's activities--trade, broadband, 
regulatory reform, and economic development, to name a few--aims to 
improve a key aspect of the Administration's goals of new and better 
infrastructure. The culmination of these efforts will increase 
investment access and opportunity, and will enable more Americans to 
perform jobs that are essential to infrastructure development.
    The Administration's infrastructure initiative will leverage $200 
billion in Federal funds to spur on at least $1.5 trillion in 
infrastructure investment. To accomplish this, the Federal Government 
will partner with state, local, tribal, and private sector 
stakeholders. As you know, of the $200 billion in Federal funds 
proposed in the initiative, $100 billion will create an Incentives 
Program to leverage additional dedicated funds from states, localities, 
and the private sector; infrastructure financing programs will see an 
expansion of $20 billion, of which $14 billion will go towards existing 
credit programs such as those falling under the Transportation 
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, Railroad Rehabilitation and 
Improvement Financing, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, 
rural utility lending programs, and expansion of private activity 
bonds; and $50 billion will go towards a new Rural Infrastructure 
Program to rebuild and modernize infrastructure in rural America. 
Unlike the previous Administration, President Trump has not forgotten 
about rural America.
    While Commerce is prepared to lend unwavering support for all of 
these initiatives using its broad statutory authorities and expertise, 
I will leave discussion of those components to my esteemed colleagues 
from the President's Cabinet.
    Today, rather, I will focus on the $20 billion that would be 
committed to a Transformative Projects Program led by the Department of 
Commerce. Under this program, I would chair a committee that provides 
Federal aid for bold and innovative projects--transformative projects--
that have the potential to dramatically improve America's 
infrastructure. These are the types of projects that may not attract 
private sector investment without Federal incentives, because of their 
unique characteristics, but they could have a substantial positive 
impact on states, cities, and localities--significant bang for the 
buck.
    The purposes of the program include:

   Significantly improving performance, from the perspective of 
        availability, safety, reliability, frequency, and service 
        speed;

   Substantially reducing user costs for services;

   Introducing new types of services; and

   Improving services based on other related metrics.

    We need to fuel novel and groundbreaking creativity that brings 
American infrastructure into the 21st century. When it comes to 
transformative projects, Commerce is prepared with many ideas. We look 
forward to working with Congress, and other agencies, to facilitate 
needed ventures such as commercial spaceports, rapidly deploying 5G 
wireless technologies, improving satellite technologies to deliver 
broadband, research and development into using block chain technology 
to enable more efficient supply chain management, using augmented 
reality to help improve city congestion, 3-D printing of construction 
materials, new dredging technologies to facilitate water port 
construction and streamlined supply chains, even hyperloops. My staff 
will be prepared to implement this program in a manner that reflects 
the innovations of private industry and opportunities to beneficially 
impact many states.
    An example of a transformative project that is currently within 
Commerce's purview is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's (NOAA) Precision Navigation project. Precision 
Navigation is a one-stop solution for safe navigation decision support 
that includes charts; high-resolution bathymetry; safety contours; 
tides and water levels; currents; water temperature and salinity; 
winds; wave heights; weather; and regulatory restrictions. Mariners are 
provided a single data source for all navigational products, rather 
than going to disparate sources to determine the best route when 
navigating congested waterways. NOAA and its partners' success with 
Precision Navigation in the Port of Long Beach has led to a four-foot 
increase in the draft allowance. For every extra foot of draft, tanker 
ships can load 40,000 more barrels of crude oil, which equates to 
roughly $2 million of extra product per tanker. I hope to expand this 
innovative product, through innovative public-private partnerships, to 
other busy ports and waterways in the United States.
    Finally, Commerce is also developing an infrastructure track for 
its SelectUSA Summit this summer at which we will promote public-
private infrastructure partnerships and foreign direct investment 
specifically related to rural infrastructure projects. The Department 
is also developing proposals for modern measures to enable rural 
broadband and is assessing what level of broadband rural areas need to 
participate in advanced manufacturing, telemedicine, and the evolving 
digital economy.
    Commerce is already putting resources to use towards infrastructure 
and economic development. Notably, the Department is heavily involved 
in the multiple disaster relief efforts. The Department is 
appropriately allocating $1 billion of relief funding, a significant 
portion of which is directed towards repairing, replacing, or deploying 
new infrastructure in areas impacted by the several devastating events 
over the past year. To this end, Commerce already boasts a robust 
policy portfolio supporting infrastructure, including economic 
development grants, broadband technical assistance, charting and 
surveying of waterways, and grants to promote opportunities for 
minority businesses.
    The Department stands ready to work with Congress to develop a 
comprehensive legislative proposal that will address the dire 
infrastructure needs of this great country, and we have the tools, 
experience, and pro-business expertise to see this critical function of 
government succeed for the betterment of Americans.
    As the President and my esteemed colleagues in the Administration 
are making clear: infrastructure is the backbone of our country. There 
can be no America First strategy without a dedicated effort to improve 
and rebuild our dying infrastructure. It is essential to jobs, economic 
growth, and national security. It is time to build a stronger America.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. I will be 
happy to answer any questions members of the Committee may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Ross.
    Secretary Acosta.

       STATEMENT OF HON. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, SECRETARY, 
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

    Secretary Acosta. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, 
it's good to see you and members of the Committee. Thank you 
for the invitation to testify today to outline how the 
President's infrastructure plan will strengthen what is the 
greatest workforce in the world, the American workforce.
    Last Friday, our Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the 
strongest monthly job creation numbers since President Trump's 
election, with nearly 313,000 jobs added. American job creators 
have added nearly 3 million jobs since the election. 
Unemployment has fallen to 4.1 percent, a 17-year low, and the 
February report also revealed that manufacturing, mining and 
logging, and construction, collectively, have had the highest 
month-to-month growth rate since 1998.
    So the President's infrastructure plan has the potential to 
expand and deepen and extend these positive trends for years to 
come. It is a great time to be a job seeker in America. It is a 
great time to be a job creator in America.
    The President's plan, importantly, not only invests in 
physical infrastructure, but it also invests in workforce 
development. As we build infrastructure, we must also ensure 
that we think about the American workforce that will build this 
infrastructure and that ultimately benefits from these efforts. 
So the President's plan includes commonsense targeted 
approaches to funding and flexibility so that Americans can 
obtain education directed toward the shared goal that we all 
have, a good, safe, family sustaining job.
    So the President's plan proposes four important workforce 
areas. One, extend Pell grants to high-quality, short-term 
programs that provide students with the certification or 
credentials for in-demand jobs. This is a big one--extend the 
Pell grants. Second, reform the Perkins Career and Technical 
Education Programs to ensure that more students have access to 
high-quality technical education to develop skills that are 
needed and required in our economy.
    Three, better target Federal work-study funds to help more 
students obtain important workforce experience while they're in 
school through programs like apprenticeships. And, four, reform 
occupational licensing requirements for qualified individuals 
that are working on our nation's infrastructure projects.
    So let me take each of these one at a time. Currently, 
Federal law prohibits Pell grant recipients from using grants 
for courses and programs that do not meet certain time or 
length requirements. Short-term workforce development programs 
can provide immediate economic returns by helping job seekers 
gain the skills and education that they need to join the 
workforce right now, quickly. The infrastructure plan calls for 
extending Federal Pell grant eligibility to these types of 
certificate programs that provide credentials. It's real 
simple. If the American workforce prefers a credential program 
at the same institution over a longer term program, why can't 
they not take that shorter program now and start making money 
more quickly?
    Second, the Perkins Career and Technical Education Program. 
The President's proposal would reform career and technical 
educational programs. Specifically, the proposal calls for 
improvements that focus funding in high schools with an 
emphasis on earn-and-learn programs that provide hands-on 
technical experience. This strategy will help create a pipeline 
of skilled Americans prepared to meet the needs of our economy.
    Third, Federal work-study. There's a need to update Federal 
work-study programs to better support students pursuing career 
and technical education. Those funds right now are 
disproportionately distributed to four-year colleges and 
universities that have been receiving them for decades, 
disadvantaging qualified community colleges and other programs 
that are more focused on workplace readiness and on the skills 
that the economy is demanding today. So the President's 
infrastructure proposal calls for updating the funding formula 
to send these work-study program funds to schools with a strong 
record of enrolling individuals in Pell grants and similar 
programs.
    And, finally, the President's proposal includes a provision 
to reduce licensing barriers that prevent Americans from using 
their skills across state lines. I've talked to so many state 
and local officials, and I've offered the following advice. If 
licenses are unnecessary, eliminate them. If licenses are 
necessary--and sometimes they are for health and safety--
streamline them or make them reciprocal with other states. So 
the President's plan calls for infrastructure projects that use 
Federal funds to recognize out-of-state licenses, speeding 
project delivery at reducing costs and providing something very 
important to our workforce--mobility and flexibility.
    So, in sum, the workforce components of the President's 
infrastructure plan will empower Americans to build skills and 
will allow employers to obtain portable credentials with their 
employees, and in the end, this is going to lead to good, 
family sustaining jobs. So we look forward to working with your 
committee and with other committees to advance what really is a 
shared goal of good, safe, family sustaining jobs.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Acosta follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary, 
                        U.S. Department of Labor
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the 
Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. I am pleased 
to outline how the President's infrastructure plan will strengthen the 
greatest workforce in the world--the American workforce. I share the 
enthusiasm and support for the President's plan to fully invest in our 
Nation's workforce and infrastructure future.
    Last Friday, I was pleased to announce the strongest monthly job 
creation since President Trump's election with 313,000 jobs added. 
American job creators have added nearly three million jobs in that 
time. Unemployment has fallen to 4.1 percent, a 17-year low, and has 
held steady at that level for the last five months. The February Report 
also revealed that manufacturing, mining and logging, and construction 
collectively had the highest month-to-month growth since 1998. The 
infrastructure plan discussed today has the potential to expand and 
extend this positive trend for years to come.
The President's Infrastructure Plan for Workforce Development
    The President's bold plan to strengthen our Nation's 
infrastructure--including modernizing roads, bridges, tunnels, and 
airports--presents an important opportunity for Americans to build 
their career while building a stronger foundation for our Nation. This 
is a great time to be a job seeker in America.
    If Congress passes the President's plan, jobs will be created in 
communities across our nation--from Key West, Florida, to Barrow, 
Alaska. What is so transformative about the President's plan is it will 
help strengthen the economy and create jobs in sectors beyond 
construction, such as hospitality, food service, and retail as 
infrastructure projects break ground. Americans are ready and willing 
to fill these jobs, and they will need specialized skills to get hired, 
putting them on a path to family-sustaining jobs long into the future.
    More than 40 years ago, the New River Gorge was an obstacle to 
swift and smooth transportation in West Virginia. Crossing the gorge 
meant a 45 minute drive down a narrow bending road to a small, aging 
bridge. Most drivers would add hours to their trip avoiding the gorge. 
Using American ingenuity, American steel, and West Virginian grit, a 
beautiful and record-breaking arch bridge was built that cut that 45 
minute trip to 45 seconds. Improved infrastructure improves the quality 
of life for Americans.
    The President's plan not only invests in physical infrastructure, 
but importantly it invests in workforce development, helping to ensure 
more Americans are prepared to excel in today's open jobs as well as 
the new jobs that will be created as infrastructure projects begin 
across the country. The plan features common sense proposals to make it 
easier for Americans to access skills-based learning by reforming a 
Federal bureaucracy that is often too cumbersome and limits Americans 
from using Federal assistance outside of traditional education.
    I have seen first-hand the importance of skills-based education. 
Last year, I visited Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada. 
I was impressed. I toured their HVAC certification program and met 
their students who had impactful stories. One student told me how the 
program had changed his life: he had been homeless, addicted to drugs, 
and close to death. The Department's YouthBuild program taught him the 
skills necessary to earn $12 or $13 dollars an hour in the HVAC 
industry. He is no longer homeless, he has his own apartment, and sees 
a future. He is looking forward to graduating as a certified HVAC 
technician, increasing his salary, and working toward a family-
sustaining future. His story is a powerful example of the importance of 
skills-based education.
    The President's plan includes common-sense, targeted approaches to 
funding and flexibility, expanding and promoting apprenticeships and 
strengthening evidence-based programs so that Americans obtain 
education directed toward the same end goal: a good, safe, family-
sustaining job.
    The President's plan proposes four important workforce development 
goals:

  1.  Making high-quality, short-term programs that provide students 
        with a certification or credential in an in-demand field 
        eligible for Pell Grants;

  2.  Reforming the Perkins Career and Technical Education Program to 
        ensure more students have access to high-quality technical 
        education to develop the skills required in today's economy;

  3.  Better targeting Federal Work-Study funds to help more students 
        obtain important workplace experience, including through 
        apprenticeships; and

  4.  Reforming occupational licensing requirements for qualified 
        individuals seeking to work on our Nation's infrastructure 
        projects.
Pell Grants
    First, the infrastructure plan reflects the reality that there are 
many educational pathways to family-sustaining jobs. Short-term 
workforce development programs can provide immediate economic return to 
job seekers and job creators by helping job seekers gain the skills and 
education necessary to quickly join the workforce. Currently, Federal 
law prohibits Pell recipients from using their grant dollars on courses 
and programs that do not meet certain time or length requirements. 
Thus, the infrastructure plan calls for expanding Federal Pell Grant 
eligibility to high-quality, short-term programs that provide 
credentials in an in-demand field of work. High-quality programs that 
can prepare Americans for in-demand occupations in a shorter time frame 
deserve the same treatment as traditional educational options.
    According to the American Association of Community Colleges, in 
2014 and 2015, 24 percent of all credentials awarded by community 
colleges--in areas like business, engineering, precision production, 
and information technology--were certificates of less than one year. Of 
all community college certificates, less-than-one-year certificates 
accounted for 62 percent. Pell Grant eligibility, however, is generally 
limited to programs equivalent to two thirds of an academic year (600 
clock hours or 16 credit hours and 15 weeks). According to the Council 
of Economic Advisers, workers in infrastructure-related occupations are 
more likely than workers in non-infrastructure related occupations to 
have a high school degree or less. Current Pell Grant eligibility 
overlooks the growing importance of post-secondary, short term 
credentials to the career entry and advancement of many Americans, 
including those in infrastructure-related occupations.
Perkins Career and Technical Education (CTE)
    Second, the President's proposal would reform career and technical 
education programs. Perkins Career and Technical Education is in need 
of reform--current funds support a broad, fragmented range of programs 
that often do not meet in-demand industry needs. The infrastructure 
plan proposes improvements that focus funding on high schools, with an 
emphasis on earn and learn programs--including apprenticeship and work-
based learning--and dual-enrollment programs to provide hands-on, 
technical experience, especially in STEM-related fields. This strategy 
will help create a pipeline of skilled Americans prepared to meet the 
demands of high-growth industries.
Federal Work-Study
    Third, there is a need to update the Federal Work-Study program to 
better support students pursuing career and technical education. Work-
Study funds are disproportionately distributed to four-year colleges 
and universities, disadvantaging quality community colleges and other 
programs that are more focused on workplace readiness. The President's 
infrastructure plan will revamp the funding formula to send these Work-
Study program funds to schools with a strong record of enrolling Pell 
Grant students. Ultimately, the administration's proposal will better 
support workforce and career-oriented opportunities for low-income 
undergraduate students, including those in workforce development 
programs.
Occupational Licensing
    Finally, in addition to helping Americans gain skills for jobs to 
help build our Nation's infrastructure, the President's proposal 
includes provisions to reduce licensing barriers that prevent Americans 
from using their skills across state lines. State licensing 
requirements have become increasingly burdensome and frequently create 
significant barriers to mobility for Americans who want to work in 
other states. Unfortunately, military spouses and veterans face these 
barriers more frequently than others given their higher levels of 
mobility. I have engaged with state and local officials and offered 
this advice: if licenses are unnecessary, eliminate them. If licenses 
are necessary, streamline and make them reciprocal with other states. 
The President's plan would require that states receiving Federal funds 
for infrastructure projects accept workers with out-of-state licenses, 
speeding project delivery, reducing costs, and providing greater 
mobility and flexibility to American workers.
Conclusion
    The workforce component of President Trump's infrastructure plan 
will empower more Americans to build skills that employers desire and 
obtain portable credentials that lead to jobs. This will unlock more 
job opportunities in America and ensure that jobs that are open today 
are filled quickly and that our Nation's infrastructure projects are 
built by talented builders, architects, masons, engineers, welders, 
electricians, pipefitters, and craftsmen and craftswomen from across 
our Nation.
    The President's proposal will bring America's infrastructure into 
the 21st Century and create new American jobs. With reforms to help 
students pursue demand-driven education, the President's plan will also 
help prepare the American workforce to fill these good, family-
sustaining careers. The Departments of Labor and Education are ready 
and willing to work together to advance the President's infrastructure 
plan to help enrich and expand our Nation's workforce.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Acosta.
    Secretary Perdue.

          STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY PERDUE, SECRETARY, 
                 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    Secretary Perdue. Thank you, Chairman Thune and Ranking 
Member Nelson and members of the Committee. It's a pleasure to 
visit with you this morning. My colleagues have done a great 
job describing various aspects of that, and you all have done a 
great job in demonstrating your acknowledgement of the need and 
the opportunities we have before us, and I think it's the goal 
of this Administration to work with the Congress, the Senate, 
and the House in determining how we get that done. There's no 
dispute about the need for infrastructure for America and for 
job creation and for others, and it's up to all of us to 
deliver for the American people.
    I represent, as you all know, the USDA, a rural 
constituency and very dependent on infrastructure. I think 
America's advantage in world logistics of a surplus in our 
export of agriculture, frankly, has a lot to do with the 
infrastructure that has been in place over a number of years. 
The roads, the rails, and the waterways of this country have 
contributed to our ability to deliver farmer-produced, rancher-
produced products to the world in a very competitive fashion, 
and it's very important that we continue to do that as well.
    Surface transportation is extremely important. Roads and 
bridges in rural areas where trucks cannot transport across 
ailing bridges contribute to a lack of productivity. Certainly, 
the waterways that have contributed in draining the heartland 
of productive America have been very vital in doing that. Our 
locks and dams are years old, and there's data to say that if 
some of these locks fail, several states and thousands of 
producers as well as billions of dollars of agricultural 
product could be impacted as well. So the surface 
transportation and the inland waterways are important as well, 
and our colleagues have done a great job describing those 
needs.
    You all have identified and also talked about--and I think 
there's a lot of energy about it--an area that I think is 
probably as transformative as any we've mentioned. You 
mentioned the interstate highway system of 1956. We actually go 
back with two other examples prior to that--1934 with the 
Telephone Act, 1936 with the REA Act. America can do this, and 
we see what the electrification of America did, what the 
connectivity with our telephone system did, where we could talk 
among ourselves and communicate.
    Today, the high-speed Internet is that interstate highway 
of the 21st Century, and we need a ubiquitous high-speed 
Internet system across this country, not only for the 
farmsteads and the rural towns, but the fields of America. When 
you look at the technology that existed in Illinois for 
precision agriculture--real productivity. A real-world example 
is with high-speed internet, sub-inch technology of GPS and the 
satellites, we can get about a 20 bushel per acre increase with 
almost half the inputs.
    You talk about real productivity increase--there are 
products on the shelf today that manufacturers are waiting to 
deploy when we have the opportunity for ubiquitous broadband 
activity, and, frankly, this will only spur more as we get 
there. So I'm very pleased with the interest and the energy 
regarding ubiquitous broadband across America in that way. I do 
believe it's particularly transformative in that area.
    How do we pay for it? Obviously, that's the--we've got a 
recommendation and an opening opportunity in that. But that's 
really where we all come together. I love the spirit of this 
committee in a bipartisan fashion of understanding the need. 
How do we do it? Let's just get it done for the American 
people, because it's needed in order for American producers and 
agriculture to remain competitive. This is a very important 
issue.
    So thank you for the opportunity to visit with you today.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Perdue follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Hon. Sonny Perdue, Secretary, 
                     U.S. Department of Agriculture
Introduction--The Promise of Rural America
    Good Morning Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and 
distinguished Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, & Transportation. It is an honor to be with you today. I thank 
you for the opportunity to appear before you to provide comments on the 
rural component of the President's Rebuilding Infrastructure in America 
proposal.
    Throughout his campaign and since he has been in office, the 
President has made investing in American infrastructure a priority--for 
our economic growth and for winning in global commerce. I share his 
vision because if we're going to ``Do Right and Feed Everyone'', we 
need better infrastructure to connect cash crops to markets, milk from 
the dairy farms through the supply chain to the grocery stores, timber 
to lumber mills, clean water to rural households, affordable 
electricity to factories, teachers to students, and patients to 
doctors.
    With such investments in rural infrastructure, we will create job 
opportunities for the rural workforce and unleash the full potential of 
the U.S. economy. Infrastructure has been the core of American economic 
success for more than two centuries. If we are to continue to grow, 
America's infrastructure needs attention. Our Nation's productivity, 
prosperity, and hope for future generations are at stake.
    Prosperity in rural America is particularly vital, not just for the 
rural communities we love, that many of us call home, but also for our 
entire Nation. Our food, forests, fiber, fuels, fisheries, and fresh 
air and water are the bounty of our vast rural lands. Rural America is 
where new factories flourish, and modern jobs manufacturing modern 
goods. Rural areas are abundant in the natural resources we rely on for 
recreation and for production--the supplier of minerals, fuels, and 
natural resources that create and support every American job.
    Rural America is nearly three-fourths of our Nation's land and is 
home to 46 million fellow citizens. It has a diverse store of assets to 
draw upon and is home to people of all ages and occupations. Yet 
overcoming the challenges and realizing the opportunities for 
prosperity in rural America requires action. Success depends on 
expanding productivity in the rural economy and connecting rural people 
to each other, to urban areas, and to the rest of the world.
The Rural Economy Runs on Core Rural Infrastructure
    Rural productivity, prosperity, and quality of life are critical to 
this Administration and USDA. On my first day as Secretary of 
Agriculture, the President asked me to Chair the Task Force on 
Agriculture and Rural Prosperity with a charge to identify key changes 
that would bring prosperity to rural America. This was both a privilege 
and an immense challenge that I did not take lightly and continues to 
guide my daily decisions as Secretary.
    I travelled extensively across the country, taking a hard look at 
the challenges and opportunities in rural communities and hearing from 
those living in America's heartland. I heard directly from many of your 
constituents, including those in Florida, Indiana, Nevada, Texas, West 
Virginia, and Wisconsin. At every stop, in every place, I heard from 
the users of our precious infrastructure--the roads, bridges, railways, 
airports, waterways, water utilities, electric systems, and broadband. 
For these communities and their families, prosperity means rebuilding 
and modernizing their infrastructure. I saw firsthand that communities 
that cannot offer safe and reliable water, wastewater facilities, 
efficient electricity, broadband service, as well as surface and air 
transportation connections cannot hope to grow businesses or attract 
new employers to their area.
Rural Transportation
    America's rural communities are an important linkage in the 
Nation's transportation network. Road and rail upgrades as well as 
improvements in inland and maritime ports are necessary to speed 
commodity movements to world markets. Coast to coast, border to border, 
city to city, and farm to market, rural transportation systems connect 
our country. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, rural 
America is home to many of the Nation's most critical transportation 
assets, including more than 3,700 airports, almost 3 million miles of 
roadways and almost 30,000 miles of interstate highways, and large 
portions of the Nation's 140,000 miles of freight rail. And, of the 
Nation's nearly 55,000 bridges that are in poor condition, 80 percent 
are in rural areas.
    Also, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, American 
productivity relies on 25,000 miles of inland waterways to transport 
commodities from rural production sites. Yet more than half of the 
locks and dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are more 
than 50 years old and put at risk the ability to efficiently handle the 
more than 500 million tons of freight now traveling on our inland 
waterways. Traffic congestion and repairs are causing twice as many 
hours of delay now than in the year 2000.
Rural Utilities--Water
    The Environmental Protection Agency reports that most Americans 
receive their drinking water from one of the Nation's over 50,000 
community water systems. Of these, about 85 percent are small rural 
water systems serving rural citizens, working families, and businesses. 
Continued rural infrastructure investments for water, wastewater, and 
solid waste systems in small town America is crucial. The demand for 
water investment is great, with demand that exceeds the Federal 
Government's ability to support. Today, the USDA rural water program 
has a backlog of more than $3.1 billion projects awaiting funding and 
financing. States with the highest backlog of requests for Federal 
loans and grants include Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia.
Rural Utilities--Electric
    Our nation's electric grid is the most complex machine known to 
humanity, delivering power at the flip of a switch, and serving as the 
foundation upon which our entire economy rests. Over 40 percent of the 
electric distribution infrastructure in the United States, as measured 
in miles of line, is provided by rural electric service providers that 
are current or former customers of USDA's Rural Utilities Service. 
Electric infrastructure, like all infrastructure, needs almost constant 
care, maintenance, and modernization. New challenges emerge every day. 
We need to protect the grid from engineered and natural disasters, 
cyber threats, and aging facilities. We also need to invest in a 
connected ``smart grid'' that prevents and speeds response to outages 
and dynamically manages an increasingly complex mix of energy.
Rural Utilities--Broadband
    Atop the infrastructure priority list for rural American citizens, 
businesses, and farms is the expansion of rural broadband for e-
connectivity to the next ``interstate highway system'' of global 
commerce. The Agriculture and Rural Prosperity Task Force recognized 
``e-connectivity'' or reliable and affordable broadband as the key to 
productivity in the 21st Century. It is fundamental for economic growth 
throughout the U.S., providing access to capital, expanding markets, 
training Americans for the jobs of the 21st Century economy, enabling 
innovation, and ensuring quality of life.
    A look back in history tells us supporting similar rural American 
connections have been the centerpiece of rural prosperity, rural 
productivity and rural jobs. The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, the 
original Telecommunications Act of 1934, and Federal Aid Highway Act of 
1956 were all critical contributors to rural American economies. Just 
like the interstate opened the way for faster transportation, broadband 
connectivity is the new interstate that will connect all the towns and 
cities across the Nation. While Interstate highways may have bypassed 
many small towns decades ago, we want to be sure that the new digital 
highway does not bypass any of those small towns this time. Every rural 
community should have an ``on ramp'' to the digital superhighway that 
carries 21st Century commerce.
    One of many beneficiaries of broadband e-connectivity will be 
farms. Precision agriculture technologies are growing in popularity for 
their ability to improve farm management decisions, for increasing 
production and reducing input costs. Modern farming technologies 
include precision planting, fertilizing, spraying, and irrigation. USDA 
researchers have estimated that the cost savings from use of these 
precision agriculture technologies in corn production ranged between 
$13 and $25 per acre. In addition to ``smart farms'', smart forest, 
smart factories, and smart transportation will also be an economic 
game-changer for rural economies--all requiring full deployment e-
connectivity to high-speed internet, far beyond what is available in 
rural America today.
    According to the best available data on e-connectivity access, the 
Federal Communications Commission found that nearly one-third of rural 
Americans lack access to broadband, while only two percent of urban 
Americans lack access to service at speeds of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps 
upload. Additionally, remote areas with difficult terrain and less 
dense populations increase the costs of construction and provide less 
financial incentives for businesses to deploy service.
    As we invest in rural infrastructure, a key part of modernization 
should include the best cybersecurity possible--for our water 
utilities, power utilities, and broadband. Protections from such 
threats are important throughout all our networks, for our entire 
Nation's security.
The President's Rural American Infrastructure Priority
    The President believes in this vision for rural prosperity and sees 
infrastructure as a key ingredient. He knows that rural infrastructure 
needs attention--rehabilitation to reduce downtime for repairs, 
capacity to carry all the Made in the U.S.A. goods that rural America 
produces, and modernization to be sure American businesses compete and 
win in the new electronic economy.
    The President's proposal for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America 
prioritizes responsible and sustainable investment in all our Nation's 
infrastructure and forges a path toward prosperity with a growth-
oriented package of funds and infrastructure reforms. He envisions a 
``lighter Federal touch'' in funding and permitting for infrastructure, 
because he entrusts states and communities--not Washington--to make 
decisions to meet their unique rural needs.
    His proposal devotes $50 billion, or 25 percent of the overall 
Infrastructure proposal, for rural areas with populations of 50,000 or 
less, allocating a majority of the rural investment--80 percent or $40 
billion--directly to states as block grants, by a formula based on 
rural population and rural infrastructure. States would then use their 
Rural Infrastructure Block Grant to choose the mix of projects that 
best fulfill rural priorities with a non-siloed approach to investing.
    A state could spend some of its funds to invest in rebuilding and 
modernizing roads, bridges, railways, ports, and waterways. A state 
could also choose to provide clean water for rural families through 
state and local mechanisms, rather than relying on backlogged Federal 
approaches that cannot hope to satisfy the demand. A state might also 
tailor ways to expand broadband deployment to connect their rural 
communities using the most affordable and effective technologies for 
their unique geographies and economic uses. A state might choose to 
invest some of its Rural Infrastructure Block Grant to upgrade power 
infrastructure in rural communities, or to support local and regional 
locks, dams and reservoirs, or to finish environmental clean-up of 
brownfields and Superfund sites that are holding back their development 
into productive uses.
    Yet this not a typical block grant. The proposal here is an 
innovative approach, requiring Governors to base their spending 
decisions on their own Rural Infrastructure Investment Plan that they 
would publish on the internet. States that spend their Rural 
Infrastructure Block Grant according to their rural plans--in support 
of their own rural economies and their own unique rural infrastructure 
needs that they define for themselves--would then be eligible for the 
20 percent bonus funding. This is the type of transparency that, in my 
experience, engenders accountability in the use of public funds that 
American taxpayers deserve.
Streamlining Environmental Permitting
    The President also wants to reduce the red tape that holds back 
American infrastructure investment. Streamlining environmental 
permitting is a critical component of improving American infrastructure 
and ensuring taxpayer dollars fund projects that are completed on time, 
with efficiency, while also maintaining environmental integrity. As a 
member of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, we are 
providing accountability for covered projects under Title 41 of the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41), and are working 
with fellow Council members to find efficiencies in the permitting 
process.
    As a proud leader in the implementation of President Trump's 
Executive Order to streamline the permitting process, I have 
commissioned the development of implementation guidance to help USDA 
focus on what we must do to ensure the environment is protected while 
fairly evaluating essential community projects in reasonable time 
frames. Yet, there are still many statutes that make this difficult to 
execute. As one of the implementers of dozens of different 
environmental review laws, USDA is one of 20 Federal agencies who must 
review major infrastructure projects to ensure they minimize impacts to 
the environment and maximize economic development. As a result, under 
current laws, major projects can take decades to clear these 
environmental permitting hurdles--the President's proposal would trim 
approvals to two years. permitting hurdles--the President's proposal 
would trim approvals to two years.
    Key legislative changes we seek would make the environmental review 
process much more streamlined, give Executive branch agencies the 
directive to complete reviews on deadlines with a collaborative 
approach, reduce duplication and conflicts, and remove some of the 
impediments that have further complicated the process without any 
additional environmental benefit.
USDA Knows Rural Infrastructure
    Rural infrastructure is no stranger to the Department of 
Agriculture. We know the transportation needs of rural communities and 
rural businesses from the users' standpoint. Our mission at USDA is to 
``Do Right and Feed Everyone'' as we facilitate the productivity at the 
Nation's more than two million farms. This includes the utilities that 
provide power and water utilities to agricultural production and 
processing sites, as well as disseminating information about the 
transport of agriculture commodities to markets.
    In particular, our Rural Development mission area is keenly focused 
on providing low cost financing to help rural electric providers 
deliver the safe, reliable, and affordable electricity as well as clean 
water and reliable high-speed internet. USDA has a current loan 
portfolio of $57 billion worth of rural utilities infrastructure, which 
has a default rate of less than 1.3 percent. This is tangible testimony 
to USDA's knowledge of rural infrastructure and its potential for 
strong return on investment.
    Among these outstanding loans are more than $1 billion worth of 
rural water, wastewater, and solid waste infrastructure projects, with 
approximately $128 million of additional leveraged funds from other 
nonfederal sources. Just yesterday we announced an additional $276 
million in electric loans in 12 states. And USDA's broadband programs 
serve the most remote communities--in FY 2017, USDA invested over $500 
million for more than 100 projects that will deliver new or improved 
high-speed broadband service to more than 160,000 households and 
businesses.
    This is why, in addition to the Rural Infrastructure Block Grants 
to states, the President also proposes to invest up to $14 billion more 
in existing Federal financing programs at various Federal agencies, 
including USDA's Rural Utilities Service.
Conclusion
    Throughout American history, our inventiveness and ingenuity have 
driven the U.S. to be a global leader in innovation and progress. In 
infrastructure, the basic tangible building block of the economy, we 
were once the envy of the world. We are in danger of losing that 
distinct advantage over other nations, and because of that, our rural 
communities risk slipping farther behind in economic achievement. 
However, with prudent and essential investments in infrastructure, we 
can restore our position in the world and help steer America back to 
prosperity.
    Strategic infrastructure investments will infuse rural areas with 
stronger businesses, agricultural and forest economies, and empower 
America--infrastructure investments which increase the productivity of 
farmers, ranchers and foresters will lead to the enhanced viability and 
prosperity of rural America. Only with reliable and efficient 
infrastructure can rural America's valuable goods be created and 
brought to markets both at home and abroad. All in all, the proposal 
the President has crafted would make the U.S. more competitive, and 
deliver the world's best infrastructure which the American people 
deserve.
    At USDA, our informal motto is ``Do Right and Feed Everyone,'' 
while we also pursue the President's goal of restoring the ``Made in 
America'' label. Neither is possible without modern 21st Century 
infrastructure connecting our rural communities to each other, to our 
Nation's metropolitan areas, and to the world. I'd like to leave this 
Committee today, with a new take on our motto, ``Do Right and Connect 
Everyone''.
    I look forward to working with you to implement policies that will 
harness the innovative spirit of the hardworking men and women in rural 
America and help them improve the quality of life and economic 
opportunities across our great country.
    Thank you for the honor of speaking to you today.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Perdue.
    Secretary Perry.

           STATEMENT OF HON. RICK PERRY, SECRETARY, 
                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Senator Thune, thank you. 
Ranking Member Nelson, it's my privilege to get to see you, and 
to the other members, I'm excited to be here today to sit 
before you with a distinguished group of men and women who, in 
most cases, left the private sector to come and serve their 
country. They are great partners.
    We sit before you today to discuss the President's 
``Building a Stronger America'' plan so that we can have this 
discussion, how we upgrade, how we modernize our nation's 
infrastructure and the processes that we use to evaluate and to 
approve these projects. The fact that these four other Cabinet 
members are sitting here, I think, underscores very clearly the 
emphasis that the President is putting on this. He understands 
the far-reaching impact that infrastructure has across the 
Federal Government.
    In my capacity as Secretary of Energy and, I might add, as 
a private citizen, I've been rather blessed to travel almost to 
every state in the Nation over the course of the last 20 or 30 
years, and in far too many places, it has just struck me about 
how outdated the infrastructure is. There are too many 
instances where it is just absolutely in an unacceptable state 
of disrepair. It's damaging our Nation's competitiveness and 
our citizens' quality of life. Fortunately, there is bipartisan 
agreement here that we've got to do something about this. We've 
got to build, and we've got to build more.
    When I say infrastructure, you know, most people think 
about roads and bridges and airports, seaports, the waterways 
and other assets that are generally considered public 
infrastructure. But infrastructure also includes this vast and 
predominantly privately held, owned, and operated network of 
rails, the wires, nearly 2.4 million miles of pipelines that 
move energy to American families, and our economy really relies 
upon that.
    This interconnected web of critical assets--they carry 
products that fuel our cars, they heat our homes, they power 
our businesses. Much of this infrastructure goes unseen. But 
let me tell you, the moment the lights don't come on or the 
heat isn't there, people are paying attention. As the Secretary 
that's charged with supporting America's energy sector 
infrastructure, I am intently focused on the strength of that 
infrastructure and, Senator Thune, its security.
    Now, I'm not a regular witness here in front of this 
Committee. But I never miss an opportunity to share with the 
members of the Senate the work that we're doing over at the 
Department to enable industry, system operators, regulators to 
protect America's energy infrastructure from cyber or physical 
attacks. DOE is in the process of establishing a new Office of 
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, Emergency Response, CESER, to 
enhance the resilience of our energy assets and better protect 
them from this growing cyber threat that is out there.
    Both the public and the private sector also need to 
upgrade, to modernize our physical infrastructure. Just like 
Sonny, a former Governor, I enthusiastically support the way 
that the President is planning to do so. Let me share with you 
why, from my perspective.
    First and foremost, the President's plan--it embraces 
America's time-honored Federalist tradition. All too often--you 
all may have heard me say this before I even took this current 
job--Washington, when they see a problem, it imposes these top-
down mandates to what are uniquely local challenges. The 
President's plan takes a partnership approach that recognizes 
the local need while also building with our national interest 
in mind. It's based on the commonsense notion that government 
that's closest to the people is best suited to understand and 
to meet their needs.
    The President's plan gives the Nation's Governors the power 
and the flexibility to prioritize infrastructure projects that 
will benefit their respective states. Equally important, the 
President is committed to reforming the Federal process, or, I 
should say, the Federal permitting process to reduce the 
burdensome red tape that has delayed or prevented some 
construction projects from breaking ground. This is a pretty 
good example of it right here--the current permitting process. 
It's fractured. It's redundant. It requires projects to 
navigate a huge maze of Federal regulations, and he wants to 
see that process not only streamlined but substantially cut 
back.
    So I think it's also important that we take into account 
the President's tax reform law. Permitting reform is going to 
give businesses the confidence, the certainty, the freedom that 
they need to take transformative projects from conception to 
completion.
    Let me just quickly in finishing up here give you an energy 
related perspective on what this will mean. America is in the 
midst of this absolutely stunning energy transformation, and 
thanks to the President's policies, we are beginning to share 
energy resources around the world. Sharing more of our energy 
abundance has tremendous implications here and abroad. 
Geopolitically, it frees our allies from reliance on unstable 
and unfriendly sources, and it reduces our trade deficit.
    Domestically, the jobs it created--those of you that have 
those jobs in your districts, you know the power that our 
energy industry is having out there. Beyond energy, 
streamlining permitting and modernizing our infrastructure will 
combine to revive our Nation at a time when it's sorely needed.
    So, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I urge you to support 
this bold plan, and we look forward to working with this 
committee and Congress on its enactment.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Perry follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Perry, Secretary, 
                       U.S. Department of Energy
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the 
Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the 
President's ``Building a Stronger America'' plan to upgrade and 
modernize our Nation's infrastructure and the processes we use to 
evaluate and approve these projects.
    The fact that many of my fellow Cabinet Secretaries are here not 
only underscores the emphasis the President is putting on this effort, 
but also the far-reaching impact that infrastructure has across the 
Federal Government.
    Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as Secretary of Energy and a private 
citizen, I have been blessed with the opportunity to travel to nearly 
every state in our great country.
    In far too many places, I have been struck by the outdated 
condition of our infrastructure. There are too many instances where it 
is in an unacceptable state of disrepair that is damaging our Nation's 
competitiveness and our citizens' quality of life.
    Fortunately, there is bipartisan agreement it needs to be repaired 
and we must build more.
    When I say ``infrastructure,'' most people think of roads, bridges, 
airports, seaports, waterways, and other assets generally considered 
``public'' infrastructure.
    Infrastructure also includes the vast, and predominantly privately 
owned and operated, network of rails, wires, and nearly 2.4 million 
miles of pipelines that move the energy American families--and our 
economy--rely on.
    This interconnected web of critical assets carries the products 
that fuel our cars, heat our homes, and power our businesses. Much of 
this infrastructure goes unseen but the moment a light does not turn on 
or a home is not heated in the winter, it becomes all too real.
    As the Secretary charged with supporting America's energy sector 
infrastructure, I am intently focused on its strength, as well as its 
security.
    I am not a regular witness before this Committee, but I never miss 
an opportunity to share with members of the Senate the work we are 
doing to enable industry, system operators, and regulators to protect 
America's energy infrastructure from cyber or physical attacks. DOE is 
in the process of establishing a new Office of Cybersecurity, Energy 
Security and Emergency Response, or CESER, to enhance the resilience of 
our energy assets and better protect them from growing cyber threats.
    Both the public and private sectors also need to upgrade and 
modernize our physical infrastructure.
    As a former governor, I enthusiastically support the President's 
plan for doing so. Let me tell you why.
    First and foremost, the President's plan embraces America's time-
honored federalist tradition.
    All too often, when Washington sees a problem, it imposes top-down 
mandates to what are uniquely local challenges.
    The President's plan takes a partnership approach that recognizes 
the local need while also building with our national interests in mind.
    It is based on the common-sense notion that government that is 
closest to the people is best suited to understand and meet their 
needs.
    The President's plan gives the Nation's governors the power and 
flexibility to prioritize infrastructure projects that will most 
benefit their respective states.
    Equally important, the President is committed to reforming the 
Federal permitting process to reduce the burdensome red tape that has 
delayed or prevented some construction projects from breaking ground.
    The current permitting process is fractured and redundant--
requiring projects to navigate a maze of complicated Federal 
regulations overseen by multiple--and often competing--Federal 
agencies.
    Inevitably, when government fights with itself, the losers are the 
governed.
    The President's ``One Agency, One Decision'' proposal will inject 
common sense, outcome-based reforms intended to simplify this process, 
reducing it to two years, while maintaining essential environmental 
protections.
    It will also ensure that every Federal agency uses uniform 
standards when making permitting decisions; it will set reasonable--but 
firm--deadlines; and it will hold these agencies accountable if those 
deadlines are missed.
    Combined with the President's landmark tax reform law, permitting 
reform will give businesses the confidence, certainty and freedom they 
need to take transformative projects from conception to completion.
    Let me give you an energy-related perspective on what this will 
mean.
    America is in the midst of a stunning energy transformation and 
thanks to the President's policies we are beginning to share our energy 
bounty with the world, including our natural gas.
    Sharing more of our energy abundance has tremendous implications 
here and abroad.
    Geopolitically, it frees our allies from reliance on unstable or 
unfriendly sources, and it reduces our trade deficit.
    Domestically, it will be a catalyst for further job creation and 
spur economic growth up, down, and beyond the supply chain.
    The President's plan will help ensure that energy is delivered more 
reliably, affordably, and more efficiently than ever. As we innovate 
further and create cleaner energy--we will need the infrastructure to 
move it in order to benefit the environment as well.
    In other words, adoption of this plan will help ensure that the 
benefits of our energy strategy will be felt well into the future.
    Beyond energy, streamlining permitting and modernizing our 
infrastructure will combine to revive our Nation at a time when it is 
sorely needed.
    Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I urge your support for this bold 
plan and we look forward to working with this Committee and the 
Congress on its enactment.
    Thank you, and I would be happy to attempt to answer your 
questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Perry, and I'll jump 
right into the questions.
    As I noted at the outset, the fact that all of you are here 
today sends a powerful message about the Administration's 
commitment to our Nation's infrastructure. Is it also fair to 
interpret your presence as a sign of the Administration's 
willingness to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis to 
tackle the issue?
    Secretary Chao. I'll take that one first. Absolutely.
    The Chairman. OK.
    Secretary Ross.
    Secretary Ross. For sure.
    Secretary Acosta. Absolutely.
    The Chairman. Great. Thank you.
    Secretary Perdue. I don't think we can get it done any 
other way.
    The Chairman. Right. Thank you. Good.
    Secretary Chao, one of the top line goals outlined in the 
infrastructure proposal would be to reduce red tape and to 
complete projects faster. As I understand it, DOT is close to 
finishing implementation of the permitting provisions provided 
in the last highway reauthorization. Is that correct?
    Secretary Chao. Yes. We've done basically all 31. There are 
two outstanding which we hope to get out by June.
    The Chairman. But if we did something new that called for 
more streamlining, you all would be prepared to take that 
initiative on?
    Secretary Chao. Yes, because the recent reforms in the FAST 
Act and MAP-21 are helpful, but they don't address multi-
agency, multi-department reforms, and we really need to address 
these cross-cutting issues. So we are finishing up the FAST Act 
and the MAP-21, and then the President's One Federal Decision 
announced August 15 of last year would address these multi-
agency, multi-cabinet permitting requirements.
    The Chairman. So as a follow up on that, and I'll direct 
this not only to you but also to Secretary Perry. The chart 
that you all provided obviously showed how complicated that 
process is. But could you elaborate on the remaining complexity 
of the Federal permitting process and how the Administration's 
proposal would continue to improve project delivery? You 
mentioned, Secretary Chao, the multi-agency, cross-agency 
coordination. Any other thoughts about that to either you or to 
Secretary Perry?
    Secretary Chao. Maybe I'll that one first. We are not--we 
all want to protect the environment. We're not going to 
compromise the environmental protection aspect. But what we are 
saying is that there are commonsense ways in which the 
permitting process can be rationalized. It can be streamlined.
    For example, a lot of the permitting process is 
duplicative. They are redundant. They often require surveys to 
be done sequentially instead of concurrently, and they very 
often disallow sister agencies, for example, in the Department 
of Transportation to share information. Each agency has to go 
out with their own surveys, and they have to go out with a 
different time-frame so that it's a day or two behind. So these 
studies are extra work that's added on. A very commonsense way 
to approach that would be to make these studies go 
concurrently, allow sister agencies to share information with 
one another. So these are the kinds of streamlining efforts 
that we're talking about.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Secretary Perry, anything to add to that?
    Secretary Perry. Yes, sir, and I'll try to be brief here 
when I talk, and I want to talk with some specificity here. As 
the Governor, and a Governor who had a state with multiple 
ports--Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Houston, Brownsville, just to 
name four major ones.
    Corpus Christi, for instance. Corpus Christi is a port that 
has had a project to basically make it more efficient, to 
dredge it out, to upgrade it, on the books for over a decade, 
and from time to time, you get the Federal agencies that are in 
conflict with each other, as I mentioned in my remarks. Sixty-
one percent of the crude that goes out of this country goes out 
of the port of Corpus Christi, and to be able to allow that 
project to go forward--and they have the money available. This 
isn't a matter of we're coming up here--or they're coming up 
here and asking for more money. They're asking for Federal 
agencies to basically get out of the way, to give them 
approval.
    So I think that's one of the things that the President is 
talking about that, you know, each of you probably have an 
example in your state of where Federal Government agencies are 
sometimes in conflict with each other, or just the absolute 
slowness with which they move. I just think it's so essential 
to this country at this particular point in time, when we have 
this ability to really affect what's going on in the world 
because of the geopolitics of oil and gas, and for us to have 
Federal agencies of government that for whatever reason are not 
being able to give the green light to these agencies in these 
states to go forward and to get infrastructure going.
    The Chairman. It certainly doesn't fit a modern economy, 
the way we do things today, for sure.
    Secretary Perry. Yes.
    The Chairman. Secretary Perdue, you're the steward of 
different funding programs that are ensuring that rural 
Americans have access to broadband. You mentioned earlier in 
your remarks, and I agree with you entirely, that that is a 
transformative infrastructure approach to allow people across 
the country to participate in the technology innovations that 
we in more populated areas enjoy.
    I know from several GAO and Inspector General Reports that 
under the previous administration, your Department did not 
effectively administer some of these programs that were focused 
on broadband deployment. I'm wondering what you're doing to 
ensure that the loans and the grants that you make will be used 
to bring broadband to unserved areas and that you're taking 
steps to ensure that money is not being used to overbuild areas 
that already have broadband. That was one of the frustrations, 
I think, that was expressed about some of those programs in the 
past, that they were overbuilding areas that already had it to 
the detriment of those that did not.
    Secretary Perdue. I don't think there's any doubt, Senator, 
that the allegations are accurate in that regard, and, frankly, 
what we see in the grant and loan process is we've got some 
great grant writers out there, and they come repetitively to 
the bucket looking for more, and I think it's the role of us, 
not only in USDA, but, frankly, all the Federal Government has 
not really deployed the broadband money in a strategic way. 
You've got to start with good facts. You've got to start with 
accurate data.
    I know that we have some concerns, as you all do, over the 
FCC data map. Sometimes it's self-reported. And we're trying, 
again, to work interagency-wide with Commerce and with FCC to 
make sure we've got the facts on the ground of strategically 
how we need to deploy. There's a lot of money going out for 
broadband currently. How do we deploy that in the most needed 
areas rather than just appropriating loans or grants to people 
to overbuild or even in a kind of a greenhouse environment 
showcasing what can be done?
    Our interest is in rural America for a ubiquitous system. 
How do we get there sooner rather than later? This is not an 
instantaneous thing, but we have to start strategically in how 
we--again, with the facts and data, a census of where we are 
and where we want to go, where we want to arrive at, and then a 
tactical step-by-step of how we get there. We're in the process 
of doing that.
    But our rural development team, which is really dispersed 
across the country, does a great job in many ways with rural 
electrification and other things. This is an area where we have 
not done as well as we would like in the past. But I think our 
people recognize that and are taking the criticisms and 
allegations very seriously and are working to make sure that we 
don't do exactly what you caution us against, and that's 
repetitively overbuilding things and having undue competition 
in areas when we don't have any in other places.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The FCC data maps is another issue 
I want to get to, but we'll talk about that another time.
    Senator Nelson.
    Senator Nelson. Mr. Secretary Perdue, thank you for 
attending to the needs of Florida citrus that lost 100 percent 
of its crop in the hurricane. As you said in our conversation, 
we can get this resolved in a matter of weeks, not months. I 
thank you.
    Mr. Secretary Perry, thank you for your guardianship and 
your modernization of the Nation's nuclear arsenal and 
especially its modernization and all of that nuclear 
infrastructure.
    Mr. Secretary Acosta, thank you for your long service as a 
U.S. Attorney where you understand the importance of the rule 
of law.
    Mr. Secretary Ross, thank you so much for attending to 
things like the single point failure of the G-IV which flies 
above the hurricane which has improved the accuracy by 15 
percent of our projections as well as its intensity. That 
single point failure, since we only have one of them, is--it 
has been down for maintenance in both the 2016 and the 2017 
hurricane seasons.
    And to all of you, please continue to watch the bias in the 
Administration against science, science for hurricane 
forecasting, science for weather forecasting, science used in 
NASA, in each one of your agencies, where this idea comes of 
refusing to understand science and to accept it and to use it. 
Please be on the lookout.
    Secretary Chao, the Administration's infrastructure plan 
calls for state and local communities to bear more of the cost 
of infrastructure by raising taxes and increasing private 
sector investment. And, of course, in my state, our state of 
three of us here, some of the residents are already facing the 
burden of increased local taxes and highway tolls. So the plan 
that's laid out on infrastructure--wouldn't that increase these 
taxes and tolls?
    Secretary Chao. They are not the only option for financing 
infrastructure. There are many other creative ways, and that's 
what we're encouraging the state and local entities to 
examine--their private activity bonds, their asset recycling. 
There are other types of access to public markets, private 
markets that would be in addition to those that you mention. 
We're agnostic as to the methodology. The Federal Government 
actually owns only 10 percent of the roads and bridges of this 
country, and the majority of the cost actually is, indeed, 
borne by the state and local governments.
    Senator Nelson. Right. State roads, county roads, et 
cetera--that's true, and they are paid for by taxes. So 
private-public partnerships are great. But when you do it, 
you're going to have to put a toll so the private entity can, 
in fact, be reimbursed so that their investment has revenue 
coming in. There's only so much of the tollways that the public 
is going to accept. I don't expect you to have the answer. But 
I just want you to----
    Secretary Chao. Tolls are not the only option is all I'm 
saying, and we're agnostic as to what financing methodology the 
state and local entities want to come in and partnership with 
the Federal Government.
    Senator Nelson. Understood. But when you have private 
investment in it, they've got to be reimbursed. They have to 
have a return on their investment. So let me just----
    Secretary Chao. It can be private activity bonds. It can be 
availability bonds. It can be different kinds of financing, 
and, again, in conjunction with the Federal share.
    Senator Nelson. And a private activity bond is the 
taxpayers subsidizing by lowering the interest rates. I 
understand that. But that's going to get you only so far toward 
a trillion dollars of investment.
    Let me--you know, we're about to pass an FAA bill, and in 
the past FAA bill, we passed a requirement that if you check 
your luggage--and, as you know, the airlines are charging fees 
now for a lot of the checked bags. So we put a requirement in 
that if you don't get your bag back, you're at least going to 
get your $50 that you paid for that bag reimbursed. But your 
Department has been sitting on implementing that FAA part of 
the law that we enacted a year ago. Can you give us any update 
on that, Madam Secretary?
    Secretary Chao. Well, I'm not here to defend the airlines. 
But we believe that the current information that is on the 
websites are transparent and they're sufficient. But in light 
of the fact that you're asking about this, I will take another 
look.
    Senator Nelson. Thank you so much.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
    Senator Moran.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

    Senator Moran. Chairman, thank you, and thank you, Ranking 
Member.
    Let me direct my first question to Secretary Ross.
    Secretary, the Subcommittee of this Committee had a hearing 
yesterday on communications and technology. One of the themes 
that was expressed by members of that Subcommittee was the lack 
of accurate mapping to determine where broadband is absent, 
where the service is deficient, and the FCC has recently issued 
some maps related to Mobility II. NTIA, within your 
jurisdiction, was the recipient of a budget request of $50 
million for mapping, for a determination of these issues.
    What's the relationship between FCC and their efforts and 
NTIA and their efforts, and how do we, one, make certain that 
we do this determination in an efficient way so we can make a 
determination of where that the support that comes from 
Secretary Perdue's RUS or from the FCC and their funding is 
appropriately spent? And, second, everyone that I heard 
yesterday in the hearing, as far as senators, indicated the 
inadequacy and the inaccuracy of the mapping. How do we get 
this right?
    Secretary Ross. Well, there are a whole lot of questions in 
that. But I can assure you that there's extensive and intimate 
collaboration between NTIA and the FCC, particularly under the 
new leadership of the FCC. We're working very hard to avoid 
duplicative spending. We're working very hard to make sure that 
the dollars are not only well spent but effectively spent in 
terms of creating much more accurate and much more extensive 
mapping. I think accuracy and extension are both issues in the 
mapping area.
    Senator Moran. Well, Mr. Secretary, I just would ask you to 
pay personal attention to the accuracy, the adequacy of that 
mapping and make sure we get it right, because I think this 
committee and other members of the Senate are interested and 
willing to be supportive of broadband deployment in rural 
areas, but we don't have the information, in my view, that 
tells us where best that money could be spent.
    Secretary Ross. Sure. Well, also, as you know, Commerce 
through NTIA created FirstNet, which is bringing 911 
nationwide. A lot of the infrastructure that comes with that, 
in the joint venture that we did with AT&T, will provide some 
of the needs that can support rural broadband, because this is 
going to be ubiquitous and is going to, I think, help a lot 
with the significant problem in the most rural areas, which is 
low density of population. So to the degree that we can get 
some infrastructure there now would be a big help.
    I think the other great new thing are these constellations 
of low orbit satellites, and those are going to be a very, very 
big help, because it's a very low-cost way of providing 
broadband on a broader basis. So we think technology is coming 
through and is something that needs to be used very, very 
effectively, as these constellations of small satellites at low 
Earth orbits.
    Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, thank you. You mentioned that 
extensively in your confirmation hearing, and I remember it.
    Secretary Ross. Yes.
    Senator Moran. Madam Secretary, I want to raise a topic. 
We're talking about getting the Federal Government rules and 
regulations--the process streamlined to get to dollars more 
quickly and more efficiently to infrastructure projects. Kansas 
City has received funding in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus that 
was passed last year for a project. It's a small start transit 
project, and I know transit is outside of this committee's 
jurisdiction, but I'm also a member of the Banking Committee 
that has jurisdiction, and transit is an important part of our 
infrastructure plan.
    There hasn't been any money received from the Department of 
Transportation. That $29 million, as I understand it, is still 
sitting idle, and each month of delay is costing the project 
more money. I just would ask you to ask your staff to look into 
why those dollars have not been forwarded to Kansas City and 
how I can help the Department of Transportation or Kansas City 
solve that problem.
    Secretary Chao. I'll take a look.
    Senator Moran. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    In six seconds, Secretary Perdue, I would raise the same 
issue with you in regard to coordination, rural utility 
services, FCC. I've seen circumstances in which, in my view, we 
have used RUS dollars to overbuild in communities and you said 
something similar to this in your response to Chairman Thune's 
question, and I would join, I guess, in your comments, what I 
heard, about the importance of sorting out where these dollars 
should be spent that actually get to the rural places that have 
little or no service, as compared to using RUS to allow a 
carrier into a community that already has service and then 
using those subsidized resources to pay for additional services 
in rural America. I won't allow you the opportunity to respond 
to that, but I wanted to raise that topic.
    Your RUS folks are working closely with us on a particular 
issue, and I express my gratitude. I've run out of time to 
explain that in detail, but I'll follow up. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moran.
    Senator Peters is up next.

                STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

    Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
all of our witnesses today for your testimony on this important 
topic.
    As I've been sitting here listening to the testimony, I've 
been trying to find out how we actually deal with this problem. 
I think we all agree, as was heard from the testimony of all of 
you, that we're really good at identifying the problem. We've 
got the identification of the problem down cold. We've got to 
fix infrastructure. But that's not the challenge. The challenge 
is how we're going to pay for it. If we knew how to do that, 
this thing would have been solved a long time ago, and I've not 
heard anyone talking about that in a substantive way, other 
than we want local governments to do it. We want private 
companies to have toll roads. I don't know what that breakdown 
is.
    I know right now, our local governments are stressed. We 
had a hearing yesterday with local governments in Michigan 
saying that they're already near their cap as far as the 
millage that they can raise for roads. They don't have the 
resources. They need a Federal partner. They're used to having 
Federal projects where they put in 20 percent and the Federal 
Government puts in 80 percent.
    From what I'm hearing now, you've got a new plan from 
President Trump that says we'll give you 13 percent and you 
come up with 87 percent. I know we have two former Governors 
here. I know what your reaction would be if the President said 
we'll give you 13 percent and you come up with 87 percent. I 
know the deal used to be that we came up--the Federal 
Government used to do 80. We've now flipped it on you. That 
doesn't seem like a plan, particularly when states are stressed 
a great deal.
    I've heard about creative approaches in addition to tolls. 
I've heard, well, we can just go into debt more. The problem 
with debt is you still have to pay it. Debt isn't forever. So 
we've got to deal with that, and until this Administration 
comes forward with an actual concrete plan as to how we pay for 
it, let's be honest with the American people. This is just 
smoking mirrors right now. That's basically what it is.
    But I do have some specific questions that I'd like to ask 
to Secretary Chao and Secretary Acosta. In the proposal of the 
Administration, you talk about giving flexibility to 
organizations to move away from some requirements if the 
Federal investment in the projects is de minimis. I think this 
whole plan is basically de minimis Federal help. But, 
nevertheless, my question is how do you define those 
exemptions? And I would hope they would not be Davis-Bacon or 
Buy American provisions.
    Secretary Chao, would you agree that as this program goes 
forward, we will protect both Davis-Bacon and Buy American as 
critical components?
    Secretary Chao. Well, the President has been very clear 
about the importance of Buy American. I think all of our 
cabinets have been very vigilant on that. On the issue of 
Davis-Bacon, I may differ with my colleague, but I obviously 
think that this bill needs to be done on a bipartisan basis, 
and you're telling me that, obviously, if there are not such 
agreements, it would be very hard to achieve.
    Senator Peters. Thank you.
    Secretary Acosta.
    Secretary Acosta. Let me just briefly respond that this 
bill is bipartisan. It needs to go forward on a bipartisan 
basis, and I would agree with both statements by Secretary 
Chao.
    Senator Peters. Secretary Acosta, the other point that you 
made in your testimony was how we have to make sure that 
American workers have--and I think your quote is ``family 
sustaining jobs,'' which, certainly, I can't agree more, and I 
hope everybody here agrees that. And with an infrastructure 
program, hopefully, we'll put a whole lot of people to work in 
these infrastructure programs as well.
    But in order to have a family sustaining job, you need to 
have a fair wage. At this moment, a recent publication did an 
investigation that shows that there are an awful lot of folks 
who are simply not getting paid the minimum wage, and even 
though cases are brought to collect that, most of that money 
doesn't actually get back to the workers. In fact, according to 
the political investigation, overtime laws that are not 
enforced properly cost an estimated $15 billion in lost wages 
to folks who don't even get a minimum wage, and I think you 
could argue that the minimum wage is tough to sustain a family 
on to begin with, and they're not getting it.
    So my question is: Do you need additional authority to 
enforce these laws? Or is there a lack of will from the 
Department of Labor to enforce minimum wage laws?
    Secretary Acosta. Senator, thank you for the question, and 
as I testified last week before a different committee, there is 
certainly no lack of will, and our enforcement on minimum wage 
laws is quite strong. One of the issues that you see, 
particularly on the private side and private enforcement 
actions, is these enforcement actions are very costly. They 
take a long period of time.
    So one program that we just rolled out that--and we rolled 
it out as a pilot project to see how it works--is called PAID, 
where if an employer currently sees that they made a mistake--
right now, there is little incentive for that employer to come 
forward, because if they come forward, there is no clear 
mechanism to resolve the matter.
    But if the employer comes forward, we will work with them. 
We will make sure that 100 percent of the dollars go back to 
the employees. And if they come forward, and if they admit to 
it, and we work with them on an internal audit, we will make 
sure that 100 percent of the dollars go back to the employees, 
and by bypassing the litigation system and letting them say, 
``We made a mistake. We want to pay what we owe,'' we hope that 
the dollars go back to the employees much more quickly.
    Senator Peters. Well, I hope you continue to enforce that 
aggressively. It's absolutely critical for workers who are on 
the edge.
    Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask a quick yes or no 
question of Secretary Ross.
    Secretary Ross, you and I have spoken on a few occasions 
related to a situation with our cherry growers in Michigan who 
are facing the dumping of products. You have been very open to 
meeting with them. I would like to know if we can possibly set 
up a direct meeting with cherry growers with you and your 
office? I certainly would appreciate it.
    Secretary Ross. Surely.
    Senator Peters. Thank you, Secretary.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Peters.
    Next up is Senator Duckworth.

              STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

    Senator Duckworth. I want to thank the Chair and Ranking 
Member for today's hearing. We've heard a lot about 
prioritizing infrastructure investment over the last couple of 
years. For many Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
that is music to our ears and especially to mine.
    But given the high priority the President has placed on 
rebuilding America, you'd think we'd be further along in this 
process and in this conversation that we're having today. Other 
than releasing a 50-page proposal with a few documents, the 
President has analyzed that Congress has failed to set the 
stage for any meaningful investments in our aging 
infrastructure, leading many folks in my home state to wonder 
if this is a serious infrastructure campaign by the White 
House.
    So let me just break this down. The President's Fiscal Year 
2018 budget included $200 billion for his infrastructure 
proposal, but it slashed $345 billion in programs, from 
infrastructure programs. The President and Republicans in 
Congress set aside $1.5 trillion to spend on their tax 
proposal, but didn't put aside a single penny for 
infrastructure. When the President and our Republican 
colleagues enacted their tax bill, can anyone guess how much of 
the $1.5 trillion they set aside for his infrastructure plan? 
Nothing. And let's not forget that the tax bill made corporate 
rates permanent, but rates for hardworking families will expire 
in just a few years.
    And, finally, the President's Fiscal Year 2019 budget, 
released in conjunction with the infrastructure plan, once 
again cuts more infrastructure spending than is actually 
included in his proposal. So there's a net loss in dollars for 
infrastructure.
    So although I doubt that any of the witnesses will give me 
a straightforward answer here, the question my constituents are 
asking is this. If the President is serious about rebuilding 
America--and I hope that he is --why does every decision he 
makes move us further away from that goal?
    Secretary Chao, the President clearly omits any analysis of 
how best to pay for the Federal share of his proposal. But I 
would hope that the Department of Transportation has actually 
analyzed potential revenue opportunities to inform the debate. 
I know you say you're agnostic on the issue of many of the 
ways, but can you give us a sense of what potential revenues 
your department may have considered when developing the 
infrastructure proposal, either considered and discarded or 
considered and think viable? But have you actually done any 
analysis into what those revenue sources might be?
    Secretary Chao. I'm happy to answer your question, Senator. 
First of all, the infrastructure proposal was always going to 
come third, after the Affordable Healthcare Act and after tax 
reform, and we sent principles instead of legislative language, 
because it was an open show of cooperation with the Congress, 
that we wanted to work with the Congress and not be 
prescriptive with specific legislative language.
    As for the Department of Transportation's budget, the 
Fiscal Year 2019 is pretty much like the Fiscal Year 2017. The 
2018 with a bump-up, but overall, 2019 and 2017 was pretty much 
the same. In fact, the mandatory part of the DOT budget 
increased by more than 4 percent. So the total budget is pretty 
much the same.
    Senator Duckworth. I'm talking about the infrastructure 
packet. What did you consider----
    Secretary Chao. I'm getting to that.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Secretary Chao. As for the pay-fors, I agree with you that 
it is a very difficult question. So as of now, the good news is 
everything is on the table, and we look forward to working with 
the Congress on these difficult issues.
    Senator Duckworth. I don't think that's quite an answer of 
what I'm asking, which is what have you considered?
    Secretary Ross, what revenue options has the Department of 
Commerce considered to cover the $200 billion Federal price 
tag?
    Secretary Ross. There are quite a few alternatives. One is 
recycling of assets already owned by local and state 
governments but not really in use. The example of Australia is 
very interesting in that regard. There, the various local 
entities have sold off unneeded assets and, in some cases, 
already revenue-producing ones, and that produced cash that 
they could then leverage. In other cases----
    Senator Duckworth. But I'm talking about the Federal 
dollars. You're talking about state dollars. Those are state 
assets that you're talking about. I'm asking has any of the 
departments actually considered revenue sources, whether it is 
a highway trust fund or other ways that our Federal assets will 
help pay for this $200 billion?
    Secretary Ross. We very much have. The capital revolving 
fund is meant to deal with the issue of inefficient use of real 
estate in the Federal Government, and it's a revolving fund 
because it can be used over and over and over and have a 
multiplier effect on it. So that's a very specific use.
    On the other kinds of uses, there are Federal assets that 
could be also sold and redeployed. There have been 
considerations about air traffic control. As you're aware, the 
Canadians used a nonprofit model for the divestiture of their 
air traffic control system, and that has worked pretty well. So 
there are all sorts of ways to get the revenues together----
    Senator Duckworth. I'm sorry. I'm out of time, Mr. 
Secretary. I apologize for cutting you off. I just have to say 
that there's opposition to privatization of air traffic 
control, and I could not disagree with you more about the 
negative effects of that. That aside, I do want to commend you 
on your recent statements affirming your strong commitment to 
supporting American biofuels----
    Secretary Ross. Yes.
    Senator Duckworth.--by opposing any policy that undermines 
the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standards program, and I really 
am pleased that you cleared the air by reassuring the Midwest 
that anything we hear suggesting that you, personally, are 
retreating from the RFS and are considering an embrace of a 
price cap on RINs is simply not true, and you've made many 
statements recently to that effect.
    Can you give me your word that you would continue to 
support the bipartisan RFS program and that you will strongly 
oppose any effort to diminish demand of renewable fuels, 
including fighting any efforts to cap the price for RINs?
    Secretary Ross. Well, a lot of those decisions are not the 
province of Commerce. What is the province of Commerce is 
controlling imports from other countries, and, as you know, 
we've levied very big new tariffs against Argentina and 
Indonesia because of the anti-U.S. practices that they had had, 
and that's a very big boost for the domestic biofuels industry. 
We intend to continue to protect the growers in America and the 
processors of biofuels.
    Senator Duckworth. Mr. Chairman, may I also just direct 
that same statement to Secretary Perdue?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Secretary Perdue. I will be happy to answer in the 
affirmative.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Fischer.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 
for being here today.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a 
statement from the National Association of Truck Stop Operators 
and the National League of Cities that highlights concerns 
about commercializing rest areas along the interstate system.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir.
    [The information referred to follows:]

   Prepared Statement of NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas 
            and Truckstops and the National League of Cities
    The National Association of Truckstop Operators (NATSO), 
representing America's travel plazas and truckstops, and the National 
League of Cities (NLC), representing cities across America, submit this 
joint statement for the record with respect to the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation's (the Committee) March 14, 2018, 
hearing regarding ``Rebuilding Infrastructure in America: 
Administration Perspectives.''
    By way of background, NATSO is a national trade association 
representing travel plaza and truckstop owners. The NLC serves as a 
resource and advocate for more than 19,000 cities, villages, and towns 
throughout the United States. Working in partnership with the 49 state 
municipal leagues, the NLC is dedicated to helping city leaders build 
better communities.
    Many of the communities that the NLC represents are located in 
close proximity to an Interstate highway, and, thus, are home to 
NATSO's membership. Indeed, more than 90 percent of NATSO members are 
located within one-quarter mile of the U.S. Interstate Highway System. 
Improving the quality and efficiencies of America's roads and bridges 
would directly benefit both NATSO members and the cities and towns that 
the NLC represents. We are therefore pleased that the Committee is 
considering ways to enhance investment in America's infrastructure.
    Off-highway businesses, most of which are small, family-owned 
companies, strongly support efforts to increase investment in 
infrastructure, including removing unnecessary obstacles to efficiently 
and effectively completing transportation infrastructure projects. The 
travel center industry, similar to many restaurants, convenience 
stores, hotels, and other businesses, relies on Interstate traffic to 
survive. Improving the quality and efficiencies of America's roads and 
bridges would directly benefit our industry and the U.S. economy at 
large.
    The comments that follow, however, focus on an aspect of the 
Administration's infrastructure proposal that calls for repealing the 
prohibition on offering commercial services at rest areas located on 
the Interstate System right-of-way. This prohibition was enacted when 
the Interstate highway system was first developed in order to avoid 
state-approved monopolies on the Interstate system that harm off-
Interstate businesses and, consequently, local governments that depend 
on these employers and property taxpayers. We urge members of the 
Committee to reject this aspect of the Administration's proposal.
Policy Background
    When Congress created the Interstate Highway System in 1956, 
Congress and community leaders were concerned that local businesses, 
jobs, and tax bases would shrink as motorists and truck drivers 
bypassed their cities and towns. For this reason, Congress enacted 23 
U.S.C. 111, which prohibits Interstate System rest areas from offering 
commercial services such as food and fuel. A later clause 
``grandfathered'' existing commercial establishments in existence 
before 1960 within an Interstate System right-of-way under certain 
conditions; these are located primarily in the northeastern United 
States.
    For almost sixty years, businesses have now clustered near the 
Interstates at the interchanges along the Interstate System to provide 
services to Interstate travelers. A drive along the Nation's Interstate 
highways demonstrates the wisdom of Congress's decision. There are 
approximately 100,000 businesses located less than a quarter-mile from 
the Interstate at exit interchanges, directly marketing to highway 
travelers. These businesses employ more than two million people and 
contribute billions of dollars annually in state and local taxes.
Commercial Services at Rest Areas Hurts Local Communities
    At first glance, offering more robust services at Interstate rest 
areas seems like an easy way for state departments of transportation to 
acquire additional revenue. As a practical matter, however, it amounts 
to simply ``robbing Peter to pay Paul.'' Commercial services at rest 
areas will not increase the amount of commercial transactions that take 
place; it will simply transfer the point of sale away from the 
competitive off-highway environment to the one government-selected 
business entity that pays the state the largest amount of money to rent 
space that is on the shoulder of the highway.
    Researchers at Virginia Tech have examined the issue and found that 
if commercialization were permitted in the 611 counties with non-
commercial rest areas, the result would lead to:

   46 percent decrease in fuel sales;

   44 percent decrease in restaurant sales; and a

   35 percent decrease in truck service business sales.

    In total, this would amount to over $55 billion in annual sales for 
interchange businesses in these 611 counties.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Patrick O'Brien, Ray Pethtel, Jie Luo, Gene Hetherington, John 
Provo, Renee LoSapio, and Eftila Tannelari. ``The Impact of Commercial 
Rest Areas on Business Activity at Interstate Highway Interchanges.'' 
Virginia Tech University, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commercialization of rest areas undermines the small businesses 
that have played by the rules and the communities that depend on off-
highway businesses as a vital part of their tax and employment base. 
Commercial services at rest areas effectively displaces property tax 
payers located in cities and towns adjacent to Interstates with a 
business entity at rest areas that pays no local government property or 
sales tax; the entity that receives exclusive access to the public 
right of way simply pays rent to the state transportation department. 
With the decrease in the tax base, the localities impacted by new 
state-supported rest areas will likely be less able to pay for their 
own infrastructure needs, furthering the Nation's infrastructure gap.
Commercial Services at Rest Areas Hurts Small Businesses
    Convenience of location and ease of access is essential to the 
ongoing viability for the local small businesses that invested in 
highway-adjacent locations to serve travelers. Inserting commercialized 
rest areas into today's system upends their business model and creates 
a non-competitive market where the state-supported enterprises have an 
outsized advantage. It is simply impossible for off-highway businesses 
to compete in such an environment.
    The off-highway travel centers, convenience stores, and 
restaurants--most of which are run by small business franchisees--are 
not seeking to avoid competition, but rather to engage in fair 
competition pursuant to the clear rules set down by Congress. Were one 
to stop at nearly any Interstate exit where rest areas are not 
commercialized, one would find a plethora of businesses competing next 
door and across the street from one another. The notion of a 
``competitor'' having such an advantageous, on-highway location, 
however, is not fair competition but, in fact government-sanctioned 
monopolization.
    And the winners in these scenarios will not be local businesses, as 
these companies will simply not be able to win a contract bid to run 
commercialized rest areas. In reality, such contracts will be awarded 
to large, multinational companies that specialize in these types of 
franchise operations. As a supporter of commercializing rest areas 
recently acknowledged in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: ``[N]umerous rest 
area renovations could be bundled together and bid out as a group, 
providing the scale needed to attract global operating companies while 
providing appealing opportunities for institutional investors.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ R. Richard Geddes, ``Why Some Stops Are a Cut Above the Rest.'' 
The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 19, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Any infrastructure plan Congress considers should seek to improve 
efficiencies and job opportunities for small businesses and local 
communities; not ``global operating companies'' and ``institutional 
investors.''
Commercial Services at Rest Areas Undercuts Other Infrastructure 
        Priorities, Including Increasing Truck Parking and Alternative 
        Fuel 
        Investments
    NATSO members and their facilities are an important part of the 
solution to other pressing infrastructure and policy concerns, 
including efforts to expand truck parking capacity and increase 
investments in alternative fuel infrastructure at retail fuel outlets 
along the Interstate System.
    In order to achieve these policy objectives, it is imperative for 
Congress to recognize both the important role that travel centers will 
play--NATSO members provide approximately 90 percent of truck parking 
capacity in the United States and are the primary venues for vehicles 
traveling on the Interstate system to refuel--as well as the business 
environment within which these companies operate.
    Traditional sources of profit for travel plazas--such as fuel 
sales--are contracting. As vehicle fuel efficiencies improve, the 
motoring public needs less fuel to travel the same distances. Moreover, 
truck driver salaries have not kept up with inflation over the past 
thirty-five years. According to one analyst, truckers' wages have been 
slashed by nearly a third since 1980, accounting for inflation.\3\ As a 
practical matter, this means truckstop operators' primary customers 
have far less money to spend in travel plazas' stores and restaurants. 
These stores and restaurants are a critical component to a truckstop's 
success. Their importance to the industry's bottom line will only grow 
in future years, as vehicles become even more efficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ James Jaillet, ``Trucker Pay has plummeted in the last 30 
years, analyst says.'' Overdrive Magazine, March 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The travel center industry is especially susceptible, therefore, to 
being unfairly undercut by government-sponsored competition that is 
conveniently located on the right-of-way. If such options were to be 
made available, motorists would begin to gravitate toward these types 
of establishments. That would make it more difficult for the travel 
plaza industry to grow and make expensive investments in truck parking 
and alternative fuel infrastructure.
    Attesting to this point, a recent study comparing the number of 
truck parking spaces and truck parking facilities on stretches of the 
Interstate with commercialized public rest areas with stretches of 
highway with non-commercialized rest areas found substantially more 
parking spaces in non-commercialized corridors than commercialized 
corridors. The study, which accounted for variables such as vehicle 
miles traveled, found there were 6.57 truck parking spaces per mile in 
noncommercialized Interstate segments compared with just 3.88 in 
commercialized areas--almost 70 percent more truck parking spaces in 
non-commercialized corridors.
    In terms of truck parking facilities, there are 235 facilities in 
commercialized Interstate segments, equal to one facility every 12.8 
miles. For non-commercialized areas, that number skyrockets to 1,123 
total facilities, which is approximately one facility every 8.4 miles. 
In light of stringent hours-of-service regulations combined with the 
forthcoming Electronic Logging Device (ELD) mandate, that 4.4 mile 
difference can be critical when a driver is running out of hours and 
desperately looking for a spot.
    The same principle applies to alternative fuel facilities--such as 
electric vehicle (EV) charging stations--as well. The best way to 
enhance the prevalence of such facilities is to create a regulatory 
environment where private sector refueling facilities believe they can 
make money by investing in such infrastructure. Truckstops in 
particular are enticing targets for EV charging stations because they 
have a variety of food and convenience options for customers to utilize 
while their vehicles are being charged. Truckstops will not invest in 
such infrastructure, however, if they know that the government is going 
to be competing with them by placing such equipment at Interstate rest 
areas.
    The private sector does not enter markers where they know they will 
be competing with the government. Members of the Committee are urged to 
examine retail fuel stations that are located in close proximity to 
government-funded EV charging stations; it is unlikely that any such 
stations contain EV charging infrastructure. Conversely, were one to 
examine the geographic area surrounding retail fuel stations and 
restaurants that do currently offer EV charging infrastructure, one 
would discover that there is likely not a prevalence of government-
sponsored charging stations nearby.
Conclusion
    NATSO and the NLC are pleased that the Committee takes seriously 
the need to invest in the Nation's infrastructure. We urge the 
Committee to pursue policies that will improve, rather than undercut, 
the ability for small businesses and the communities that rely on them 
to prosper and grow.
    Please do not hesitate to reach out to either NATSO or the NLC if 
we can be of further assistance throughout this process.
                                          David H. Fialkov,
                                Vice President, Government Affairs,
                                Legislative and Regulatory Counsel,
                                                                 NATSO.

                                        Brittney D. Kohler,
                                   Program Director, Transportation
                                & Infrastructure, Federal Advocacy,
                                       National League of Cities (NLC).

    Senator Fischer. Secretary Perdue, the rural infrastructure 
program in the Administration's proposal would allocate funding 
to the Governors of each state based on a rural formula. The 
rural formula would be based on rural lane miles and rural 
population. How does the Administration intend to define rural 
for the purpose of this funding, really specifically as it 
relates to those rural lane miles? I know the Department of 
Agriculture has a number of definitions for rural, and other 
agencies do as well. What do you see happening here?
    Secretary Perdue. We have a number of definitions of rural 
across the Federal Government. We would love to see that 
synchronized so we would have a common definition of rural. 
It's one of the issues that we deal with in our Rural 
Development Program over what's eligible and what's not, and, 
oftentimes, it misses the boat over creating the opportunity of 
regional partnerships in that area. So we would welcome that, 
and we'd be participative in any ideas that Congress may have, 
and much of this is statutory over the definition there.
    Obviously, what we're looking at from rural miles--that's 
where the infrastructure is. As you know, from the farm to the 
market, there are a lot of rural roads that have to be 
traversed. So lane miles is just where the infrastructure is. 
It's the bridges and roads out there that happen, the waterways 
out there in rural America that happen that contribute to our 
competitiveness.
    Senator Fischer. Do you have any suggestions right now, any 
options that you're presenting to the Administration on what 
that definition of rural would be? And you also made a great 
point in being able to work regionally on many infrastructure 
projects. Do you have anything you can share with us?
    Secretary Perdue. Yes. Our suggestion would be 
exclusionary, anything less than a certain number. We're 
looking at 75,000 people in that regard. Obviously, when we 
talk about rural, we think fields and farms. There are many 
small communities out here, and some of them have grown and 
suburbanized, and in a region, they get more than that. So we 
would love to have a consistent definition that we could apply 
for our Rural Development Program, and we think probably 50,000 
to 75,000 is a good cutoff.
    Senator Fischer. That would be great. Thank you.
    Secretary Ross, if the rural infrastructure program 
utilizes a definition of rural based on lane miles and 
population, have you considered what impact that definition 
would have on rural broadband deployment?
    Secretary Ross. Well, the 911 program, which is the one 
that comes directly under us, the FirstNet program, is meant to 
be ubiquitous. It's meant to serve all communities, 
independently of size. So we have not drawn any differentiation 
between one size or another, and we think we are solving the 
need for a national 911 system so that the first responders can 
be taking much better advantage of technology than had been the 
case. A lot of that infrastructure will reduce the ultimate 
cost of broadband as it gets to the other communities.
    So we are very proud that it's a public-private 
partnership. We contributed to it some $6 billion of notional 
value of unused spectrum, and AT&T is putting up something like 
$40 million of their own money--$40 billion of their own money. 
So it's a pretty good ratio.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you. I was, I guess, happy to see in 
the principles that were put forward by the Administration the 
rural component, first of all, and to allow for innovation in 
there. I realize that a lot of the money is going to be going 
for roads and through a funding formula principle there, which 
I am supportive of.
    But I think the innovation part, especially when you're 
dealing with deployment of broadband services, is extremely 
important to this country as a whole, but it is also extremely 
important to rural areas and agriculture. When you look at the 
Internet of Things and the connectivity that is available 
there, agriculture is the third highest user on the Internet of 
Things, and so for that technology to advance and to expand and 
to grow all parts of this country, we have to be able to have 
that deployment of broadband across every area of the United 
States. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
    Senator Inhofe.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I do want to get into the area, Secretary Chao, of this 
funding that they're talking about over here.
    But before that, I think, Rick Perry, you're one of the 
real experts on pipelines. I heard what you said about the 
Corpus--what's going on down there, and the same thing is 
happening down at Brownsville. I'm very familiar with that port 
at Brownsville and what's going on down there.
    But when you look at the problems that we have in terms of 
pipelines, according to a 2013 report, we're going to need $890 
billion in energy infrastructure investment through 2025. A lot 
of that would be through, of course, the pipeline restructuring 
and improvements. The impediment to more energy infrastructure 
is existing government regulations and red tape dragging out 
the completion of the needed projects.
    Now, I don't think this. I know this. I served for a number 
of years as chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. One of the real successes that we had there was 
doing away with a lot of the regulations and streamlining 
things, and I have to give credit to my fellow senator, Barbara 
Boxer. You know, she's liberal and I'm conservative. We all 
agreed on this and agreed to make changes. Now, it's right--we 
need to do more.
    I just want to cover this one thing on pipelines. You and I 
are from very good oil states, natural gas producers, and all 
of that. When I go home and I tell people in my state of 
Oklahoma that Boston is actually importing natural gas from 
Russia, how do you explain that? Well, I'll explain it, we 
don't have the pipeline structure to have that. Do you want to 
tell us a little bit about what we can address with that 
briefly and, you know, a good answer to the question that they 
ask me?
    Secretary Perry. I'll be as brief as I can. You covered a 
lot of watershed there. I want to address, if I could, Senator 
Duckworth had asked a question, I think Senator Peters, as 
well, and others--about how do you pay for this? As a 
Governor--and I think Sonny can back this up as well--one of 
the most important things that you will do as a Governor and I 
will suggest as a senator who oversees agencies--is in the 
thoughtful addressing of permitting, and permitting and 
regulations, I will suggest to you, affect the bottom line even 
more than taxes do.
    The idea that somehow or another, you know, this is all 
about how are we going to pay for this, what taxes are we going 
to raise--I mean, that's a good and a thoughtful conversation 
to have, but what can we do right now, before we ever address 
this issue of how you're going to pay for something, is what 
are all of the costs that get associated? And slowing down the 
process--we know that if it took 10 years to get all the 
permitting done to build a road, that road costs more 10 years 
later than it did if you could have started 2 years after that 
process was started.
    So that's one of the things that I know you all are looking 
at. But as people who have had real life experiences of this, 
Governors--and Sonny and I fit that bill--those are one of the 
areas that you can look at.
    The other one is in--you know, I wrote a book about state 
sovereignty. I'm very much a big supporter of federalism. But 
the question of whether or not we're going to be able to move 
energy to places that need it drastically, and are states going 
to be able to stop that movement of interstate commerce, and is 
it a national security issue, I think it's a discussion that we 
need to have at the national level with our partners in the 
states so that we're able to get that energy to places like the 
Northeast. I'm stunned that there are Russian molecules sitting 
in a tanker in Boston Harbor when we are prolific producers of 
gas in the Marcellus, the Utica in Pennsylvania, for instance.
    Senator Inhofe. Well, Mr. Chairman, that was an excellent 
answer, but it wasn't to my question. It was to Duckworth's 
question. So if you would wind my clock back to about 4 
minutes, then I'd like to ask my question.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Inhofe. But it was a good answer on pipelines, 
because that's true. How many people out there, even here in 
this well-informed audience, are aware that a major city in 
America is importing natural gas from, of all places, Russia? I 
mean, between the two of us, we're the number one producer 
anyway of that.
    Let me just say two thoughts, Secretary Chao--all this 
discussion on how you're going to fund it. You remember? We 
forget just 9 years ago, we had a new president come in, and 
his name is Barack Obama, and he wanted to have $800 billion 
for infrastructure. Do you remember that? How quickly we 
forget. So they had the House and the Senate and total control 
of everything at that time. So they got not $800 billion, but 
$836 billion.
    Now, of all that he had at his disposal, what percentage do 
you suppose, Secretary Chao, of that actually went to 
infrastructure and transportation? Let me answer it, because 
you may not have the answer to that. Only 3 percent of $836 
billion actually went to transportation.
    Now, I remember at that time, because Barbara Boxer was the 
Ranking Member--actually, she was the Chairman and I was the 
Ranking Member, and we introduced amendments to try to force a 
large percentage of that, one of our amendments was to be sure 
that at least 35 percent went to infrastructure since that was 
what it was represented to be. But it wasn't.
    The second thing I want to say, and this is something I 
know I'm going to be criticized for, but it's a fact. And, by 
the way, I'll say to my friends over on the other side, this 
was a Democrat idea. This came in 1962, when we had Kennedy as 
the President of the United States. He said, I think this was 
the exact quote. He said, ``We need more money revenue to come 
in to support the Great Society Programs,'' and the best way to 
increase revenue is reduce marginal rates, a novel idea, and it 
worked. Now, of course, he was assassinated right after that. 
But at the end of 3 years, the amount of money that was coming 
in as revenue increased by 30 percent.
    Then along came Reagan. At the time Reagan came in, the 
total amount of money it took to run government was $469 
billion. So he said, well, Kennedy reduced the rates, and the 
top rate went down from 90 percent to 70 percent, remember 
that? So Reagan came in, and he moved the top rate down from 70 
percent to 50 percent, and all other comparable rates. And what 
happened? The total amount of money it took to run the 
government, from $469 billion, raised, as a result of that, to 
$720 billion.
    That's what's happening today. Why are we so blind we don't 
see it? We went through 8 years of Obama with a GDP increase, 
average, of 1.5 percent. It's already up in excess of 3 
percent. No one disagrees with the argument that for each 1 
percent increase in economic activity, that translates into 
$2.9 trillion over a 10-year period.
    So if you're really looking to see what's going to happen, 
keep those two things in mind. If we were able to come up with 
that amount of money back at a time when it never was put into 
infrastructure as it was designed to be put in, and at the same 
time, it's hard to put an amount right now on it, but we do 
know that the increase is a reality and it happens.
    So, Secretary Chao, I'd just like to----
    The Chairman. Senator Inhofe, you're well over. Maybe you 
could submit the next one for the record.
    Senator Inhofe. I think she knows what it is.
    The Chairman. OK. Next up is Senator Heller, and, if I 
could, I'd ask members to try and be a little bit more succinct 
in terms of their questions. Thank you.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I want to 
thank the panel for being here today. It's a distinguished 
panel, and I'm grateful that you're here and had time in your 
schedule to answer some of our questions.
    I'd like to direct the first part of my questions to 
Secretary Perry--an issue that, as you're well aware of, is 
important to the state of Nevada, and I was pleased to hear you 
talk about state sovereignty and federalism. So you probably 
know the questions that I'm going to ask. I'm looking at the 
Federal budget here, and I'm assuming that you participated in 
putting this budget together for your department?
    Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
    Senator Heller. It was requested in 2017 that $120 million 
be requested for licensing, and the licensing for Yucca 
Mountain. Are you familiar with that request?
    Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. I am.
    Senator Heller. Did you participate in putting--and request 
that be put in the budget?
    Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. When I took the oath of office, 
I held my hand up and said that I was going to follow the rule 
of law and defend the Constitution, and it is the statutory 
responsibility for the Secretary of Energy to follow the law.
    Senator Heller. Yes.
    Secretary Perry. And the law tells us that that's what 
we're going to do, is to go through with that licensing 
process, and that's what those dollars are there for, nothing 
more, nothing less.
    Senator Heller. I understand. Does precedent matter also?
    Secretary Perry. I'm sorry?
    Senator Heller. Does precedent matter? In other words, 
there hasn't been money put in that line item since 2010.
    Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. I----
    Senator Heller. Since 2010, there has been no money in 
there. Then also in 2017, $120 million is put in there.
    Secretary Perry. I would argue that the previous 
administration wasn't following the law. The law is pretty 
clear. It says you're supposed to go through this licensing 
process, and that's what it is, Senator. It's about following 
the law, and the law says that we will go forward with finding 
out the answer on this licensing issue.
    Senator Heller. In 2017, that request was removed from the 
budget.
    Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
    Senator Heller. In 2018, in this budget, it's re-requested, 
another 120. Did you have anything to do with that?
    Secretary Perry. That's our budget, sir.
    Senator Heller. OK. And in 2018, that language will also be 
removed. Would you anticipate in 2019 that you will request it 
again?
    Secretary Perry. I'll follow the law, sir, and I suspect 
the result will probably be about the same.
    Senator Heller. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Chao, thank you for being here and thanks for your help 
on the TIGER grants for the state of Nevada. It was very, very 
helpful, and we do appreciate your efforts. I want to talk 
about the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This is a transportation 
issue, and there's a picture behind me talking about all the 
routes that nuclear waste would have to cover in the United 
States.
    Let me be more succinct by saying that the Federal 
Government is looking at shipping 9,495 rail casts in 2,800 
trains and 2,650 trucks holding one cast each to Yucca Mountain 
over the next 50 years. These shipments would use 22,000 miles 
of railways, 7,000 miles of highways, crossing over 44 states 
and a population of about 175 million people. In your opinion, 
does that look safe to you?
    Secretary Chao. I'm very much aware of the sensitivity of 
Yucca Mountain. I don't have the--I don't know the issue that 
you're referring to very well.
    Senator Heller. Between 10 to 12 million people live within 
one-half mile of these rails and highway routes. Under previous 
questioning, Federal Railroad Administrator Ron Batory and 
Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administrator Howard 
Elliott confirmed that a transportation accident with an 
ensuing radiological release was possible. Do you agree with 
them?
    Secretary Chao. As I mentioned, I'm not familiar with the 
issue that you're talking about, but I will certainly talk to 
them about it.
    Senator Heller. Would you anticipate that there's a real 
risk at these routes, looking at this chart of the amount of 
nuclear waste that we're traveling all across this country?
    Secretary Chao. I'm very embarrassed to say my contact 
lenses aren't working today, so I cannot see that very well.
    Senator Heller. All right.
    Secretary Chao. But, obviously, this is an issue of great 
concern to you, so I want to be responsive.
    Senator Heller. All right.
    Again, I want to reiterate my appreciation of the Energy 
Secretary's feel of sovereignty and federalism, and I'm right 
there with you.
    Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
    Senator Heller. I think my time has run out, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you very much for the opportunity to question.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heller.
    Senator Hassan.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

    Senator Hassan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and to you 
and the ranking member, thank you for holding this important 
hearing, and thank you to the secretaries for being here today.
    I'll start, Secretary Chao, with thanking you for the 
recent news that New Hampshire and Vermont will receive a $10 
million TIGER grant for the Interstate-89 Lebanon-Hartford 
Bridge project, and that's going to help connect two regionally 
significant places of two interstate bridges that cross the 
Connecticut River. And I'll note--you've heard thanks from 
other senators up here. We are very grateful for the TIGER 
bridge grants. It is very concerning that they don't appear in 
the President's budget, and we hope very much that the 
Administration will understand how important this funding and 
these projects are to our states.
    To Secretary Ross, I will just add to the chorus. A bunch 
of senators sat in a subcommittee hearing yesterday saying that 
they personally know that the mapping information about 
connectivity in our states is inaccurate. It appears that the 
FCC has just accepted two of our largest cellular carriers' 
advertisements about where there is coverage, and we can tell 
you that there is not coverage in many places in our states 
that the FCC says there is. So I hope you will bring your 
personal attention to that in the role that your agency plays.
    And, last, as a former Governor sitting up here, I will 
just say to the whole panel that states have been doing their 
parts in raising revenues for transportation infrastructure. A 
Republican legislature in my state raised the gas tax just a 
little while ago. Generally speaking, the Federal Government 
helps and makes direct investments in things that have a 
national benefit for everybody, like national security and 
national economic growth. So count me in to Senator Peters' 
comments about our concerns that this plan, while it sounds 
good in identifying the problem, isn't backed up with the kind 
of Federal investment that would make it a reality, especially 
for small states like mine.
    That all being said, I wanted to start my questions to you, 
Secretary Chao, with actually an issue about our airline 
infrastructure. I wrote to you last month along with several of 
my colleagues outlining our concerns about requests you have 
received from the airline industry to roll back critical 
consumer protections. If the airline industry were to achieve 
its stated goals, some of the things we could see as consumers 
include an elimination of the 24-hour grace period a consumer 
currently receives when purchasing an air ticket, an 
elimination of rules requiring airlines to disclose information 
about how consumers can file complaints with the Department of 
Transportation, a potential weakening of requirements that 
airlines provide prompt wheelchair service for passengers who 
experience disabilities, and an elimination of rules requiring 
airlines to display the full price of a ticket to consumers 
when they shop. That's just a few of the things that they're 
trying to roll back.
    So I look forward to your full response to the letter, 
Secretary Chao. But in the meantime, can you commit to working 
with Congress before any consumer protections are rolled back 
in the airline industry?
    Secretary Chao. Yes. But let me just say that I'm not here 
to defend the airline industry, but this whole string of things 
that you've mentioned--some of it involves the website notice, 
and we think that a lot of it is on the website already. But, 
clearly, on some of these others, I agree with you, and 
disagree with others. So I look forward to--you've asked me to 
take a look, and I will do so.
    Senator Hassan. I would appreciate that very much.
    Secretary Acosta, I just wanted to mention there are about 
three bipartisan bills among HELP Committee members right now 
that deal with workforce training. So Gateway to Careers is one 
of them. The Jobs Act is another. The CTE Excellence and Equity 
Act is another. So I'd love your commitment to looking at those 
bills so we can see if there's a way forward on workforce 
training.
    Secretary Acosta. Certainly, Senator, and we spoke briefly 
before, and I've already jotted a note to myself to do that.
    Senator Hassan. Terrific. Thank you.
    Secretary Perdue, the U.S. Department of Agriculture plays 
a large role in improving rural America's infrastructure. 
Across the United States, the need for investments in our water 
infrastructure can't be overstated. The American Society of 
Civil Engineers has said of New Hampshire that much of the 
current water infrastructure has exceeded its design life or is 
operating at its capacity and will need upgrades or 
replacement. The repair and replacement costs are quickly 
rising to millions of dollars, and we can no longer afford to 
defer investment in our Nation's critical infrastructure 
system.
    So how is your Department aiding small towns like the ones 
I represent in New Hampshire to repair their aging water 
infrastructure?
    Secretary Perdue. As a former Governor and now senator, I 
think you understand the impact that rural development can have 
in these communities, working with the smaller communities, 
particularly, over water treatment, water availability, and 
water plans, and we look forward to continuing to do that as we 
go forward. Obviously, funding is critical in those areas, and 
we want to be even more effective in that area.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I've gone over. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
    Next up is Senator Udall.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Nelson. This is a really important hearing and I'm very glad 
that it's happening, and I think we've had a very good 
discussion today.
    I'd like to start my questions on infrastructure and, in 
particular, infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border. I've 
mentioned it here before, but the Union Pacific Intermodal 
Facility in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, was a $400 million 
investment that opened in 2014. It has spurred many millions 
more in infrastructure investment by other companies and state 
and local and Federal Governments on both sides of the border.
    So the Administration's trade policy on NAFTA has huge 
implications for infrastructure in my state and the rest of the 
border region, which is home to many, many millions of people. 
I know Secretary Perry is very familiar with this. NAFTA needs 
updating to take account of current trade conditions and to 
strengthen environmental and labor standards, but NAFTA has 
been on the books for nearly a quarter of a century.
    So, Secretary Ross, has the Administration considered in 
any formal or rigorous way the impacts on border economies and 
infrastructure if the Trump Administration unilaterally 
withdraws from NAFTA?
    Secretary Ross. We've been visited by representatives of 
the transportation industry, of the oil and gas industry, just 
about every industry you can imagine, as well as many state and 
local officials. So we have been highly sensitized to the 
dependence that a lot of the border states have on the Mexican 
border and also on the Canadian border, a different group of 
states. So we are keenly aware of the potential impact.
    Senator Udall. And has the Administration made public any 
analysis of the legal consequences of unilateral withdrawal in 
light of the fact that enabling legislation from Congress is on 
the books and cannot be repealed by the President?
    Secretary Ross. Well, no decision has been made at this 
point to abandon NAFTA. The President has indicated that he's 
optimistic, and so are we, that a reasonable deal can be made 
on NAFTA.
    Senator Udall. So is it fair to say that unilateral 
withdrawal has been taken off the table?
    Secretary Ross. No. The President has said repeatedly that 
he requires a good deal for the United States, and if there is 
a deal put on his desk, he will compare that with the 
alternatives.
    Senator Udall. And since you're not taking it off the table 
now, I just want you to know I was within the last couple of 
weeks down with the border authority group right on the 
border--you could look at the fence that's up there--and there 
is a huge amount of concern about the impact this could have on 
jobs, on the infrastructure. So I would just urge you if you're 
going down the road, if the President's going down the road to 
unilateral withdrawal--I would also urge you to talk to 
Secretary Perry. I hope he maybe weighs in on this. But I'm 
very worried about the economic consequences for the region if 
we unilaterally withdraw.
    I know you briefed me, and we're trying to work on a good 
deal and all of that. But I think if we get to the place where 
there's frustration and we go down the road to unilateral 
withdrawal that would be very, very unfortunate. Have you ever 
toured the border region in New Mexico, Texas, or Arizona?
    Secretary Ross. Oh, surely. I've had businesses in those 
states, so I have some familiarity with it.
    Senator Udall. Well, I would encourage you in your current 
position to come down. I don't know if you've done that as 
Secretary. You've been in, I think, about a year. I think it 
would really open your eyes. I know that you briefed me on how 
you and the trade rep, Lighthizer, have been working with the 
Mexicans and all of that. But now in your position--I mean, 
people view you as a key person, so I hope you'll come down. I 
would clear my schedule to go down and try to do anything I can 
to introduce you to folks down there, to show you the 
consequences that could happen on the border.
    One of the reasons I encourage you is because border 
infrastructure, like ports of entry, intermodal facilities, the 
border roads--they see heavy Federal traffic from border 
security, and I think we also need to take that into 
consideration.
    Secretary Ross. Surely.
    Senator Udall. And I see I'm running out of time, so I'll 
probably do--Chairman Thune, I'll probably do the rest of my 
questions for the record.
    But I really appreciate all of you being here, and I really 
believe that, you know, from the position that the Democrats 
have laid out in terms of an infrastructure package, the things 
that you all are talking about over here--there's a lot of room 
for common ground, and I hope we can come together on that.
    Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Udall.
    Senator Lee.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks to each of you for being here. It's quite an honor 
to have all five of you here at the same time.
    I'd like to start with you, if that's okay, Secretary Ross. 
I wanted to talk to you about the President's recent decision 
to invoke Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 in 
order to impose a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and a 10 
percent tariff on imported aluminum.
    I've had a lot of conversations with a lot of people, 
including just a few days ago the CEO of a manufacturing 
company in my home state of Utah, a mid-size company that 
employs 2,000 people in manufacturing various products, many of 
which include steel. For most of the products they make, steel 
is not the biggest product. It doesn't take up the most volume 
within what they build, not always even the most weight. But it 
is a sufficiently significant cost component of each product. 
This CEO has affirmative doubts about whether he'll be able to 
keep those jobs in the state of Utah or in the United States at 
all once these tariffs kick in, because his products and the 
price of his products is that sensitive and is that likely to 
be impacted very directly by these tariffs.
    Secretary Mattis noted in a Memorandum addressing U.S. 
demand for steel related to national security that U.S. 
military requirements for steel and aluminum each represent 
only 3 percent of U.S. production, just U.S. production, not 
total consumption, just U.S. production alone.
    So if the President's decision to invoke Section 232 and to 
impose these significant tariffs was based on national security 
concerns, how do you reconcile that with the fact that our 
national security concerns demand only 3 percent of U.S. 
production? And if that's the case, what, if any, limits exist 
on this authority?
    Secretary Ross. Well, as you know, the letter from 
Secretary Mattis that you're quoting from acknowledged that he 
regards the health of the steel industry and the health of the 
aluminum industry as matters that do threaten national 
security. So I think a full reading of the letter would include 
that commentary by him.
    The fact that it's a small percentage is one of the reasons 
why this is needed, because the same mills that make more 
routine, more mundane products are the mills that make 
essential military products. For example, there's only now one 
U.S. steel mill that makes this specialized material that's 
required for armor plate, both for the Humvees and for naval 
vessels. So it may be a small percentage, but to the soldiers 
and sailors who are protected by it, it's a pretty important 
thing.
    Senator Lee. And yet the tariffs aren't limited to those 
specialized items, right?
    Secretary Ross. Well, they can't be, and that was my second 
point. A mill is not like a car. A car can go at 20 miles an 
hour or at 80 miles an hour. A mill is more or less on or off. 
And since the direct defense requirements, now that we're in a 
very low--have been in a low military spending period, those 
are not enough to keep a mill going. So the mills need 
commercial viability from normal, non-military products in 
order to survive, and that's one of the things that makes it 
very, very complicated. These things are interrelated.
    But think about the danger that we only have one mill for 
armor plate, and we only have one smelter for aluminum that 
produces in high volume the high purity aluminum needed for 
aerospace purposes. Having one supplier is a very dangerous 
thing for critical materials.
    Senator Lee. I understand that, and for that reason, I 
would think it would be a good idea to limit the application of 
this tariff to the greatest extent possible in order to 
accomplish these ends.
    Secretary Ross. Well, we are. As I think you're aware, 
we're about to publish rules whereby various affected parties 
can apply for specific exemptions for specific products.
    Senator Lee. Understood.
    Secretary Perdue, is this likely to metastasize into a full 
blown trade war that could include, among other things, 
retaliatory tariffs against our agricultural products?
    Secretary Perdue. We can't say that for certain. Obviously, 
you know that agriculture and agricultural commodity products 
are always the tip of the spear in any type of retaliatory 
action. We're not responsible for their reaction. I'm hoping 
the mitigations that Secretary Ross is talking about and the 
President has talked about can mollify those and not move into 
an escalated trade war where agriculture would be damaged.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has 
expired.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
    I have next up Senator Tester.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for 
not being here for the entire hearing, and I apologize if I ask 
something that has already been asked.
    I would just say in reference to Secretary Perdue--and, by 
the way, thank you all for being here--Secretary Perdue's 
comment on retaliatory actions based on Senator Lee's question. 
I would tell you that every Ag group in the state of Montana, 
without exception, is unbelievably concerned about retaliatory 
action.
    You are right, Secretary Perdue. Usually, when retaliation 
comes, it is focused on Ag products, and it's not a hit that 
family farmers can take right now.
    My question, though, is about infrastructure, and it deals 
with the infrastructure plan that was rolled out by the 
President, and it's a question for Secretary Ross. The 
infrastructure plan is going to supply 20 percent Federal 
dollars and 80 percent that will either come from the state, 
county, or municipal governments. Can you tell me in a state 
like Montana, where we're required to have a balanced budget--
which is a very good thing, and I think we ought to work for 
that at this level--how Montana is going to come up with an 80 
percent match?
    Secretary Ross. Well, the suggestion here is that there are 
these various different programs, each of which has different 
economic characteristics to it. But, for example, if there are 
assets that the state has that it chooses to divest of and 
apply those proceeds that certainly counts as a match.
    Senator Tester. So what you're saying is if they were to 
sell their state lands that would count as a match.
    Secretary Ross. Whatever assets they would sell could be 
eligible to be a match. As Secretary Chao said, we are not 
focusing on specific sources of revenue. It's the quantity of 
revenue and having skin in the game both at the state and local 
and Federal level.
    Senator Tester. Well, I would just say, Secretary Chao--and 
you don't have to answer this----
    Secretary Chao. May I----
    Senator Tester. But the current Federal program on highways 
is 80 percent Federal and 20 percent state, and the state of 
Montana is having a tough time, as many states are, coming up 
with a 20 percent match. I just don't see where the logic is in 
expecting these states to come up with an 80 percent match, and 
I can tell you that if it's to sell off their assets, short of 
selling their roads for toll roads, which don't work in a rural 
state, any rural state--Montana absolutely not--or short of 
selling their public lands, which, by the way, could be argued 
the largest industry in Montana, even larger than agriculture -
-some $7 billion, 74,000 jobs in our state--I don't understand 
how this plan is well thought out at all to get things built.
    Go ahead, Secretary Chao. I didn't mean to cut you off.
    Secretary Chao. For rural America, you're right. The region 
is different.
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Secretary Chao. In fact, the infrastructure bill sets aside 
25 percent for rural America. It would be on a formula basis, 
but it will be different.
    Senator Tester. So what you're saying is of the--is it $200 
billion that's set out there--$50 billion is set aside for 
rural America, and you're saying that $50 billion--what's the 
match for that $50 billion, then?
    Secretary Chao. Well, the pay-for, if that's what you're 
referring to, is, indeed, something that we need to discuss. 
But the 80----
    Senator Tester. Actually, I'm not talking about the pay-for 
at the Federal level. I'm talking about where the people are 
going to come up the match, and I can--that's all. At the state 
and local level----
    Secretary Chao. It's $200 billion in direct Federal 
funding----
    Senator Tester. Right, 25 percent----
    Secretary Chao.--the pay-for of which we all need to 
discuss. No question about that.
    Senator Tester. Right.
    Secretary Chao. So 25 percent is going to be devoted to 
rural America.
    Senator Tester. OK. That's----
    Secretary Chao. Eighty percent of the 25 percent is formula 
based, and the remainder is probably going to be targeted 
investments. But we understand that rural America has different 
needs. But it would be on a formula basis, and it will be 
different.
    Senator Tester. And I've got it, and I understand. But I'm 
going to tell you this infrastructure plan makes for a great 
press release. It does, because I've heard it's going to invest 
a trillion and a half in infrastructure if the states come up 
with the match.
    But I'm telling you the state of Montana right now is 
cutting programs because they don't have money. They're cutting 
programs, essential programs in our state. They just had a 
special session a few months ago and cut programs. So it's not 
like they're rolling in dough, and I don't think Montana is any 
different than Wisconsin or Nevada or Colorado or West Virginia 
or any of these states.
    Last question, because I've only got about 20 seconds left.
    Secretary Perdue, your budget eliminates USDA rural 
development for the rural water, waste water grant program. 
This is a critical program for clean and safe water. Tell me 
how you justify cutting this infrastructure program and then 
putting forth another infrastructure program that's not going 
to build any infrastructure?
    Secretary Perdue. Senator, we do expect the infrastructure 
program to build infrastructure. That's what its intention is. 
But you understand how important our waterways--and, frankly, 
what a good job rural development has done with our water 
programs. So----
    Senator Tester. Absolutely, and that's why I don't 
understand why it was cut, because we've got cities and towns 
across this country, rural and urban, I believe, that really 
depend on this, and, hopefully, we can take another look at 
this.
    I will say thank you to all five for being here. I 
appreciate the work you're doing. I know you're all good 
people. But, damn it, we've got to do a little better than 
this. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester.
    Senator Capito.

            STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank all of you for being here and for your 
service to our state. I'll just kind of echo, to begin in my 
statement, thanking the emphasis on rural America, obviously 
West Virginia is a rural state--and also the emphasis on the 
broadband issue. I know I've talked to all of you individually 
about that.
    I would like to say in response to Senator Tester just that 
to put a plug in for the state of West Virginia, even though we 
have difficult financial situations, our voters went to the 
polls last October and passed a $1.5 billion infrastructure 
package that actually raised the gas tax in our state. And my 
hope, as I've reiterated to Secretary Chao, is that when and if 
this infrastructure bill goes through, that that retroactive 
passage of that for our state would count toward our match, and 
I've gotten some assurances that it would in some form or 
fashion. So thank you for that. States can be innovative and 
swallow bitter pills sometimes for the greater good, and I 
think West Virginia did that.
    Secretary Perry, I want to thank you and your staff for 
championing the Appalachian natural gas liquid storage hub in 
our region. Secretary Ross mentioned regional hubs and concepts 
that link multiple state economies. As you know, this is one 
such project. I believe it falls very naturally into a national 
infrastructure plan.
    I would like to know, could you speak a bit about how the 
development of the Appalachian hub meshes with our need to 
improve our Nation's infrastructure by building out and using 
our energy dominance?
    Secretary Perry. Senator, thank you, and I think it's 
important for the Committee and for the general public to 
really think about this concept. I get tied up in sometimes the 
simplicity of, you know, how you're going to pay for this. Is 
it tit for tat? Is it, you know, you're going to have to raise 
this tax to do that? I understand it. I was a Governor for 14 
years. I understand all of the things that go back and forth to 
do that.
    But I want to again go back and remind people that when I 
was the Governor, and I'll bet you this is true for Senator 
Hassan as well as it was for Secretary Perdue, that your 
business men and women will tell you that it's, you know, just 
tell us what the tax structure is going to be, but get the 
regulatory climate fair and predictable. If we can predict and 
have stability in our regulatory climate and that's exactly 
what the President is talking about. One stop, one destination 
to get these regulations done, and that's really important for 
us not to lose sight of.
    The key is that states like yours that are willing to come 
in and say, ``You know what? We need this, and we realize that 
the Federal Government is not going to be the goose that lays 
the golden egg on everything, and we've got a part to play in 
this.'' But the real key, I will suggest to you, is sending the 
message to the private sector that the private sector can come 
in, invest, have a chance to have a return on that investment, 
and they'll come in and do it because they know the regulatory 
climate is fair and predictable.
    This Appalachian plan--the idea of taking those four 
states, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and 
building--basically duplicating the petrochemical footprint 
that you see along the Gulf Coast and Texas--the jobs that get 
created, taking that natural resource, added value to them. I 
think this is a concept that really lays out the President's 
vision for being able to build transportation infrastructure 
and not having to go back and say, ``Well, the government has 
got to pay exactly this amount of this,'' because there are a 
lot of innovative ways to do it.
    But the key and what I tell people with somewhat of a smile 
on my face is when you're going to build infrastructure, 
transportation infrastructure, in particular, you've got three 
choices. You've got tax roads, you've got toll roads, or you 
believe in the asphalt fairy. But the point is there are some 
options there outside of those three, and one of them is to 
send the powerful message to the private sector that you can 
come in and invest, you're not going to be seeing the rules 
change in the middle of the game, There is predictability and 
stability in the regulatory and permitting process.
    Senator Capito. Well, thank you. I know that with the 
storage hub, you've talked a lot, too, about energy security, 
and this would obviously be great. But the American Chemistry 
Council forecasted $36 billion of capital investment, if and 
when we get our storage hub there, and the creation of 100,000 
jobs, and let's talk about the region that's really had 
tremendous downturn and tremendous job loss and difficulties.
    So I want to thank you at the Department of Energy, and I 
want to thank Secretary Ross, too, at the Department of 
Commerce for working with us and with West Virginia in our 
regional concept to really revitalize that part of the 
infrastructure, but also create a lot of great jobs right here 
in this country. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Capito.
    Senator Blumenthal.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here today and thank you for your 
service.
    Secretary Chao, let me begin by asking you about the 
Gateway Project. This project is of the utmost urgency. It's 
not just a regional project. It's a national project. It's 
essential to our transportation network and economy around the 
country. So I'd like you to commit that you will urge the 
President to support the Gateway Project.
    Secretary Chao. It's not our intention to get into an 
argument. To clarify, Gateway is a nickname for nine separate 
projects. These projects are unusual in their unwillingness to 
follow the process like other states.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me--I apologize for 
interrupting, but, as you know, my time is limited. Will you 
commit to the Gateway Project?
    Secretary Chao. A campaign is being waged in the public 
arena to bully the Department to pressure the Federal 
Government to fund these projects. There is a process----
    Senator Blumenthal. Do you think the Gateway Project is a 
good idea?
    Secretary Chao. We are not arguing about whether this 
project should go forward. We are talking about the process----
    Senator Blumenthal. So you will commit to the Gateway 
Project?
    Secretary Chao. I can't commit to something I don't know. 
They did not come in with a realistic financing plan. There's 
no application.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, the Gateway Project is essential 
to our economy, not just in New York and Connecticut and New 
Jersey, but to the entire country, and I urge you to advise the 
President, in fact, urge the President to back off his threat 
to shut down the government over the Gateway Project.
    Let me move on to another topic on positive train control. 
I hope you agree with me that positive train control is 
essential to safety on our railroads. You have said that you 
would finalize an enforcement strategy as soon as an FRA 
administrator has been appointed. We have an FRA administrator. 
Can you confirm that an enforcement strategy has been finalized 
for positive train control?
    Secretary Chao. Absolutely. I sent out a letter at the end 
of December, early January, notifying all regulated entities 
that they had a responsibility to meet the deadline by December 
2018.
    Senator Blumenthal. You've advised them that they have a 
responsibility?
    Secretary Chao. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. But can you give us the details?
    Secretary Chao. And then we have brought them in with the 
new FRA administrator, and he and the rest of the staff--they 
are meeting individually with each of these companies. We are 
now----
    Senator Blumenthal. So that will be enforced?
    Secretary Chao. I think they've met 47 of them so far in 
just 6 weeks.
    Senator Blumenthal. The end of your deadline will be 
enforced.
    Secretary Chao. Well, that's the law, and we've told them 
that.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Secretary Ross, I understand that you are very much 
involved in negotiating our tariff strategies, and I want to 
express my concern about the appointees who have been 
apparently fired because of lack of security clearances. Did 
those employees in the Department of Commerce have interim 
security clearances while they worked there?
    Secretary Ross. Those who needed security clearances had 
interim clearances, to the best of my knowledge. Most of these 
people are not people who have access in any event to top 
secret or----
    Senator Blumenthal. But some of them did.
    Secretary Ross. Right, and that's why as we learned of 
the----
    Senator Blumenthal. And that's why they were fired?
    Secretary Ross [continuing]. When we learned of the 
problem, we terminated them.
    Senator Blumenthal. Do you have a security clearance?
    Secretary Ross. Yes, I certainly do.
    Senator Blumenthal. A full security----
    Secretary Ross. Permanent, yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. Permanent.
    Secretary Ross. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. Do all the members of this panel have 
permanent security clearances?
    Secretary Chao. I believe so.
    Secretary Acosta. I certainly do.
    Senator Blumenthal. You do? The Secretary of Agriculture 
and the Secretary of Energy do as well?
    Secretary Perry. I can assure you that my----
    Senator Blumenthal. And do any employees of your 
Departments who have access to classified information lack full 
permanent security clearances?
    Secretary Chao. Not to my knowledge.
    Secretary Ross. Not to my knowledge.
    Secretary Acosta. Senator, when employees come on board, 
they fill out the FBI paperwork and undergo the process. I have 
inquired, and no one is behind in the process, and the FBI has 
not indicated any issue in the process. But some are still 
undergoing the process, more recent hires.
    Senator Blumenthal. But do they have access to classified 
information?
    Secretary Acosta. They, as a practical matter, do not have 
access to classified information. I'm happy to provide details.
    Senator Blumenthal. I'm going to ask each of you to provide 
details. My time, unfortunately, has expired. This topic is 
extraordinarily important, as we all know. It's an issue that 
has been raised with the White House staff, the use of interim 
security clearances. In fact, I would say the abuse of them is 
a topic of extraordinary national security. I'd like to ask 
each of you to report to me whether any of your current 
employees have interim security clearances with access to 
classified information?
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Gardner.

                STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
the five Cabinet members who are here today.
    We've heard a lot of questions about how we're going to pay 
for the infrastructure bill. But I heard a very alarming plan 
this morning at the very beginning of this committee hearing to 
pay for the infrastructure bill, and that was with a massive 19 
percent tax increase on the American economy. So this will be a 
yes or no question.
    Secretary Chao, do you believe a 19 percent tax increase 
would make concrete asphalt more expensive as we build new 
infrastructure?
    Secretary Chao. Yes.
    Senator Gardner. Secretary Ross, would a 19 percent tax 
increase make U.S. products more expensive?
    Secretary Ross. I think it would make them more expensive 
and would wreak havoc on the economy.
    Senator Gardner. Secretary Acosta, would it cost jobs to 
have a 19 percent tax increase on American job creators?
    Secretary Acosta. Yes, it would.
    Senator Gardner. Secretary Perdue, would farmers find it 
more expensive to buy tractors, fertilizer, inputs with a 19 
percent tax increase?
    Secretary Perdue. Yes, sir.
    Senator Gardner. Secretary Perry, would low-income earners, 
low-income Americans--would they see energy costs become more 
expensive with a 19 percent tax increase?
    Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
    Senator Gardner. This idea to perpetrate a massive 19 
percent tax increase on the American economy is not the right 
policy at a time when we're trying to create jobs and grow our 
economy. I think it's a lousy idea, and, again, I think massive 
tax increases are a step backward for our economy if that's the 
plan. I strongly object to it.
    Secretary Perdue, I'll start with you. We've heard a little 
bit about steel and aluminum tariffs. You've talked a little 
bit about retaliatory tariffs. Yes or no, do you think 
consideration of retaliatory measures should factor into any 
recommendation on tariffs around trade?
    Secretary Perdue. I think that should be a consideration, 
yes.
    Senator Gardner. Secretary Chao, we know how much steel 
highway construction uses. We haven't had a new update since 
2005 of the amount that it would take. Do you think an updated 
study on steel use in Federal high construction that considers 
the impact that recently announced tariffs will have on 
domestic supply of steel could be helpful? Yes or no?
    Secretary Chao. If you would like me to conduct a study, we 
will do so.
    Senator Gardner. But would an updated study on the amount 
of steel that goes into highway constructions help us in 
determining the cost that a tariff would impose on those 
projects?
    Secretary Chao. Yes.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you.
    Secretary Perry, have you had a chance to study whether the 
proposed new steel and aluminum tariffs would increase the cost 
of building pipelines in the United States? Yes or no?
    Secretary Perry. Well, I don't think I can give you a yes 
or no answer, Senator. But what I can tell you is that once we 
look at this, I think----
    Senator Gardner. But you haven't looked at it, then?
    Secretary Perry. I have not looked at the--in detail about 
what is going to be the final. If the issue is if there are 25 
percent tariffs across the board, sure, it's going to raise it. 
But that's not what this is going to have. That's my 
understanding.
    Senator Gardner. But just to be clear, there's no study on 
the cost of building pipelines in the United States under a 25 
percent or 10 percent tariff?
    Secretary Perry. Let me share with you a----
    Senator Gardner. No, that's good enough. I think the answer 
is no.
    Secretary Perry. OK. Great.
    Senator Gardner. Secretary Acosta, has your Department 
completed any recent studies showing the imposition of a steel 
or aluminum tariff that would show a net positive impact on the 
overall U.S. labor market? Yes or no?
    Secretary Acosta. No.
    Senator Gardner. Secretary Ross, did you consider the 
impact of retaliatory trade actions against the United States 
when you recommended the imposition of new steel and aluminum 
tariffs?
    Secretary Ross. Well, what I recommended was three 
alternatives to the President. One was quotas, one was a broad-
based tariff structure, and one was a highly targeted tariff 
structure.
    Senator Gardner. So no consideration of retaliatory tariffs 
in that recommendation?
    Secretary Ross. I didn't say that. In the interagency 
process, we had very lively discussion of the potential for 
retaliatory tactics.
    Senator Gardner. And was there discussion of what those 
impacts would be? And what would they be?
    Secretary Ross. Well, the discussion went on for hours. The 
problem is trying to model what will parties do. For example, 
the proposal made by the European Commission affects $3.5 
billion of product. So if you compare that to the economy, it's 
two-tenths of 1 percent of our GDP, and those sales are 
unlikely to go to zero in any event.
    So the problem is using a retaliatory tactic in a broad-
based sense doesn't really get you anywhere. We have to see--
we'll be hearing soon enough as the thing evolves what kinds of 
retaliation people might have in mind and whether or not they 
have the authority to do it----
    Senator Gardner. Should we move forward? I'm sorry, Mr. 
Secretary. I'm on limited time here. Should we move forward 
with tariffs when we don't have a study on the impact on 
energy, when we know that the impact on agriculture will be 
increased when we haven't done a study on job impacts, and we 
don't have an updated steel for the cost? Should we move 
forward with a policy that could result in retaliation when we 
don't have this information from the Cabinet members?
    Secretary Ross. Well, you're making some very broad 
statements, Senator, and they aren't quite accurate.
    Senator Gardner. It's a very broad tariff.
    Secretary Ross. There have been very lively discussions of 
the impact on the economy within the interagency process and in 
the Oval Office to the President. There has been a very, very 
lot of attention paid to it. So the implication that those 
factors were simply ignored just doesn't correspond to the 
facts.
    Senator Gardner. A quick answer, Secretary Ross. Do you 
support U.S. withdrawal from the World Trade Organization? Yes 
or no?
    Secretary Ross. I think the World Trade Organization needs 
some changes in the way that it operates. I think we probably 
do need some sort of an arbiter in trade relations. It's not 
100 percent clear that the existing World Trade Organization 
rules are that useful. For example, one of the major reasons 
why it's important to take actions like the 301 and like the 
232 is that we have already got 100 and some odd cases out 
there on steel-related products against 34 countries.
    But what happens--under WTO rules, you're required to be 
very precise as to product, very precise as to country, even 
sometimes to the extent of saying it only applies to products 
under two-tenths of a millimeter--two millimeters in size. So 
what happens is you impose the tariffs, and then suddenly the 
material appears through another country, either a direct 
transshipment or possibly a transshipment after some additional 
manufacturing. Or the country that was doing the dumping now 
carries it to a little different stage of manufacture itself, 
and now you have to start all over----
    Senator Gardner. I'm going to have to yield back my time, 
but is that a yes or a no?
    Secretary Ross. I think modifications to the WTO are very 
much in the interest of the United States of America.
    Senator Gardner. So neither yes or no?
    Secretary Ross. Not all questions, sir, can be answered 
with a simple yes or no. I believe I've outlined to you my 
feeling about the WTO the best that I can.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
    Senator Sullivan.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really 
appreciate the Administration coming up here in full force with 
five Cabinet secretaries on the issue of the principles of 
infrastructure. I think the Administration put out a very 
strong plan and worked with a lot of us on that, and I will 
tell you I think you see on this Committee, on the EPW 
Committee on which I also serve, that there's a lot of interest 
and energy to move forward on a major infrastructure plan where 
we have bipartisan support, and I think this hearing is 
demonstrating the Administration's focus. So I want to thank 
all of you for doing that.
    Secretary Acosta, I want to thank you again for your help 
on the issue of the H-2B visas, and we need to reform that 
system so it's actually truly for surge working needs that are 
seasonal, not necessarily for other industries that might be 
more abusive of that.
    And, Secretary Perry, I was here earlier. I had to go 
preside for the last hour. But your comments about the 
opportunities with regard to the American energy renaissance 
that's taking place, whether in Texas or Alaska or really all 
over the country, is just spot on, and it's an enormous 
opportunity for national security, energy security, job 
security, growing our economy. So I thank you for your 
leadership on that.
    Let me ask you real quick as it relates to infrastructure, 
for you and Secretary Chao. You know, there has been a lot of 
focus, unfortunately, on pipelines, energy pipelines, oil and 
gas pipelines, and how a certain small segment of our country 
starts to want to oppose them everywhere. There has been 
studies, and I know you're familiar with them.
    Are pipelines safer, for example, than rail cars for moving 
oil or even LNG, as we're trying to do that? Aren't they much 
safer in terms of the ability to move these kinds of vital 
commodities that our country needs, Secretary Perry and 
Secretary Chao? I know FIMS has done studies.
    Secretary Chao. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. Much more safe. Isn't that correct?
    Secretary Chao. Yes.
    Senator Sullivan. Mr. Secretary?
    Secretary Perry. And the technology allows them to become 
safer and safer as we use our innovation and our technology.
    Senator Sullivan. So the last administration took eight 
years and then finally disapproved the Keystone Pipeline. The 
President came in and switched that.
    Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just submit for the record an 
editorial by the Boston Globe recently about how Massachusetts 
has in some kind of fit of righteousness wanted to disallow any 
pipelines coming across their state. So guess where they're 
getting their oil now and gas? The Russians, as opposed to 
Americans. Not really good policy. I'd like to submit this for 
the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Senator Sullivan. It's an editorial called ``Our Russian 
Pipeline and Its Ugly Toll.''
    [The information referred to follows:]

               Boston Globe Editorial--February 13, 2018

               Our Russian `pipeline,' and its ugly toll

    To build the new $27 billion gas export plant on the Arctic Ocean 
that now keeps the lights on in Massachusetts, Russian firms bored 
wells into fragile permafrost; blasted a new international airport into 
a pristine landscape of reindeer, polar bears, and walrus; dredged the 
spawning grounds of the endangered Siberian sturgeon in the Gulf of Ob 
to accommodate large ships; and commissioned a fleet of 1,000-foot 
icebreaking tankers likely to kill seals and disrupt whale habitat as 
they shuttle cargoes of super-cooled gas bound for Asia, Europe, and 
Everett.
    On the plus side, though, they didn't offend Pittsfield or 
Winthrop, Danvers or Groton, with even an inch of pipeline.
    This winter's unprecedented imports of Russian liquefied natural 
gas have already come under fire from Greater Boston's Ukrainian-
American community, because the majority shareholder of the firm that 
extracted the fuel has been sanctioned by the U.S. government for its 
links to the war in eastern Ukraine and Russia's illegal annexation of 
Crimea. Last week, in response to the outcry, a group of Massachusetts 
lawmakers, led by Senator Ed Markey, blasted the shipments and called 
on the Federal Government to stop them.
    But apart from its geopolitical impact, Massachusetts' reliance on 
imported gas from one of the world's most threatened places is also a 
severe indictment of the state's inward-looking environmental and 
climate policies. Public officials, including Attorney General Maura 
Healey and leading state senators, have leaned heavily on righteous-
sounding stands against local fossil fuel projects, with scant 
consideration of the global impacts of their actions and a tacit 
expectation that some other country will build the infrastructure that 
we're too good for.
    As a result, to a greater extent than anywhere else in the United 
States, the Commonwealth now expects people in places like Russia, 
Trinidad and Tobago, and Yemen to shoulder the environmental burdens of 
providing natural gas that state policy makers have showily rejected 
here. The old environmentalist slogan--think globally and act locally--
has been turned inside out in Massachusetts.
    But more than just traditional NIMBYism is at work in the state's 
resistance to natural gas infrastructure. There's also the $1 million 
the parent company of the Everett terminal spent lobbying Beacon Hill 
from 2013 to 2017, amid a push to keep out the domestic competition 
that's ended LNG imports in most of the rest of the United States.
    And there's a trendy, but scientifically unfounded, national 
fixation on pipelines that state policy makers have chosen to 
accommodate. Climate advocates, understandably frustrated by slow 
progress at the Federal level, have put short-term tactical victories 
against fossil fuel infrastructure ahead of strategic progress on 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and so has Beacon Hill. They've 
obsessed over stopping domestic pipelines, no matter where those pipes 
go, what they carry, what fuels they displace, and how the ripple 
effects of those decisions may raise overall global greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    The environmental movement needs a reset, and so does Massachusetts 
policy. The real-world result of pipeline absolutism in Massachusetts 
this winter has been to steer energy customers to dirtier fuels like 
coal and oil, increasing greenhouse gas emissions. And the state is now 
in the indefensible position of blocking infrastructure here, while its 
public policies create demand for overseas fossil fuel infrastructure 
like the Yamal LNG plant--a project likely to inflict far greater near 
and long-term harm to the planet.
    ``ALL IS GLOOM AND ETERNAL SILENCE,'' wrote a 19th century English 
traveler in an awestruck account of the Kara Sea, then still a largely 
uncharted domain of ice floes and fog. Though more powerful vessels and 
melting ice have enabled more human activity in the Arctic, the area 
around Yamal, an indigenous name meaning ``edge of the world,'' remains 
a refuge. An estimated 2,700 to 3,500 polar bears live in the Kara Sea 
region, along with the ring seals that form a crucial part of their 
diet.
    Opening a gas export facility in such a harsh environment required 
overcoming both political obstacles--the U.S. sanctions delayed 
financing--and staggering triumphs of industrial engineering by a 
workforce that reportedly reached 15,000 people. Dredgers scooped away 
1.4 billion cubic feet of seabed to make room for the ships and built a 
giant LNG facility on supports driven into the permafrost, all in 
temperatures that can plunge to less than minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
    The oil and gas industry poses serious threats, especially in an 
area like the Arctic that recovers slowly from damage, and in 2016 the 
Russian branch of the World Wildlife Fund issued a report warning of 
Yamal LNG's potential dangers. White toothed whales, a near-threatened 
species, breed in the vicinity of the facility, and the noise from 
shipping and the presence of more giant vessels ``may force toothed 
whales to leave this habitat, which is crucial for their living, 
feeding, and reproduction.''
    The giant ``Yamalmax'' icebreaking tankers, longer than three 
football fields and designed to mow through ice up to six feet deep, 
are also ``extremely bad news for any ice-associated mammals that 
should be in the vicinity of their path,'' said Sue Wilson, who leads 
an international research group based at the University of Leeds in the 
United Kingdom. The group has recently published a paper in the journal 
Biological Conservation on the impact of icebreakers on seal mothers 
and pups in the Caspian Sea and is currently studying shipping impacts 
in the Arctic.
    ``The captain is unlikely to notice--or even be able to see--seals 
in the vessel's path ahead,'' she said. ``Even if the captain does 
notice, the fact that the ship is designed to proceed at a steady pace 
means that it is unlikely to attempt to stop for seals or maneuver 
around them, even if the ship can be slowed or stopped in time.''
    Advocates also worry that increased Arctic production and shipping 
will hurt indigenous people; sever reindeer migration routes ; import 
invasive species to an environment ill-equipped to deal with them; and 
introduce the very remote, but potentially cataclysmic, danger of an 
LNG explosion.
    Finally, the gas pumped there will contribute to global climate 
change. In some parts of the world, especially China, LNG may provide 
climate benefits by displacing dirtier coal. If LNG displaces gas 
carried by pipeline, however, the math works out differently: Liquefied 
natural gas generally creates more emissions, since the process of 
cooling it to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit and then shipping and 
regasifying it requires more energy than pumping natural gas through 
all but the longest and leakiest pipelines.
    ``The bottom line is that because of the nature of the liquefaction 
process, LNG is fairly carbon intensive,'' said Gavin Law, the head of 
gas, LNG, and carbon consulting for the energy consulting firm Wood 
Mackenzie. The exact difference depends on factors like how much 
pipelines leak, carbon impurities in the gas, age of equipment, and 
distance shipped, but generally LNG produces 5 to 10 percent more 
emissions over its whole life cycle from start to finish, he said.
    From a planetary perspective, it doesn't matter where those 
emissions occur: Whether from the plant in Yamal, or the power plant in 
Everett, they have the same impact. The science should make the state's 
decisions straightforward.
    ``Natural gas has shown itself to be an important bridge to a clean 
energy future,'' said Ernest J. Moniz, the former secretary of energy 
in the Obama administration. ``For New England, expanding the pipeline 
capacity from the Marcellus''--the area of shale gas production in 
Pennsylvania--``makes the most sense.''
    ``Life cycle emissions for LNG imports to Boston certainly are 
higher than they would be for more Marcellus gas,'' he said.
    But the upstream emissions typically don't show up on the books of 
states like Massachusetts, which judge the success of their climate 
efforts based only on how much greenhouse gas they emit within their 
own borders.
    That's an accounting fiction. But it's a convenient one for 
lawmakers who've bowed to pressure to legislate based on what's visible 
inside the Commonwealth's own borders.
    FROM MASHPEE TO SPRINGFIELD, Taunton to Sudbury, the message was 
clear: To fight climate change, the state shouldn't allow more fossil 
fuel pipelines or other infrastructure in Massachusetts.
    That's what state senators Marc Pacheco and Jamie Eldridge, the 
heads of the state Senate's Committee on Global Warming and Climate 
Change, heard when they conducted a listening tour of the state--whose 
results they released on the same day the Russian gas was unloading in 
Everett--to help prepare a new energy bill.
    The resulting legislation was introduced this Monday. It contained 
many fine ideas, including boosting the state's renewable energy 
requirements. But it also would raise obstacles to pipelines that would 
lock in the state's reliance on foreign gas, with its higher carbon 
footprint.
    In an interview, Pacheco said ``Obviously any fossil fuel 
investments are problematic,'' no matter where they occur, but that 
``we have no control over what happens in Russia or anywhere else in 
the world.'' Eldridge said, ``I think this bill takes a big step to 
preventing pipelines,'' and also expressed concern about the LNG the 
state imports instead. ``I think activists need to think about where a 
large amount of this gas is coming from, and that could be something 
the Legislature could take a look at'' in the future, he said.
    Theirs isn't the first analysis to miss the larger picture.
    In 2015, the Conservation Law Foundation, a prominent environmental 
advocacy group in Boston, released a report dismissing the need for new 
pipeline capacity in New England, and called on the region to rely on a 
``winter-only LNG `pipeline,' '' including imported gas, to meet its 
winter energy needs instead.
    After the first shipload of Russian gas arrived, David Ismay, a 
lawyer with the group, stood by the recommendation and shrugged off the 
purchase of Russian gas from the Arctic as simply the nature of buying 
on the worldwide market. ``I think it's important to understand that 
LNG is a globally traded commodity,'' he said in an interview with the 
Globe.
    The foundation, he said, hadn't compared the overall greenhouse gas 
emissions from LNG to pipeline gas from the Marcellus to determine 
which was worse for the climate, nor had it factored the impact on the 
Arctic of gas production into its policy recommendations.
    But a state policy that doesn't ask any questions about its fuel 
until the day the tanker floats into the Harbor abdicates the state's 
responsibility to own up to all consequences of its energy use--and 
mitigate the ones that it can.
    WHEN AN ICEBREAKER BEARS DOWN on a mother seal during the 
springtime breeding season, the terrified animal tries to scurry away 
with her pup. The two may leave a trail of urine and feces on the ice, 
telltale signs of their distress. Even if the animals survive the 
collision, the disruption may separate the mother and pup, leading to 
the pup's death.
    Conscientious companies can minimize the cruel realities of global 
shipping--or conscientious governments can force them to. American law, 
for instance, requires ships to maintain a safe distance from seals and 
walruses in ice habitats. Wilson, the seal researcher, also suggested 
that icebreakers can change routes to avoid known seal habitats, 
especially during the breeding season, and carry trained observers 
onboard to advise vessel captains and record any adverse impact, 
particularly on mothers and young.
    The Globe attempted to contact Sovcomflot, the Russian state-owned 
shipper in St. Petersburg that handled the first leg of the first 
shipment from Siberia to Everett, about what policies, if any, it 
employs to avoid killing seals and other wildlife, and whether it would 
halt LNG shipments during the spring as mother seals nurse their pups 
in the Arctic.
    As of Monday night, it had not responded to e-mails.
    The policy of Massachusetts, apparently, is to hope that the 
Russians are on top of it--and that the world beyond the state's 
borders manages the impacts of fossil fuel production and 
transportation that the Commonwealth buys and uses, but considers 
itself too pure to handle itself.
    As of Monday night, the next shipment of Russian gas was anchored 
about 70 miles off Gloucester.

    Senator Sullivan. Madam Secretary, I'd like to talk to you 
a little bit more on the issue of permitting. You came up to 
Alaska last summer and essentially broke the log jam on the 
Sterling Highway EIS that was, we think, the longest EIS in the 
works for the Federal Government in the history of the country. 
It only took 40 years, 40 years.
    So can you talk a little bit more about the importance of 
not only your agency but all the agencies here working together 
so we can get to this standard as you know, I have a bill 
called the Rebuild America Now Act, which I've been working 
with the Administration on--on permitting reforms, streamlining 
so we can get the commonsense permitting, whether it's 
pipelines or bridges or roads or ports or harbors, as opposed 
to nightmare scenarios like you helped finally resolve. Thank 
you very much on the Sterling Highway, a 40-year EIS that helps 
nobody and certainly didn't help my state.
    Secretary Chao. Senator Sullivan, you're very kind to give 
me the credit, but your office and you deserve a great deal of 
the credit. We appreciated the opportunity to work with you to 
let loose that EIS on Sterling Highway. You pointed out the 
importance, and we got to work.
    Second, on the issue of permitting, you've been a champion 
of permitting, very commonsensical approaches to permitting. 
Streamlining the permitting process has all sorts of benefits. 
It can spring out more projects that would be available for the 
private sector to fund and finance, for example, and there are 
commonsensical ways in avoiding duplication, doing sequential--
doing concurrent rather than sequential permitting, getting rid 
of duplicative permitting, allowing sister agencies to talk 
with one another to share information. So most of these ideas 
you have outlined yourself since you've been a champion of 
permitting, and so we'll continue to work with you on this.
    Senator Sullivan. Well, I appreciate those comments, Madam 
Secretary, and I will just say I think there's a bipartisan 
opportunity here, both on the Commerce Committee and on the EPW 
Committee, to move forward on issues that impact all of us. As 
you know, most of the labor unions, the building trades are all 
very supportive of the Administration's principles. They back 
the bill that I've sponsored here. We have a lot of co-sponsors 
on it.
    So we want to work with you, particularly on this 
permitting issue, because it's vital to the country, and I 
think we have a bipartisan opportunity to move it, and having 
all five of you and the President and the rest of the 
Administration backing this, I think, is a really important 
statement on what most Americans want and what we need as a 
nation. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
    Senator Cantwell.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again, 
thank you to the Cabinet members for being here.
    I definitely could ask each of you questions, but I'm going 
to focus on Secretary Chao just because transportation is such 
an important aspect of the state of Washington's current needs. 
We've had a chance to talk about what are now called INFRA 
grants, you know, the freight grants, and we certainly 
appreciate your continued focus on that investment.
    I do think it's one of the very positive stories about 
infrastructure investment to move freight so that we can be 
cost competitive. I know that many people realize that 
Washington and its many ports are on the Pacific, and improving 
that infrastructure. I think we have some of the largest grain 
elevators in the country in several spots along there, just 
because we're exporting so much.
    But shifting focus to transit at large, I know you were in 
the House and expressed concerns about transit projects that do 
not have significant local match. In our state, Sound Transit's 
Lynnwood Link light rail project has a 64 percent local share 
and a Federal share only of 36 percent, thanks to the voters 
who decided that it was worth making this investment. In fact, 
I think the entire program is only looking at 16 percent 
Federal money for the projects across three modes, the commuter 
rail, the light rail, and the bus. But that 16 percent is 
absolutely essential to have that partnership at the Federal 
level.
    So do you think that particular example is the type of 
program the Administration is looking for?
    Secretary Chao. Your state has been very skillful in 
getting a lot of these transit grants. So Washington has 
actually had, especially Sound Transit, has had more than its 
proportional share. It's not a criticism. It's just an 
observation. So they're very familiar with the program. We do 
want to look at applications on a case-by-case basis, and 
they've been pretty successful in the past. I'll need some 
refresher on this particular one, but we continue to work with 
all of these applicants.
    Senator Cantwell. But do you think that sounds like the 
right mix? I didn't see your House testimony, but I think you 
were talking about some projects not meeting that standard. So 
16 percent overall from the Federal Government--that sounds 
like a pretty good deal to me on infrastructure investment.
    Secretary Chao. Let me take a look at the whole financing 
package as it is submitted, because that's the basis on which 
it will be. But, certainly, we hope that there will be shares 
by the state and local government, and also if there's a 
private sector involved, that certainly increases the 
likelihood of a Federal participation.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, I definitely think it meets that 
standard, and we certainly are looking for an infrastructure 
package that keeps transit in mind and particularly in the 
robust way that we're doing it in the Northwest, as I said, a 
mix of all three, commuter rail, light rail, and bus system. 
So, definitely, we'll look forward to continuing that dialog.
    You know, Mr. Chair, I'd be remiss if I didn't jump in this 
trade discussion just because--as my colleagues are bringing 
up. I'm glad that some of you joined at the White House meeting 
to talk about infrastructure, which I was glad we talked about 
waterways and infrastructure investments related to our ports. 
So we definitely want to have that level of investment, to make 
sure that our ports are modernized and, particularly, the 
competition that we see as we've seen changes in the Panama 
Canal and bigger ships, and the very, very aggressive 
competition we have from Prince Rupert and Canada.
    So, I guess, Secretary Perdue, to you--you know, do you 
worry about some of these discussions as it relates to trade? 
You know, our eastern Washington wheat farmers are very 
concerned that Japan or somebody is going to be pushing them 
out of these--you know. So we're all going to be for making the 
infrastructure investment, but we also want to make sure the 
markets are open.
    Secretary Perdue. Senator, I represent farmers. We always 
worry, and, certainly, when trade disruptions come, 
infrastructure is very important. That's what we talked about. 
The waterways, both ports and inland waterways, have been a 
significant competitive advantage here in the U.S., and we need 
to make sure they continue to do that, because product, you 
know, from beginning to end--logistics is a huge part of that.
    So, yes, we're concerned over any kind of trade disruptions 
based on any other policies, and we have to be very mindful of 
that. I appreciate Secretary Ross and the President attempting 
to mollify any other concerns over the tariffs regarding 
agriculture.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, we've certainly been in meetings 
with the Administration where the views have been espoused that 
there will be winners and losers, and I'm going to do 
everything I can to make sure that agriculture is not one of 
those losers. So thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cortez Masto.

           STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you 
all for coming here today to Capitol Hill. I know how busy you 
all are individually.
    So with your indulgence, I've got 5 minutes, and I'm going 
to try to get through these questions. But the first one I want 
to talk about is that I keep hearing about the $200 billion 
seed money to stimulate $1.5 trillion. A very simple question--
I'm going to ask each one of you, yes or no, how do you know it 
will stimulate $1.5 trillion spending in infrastructure? Did 
you do some modeling, or was there some analysis?
    Secretary Chao.
    Secretary Chao. Both, yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Can you make sure that the modeling 
analysis----
    Secretary Chao. We have TIFIA loans with loans that goes on 
this process. TIFIA loans are leveraged 1 to 17, sometimes 1 to 
20----
    Senator Cortez Masto. So you actually have written modeling 
and analysis then?
    Secretary Chao. Yes, we have TIFIA loans----
    Senator Cortez Masto. Can you submit that to my office?
    Secretary Chao. Absolutely.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Secretary? Yes or no. Did you do modeling or analysis to 
ensure--to show that the $200 billion seed money would raise 
$1.5 trillion?
    Secretary Ross. I can tell you what our analysis concluded, 
namely, you have to do it program by program, because in each 
one, the ratios are a little bit different. So in the incentive 
program, we think that the Federal dollars will be leveraged 
somewhere between 4.1 times----
    Senator Cortez Masto. So here's what I want to ask. I only 
have 5 minutes. So if you've done the modeling or analysis, 
just say yes, and if you would send it to my office, that would 
be great.
    Secretary Ross. Well, sure. It's just one page. Right here 
is the----
    Senator Cortez Masto. Fantastic. You can send it to my 
office. That's a yes?
    Secretary Ross. Surely.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Secretary Acosta?
    Secretary Acosta. I would defer to my colleagues. We are 
focused on the labor aspect.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Secretary Perdue?
    Secretary Perdue. As you know, USDA has a history with 
rural development over leverage, and that's what we've built 
our numbers on, with the leverage that we've seen in the grant 
and loan programs through the rural development program.
    Senator Cortez Masto. So you have an actual analysis, 
numbers, modeling, that you can send to my office?
    Secretary Perdue. We have the history of what's happened 
regarding the leverage we can provide to you.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Secretary Perry. We'll send you what we have, Senator.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you very much.
    And I keep talking about a bipartisan infrastructure bill. 
Are you referring to coming to Capitol Hill now and working 
with us in a bipartisan way? Or are you----
    Secretary Chao. Yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto.--suggesting that the White House 
somehow invited Democrats in to participate in the White House 
infrastructure plan?
    Secretary Chao. No. The proposal was submitted on February 
12 of this year, and this bill has to be--we would prefer that 
it be done on a bipartisan basis.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Right. Thank you.
    Secretary Acosta, there was discussion earlier about the 
Pell grants. You propose expanding the Pell grant program to 
allow students to use the funds to attend short-term training 
programs. I think that's great. But from what I see in the 
President's budget, it keeps its funding flat for the next 
decade. So what it appears you're doing is shifting money away 
from low-income students who need the funds to attend college. 
Is that actually what's happening?
    Secretary Acosta. So, Senator, if I could, it's exactly the 
opposite. If you look at the Pell grant program currently, 
there's a surplus within the Pell grant program, and, right 
now, if a student wishes to do a certificate program within a 
community college, they cannot get funding. They actually have 
to enroll in a full degree program in order to receive funding, 
a program that meets certain hour and credit minima. So in many 
ways, the Pell grant that would fund the certificate program 
would be less costly than a Pell grant to fund the full degree 
program.
    So this isn't really an additional--as I'm listening to 
you--to pay for. This doesn't carry a substantial pay-for, 
because there's already a surplus within the Pell grant.
    Senator Cortez Masto. So what you're saying today is it is 
not shifting funds away from traditional Pell grants.
    Secretary Acosta. It's expanding the program in a way that 
instead of using the Pell program for Option 2, it can use the 
Pell program for Option 1. So we're giving the students more 
optionality. We're not shifting funds.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Great. Thank you.
    Secretary Chao, within the plan, page seven, there's a 
reference to rewarding rural interstate projects through the 
Infrastructure Incentives Program. I know you've spent time in 
Las Vegas--thank you very much--and you know that many of our 
17 counties--actually 15--are rural, and along with Arizona, 
which also has its fair share of rural communities, we are 
working to invest and move forward Interstate 11, as you well 
know. Would the Interstate 11 project benefit from this 
program, as you envision it?
    Secretary Chao. It would depend on how it's financed, what 
the capital structure is.
    Senator Cortez Masto. But it's possible it could because--
--
    Secretary Chao. Of course, yes. We would hope so.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    And then there is no direct reference to broadband funding 
in the incentives program or broader dedicated funding directly 
for broadband deployment. Am I mistaken? Is that true? I don't 
see it anywhere. And maybe, Secretary Perdue, I don't know--
since you've been talking about broadband in rural communities.
    Secretary Perdue. There has been a lot of discussion about 
that, but I don't think there's any kind of designation there. 
We would, frankly, I would welcome that, from our need for 
ubiquitous broadband. But I think that was left up as a concept 
to the desires and bipartisan desires of the Congress.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. And I would support that 
as well. I echo everything my colleagues have said, and, 
Secretary Perdue, I appreciate your comments with respect to 
smart communities, because when we talk about investing in our 
infrastructure, it is not just horizontal construction. It is 
investing in broadband, investing in our communities, 
particularly when it comes to the use of this new technology 
for infrastructure.
    So thank you all for coming to Capitol Hill today. I really 
appreciate it.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Young.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

    Senator Young. Secretary Chao, thanks so much for visiting 
with us today to discuss the Administration's infrastructure 
initiative. One of the core components of this initiative, as 
you know, is the incentives program, which incentivizes states 
and local governments to establish significant non-Federal 
revenue for their most important projects.
    Last year, in the state of Indiana, we did our part. We 
worked diligently to provide additional funding for state 
infrastructure projects, and I just have to say I appreciate 
the fact that the Administration has recommended a look-back 
period to recognize these recent investments and prior actions 
made by proactive states like Hoosiers, and I look forward to 
working with other members of this committee to ensure that 
investments made by their states as well as mine are recognized 
within the confines of the infrastructure proposal, which 
brings me to a question.
    Many Hoosiers have welcomed the vibrant debate back home 
about what infrastructure priorities we should have, where the 
money should come from, how much they're willing to spend, and 
so forth. Can you speak to the multiplier effect that the 
incentives program within the infrastructure proposal creates 
by encouraging states to follow Indiana's model and establish 
dedicated new revenue streams for state infrastructure 
projects?
    Secretary Ross. I'll be glad to talk to that, Senator. We 
think that at a minimum, there'll be four-to-one leverage 
provided at the state and local level, and that as the states 
compete for the incentive program, it might get as high as 
seven-to-one leverage. That's how we arrived at the estimate of 
$500 billion to $800 billion coming from the incentive program.
    Senator Young. Well, that's really encouraging and all the 
more reason to give some urgency and focus to our efforts here 
to make sure that we're still investing in the future. Four-to-
one, that would be fantastic. Seven-to-one for some projects 
even better.
    Secretary Chao or whomever of our secretaries would like to 
speak to this next one, I'll start by indicating that one of 
the Hoosier state's priority infrastructure projects is the 
completion of the I-69 bridge. This runs from southwestern 
Indiana, where Evansville is located, over to Henderson, 
Kentucky. The project has long been a priority of Hoosiers, 
going all the way back to 2004, when the environmental impact 
study began.
    Just last month, Secretary Chao, your staff met with the 
project's sponsors to assist in moving this vital project 
forward. On behalf of my fellow Hoosiers, I want to thank you 
and your team for your dedication and hard work with respect to 
this project.
    I am pleased that one of the four guiding principles of the 
Administration's infrastructure proposal is to streamline 
permitting to expedite project delivery. I'm sure that this has 
been held up by some of my colleagues. But this byzantine 
regulatory scheme for the permitting and approval of Federal 
infrastructure projects is something that could only be 
conceived of in Washington, D.C.
    So the fact that the Administration has made it a major 
priority to de-clutter this and streamline this is something I 
commend and applaud and celebrate. The idea of designating one 
lead Federal agency, setting firm deadlines for completion for 
the issuance of final decisions is welcome news to the people 
of Indiana.
    Can you, Madam Secretary or any of the other assembled 
secretaries, speak to the potential that streamlining this 
permitting process presents to major infrastructure projects 
like the I-69 bridge and how regulatory reform presents a major 
opportunity to reinvigorate investment in infrastructure more 
generally?
    Secretary Perdue. Senator, as a former Governor, I'd like 
to address that. I think, again, Secretary Perry and I have 
experienced that. I've actually been quoted in the past of 
saying I would take--as a Governor, I would take a lot less 
money for permitting reform, and we are just now, hopefully, 
this summer going to open up a road in one of the most 
congested corridors in Atlanta that began the planning in 1995. 
So your experience there--we have 10 years on you regarding the 
bridge. So this is the challenge.
    What we're really talking about is not circumventing any 
kind of environmental laws or protections there. It's really 
Six Sigma process management. It's really moving things in a 
way that makes sense, point to point, with One Federal Decision 
and a case manager, if you would, permits. That's really what 
we're talking about, is to manage it with accountability that 
doesn't sit on someone's desk for weeks or months there, 
waiting for another answer.
    Secretary Chao mentioned earlier that there's no reason we 
cannot do these things concurrently rather than sequentially 
that continues to delay the process. So that's what we're 
hoping to do, and I think this could be one of the best things 
we could offer America, is this permit reform that gets things 
done quickly because time is money in any kind of 
infrastructure project.
    Secretary Ross. It's easy to estimate that probably 
something like a third of the cost of many infrastructure 
projects is consumed in legal bills, consulting bills, and the 
inflationary effect of delay. So if you think about it, if it's 
anything like that, then you've already gotten a 30 percent 
cost reduction in the cost of the project, and that's something 
that is a real benefit coming from the Federal Government to 
the state and local authorities that as of right now they don't 
have.
    So it isn't just the 20 percent or what fraction of direct 
contribution. If we can fix the regulatory, we have really 
lowered a lot the amount the states and localities have to pay.
    Secretary Perdue. Our experience in Georgia was probably 50 
percent to 75 percent.
    Senator Young. Thank you for the Six Sigma permitting 
improvement, and thank you for making sure our taxpayer money 
gets even more bang for the buck.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Young.
    Senator Klobuchar.

               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all. Are you hungry for lunch? I was the first 
one here and somehow the last one--a long story. But I want to 
thank everyone for your hard work.
    I guess I'll start with you, Secretary Acosta, because I 
spent Saturday with a number of our manufacturing companies in 
places like Winona, Minnesota, and we have a very low 
unemployment rate in Minnesota. That's exciting in many ways. 
But we need to find more workers, and, of course, one is 
immigration reform, which I'm a strong supporter of. But the 
other is doing everything we can to get high school kids who 
might not otherwise graduate or might prefer to have less debt 
and get a one or two-year certification and then move on to a 
four-year degree.
    One of the things the Chamber showed me there was a list of 
some of the Federal job descriptions where the kids can only 
work--if they're 16 or 17, they can only do an hour a day on 
certain types of machinery, and then when they turn 18, they 
can do it for longer. I thought, well, it's not totally safety 
if they can do an hour a day. So maybe we could extend that to 
more hours, and I wondered if you'd looked at that. I also 
talked to Ivanka Trump about it yesterday. I was over there for 
a human trafficking meeting, and she said you were looking into 
all this.
    Secretary Acosta. Thank you for the question, and we 
certainly are looking into it. We actually received a letter 
from one of your colleagues raising the same issue with respect 
to training for hospital jobs, and we're looking into whether 
they can be extended. We're also looking into whether it makes 
sense to create exemptions if they are using the equipment as 
part of some training program, some educational program, an 
apprenticeship program, on the theory that we'd rather that 
they learn to use equipment the right way when they're 17 than 
use it for the first time when they're 18.
    Senator Klobuchar. Exactly, and they thought an hour a day 
actually is more dangerous than doing it for a longer time.
    Secretary Acosta. Our folks were tasked with coming up with 
recommendations for me several weeks ago, and, as a matter of 
fact, I asked for it just last week. So we're in the process.
    Senator Klobuchar. Very good.
    Secretary Perdue, thank you for coming to the Midwest. We 
were on the plane together.
    He had a very nice hat on, Mr. Chairman. He looked like he 
was ready for the Midwest.
    The Chairman. Of course he did.
    Senator Klobuchar. Of course he did.
    I know that Senator Duckworth asked you about the RFS. But 
I just wanted to touch on biofuel infrastructure. In 2015, USDA 
announced that 21 states would receive grant funding through 
the biofuel infrastructure partnership, and we use that for 
blender pumps. Minnesota, as you know, has always been the 
leader on this. Do you think we have sufficient infrastructure 
to be able to get to that next stage, where we are beyond a 
boutique fuel now but we want to make it a part of the mainstay 
of our fuel supply along with many other sources?
    Secretary Perdue. Senator, if we're successful in getting 
the RVP waiver for 12 months, I think there will be a huge 
demand for E-15 pumps, and I think there will be another 
opportunity to participate in an infrastructure of growing out 
our homegrown energy program with ethanol.
    Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you.
    Secretary Chao, open skies--we've talked about this in the 
past. They are very important. We have a big Delta hub, and we 
see all the jobs, and I know the Administration recently 
announced a Memorandum of Understanding between the State 
Department and Qatar that outlines steps to address subsidies 
given to foreign air carriers. I'm sure you were involved in 
that, so thank you. I just wondered if you are committed to 
moving forward with additional policies. You know, there are 
other airlines that we're having issues with as well.
    Secretary Chao. The State Department takes a lead on that, 
but that's certainly an area that we're very concerned with, 
and we are working with them.
    Senator Klobuchar. Essential air service--I know that some 
of my colleagues asked you about TIGER grants and CIG and 
things that I care about very much, including these INFRA 
grants that I'll send you some questions on later with some 
specific issues in our state. But could you talk about that, 
because there are budget cuts that would affect essential air 
service?
    Secretary Chao. I'm very concerned and sympathetic with 
this program. The program was, indeed, zeroed out in the 
current budget. But hearing the concerns of Congress, we 
actually shifted some funds to make some of the EAS grants 
available.
    Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you.
    Last, Secretary Ross, thank you. I enjoyed your toast with 
the Swedish Prime Minister last week. Good job. The 2020 census 
is less than 2 years away. There has been some issues with the 
census that maybe I can get into later. But how does the 
Administration plan to ensure that it's rolled out smoothly?
    Secretary Ross. Well, as you know, we very early on began a 
very diligent analysis of the cost projections that have been 
made, and we concluded that they had greatly underestimated a 
cost that would be needed in order to have a full and fair and 
complete census. We believe that the monies that we've 
requested should be adequate to fund it, and in order to try to 
make sure that the difficult to enumerate part of the 
population is, in fact, covered, we're increasing the number of 
partnership people on our staff from roughly 800 that were 
employed in the 2010 census to 1,000. So that's a 25 percent 
increase in the outreach capability to local community 
organizations.
    Also, the advertising and marketing budget has been 
increased from $375 million that was in the 2010 census to $500 
million now. So that's a one-third increase in that, and we 
think that reflects the changing mix of the population. One of 
the things we'll be doing is we will be buying media and having 
physical correspondence in 17 different languages. So we're 
working very, very hard to make sure of completeness and 
accuracy.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, and I also want to let you 
know that Senator Blunt and I are working on the continuing 
funding of Brand USA, which comes under your Department, and we 
appreciate that. We've talked with you. We're concerned about 
that going forward. And I just wanted to say the World Expo 
application for Minnesota--we barely missed it last time--for 
2027 is going to come through your Department, so you can look 
forward to seeing that this year.
    Secretary Ross. Well, I'm a big supporter of Brand USA, as 
you know, and tourism is a very, very important reason why we 
have a trade surplus in services such as tourism and other 
forms of transportation.
    Senator Klobuchar. Exactly, and thank you for your support 
for that. Thank you.
    And thank you, Secretary Perry, as well.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, and they do 
have to drive through Minnesota to get to Mount Rushmore, so 
you get a little bit of that tourism benefit, too.
    Senator Klobuchar. And Wall Drug.
    The Chairman. And Wall Drug, yes. Just be glad she didn't 
ask you about the Kirk Cousins trade.
    Senator Klobuchar. Oh, there we go.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Ross, on February 9 of this year, I joined 
Senator Cortez Masto in sending a bipartisan letter to Gary 
Cohn and General McMaster raising concerns with a leaked memo 
from the Administration that called for nationalizing 5G mobile 
broadband networks. As you know, the United States has been the 
global leader in mobile broadband since surpassing Japan in 
2009.
    But we can't take our global first place position for 
granted, given that China and Japan and South Korea and the 
European Union are all challenging the United States to be 
first in deploying 5G, given that it has the potential to boost 
annual GDP by $500 billion and create up to 3 million new jobs. 
In your judgment, should the United States be nationalizing any 
aspect of our 5G networks?
    Secretary Ross. Well, I'm aware of that proposal that's 
been made. It has been widely circulated within the 
Administration. But a couple of points. One, we regard 5G as 
quite essential both to the commercial interests and to the 
national security interests of the country. So the President is 
very keenly interested in making sure that we are the leader in 
5G.
    There has been no final decision made on the memo itself as 
yet, and I don't want to get out in front of the President on 
it. But I think you're aware that everybody is focused on the 
utter importance of 5G and the importance of the U.S. being the 
leader in it. So we have no intention of vacating that at all.
    Senator Cruz. Well, let me make clear at least my position 
and I think the position of a great many people in Congress--is 
that it would be a grave mistake to nationalize 5G, and I think 
you would face very significant resistance in both houses for 
any proposal to do so.
    Secretary Ross. Well, I certainly don't want to sound as 
though I'm advocating it. I just don't want to get out ahead of 
the President.
    Senator Cruz. I understand.
    Secretary Chao, you and I have both been vocal supporters 
of the President's proposal to modernize the air traffic 
control system. Modernizing air traffic control is one of those 
rare proposals that can reduce the size of the Federal 
Government and at the same time benefit the environment, save 
costs, save fuel, save time, and it's supported by unionized 
workers while at the same time having free market benefits.
    There have been some concerns raised from the world of 
general aviation about the proposal, but I remain convinced 
that a win-win solution is possible that will enable the cost 
savings, enable the time savings, enable the safety 
improvements, enable the environmental benefits while at the 
same time fully protecting general aviation, which is an 
important part of our transportation nationally.
    Can you share your views about the benefits of air traffic 
control modernization, number one, and, number two, do you 
think it is a subject worthy of consideration for being 
included in an infrastructure package?
    Secretary Chao. The air traffic control--restructuring air 
traffic control was proposed to address the congestion problems 
in our skies, the future congestion in our skies, the slow rate 
at which FAA is able to gain new equipment necessary for the 
next generation of technology. It is not a financing scheme. 
The proposal was to have air traffic control go into a 
separate, nonprofit, co-op like organizational structure. It 
was just a governance change. It would also free up the 
Aviation Trust Fund, half of which is currently being used not 
for reinvestment in our air traffic control system, but as a 
deficit reduction.
    So we still believe that restructuring the air traffic 
control, having the air traffic control aspect move into a 
separate, nonprofit, co-op like organization is the best way to 
address some of the issues that we have, the congestion issues, 
the Aviation Trust issues, leaving safety still with FAA. But 
it doesn't appear that there are enough votes in the House nor 
the Senate.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Secretary Chao.
    Secretary Perry, as I understand it, you recently visited 
your alma mater, Texas A&M, and the new RELLIS campus last 
month and toured the Center for Infrastructure Renewal at the 
Bryan campus, which will serve as a leading source for 
developing transformative infrastructure solutions. One project 
in Texas that I believe you're familiar with from your time as 
Governor is the Port of Corpus Christi, a ship channel 
improvement project.
    The Port of Corpus Christi currently has the funding 
available to deepen and widen the port, but they're having to 
navigate with the Army Corps of Engineers, which can be at 
times slow and cumbersome and can lead to unnecessary project 
delays. One solution is to modify the Army Corps of Engineers 
regulations to grant more authority for ports to execute Army 
Corps of Engineers projects.
    Do you think modifying the regulations to give--and U.S. 
procurement rules can save money and can expedite deepening our 
ports, which will enable more energy exports?
    Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Senator, they would make an 
interesting documentary about how government can slow down 
economic progress with just a 15-year look at the Port of 
Corpus Christi. I'm not here today to testify about the Corps 
of Engineers. I'll leave that to you to find some of the 
solutions for it.
    But you really touched a very important issue we talked 
about a little bit earlier here, your home state, which has, I 
think, five major ports from Beaumont to Galveston to Houston 
to Corpus Christi to Brownsville. Sixty-one percent of the 
crude goes out of, I think, the Port of Corpus Christi. So from 
a national security standpoint, from an economic standpoint, 
and, in turn, a geopolitical standpoint, you are absolutely 
correct in identifying an alternative to the way we've always 
done it to one that could streamline substantially the process. 
So I salute your focus on this. I wish you good luck and smooth 
sailing on it.
    Senator Cruz. Terrific. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cruz.
    Senator Baldwin.

               STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is President Trump in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Last year, 
he visited Snap-On Tools, an employer in Kenosha. He used that 
stop to announce the Buy American-Hire American executive 
order. During his speech that day, President Trump promised, 
quote, ``a big infrastructure bill'' that would be, quote, 
``constructed with American hands, American steel, and American 
tools.'' He claimed his administration would be taking bold new 
steps to follow through on his Buy American-Hire American 
pledge.
    I want to ask, starting with you, Secretary Perry--can you 
direct me to the bold new Buy America provisions in the 
infrastructure blueprint?
    Secretary Perry. Senator, thank you. You just reminded me 
of what a--I'll be quick--but a fabulous state you live in. I 
tried to recruit Harley Davidson, Trek, and Mathews Bows all to 
come to the state of Texas, and I was unsuccessful in any of 
those. So you speak about Snap-On--that's another one.
    But the issue here--I think what the President was laying 
out is this bold vision. He's leaving it up and understands the 
role that Congress----
    Senator Baldwin. So no?
    Secretary Chao. No, the answer is yes. It is a prevailing--
it is overriding prevailing authority that impacts every single 
department in the government.
    Senator Baldwin. Can you point to anything in the 
infrastructure plan----
    Secretary Chao. It's a prevailing authority already. It 
doesn't need to be--it's a prevailing authority.
    Senator Baldwin. Bold new steps are?
    Secretary Chao. It is to emphasize this existing 
requirement, which has not been emphasized in the past. That's 
what----
    Secretary Perry. And, Senator, I think the idea that we can 
go from 10 to 2 years on permitting is such a powerful message, 
and I've shared earlier, when I talk to business men and 
women----
    Senator Baldwin. So let me stop you, because, first of all, 
is it true that this document makes no reference to Buy 
American policy?
    Secretary Perry?
    Secretary Chao. There's no----
    Secretary Perry. I think it implicitly talks about Buy 
American.
    Senator Baldwin. Does it explicitly?
    Secretary Perry. I think it does. I think it clearly does--
--
    Senator Baldwin. So you think it does. I would appreciate a 
page reference afterwards.
    Secretary Perdue?
    Secretary Perdue. I'm not aware.
    Senator Baldwin. Secretary Acosta?
    Secretary Acosta. Senator, the Buy American----
    Senator Baldwin. Yes or no?
    Secretary Acosta. The Buy American executive order is 
directed at all departments, and, therefore, all our actions, 
including our actions with respect to this, encompass that 
executive order. Certainly, if it needs to be more explicit, we 
can discuss that at another time.
    Senator Baldwin. We will.
    Secretary Ross?
    Secretary Ross. My answer is the same as Secretary Acosta.
    Senator Baldwin. And, Secretary Chao, you've already 
indicated.
    I want to ask, on page 21 through 22 and page 27, there are 
the provisions on new flexibility. When you talk about amending 
Titles 23 and 49 to provide targeted flexibility pertaining to 
the application of Federal requirements, I would note that Buy 
America provisions are in both Titles 23 and 49. Is it your 
position that you are not advocating flexibility with regard to 
Buy America provisions----
    Secretary Chao. What document are you referring to?
    Senator Baldwin. Your blueprint on infrastructure.
    Secretary Chao. So that's what you're--well, I didn't know. 
You were referring to something that I couldn't see.
    Senator Baldwin. Oh. Is it your contention that----
    Secretary Chao. Those are examples of what can happen, and 
so, no, the President is quite clear about Buy America-Hire 
America.
    Senator Baldwin. So you are saying it would never be waived 
to give states additional flexibility?
    Secretary Chao. No, waivers are given, but much less so 
than any other previous administrations.
    Senator Baldwin. So this could contemplate disregarding the 
Buy America provisions to add flexibility. Is that what you're 
saying?
    Secretary Chao. Waivers are given on a case-by-case basis, 
but much less so in this Administration, and I know from 
experience.
    Senator Baldwin. There are waivers within the Buy American 
provisions. I'm asking whether you would totally disregard the 
Buy America law----
    Secretary Chao. No, of course not.
    Senator Baldwin.--given the language on page 21 and 22, and 
I'd also refer you to the language with regard to water 
infrastructure on page 27.
    Secretary Chao. There are Senators who call the Department 
asking for waivers because of certain circumstances, lack of 
American productive capacity----
    Senator Baldwin. I think you misunderstand. The Buy 
American law allows waivers.
    Secretary Chao. Right.
    Senator Baldwin. I'm asking whether you are--when you use 
the language in this blueprint--amending the law to provide the 
targeted flexibility to the states pertaining to the 
application of Federal requirements such as Buy America.
    Secretary Chao. So what is the question?
    Senator Baldwin. Does this language contemplate 
disregarding Buy America----
    Secretary Chao. No, it does not. It just gives flexibility.
    Senator Baldwin. I would appreciate your commitment to add 
clarity to that, because not only does the document not 
reference Buy America once, it also appears to proactively 
suggest that infrastructure projects could avoid Buy America 
requirements through this----
    Secretary Chao. That's certainly not the intent at all.
    Senator Baldwin. OK. But clarity on that would be very 
important.
    I have one additional question for Secretary Ross. In terms 
of your analysis on the health of the U.S. steel industry--and 
you've had the question in the context of the tariffs--what 
impact would robust Buy America policies in all of our 
infrastructure projects have on the health of the U.S. steel 
industry?
    Secretary Ross. Well, it would help it. It would also help 
every other industry that's a supplier to those projects. So 
I'm a big supporter of Buy America-Hire America.
    Senator Baldwin. All right. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
    Thank you all for your patience and indulgence. I think 
we're about to wrap it up. We'll have questions for the record, 
and I would ask you and ask Members to get those questions in 
as soon as possible, and if you could get the responses back in 
two weeks, we'll keep the hearing record open for that amount 
of time.
    A fulsome discussion today. We covered some issues besides 
infrastructure. But we again thank you so much for the 
commitment that you all make to serve and, particularly, on 
this very important issue and subject, which I think we all 
agree needs to be addressed. So I hope that we can come to find 
some common ground and move forward with legislation that will 
really address the nation's infrastructure needs.
    If you haven't filled out your brackets yet, a good 12 
versus five upset pick would be the South Dakota State 
University Jack Rabbits. So Thursday. Thank you.
    With that, we are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:09 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

   Prepared Statement of Sean Strawbridge, Chief Executive Officer, 
                    Port of Corpus Christi Authority
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the 
Committee:

    Thank you for the honor of considering this statement for inclusion 
in the record of this hearing.
    My name Sean Strawbridge. I offer for the record this statement in 
my capacity as Chief Executive Officer for the Port of Corpus Christi 
Authority. I also bring to you a perspective shaped by over twenty-five 
years of experience working on transportation, logistics, and trade 
issues.
    The Nation's 926 seaports account for approximately 26 percent of 
the National GDP, accounting for trillions of dollars in economic 
output and trade value. My Port, the Port of Corpus Christi, is 
currently the 4th largest port in the United States in total tonnage, 
and the largest energy export gateway in the Nation in market value. 
What makes the Port of Corpus Christi a leader in U.S. energy exports 
is the compliment of 1.) The proximity to two of the largest energy 
producing fields in the country, the Permian Basin and the Eagle Ford 
Shale; 2.) The significant refining capacity in the region; 3.) The 
large chemical and natural gas processing facilities; and 4.) The deep 
draft navigation Corpus Christi Ship Channel and associated export 
facilities which provide a gateway to global energy consumers.
    The Port of Corpus Christi is also one of three National Strategic 
Military Load Centers for the Department of Defense in support of the 
American Warfighter overseas.
    Today, the United States is experiencing a resurgence in its energy 
production not seen since the 1950s. Recently the Energy Information 
Administration (EIA) accelerated its forecast for when the United 
States would become a net exporter of its energy production, from 2026 
to 2022. This forecast is based on the continuing trend of increased 
energy production levels, and the fast-growing export of U.S. produced 
energy. The Port of Corpus Christi is at the apex of this energy 
renaissance as the global gateway for American energy.
    I want to focus my statement on highlighting benefits of one 
project, though, in speaking to many of my contemporaries, we share 
similar experiences and challenges in progressing our economically and 
strategically vital projects.
    In describing my project, the Corpus Christi Ship Channel 
Improvement Project, one has to go back 28 years, to 1990, when 
Congress mandated the commencement of a study to determine cost and 
impacts of deepening and widening the Corpus Christi Ship Channel from 
45' to 54'. It has been a long and at times painstakingly slow and 
difficult process to move this project to fruition. Thus, I will 
suggest to this Committee opportunities to improve the process of 
completing badly-needed major port infrastructure projects.
    I believe our particular experience may be useful as the Federal 
Government considers policy changes in the spirit of improving our 
Nation's infrastructure and positioning this country for energy 
resiliency not seen in over two generations.
    Federal Ship Channels in general are the main arteries in the 
physical movement of goods and trade, and the Corpus Christi Ship 
Channel is our lifeblood for the export of American energy overseas. 
The Corpus Christi Ship Channel Improvement Project is our most 
important project, and is mission critical in our Nation's quest for 
energy dominance.
    From the initial Congressionally-suggested feasibility study in 
1990, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Chief's Report on the project 
was completed in 2003, 13 years after commencement of the feasibility 
study. The Office of Management & Budget approved the Project in 2007. 
The Channel Improvement Project, as it is formally known, was 
congressionally authorized in WRDA 2007 and again in WRRDA 2014. At the 
time of initial authorization, the Chief's report estimated the cost of 
construction of the project at $188 million. In the 10 years it took to 
finally execute the Project Partnership Agreement with the Corps in 
September of 2017 that cost estimate had ballooned to $327 million.
    Last month, we were for the first time included in the President's 
Corps Civil Works Budget for FY'19. That's the good news. The bad news 
is the budget recommendation falls significantly short of the need. If 
our Nation expects to remain competitive in the global marketplace, we 
must expedite the project delivery process or risk lengthy development 
schedules and significant cost impacts to our national waterways 
infrastructure projects.
    The economic impact of the shale revolution is difficult to 
understate. The increasing exportation of U.S. oil and gas has 
widespread economic, geopolitical, and security implications, and the 
global balance of power is certainly shifting to our shores. More 
American allies, and others around the world, recognize the benefit of 
shifting away from Middle Eastern or Russian energy supplies. An 
American barrel of oil is a safer, more secure barrel. Why? Because 
unlike a Middle Eastern or Venezuelan barrel, ours are not controlled 
by a cartel. Unlike a Russian barrel, an American barrel is not subject 
to the whims of a despot who can decide unilaterally and individually 
to whom he will sell its energy to. This has made an American barrel a 
more attractive barrel on the international marketplace. Even China and 
the aforementioned Venezuela are buying significant quantities of U.S. 
oil and gas, which continues to reshape our trade balance with those 
countries.
    As mentioned earlier, the Port of Corpus Christi is nation's 
leading energy port, responsible for roughly half of all energy 
exports. Over the past decade the Port of Corpus Christi has 
experienced epic record growth in our energy exports, increasing from 
essentially zero to an estimated $36 billion in crude oil, natural gas 
liquids, and finished petroleum and chemical projects.
    The Port of Corpus Christi is also positioned to become a leading 
export hub for Liquefied Natural Gas or ``LNG''. An estimated $18 
billion-dollar LNG liquefaction facility with a capacity of 22 million 
tons per annum is currently under construction and is scheduled to come 
online later this year, providing LNG exports to China, Europe, and the 
Americas under long term contractual commitments.
    Yet the Port of Corpus Christi could be handling even more energy 
exports. The expansion of the Panama Canal and the increasing 
availability of supertankers offer an opportunity for United States oil 
and gas exporters to increase volumes and competitiveness. Our 
customers tell us that larger, deeper draft cargo ships could save them 
fifty to seventy-five cents per barrel, a major global competitive 
advantage. At over 600 million barrels a year of energy exports in 
Corpus Christi alone, these transportation cost savings are in excess 
of $300 million per year for our Port customers.
    As more energy is produced in the U.S., these molecules must find 
an outlet. Over $5 billion in new pipelines from the Permian Basin to 
Corpus Christi alone are underway. We anticipate these new pipelines to 
be completed by 2020-2021. When this new production take-away capacity 
is completed, the Port of Corpus Christi must also be ready to handle 
the anticipated increase in volume. We cannot become the constraint in 
the continuing growth of energy exports with a Channel Improvement 
Project that is stymied by lengthy delays and cost overruns.
    We are extremely pleased that the President's Budget Recommendation 
for Fiscal Year 2019 includes long-sought funding for initial 
construction work on deepening and widening of the Corpus Christi Ship 
Channel. Yet we remain concerned about how long it took to reach this 
point, and how long it will take the Federal Government to fund their 
currently mandated and agreed upon cost-share for this urgently needed 
infrastructure project.
    Unconstrained in funding, the Port of Corpus Christi estimates the 
Ship Channel Improvement Project should take approximately 4 years to 
complete. That is in-line with the market demands. However, at the 
current funding streams and Corps capability, it is highly unlikely the 
project will be completed in that timeframe.
    The Port of Corpus Christi cost share portion of the $327 million 
project estimate is $102 million. We are pleased to report we have our 
cost share today, in the bank, ready to go. In fact, we have already 
funded the first construction contract completely and transferred $32 
million of Port dollars to the Corps of Engineers last September to 
commence construction. Yet construction has yet to begin as we continue 
to wait for the Corps to secure the first dredging contract.
    Our funding ``ask'' of the Administration and the Corps over the 
past several months was $60 million in each of the next three Fiscal 
Years budget, with an additional $45 million in Corps Work Plan monies 
over the same period. The Port would fund the rest. The return on this 
investment, we estimate, is an incremental $36 billion in energy export 
value, or one tenth of the current trade deficit with China.
    The President's FY 2019 Civil Works budget has recommended $13 
million in Navigation Construction dollars for this project. At that 
funding stream, this project could conceivably take over a decade to 
complete, and at the same inflationary formula that increased the 
project cost over the past decade, the cost of the Project could 
balloon to $528 million or more, and continue to frustrate American 
energy exports.
    I want to emphasize that overall, the Port of Corpus Christi enjoys 
an excellent working relationship with the dedicated women and men of 
the Army Corps of Engineers. They are true professionals. But 
recognizing their strained capacity to execute on projects and the 
significantly underfunded appropriations relative to Corps project 
demand is only the first step toward solving some of these issues and 
finding other solutions for success.
    I will share some brief examples of impediments we've experienced 
in recent years. These impediments included:

   Corps officials under the previous administration refusing 
        to approve the start of funding for the deepening and widening 
        of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel claiming that prior funding 
        approvals did not apply to our project. The Corps would not 
        provide any written policy guidance on this issue. In the 
        absence of written guidance, it required additional legislation 
        to reinforce the intent of Congress that the entire project 
        should move forward.

   Delays in funding the Channel Improvement Project have 
        resulted in the Corps calling for repeated economic analyses 
        because of the expiration of previous approvals. The current 
        Limited Review Report or LRR, the third for this project, was 
        completed in 2015, prior to the repeal on the ban of U.S. crude 
        exports. Another economic analysis will likely be called for 
        this year. Each time an LRR is undertaken costs the Project 
        another year or more and missed budget cycles.

   While OMB informed the Corps of the need for a separate 
        economic analysis for the deepening project element in July 
        2013, the Project Sponsor, that is the Port of Corpus Christi, 
        was not notified of this requirement until November 2014, over 
        15 months later. No explanations. No guidance. No 
        communication.

    I believe I can speak for most Ports in the Nation, and certainly 
the Port of Corpus Christi, when I share a belief that interactions 
with the Corps of Engineers work best when there is an agreement on 
project importance, greater transparency in sharing of information and 
collaborative efforts on in reaching an accord. This belief was best 
demonstrated last September when the Port of Corpus Christi and the 
Corps of Engineers executed a Project Partnership Agreement after a 
multi-day negotiation in which all parties were in the same room. Once 
provided an opportunity to share in ideas and information, we were able 
to move swiftly. It can be done.
    The time for policy and structural changes that facilitate funding 
and expedite completion of infrastructure projects across the Nation is 
upon us. The Port of Corpus Christi is ready to go on the deepening and 
widening of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. We are a good partner to 
the Federal Government. We have raised our funds. We have transferred 
$32 million dollars of our money to the Corps to accelerate contract 
one for the initial segment of the deepening and widening. We have the 
remaining $70 million dollars of our share of the Project set aside.
    Yet we are still waiting for approval of the first contract, and 
have been told it will be July before the contract will be awarded, 
nearly ten months after we were required to provide our funds. That is 
unacceptable.
    Thus, here is our suggested solution. Grant more authority for 
ports to execute on Corps construction projects. Ports are already in 
the construction and dredging business today. We are responsible for 
dredging from the federally authorized ship channels to the docks. We 
can execute on these projects much faster, and likely with less 
expense, if given the opportunity.
    The Corps should be given the ability to delegate authority to 
states and port authorities to manage certain projects. A model for 
this authority can be found in the way that the Federal Highway 
Administration grants similar authority to states to build surface 
transportation projects.
    In this construct, the Port Authority, as the non-federal project 
sponsor, can serve as construction manager for the Project. We can 
administer the contracts. The Corps can conserve resources and save 
costs through serving as a regulator and providing Federal oversight. 
We can reduce the number of contracts necessary for the Project which 
will allow the work to be completed sooner and potentially at a lower 
cost.
    The Corps should work to facilitate Assumption of Maintenance 
agreements when a Port wants to deepen a channel beyond the federally-
funded amounts. It costs much less to dredge to a deeper depth as part 
of a single operation and the national need for deeper ship channels is 
urgent.
    The Corps should also recognize ports ability to manage local real 
estate and allow for ports to take greater control of local real estate 
easements to facilitate projects. Perpetual easements should be 
extinguished and instead the use of term easements should be mandated. 
The Corps of Engineers should not exert undue influence or power over 
States land rights and potentially violate States' 10th Amendment 
Rights, as it has in our case.
    Finally, the national benefits of port infrastructure projects need 
to be given greater weight. We were often advised the costs of our 
Project made it difficult to include in a limited Corps budget, yet the 
significant national economic and geopolitical benefits of our project 
do not appear to receive similar emphasis within the Corp of Engineers.
    In closing, the Port of Corpus Christi takes very seriously its 
role serving as a trustworthy steward of the Corpus Christi Ship 
Channel and the significant economic impact to the region, the State, 
and the Nation.
    This Project will allow for billions of dollars of increased 
exports annually, boosting economic growth, create thousands of well-
paying jobs, and improving our balance of trade. It will support energy 
security for the United States and its allies. The requisite 
infrastructure improvements will also enhance the Port's ability to 
support military deployments in its role as a Military Strategic 
Seaport.
    In summary, prompt completion of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel 
Improvement Project will greatly benefit the United States. It is in 
the spirit of supporting our highest national interests that I have 
offered this testimony.
    Thank you for this opportunity to offer this statement.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                          Hon. Elaine L. Chao
    Question 1. Do you commit to providing technical assistance on the 
following provisions proposed in Administration's infrastructure 
outline in a timely fashion?

    (a) Expand the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 
Act program funding and broaden eligibility;

    (b) Expand the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
program and broaden eligibility;

    (c) Expand the qualified credit assistance and other capabilities 
for State infrastructure banks;

    (d) Create flexibility and broaden eligibility to facilitate use of 
Private Activity Bonds and any other item contained in the 
infrastructure outline under the Build America's purview; and

    (e) Improving permitting process, to the extent that such 
provisions are within DOT's jurisdiction or expertise.
    Answer. Yes. The Department will provide technical assistance to 
support the Committee's understanding of the Administration's 
Infrastructure Outline.

    Question 2. As you know, the President recently donated his fourth 
quarter salary to the DOT INFRA grant program as it directly reflects 
the priorities outlined in the President's proposal by providing for 
projects that address critical infrastructure issues facing our 
Nation's transportation system, both rural and urban. In fact, in the 
first year of the program, awards were able to leverage about five 
times as much funding available from other federal, state, local and 
private sources to support $3.6 billion in infrastructure investment. 
Can you elaborate on how we might want to better utilize this program 
and other existing programs like TIFIA and RRIF to meet the needs of a 
growing economy?
    Answer. The Infrastructure proposal describes multiple programs 
that work together to increase the amount we invest as a society into 
infrastructure. The largest of these programs is the `Incentives' 
program, at $100 billion. Designed as a discretionary grant program, 
the primary criterion that will be used to evaluate applications is how 
well the applicant leverages these dollars with non-Federal investment 
from State, local, and private sector partners. This leverage selection 
criterion was modeled after the INFRA grant program. While leveraging 
non-Federal funding is only one of a handful of selection criteria, 
INFRA awarded projects demonstrate the high-levels of non-Federal 
investment that is achievable when incentivizing project sponsors 
through competition.
    The President's plan also includes $14 billion to be made available 
for the expansion of existing credit programs to address a broader 
range of infrastructure needs, giving State and local governments 
increased opportunity to sponsor or directly finance large-scale 
infrastructure projects under terms that are more advantageous than in 
the financial market. This will also serve to increase private 
participation where it makes sense.

    Question 3. Should we be addressing the highway trust fund 
insolvency issue in the infrastructure bill? If so, how best do we go 
about filling the $138 billion cumulative shortfall expected by 2027?
    Answer. The Administration's Legislative Outline for Rebuilding 
Infrastructure in America is an outline of principles and not 
legislative text. Infrastructure and the funding for infrastructure are 
bipartisan issues and all options are on the table.
    This Administration welcomes the opportunity to work with you on 
these issues of critical importance to our country's infrastructure, so 
our economy can continue to grow and create good jobs for America's 
working families.

    Question 4. The Administration's proposal indicates that half of 
the funding would go toward a new incentives program that rewards new 
revenue streams, which could include revenue raised by state and local 
governments, new user fees, or increased use of public-private 
partnerships.

    (a) Could you provide some real-world examples of projects or 
programs of projects, and revenue streams, that you expect to be most 
competitive under this program?

    (b) Do you expect rural areas to be competitive under this program?
    Answer. $100 billion in Federal funds will go to the competitive 
Infrastructure Incentives Program grants that match up to 20 percent of 
new revenue generated by the applicant that would lead to at least $500 
billion and perhaps $800 billion in total investment. This leverage 
selection criterion was modeled after the INFRA grant program. Due to 
the overwhelming demand for the INFRA grant program, only 10 percent of 
all applicants are selected for award. We expect applicants to the new 
program will be similar to those that have applied for INFRA.
    In addition to the Incentives program grants, $50 billion will be 
available for capital investments that support projects in rural areas, 
including U.S. territories and Tribal communities.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to 
                          Hon. Elaine L. Chao
    Question. Secretary Chao, the contract tower program is a highly 
regarded partnership between FAA and industry, and has received 
bipartisan, bicameral support in Congress. In the Fiscal Year 2017 
omnibus appropriations bill, Congress mandated that FAA conduct cost-
benefit analyses for airport applicants as of January 1, 2016, as well 
as for cost share towers such as Grand Island. It's now over 10 months 
since enactment of the omnibus and these airports are still waiting to 
hear from FAA. I understand that FAA is developing an updated formula 
for the program that requires review from OMB. However, that review 
should have been completed within 60 to 90 days, which has passed. Can 
you tell me where we are at in this process, and when airports can 
expect to hear from the FAA?
    Answer. The FAA completed its benefit-cost analyses and released 
the results in early April. The language required re-evaluating towers 
in the cost-share program that had made a request by January 1, 2016. 
We have recently received additional requests for re-evaluation, and we 
are considering how to proceed.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                          Hon. Elaine L. Chao
    Question 1. I was pleased to see the rural focus of this latest 
round of TIGER grants announced this last Friday, with over 64 percent 
of the almost $500 million in awards going to rural projects. The 
announcement came with the reiteration of the Administration's proposal 
to eliminate TIGER grants, which many of my communities few as a 
possible lifeline. Under the Administration's infrastructure proposal, 
how will it replace TIGER grants in a manner that benefit projects in 
rural communities?
    Answer. The intention is that going forward there would be a more 
holistic approach to infrastructure and that the TIGER grants would be 
recast. DOT recently announced that ``Better Utilizing Investments to 
Leverage Development'' (BUILD) Transportation Discretionary Grants 
program will replace the pre-existing Transportation Investment 
Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program.
    Projects originally eligible for TIGER grants will have the 
opportunity to apply and compete for funding included in the 
Administration's Infrastructure Initiative. The proposal provides an 
additional $200 billion over the next ten years for increased Federal 
spending for merit-based transportation infrastructure projects, and 
will provide an important capability for the Department to address our 
Nation's urgent transportation infrastructure needs at the state and 
local level. The Department is open to ideas for how to best position 
future grant competitions to group applicants with similar sized 
populations into discrete pools and would welcome your ideas.
    The Administration's proposal provides significant support for 
rural areas. Most significantly, the Rural Infrastructure Formula 
program provides $40 billion in block grants to state governors to 
address the rural infrastructure needs in their state, which could 
include rural interstates. No match is required for these funds. In 
addition to the formula program, the Administration's proposal for 
Rural Performance Grants would only require a State to meet one or more 
of the criteria options below.
    In order to qualify for rural performance grants, a State would be 
required to:

   Publish a comprehensive rural infrastructure investment plan 
        (RIIP) within180 days of receiving rural formula funds. The 
        RIIP would demonstrate how the State's intended rural projects 
        align with the evaluation criteria in the infrastructure 
        incentives program, including State, local and private sector 
        investment in eligible projects.

   Demonstrate the quality of any investments planned with 
        rural performance funds.

   Demonstrate performance in leveraging formula distributions 
        with Federal credit programs and rewarding rural interstate 
        projects through the

   Infrastructure incentives program. (Note: this refers to all 
        types of eligible asset classes, not just interstate highways. 
        Also, this is intended to reflect multi-state infrastructure of 
        all types that serve regional needs rather than being focused 
        on jurisdictional boundaries, which are sometimes misaligned to 
        infrastructure investment needs.).

   Demonstrate the State's performance in utilization of Rural 
        Infrastructure Program formula funds, consistent with the RIIP 
        based on stated general criteria.

    Question 2. Alaska's unique geography and lack of transportation 
infrastructure means that my constituents rely on maritime 
transportation as a lifeline. Alaska has 33,904 miles of shoreline, 
dwarfing the entire Lower 48. Having fewer miles of paved roads than 
the state of Rhode Island, Alaska's rivers are our highways. Most of 
the 200 villages in Alaska are only accessible by air, river, or ocean. 
A majority of Alaskan communities are dependent on barge deliveries for 
food, building materials, and everyday household goods necessary to 
support life in the 21st Century. In many parts of the state, these 
deliveries occur only two or three times per year. However, even today, 
many of our communities lack reliable marine access.
    One of the biggest infrastructure gaps in the State of Alaska, in 
terms of lack of support mechanisms, is the lack of a waterfront 
program to support our rural communities. As I've stated, Alaska's 
rivers are our highways, but, unfortunately, Highway Trust Fund 
allocations are do not provide the flexibility necessary to meet the 
demands of many of my constituents. I appreciated that the 
Administration has proposed truly flexible funding for rural areas.
    Would you support the concept of a Rural Barge Landing and 
Waterfront Program with contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund 
to allow states to have the flexibility to pay the costs of planning, 
designing, engineering, and constructing of barge landings, docks, and 
other waterfront infrastructure?
    Answer. The Administration's plan is in addition to existing 
funding programs, with the goal of comprehensively addressing the 
significant infrastructure needs of our country. With $200 billion of 
direct Federal spending leading to as much as $1.5 trillion in total 
investment, all infrastructure stands to benefit significantly.
    The Administration's initiative is focused on addressing the 
country's needs across all types of core infrastructure, namely roads, 
bridges, railways, waterways, ports, water utilities, electric 
utilities, broadband, superfund cleanup sites, among others. These 
needs are so immense that all parties must contribute. The degree of 
Federal involvement in financing these types of
    Infrastructure varies widely, but is consistently the minority. The 
President's plan proposes the development of real partnership 
relationships.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                          Hon. Elaine L. Chao
    Question 1. The Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) was 
first authorized more than 50 years ago. Current projections suggest it 
will not be completed until the 2040s or later at the current rate of 
construction. The authors of that original authorization would have 
probably thought it impossible that it might take 80 years or more from 
the date of enactment to complete this vital infrastructure project. 
The ADHS is intended to better integrate and drive the economic 
development of the Appalachian region, a need that is as clear today as 
it was in 1965. Congress underscored this need in MAP-21, stating in 
the Conference Report ``that the timely completion of the Appalachian 
Development Highway System is a transportation priority in the national 
interest.'' I have and will continue to advocate that Congress must, in 
any comprehensive transportation infrastructure legislation, include 
policies to assist the states in completing the ADHS such as Corridor H 
in West Virginia.

    (a) Do you agree that completing the ADHS is ``a transportation 
priority in the national interest?''

    (b) Do you have any specific ideas on how to improve and expedite 
construction of the ADHS or other rural highway projects around the 
country, where funding is at a premium and the terrain and regulatory 
challenges can be significant?
    Answer. The Department is committed to Appalachian communities and 
the completion of the ADHS. Since the enactment of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, funding for ADHS has 
been provided from the Highway Trust Fund and apportioned to the 13 
designated Appalachian States based on an estimate to complete 3,090 
miles of ADHS. At the end of Fiscal Year 2017, approximately 490 of the 
3,090 total miles on ADHS remain to be completed; however, 
approximately 130 of these 490 miles are in stage construction and 
partially open to traffic. Overall, including the miles partially open 
to traffic, nearly 90 percent of the ADHS is currently open to traffic. 
Approximately $1 billion in unobligated ADHS funding remains available 
to these 13 States to complete the system. Additionally, States can use 
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program funds, and, in certain 
cases, National Highway Performance Program funds, for ADHS projects. 
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, also appropriated $1.98 
billion in formula funding to the States to be used for construction of 
highways, bridges, and tunnels, including designated routes of the 
Appalachian development highway system and local access roads.

    Question 2. Since joining the Senate, I have made broadband 
connectivity for my state a top priority. That is why I joined with my 
colleague Senator Klobuchar on the Streamlining and Investing in 
Broadband Infrastructure Act, that would require ``dig once'' policy 
(the practice of including a broadband conduit during construction of 
any federally funded infrastructure project) to new highway 
construction projects. It was encouraging to see the inclusion of 
similar language in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
Reauthorization bill that passed the House last week.

    (a) Will you work with us to include such streamlining policies are 
included in the Administration's infrastructure legislation?
    Answer. As part of the Infrastructure Framework, $50 billion would 
be made available for the Rural Infrastructure Program for capital 
investments in rural infrastructure. Eligible asset classes under the 
Rural Program would include broadband and other high-speed data and 
communication conduits. This Administration welcomes the opportunity to 
work with you on these issues of critical importance to our country's 
infrastructure, so our economy can continue to grow and create good 
jobs for America's working families.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to 
                          Hon. Elaine L. Chao
    State and Local Funding for Infrastructure. Secretary Chao, the 
administration's infrastructure plan calls for states and local 
communities to bear more of the costs for infrastructure by raising 
taxes and increasing private sector investment. In Florida, some 
residents are already facing the burden of increased local taxes and 
highway tolls.
    Question 1. Wouldn't your plan further increase these taxes and 
tolls on Floridians. If not, how will it impact them?
    Answer. While competitive Infrastructure Incentives Program grants 
will match up to 20 percent of new revenue for infrastructure generated 
by the applicant, the proposal is neutral concerning how applicants 
raise their share of the funding. Taxes and tolling are only two of the 
possible revenue sources an applicant may consider. Note that the 
President's proposal does not in any way change the existing matching 
requirements for the Federal-aid highway program; each state will 
continue to receive their current Highway Trust Fund dollars. The 
President's proposal is for additional funds, and we want to partner 
with state, local and private partners on this effort. It is important 
to note, however, that any plan to increase investment in critical 
infrastructure in Florida or elsewhere, regardless of the level of 
government proposing the plan or if it is proposed by the private 
sector, requires sources of funding.

    Aviation Consumer Protection: 2016 FAA Bill Provisions. Secretary 
Chao, airline passengers are fed-up with the ever-expanding array of 
fees and restrictions on airline tickets. We passed bipartisan 
legislation requiring refunds for passengers who pay for checked 
luggage and don't get it back at their destination and established a 
policy requiring airlines to seat children under 13 with a parent.
    To date, nothing has been done to implement these rules.
    Question 2. What is the status of these airline consumer protection 
rules?
    Answer. Refunding of Fees for Delayed Bag: In response to the 2016 
FAA Authorization, DOT issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
soliciting public comment and feedback on requiring airlines to refund 
fees for delayed bags on flights within, to and from the United States. 
We plan to issue the NPRM this year.
    See https://reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201804&RIN=2105-AE53. Consumers may, of course, 
seek reimbursement for damages caused by delay in the delivery of their 
baggage by filing a claim with the airline. DOT already requires 
airlines to compensate passengers for reasonable expenses that result 
due to a delay in baggage delivery. In addition, the Department 
currently requires that airlines refund fees for lost bags.
    Family Seating: I am sympathetic to the challenges families face 
when they are unable to sit together when flying. Airlines certainly 
should do everything they can to ensure the ability of a parent to sit 
with their children. The 2016 FAA Authorization required the Department 
to review U.S. airlines family seating policies and decide whether it 
is appropriate to issue a policy. We have completed our review of U.S. 
airlines family seating policies. To make sitting together easier when 
flying, the Department has now included on its website practical tips 
that families may use before, during, and after air travel.
    See https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-
protection/family-seating. The Department website also includes links 
to the family seating information of the large U.S. airlines. I believe 
that providing consumers clear and accurate information enables them to 
make better informed decisions when choosing among air transportation 
options.

    Infrastructure Proposal--Environmental Provisions. Secretary Chao, 
the administration's proposal in the infrastructure package provides 
for an expedited environmental review process for projects that are 
considered environmentally beneficial.
    Question 3. Who, under this proposal, decides whether a project is 
environmentally beneficial?
    Answer. Establishing procedures that expedite environmental or 
permitting reviews for projects that enhance the environment through 
mitigation, design, or other means would provide incentives for project 
sponsors to propose more environmentally beneficial projects. The 
Administration's proposal included two different pilot programs that 
would substitute environmentally beneficial outcomes in place of NEPA. 
The specifics for how these pilot programs would be structured varies, 
but both would include coordinating with other Federal agencies and 
seeking public involvement on the standards.

    Next Generation 9-1-1. Secretary Chao, part of the Senate 
Democratic Infrastructure Plan speaks to the need for the Federal 
Government to provide additional funding to help upgrade the Nation's 
aging 9-1-1 system and advance Next Generation 9-1-1.
    Simply put, we need to move 9-1-1 into the digital age, alongside 
consumer and public safety communications networks.
    And, according to the public safety community, Federal action in 
this space is essential--which is why Senator Klobuchar and I 
introduced a bill that would enhance Federal support--through your 
agencies' joint 9-1-1 implementation office--for states and localities 
as they move to full implementation of Next Generation 9-1-1.
    Question 4. Would you agree that it is a national priority to 
complete the upgrade to Next Generation 9-1-1, and that the Federal 
Government must be a part of this effort?
    Answer. Assisting States, Territories and Tribes in upgrading to 
Next Generation 9-1-1 is a priority of the Department. We look forward 
to working with Congress to provide technical assistance on provisions 
of your legislation. In addition, the 9-1-1 Implementation Coordination 
Office, a joint effort between the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration of the Department and the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce, 
anticipates issuing over $100M in grant awards to help deploy Next 
Generation 9-1-1 by the end of calendar year 2018. These funds, 
authorized under Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 
will assist States, Territories and Tribes in upgrading infrastructure, 
equipment and training for 911 call centers. The agencies published the 
notice of proposed rulemaking on September 21, 2017 (https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/09/21/2017-19944/911-grant-
program).
    The final grant regulation addressing public comments was recently 
cleared by the Office of Management and Budget, and the agencies expect 
to issue the rule in the very near future.

    Funding for Infrastructure. Secretary Chao, the administration 
doesn't propose any way to pay for the $200 billion infrastructure plan 
and leaves it to Congress to find ways to do so.
    Question 5. I'd like to hear from you on how you think we should 
pay for the plan.
    Answer. The Administration proposal is focused on partnering with 
Congress to address this issue. We want all funding and financing 
options to be available, as this will be the biggest challenge facing 
the infrastructure proposal.

    Aviation Consumer Protection: Wheelchairs and Scooters. Secretary 
Chao, your department has pushed back the implementation dates for 
consumer protection rules--like one requiring airlines to better report 
when they damage wheelchairs and motorized scooters. That delay has 
been so egregious that the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) recently 
sued your department to implement the rules immediately.
    Many of the people affected by this delay are veterans who gave 
almost everything to their country--and now are afraid to travel 
because the wheelchairs or scooters they rely on may show up destroyed 
when they get to their destination.
    Question 6. Why did you delay this rule, and can I get some 
commitment from you today that it will be reinstated as soon as 
possible?
    Answer. I am committed to ensuring that the air transportation 
system is accessible to everyone, recognize that accessible 
transportation is vital in maintaining independence and mobility for 
people with disabilities, and continue to think that persons with 
disabilities have the right to know which airlines best transport their 
wheelchairs or scooters and have a right to select their airline based 
on that knowledge. The Department postponed the implementation date of 
the rule on reporting of mishandled baggage and wheelchairs to January 
1, 2019, because airlines were facing challenges meeting the original 
compliance date of January 1, 2018. Inaccurate data is of little use to 
consumers. I believe that this additional time better ensures the 
accuracy of the data that will be submitted to the Department by the 
airlines. The Department intends to display the new data in its monthly 
Air Travel Consumer Report.

    Wildlife Crossings. Secretary Chao, in Florida, one of the only 
ways we've been able to prevent panthers from being killed by cars is 
to create wildlife crossings. It's such a simple concept: an underpass 
under a busy roadway, with fencing installed to guide the panthers or 
other wildlife to the safe passageway. As you can imagine, these are 
much less expensive if built during construction instead of added on 
later.
    Question 7. Can the department be more helpful in working with both 
state and Federal roadway construction projects to evaluate where 
wildlife crossings would be most effective?
    Answer. Wildlife crossing structures are planned, prioritized, 
constructed, and maintained by State transportation agencies. State 
DOTs have access to information about where the problem areas are and 
can target solutions through integration of features to prevent 
wildlife/vehicle collisions, such as wildlife crossings and/or 
installation of fences, among other solutions. Wildlife crossings are 
eligible for Federal participation as part of the mitigation for 
highway project impacts to wetlands and natural habitats where impacts 
are the result of projects funded pursuant to title 23, United States 
Code. Additionally, through the Highway Safety Improvement Program, 
States fund infrastructure improvements that address safety concerns, 
including the addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures 
to eliminate or reduce crashes involving vehicles and wildlife (23 
U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B)(xvii)).
    FHWA can and does facilitate discussions with Federal and state 
agencies as part of the NEPA process or at the program level to achieve 
safety and wildlife conservation goals in a state or region and to 
address wildlife and vehicle collisions. However, in the case of 
Florida as a NEPA-assignment state, the Florida DOT has taken on the 
Federal action agency role in these matters and is responsible for the 
project-by-project evaluation and consultation with the appropriate 
State and Federal agencies. FHWA can assist in program and policy-level 
discussions geared towards solutions to protect and preserve the 
species.

    Commercial Space Infrastructure. The Administration's 
infrastructure plan includes public-private partnership opportunities 
for commercial space projects. DOT already has authority to award 
grants for space transportation infrastructure, on a cost-share basis, 
to public entities, and expanding or funding this program could greatly 
benefit commercial space users and government users.
    Question 8. What kind of commercial space projects do you envision 
could be funded under this proposal?
    Answer. The Administration welcomes opportunities to support the 
commercial space industry. To date we are not aware of plans to 
construct a privately-owned spaceport facility. If we are approached 
with a proposal for the development of a spaceport the President's 
Infrastructure plan provides a path to support those projects. The DOT 
is also committed to reducing burdensome regulation that hampers the 
industry in spaceports that already exist.

    Scientific Integrity. The Union of Concerned Scientists recently 
sent surveys to scientists at National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration on the topic of scientific integrity. This the 
organization's ninth poll on the subject, the findings of which provide 
important insights for agency leaders and policy makers about the 
health of the scientific process within the government. The response 
rate to the current survey is uncharacteristically low.
    Question 9. Will you commit to providing guidance to Federal 
scientists that they are free to participate in such surveys, with the 
appropriate restrictions on use of government resources, in order to 
share their opinions on the conduct and communication of science at 
Federal agencies?
    Answer. NHTSA employees are free to participate in outside 
activities and to express personal opinions on their own time. This 
would include responding in their personal capacity to surveys by non-
government organizations sent to their personal e-mail addresses. 
Further, NHTSA employees routinely receive advice from agency ethics 
officials to reinforce this point. However, responding to such surveys 
using a government e-mail address would not be an appropriate use of 
government resources or of a Federal employee's position.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                          Hon. Elaine L. Chao
    Question. I am concerned about Federal transit infrastructure 
investment in Albuquerque, New Mexico's largest city. My colleagues, 
Senator Heinrich and Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham, wrote to 
you on February 23 about Small Starts Capital Investment funding for 
the Albuquerque Rapid Transit (ART) project. The Federal Transit 
Administration recommended $75 million in Small Starts funding in 2016 
and Congress has already appropriated $50 million for the project in 
FY17. However, I understand your department has not obligated the $50 
million already appropriated and has so far declined to finalize a 
grant agreement with the City. I would repeat our request that you use 
existing authority in the Department to sign a grant agreement with the 
City of Albuquerque. And further ask that you work with me to secure 
the final funding necessary to complete this project.
    Answer. The Albuquerque Rapid Transit project is currently in the 
Small Starts Project Development phase of the Federal Transit 
Administration's Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program and the 
construction grant agreement for the project is undergoing internal 
review.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                          Hon. Elaine L. Chao
    Infrastructure Integrated Asset Management. The smart cities of the 
future should better utilize existing infrastructure and invest in new 
assets to improve quality of life for its residents. Realizing this 
requires an integrated approach for the delivery of public utilities, 
safety, education, health care, and other services. However, such an 
integrated approach can pose a challenge when in most states, including 
Michigan, management of various infrastructure assets is extremely 
siloed. In my state, there are 619 separate road agencies, 79 transit 
agencies, 1,390 drinking water systems, 1,080 wastewater systems, 116 
electric utilities, and 43 broadband providers. The State of Michigan's 
21st Century Infrastructure Commission Report identified integrated 
asset management as a key recommendation for improving Michigan's 
infrastructure. The report suggests that by continually inventorying 
and assessing infrastructure conditions across sectors, state and local 
governments can get more value out of their assets over their entire 
service life, use public money more efficiently, and improve security, 
safety and public health for communities.
    Question 1. Do you agree that it is important for the Federal 
Government to support states and localities that want to invest in 
integrated asset management systems?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 2. How would a solution like this fit within President 
Trump's infrastructure proposal?
    Answer. New revenue for infrastructure can stem from a range of 
sources. This includes, but is not limited to, the individual asset 
itself. Also, the Incentives program gives significant weight for 
purposes of rating applications for new revenue committed toward 
operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation.

    Automated Vehicle/Electric Vehicle Infrastructure. I am deeply 
concerned that President Trump's infrastructure and budget proposals do 
not appear to mention or prioritize infrastructure needs of the future, 
particularly around mobility, self-driving vehicles and electric 
vehicles. This is in stark contrast to the 2016 Presidential Budget 
Request, where the Administration proposed nearly $4 billion of 
investments over 10 years to accelerate the testing of automated 
vehicles and development connected corridors.
    Next-generation self-driving vehicles will be smarter and safer 
because they will be interconnected, both with other vehicles and with 
the infrastructure. Their preferred power platforms will be electric, 
not gasoline-powered engines. We need to be thinking about re-powering 
stations, embedding sensors in our roads and bridges, and enabling 
massive amounts of data transfer. We cannot just fix the bridges of 
1950, we need to build the infrastructure for 2050.
    Secretary Chao, you have said that making sure the United States is 
prepared for eventual deployment of self-driving cars is a top priority 
for the Department of Transportation. The National Highway Traffic and 
Safety Administration is currently writing its Federal Automated 
Vehicle Policy 3.0, and the Federal Highway Administration and Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration are making sure they are also 
prepared for this future.
    Question 3. Why were these priorities of the agency not reflected 
in the White House's proposal?
    Answer. The Administration's proposal includes several major 
programs, such as the Infrastructure Incentives and Transformative 
Projects programs, that can support investments in emerging mobility 
and infrastructure technologies.
    AV integration and infrastructure upgrades could occur in parallel, 
assuming there is collaborative dialogue between the Department and the 
AV experts. The needed infrastructure upgrades are dependent upon AV's 
technical requirements and the operational requirements. To understand 
these requirements and the general infrastructure needs of AVs, the 
Department has released AV focused RFC/RFIs to gain external 
stakeholder input.
    Many of the vehicles currently available with this technology in 
the U.S. marketplace are SAE Level 1 & 2 automated vehicles. Industry 
experts speculate that Level 3 & 4 vehicles could be on the Nation's 
roads in more than a testing capacity in the next five-to-ten years. 
Level 5 vehicles could begin to be seen in perhaps in more than 10 
years. The Department needs to conduct various research efforts and 
work with industry to understand the needs of AVs from our 
infrastructure. The Department is currently identifying these needs 
from our stakeholders, in cooperation with the Department of Energy, 
and through various RFCs and RFIs. In addition, Federal Highways has 
initiated a National Dialogue on Highway Automation to get feedback 
from many different types of stakeholders around the country. Once the 
Department has gone through these exercises, we will be in a better 
position to estimate what support would be needed to accommodate AVs in 
our Nation's infrastructure.

    Question 4. Do you think the Federal Government has a role in 
making sure cities and local governments are prepared for self-driving 
car deployment on their roads?
    Answer. The Federal Government has a role to ensure that highly 
automated vehicles (self-driving cars) are integrated into our Nation's 
surface transportation system in safe manner. In September 2017, DOT 
published new voluntary guidance for the safe testing and integration 
of automated vehicles: ADS 2.0: A Vision for Safety. This guidance also 
included Best Practices for State Legislature and Highway Officials. As 
stated, the Department is already at work to develop AV 3.0. AV 3.0 
will include consideration for more than just OEMs and Technology 
developers. It will address barriers to the safe integration of 
automated technology for motor carriers, transit, trucks, 
infrastructure owner and operators and other modes. The Department will 
update this guidance as often as needed. That's part of our commitment 
to streamline the process, to keep pace with innovation and provide 
guidance and consideration to States and Localities across the Nation 
to prepare them for the rapid integration of AVs in our Nation's 
roadways.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to 
                          Hon. Elaine L. Chao
    Question 1. The President's Legislative Outline for Rebuilding 
Infrastructure in America states, ``The infrastructure incentive 
program. . .would encourage increased State, local, and private 
investment in infrastructure.'' A June 3, 2018 New York Times headline 
said, ``Trump Plans to Shift Infrastructure Funding to Cities, States, 
Businesses.'' In response to my question about the lack of Buy America 
references in the President's proposal, you cited the ``prevailing 
authority'' of the Buy American Executive Order that ``impacts every 
department in the government.'' That order applies only to the 
Executive Branch and Federal departments. Given that the President's 
plan will shift infrastructure spending to states, local governments, 
and private organizations, please explain how this ``prevailing 
authority'' will be imposed on non-federal entities that will be 
building infrastructure directly under the President's plan.
    Answer. As stated in Executive Order 13788, it is the policy of the 
Executive Branch to buy American and hire American. If non-Federal 
entities are building infrastructure directly under the President's 
plan, and those programs are subject to Buy America requirements 
established by the Congress, then such requirements will apply to those 
projects.

    Question 2. Page 22 of the President's infrastructure plan calls 
for, ``amending titles 23 and 49 to provide targeted flexibility 
pertaining to the application of Federal requirements.'' Can you 
confirm that the amendments called for in this section will not change 
existing Buy America provisions in titles 23 and 49? Please describe 
what amendments will be made to titles 23 and 49 in order to provide 
the flexibility called for on page 22.
    Answer. The Administration's proposal does not specify which 
Federal requirements would be streamlined under titles 23 and 49 where 
the Federal funding share is de minimis. The Administration would like 
to partner with the Congress to identify areas where flexibility should 
be provided to ensure efficient and timely delivery of projects.

    Question 3. Page 27 of the President's infrastructure plan calls 
for, ``amending the law to prove targeted flexibility pertaining to the 
application of Federal requirements.'' Can you confirm that the 
amendments called for in this section will not change existing Buy 
America provisions in law? What amendments will the plan call for?
    Answer. On April 18, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 
13788, Buy American and Hire American, to ensure that Federal 
procurement and Federal assistance awards maximize the use of goods, 
products, and materials produced in the United States, including iron, 
steel, and manufactured goods. The Executive Order required all Federal 
agencies to assess the compliance with existing Buy American laws and 
to develop and propose policies to strengthen Buy America 
implementation and compliance.
    DOT is committed to enforcing Buy America laws and ensuring that 
domestic content is maximized. The Administration is open to working 
with the Congress to ensure that Buy America provisions adequately 
support domestic manufacturing.

    Question 4. On pages 21-22, and 27 of the President's 
infrastructure plan proposes the flexibility of the requirements 
mentioned above below a `de minimis' threshold. This threshold is set 
for both transportation and water infrastructure projects. Please 
provide the dollar figure the Administration proposes for this 
threshold.
    Answer. As stated in the President's infrastructure plan, the use 
of Federal funds triggers the application of Federal requirements 
adding both time and costs which can discourage infrastructure 
investments by State and local entities and private investors. These 
requirements apply regardless of the amount of Federal funding that is 
actually used. Therefore, the infrastructure plan proposed to establish 
a `de minimis'' threshold under which targeted flexibility pertaining 
to the application of Federal requirements would be afforded to the 
project sponsor. The President's infrastructure plan did not establish 
a dollar threshold or identify specific requirements for which 
flexibility would be afforded. We look forward to working with you and 
other member of Congress to determine what the appropriate requirements 
and cost threshold should be.

    Question 5. The President's plan describes a Rural Infrastructure 
Program. The plan proposes a new formula grant program to distribute to 
state governors. Can you confirm that the block grants provided to 
state governors under this program will be subject to Buy America 
requirements? In White House materials released with the plan, the 
program is justified by saying '' we want to empower States and 
localities to invest in the projects they want, without being burdened 
by the Federal Government's red tape and bureaucracy which impede 
creativity, add costs, and slows [sic] down the process.'' Can you 
describe what Federal requirements states will be allowed to waive 
under the Rural Infrastructure Program?
    Answer. The Administration's proposal does not specify which 
Federal requirements would apply to the new Rural Infrastructure 
Program. However, as stated in Executive Order 13788, it is the policy 
of the Executive Branch to buy American and hire American. The 
Administration would like to work with the Congress on this issue.

    Question 6. After trains carrying hazardous materials derailed in 
Wisconsin, I worked to include reforms that improve safety, 
transparency and communication between railroads, local first 
responders and the communities they serve in the Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation Act. The bill was signed into law more than two 
years ago, yet a number of these initiatives are still pending at the 
Department of Transportation.
    Please provide me with the status of each of rail safety provision 
below, as well as an anticipated date of implementation.

  a.  Section 7302: Real-Time Emergency Response Information

  b.  Section 7302: Phase-Out of Tank Cars Used to Transport Class 3 
        Flammable Liquids

  c.  Section 7307: Rulemaking on Oil Spill Response Plan

  d.  Section 7301: Hazardous Materials Rail Liability Study

    Answer.
    a. Section 7302: Real-Time Emergency Response Information
    Real-time Emergency Response Information (Sec. 7302)--On January 
19, 2017, PHMSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(ANPRM) titled ``Hazardous Materials: FAST Act Requirements for Real-
Time Train Consist Information by Rail'' [82 FR 6451] to solicit 
information related to the generation of accurate, real-time, and 
electronic train consist information and the provision of such 
information to fusion centers that would be shared with State and local 
first responders, emergency response officials, and law enforcement 
personnel during an accident. The comment period closed April 19, 2017.
    Anticipated Date of Implementation: To be determined. PHMSA is 
continuing to evaluate comments received to decide on next steps.

    b. Section 7304: Phase-Out of Tank Cars Used to Transport Class 3 
Flammable Liquids
    Phase-Out of Tank Cars Used to Transport Class 3 Flammable Liquids 
(Sec. 7304)--On August 15, 2016, PHMSA published a Final Rule titled 
``Hazardous Materials: FAST Act Requirements for Flammable Liquids and 
Rail Tank Cars'' [81 FR 53935] to codify in the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations certain mandates and minimum requirements of the FAST Act. 
Specifically, the FAST Act mandates a revised phase-out schedule for 
all DOT Specification 111 tank cars used to transport unrefined 
petroleum products (e.g., petroleum crude oil), ethanol, and other 
Class 3 flammable liquids. The FAST Act also requires that each tank 
car built to meet DOT Specification 117 and each non-jacketed tank car 
retrofitted to meet DOT Specification 117R be equipped with a thermal 
protection blanket that is at least 1/2-inch thick and meets existing 
thermal protection standards. Further, the FAST Act mandates minimum 
top fittings protection requirements for tank cars retrofitted to meet 
DOT Specification 117R.
    Anticipated Date of Implementation: Completed.

    c. Section 7307: Rulemaking on Oil Spill Response Plans
    Rulemaking on Oil Spill Response Plans (Sec. 7307)--PHMSA submitted 
the rulemaking to the Office of the Secretary on June 8, 2018. PHMSA 
expects to submit the rulemaking to OMB by August 13, 2018, and expects 
to publish by November 22, 2018. The Department will continue to 
communicate to Congress every 90 days, as required by the FAST Act, 
until the final rule is promulgated.
    Anticipated Date of Implementation: November 22, 2018.

    d. Section 7310: Hazardous Materials Rail Liability Study
    Hazardous Materials by Rail Liability Study (Sec. 7310)--A PHMSA-
initiated study of the levels and structure of insurance for railroads 
transporting hazardous materials is complete, and was submitted to 
Congress on November 30, 2017.
    Anticipated Date of Implementation: Completed.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                         to Hon. Elaine L. Chao
    Credit for Local Revenue. In Nevada, we have already undertaken the 
kind of revenue generation in recent years to establish a greater 
availability of funds to help rebuild and expand our local 
infrastructure in places like Clark and Washoe counties. The ``look-
back'' provision on pages four and five of your proposal are not clear. 
To ensure I understand it, you say ``the lead Federal agency would have 
sole discretion to provide credit for previous revenue generation.''
    Question 1. Who will be determining what's given credit for 
transportation projects?
    Answer. The Lead Federal Agency. The lead Federal agency would have 
sole discretion to provide credit for previous revenue generation. The 
agency could request additional information from a project sponsor to 
clarify how the revenue source has met expectations and revise 
forecasts to reflect actual performance. The amount of funds dedicated 
to the look-back would not exceed 5 percent of the total amount for the 
Incentives Program.

    Question 2. Please explain in detail what credit Nevada will 
receive for the new revenue they continue to collect for raising their 
gas taxes, within the Incentives Program, under your proposal.
    Answer. The Incentives Program of the proposal contains a ``Look-
Back'' provision that gives credit for revenue generated over a three-
year period prior to the project application. This is specifically 
meant to address revenue raised prior to enactment of new legislation. 
We understand that some voters and legislators have already made the 
hard choice about raising revenue to address their infrastructure 
needs.
    Overall, the Incentives Program is intended to encourage new 
sources of revenue to address the country's significant infrastructure 
needs. The look-back period would be defined as the time preceding the 
project sponsor's completed application during which the new revenue 
generation was implemented. Subsequent applications in later years 
would add such additional time to the time after enactment of the 
program. The look-back period would be three years before the date of 
application to the program, and the determination would be made based 
on the implementation date (or take effect date) of the new revenue 
source. In evaluating applications, the project sponsor's new revenue 
application score would be multiplied by a relevant multiplier to 
determine scoring.

    Proposal Modeling/Analysis. During the hearing I asked you to 
provide me with any modeling or scholarly analysis on how exactly you 
have reached the $1.5 trillion estimate in activity from $200 billion 
in Federal funding investment. I asked because I have seen analysis 
that doesn't prove the Administration's promise by a long shot. In 
addition, within certain aspects of the proposal, there is no match 
required and so this grandiose figure appears to be predominantly 
reliant on the performance of the Incentives program and the already 
existing financing programs.
    Question 3. I have not yet received this information yet, can you 
please provide me some form of research that shows, behind general 
estimates of what certain programs are capable of, real analysis that 
there is enough newly generated local revenues and capacity to actually 
result in $1.5 billion net cumulative investment nationwide?
    Answer. $100 billion in Federal funds will go to the competitive 
Infrastructure Incentives Program grants that match up to 20 percent of 
new revenue generated by the applicant, that would lead to at least 
$500 billion and perhaps $800 billion in total investment. $50 billion 
will be available for capital investments that support projects in 
rural areas, including U.S. territories and Tribal communities, and $20 
billion will provide competitive funding for transformative 
technologies and techniques. This $70 billion, with the Federal 
Government picking up between 30 and 100 percent of project costs, can 
leverage about $20 to $30 billion, so totals almost $100 billion. $14 
billion will be used to expand the capacity of existing Federal 
infrastructure credit programs which have significant multipliers of 
the Federal investment. One of the credit programs, the Transportation 
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, has achieved a 
leverage ratio of 40-to-1. Assuming a slightly smaller ratio could add 
another $500 billion in total investment. Allocating $6 billion to 
broaden the use of private activity bonds can generate another $100 
billion, bringing the total investment to well over $1 trillion. The 
final $10 billion will be used to establish a Federal Capital Financing 
Fund for the purchase of real property. These figures also ignore the 
millions of dollars we believe will be saved by our reforms to Federal 
review and permitting, which increases the impact of our proposal even 
further.

    Question 4. Within that analysis, have you factored in states and 
communities who prohibit tolling and other private sector leveraging in 
infrastructure?
    Answer. We recognize that private investment won't always make 
sense for every type of project in every state. That is why the 
Infrastructure Initiative includes a robust Federal funding program for 
infrastructure in both urban and rural areas. Additionally, it is the 
intent of the infrastructure incentives program to attract rural 
focused investors by rewarding rural multi-state projects and unlock 
further financial support through rural performance grants for states 
that demonstrate performance in many outcomes areas, including 
leveraging formula distributions with Federal credit programs.
    One form of private investment, public-private partnerships, or 
P3s, are about much more than toll roads. They have also proven 
successful for projects that are non-tolled or otherwise have 
insufficient or uncertain project-related revenue streams.
    Availability payments are a way to support non-tolled or tolled 
projects. Under this model, the private partner receives scheduled 
payments from the project sponsor over the period of the contract. The 
source of these payments can be either taxes or road user charges. 
Usually the payments are tied to completing construction milestones or 
for meeting operations and maintenance performance standards.
    This type of arrangement can work just as well in rural areas as in 
urban areas. In recent years, rural P3 projects in Ohio, Indiana, and 
Pennsylvania have all used availability payments.

    Question 5. Also within this information, can you confirm that it's 
factored in various state and local limitations on public-private 
partnerships, and yet assures that each state will be able to have 
their own equivalent chance at utilizing the investments promised in 
your proposal?
    Answer. See response above.

    Question 6. Can you also please provide evidence that the analysis 
does not quantify the acceleration or development of already funded 
projects through your ``permitting improvements'' as associated with 
your stated promise of $1.5 trillion in infrastructure activity?
    Answer. The Administration's plan is in addition to existing 
funding programs, with the goal of comprehensively addressing the 
significant infrastructure needs of our country. With $200 billion of 
direct Federal spending leading to as much as $1.5 trillion in total 
investment, all infrastructure stands to benefit significantly. The 
$1.5 trillion does not include permitting improvements. However, we are 
confident that permitting improvements, which are designed to improve 
the predictability and transparency of the project development process, 
would stimulate additional activity.

    Question 7. Autonomous Vehicles. We are rapidly developing 
autonomous vehicle technology, so what are the plans for handling 
liability for autonomous vehicles, and when will the public learn about 
how autonomous vehicles will be owned, operated, and insured?
    Answer. As it is today, similarly in the future, we anticipate 
insurance and liability of Automated Vehicles (AVs) will be under the 
States' jurisdiction. In general, we suspect that the existing 
liability and insurance frameworks are resilient and adaptable to 
future scenarios where AVs coexist with non-AVs. We believe the 
insurance and liability industry is watching these trends very closely 
and we suspect they will evolve their frameworks as technology evolves.

    Stakeholder Engagement--Overriding local law. I'm concerned about 
various elements of this proposal, for example, in my conversations 
with local transportation stakeholders, they noted that quote ``Many of 
the requirements and changes [in the proposal] would probably require 
extensive and difficult revisions to state laws for the Regional 
Transportation Commission to fully utilize them. Examples: tolling and 
use of toll revenues, transit-related value capture, etc.
    Question 8. How will this proposal avoid infringing on local laws 
in Nevada?
    Answer. The plan is not prescriptive, and States and local 
governments will make their own decisions concerning how they will 
raise their funding. States and municipalities are better equipped to 
judge what will work in their own jurisdictions.

    Question 9. Do you have infrastructure stakeholder support, like 
that of labor unions, state DOTs, or transit agencies that indicated 
others do not have these same concerns?
    Answer. DOT engages in an ongoing dialogue with all of our 
stakeholders to discuss and address transportation challenges. This 
process provides a forum for us to effectively receive their concerns 
and for us to work with them to address their concerns.

    Bi-Partisanship on Infrastructure. The Administration has said it 
is seeking a bipartisan bill from Congress. As we discussed during the 
hearing, I couldn't agree more that this is our goal.
    The Administration is interested in the views of all stakeholders 
and all Committee members. While we proposed Principles, it will be 
Congress that drafts the legislation, and that legislation will require 
bi-partisan support for passage. We want to work with you and seek your 
ideas, particularly on funding.
    Question 10. Did you and the White House bring in broad Democratic 
members of Congress, or at other levels, to get their input before you 
issued this proposal?
    Answer. In response to its Infrastructure Federal Register Notice 
requesting suggestions for inclusion in the Administration's 
Infrastructure proposal, the Department received hundreds of comments 
from a broad spectrum of organizations and individuals reflecting a 
diversity of practical and political approaches. All of the comments 
were carefully evaluated for inclusion in the Administration's 
Infrastructure proposal.

    Safety as a Priority. In reviewing the Administration's 
infrastructure proposal there were only five scattered and random 
references to safety within the 55 pages, and nothing specifically in 
funding or commitments to help raise the bar of safety for operations 
like what was discussed in the hearing. We have concerns over rising 
injuries and fatalities on our roadways, the lack of live saving 
technologies like positive train control for our rail commuters, and 
the need to assist with various other Federal safety mandates.
    Question 11. Can you describe where safety ranks in the 
Administration's priorities?
    Answer. The safety of the traveling public across all modes of 
transportation is the number one priority of the Department of 
Transportation. That is why our failing infrastructure is of such a 
concern, and one we are addressing with the President's call for $1.5 
trillion in infrastructure repair and rebuilding investments, which 
leads to improved safety.

    Question 12. Please describe in detail where you think this safety 
priority could best be addressed with in the Administration's current 
proposal.
    Answer. Protecting the safety of the traveling public is a core 
principle that is built into every aspect of our approach to the 
infrastructure investments proposed by the Administration. As good 
stewards of public funds, our focus is always centered on the needs of 
all Americans, and particularly on public safety.

    Reconciling aspects of the plan. The rural definition that is used 
is ``rural areas with populations of less than 50,000.
    Question 13. What is your definition of an ``area'', or can we 
assume that is to mean the population of one specific community?
    Answer. The rural infrastructure program will provide formula funds 
and rural performance block grants to be used for core infrastructure 
projects in rural areas with a population of less than 50,000, as 
defined by the U.S. Census. Rural areas often suffer from diminished 
transportation options due to their small size, which can mean a poor 
condition of the roads, reduced reach of rail and air routes, and lack 
of access to broadband.

    Question 14. Because then you are saying that the Administration 
says that the capital of my great state, Carson City, estimated 
population 54,500 (2015), that they won't then qualify for the ``free'' 
Federal rural funding, and that it has to make its appeal to the 
complicated and capital intensive Incentives Program, and only when 
they raise new revenue?
    I ask this, not because I don't appreciate the commitment you've 
show to rural America, but because of the concern I have of how you're 
upending the current Federal transportation model for many communities 
in all of our states--that wouldn't likely have private sector 
interest, or in the case of Nevada, can't toll.
    Answer. The President's Infrastructure proposal does not upend 
current transportation programs nor in any way change the existing 
matching requirements for the Federal-aid highway program; each state 
will continue to receive their current Highway Trust Fund dollars. What 
it does do is create a new program and opportunity for the very rural 
areas of States under which $50 billion will be invested in the types 
of assets communities larger than 50,000 often have but rural areas 
lack, such as broadband or access to rail and air transportation.

    Question 15. Is it the Administration's position that only rural 
areas deserve this kind of no strings support from the Federal 
Government, or in your words shouldn't be required to have ``skin in 
the game''?
    Answer. The formula funds and performance grants to States for 
rural infrastructure projects under the Infrastructure proposal are 
designed to incentivize States, such as Nevada, to partner with local 
and private investment on rural infrastructure projects. It anticipates 
State involvement to close investment gaps in the rural areas of the 
State.

    Question 16. By structuring your proposal this way, aren't you 
really just pitting areas of a state or country against one another?
    Answer. The Infrastructure proposal is an incentives program that 
is designed to be competitive on all levels in order to maximize the 
efficient use of funds to achieve measurable outcomes. We need to 
reevaluate and redefine how Federal dollars are spent and challenge 
recipients to be cost-effective and focused on efficient delivery of 
infrastructure.

    Transit Investments. While transit is technically a Senate Banking 
Committee issue, for which I am a member, I have to raise an important 
Virginia Ave bus-rapid transit project being developed in Washoe 
County--where growth and other challenges have created the need for 
additional reliable transportation options.
    Question 17. I understand you don't support the continuation of the 
Capital Investment Grant program, or ``new starts,'' but will the 
Administration execute the new start and small starts grant agreements 
to which Congress appropriate funds?
    Answer. The Department will continue to implement the Capital 
Investment Grant program in accordance with program provisions as 
authorized by statute. As it applies to appropriation bills, the 
Department will allocate appropriated Capital Investment Grants funding 
in accordance with enacted bill language. As proposed projects become 
ready for a funding agreement commitment, FTA will review current and 
future year funding resources, coordinate with project sponsors, and 
determine appropriate next steps. Since January 2017, the 
Administration has signed 10 CIG grant agreements throughout the 
Nation.

    Question 18. In my opinion, you can't accomplish many of the stated 
goals you are talked about at the hearing, and move our economy 
forward, without continued support for various transit options in much 
of the country.
    I get the sense from the Administration's two budgets, and your 
proposal plan, that these projects may not be of as high of a priority, 
is that fair to say?
    Answer. Public transit will continue to play an important role in 
the future of our Nation's infrastructure and the Administration 
supports transit options in Washoe County as well as Federal funding 
for transit across the country. The Department provides more than $12 
billion annually in funding for transit systems and under the 
President's Infrastructure Initiative, transit projects will be able to 
compete with every other mode of transportation for additional funding.

    Question 19. How do you expect local communities to go from a 50 
percent Federal partner on projects like this, down to a 20 percent 
private profit driven model?
    Answer. By law, New Starts projects are limited to a maximum CIG 
program share of 51 percent, and Core Capacity and Small Starts 
projects are limited to a maximum CIG program share of 80 percent. 
However, these are competitive programs and the Federal program share 
is often considerably less than those maximums.

    Question 20. The requirement for value capture financing to receive 
transit ``New Starts'' is vague.
    Is value capture required to provide all local revenues, or just a 
portion?
    Answer. Value capture strategies include creation of revenue 
streams that contribute to the non-federal share of project costs as 
well as private participation in the construction, operation and 
maintenance of transit facilities. Most value capture strategies are 
local matters. Revenue generated from value capture financing 
mechanisms may be used as local match for CIG capital projects and 
operating costs. Some examples of value capture strategies for transit 
could include tax increment financing, special assessments, and joint 
development.

    Question 21. Depending on what types of value capture are 
acceptable, this might disrupt how local or regional agencies fund 
major new transit investments.
    Is it fair to asses then that this Administration doesn't believe 
in the current model for Federal support in our Nation's transit 
systems?
    Answer. Value capture can take many forms, and can be implemented 
by public agencies for the public benefit rather than private profit. 
Value capture is by no means the only method of funding transit 
projects but if done well, value capture strategies optimize the 
benefits for both the public and private sectors.
    Many transit agencies already undertake activities that FTA would 
consider value capture and FTA encourages the use of value capture 
strategies that contribute to the operation, maintenance, or expansion 
of public transportation services.

    Project Permitting. There appears to be a discrepancy in some of 
what the Administration's proposal does on permitting. You have stated 
in hearings that elements of the FAST Act only impacted NEPA, and not 
broader permitting for projects. I am an ardent supporter of 
environmental protection policies like NEPA that protect not only the 
land and air, but real people. And as I read title 41 of the FAST Act, 
it does make reference to broader permitting issues.
    Question 22. Can you clarify whether it's your position that there 
isn't broader permitting reform included in the FAST Act?
    Answer. Title 41 of the FAST Act provides a coordinated 
environmental review process for both NEPA and other Federal 
authorizations for covered projects. Similarly, Title I of the FAST 
Act, amended the provisions of 23 USC 139 which also provided for a 
coordinated environmental review for NEPA and Federal authorizations. 
Although there were project improvements in the FAST Act, these reforms 
are not enough to reduce environmental review and authorization 
decision delays. The reforms in both MAP21 and the FAST Act do not 
address the underlying redundancies and inefficiencies stemming from 
multiple Federal agencies making decisions. We need to eliminate the 
redundant administrative procedures while ensuring the underlying 
environmental protections.

    Question 23. You mentioned during the hearing how the USDOT has 
recently completed, and is near completion, of all of the MAP-21 and 
FAST Act permitting provisions. So that I am clear, there still hasn't 
been one complete construction season so far since all of these 
improvements have gone into effect, correct?
    Answer. A number of years have passed since MAP21 and the FAST Act 
have been implemented. The project delivery process is not dependent on 
construction seasons but rather on the environmental review and 
permitting processes that occur prior to construction. Although there 
have been project improvements with these reforms, they are not enough 
to reduce environmental review and authorization decisions to meet the 
Administration's goal of 2 years for environmental review and ensure 
authorization decisions, including permitting, are issued no later than 
90 days after the completion of the environmental review.

    Question 24. Is it the Administration's position that the 
significant reforms included in the 2012 [MAP21] and 2015 [FAST Act] 
transportation reauthorizations have been effectively implemented for a 
long enough period of time to necessitate a massive overhaul that takes 
up 15 pages of your proposal?
    Answer. The recent reforms have been implemented, but we know that 
they are not enough. The reforms do not address the underlying 
redundancies and inefficiencies stemming from multiple Federal agencies 
making decisions. We need to eliminate redundant administrative 
procedures while ensuring the underlying environmental protections. 
These reforms may reduce project timelines but they will not be enough 
to reduce timelines to meet the Administration's goal of 2 years for 
environmental reviews and ensure authorization decisions, including 
permitting, are issued no later than 90 days after the completion of 
the environmental review. The Infrastructure Initiative targets these 
inefficiencies that can unnecessarily delay the environmental review 
and permitting process for major infrastructure projects.

    Question 25. So is it fair to say, that your comments on 
streamlining and the ones the President cites of transportation 
projects often taking 10 years are not indicative of a reality given 
that permitting changes are just going into effect?
    Answer. The recent reforms have been implemented, but we know that 
they are not enough to achieve a 2-year time-frame under Executive 
Order 13807 and the Infrastructure Initiative. Although MAP21 and FAST 
Act address some inefficiencies, they do not address the underlying 
redundancies and inefficiencies stemming from multiple Federal agencies 
making decisions. We need to eliminate redundant administrative 
procedures while ensuring the underlying environmental protections. A 
wide variety of agencies are responsible for environmental laws and 
regulations, meaning that project sponsors must potentially work with a 
large number of Federal agencies to complete numerous environmental 
documents and advance a single project. In addition, how these 
environmental laws and regulations are applied can be inconsistent and 
unpredictable across regions and time frames. Often these reviews are 
done in succession with similar analysis and can require reexamination 
of past analysis and re-initiation. There are opportunities to align 
and synchronize environmental review and permitting processes.

    Question 26. Is permitting the only thing that slows down projects 
in America?
    Answer. There are many factors that can delay project delivery, 
including lack of funding, local opposition, and the complexity of a 
project. However, one of these factors--the inefficiency of the Federal 
environmental review and permitting process is the Federal Government's 
responsibility and if we can improve the process, while still 
protecting the environment, we should.
    The current environmental review and permitting process is complex 
and project sponsors can find it difficult to understand which 
requirements apply to their projects. A wide variety of agencies are 
responsible for environmental laws and regulations, meaning that 
project sponsors must potentially work with a large number of Federal 
agencies to complete numerous environmental documents and advance a 
single project. In addition, how these environmental laws and 
regulations are applied can be inconsistent and unpredictable across 
regions and time frames. Often these reviews are done in succession 
with similar analysis and can require reexamination of past analysis 
and re-initiation. There are opportunities to align and synchronize 
environmental review and permitting processes. We look to ensure that 
the Federal Government is positioned to complete its process within two 
years for those projects a project sponsor is committed to pursuing.

    Question 27. How does this compare to projects ending up taking 
longer because of the uncertainty of funding available?
    Answer. Project delays can be attributed to a number of factors 
including uncertainty of funding. For large complex projects, there are 
probably a number of different factors attributed to the long 
timeframe. We don't have data on how much a project is slowed down due 
to permitting vs. other reasons. What we do know is that the average 
time frame for a Federal agency to complete an EIS is between 4.6 to 
5.1 years and this does not include the average time for permitting 
which can add several months to years and this can be improved by 
addressing the redundancies.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                          Hon. Wilbur L. Ross
    Question 1. Do you commit to providing technical assistance on the 
transformative program proposed in Administration's infrastructure 
outline in a timely fashion?
    Answer. Yes. The Department stands ready to assist with technical 
drafting assistance as needed.

    Question 2. The Administration's proposal includes a program for 
transformative projects. Could you elaborate on what types of projects 
are envisioned for this program and how the Commerce Department would 
work across agencies to oversee the program? In particular, how would 
the Commerce Department provide technical assistance to qualified 
projects?
    Answer. The President's infrastructure plan calls for a committee 
of Federal agency representatives, chaired by the Secretary of 
Commerce, to implement the Transformative Projects Program. To this 
end, the Department of Commerce would administer $20 billion in Federal 
funding to spur competition around bold, innovative, and truly 
transformative infrastructure projects that could dramatically improve 
future infrastructure, become self-sustaining without Federal support, 
and have a significant impact on the nation, a region, state or 
metropolitan area. Funding will be available under three options 
(demonstration, project planning, capital construction) designed to 
support three distinct project lifecycle phases. Sectors covered by the 
program could include, but would not be limited to, transportation, 
clean drinking water, energy, commercial space, and broadband. When it 
comes to transformative projects, Commerce is prepared with many ideas:

   smart cities and improved satellite capabilities to deliver 
        broadband and deploy 5G wireless technologies;

   uses of augmented reality to improve city congestion;

   3-D printing of construction materials; and

   commercial spaceports, robotics, and projects to spur on 
        industries of the future.

    Under the leadership of the Secretary of Commerce, an interagency 
committee would evaluate and make determinations on priority projects. 
This would enable Commerce to pull from various areas of expertise 
including transportation, energy, technology transfer, 
telecommunications, and more. Working with the interagency committee to 
oversee the program would also facilitate coordination with existing 
grant programs and efforts to supplement other elements of the 
President's broader infrastructure plan.
    Commerce would provide technical assistance to applicable projects 
by: providing useful economic and data analyses conducted by the Bureau 
of Economic Analysis and the Office of the Under Secretary for Economic 
Affairs; harnessing existing personnel, resources, and expertise for 
implementing projects; establishing new training programs focused on 
project planning; reviewing milestones; leveraging private capital; 
working with state and local governments; and, incorporating 
transformative elements into traditional infrastructure projects.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to 
                          Hon. Wilbur L. Ross
    Question 1. Mr. Ross, would you agree that broadband connectivity 
is a critical component to our 21st century infrastructure in the 
United States?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 2. From your posture, if an infrastructure plan provides 
block grants funds on a state-by-state basis, is there a possibility 
that some states could choose not to invest in broadband deployment?
    Answer. The bulk of dollars in the Rural Infrastructure Program 
will be allocated to state governors, giving states the flexibility to 
prioritize their communities' needs. Funds awarded to state and local 
authorities, through the Rural Infrastructure or Incentives Programs, 
will be allocated to infrastructure projects they prioritize.

    Question 3. Wouldn't this especially be the case in rural areas, 
where population densities may not be large enough to justify 
deployment costs?
    Answer. Funds made available to states under the Rural 
Infrastructure Program could include distributed block grants 
conditioned for rural areas with populations of less than 50,000. The 
program specifically makes funds available for projects in areas where 
the population density would not normally support significant private-
sector or government infrastructure investment. Such projects could 
include broadband, communication conduits and other infrastructure.

    Question 4. What are the accountable ways in which such 
infrastructure policy can maintain flexibility for states, while still 
ensuring that broadband deployment--particularly in the rural areas 
that need it most--cannot be ignored?
    Answer. The majority of the funds in the Rural Infrastructure 
Program are distributed with accountability requirements. 80 percent of 
the funds under the Rural Infrastructure Program would be provided to 
the governor of each state via formula distribution. 20 percent of the 
funds under the Rural Infrastructure Program would be reserved for 
rural performance grants within eligible asset classes and according to 
specified criteria.
    Formula grants are not blank checks. The Federal Government still 
oversees such grants to ensure they are spent in accordance with the 
law, including the government-wide rules applicable to grants. 
Accountability is a priority in this Administration, and performance 
metrics and reporting would also be required by the states, to indicate 
that the formula grants were spent in rural communities in ways that 
benefited their economies and quality of life. Further drafting 
regarding the broadband asset class can highlight its importance in 
those formula grants. The Department of Commerce looks forward to 
working with Congress to ensure that statutory language is included in 
any infrastructure legislation that maintains flexibility for states 
while ensuring that low-populated and rural areas are not forgotten. 
Modernizing infrastructure and connectivity is especially important in 
rural and low-income areas and continues to be a priority of the 
Administration.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to 
                          Hon. Wilbur L. Ross
    Backup Hurricane Hunter Aircraft. Secretary Ross, it's not an 
infrastructure question, but it's just as important as hurricane season 
will soon be upon us. Last year, you committed that if NOAA's 
Gulfstream Hurricane Hunter aircraft jet was not reliable, you would 
seek to get a backup immediately.
    The fact is, this aircraft is simply not reliable. It was grounded 
in 2016 and then again in 2017 during the busiest Atlantic hurricane 
season in history. The Weather Act requires a backup for the jet.

    Question 1. When are we going to see action on this?
    Answer. NOAA's Gulfstream IV Hurricane Hunter remains reliable and 
continued to be operational in 2018. We are diligently working on 
acquiring the replacement high-altitude jet that Congress funded in the 
FY 2018 appropriations bill. I will make sure that NOAA updates you on 
that acquisition.

    Broadband. Secretary Ross, I frequently hear from Floridians about 
the importance of broadband. Broadband is now essential to full 
participation in today's economy and society.
    Doing this work right depends on knowing where broadband is 
currently deployed and where the unserved and underserved areas are. 
This issue came up repeatedly in our telecom subcommittee hearing 
yesterday.

    Question 2. Would you agree that better mapping is essential to 
properly targeting broadband support? Do you believe NTIA and the FCC 
can work together to solve this mapping problem?
    Answer. Accurate, updated, and accessible broadband availability 
data helps policymakers to make informed decisions regarding broadband 
infrastructure development. The National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) aims to collect such data for 
informing policy decisions through its National Broadband Availability 
Map program. The program will improve data quality through the use of 
multiple data sources and validation, which is helpful in rural areas 
where broadband deployment is not ubiquitous. The Consolidated 
Appropriations Act provided $7.5 million to NTIA for this effort in 
FY19. NTIA is working with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 
the Department of Agriculture, and other Federal agencies to better 
assess broadband availability using existing data.
    We also issued a public Request for Comment to solicit ideas for 
improving broadband availability data. We received more than 50 
comments from a variety of stakeholders.
    Congress also directed us to build on our previous mapping 
experience and the relationships we have made to update the national 
broadband availability map. We have also announced that we are 
collaborating with an initial eight states--California, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West 
Virginia. These states will provide data and other inputs to the map so 
that policymakers around the country can make better decisions as they 
devise broadband expansion plans. Each of these states participate in 
NTIA's State Broadband Leaders Network, which formed out of NTIA's last 
foray into mapping, and is made up of officials from around the country 
who are working to expand broadband in their communities. We also 
looked for geographic diversity and states that had active state 
broadband plans or programs.
    The initial map will include available nationwide data for every 
state combined with state-level data from the eight states. We also 
have been listening to telecommunications associations, as well as 
rural and tribal associations about their ideas to improve broadband 
data. We look forward to working with them as we continue to improve 
the data available in the map. In the future, NTIA will seek 
participation and data from additional states, territories, federally 
recognized tribes, as well as the broadband industry and other third-
parties to expand the value of the map to policymakers around the 
country.

    Next Generation 9-1-1. Secretaries Chao and Ross, part of the 
Senate Democratic Infrastructure Plan speaks to the need for the 
Federal Government to provide additional funding to help upgrade the 
Nation's aging 9-1-1 system and advance Next Generation 9-1-1.
    Simply put, we need to move 9-1-1 into the digital age, alongside 
consumer and public safety communications networks.
    And, according to the public safety community, Federal action in 
this space is essential--which is why Senator Klobuchar and I 
introduced a bill that would enhance Federal support through your 
agencies' joint 9-1-1 implementation office--for states and localities 
as they move to full implementation of Next Generation 9-1-1.

    Question 3. Would you agree that it is a national priority to 
complete the upgrade to Next Generation 9-1-1, and that the Federal 
Government must be a part of this effort?
    Answer. Completing the transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-
1) is among our national priorities. Implementation of NG 9-1-1 systems 
will significantly benefit emergency response operations, allowing 
bandwidth-intensive data--such as streaming video, images, and building 
floorplans--to be transmitted between public safety telecommunicators, 
first responders, and citizens. This will enhance situational awareness 
and make first responders more effective--resulting in more lives and 
property saved--and will better protect our first responders.
    Congress validated the Federal Government's role in fostering NG 9-
1-1 efforts by enacting the Next Generation 9-1-1 Advancement Act of 
2012. The legislation re-established the 911 Implementation 
Coordination Office (ICO) between the Department's NTIA and the 
Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA). Among its tasks, ICO administers approximately 
$110 million in 9-1-1, E9-1-1 and NG 9-1-1 implementation grants and 
conducts a nationwide NG 9-1-1 Cost Study, in consultation with the FCC 
and the Department of Homeland Security. ICO's grant activities are 
funded by revenues raised through FCC spectrum auctions.
    NTIA and NHTSA were required to conduct a rulemaking to implement 
the grant program. The final program rules were published in the 
Federal Register in August 2018 as well as the Notice of Funding 
Opportunity for the program. Complete applications from eligible 
states, territories, the District of Columbia and tribal organizations 
were due on April 2, 2019, and we hope to award these funds this 
summer. The Cost Study was submitted to Congress in October 2018. The 
Department and NTIA look forward to continuing to work with you on 
these important public safety communications matters.

    2020 Census Readiness Concerns. Secretary Ross, during the past 
couple of months, a number of groups have raised concerns about 
planning for the 2020 Census, including slow staffing and potential 
technology challenges. These concerns appear to be substantiated by a 
report from the Commerce IG indicating that little progress has been 
made in implementing a system to do background checks for the 
approximately eight hundred thousand temporary Census that will need to 
be hired.

    Question 4. What is the current state of planning for the 2020 
Census?
    Answer. The Department is on track for a successful 2020 Decennial 
Census. The 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (2018 Act) provided 
the Department with $2.043 billion for the 2020 Decennial Census, 
including $1.056 billion in forward funding to reduce risk, accelerate 
critical activities, and buy down anticipated 2019 and 2020 costs. It 
also allowed the Bureau of the Census to continue critical Decennial-
related activities during the lapse in appropriations. The 2019 
Consolidated Appropriations Act (2019 Act) provided $3.017 billion for 
the 2020 Decennial Census, which supports the start of major field 
operations this year, including opening field offices, recruiting and 
hiring activities, and cultivating local partnerships to help maximize 
self-response. The Department's 2020 Budget requests $5.297 billion for 
the 2020 Decennial Census, which when combined with the $1 billion in 
carryover, will meet the program's 2020 programmatic needs as reflected 
in the Department's Independent Cost Estimate (ICE).
    The 2018 End to End test was successful. The first mailed test 
materials arrived in Providence County homes March 16, 2018, and 
reminder mailings continued through April 23, 2018, with an ``It's Not 
Too Late'' postcard. Internet Self-Response, Census Questionnaire 
Assistance (telephone response), and Paper Data Capture began March 16, 
2018. Both Internet and phone self-response concluded on July 31, 2018, 
and as of August 13, 2018, the total self-response rate was 52.3 
percent, three percentage points above the projected rate of 49.3 
percent. The Paper Data Capture self-response operation ended around 
August 31, 2018. Internet response proved to be the leading mode of 
response for the 2018 test, with 61.2 percent of self-response 
submitted via the internet, 31.3 percent of self-response received by 
mail, and 7.5 percent of self-response completed over the phone.
    We have also completed the test's largest field operation, the 
Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) portion of the test, where we knock on 
doors and gathered information from those who have not yet responded; 
this operation ran from May 9 to July 31, 2018. We closely monitored 
our systems performance and productivity during this operation, as it 
is a key cost driver in the 2020 Census. Most notably, we effectively 
deployed and integrated our systems for the test, in both system-to-
system and human-to-system capacities. In addition to the NRFU portion 
of the test, the Group Quarters Enumeration phase of the 2018 test was 
also conducted in 2018.
    Regarding background checks, we are fortunate to have the Inspector 
General (IG) auditing key segments of the 2020 Census program to 
highlight concerns so that they may be addressed prior to the Bureau's 
hiring for peak operations. The Census Bureau has already addressed the 
key IG finding regarding the background check process. Corrective 
actions for the other findings, mostly related to contract management, 
are being actively implemented and will be resolved before background 
checks commence for the 2020 Census applicants.
    In 2010, the Census Bureau would have checked an employee's name 
against the FBI's name database and then processed personnel to begin 
work. Then, while the employee attended training, the Bureau would 
collect candidate fingerprints for background checks utilizing FBI 
databases. This two-step process was unnecessarily complex for both the 
Census Bureau and the employees. For 2020, a more streamlined process 
will ensure a safe workforce by first fingerprinting everyone who 
receives a tentative Census employment offer, and then potential 
employees must be cleared prior to attending training.

    Question 5. Can you give us assurances that the department is where 
it needs to be at this point in time?
    Answer. The Department is fully on track to conduct an accurate 
2020 Census, although there is always work to do. We meet regularly 
with the Census Bureau team and their contractors to bring oversight 
and accountability into the Decennial operation. My staff conducts 
weekly, bi-weekly, and monthly 2020 Census oversight reviews covering 
issues related to the program's budget, scope, and schedule. Meetings 
include detailed reviews of the budget and lifecycle cost estimate for 
the 2020 Census and progress against the established schedules for 
systems development and the fulfillment of requirements for the major 
contracts. These results are reported directly to me so that I can 
personally oversee the progress of the 2020 Census.

    Commercial Space Infrastructure. The Administration's 
infrastructure plan includes public-private partnership opportunities 
for commercial space projects. In Florida, industry facilities are 
often leased or collocated with NASA or the Air Force, and such 
projects could benefit commercial space and government users.

    Question 6. What kind of commercial space projects do you envision 
could be funded under this proposal?
    Answer. As noted in my oral statement, the $20 billion 
Transformative Projects Program would be led by the Department of 
Commerce and would provide Federal aid for bold and innovative projects 
that dramatically benefit communities across America. These are high-
risk projects that might not otherwise attract private sector 
investment without Federal incentives, but their potential local and 
regional impacts would, if successful, enable revolutionizing economic 
development, technological growth, and human innovation.
    To support the commercial space sector, the Department would work 
with the Department of Transportation, the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, the Air Force, and industry, to identify projects 
that could lower the cost of commercial space ventures, public and 
private. Federal funding would leverage existing projects and areas 
where significant investment is already present--for example, Florida's 
Space Coast--to support commercial space manufacturing, launch and 
reentry, refueling, satellite navigation, and broader elements of the 
supply chain. Enhanced commercial space services will also support more 
efficient and cost-effective government missions. The Administration's 
initiatives to reduce the regulatory burden to the commercial space 
industry will also provide incentives for organic growth in this 
industry.

    Scientific Integrity. The Union of Concerned Scientists recently 
sent surveys to scientists at NOAA and the Census Bureau on the topic 
of scientific integrity. This the organization's ninth poll on the 
subject, the findings of which provide important insights for agency 
leaders and policy makers about the health of the scientific process 
within the government. The response rate to the current survey is 
uncharacteristically low.

    Question 7. Will you commit to providing guidance to Federal 
scientists that they are free to participate in such surveys, with the 
appropriate restrictions on use of government resources, in order to 
share their opinions on the conduct and communication of science at 
Federal agencies?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                          Hon. Wilbur L. Ross
    Security clearance. As part of obtaining a security clearance, you 
would have completed a form commonly known as the ``SF-86'' and 
submitted the form to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

    Question 1. On what date did you submit this form to the FBI?
    Answer. The SF-86 form was submitted on December 5, 2016.

    Question 2. Did you have to add information to the SF-86 form after 
your initial submission of it to the FBI? If so, what information did 
you add? How many times did you need to make an addition to the form?
    Answer. I am not aware of any additions to the original SF-86 filed 
prior to my assuming the role as Secretary of Commerce. Specific 
questions about my clearance and the security clearance process should 
be directed to the FBI and CIA.

    Question 3. Did you have to delete information from the SF-86 form 
after your initial submission of it to the FBI? If so, what information 
did you delete? How many times did you need to make a deletion from the 
form?
    Answer. I am not aware of any deletions. Specific questions about 
my clearance and the security clearance process should be directed to 
the FBI and CIA.

    Question 4. Did you have to alter information on the SF-86 form 
after your initial submission of it to the FBI? If so, what information 
did you alter? How many times did you need to make an alteration to the 
form?
    Answer. I am not aware of any alterations to the SF-86 form. 
Specific questions about my clearance and the security clearance 
process should be directed to the FBI and CIA.

    Question 5. Did you submit any other paperwork to the FBI as part 
of the security clearance process? What documents did you submit?
    Answer. I do not recall any other specific paperwork. Specific 
questions about the security clearance process should be directed to 
the FBI and CIA.

    Question 6. In your public testimony, you stated that you had a 
permanent security clearance. When did you obtain this clearance?
    Answer. The CIA granted my permanent TS/SCI security clearance on 
February 28, 2017. That clearance became effective on March 1, 2017, 
following my completion of a Top Secret briefing at the Department.

    Question 7. Has President Trump ever had to overrule agency 
officials to ensure you have a clearance or access to classified 
information?
    Answer. Not to my knowledge.

    Question 8. Has the White House Counsel's office ever had to 
overrule any U.S. Department of Commerce or FBI official to ensure you 
have access to classified information?
    Answer. Not to my knowledge.

    Question 9. Have you ever been denied access to classified 
information by any national security agency?
    Answer. Not to my knowledge.

    Divestment of assets. As part of the Senate confirmation process 
you underwent in 2017, you signed an ethics agreement with Mr. David 
Maggi of the U.S. Department of Commerce and agreed to divest certain 
assets within an agreed-upon timeframe. Those assets were listed in 
Attachment A and B to the document.

    Question 10. Have you complied with the divestment requirements 
outlined in your Ethics Agreement?
    Answer. I have completed all divestments required by my ethics 
agreement.

    Question 11. Do you hold an ownership stake in any of the assets 
listed on Attachments A and B? For each asset listed in Attachments A 
and B for which you maintain an ownership asset, please describe the 
value of the asset.
    Answer. I have fully divested all of the assets listed on 
Attachment A of my Ethics Agreement. (Note that there was no Attachment 
B. Attachment A consisted of Part I and Part II. All assets in 
Attachment A, Parts I and II have been divested.)

    Question 12. For which assets listed on Attachments A and B, have 
you not filed a document commonly known as an ``OGE Form 278-T''?
    Answer. The following divestitures were not reported on a Periodic 
Transaction Report (OGE Form 278-T) because they were not divested 
through a transaction (sale or exchange) of a security greater than 
$1,000 in value and, therefore, were not the type of divestiture 
reportable on a Form 278-T. However, the following holdings were 
divested by one of the following methods: (1) transfer to an 
irrevocable trust of which neither my wife nor I is a beneficiary; (2) 
gift to persons whose interests are not attributable to me; (3) sale of 
an Excepted Investment Funds; (4) sale below the value threshold for 
reporting; and (5) dissolution of an entity holding only cash. Set 
forth below is a list of assets divested pursuant to the ethics 
agreement but not disclosed in a 278-T for one of these five reasons.

   1.  8 Partner VC Fund I, L.P.

   2.  8 VC Angel Fund I, L.P.

   3.  Absolute Recovery Capital Partners

   4.  Absolute Recovery Hedge Fund, Ltd.; Absolute Recovery Master 
        Fund Ltd.

   5.  Euro Wagon II L.P.

   6.  Euro Wagon L.P.

   7.  Formation8 Partners Entrepreneur Fund II

   8.  Formation8 Partners Fund I

   9.  India Asset Recovery Associates LLC

  10.  India Asset Recovery Fund Limited (Mauritius)

  11.  India Asset Recovery GP Ltd. (Cayman)

  12.  Invesco Core Plus Fixed Income

  13.  Nexeo Solutions

  14.  Ross CG GP LLC

  15.  Ross Expansion FLP, LP

  16.  Ross Expansion GP LLC

  17.  Ross FOF LLC

  18.  SSgA Inflation Protected Bond Index Fund

  19.  SSgA U.S. Bond Index Non-Lending Series Fund Class C

  20.  WL Ross GP LLC

  21.  WL Ross Group LP

  22.  WL Ross Sponsor LLC

  23.  WLR China Energy Associates, Ltd.

  24.  WLR Euro Wagon Management Ltd. (Jersey)

  25.  WLR IV Loans AIV Feeder (Cayman), Ltd.

  26.  WLR Master Co-Investment GP, LLC

  27.  WLR Master Co-Investment SLP Associates LP (Cayman)

  28.  WLR Master Co-Investment SLP GP, LTD (Cayman)

  29.  WLR Master Co-Investment SLP, LLC

  30.  WLR Nanotechnology GP LLC

  31.  WLR Nanotechnology LP LLC

  32.  WLR Recovery Associates LLC

  33.  WLR Recovery Associates II LLC

  34.  WL Ross Group (Cayman) Ltd.

  35.  WLR Select Associates DSS GP, Ltd.

  36.  WLR Select Associates DSS, L.P.

  37.  WLR Select Associates LLC

  38.  YG Partners Fund, LP

    Question 13. Are there any assets listed on Attachments A and B 
that you have conveyed to another individual or entity by way of gift? 
Is so, please list the asset(s).
    Answer. The following assets were divested by way of gift:

        8 VC Angel Fund I, L.P.

        Formation8 Partners Fund I

        8Partner VC Fund I, L.P.

        Formation8 Partners Entrepreneur Fund II

        YG Partners Fund, LP.

    Question 14. On November 1, 2017, you signed a document with the 
U.S. Office of Government Ethics titled ``Certification of Ethics 
Agreement Compliance.'' On this document you checked ``N/A'' alongside 
an attestation that you have filed periodic transaction reports (OGE 
Form 278-T) to disclose the completion of your agreed-upon 
divestitures. Please provide the Form 278-T for all agreed-upon 
divestitures.
    Answer. All 278-Ts certified by the Office of Government Ethics can 
be found at this link (or through the OGE website at www.oge.gov).

    Question 15. Have any officials at the U.S. Department of Commerce 
given you an extension of time to divest any assets listed in 
Attachments A and B? For each extension, please describe the reason for 
your request and the justification provided by U.S. Department of 
Commerce officials for each extension.
    Answer. Yes. Consistent with the terms of my ethics agreement, I 
received a 60-day extension from the Alternate Designated Agency Ethics 
Official of the Department of Commerce to complete the divestiture of 
those holdings identified in my ethics agreement for divestiture within 
180 days of my confirmation based on his determination that I had made 
substantial progress regarding the divestiture of those identified 
holdings. During the process of divesting, I was informed that due to 
the outsourcing of the accounting function of the firm that handles 
some partnerships in which I have interests, documents needed for the 
sale of some holdings could not be collected within the 180-day period 
set for the divestiture of these holdings.

    Question 16. According to public reports in November 2017 after the 
release of what are commonly known as the ``Paradise Papers,'' you 
divested or were in the process of divesting your interests in Diamond 
S Shipping and Navigator Holdings (also known as Navigator). Do you 
hold any ownership interest in Diamond S Shipping? Do you hold any 
ownership stake in Navigator Holdings? Have you filed a 278-T as to 
Diamond S Shipping? Have you filed a 278-T as to Navigator Holdings?
    Answer. As provided in my ethics agreement, I retained my wholly 
passive interests in certain investment funds, which included Diamond S 
Shipping and Navigator Holdings. The Ethics office at the Department of 
Commerce determined that it was not necessary to divest those interests 
at that time because there was only a remote likelihood that a 
potential conflict of interest would arise from those interests 
concerning my duties as Secretary, and in the unlikely event that a 
conflict should arise, I could resolve it by way of recusal. I 
nevertheless divested my interests in Diamond Shipping and Navigator. 
OGE Form 278-Ts were filed for the sales.

    Question 17. In a November 16, 2017 letter from you to the U.S. 
Office of Government Ethics, you wrote that during the time of a 
conversation with a reporter in 2017, you were ``in the process of 
creating a trust as a mechanism to divest my assets in order to comply 
with my ethics agreement.'' What is the nature of the trust referenced 
in the letter? What is the name of the trust? Are you a beneficiary of 
this trust? Do you exercise any control over the trust? Has the U.S. 
Office of Government Ethics been made aware of this trust? Have any 
U.S. Department of Commerce Ethics officials been made aware of this 
trust?
    Answer. On October 25, 2017, I created The Wilbur L. Ross Jr. 
Irrevocable Trust to divest certain assets consistent with the terms of 
my ethics agreement. Neither I nor my spouse is a beneficiary and 
neither I nor my spouse exercise any control over the trust. The Office 
of Government Ethics and Department of Commerce Ethics officials are 
aware of this trust, which was created to conform to guidance from 
those offices.

    Recusal. In the ethics agreement referenced above, you were allowed 
to retain certain assets related to ``real estate financing and 
mortgage lending'' and ``transoceanic shipping.'' There were several 
assets you were allowed to retain, some of which contain off-shore 
holdings in shipping companies like Navigator and Diamond S Shipping. 
In order to retain these assets, you pledged to recuse yourself from 
certain matters: you said you would ``not participate personally and 
substantially in any particular matter that to [your] knowledge has a 
direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of the entity'' 
until you have divested it unless you received a waiver or qualified 
for an exemption. You committed in your agreement to ``remain vigilant 
in identifying any particular matters affecting the interests of these 
entities and their holdings,'' and recognized that your pledge barred 
you from participation in matters impacting the industries of those 
assets.

    Question 18. What specific ``particular matters'' have you 
identified in your tenure as Secretary from which you've been recused? 
What steps have you taken to wall yourself off from these matters?
    Answer. It would be very rare for an issue to come before the 
Secretary of Commerce that would have a direct and predictable effect 
on transoceanic shipping. Nonetheless, Commerce Ethics officials review 
my daily schedule and proposed meetings to ensure that I am not 
presented with an issue that could have an impact on my financial 
interests or that may raise an appearance of a conflict of interest. An 
example of a matter from which I had been recused prior to the 
divestment of interests in transoceanic shipping companies was the 
review of amendments to the Jones Act as applied to transoceanic 
shipping vessels.

    Question 19. Have you received any waivers or authorizations from 
ethics laws from any U.S. Department of Commerce ethics officials 
allowing you to work on matters that have ``a direct and predictable 
effect on the financial interest'' of your business interests? If so, 
please describe each waiver and authorization.
    Answer. I have not requested or received any such waivers or 
authorizations.

    Question 20. Have any U.S. Department of Commerce ethics officials 
concluded that you qualify for an exemption from ethics laws allowing 
you to work on matters that have ``a direct and predictable effect on 
the financial interest'' of your business interests? If so, please 
describe each exemption.
    Answer. This question has not arisen at the Department. Ethics laws 
allow Government officials to participate in matters having a direct 
and predictable effect on their financial interests, provided that the 
financial interest does not exceed a de minimis threshold. During the 
period I held interests in BankUnited my interests did not exceed this 
de minimis threshold and, therefore, would not have required my 
disqualification. However, my recollection is that no matters 
concerning the company were presented to me for action.
Tariffs.
    Question 21. Your financial disclosure forms submitted as part of 
the Senate confirmation process listed an ownership stake in Arcelor 
Mittal, a major producer of steel. The U.S. Office of Government Ethics 
has forms posted on its public website that contend you sold between 
$1.8 million and $6.7 million in March 2017. What is the nature of your 
ownership stake in Arcelor Mittal?
    Answer. I have no ownership stake in ArcelorMittal. I sold all of 
my interests in March 2017.

    Question 22. Do you hold any assets that will benefit from the 
tariffs on imported steel and aluminum that President Trump announced 
on March 8, 2018?
    Answer. No; the tariffs have no direct and predictable effect on 
any assets I hold.

    Question 23. A report from a group called the Trade Partnership 
found that the new tariffs will cost approximately 500,000 jobs while 
only creating about 26,000 new jobs. How many jobs will the recently 
announced tariffs on steel and aluminum create?
    Answer. The tariffs imposed by the President are having their 
intended impact on the U.S. steel and aluminum industries. Industry has 
started to announce new investments and plans to restart idled 
capacity: U.S. Steel is restarting a 1.5 million metric ton steel blast 
furnace in Granite City, Illinois; Republic Steel restarted an idled 
steel electric arc furnace in Lorain, Ohio; Liberty Steel is reopening 
a wire rod coil steel facility in Georgetown, South Carolina; Magnitude 
7 Metals is restarting 236,000 metric tons of aluminum production in 
Marston, Missouri; Century Aluminum is investing $100 million dollars 
to restart and modernize its high purity aluminum smelter in 
Hawesville, Kentucky; and Nucor Corporation announced that it will 
build a rebar micro mill in Frostproof, Florida and a rebar micro 
project in Sedalia, Missouri.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                          Hon. Wilbur L. Ross
    Question 1. On January 9, 2018, the Department of Commerce 
announced the preliminary results of the countervailing duty (CVD) 
investigation of imports of uncoated groundwood paper from Canada. On 
March 13, 2018, Commerce announced an additional affirmative 
preliminary determination of an antidumping duty (AD) investigation. By 
statute, Commerce is required to announce its final determination in 
the CVD investigation by May 23, 2018 and in the AD investigation by 
August 2, 2018. Please provide an update on those investigations. 
Additionally, has Commerce considered the added cost to domestic 
industries including newspaper publishers who rely heavily on 
newsprint? Is the domestic supply of newsprint sufficient to cover the 
current amounts required by domestic customers? How many small news 
publishers does ITC estimate will be forced to close or restructure due 
to CVD and AD should they be fully implemented?
    Answer. First and foremost, I want to reiterate my vow to uphold 
and vigorously enforce the United States' trade remedy laws. These laws 
were enacted to ensure that if domestic industries suspect they are 
being undercut by foreign competitors, there is a mechanism in place to 
provide relief and create a level playing field in the market. This is 
why Commerce must, by law, initiate an antidumping and/or 
countervailing duty investigation if a petition filed by producers or 
workers in the United States meets the statutory criteria for 
initiation. With respect to uncoated groundwood paper from Canada, we 
were legally bound to conduct these investigations. On August 29, 2018, 
the U.S. International Trade Commission announced their determination 
that U.S. industry is not materially injured or threatened with 
material injury by reason of imports of uncoated groundwood paper from 
Canada and the investigation was terminated.

    Question 2. As you know, infrastructure relies heavily on steel as 
the literal backbone of our power transmission lines and steel frames 
for construction. Will the president's recently announced tariffs on 
steel imports apply to the steel components of our current and future 
infrastructure investments? For example, the Public Service Company of 
New Mexico, our largest electricity provider, is in the process of 
replacing over two hundred steel structures per year over the next 
several years as part of a transmission replacement project. Should 
they be planning to pay 25 more for steel sourced from abroad?
    Answer. The President's proclamations state that the Department 
will consider requests submitted by directly affected parties located 
in the United States for exclusions of certain products determined not 
to be produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably 
available amount or of a satisfactory quality or based on specific 
national security considerations. Procedures for these requests were 
published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2018, and are available 
on the Commerce website.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                          Hon. Wilbur L. Ross
Additional Funds for Data Mapping.
    Question 1. The National Broadband Map is an important tool for 
conveying broadband coverage data--as long the data is granular and 
accurate, particularly for rural areas. Although originally housed in 
the NTIA, the most recent version was just released by the FCC using 
the data it collects from fixed broadband providers for entire census 
blocks. Meanwhile, the omnibus spending bill for FY 2018 allocated $7.5 
million for NTIA to use for the National Broadband Map, and the 
Administration has requested $50 million for this purpose in FY 2019. 
Between the FCC and NTIA, what agency do you think can produce a 
National Broadband Map with the greatest level of granularity and 
accuracy? How should FCC and NTIA leverage and coordinate their 
resources to provide more accurate and granular data?
    Answer. Policymakers require accurate, updated, and accessible 
broadband availability data to target areas that need improved 
broadband infrastructure. The accuracy, validation, and transparency of 
broadband availability data made possible by the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) National 
Broadband Availability Map program will help improve these funding 
decisions. The goal of this new program is to improve data quality 
through the use of multiple data sources and validation, which is 
especially critical in rural areas where broadband deployment is not 
ubiquitous.
    We believe that efforts to utilize supplemental broadband 
availability data sources or otherwise improve data accuracy are 
especially critical in rural areas. NTIA is working with the Federal 
Communications Commission, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other 
Federal agencies to better assess broadband availability using existing 
data.
    We also issued a public Request for Comment to solicit ideas for 
improving broadband availability data. We received more than 50 
comments from a variety of stakeholders.
    Congress also directed us to build on our previous mapping 
experience and the relationships we have made to update the national 
broadband availability map. We have also announced that we are 
collaborating with an initial eight states--California, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West 
Virginia. These states will provide data and other inputs to the map so 
that policymakers around the country can make better decisions as they 
devise broadband expansion plans. Each of these states participate in 
NTIA's State Broadband Leaders Network, which formed out of NTIA's last 
foray into mapping, and is made up of officials from around the country 
who are working to expand broadband in their communities. We also 
looked for geographic diversity and states that had active state 
broadband plans or programs.
    The initial map will include available nationwide data for every 
state combined with state-level data from the eight states. We also 
have been listening to telecommunications associations, as well as 
rural and tribal associations about their ideas to improve broadband 
data. We look forward to working with them as we continue to improve 
the data available in the map. In the future, NTIA will seek 
participation and data from additional states, territories, federally 
recognized tribes, as well as the broadband industry and other third-
parties to expand the value of the map to policymakers around the 
country.
2020 Census.
    Question 2. In November 2017, I joined 33 other Senators in sending 
a letter urging you to take action to help find a qualified nominee for 
Census Bureau Director to provide steady, permanent leadership during 
this critical time for the Census. What is the extent of your recent 
involvement in the search for a permanent Director, and what 
information do you have about when we can expect the President to 
nominate a candidate for this important position?
    Answer. In January 2019, Dr. Steven Dillingham was confirmed as 
Director of the U.S. Census Bureau. With his wealth of experience, the 
Bureau will be well positioned to ensure a complete and accurate 2020 
census.

    Question 3. The Census Bureau hires thousands of Americans during 
the decennial Census on a temporary basis to serve as enumerators and 
help ensure a full and fair count. I know you understand the importance 
of these positions as a former enumerator yourself. What challenges do 
you anticipate in hiring the appropriate number of temporary 
enumerators during the 2020 Census, and what is the Census Bureau doing 
to prepare for these challenges?
    Answer. The Census Bureau is confident that it will have sufficient 
enumerators to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. And 
although 2018 testing revealed issues with recruiting for the 2020 
Census, the Census Bureau has been, and will be, actively working to 
address this concern. This effort includes modifying the online 
application and assessment system used for hiring in order to make it 
easier for people to both apply and submit assessments online. The 
Census Bureau's recruiting program will also follow a multifaceted 
approach connecting on-the-ground recruiting staff with local census 
partners to spread the word about census jobs. We will incorporate paid 
advertising and leverage free publicity through both traditional and 
social media. The program is designed to reach people who are 
unemployed, retired, seeking a second income, or looking for part-time 
employment. The Bureau has also conducted extensive research to ensure 
locally competitive pay rates and will carefully monitor recruiting to 
ensure an adequate pool of candidates for the 2020 Census.

    Question 4. Although the Census Bureau currently intends to 
encourage respondents to fill out their 2020 Census questionnaires over 
the Internet, in the most recent Lifecycle Cost Estimate, the projected 
response rate for 2020 is only 55 percent. This is more than an 8-point 
drop from the 2010 response rate, and if this estimate proves accurate, 
this would amount to hundreds of millions in additional costs for in-
person follow-up. What accounts for this low response rate estimate, 
especially if people will be able to respond online for the first time? 
If this 55 percent estimated response rate is a ``worse-case 
scenario,'' why did the Census Bureau not provide a range of costs 
indicating a more probable response rate and therefore a more accurate 
cost estimate?
    Answer. The Census Bureau predicted a self-response rate of 60.5 
percent. The Lifecycle Cost Estimate included analysis of several 
possible scenarios in order to quantify ``worst case'' contingency 
outlays, including the occurrence of some unrealized risk that could 
result in a reduction in the self-response rate to 55 percent. While 
current and planned operations continue to assume the Bureau's 
prediction to be accurate, there are operational flexibilities and 
contingency funds available to help scale activities if necessary. 
Additionally, the Bureau is continuing its ongoing activities to 
encourage self-response in advance of 2020, including robust 
advertising and partnership programs. This decade, it will be easier 
than ever to respond to the Decennial Census. Respondents will have the 
option to respond online, over the phone, or by mailing the form. As 
with every census, we know that some people will not self-respond 
despite these efforts. When they do not respond, the Census Bureau will 
conduct the nonresponse follow up operation to ensure that no household 
will be left uncounted.

    Question 5. What was the internal process at the Census Bureau, 
within the Commerce Department generally, and within your office 
specifically for evaluating the Justice Department's request to add a 
question about citizenship to the 2020 Census form?
    Answer. I consulted extensively with the Census Bureau and reached 
out to a number of different stakeholders during my review of the 
request from the Department of Justice. In addition to meetings with 
Census Bureau leadership, I had conversations about the citizenship 
question with over 24 diverse, well informed, and interested parties 
representing a broad range of views. I and my staff reviewed over 50 
incoming letters from stakeholders, interest groups, Members of 
Congress, and state and local officials regarding the reinstatement of 
a citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial Census. After a thorough 
review of the legal, program, and policy considerations, as well as 
numerous discussions with the Census Bureau leadership and interested 
stakeholders, I determined that reinstatement of a citizenship question 
on the 2020 Decennial Census is necessary to provide complete and 
accurate block level citizenship data in response to the request from 
the Department of Justice.
    The documents containing information about my decision-making 
process in connection with my decision to reinstate the citizenship 
question on the 2020 Decennial Census can be found here: http://
www.osec.doc.gov/opog/FOIA/FOIA_elibrary
.html.

    Question 6. Between the Justice Department's request in December 
and your March 26, 2018 memorandum to Under Secretary Kelley, what was 
the extent and nature of the research and testing conducted within the 
Commerce Department regarding the potential addition of a citizenship 
question? How did you evaluate the effect this question might have on 
the estimated response rate or the ability to reach hard-to-count 
populations in 2020?
    Answer. As set forth in my March 26, 2018, Decision Memorandum, the 
Census Bureau estimated that the reinstatement of the citizenship 
question could potentially increase nonresponse follow up costs by at 
least 0.5 percent, which would equate to a potential cost increase of 
at least $27.5 million. However, as discussed in my Decision 
Memorandum, this increased cost is well within the scope of the 
contingency funding. Moreover, as I described in my March 26, 2018, 
Decision Memorandum, I determined that reinstatement of a citizenship 
question on the 2020 Decennial Census was more important for obtaining 
complete and accurate citizenship data than an uncertain decline in the 
self-response rate that would be within the planned budget.
    In addition, the Census Bureau is working with trusted leaders in 
communities across the Nation to develop a robust communications and 
partnership program that focuses on reaching hard-to-count populations. 
Partners will include national organizations, local businesses, 
churches and other faith-based organizations, health clinics, legal aid 
centers, and other support organizations. The Bureau will also make it 
easier for people to respond through the internet, phone, and by mail. 
For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau plans to utilize an Internet 
Self-Response Instrument and will accept phone calls in 12 non-English 
languages. These 12 languages cover more than 87 percent of all 
households with limited English proficiency. Including English, Census 
will cover more than 99 percent of all households in the United States. 
The paper questionnaire and mailing materials will all be in English 
and Spanish, and there will be additional support materials in 59 non-
English languages. The advertising and partnership programs will also 
include materials and messaging in multiple languages.

    Question 7. According to your March 26, 2018 memorandum explaining 
your decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, the 
Census Bureau reported that between 28 and 34 percent of self-reported 
responses to the citizenship question on the American Community Survey 
were found to be inaccurate when corroborated with administrative 
records. What leads you to assert that relying on self-reporting for a 
citizenship question on the decennial Census will ultimately lead to 
more accurate or useful data? If you are directing the Census Bureau to 
enhance its collection and use of administrative records data, how will 
the collection of similarly inaccurate self-reported citizenship data 
be substantively more useful than what can already be imputed using 
administrative records data alone?
    Answer. The Department of Justice has requested block level 
citizenship data, which cannot be produced directly from the American 
Community Survey. As stated in my March 26, 2018, Decision Memorandum, 
I instructed the Census Bureau to research ways to use both respondent 
data and administrative records to produce the most accurate block 
level citizenship data possible. By collecting citizenship data in the 
2020 Census, this gives the opportunity for every household to respond. 
Indeed, by Census Bureau estimates, we'll be able to compare self-
responses to administrative records for over 270 million people and 
obtain self-responses for another 22 million people that are not 
present in administrative records at all. So, as stated in my March 26, 
2018, Decision Memorandum, placing the question on the Decennial Census 
and directing the Census Bureau to determine the best means to compare 
the Decennial Census responses with administrative records will permit 
the Census Bureau to determine the inaccurate response rate for 
citizens and non-citizens alike using the entire population. The Census 
Bureau is also working to supplement its administrative records data 
sources, which will further increase coverage and accuracy.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to 
                          Hon. Wilbur L. Ross
    Question 1. Could you provide further detail about the proposed 
impact of enhanced Buy America policies in infrastructure on the U.S. 
steel industry and other suppliers of infrastructure--as referenced in 
your answer at the hearing?
    Answer. The Administration strongly shares your view that 
maximizing the use of goods, products, and materials produced in the 
United States for domestic infrastructure projects is critical to 
growing our industrial and manufacturing bases. This is one of 
President Trump's top priorities. The President issued an Executive 
Order on Buy American and Hire American on April 18, 2017. The 
Executive Order directed the Department of Commerce to co-lead, with 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an assessment of Executive 
Branch agencies' implementation of and compliance with existing Buy 
American laws relating to Federal procurement and Federal grants. The 
Department and OMB collected information from other agencies to assess 
their compliance with Buy American laws and use of waivers and 
exceptions to the Buy American Act in Federal procurement and Federal 
financial assistance. Additionally, the Department and others have 
assessed the impact of U.S. free trade agreements and the World Trade 
Organization Agreement on Government Procurement on the operation of 
Buy American laws. The Department used these assessments to provide 
recommendations on strengthening the implementation of Buy American 
laws and other methods to increase procurement of domestically made 
goods. As required by the Executive Order, I submitted the report with 
findings and recommendations to the President on March 20, 2018.
    Additionally, on January 31, 2019, President Trump issued an 
Executive Order on Strengthening Buy American Preferences for 
Infrastructure Projects reinforcing the Administration's policy to 
maximize, consistent with law, the use of domestically produced steel, 
aluminum, iron, concrete, cement, lumber, and other manufactured 
products in Federal Government procurement and through the terms and 
conditions of Federal financial assistance awards for infrastructure 
projects.

    Question 2. I sent the attached letter to President Trump about 
China's new trade policy that cuts off imports of recycled paper. The 
effect of this discriminatory policy has driven up the price of pulp--a 
key input for paper manufacturing. This price increase has contributed 
to several paper mill closures and job losses in Wisconsin. The Trump 
Administration recently stated that it is negotiating with China 
following the announcement of tariffs on Chinese imports, pursuant to 
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. I believe the Trump 
Administration should use this opportunity to force China to change its 
restrictive recycled paper policy, which is hurting paper manufactures 
in Wisconsin. Will the Trump Administration address this unfair trade 
practice in order to provide a level playing field for Wisconsin paper 
manufacturers? If so, please describe how the Administration plans to 
do so.
    Answer. The Administration takes seriously all allegations of 
distortions caused by unfair trade policies and practices, and the 
Department of Commerce is committed to using all the tools at its 
disposal to vigorously enforce U.S. trade laws. The International Trade 
Administration has worked closely with the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative to voice our concerns at the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) about China's abrupt application of import bans and quality 
standards on recyclable materials. We have underscored that there 
appear to be fundamental differences between requirements for foreign 
and domestic commodities and that China's policies have led to 
pervasive, and ultimately counter-productive, instability in the global 
market for recyclable materials. The Trump Administration will continue 
to raise this issue at the WTO and bilaterally and welcomes additional 
input from affected stakeholders.

    Question 3. The Administration has made clear it considers private 
investment from other countries a critical part of generating $1.5 
trillion total investment with $200 billion in direct Federal spending; 
however, the plan is silent as to transparency requirements for private 
investors. Please describe the Administration's plans to ensure 
transparency of private investment, including foreign investment, in 
our Nation's infrastructure projects.
    Answer. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 
(CFIUS) has the ability to review foreign investments to determine 
whether such investments present national security concerns. Congress 
has recently passed, and President Trump has signed into law, important 
legislation expanding CFIUS's ability to protect the national security, 
including with respect to foreign investment in infrastructure, and we 
are working hard to implement that legislation.
    SelectUSA is working with U.S. governors and state economic 
development officials to determine gaps and opportunities for foreign 
direct investment in infrastructure programs. For example, at the 
SelectUSA Investment Summit, June 20-22, 2018, I convened a roundtable 
discussion with private and public sector officials to discuss 
infrastructure development in the United States. I emphasized the 
importance of galvanizing additional investment to improve, upgrade, 
and build new infrastructure in the United States. Alex Herrgott, 
Associate Director for Infrastructure with the White House Council on 
Environmental Quality, also provided an overview of the President's 
infrastructure plan and underscored infrastructure as the third pillar 
of the President's policy agenda and a priority for the White House.
                               Attachment
                                       United States Senate
                                   Washington, DC, January 25, 2018

The President
The White House
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President:

    Shrinking and eliminating our job-killing trade deficit with China 
is a priority that your Administration and I share. Yet, one year into 
your Administration, the U.S. trade deficit with China is at a record 
high. Getting our trade with China into balance is a matter of grave 
importance to Wisconsin and its 106,000 employees in the paper 
industry. Wisconsin workers in the paper industry have been hit hard in 
recent months as paper mills have announced layoffs and closures. The 
industry is working hard to overcome challenges but it faces a new 
threat caused by China's latest escalation in trade cheating. China has 
abruptly cut off imports of recycled paper, a discriminatory trade 
policy that has driven up the price of pulp--a key input for paper 
manufacturing. You have long promised tough action on China. I write to 
encourage you to address China's latest unfair trade practice swiftly, 
in order to provide a level playing field for Wisconsin paper 
manufacturers and ensure that no more workers lose their jobs.
    In July 2017, the Chinese government announced that it would limit 
or ban imports of certain recoverable wastes, such as paper, into 
China. Recovered paper is a substitute for pulp used as an input for 
paper manufacturing. The policy went into effect January 1, 2018. 
Importantly, the Chinese policy only applies to imports. The same 
restrictions do not apply to paper that is recovered for use within 
China.
    The United States exported $470 million in recovered wastes or 
recovered materials to China in 2016. With China's new trade 
restriction eliminating this significant supply of recovered paper to 
Chinese paper manufacturers, Chinese films have resorted to buying more 
pulp to meet demand. This trade distortion has driven up the price of 
pulp by 20-30 percent globally just since the policy was announced. 
This price spike has forced several Wisconsin mills to idle or close.
    In my conversations with paper producers in Wisconsin, I have heard 
time and again the complaints about China meddling in the paper market. 
The Chinese government intervenes in almost every element of the paper 
market from cheap government backed financing, import controls, 
equipment purchases, and subsidized energy.
    This sort of trade cheating is why I have fought to provide 
Wisconsin paper manufacturers and their workers a level playing field 
on which to compete. I have testified at the International Trade 
Commission on behalf of Wisconsin paper workers and worked to ensure 
that China will not be treated as a ``market economy'' in antidumping 
investigations. These are positive steps, but they are dwarfed by the 
manipulation and involvement of the Chinese government in this market.
    Wisconsin stands to lose more jobs in its paper industry if you do 
not act. We need bold steps to level the playing field for Wisconsin 
workers and I again urge you to address this latest Chinese trade 
cheating action as swiftly as possible. I look forward to working 
together to get the job done for Wisconsin workers.
            Sincerely,
                                             Tammy Baldwin,
                                             United States Senator.
CC: Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer, United States Trade Representative
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                         to Hon. Wilbur L. Ross
    Proposal Modeling/Analysis. During the hearing I asked you to 
provide me with any modeling or scholarly analysis on how exactly you 
have reached the $1.5 trillion estimate in activity from $200 billion 
in Federal funding investment. I asked because I have seen analysis 
that doesn't prove the Administration's promise by a long shot. In 
addition, within certain aspects of the proposal, there is no match 
required and so this grandiose figure appears to be predominantly 
reliant on the performance of the Incentives program and the already 
existing financing programs.

    Question 1. I have not yet received this information yet, can you 
please provide me some form of research that shows, behind general 
estimates of what certain programs are capable of, real analysis that 
there is enough newly generated local revenues and capacity to actually 
result in $1.5 billion net cumulative investment nationwide?
    Answer. The infrastructure principles leverage a combination of 
Federal grant funds, Federal loans, a proposed Federal Capital 
Revolving Fund, and public-private partnerships that will combine to 
generate at least $1.5 trillion in new infrastructure investments. 
Specifically, $200 billion in Federal funds will be used to leverage 
partnered funding at the state, local, tribal, and private level. Of 
the $200 billion, $100 billion will create an Incentives Program to 
spur additional dedicated funds from states, localities, and the 
private sector. $20 billion will be dedicated to a Transformative 
Projects Program, led by the Secretary of Commerce, to target bold and 
innovative projects that could dramatically improve America's 
infrastructure. $20 billion will be allocated to expanding 
infrastructure financing programs such as Transportation Infrastructure 
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), Water Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act (WIFIA), Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement 
Financing (RRIF), rural utility lending, and expanding Private Activity 
Bonds. And $10 billion will go towards a new Federal Capital Revolving 
Fund that reduces inefficient leasing of Federal real property which 
would be more cost-effective to purchase. Finally, $50 billion will be 
devoted to a new Rural Infrastructure Program to rebuild and modernize 
infrastructure in rural America.
    In addition to the Federal investment, the Administration's 
regulatory reform and elimination of unnecessary infrastructure 
permitting hurdles will increase private, state, and local investment 
opportunities and decrease compliance and legal costs. Earlier this 
year, key Cabinet officials and agency heads signed the One Federal 
Decision Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This MOU includes 
interagency agreement to better coordinate infrastructure permitting 
reviews and commits to achieving a two-year infrastructure permitting 
timeline to the extent possible within the limits of existing Federal 
law. This will be a drastic improvement from the eight-to-ten year 
timeline that often occurs for large infrastructure projects, and it 
will lead to significant economic opportunity and cost savings that 
fuel the $1.5 trillion in expected total investment.

    Question 2. Within that analysis, have you factored in states and 
communities who prohibit tolling and other private sector leveraging in 
infrastructure?
    Answer. Where tolling and public-private partnerships are limited 
in some states, the other funding tools mentioned--federal loans, 
Federal grant funds, and the proposed Federal Capital Revolving Fund, 
are not prohibited in any state. Further, the more funds available for 
leveraging in public-private partnerships may encourage states to enter 
the ``P3 market'' to take advantage of those funds.

    Question 3. Also within this information, can you confirm that it's 
factored in various state and local limitations on public-private 
partnerships, and yet assures that each state will be able to have 
their own equivalent chance at utilizing the investments promised in 
your proposal?
    Answer. Where tolling and public-private partnerships are limited 
in some states, the other funding tools mentioned--federal loans, 
Federal grant funds, and the proposed Federal Capital Revolving Fund, 
are not prohibited in any state. The Administration's infrastructure 
principles take into consideration state and local limitations on 
public-private partnerships and endeavor to assure that each state will 
have opportunities to take advantage of investment opportunities and 
Federal incentives envisioned in the plan.

    Question 4. Can you also please provide evidence that the analysis 
does not quantify the acceleration or development of already funded 
projects through your ``permitting improvements'' as associated with 
your stated promise of $1.5 trillion in infrastructure activity?
    Answer. There is no reason why decreases in funds expended while 
waiting for indeterminable permitting decisions should not be included 
in the anticipated infrastructure activity and investment benefits 
associated with the Administration's plan. The current delays in 
permitting cost millions and inhibit the infrastructure industry from 
operating at full capacity. See https://www.buildings.com/news/
industry-news/articleid/2941/title/delays-in-building-permit-approvals-
cause-millions
-in-lost-revenue-for-communities.

    SMART Communities and Innovation. Smart Communities are a passion 
of mine since I've seen the wonderful work being done in Nevada on 
various innovations in transportation, both in Northern and Southern 
Nevada. I appreciated Sec. Perdue highlighting smart technologies in 
his testimony, especially in rural communities. I couldn't agree more 
that they could benefit from this innovation, and should definitely not 
be left behind. That's why I was interested when I had heard and read 
about your inclusion of a ``transformative projects'' program.

    Question 5. Would the concept of smart communities where technology 
is used to improve transportation safety, mobility and efficiencies, be 
applicable for this transformative projects program?
    Answer. Yes, examples of projects that may be submitted for funding 
consideration under the Transformative Projects Program (TPP) could 
include smart communities. The TPP envisions new, emerging, or 
revolutionary infrastructure or means of delivering infrastructure. The 
TPP is designed to fund programs, either through direct funding, 
technical assistance, or both, that significantly improve performance 
from the perspective of availability, safety, reliability, frequency, 
and service speed; substantially reduce user costs for services; 
introduce new types of services; and, improve services based on other 
related metrics. Proposals from ``smart communities'' leveraging such 
concepts could certainly be eligible for TPP funding.

    Question 6. Why specifically was this program authored to be 
chaired by the Department of Commerce?
    Answer. The President's infrastructure plan calls for a committee 
of Federal agency representatives to administer the TPP. Given the 
Department of Commerce's vast institutional knowledge and expertise in 
grant-making and infrastructure, in addition to technology, standards, 
and economic and workforce development programs, the Secretary of 
Commerce is the ideal chair for such a committee.
    When heading up the TPP, the Department of Commerce may draw from 
expertise and relationships within the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, the Economic Development Administration, the Minority 
Business Development Administration, the International Trade 
Administration, and the Office of Space Commerce. These agencies work 
on projects and issues involving cutting edge technology and have 
experience supporting innovative infrastructure development and/or 
grants projects. The TPP also falls directly in line with the 
Department's mission of promoting job creation and economic growth by 
fostering innovation.
    Execution of transformative projects will also involve significant 
economic and data analyses already conducted by the Department's Office 
of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs and Bureau of Economic 
Analysis.

    Broadband Focus. According to the FCC's own 2016 broadband figures, 
65 percent of Nevada's rural population (39 percent nationally) are 
without access to fixed telecom capabilities, and 72 percent of the 
tribal land populations (41 percent nationally). When you add in the 
urban populations too, that's over 257,000 Nevadans who aren't properly 
connected.

    Question 7. Why is there no direct reference to broadband funding 
in the incentives program or broader dedicated funding directly for 
broadband deployment?
    Though broadband is not directly referenced in the plan, broadband 
infrastructure projects could be eligible for Federal support under the 
infrastructure initiative. Broadband expenditures may be included as an 
underlying part of the plan's incentives, transformational, or rural 
programs. Should the White House or Congress decide to implement any 
other program dedicated to broadband infrastructure, the Department and 
NTIA stand ready to assist in its implementation.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                         Hon. Alexander Acosta
    Question. As you are aware, 5G deployment could create three 
million new jobs across the economy. Nevertheless, a skills gap 
persists between U.S. workers and the technical and professional skills 
needed to build wireless networks. This gap is another potential 
barrier to next generation wireless deployment. The Telecommunications 
Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program (TIRAP) was created to bring 
the apprenticeship model into the wireless industry for the first time.
    What role does the Department of Labor play with industry 
associations to ensure TIRAP is effectively and efficiently preparing 
American workers to meet the demands of deploying next-generation 
telecommunications capabilities? Are apprenticeships able to help 
develop the required skilled force in the U.S. to deploy 5G mobile 
networks? Do you use TIRAP and similar programs as models for other 
industries?
    Answer. The Department provides program oversight and technical 
assistance to the Telecommunications Industry Registered Apprenticeship 
Program (TIRAP). TIRAP is a consortium of telecommunications companies 
that came together to develop an apprenticeship program to emphasize 
safety and quality. The consortium currently has programs for Telecom 
Tower Technician, Wireless Technician 1 and 2, Telecommunications Tower 
Antenna and Line Lead, Telecommunications Tower Construction Lead, 
Telecommunications Tower Construction Foreman, Maintenance and 
Condition Assessment Lead, Maintenance and Condition Assessment 
Foreman, and Fiber Optic Technician. The Department provides technical 
assistance to the telecommunications companies and education providers 
to develop on-the-job learning and related technical instruction for 
the occupations.
    Apprenticeships can help develop the required skills needed to 
deploy 5G mobile networks.
    The curriculum and on-the-job learning components of an 
apprenticeship are developed and vetted by industry and other subject-
matter experts so they meet the requirements and rigor of the industry. 
Apprentices go through structured programs where they work in the 
occupation beginning at the entry-level and take classes that 
complement their on-the-job learning.
    Apprentices have mentors at work who show them how to perform and 
perfect given skills needed for the job. As apprentices progress 
through their apprenticeships, they gain skills and earn higher wages.
    Models such as these are why the President has encouraged the 
expansion of apprenticeships across multiple sectors. Pursuant to the 
President's Executive Order 13801, Expanding Apprenticeships in 
America, the Department is developing a framework for industry-
recognized apprenticeships that are flexible and responsive to market 
needs, less bureaucratic, and more attractive to American job creators. 
The Executive Order established a Task Force on Apprenticeship 
Expansion, including members from companies, trade and industry groups, 
educational institutions, labor unions, and others. The Task Force 
convened weekly to discuss how to engage more job creators and rapidly 
expand these models to help more Americans get back to work and issued 
its Final Report to the President on May 10, 2018. The Department is 
starting to implement many of the recommendations outlined in the 
report. Industry-recognized apprenticeships will expand on the 
successes of the apprenticeship model. Industry-recognized 
apprenticeships will offer the workforce the benefit of companies, 
trade and industry groups, educational institutions, labor unions, and 
others coming together to fill open jobs by identifying the skills 
demanded by job creators and incorporating those skills into skills 
instruction available to job seekers. Once private, third-party 
certifiers are in place, industry-recognized apprenticeships will 
benefit from a streamlined process that ensures high-quality 
apprenticeships.
    In addition to establishing the Task Force, EO 13801 directed the 
Department to consider proposing regulations that promote industry-
recognized apprenticeships. As part of that effort, on July 27, 2018, 
the Department issued a Training and Employment Notice (TEN). The TEN 
outlines the information that certifiers will be expected to have in 
place to establish standards, establish certification intervals 
determined by industries, evaluate and certify programs focused on 
outcomes and process, report results, and maintain records. 
Organizations will be able to seek a determination from the Department 
that their apprenticeship certification practices meet these criteria 
and thus will ensure that certified programs provide apprentices with a 
pathway to a family-sustaining career.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to 
                         Hon. Alexander Acosta
    Question. In response to my question about Buy America policy in 
the President's Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in 
America, you said, ``The Buy America Executive Order is directed to all 
departments. Therefore, all our actions, including this [proposal] 
encompass that executive order.'' Given that the President's plan will 
shift infrastructure spending to states, local governments, and private 
organizations, please explain how this ``prevailing authority'' will be 
imposed on these non-federal entities that will be building 
infrastructure directly.
    Answer. The Department is committed to supporting American workers 
through the Buy American Act (BAA). Grants to states and local 
organizations contain language that requires the grant recipient to 
comply with Buy America requirements. Contractors responding to 
solicitations from the Department must comply with the BAA requirements 
of the solicitation and adhere to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR). The Department evaluates offers in accordance with the policies 
and procedures of Part 25 of the FAR. If a contractor does not comply 
with the BAA or misrepresents its compliance, the Department can elect 
not to make the award to the contractor. If noncompliance is discovered 
post-award, appropriate action--up to and including termination of the 
contract for default or cause--can be taken. Moreover, when 
appropriate, the Department can pursue civil actions (pursuant to the 
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3729) or criminal actions (pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 287), such as when a contractor has knowingly made false 
representations of its BAA-compliance in a request for a payment.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                        to Hon. Alexander Acosta
                       Proposal Modeling/Analysis
    Question 1. During the hearing I asked you to provide me with any 
modeling or scholarly analysis on how exactly you have reached the $1.5 
trillion estimate in activity from $200 billion in Federal funding 
investment. I asked because I have seen analysis that doesn't prove the 
Administration's promise by a long shot. In addition, within certain 
aspects of the proposal, there is no match required and so this 
grandiose figure appears to be predominantly reliant on the performance 
of the Incentives program and the already existing financing programs.
    While I understand you ``focused on the labor aspect'', can you 
please provide background on the justification and analysis for the 
impact, and potential benefits, of the workforce development section of 
the proposal?
    Answer. The President's bold plan to strengthen our Nation's 
infrastructure--including modernizing roads, bridges, tunnels, and 
airports--presents an important opportunity for Americans to build 
their careers while building a stronger foundation for our Nation. The 
President's proposal for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America would 
also help strengthen the economy and create jobs in sectors beyond 
construction, such as hospitality, food service, and retail as 
infrastructure projects break ground.
    The President's plan would not only invest in physical 
infrastructure, but importantly it would invest in workforce 
development, helping to ensure more Americans are prepared to excel in 
today's open jobs as well as the new jobs that will be created as 
infrastructure projects begin across the country. The plan features 
common sense proposals to make it easier for Americans to access 
skills-based learning by reforming a Federal bureaucracy that is often 
too cumbersome and limits Americans from using Federal assistance 
outside of traditional education. The workforce development proposals 
would empower more Americans to build skills that job creators desire 
and to obtain portable credentials that lead to good, family-sustaining 
jobs. Expanding Pell Grant eligibility, providing more career-oriented 
opportunities through the Federal Work Study program, and reducing 
excessive occupational licensing barriers across states will provide 
more Americans with the right skills and credentials to fill these 
good, family-sustaining jobs and expand our Nation's workforce. The 
Administration applauds Congress for its bipartisan efforts in 
reauthorizing the ``Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act 
of 2006'' (as amended by the ``Strengthening Career and Technical 
Education for the 21st Century Act'') (or CTE), which is also 
administered by the U.S. Department of Education. Reforming and passing 
CTE was an important component of the President's infrastructure plan.
    The infrastructure plan reflects the reality that there are many 
educational pathways to family-sustaining jobs. High quality short-term 
workforce development programs can provide immediate economic return to 
job seekers and job creators by helping job seekers gain the skills and 
education necessary to quickly join the workforce. Currently, Federal 
law prohibits Pell recipients from using their grant dollars on courses 
and programs that do not meet certain time or length requirements. 
Thus, the infrastructure plan calls for expanding Federal Pell Grant 
eligibility to high-quality, short-term programs that provide 
credentials in an in-demand field of work. High-quality programs that 
can prepare Americans for in-demand occupations in a shorter time frame 
deserve the same treatment as traditional educational options.
    According to the American Association of Community Colleges, in 
2014 and 2015, 24 percent of all credentials awarded by community 
colleges--in areas like business, engineering, precision production, 
and information technology--were certificates of less than one year. Of 
all community college certificates in 2007, less-than-one-year 
certificates accounted for 62 percent. Pell Grant eligibility, however, 
is generally limited to programs at least equivalent to two thirds of 
an academic year (600 clock hours or 16 credit hours and 15 weeks). 
According to the Council of Economic Advisers, workers in 
infrastructure-related occupations are more likely than workers in non-
infrastructure related occupations to have a high school degree or 
less. Current Pell Grant eligibility overlooks the growing importance 
of high-quality short-term postsecondary credentials to the career 
entry and advancement of many Americans, including those in 
infrastructure-related occupations.
    There is a need to update the Federal Work-Study program to better 
support students pursuing career and technical education. Work-Study 
funds are disproportionately distributed to four-year colleges and 
universities, disadvantaging quality community colleges and other 
programs that are more focused on workplace readiness. The President's 
infrastructure plan would revamp the funding formula to send these 
Work-Study program funds to schools with a strong record of enrolling 
Pell Grant students. Ultimately, the Administration's proposal would 
better support workforce and career-oriented opportunities for low-
income undergraduate students, including those in workforce development 
programs.
    Finally, in addition to helping Americans gain skills for jobs to 
help build our Nation's infrastructure, the President's proposal 
includes provisions to reduce licensing barriers that prevent Americans 
from using their skills across state lines. State licensing 
requirements have become increasingly burdensome and frequently create 
significant barriers to mobility for Americans who want to work in 
other states. Unfortunately, military spouses and veterans face these 
barriers more frequently than others given their higher levels of 
mobility. The President's plan would require that states receiving 
Federal funds for infrastructure projects accept workers with out-of-
state licenses, speeding project delivery, reducing costs, and 
providing greater mobility and flexibility to American workers.
                      Waiving Federal Requirements
    Question 2. Secretary Acosta, multiple parts of the 
administration's infrastructure plan include provisions to provide 
``flexibility'' on Federal requirements for projects that only have a 
small Federal share of funding. This means infrastructure projects 
getting Federal dollars might not have to comply with any number of 
important Federal standards.
    Are you committed to ensuring that infrastructure projects generate 
good paying, family sustaining jobs and workers' safety is protected?
    Answer. Ensuring the safety and health of all workers is a priority 
for the Department and the Administration. The President's 
infrastructure plan includes common-sense, targeted approaches to 
funding and flexibility, expanding and promoting apprenticeships, and 
strengthening evidence-based programs so that Americans obtain 
education directed toward the same end goal: a good, safe, family-
sustaining job.

    Question 3. Exactly what flexibility are you willing to allow when 
it comes to workers?
    Answer. The workforce component of the President's infrastructure 
plan would require that states receiving Federal funds for 
infrastructure projects accept workers with out-of-state licenses, 
speeding project delivery, reducing costs, and providing greater 
mobility and flexibility to American workers.
    More broadly, the Administration is concerned about how 
occupational licenses limit Americans from using their skills across 
state lines. Occupational licensing creates artificial barriers to 
entry in many occupations across the United States, while stifling 
competition and impeding Americans' mobility between states. Today, 
there are more than 1,100 separate occupations licensed by at least one 
state. In 1950, only one in 20 jobs required an occupational license. 
Today, more than one in four American needs a license to work. The 
challenge is particularly acute for America's veterans seeking 
employment upon returning home. While they may have the skills sought 
by job creators, oftentimes their military training does not transfer 
directly to a license required by the state. Military spouses, too, may 
be subject to different state-specific licensing requirements each time 
their spouse receives a new posting, in some cases every two to three 
years. The Department is engaged with governors across the United 
States to achieve occupational licensing reform.

    Question 4. Yes or no, will you waive Davis Bacon prevailing wage 
requirements?
    Answer. The Davis-Bacon Act is the law. The Department remains 
committed to fully and fairly enforcing the laws under its 
jurisdiction, including the Davis-Bacon Act.

    Question 5. Yes or no, will you waive worker safety requirements?
    Answer. Ensuring the safety and health of all workers is a priority 
for the Department and the Administration. The Department remains 
committed to fully and fairly enforcing the laws under its 
jurisdiction, including worker safety and health laws.

    Question 6. Yes or no, will you waive Buy America requirements?
    Answer. The Department is committed to supporting American workers 
through the Buy American Act (BAA). BAA, related laws, and related 
regulations provide for waivers and exceptions in certain 
circumstances. The Department minimizes the use of waivers and 
exceptions to the maximum extent practicable. To limit the use of 
waivers and exceptions, the Department has implemented several 
management controls at critical phases of the procurement process. For 
instance, when the Department procures supplies, goods, or products, it 
enforces extensive review and application of BAA requirements within 
mandatory acquisition documents such as Market Research Reports and 
Acquisition Plans to identify BAA-compliant products that meet the 
Department's requirements. Another example of a BAA management control 
is the integration of BAA elements in the Department's Procurement 
Management Reviews, a process that requires internal reviews of 
contracting activities. The Department will continue to fully comply 
with the BAA, related laws, and related regulations.

    Question 7. Yes or no, will you waive non-discrimination 
requirements?
    Answer. Non-discrimination requirements are settled law. The 
Department remains committed to fully and fairly enforcing the laws 
under its jurisdiction, including Federal non-discrimination laws.

    Question 8. The administration's infrastructure plan includes 
``updates to procurement policies'' to incentivize private investments. 
However, there are no details on what these updates might be and at 
what expense they might come at for American workers and taxpayers.
    Can you commit that these changes will not come at the expense of 
good, family sustaining jobs and high labor standards?
    Answer. Currently, some smaller scale projects that could be 
implemented and open to the public quickly often are delayed by lengthy 
procurement procedures and Federal requirements that are more 
appropriate for larger, more complex projects. The updates would allow 
states to use their own procedures to implement these projects. 
Ensuring the safety and health of all workers is a priority for the 
Department and the Administration. The President's infrastructure plan 
includes common-sense, targeted approaches to funding and flexibility, 
expanding and promoting apprenticeships, and strengthening evidence-
based programs so that Americans obtain education directed toward the 
same end goal: a good, safe, family-sustaining job.
                    Proposed Changes to Pell Grants
    Question 9. The Pell Grant has made it possible throughout the 
decades for hundreds of thousands of low-income families to be able to 
put their children through college. But as the costs of colleges have 
risen and funding has not caught up today the Pell Grant covers just 30 
percent of the cost of attending a four year college.
    You propose expanding the Pell Grant program to allow students to 
use the funds to attend short-term training programs, but the 
President's FY 18 budget kept the funding flat and the FY 18 omnibus 
slightly increased the amount available per a student for Pell Grants. 
You emphasized the Pell Grant surplus in your testimony, but shouldn't 
that be used not just to expand the program to training programs, but 
also to make college more accessible for low-income students who need 
to funds for attend college?
    Answer. Federal law should facilitate, not impede, students 
exploring and accessing higher education. The Administration is working 
to ensure all students have access to a range of postsecondary options, 
including technical education and workforce development where students 
earn industry-recognized credentials in growing sectors of the economy. 
The proposal for the Pell Grant program, which is administered by the 
Department of Education, would further eligible students' access to 
both traditional college as well as certifications and credentials in 
in-demand fields, helping them attain good, family-sustaining jobs. 
Students deserve the same access to high-quality programs that can 
prepare them for in-demand occupations in a shorter time frame as to 
traditional educational options. Additional questions about the Pell 
Grant program are best directed to the Secretary of Education.

    Question 10. How will DOL work to balance the need to support low-
income students seeking to go to college with using the funding supply 
for training programs?
    Answer. The President's 2019 Budget fully funds the Pell Grant 
program and expands eligibility to high-quality short-term programs, 
all while ensuring the program remains on stable financial footing. 
Additional questions about the Pell Grant program are best directed to 
the Secretary of Education.
               Apprenticeships and Workforce Development
    Question 11. I agree with you that programs like the one at Truckee 
Meadows Community College are critically important to workforce 
development. However, I'm concerned that for all the Administration's 
talk about apprenticeship programs, there has been very little action 
so far. When will the administration's apprenticeship program be fully 
implemented?
    Answer. The Department is committed to increasing the number of 
high-quality apprenticeships, including expansion into high-growth, 
emerging sectors where apprenticeships have historically been rare. 
Pursuant to the President's Executive Order 13801, Expanding 
Apprenticeships in America, the Department is developing a framework 
for industry-recognized apprenticeships that are flexible and 
responsive to market needs, less bureaucratic, and more attractive to 
American job creators. The Executive Order established a Task Force on 
Apprenticeship Expansion, including members from companies, trade and 
industry groups, educational institutions, labor unions, and others. 
The Task Force convened weekly to discuss how to engage more job 
creators and rapidly expand these models to help more Americans get 
back to work and issued its Final Report to the President on May 10, 
2018. The Department is starting to implement many of the 
recommendations outlined in the report. Industry-recognized 
apprenticeships will expand on the successes of the apprenticeship 
model. Industry-recognized apprenticeships will offer the workforce the 
benefit of companies, trade and industry groups, educational 
institutions, labor unions, and others coming together to fill open 
jobs by discerning the skills demanded by job creators and connecting 
those skills needed for job seekers. Once private, third-party 
certifiers are in place, industry-recognized apprenticeships will 
benefit from a streamlined process that ensures high-quality 
apprenticeships.
    In addition to establishing the Task Force, EO 13801 directed the 
Department to consider proposing regulations that promote industry-
recognized apprenticeships. As part of that effort, on July 27, 2018, 
the Department issued a Training and Employment Notice (TEN). The TEN 
outlines information that certifiers will be expected to have in place 
to establish standards, establish certification intervals determined by 
industries, evaluate and certify programs focused on outcomes and 
process, report results, and maintain records. Organizations will be 
able to seek a determination from the Department that their 
apprenticeship certification practices meet these criteria and thus 
will ensure that certified programs provide apprentices with a pathway 
to a family-sustaining career.

    Question 12. When someone wants to improve their standing in life 
through career and technical education that is a big risk for them to 
take. They usually have to quit the job they are working in order to 
become an apprentice and get the training they need. But they can't do 
that if the apprenticeship doesn't pay as much as their other job--they 
still need to support their family. How are you going to ensure that 
apprentices are still able to support their family while they are in 
training?
    Answer. Through the expansion of apprenticeship programs, the 
Department is encouraging the development of programs for both new 
hires and incumbent workers. Apprenticeships allow companies the 
ability to upskill their current workforce, effectively creating new 
career paths for long-tenured workers whose prior jobs have changed due 
to technology or other factors.
    For individuals entering or re-entering the workplace, 
apprenticeships provide unique advantages over other workforce 
development models. An apprentice's wages typically increase as he or 
she acquires the occupational skills necessary for successful 
performance of a trade or occupation, and apprentices also receive 
related classroom instruction. Upon successful completion of a high 
quality and structured program, the apprentice receives an industry-
recognized credential and is typically offered a permanent position 
with the employer. This proven model of workforce development benefits 
the apprentice by providing a pathway to a good, family-sustaining 
career and benefits the employer as it gains a productive and skilled 
employee.
    In addition, apprentices may be eligible for funding under the 
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Under WIOA Title I 
authorized programs overseen by the Department, funding is also 
permitted to assist workers with support services such as child care, 
housing, and transportation expenses. These important benefits help 
both employees find and keep good, family-sustaining jobs.

    Question 13. The current apprenticeship regulations try to ensure a 
reasonable ratio of experienced workers to apprentices. What does your 
apprenticeship plan do to ensure employers aren't abusing the 
advantages of apprentices and using it as another way to pay workers 
less?
    Answer. The Department provides oversight of apprenticeship 
programs registered with the Department or with a State Apprenticeship 
Agency to ensure that agreements between employers and apprentices are 
transparent and equitable. The Department will continue to promptly 
investigate allegations that an apprenticeship program does not comply 
with all applicable Federal wage laws.

    Question 14. Are you working with labor unions that have created 
successful apprenticeship programs in order to learn what works and 
what doesn't when it comes to apprenticeships? If so, can you share 
some of these conversations?
    Answer. The Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion included members 
from companies, trade and industry groups, educational institutions, 
labor unions, and others. Of the 20 Task Force members, three are labor 
union leaders: Douglas McCarron, General President, United Brotherhood 
of Carpenters and Joiners of America; Sean McGarvey, President, North 
America's Building Trades Unions; and Joseph Sellers Jr., General 
President, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and 
Transportation Workers. The Task Force convened weekly to discuss how 
to engage more job creators and rapidly expand these models to help 
more Americans get back to work. The Task Force unanimously approved 26 
recommendations and issued its Final Report to the President on May 10, 
2018. The Task Force's recommendations fell into categories such as 
education and credentialing; attracting business to apprenticeship; 
expanding access, equity, and career awareness; and administrative and 
regulatory strategies to expand apprenticeship.
                              Immigration
    Question 15. Nationwide, an estimated 51,700 TPS beneficiaries from 
El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti work in construction. President Trump 
is ending TPS for El Salvador and Haiti and may do the same for 
Honduras this summer. Both the Chamber of Commerce and labor unions 
agree that TPS workers are crucial to the construction industry and 
that ending the program will hurt the economy. Do you agree that ending 
the TPS program will have a negative effect on the construction 
industry and their workforce?
    Answer. The Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program is not within 
the purview of the Department.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                           Hon. Sonny Perdue
    Question. The term livestock as defined by section 1471 of title 7, 
United States Code, allows for the Secretary of the Department of 
Agriculture to designate other animals under the definition. As you 
know, this definition is used by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration to enforce regulations and provide exemptions to 
commercial drivers, such as the exemption found in part 395.1(k) of 
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. In an effort to help ranchers 
and related businesses get their goods to market, do you commit to 
consider in consultation with the Department of Transportation, 
expanding the definition of livestock, where appropriate, as to 
adequately include perishable or sensitive loads for the purposes of 
commercial transportation not currently defined as livestock?
    Answer. While USDA continues to consult with DOT to address the 
challenge you raise, ultimately, a legislative fix may be needed in 
FMCSA's statutes to address this issue rather than altering a 
definition affecting a USDA program. Potential options include 
expanding the exception for the transport of agricultural commodities 
by amending section 229(e) of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act 
of 1999 (MCSIA), as amended by section 4130 of SAFETEA-LU, or providing 
an exception in the statute addressing the Electronic Logging Device 
(ELD) mandate, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 31137. That fix might include not only 
livestock, but other perishable or sensitive loads of commercial 
transport. USDA program definitions were not designed with the 
transport of live animals in mind, but rather for emergency assistance 
programs for livestock used for food.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                           Hon. Sonny Perdue
    Question 1. The Bipartisan Budget Act calls for increased 
investment in broadband deployment. It seems that USDA will play a 
major role in implementing this funding. Last year, I introduced 
legislation entitled the Broadband Connections for Rural Opportunities 
Program Act (BCROP), with my colleague from New York, Senator 
Gillibrand. Our legislation restructures the Rural Broadband Loan 
Program in to a grant and loan program where funding can be targeted to 
high-priority projects in unserved areas.

    (a) Will you work with us to ensure cities and towns with the most 
need, especially in rural communities, aren't overlooked?

    (b) In addition, do you plan on working with other Federal agencies 
(FCC, DoC, DoT) to ensure this is a more coordinated effort that what 
occurred in previous years?
    Answer. We commit to working with Congress to ensure that the rural 
communities with the most need benefit from USDA's funding of broadband 
deployment. Interagency coordination will be a significant component as 
we move forward with implementation of the recommendations in the 
Agriculture and Rural Prosperity Task Force I presented to the 
President in January. Accordingly, USDA is already regularly conversing 
with both the Department of Commerce and the Federal Communications 
Commission regarding the deployment of broadband funding, and our 
interagency work will continue. USDA also co-chairs the Broadband 
Interagency Working Group with the Department of Commerce, where all 
Federal agencies engaged in broadband deployment have an opportunity to 
discuss the most effective and efficient methods for funding broadband 
deployment. We also participate in the Broadband Deployment Advisory 
Committee (BDAC) which will provide advice and recommendations for the 
FCC on how to accelerate the deployment of high-speed Internet access.

    Question 2. Your agency requested a significant amount of funding--
$500 million--in the infrastructure proposal. Several Federal agencies 
have different standards when it comes to broadband deployment and what 
they qualify as covered. It is imperative that current and future 
funding is not wasted.

    (a) How will the USDA measure how a community is covered?

    (b) And will the USDA work with the other agencies to make sure we 
get this right?
    Answer. USDA will use a multi-faceted approach to determine if a 
community presently is covered, as required by the Omnibus Act. First, 
USDA Rural Development will use all publicly-available broadband 
service maps to perform an initial coverage analysis. Then we will use 
our own more granular project-specific evaluation to confirm stated 
service, and will also utilize our maps on the service territories of 
Rural Utilities Service-funded broadband projects. We will give 
broadband service providers that are located within an applicant's 
proposed service territory an opportunity to submit maps indicating the 
areas receiving broadband service. USDA will then use its field staff 
to check if broadband service is available in the applicant's proposed 
service territories.
    Interagency coordination will be a significant component as we move 
forward with implementation of the recommendations in the Agriculture 
and Rural Prosperity Task Force that I presented to the President in 
January. As stated above, USDA will continue to collaborate with the 
Department of Commerce and the Federal Communications Commission on 
deployment of broadband funding with a renewed focus on results for 
rural communities. USDA also works with other Federal agencies through 
the Broadband Interagency Working Group. We will continue working with 
our Federal counterparts to ensure that we utilize these funds in the 
most effective manner possible.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                           Hon. Sonny Perdue
    Question. My staff has been in ongoing discussions with USDA 
officials and relevant committee staff regarding the Rural Development 
programs providing technical assistance to small banks and third party 
lenders in determining value of collateral when underworking loan 
guarantees for the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) broadband programs and 
the Business & Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantee Program. It is our current 
understanding that USDA applies their technical expertise in valuing 
broadband fiber to their loan programs, but small banks and third party 
lenders are not able to apply similar expertise to provide financial 
support to local businesses through the relevant loan guarantee 
programs.
    Mr. Secretary, will you commit to making sure that USDA provides 
any technical expertise necessary for its Rural Development loan 
guarantee programs to increase financial opportunity for businesses 
seeking to address the Digital Divide and provide high-speed broadband 
to rural communities?
    Answer. Yes, USDA commits to provide the technical expertise 
necessary for the Rural Development loan guarantee program to assist 
business applicants seeking to address the lack of e-connectivity and 
broadband service in rural America.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to 
                           Hon. Sonny Perdue
    USDA Disaster Assistance. Secretary Perdue, the topic of this 
hearing is infrastructure. But as you know, the citrus industry in 
Florida is facing crises that can't be solved by infrastructure alone. 
The industry is being decimated by citrus greening and then got 
walloped by Hurricane Irma. It is absolutely essential that the USDA 
communicate to growers in my state about how the over two billion 
dollars in disaster assistance funds is going to be spent. And it needs 
to be workable for the domestic citrus industry, without arbitrary 
payment and acreage limits.

    Question 1. Do I have your commitment to provide this information 
quickly and to address the needs of the citrus industry?
    Answer. USDA announced in April that we would be utilizing the 
$2.36 billion we were appropriated and directed by Congress to spend on 
ad hoc disaster assistance through a 2017 Wildfires and Hurricane 
Indemnity Program (WHIP) and a $340 million block grant to the State of 
Florida for citrus producers. While the 2017 WHIP will have payment 
limits and an adjusted gross income test applied, the block grant will 
provide Florida more flexibility to provide critical assistance to 
those citrus producers with monumental losses following last year's 
hurricanes. I am confident that the two-pronged approach will provide 
the assistance you, your colleagues, and your citrus growers were 
seeking.

    USDA Agricultural Facilities. Secretary Perdue, unfortunately, many 
of the USDA's research labs and agricultural facilities are falling 
apart just as badly as our roads and bridges. The USDA's academic 
partners, like the University of Florida, often house these facilities. 
The roughly 100 agriculture colleges in this country have over eight 
billion dollars in deferred maintenance of their buildings and 
supporting facilities. This deterioration negatively affects our 
ability to address the challenges of invasive pests, bio-terrorism, and 
diseases like citrus greening and canker.

    Question 2. What should an infrastructure package include to ensure 
that the USDA can quickly disburse funding to help reduce this deferred 
maintenance backlog?
    Answer. The Administration's Legislative Outline for Rebuilding 
Infrastructure in America proposes new Federal resources and policy 
reforms to support the modernization of a wide-range of infrastructure 
asset classes, such as transportation (surface, water, and air), 
utilities, broadband, water resources, and SuperFund cleanup sites. The 
proposal does not include direct funding for the deferred maintenance 
of research labs and agricultural facilities for USDA and its partners, 
as such funds should be derived from other sources.

    Scientific Integrity. The Union of Concerned Scientists recently 
sent surveys to scientists at USDA Agricultural Research Services on 
the topic of scientific integrity. This the organization's ninth poll 
on the subject, the findings of which provide important insights for 
agency leaders and policy makers about the health of the scientific 
process within the government. The response rate to the current survey 
is uncharacteristically low.

    Question 3. Will you commit to providing guidance to Federal 
scientists that they are free to participate in such surveys, with the 
appropriate restrictions on use of government resources, in order to 
share their opinions on the conduct and communication of science at 
Federal agencies?
    Answer. The USDA has provided clear guidance that employees are 
free to participate in outside surveys as a personal activity with no 
requirement for ethics clearance, managerial notification or managerial 
approval. Consistent with existing Federal ethics rules, participation 
should be undertaken either while off-duty or during the lunch hour, 
since employees would be responding in their personal capacity.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                           Hon. Sonny Perdue
    Question. Farming and ranching are an important part of New 
Mexico's heritage--and the largest sector of our economy, generating $3 
billion annually to the state's economy. Agriculture employs 25,000 New 
Mexicans directly, and tens of thousands of people in indirect jobs. In 
2016, New Mexico's largest trading partner was Mexico, where the state 
exported 43 percent of our goods. What would be the impact on U.S. 
businesses and consumers, particularly agricultural producers, if NAFTA 
does not continue? Do you expect agricultural products to become more 
expensive, and what will be the impact on farms that sell their 
products to both Mexico and Canada if pre-NAFTA rules go into effect?
    Answer. We are committed to renegotiating the NAFTA in a way that 
benefits all Americans. I have confidence that the President and 
Ambassador Lighthizer will finalize negotiations in a way that improves 
the agreement for U.S. manufacturing while maintaining the vital 
agricultural markets we have with Mexico and Canada.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                           Hon. Sonny Perdue
    RUS Community Connect Grants. I am considering legislative options 
for modernizing the RUS Community Connect grant program. The program 
currently sets an eligibility cut off that makes communities ineligible 
if a single household has broadband service at or above 4/1 megabits 
per second. This speed threshold has not been updated in years, and it 
is substantially below the FCC's definition of broadband coverage at 
25/3 speeds.

    Question. Do you share my concerns with the current RUS grant 
eligibility requirements? Do you agree the 4/1 speed threshold is 
outdated? Do you think the RUS Community Connect grant program should 
be updated?
    Answer. RUS agrees with you that the 4/1 speed cannot meet today's 
and tomorrow's e-Connectivity needs, and for the FY 2018 Community 
Connect Program the eligibility threshold was raised to 10/1. Even at 
the 4/1 threshold, the program was regularly oversubscribed for funding 
available. Raising the threshold to 10/1 means that areas where even 4/
1 is not available will be competing with areas that could have some 
level of broadband service below the 10/1 threshold.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to 
                           Hon. Sonny Perdue
    Question 1. The Administration's infrastructure plan describes a 
``rural formula'' that would be calculated based on rural lane miles 
and rural population as the basis for distribution of Rural 
Infrastructure Program Formula Funds. There are myriad definitions of 
``rural'' across the Federal Government. How does the Administration 
define ``rural'' for the purpose of the Rural Infrastructure Program?
    Answer. The rural formula in the Rebuilding Infrastructure in 
America proposal included rural lane miles as calculated by USDOT and 
rural population as defined by USDA's Economic Research Service, with a 
cut-off of 50,000 population, which is intended to reflect policy 
objectives.

    Question 2. The President's plan describes a Rural Infrastructure 
Program. The plan proposes a new formula grant program to distribute 
$40 billion to state governors. Can you confirm that the block grants 
provided to state governors under this program will be subject to Buy 
America requirements? In other White House materials released with the 
plan, the program is justified by saying '' we want to empower States 
and localities to invest in the projects they want, without being 
burdened by the Federal Government's red tape and bureaucracy which 
impede creativity, add costs, and slows [sic] down the process.'' Can 
you describe what Federal requirements states will be allowed to waive 
under the Rural Infrastructure Program?
    Answer. Myriad types of ``red tape and bureaucracy'' are pervasive 
throughout the Federal Government, including those that impede 
investment in infrastructure and therefore impede prosperity. The 
President's Rebuilding Infrastructure in America proposal includes a 
multitude of options for Congress to reduce red tape and bureaucracy, 
including a more sensible and less duplicative environmental review 
process that would speed up approvals while still protecting the 
environment. The State Block Grant for Rural Infrastructure approach 
would devolve environmental permitting to state-level reviews and laws, 
which often are similar to Federal protections but are administered 
more quickly and efficiently than the convoluted Federal process.
    Regarding the question about ``Buy America'' compliance, per 
Executive Order 13788, Federal grants are subject to these 
requirements, and as block grants to states, the rural formula funds in 
the Rebuilding Infrastructure in America would comport to such 
requirements, as articulated in the Executive Order. As legislation is 
developed, Congress may stipulate the same or different Buy America 
requirements, because the President's proposal is simply a starting 
point for discussion about the best infrastructure investment package 
for America. This Administration looks forward to working with Congress 
in the legislative process to create on the most impactful 
infrastructure proposal for the whole country, and ultimately to 
executing the law as passed.

    Question 3. Have you analyzed the impact of the EPA's proposed 
settlement in the PES bankruptcy case on American farmers and the RFS 
program? What were the results? Why didn't the EPA follow its own 
regulations and hold The Carlyle Group, which owns PES, responsible for 
the refinery's compliance responsibilities under the Clean Air Act?
    Answer. We have looked at the impact of the PES settlement in 
combination with small refinery waivers, both effectively reducing the 
RVO in the current year and reducing demand for corn ethanol and 
biodiesel. USDA remains concerned about ``waived'' or ``excused'' 
volumes and the demand destruction they create and the impact they have 
on commodity prices and farm income.

    Question 4. Has the President read the resolution by the National 
Corn Growers Association opposing the RIN cap, and have you briefed him 
on this resolution and a RIN cap's harmful impact on farmers across the 
country?
    Answer. I have conveyed similar concerns to the President, 
regarding the negative impacts of implementation of a standalone RIN 
cap and I know he has heard from other concerned parties such as the 
National Corn Growers. I have conveyed that the implementation of a 
standalone RIN cap runs counter to the President's desire to maintain 
the 15 billion gallon RVO and the associated impacts on commodity 
demand and prices.

    Question 5. Are you aware that increasing the number of gallons of 
biofuel that can be sold by allowing year-round sales of E15 will 
increase the supply and decrease the price of RINs? Is it clear that if 
refiners were actually interested in reducing RIN prices rather than 
lowering the amount of biofuels blended, they would agree that year-
round sales of E15 are in fact a `win-win' solution?
    Answer. I have maintained and expressed that allowing up to 15 
percent ethanol blends (E15) to be sold year-round through the 1-pound 
RVP waiver along with improved transparency in the RIN market itself 
would improve RFS implementation and may contribute the RIN price 
relief that is desired by all parties.

    Question 6. Under the RFS, refiners can blend biofuels, which is 
the intent of the RFS, and get a Renewable Identification Number (RIN) 
for free. Or, refiners can forego blending and buy a RIN instead. Most 
refiners long ago chose to blend and get a RIN for free, while a few 
refiners have chosen to rely on buying RINs.
    RIN prices are set by supply and demand. When RIN prices rise, 
refiners blend more biofuels rather than buying RINs. RIN supplies 
increase and prices fall. When more biofuels are blended, more 
feedstocks like corn or soybeans are used, creating market opportunity 
for farmers. Capping the price of RINs will eliminate the price signal 
for more blending, reducing demand for feedstocks, negatively impacting 
agriculture economies and farmers, and undermining the intent of the 
RFS.
    USDA's forecast shows that net farm income will fall by $4.3 
billion this year compared to 2017 to the lowest net farm income level 
since 2006, and the adoption of a RIN cap in concert with year-round 
sales of E15 would cut biofuel blending levels and is estimated to cost 
America's farmers $3.65 billion nationwide, according to a study 
released just a few weeks ago by Iowa State University. What steps are 
you taking to ensure American farmers and the biofuels industry do not 
see further economic losses from changes to RIN and RFS policies?
    Answer. The dynamics of the biofuel and RIN markets are complex, 
and I have spent numerous hours examining issues related to the RFS and 
its impact on the farm sector. As a result, I've been consistent in my 
position that the RVP waiver to allow year-round sales of E15 as well 
as RIN market transparency, to improve the market signals for blending, 
are key to bringing RIN prices down and improving market function. 
Similarly, having looked over any number of proposals concerning the 
RFS, I've expressed my concern that actions, such as a standalone RIN 
cap, that lower demand for biofuels, reduces demand for corn and 
soybeans at a time when commodity prices have fallen significantly in 
just the last 5 years. I have carried these messages to the White House 
and expressed them publicly and continue to express my support for 
maintaining the volumes in the RFS.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                          to Hon. Sonny Perdue
    Proposal Modeling/Analysis. During the hearing I asked you to 
provide me with any modeling or scholarly analysis on how exactly you 
have reached the $1.5 trillion estimate in activity from $200 billion 
in Federal funding investment. I asked because I have seen analysis 
that doesn't prove the Administration's promise by a long shot. In 
addition, within certain aspects of the proposal, there is no match 
required and so this grandiose figure appears to be predominantly 
reliant on the performance of the Incentives program and the already 
existing financing programs.

    Question 1. I have not yet received this information yet, can you 
please provide me some form of research that shows, behind general 
estimates of what certain programs are capable of, real analysis that 
there is enough newly generated local revenues and capacity to actually 
result in $1.5 billion net cumulative investment nationwide?
    Answer. The leverage figures projected in the Rebuilding 
Infrastructure in America proposal are predominantly derived from two 
elements of the proposal. The first is the ``Incentives'' program, 
which is proposed to receive $100 billion in Federal funds, and likely 
will predominantly be invested in urban and suburban areas. The second 
is $20 billion in support for existing Federal credit programs and an 
expansion of private activity bond authority.
    The first element in its entirety (the ``Incentives'' program) and 
part of the second element (Federal credit programs for transportation) 
is in the jurisdiction of USDOT so the following was provided by USDOT.
    Designed as discretionary grants, in the ``Incentives'' program, 
project sponsors will compete to attract these Federal dollars in part 
by showing how well they leverage these dollars with non-Federal 
investment from State, local, and private sector partners. This 
leverage selection criterion was modeled after a program USDOT launched 
last year, called Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA). An 
incentive grant could not exceed 20 percent of new revenue. 
Consequently, $100 billion for this program would leverage hundreds of 
billions more in non-Federal investment.
    Another source of leverage within the Administration's proposal is 
additional funding for existing Federal credit programs. One example is 
the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) 
credit program. In recent years, each $1 of Federal funding has allowed 
TIFIA to provide approximately $14 in credit assistance, and can 
support up to $40 of total infrastructure investment, including other 
State, local, and private sector investments.
    In addition to the TIFIA loan program, the Railroad Rehabilitation 
and Improvement Financing (RRIF) credit program has available lending 
authority of approximately $31 billion. The program recently received 
its first appropriation of $25 million, after historically not 
receiving appropriated dollars. Expansion of funding and eligibility 
for these credit programs can significantly leverage Federal funding to 
increase total infrastructure investment.
    Additionally, it is possible that the rural program in the 
Rebuilding Infrastructure in America proposal will also motivate states 
and local governments to prioritize their own funds to rural 
infrastructure in their jurisdictions and/or possibly use these funds 
to set up financing structures similar to those within the Federal 
Government. For instance, many states have created and operate 
``infrastructure banks''. As an example of how this could turn the 
proposal's State Block Grant for Rural Infrastructure into leverage, 
USDA is the administrating agency for a three Federal credit programs 
in the Rural Development Mission Area: Rural Water Utilities, Rural 
Electric, and Rural Telecommunications/Broadband. The FY18 budget for 
these three programs totaled $9.545 billion in Program Level, but 
required only $1.761 billion in Budget Authority. This means that 
Federal taxpayer funds appropriated (Budget Authority) to rural 
infrastructure in these three asset classes (water utilities, electric 
power, and broadband) yield a total of 5.4 times the amount of the 
appropriation in project value for rural infrastructure (Program 
Level).

    Question 2. Within that analysis, have you factored in states and 
communities who prohibit tolling and other private sector leveraging in 
infrastructure?
    Answer. The rural program in the Rebuilding Infrastructure in 
America proposal would provide block grants to states. Receipt of these 
block grants would not be contingent upon creation of tolling or 
private sector leveraging therefore these state-level policy and legal 
conditions were not factored in to the analysis.

    Question 3. Also within this information, can you confirm that it's 
factored in various state and local limitations on public-private 
partnerships, and yet assures that each state will be able to have 
their own equivalent chance at utilizing the investments promised in 
your proposal?
    Answer. The rural program in the Rebuilding Infrastructure in 
America proposal are block grants to states that do not require public-
private partnerships, yet allocates funds to states based on rural 
population and miles of rural roads. The proposal envisions that each 
State would receive no less than a specified statutorily-defined 
minimum and no more than a statutorily-defined maximum of the Rural 
Infrastructure Program formula funds, however the actual upper and 
lower limits on grant amounts per state was not specified.

    Question 4. Can you also please provide evidence that the analysis 
does not quantify the acceleration or development of already funded 
projects through your ``permitting improvements'' as associated with 
your stated promise of $1.5 trillion in infrastructure activity?
    Answer. The Rebuilding Infrastructure in America proposal includes 
various reforms to improve the process for environmental permitting of 
major projects, to remove duplicative efforts, reduce interagency 
delays, and still protect the environment while advancing the much-
needed upgrades to our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. Such improved 
processes will benefit infrastructure supported by all sources of 
Federal funds, including those in the Administration's proposal.

    SMART Communities and Innovation. Smart Communities are a passion 
of mine since I've seen the wonderful work being done in Nevada on 
various innovations in transportation, both in Northern and Southern 
Nevada. I appreciated Sec. Perdue highlighting smart technologies in 
his testimony, especially in rural communities. I couldn't agree more 
that they could benefit from this innovation, and should definitely not 
be left behind. That's why I was interested when I had heard and read 
about your inclusion of a ``transformative projects'' program.

    Question 5. Do you envision this concept could be eligible under 
the $50 billion rural package?
    Answer. Yes, the rural program of the Rebuilding Infrastructure in 
America proposal would provide block grants to states, which can choose 
the best investments in their state to enhance rural economic 
prosperity. In some states, this might include broadband infrastructure 
to support Smart Communities as well as Precision Agriculture, advanced 
manufacturing, intelligent transportation systems, blockchain, 
telemedicine, and distance learning/education. I have regularly 
promoted broadband deployment as an effective strategy to catalyze 
rural economies and bring rural communities the 21st Century quality of 
life that all Americans should benefit from. More information about 
such goals for rural broadband e-Connectivity can be found in the 
Agriculture and Rural Prosperity Task Force Report, at www.USDA
.gov/RuralProsperity.

    Question 6. Given your support of smart communities, would that 
concept, where technology is used to improve transportation safety, 
mobility and efficiencies, be applicable for the transformative 
projects program?
    Answer. According to the Rebuilding Infrastructure in America 
proposal, USDA would not be the agency administering the 
``transformative'' program. However, USDA would collaborate with the 
Department of Commerce (named as the administering agency for this 
program), as requested, for advancing rural infrastructure and rural 
economic prosperity.

    Broadband Focus. According to the FCC's own 2016 broadband figures, 
65 percent of Nevada's rural population (39 percent nationally) are 
without access to fixed telecom capabilities, and 72 percent of the 
tribal land populations (41 percent nationally).\1\ When you add in the 
urban populations too, that's over 257,000 Nevadans who aren't properly 
connected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf

    Question 7. Why is there no direct reference to broadband funding 
in the incentives program or broader dedicated funding directly for 
broadband deployment?
    Answer. Several of the programs within the Legislative Outline for 
Rebuilding Infrastructure in America include broadband as an eligible 
expense. For example, under the Rural Infrastructure Program, each 
state would choose how much to invest in rural broadband deployment, in 
accordance with their own needs and state laws that govern 
telecommunications infrastructure and services. Broadband projects are 
also eligible for Federal funding under the proposed Transformative 
Projects Program, and rural broadband services facilities are proposed 
to be eligible for Private Activity Bonds. Additionally, $600 million 
was recently appropriated to RUS for a new rural broadband pilot 
program in the 2018 budget. USDA is in the process of standing this 
program up and our goal is to make these funds available in a 
responsible fashion, as quickly as possible.

    Question 8. Also, while in theory the rural funds could be used for 
broadband projects, I am have concerns. States often do not have 
institutions dedicated to allocating grant money for rural broadband 
like they do for projects like water or highways. Even this formula 
itself is based largely on how many miles of roads are in these areas.
    Can any of you speak to this issue?
    Answer. The rural formula in the proposal is based on rural 
population (as an indicator of where residents live in rural parts of 
the state) and miles of rural roads (as a proxy indicator of where 
rural infrastructure of all types currently exists, including electric 
power and telephone infrastructure). It is not intended to indicate the 
exact type of infrastructure to benefit from the proposal's 
investment--that would be at the discretion of states, in accordance 
with their Rural Infrastructure Investment Plans. Also, while many 
states do not have established agencies to administer state programs 
for broadband, more than three dozen states participate in the 
Department of Commerce's State Broadband Leaders Network (administered 
by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration) and 
almost all states have public service bodies that regulate utilities 
services, including telecommunications.

    Question 9. What have been your experiences with state governments 
prioritizing broadband over other projects?
    Answer. Some states including but not limited to Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, Tennessee, North Carolina, New York and others have already 
been prioritizing broadband and many other states across the country 
are also contemplating the best methods to improve rural Broadband 
deployment. Also, other infrastructure types, such as waterways, 
bridges and other public safety infrastructure are also in need of 
investment, so governors would be enabled to make the best decisions 
for their own rural infrastructure needs that would support the best 
economic outcomes for their residents.

    Question 10. How will the Federal Government assure we're sending 
Federal dollars to the right places?
    Answer. The proposal allocates a majority of the rural program (80 
percent, or $40 billion) directly to states as block grants, per a 
formula, yet this is different from a traditional block grant because 
governors would consult with their state's directors of rural 
development to choose projects that are the most impactful for rural 
communities. The 20 percent bonus funding as performance grants ($10 
billion out of the $50 billion) would be available to States who choose 
projects in their Rural Infrastructure Investment Plan that improve 
rural economies. Each state would be evaluated on their Rural 
Infrastructure Investment Plan that would be published on the Internet 
for ensuring transparency of investment choices and adherence to the 
plan in actual projects that receive the funds. States would also be 
evaluated on how well they allocate their formula funds to projects 
that:

   Rebuild and modernize roads, bridges, and other 
        infrastructure

   Provide clean water for rural families

   Expand broadband deployment to connect rural communities

   Supply affordable, reliable power to rural communities

   Fund other projects such as locks & dams, inland ports, 
        rural railroad lines and railroad crossings, reservoirs, 
        environmental clean-up (brownfields & Superfund sites), and 
        wastewater facilities

    Question 11. What metrics will you use to ensure we're wisely using 
limited taxpayer dollars to close the digital divide?
    Answer. Each state's investment would be evaluated based on the 
number of rural citizens and businesses receivingaccess to improved, 
modernized infrastructure, including broadband. Note that this proposal 
is a starting point for developing the best infrastructure investment 
package for America and the Administration looks forward to working 
with Congress in the legislative process for creating the most 
impactful infrastructure proposal for the whole country's 
infrastructure needs, including ensuring states whose rural areas need 
broadband receive such investments.

    Reconciling aspects of the plan. The rural definition that is used 
is ``rural areas with populations of less than 50,000.

    Question 12. What is your definition of an ``area'', or can we 
assume that is to mean the population of one specific community?
    Answer. The rural program in the Rebuilding Infrastructure in 
America proposal is intended to fund infrastructure in geographic areas 
of jurisdictions that have a population of less than 50,000.

    Question 13. Because then you are saying that the Administration 
says that the capital of my great state, Carson City, estimated 
population 54,500 (2015), that they won't then qualify for the ``free'' 
Federal rural funding, and that it has to make its appeal to the 
complicated and capital intensive Incentives Program, and only when 
they raise new revenue?
    Answer. The rural program in the Rebuilding Infrastructure in 
America proposal is intended to fund infrastructure in geographic areas 
that have a population of less than 50,000. However, this proposal is a 
starting point for developing the best infrastructure investment 
package for America and the Administration looks forward to working 
with Congress in the legislative process for creating the most 
impactful infrastructure proposal for the whole country.

    Question 14. I ask this, not because I don't appreciate the 
commitment you've show to rural America, but because of the concern I 
have of how you're upending the current Federal transportation model 
for many communities in all of our states--that wouldn't likely have 
private sector interest, or in the case of Nevada, can't toll.
    Is it the Administration's position that only rural areas deserve 
this kind of no strings support from the Federal Government, or in your 
words shouldn't be required to have ``skin in the game''?
    Answer. The Administration's infrastructure proposal recognizes the 
diverse infrastructure needs and economic conditions across the 
country. The Infrastructure Incentives Program is designed to spur new 
infrastructure investment by providing matching grants. In the rural 
program, a match is not required, though states that are able to bring 
non-federal funds to project investments, as articulated in their Rural 
Infrastructure Investment Program, would be given credit in the 
dissemination of the 20 percent bonus (non-formula) funds in the 
proposal.

    Question 15. By structuring your proposal this way, aren't you 
really just pitting areas of a state or country against one another?
    Answer. No, as the various components of the Rebuilding 
Infrastructure in America proposal are tailored to the various types of 
economic conditions and capabilities of our Nation's vast spectrum of 
population sizes, financial capacities, and future economic prospects 
once infrastructure investments occur
Housing and Schools in the Proposal.
    Question 16. Since you handle aspects of rural housing at the USDA, 
can you tell me what specifically you all are doing within the 
Administration's proposal for the affordable housing crisis that we are 
experiencing in many parts of the country?
    Answer. The Administration's framework for rebuilding 
infrastructure in America is focused on addressing long unmet needs to 
spur prosperous rural economies including transportation, broadband, 
water and wastewater, and power and electric infrastructure to 
strengthen the rural economy. While it does not specifically address 
the affordable housing crisis, the Administration is committed to 
ensuring rural Americans can achieve a high quality of life. The Report 
to the President from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural 
Prosperity includes a call to Action to improve the quality of life for 
rural Americans by addressing the challenges of housing affordability. 
Addressing the shortage of local jobs and a lack of connection to those 
job opportunities is major factor in overcoming these challenges.
    In addition, the President's FY 2019 Budget includes funding for 
the Section 502 Single Family Housing (SFH) Guaranteed Loan Program 
that will provide low-and moderate-income rural families access to 
mortgage credit by guaranteeing loans issued by agency-approved private 
sector lenders. Base funding of $24 billion will guarantee an estimated 
163,482 home loans in rural communities, including home purchases and 
the refinancing of existing Rural Housing Service (RHS) loans. Fiscal 
year 2019 strategies include continued growth of the Single Close 
Combination Construction to Permanent Loan program to spur new 
construction of affordable housing rural communities, thereby helping 
address the affordable housing crisis in rural America.
    In FY 2019, USDA expects to fund the construction and preservation 
of more than 5,700 rental housing units for very low, low and moderate-
income families through its Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing 
Loan Program. The program receives no subsidy, its credit costs require 
no taxpayer support, and each Section 538 loan dollar leverages more 
than $3 of additional investment from non-USDA sources. The Section 521 
Rental Assistance program currently enables approximately 270,000 
households with incomes that are predominantly very low (92 percent) or 
low to reside in decent, affordable, multi-family housing in 
communities throughout rural America. More than 62 percent of these 
households have either senior or disabled residents.

    Question 17. Also, how could a local community, especially in rural 
Nevada, work to construct a school under the Administration's proposal?
    Answer. While Administration's infrastructure proposal does not 
specifically address the construction of public schools, the 
longstanding Community Facilities Program administered in the Rural 
Housing Service can finance the construction and improvement of rural 
schools. The Community Facilities program has over $2.8 billion 
available in its Direct Loans and Grants Program for Fiscal Year 2018. 
The community is encouraged to reach out to the Nevada State Director 
to learn about how Rural Development programs can assist in all aspects 
of building community infrastructure.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                            Hon. Rick Perry
    Question 1. The infrastructure proposal aims to expedite project 
delivery. In your experience as a Secretary and Governor, what are the 
most important changes we can make to reduce burdens and expedite the 
building process?
    Answer. Based on my experiences, the current permitting process is 
fractured and redundant--requiring projects to navigate a maze of 
complicated Federal regulations overseen by multiple--and often 
competing--Federal agencies.
    The President's ``One Agency, One Decision'' proposal will inject 
common sense, outcome-based reforms intended to simplify the 
environmental review and authorization decision process for major 
infrastructure projects, reducing it to an average of two years, while 
maintaining essential environmental protections. It will also establish 
standard operating procedures for every Federal agency to use when 
making permitting decisions; it will set reasonable--but firm--
deadlines based on project complexity; and it will hold Federal 
agencies accountable if those deadlines are missed.
    The permitting reform will reduce unnecessary hurdles, provide 
investors with critical certainty, drive investments, and speed up 
projects that will allow the U.S. to export more of our new found 
energy.

    Question 2. Critics claim that by shortening the timeline of 
project delivery, we will undermine environmental protections. Can you 
provide a specific example of unnecessary red tape that slows project 
delivery, but does not provide any real benefit?
    Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) engages in many interagency 
efforts related to the development of new energy infrastructure in the 
United States, including the successful implementation of EO 13807 and 
the One Federal Decision (OFD) framework; the Integrated Interagency 
Pre-application (IIP) process under Section 216(h) of the Federal Power 
Act; and Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. 
These initiatives make it possible to save time by implementing 
efficiencies, without undermining the substantive environmental 
protections. DOE also develops tools for stakeholders, like the 
Regulatory and Permitting Information Desktop (RAPID) Toolkit. As a 
leading proponent for sensible review and permitting efficiencies in 
the area of transmission infrastructure, DOE has developed a voluntary 
pre-application approach that brings all permitting entities (federal 
and non-federal) together with the transmission project proponent for 
early coordination of information needs, understanding of various 
permitting processes, and allows for cooperative engagement that 
supports the principles of the OFD framework.
    While DOE does engage in many interagency efforts related to 
efficiencies in implementing new energy infrastructure, the 
infrastructure permitting process can be simplified and shortened.
    Similar permitting issues have also been an impediment to the 
development of gas pipelines to the Northeast (New England) from the 
productive Marcellus gas fields.
    Additionally, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), in a March 
2018 report, The Economic Benefits and Impacts of Expanded 
Infrastructure Investment \1\, recently highlighted some of the 
increasingly burdensome red tape that projects are subjected to during 
the environmental review process, often comprised of multiple 
components from various agencies. In recent years, the time to complete 
final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and pipeline permit 
applications have continued to increase. In the case of EIS, the 
average time required has increased from 4.7 years in 2014 to 5.1 years 
in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The White House--Council of Economic Advisers. The Economic 
Benefits and Impacts of Expanded Infrastructure Investment. March 2018. 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Economic-
Benefits-and-Impacts-of-Expanded-Infrastructure-Investment
.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 
                            Hon. Rick Perry
    Question. Secretary Perry, I want to thank you again for you and 
your staff's championing of the Appalachian Natural Gas Liquids Storage 
Hub since you visited West Virginia with me last July. This 
infrastructure project serves our national economic and security 
interests, and is a game changer for our region's energy and 
manufacturing sectors--the American Chemistry Council forecasts more 
than $36 billion in capital investment and the creation of 100,000 jobs 
in just the next decade or so.
    (a) Can you speak a bit about how development of the Appalachian 
Hub meshes our need to improve our Nation's infrastructure with 
building upon America's energy dominance?
    Answer. The development of an Appalachian Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) 
storage hub could be an important element in improving our Nation's 
infrastructure, revitalizing our manufacturing base, and creating jobs. 
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that natural 
gas production in Appalachia will increase by over 350 percent from 
2013 to 2040.2 This represents a tremendous opportunity for mid-and 
downstream private-sector investment in the region--which is just 
beginning to takeoff--in NGL storage and transportation infrastructure, 
as well as petrochemical processing and manufacturing infrastructure.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to 
                            Hon. Rick Perry
    Question. At the hearing, you said that you believe the President's 
Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America 
``implicitly'' mentions Buy America policy. Please provide a reference 
from the document that you believe is an implicit reference to Buy 
America policy.
    Answer. The centerpiece of the President's Infrastructure 
Initiative is an Incentives Program aimed at attracting State, Local, 
Tribal, and private investments to improve and support our Nation's 
infrastructure. Part 1, Section 1B of the White House ``Legislative 
Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America'', sets forth the 
types of applicable projects that this Incentive Program covers. The 
program focuses on governmental infrastructure such as surface 
transportation, airports, passenger rail, ports and waterways, 
hydropower, drinking water facilities, superfund sites, etc. The Buy 
America Act applies to transit-related projects and requires 
preferences for US-made products for any project funded at least in-
part by Federal funds. Since the Incentives Program specifically 
includes such transportation projects, the President's Infrastructure 
Initiative implicitly reflects Buy America requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to 
                            Hon. Rick Perry
Gas Shortages Before/After Hurricanes
    Question 1. Secretary Perry, in September, I wrote to you to 
discuss the gas shortages in Florida that occurred both before and 
after Hurricane Irma. I suggested that you consider a regional gasoline 
supply reserve.
    When millions of people are trying to evacuate in one direction--
not to mention the first responders who are trying to fill up in 
preparation for the storm--don't you think it makes sense to have an 
extra supply of gas available to help folks get out safely?
    Answer. As mentioned in the Department of Energy's (DOE) response 
to Sen. Nelson's letter last September, it is not recommended that a 
petroleum product reserve be established in Florida for several 
reasons:

   Based on reports from the Federal Emergency Management 
        Agency; DOE's emergency management organization, Infrastructure 
        Security and Energy Restoration (ISER); and the U.S. Energy 
        Information Administration (EIA), inventory levels in all four 
        of Florida's major supply terminal areas were adequate before 
        and during Hurricane Irma and there was not a lack of bulk 
        supply throughout Florida. Additional bulk supplies in these 
        terminals would not have provided additional supply to retail 
        stations. Rather the evidence points to a deficiency in the 
        ability to move gasoline from bulk storage facilities to retail 
        stations largely via truck delivery as the main resupply issue.

   Florida's major supply terminals are mainly supplied by 
        marine ports, which are not anticipated to be closed for 
        extended periods of time even after a hurricane.

   The FY 2018 and 2019 President's Budget disestablish the 
        existing Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve (NGSR) due to its 
        lack of use, costly maintenance, and unclear efficacy in an 
        emergency.

    Question 2. Scientific Integrity. The Union of Concerned Scientists 
recently sent surveys to scientists at DOE Office of Energy Efficiency 
& Renewable Energy on the topic of scientific integrity. This the 
organization's ninth poll on the subject, the findings of which provide 
important insights for agency leaders and policy makers about the 
health of the scientific process within the government. The response 
rate to the current survey is uncharacteristically low.
    Will you commit to providing guidance to Federal scientists that 
they are free to participate in such surveys, with the appropriate 
restrictions on use of government resources, in order to share their 
opinions on the conduct and communication of science at Federal 
agencies?
    Answer. The Union of Concerned Scientists survey on the topic of 
scientific integrity is a voluntary survey and as such not a part of a 
Federal employee's daily government position. Government supervisors 
cannot encourage or discourage what Federal employees do on their own 
time. EERE will continue to follow the DOE Scientific Integrity Order 
(O 411.2) and all other Departmental Orders and Policies.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                            Hon. Rick Perry
    Question. Automated Vehicle/Electric Vehicle Infrastructure. I am 
deeply concerned that President Trump's infrastructure and budget 
proposals do not appear to mention or prioritize infrastructure needs 
of the future, particularly around mobility, self-driving vehicles and 
electric vehicles. This is in stark contrast to the 2016 Presidential 
Budget Request, where the Administration proposed nearly $4 billion of 
investments over 10 years to accelerate the testing of automated 
vehicles and development connected corridors.
    Next-generation self-driving vehicles will be smarter and safer 
because they will be interconnected, both with other vehicles and with 
the infrastructure. Their preferred power platforms will be electric, 
not gasoline-powered engines. We need to be thinking about re-powering 
stations, embedding sensors in our roads and bridges, and enabling 
massive amounts of data transfer. We cannot just fix the bridges of 
1950, we need to build the infrastructure for 2050.
    Secretary Perry, do you think the Department of Energy should help 
facilitate the installation of charging stations within close proximity 
to our vast interstate system?
    Answer. The Department of Energy's (DOE) role is to invest in 
early-stage research to spur private-sector research, development and 
commercialization of critical energy technologies and infrastructure. 
The Department does not plan to fund current technology station 
hardware purchase and installation, given the significant private 
sector investments in charging station deployment. However, DOE has and 
continues to provide support for wireless charging technology.
    The Department supports a broad portfolio of advanced 
transportation options, including electrification. Within the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), the Vehicle Technologies 
Office provides support for the research of extreme fast charging 
technologies with potential to significantly reduce plug-in electric 
vehicle (PEV) charging time to less than 15 minutes. In fact, in April 
2018, the office announced the selection of 12 new projects totaling 
$19 million to support advanced battery and electrification research to 
enable extreme fast charging.
    In addition to the above, EERE's Vehicle Technologies Office 
conducts analysis that applies unique national laboratory capabilities 
and expertise to provide technical insights that can inform 
infrastructure planning, including PEV charging station siting and 
placement. Among this work is a recent National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory analysis, which estimates that PEV fast charging along 
interstates could be an important but relatively small component of the 
overall charging system. Current efforts by third parties are expected 
to provide the majority of the approximately 400 fast charging stations 
necessary to provide full interstate coverage for long-distance driving 
trips identified in the study.

                               [all]