[Senate Hearing 115-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:31 p.m. in room 192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Collins, Blunt, Boozman, Capito, Daines,
Reed, Murray, Feinstein, Schatz, Murphy, Manchin, and Leahy.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator susan m. collins
Senator Collins. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Today, I am pleased to welcome the Secretary of
Transportation, Elaine Chao, who will testify on the
President's fiscal year 2019 Budget Request.
I'm also very pleased to be joined today by my friend and
our Ranking Member, Senator Jack Reed.
Unlike previous years when we faced uncertain budget
allocations for many months, we are fortunate to begin the
fiscal year 2019 appropriations process with new budget caps
enacted by Congress in February. The budget agreement provides
additional funding for the next--over 2 years for critical
national defense programs as well as for domestic priorities,
such as rebuilding our infrastructure, addressing the opioid
epidemic, and providing for our nation's veterans.
Thanks to the increased budget caps, Senator Reed and I
were able to include an additional $12.6 billion for THUD
programs in the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus bill as we worked with
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both chambers as
well as the Administration.
This increased funding will provide much-needed support for
our nation's crumbling infrastructure. In fact, our bill was
the first down payment on the Administration's Infrastructure
Initiative.
I certainly hope that we can continue this good work in
2019 as we evaluate the Administration's proposals and receive
input from members on both sides of the aisle.
The Administration's 2019 budget request includes $76.8
billion for the Department of Transportation, a substantial
reduction from the $87.1 billion for this year, and $200
billion over 10 years, for a government-wide infrastructure
initiative.
I would note, however, that the budget was put together
prior to the agreements on the budget caps.
The budget, unfortunately, fails to address the greatest
threat to our Nation's infrastructure and that is the ever-
growing insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Rather than
offering a solution to this problem, the Administration's
budget reflects a cut of $122 billion over the 10-year budget
window for critical highway and transit formula programs.
I'm also concerned that the Administration has not offered
up its own solution to the insolvency of the Highway Trust
Fund. Since 2008, Congress has provided more than $140 billion
in general fund transfers to sustain critical funding from the
Highway Trust Fund.
Rather than focusing on this issue, the Administration is
instead advocating a new set of grant programs. Half of this
overall funding would be devoted to the Incentives Grant
Program which would slash the Federal cost-share of highway
projects from the current 80 percent to 20 percent and require
State and local governments to raise their own revenue to make
up the shortfall. This formula would penalize low-income and
rural States in particular, but I find it difficult to conceive
of many states or local governments that would choose to apply
for Federal funds that only provide a 20-percent cost share.
While I'm pleased to see the rural set-aside in the
infrastructure proposal, I want to reiterate that this cannot
be a substitute for funding from the Highway Trust Fund.
Without a fix to the Highway Trust Fund, my concern is that the
Administration's infrastructure proposal would simply lead to
the abdication of the Federal role in transportation and lead
to devolution to the states. I do not believe that that is a
feasible approach.
The Administration has also proposed to eliminate the
highly effective and popular TIGER Competitive Grant Program,
which, as the Secretary correctly noted at a recent ribbon-
cutting, can help grow local economies, create jobs, and make
travel easier.
Again, I recognize that a lot of these decisions were made
prior to knowing what the allocations were going to be.
This program offers funding for states and local
governments that would not otherwise be able to fund critical
infrastructures in our nation's roads, bridges, ports, and
railways.
The budget request, once again, proposes to reduce funding
for other key programs that serve rural communities, such as
the Essential Air Service Program and Amtrak's Long Distance
Routes. Maine benefits greatly from the EAS Program because of
the long geographic distances between our small communities and
hub airports that connect to the national transportation
system.
Several members of this committee have also expressed
concern with the Administration's request to eliminate the
Transit New Starts Project and are particularly concerned about
how the Administration will use funding provided by Congress in
the Omnibus.
Communities often wait years to receive approval for these
projects after rigorous evaluation process and any delays will
lead to cost increases. I know that the Secretary personally is
deeply concerned about eliminating unnecessary delays and
cutting red tape for all infrastructure projects and so I hope
that the department will be able to move the projects to
completion more quickly going forward.
For the Maritime Administration, the budget proposes to
reduce funding for the Maritime Security Program, which is
critical for our nation's domestic sealift capabilities as well
as training for merchant mariners at the U.S. Merchant Marine
Academy and the six-state Maritime Academies.
I am encouraged that the budget provides funding for the
new Training Vessel Program and to address sexual assault and
harassment at the Maritime Academy. I fully expect the Academy
to continue implementing the necessary reforms to keep our
cadets safe.
In aviation, Congress recently extended the authorization
for the FAA through the end of this fiscal year and provided
necessary increases to both NextGen and the Airport Improvement
Program.
Unfortunately, the budget request once again includes
efforts to privatize the FAA. It's imperative, in my judgment,
that Congress retain annual oversight of the FAA in order to
maintain the safety and efficiency of our Nation's airspace,
particularly in rural communities that rely on general
aviation.
Now, according to recent reports, the President no longer
supports moving this proposal forward, and I hope that the
Secretary will be able to clarify the Administration's position
today.
Madam Secretary, I very much look forward to hearing your
testimony. I appreciate your being with us, and I now turn to
Senator Reed for his opening statement.
statement of senator jack reed
Senator Reed. Thank you, Chairman Collins. Secretary Chao,
thank you very much for being here, and we look forward to your
testimony today. Chairman Collins, again, I'm pleased that
you're moving quickly to advance the business of this
subcommittee on the heels of your tremendous work on the 2018
bill, which passed with such bipartisan support just 2 weeks
ago.
We're now turning our attention to 2019 without missing a
beat, and we're in a great position to start our work. Thank
you, Madam Chairman.
As a result of the bipartisan budget agreement that
President Trump signed, we set aside sequester spending levels
and freed up significant amounts of new defense and non-defense
discretionary dollars.
This agreement allowed for us to invest an additional $8
billion in infrastructure and safety programs at the Department
of Transportation, as compared to 2017. Under Chairman Collins'
leadership, we have worked to distribute these new resources
responsibly and equitably across highways, transit, rail, and
aviation, with a conscious effort being made to meet the needs
of both urban and rural communities.
With all of the rhetoric about the importance of investing
in infrastructure, the Omnibus actually delivered the goods,
and the THUD Bill was the centerpiece of that effort.
In completing the 2018 process, our subcommittee blocked
many of the House's efforts to include controversial poison
pill riders that are unrelated to appropriations and detract
from the real work that we need to do to keep the department
moving forward. On a bipartisan basis, Congress rejected the
Administration's proposed elimination of funding for TIGER
grants and discretionary rail and transit grants and instead
provided the highest-ever single-year appropriations for those
programs.
The additional resources for rail and transit in particular
will allow for real progress to be made on the state of good
repair backlog on the Northeast Corridor, while also providing
freight, passenger, and commuter railroads with desperately
needed funding for positive train control implementation.
For 2019, the bipartisan budget agreement provides a second
year of sequester relief and added funding that should allow
for the committee to return to regular order and for the
subcommittee to make smart infrastructure investments.
After having worked so hard and successfully to get here, I
hope that the Administration will refrain from undermining our
progress by floating rescission packages, musing about vetoes,
or continuing to play politics with major infrastructure and
safety projects.
I also hope that we can dispense with the Administration's
2019 budget proposal which recycles many of the same cuts and
policies that we rejected in 2018.
As we review the accomplishments of this subcommittee, it
is somewhat discouraging to see how slowly this Administration
is moving to deploy funding provided in previous years. For
months, and in some cases for more than a year, this
Administration has been sitting on hundreds of millions of
dollars that could have been put to work on infrastructure and
safety projects around the country.
For all of its talk about project streamlining, the
Administration needs to streamline its own process and quickly
deploy these dollars.
I'm especially concerned because we seem to be encountering
a refusal to follow the directives of Congress and public law
when it comes to transit projects. Congress has provided the
certainty of a continued partnership between Federal and local
governments to address population growth and congestion
challenges through the transit Capital Investment Grants
Program, and yet important transit projects, which meet
statutory requirements, have significant local investment, and
have Federal funding available, have been unnecessarily
delayed. This is unacceptable and doesn't square with the
commitments made before this subcommittee last year.
We need to have confidence that DOT will follow the
directives of this subcommittee to evaluate and issue grants in
accordance with the law.
Finally, I must express my concern about the rollback of
safety and environmental regulations by this Administration.
Public safety is supposed to be the highest priority at the
Department of Transportation, but we have seen example after
example of safety regulations being deferred, canceled, or
retracted in deference to industry rather than the public good,
and this needs to change.
Madam Secretary, one other area where I hope we can make
progress is on a broader infrastructure package, which includes
not only transportation but other public resources, like our
crumbling public school buildings.
While I appreciate that the Administration has finally put
forth a plan, it fails to cover all of our many infrastructure
needs and simply offers false hope by promoting tolls and other
funding gimmicks that will burden every-day Americans in order
to entice private sector investment with guaranteed profits.
Furthermore, while the Administration's plan promises $200
billion in new Federal funding over 10 years, the
Administration actually intends to slash Federal funding for
existing transportation programs by more than $360 billion over
the next decade. Yet again, we see a disconnect between
rhetoric and reality.
We need real Federal investment in our airports, bridges,
transit systems, and ports in order to create jobs and
strengthen our economy now and into the future. That is exactly
what our 2018 bill did, but we need a partner to see this
vision executed and implemented. I hope that we can move
forward together to meet these mutual goals. We may disagree
from time to time about how to get there, but I hope we can
work together to accomplish these goals.
This subcommittee has spoken, Congress has spoken, and now
we need to move forward. Again, Secretary Chao, thank you for
appearing before us today. I look forward to hearing your
testimony and your response to questions.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
Secretary Chao, we're delighted to have you with us this
afternoon, and please proceed with your statement.
summary statement hon. elaine l. chao
Secretary Chao. Thank you, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member
Reed, and Members of the Subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear and discuss the
President's fiscal year 2019 budget request for the Department
of Transportation.
As mentioned, I look forward to working with all of you to
continue our joint efforts to provide the American people with
safe and reliable transportation systems.
The President's budget request and his Infrastructure
Proposal work together to provide bold new ideas for using our
financial resources wisely, creatively, and expanding our
partnerships with state and local governments, and encouraging
private sector involvement where appropriate and allowing them
to be involved where appropriate.
These changes provide a path forward to improving our
transportation infrastructure quickly without dramatic
increases in Federal spending that would stifle economic growth
and job creation.
The President is requesting $77 billion for the Department
of Transportation. About 80 percent of these dollars will be
applied to fully funding the fourth year of the FAST Act,
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, as well as funding
the authorized levels of FAA's Airport Improvement Program. The
remaining 20 percent of the budget funds the Department's
discretionary programs.
While not in the original budget-released materials, the
President's Budget Request also includes $300 million to
support the replacement of two of the oldest ships in the
Maritime Administration's School Ships Fleet. These new assets,
these new ships will enable us to continue to meet the training
needs of our future merchant mariners as the current ships are
retired.
The President's Budget Request calls for changes in several
major programs. For example, the President's request does not
continue the current manner of funding for the TIGER Grant
Program or for new projects proposed in the Federal Transit
Administration's Capital Investment Grants program.
The types of projects traditionally funded through these
programs are ideal candidates for the new programs outlined in
the President's Infrastructure Proposal, and as you begin your
consideration of the President's Budget Request and his
Infrastructure Proposal, we will continue to focus on our new
responsibilities.
The recent passage of the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus
Appropriations Act includes significant funding increases, well
over $12 billion, to many of the Department's core programs.
The Department is assessing the requirements in the Act and
is identifying the steps needed to responsibly administer this
funding and the new programs provided on a timely basis, as
dictated by the Congress.
Thanks again for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the President's fiscal year 2019 Budget, and I look
forward to continuing our partnership on transportation issues
on behalf of the country, and I'll be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Elaine L. Chao
introduction
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Reed, and members of the
Subcommittee--thank you for the opportunity to meet today to discuss
the President's fiscal year 2019 Budget request for the Department of
Transportation. Together, the President's Budget request and his
recently-released Infrastructure Initiative proposal provide new
opportunities to rethink and retool our approach to transportation
funding for the future. Both proposals recommend funding alternatives
that use modern investment strategies and leverage Federal dollars by
building more equitable partnerships with State, local, and private
sector entities.
The President's Budget requests $76.8 billion to support
transportation programs in fiscal year 2019. About 80percent of this
funding supports the Department's Trust-funded mandatory programs. This
includes the $57.4 billion proposed for surface transportation
programs, as authorized by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act and the $3.4 billion proposed for the Federal Aviation
Administration's Airport Improvement Program. All together, the
President's request includes a 4 percent increase for the Department of
Transportation's mandatory programs.
The remaining 20 percent--or $15.9 billion--funds the Department's
discretionary programs. In order to ensure that the Department is
maximizing the return on its Federal transportation investments, the
President's request does not continue funding for some transportation
grant programs but instead leaves open the possibility that projects
within these programs could be better considered under the President's
new Infrastructure proposal.
addressing our infrastructure needs
Consistent with the President's Budget request, his Infrastructure
proposal provides a bold new approach for addressing our infrastructure
needs across the broad spectrum of Federal programs. It tackles the
complex problems of improving infrastructure by focusing on better ways
to finance, manage, and use our current and future transportation
assets. The proposal also calls for advancements in the permitting
process that streamline and shorten timeframes so that projects can get
underway quickly. The President's Budget includes $200 billion that
will
leverage State, local, and private investment resulting in at least
$1.5 trillion of new infrastructure investment over 10 years. His
proposal includes the following programs:
--Incentive Grants ($100 billion) to encourage State, local and
private investment by awarding incentives to project sponsors
that propose innovative approaches to generate revenue for
infrastructure investment, prioritize maintenance, modernize
procurement practices, and generate a high return on
investment.
--Rural Infrastructure ($50 billion) to address the significant need
for investment in rural infrastructure. Most of the funds would
be provided to States by a formula distribution, with the
remaining funds distributed based on performance. This includes
a set aside for federally recognized Tribes and Territories.
--Transformative ($20 billion) for bold, innovative projects with
potential to dramatically improve America's infrastructure.
--Infrastructure Credit programs ($14 billion) to boost innovative
finance programs such as the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act and the Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing programs.
--Private Activity Bonds (PABS) ($5.9 billion) to expand the
flexibility and eligibility of PABs as an additional project
financing tool.
This comprehensive action plan will quickly address the Nation's
infrastructure needs by using modern financing tools and business
practices that have already proven successful in State and local
projects, consistent with the President's vision.
new directions
With these new Infrastructure Initiative proposals in mind, and in
order to incentivize changes in the way States and local communities
finance projects, the President's fiscal year 2019 Budget request does
not include funding for certain discretionary grant programs. Instead,
the President's request proposes a different model that would spur
States and localities to raise new dedicated funding for
infrastructure, incentivized by competitive Federal grant awards.
Projects that had previously been funded by Federal discretionary
grants would now benefit from the additional dedicated state and local
funding raised.
One such program is the Federal Transit Administration's Capital
Investment Grants program. The Capital Investments Grants program
supports transit projects that primarily benefit specific local
communities. Under the President's Infrastructure proposal, if States
and localities raise their own dedicated revenues, the Administration
would reward them with competitive grants and other incentives. We
expect this approach will broaden the options available for funding
transit projects in the future and will provide State and local
entities more autonomy in deciding which transit-related infrastructure
projects to pursue. Consistent with this approach, the President's
Budget request limits funding in this program to projects with signed,
Full Funding Grant Agreements.
The President also recommends redirecting the Transportation
Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program into a
more comprehensive infrastructure program with both rural and
incentives components. The programs comprising the Infrastructure
proposal are a more effective approach for supporting projects like
those eligible for TIGER assistance,
which would make even better use of these vital infrastructure
dollars. The programs empower State and local governments to construct
projects based on local priorities and needs, leverage each Federal
dollar by incentivizing the creation of new revenue sources dedicated
to infrastructure that can sustain lasting investment and maintenance
over the long-term, and encourage more innovative and efficient
approaches to project financing and delivery.
other reforms
The President's Budget request also proposes reforms that would
provide efficiencies and reduce costs. For example, the trains that
support Amtrak's Long Distance routes are very expensive to operate and
maintain, and account for much of Amtrak's $500 million in operating
losses. Typically, few passengers rely on this service and many trains
have excess capacity. At the same time, we recognize that some States
and local communities value this transportation option. In an effort to
create an equitable partnership, the President's Budget request
proposes to share the costs of operating Amtrak's Long Distance
services with those States that provide fifty percent of the funding
needed to continue these services.
Reforms are also proposed for the Essential Air Service (EAS)
program. EAS provides scheduled air service to rural communities that
otherwise would not be profitable. Although initially envisioned as a
temporary program, EAS is now almost 40 years old. Many EAS flights are
not full and have high subsidy costs per passenger. What began as a
small program is now nearly $300 million per year. The President's
Budget request proposes reforms to the discretionary portion of the EAS
program that will save approximately $57 million. These reforms would
impose new distance requirements to small, medium and large hubs, would
cap subsidies at $250, and would eliminate certain waiver provisions.
Together, these reforms will ensure that EAS resources are directed to
those airports with the highest demonstrated need.
Throughout the development of the President's Budget request, we
have taken a hard look at funding directed towards research. Some of
the research currently conducted in the Department's programs is
replicated in the private sector or reconfirms established findings.
This duplication and focus on existing transportation systems
represents a missed opportunity for change. The President's request
addresses this concern by significantly reducing funds provided for
research programs. Remaining research funds will be directed towards
new and emerging technologies that will help inform decisions regarding
transportation systems in the future.
Finally, I want to highlight the President's Budget includes $300
million for the Maritime Administration's School ships fleet
replacement program. While this request is not included in our current
budget materials, it will be part of a forthcoming Budget Amendment
that you will receive soon. We recognize the importance of the school
ships to the state maritime academies, and will be exploring options
for acquiring the necessary replacement ships over the coming months.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2019 budget. I will be happy to
answer your questions.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Secretary Chao.
LOCAL NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Madam Secretary, in your statement, you mentioned the TIGER
Grant Program.
The tremendous need for this program was once again
demonstrated this past year by the fact that the department
received 452 applications requesting more than $6 billion in
funding for TIGER projects. You only had $500 million, but I
think that shows the demand is there and how popular and
flexible this program is.
In the Omnibus bill, as a result of that demand, we tripled
funding for TIGER from $500 million to $1.5 billion in order to
better meet our Nation's infrastructure needs.
Given your experience with this round of TIGER grant
applications and the increased budget caps for fiscal year
2019, why would the Administration not want to stay with a
winner, with a grant program that communities and States are
very familiar with and that has been used for such good
purposes across our country?
Secretary Chao. Well, as you mentioned in your opening
remarks, the President's budget request was put together before
the conclusion of the Omnibus. So there's a complete disconnect
between what the Omnibus ultimately asked the Department to do
and the actual budget.
So we're going to have to work with those discrepancies
throughout the whole year, but it is clear that the TIGER
grants are very popular with members and we've been given a
billion dollars more and we need to be able to process that and
get it out to the various local and state governments that need
them, that have applied within the time as specified by the
Congress. So we're committed to doing that.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
I know, Madam Secretary, that you have been a very strong
supporter of our Merchant Marine Academies and I want to
personally thank you for the inclusion of additional funding
for training vessel replacement in the President's Budget
Request.
You and I have talked about how absolutely vital those
training ships are and they are reaching the end of their
useful life. We were able to provide $300 million in the
Omnibus which will take care of the first vessel.
The estimate that we've been told by the department is that
it will be delivered--that's going to be the New York Merchant
Marine Academy vessel. That it will probably be delivered in
December of 2021. That means you're going to still have a
problem with the current vessel's life having to be extended.
Do you see the need that there will have to be additional
repairs to keep the current vessel going until we can get a new
one in place?
Secretary Chao. I think it was a bit confusing as to what
the $300 million was for. So in fact, the $300 million is
already put into the Omnibus, and the President's request is
for another $300 million. So it's actually for the second ship,
and there was a proposal to have $300 million for both ships
but take two old cargo ships, refurbish them and do it that
way.
So there are a number of options, but the most optimal
route would be to have two new ships.
Senator Collins. I totally agree, yes.
Secretary Chao. Given again their age and we're having
young merchant mariners go on these ships.
Senator Collins. And in many cases, these vessels were
already used to begin with when they were converted. So my hope
is that the first ship can serve as a model for the subsequent
ones and, as you say, there should be sufficient funds to have
two new ones.
Given that the Maritime Administration has limited
experience with ship construction and large procurements, how
will you ensure that the agency can carry out this procurement
successfully?
Secretary Chao. I think that's a very important question,
which I am concerned about as well. Admiral Buzby, the Head of
the Maritime Administration, has assured me that in fact they
have been receiving a number of inquiries from interested
shipyards that are mostly devoted currently to military
construction but nevertheless that they are interested, and two
ships add to the economy. It adds actually to the ease of
building the second ship because of the experience built in the
first ship. So it's actually better to build two at the same
time.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Reed.
TRANSIT PROGRAMS
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
thank you again, Madam Secretary, for your work at the
department. I would like to begin with the transit Capital
Investment Grants Program.
The program has absolutely critical strong bipartisan
support. It was reauthorized by a Republican Congress through
2020, and last year, as you know, this subcommittee
appropriated the highest level of funding in the history
program on a bipartisan basis. However, it seems that the
money's not getting awarded, and while you have indicated in
the past that you would distribute whatever funding was
provided, the funding seems not to be getting out there.
Will you recommit to your philosophy of awarding the
funding provided, because one of the rationales we've heard for
the delays is that the localities don't have all of the funding
appropriated.
We appropriate funding on an annual basis, and to turn
around and ask a locality to perhaps reserve multiyear funding,
doesn't seem to make any sense. FTA's practice in the past has
been if you meet the requirements of the program then,
appropriations would be available without this other
requirement.
Secretary Chao. I think transit programs are very
important. They form part of our transportation infrastructure
and the intermodal needs of our communities and help to improve
the quality of life for commuters. So I don't think there's any
disagreement about that.
The issue is how do we process the Capital Investment Grant
(CIG) grants, and we have worked very hard to get them out as
quickly as we can. In the first year, we did have problems with
getting leadership in place for the Department, so that took
some time, and I think for any new Administration coming in,
they would want to take some time to understand the programs
and make sure that the new Administration's goals and
objectives are incorporated into these new programs, as well.
So that is what has happened, and we have always wanted to
work with Congress on the CIG, but it's hard to answer
questions on a hypothetical basis because a lot of these
programs, also, they have their--sometimes it's not us. There
are other programs that perhaps are not ready. They're moving
from one stage to another.
So we do this on a case-by-case basis, but I think we all
agree that this program has its purposes. We understand the
will of Congress, and we hope to--I think we've done actually
pretty well, better than I think you told us, but----
Senator Reed. Well, this new Administration should be
reaching its stride now. Can we expect, that all of the funds
that we've appropriated, and, as I said, it's the largest
amount of funding for CIG, in the history of the program, will
be expeditiously deployed so that next year this question will
not be before us because you will have awarded all of the
funding?
Secretary Chao. It is my goal to do the will of Congress.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Secretary Chao. So you have given us the money and we're
going to look at these specific projects, and I hope they'll be
ready.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Just another question, somewhat related to transit, is that
we've had a great debate about the Northeast Corridor, the
rebuilding of it, and this year, the focal point was the Portal
Bridge in New Jersey.
Some people have dismissed that as a local project, but
living in Providence, Rhode Island, at least Jamestown, Rhode
Island, Cranston, Rhode Island, the Northeast Corridor is a
regional-national-international thoroughfare. New York is not
the financial capital of the world because people can't get
there.
So I would hope that we could go ahead and move forward
with the money that's been specifically provided to make these
improvements not just to the Portal Bridge but the Northeast
Corridor. Is that something that you are going to do
expeditiously for us?
Secretary Chao. I always want to do things expeditiously,
but, unfortunately, the North Portal Bridge did not receive a
good rating. So that is what is holding that one up. It's
actually not eligible to advance--to go further in the funding
process.
Senator Reed. And where are they failing in their rating,
Madam Secretary?
Secretary Chao. It's on the financing and actually it's a
rating that we don't do. It's actually done by the career
staff.
Senator Reed. I'm under the impression that the State and
localities are putting out 50 percent----
Secretary Chao. 21 percent.
Senator Reed. We're told.
Secretary Chao. Well, actually, they're putting up 21
percent. They're using RRIF and TIFIA loans, but they're using
our funds as part of their equity, and this is a perpetual
disagreement on how to work this project.
Senator Reed. It is, but this is a critical part of the
infrastructure of the Northeast Corridor, not just this project
but there are many other projects, and I would guess that this
is not the first time that in transportation projects multiple
sources, including multiple Federal sources, have been used.
So I would ask you to look carefully again and see if we
can get this project moving, and, again, I represent Rhode
Island, but it will have an impact on my constituents if they
can't get into New York and out of New York.
Thank you, Madam.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Collins
and Ranking Member Reed, and let me, before I start, I just
want to thank both of you for your really hard work on the
fiscal year 2018 Spending bill. It was a bipartisan compromise
and I really appreciated you rejecting the harmful policies and
making significant new investments. It made a difference to my
state and we appreciate the work that you did.
Madam Secretary, I want to follow up on Senator Reed's
questions on the CIG Program because that is critical to all of
our states and I was really pleased with Monday's announcement
on the $43 million grant to Community Transit for Swift Bus
Rapid. That was good news, but, as we talked about, it was long
overdue, and we also talked about the Lynnwood Link Extension
and the Tacoma Link Extension.
Here's the thing. These transit agencies have worked in
good faith for years with DOT. Congress provided the Federal
funding and yet projects like these and across the Nation, as
you heard, have been stalled at DOJ.
You told this subcommittee last year you would follow
congressional direction and execute these CIG grant agreements
that have received Federal funding and I have to say a lot of
us are still frustrated and I heard you just answer Senator
Reed that you will follow the law and advance these CIG
projects through the grant agreements as directed by Congress,
correct?
Secretary Chao. Yes.
Senator Murray. Specifically, on the Lynnwood Link
Extension, will you commit to moving forward with their full
funding grant agreement?
Secretary Chao. What is the question?
Senator Murray. It's the Lynnwood Link Extension that we
talked about. Its ready.
Secretary Chao. I probably should be more familiar with
that. I am not.
Senator Murray. Could you get me an answer on that, and a
timeline?
Secretary Chao. I can't promise anything. It's on a case-
by-case basis. So if it's ready----
Senator Murray. It is ready.
Secretary Chao. And it is--there's funding available, then
we will certainly take another--we will take a look.
Senator Murray. Okay. If you could get back to me on a
timeline on that?
Secretary Chao. Sure.
[The information follows.]
The project sponsor has remaining steps to complete before the
Lynnwood Link project can be considered for a Full Funding Grant
Agreement, including obtaining all funding commitments.
Senator Murray. And similarly on the grant agreement for
the Tacoma Link Extension, can you give me a timeline for that
one?
Secretary Chao. Of course.
[The information follows.]
As proposed projects become ready for a funding agreement
commitment, FTA considers each project on its own merits and advances
them through the process as appropriate. The Tacoma Link Extension was
sent for Congressional review.
Senator Murray. So you will follow up with me? Okay. I
appreciate that.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF AIRLINE PASSENGERS
Last year, I shared with you a story from a constituent of
mine who bravely told me about being sexually assaulted on a
long distance flight. In the past year, I've heard more and
more disturbing reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment
that occurs on airplanes, and the Association of Flight
Attendants conducted a survey of nearly 2,000 flight attendants
and found that one out of five flight attendants have
experienced a report of passengers on passengers on sexual
assault while they were working on the flight and the more I've
looked into this, the clearer it has become that there's really
a serious lack of guidance on adequate responses to in-flight
sexual assault and growing support for addressing this problem.
So I introduced legislation, the SAFE Act, with Senator
Casey and I worked with this subcommittee, and I thank them for
this, to include language in the fiscal year 2018 Spending bill
to take a step forward and specifically we directed DOT and FAA
to establish Federal rules and guidelines to make sure that our
flight crews can properly respond and address sexual assault
and harassment when it happens on the airplane, including
training and reporting and data collection.
This has to be done within a year, deadline of March 23rd,
2018. Are you aware of this, and are you working on it?
Secretary Chao. I'm aware of it because you are aware of it
and so you have brought this up on a number of occasions.
First of all, let me say I think that is horrible what--
these incidents and so we need to be very vigilant and we need
to do something about that and so we've just gotten the
instruction from the Omnibus and that was just last week. So,
of course, we will proceed.
Senator Murray. Okay. The deadline's March 23rd, a year
from now, so I want you to work on meeting that deadline.
And the first step in that is creating the National In-
Flight Sexual Assault Task Force. I know you just got it, but
are you starting to work on how to put that together and how to
establish it?
Secretary Chao. As I mentioned, we just got the $12
billion, plus all of the Omnibus requests and requirements, and
we're in the process of going through them and going forward.
Senator Murray. Okay. I'll be following that very closely.
Secretary Chao. Of course.
Senator Murray. So I look forward to hearing from you on
that.
And, finally, in the last few seconds, I know that the
Chairman talked about the TIGER Program. This is an incredibly
successful program. For every Federal dollar invested, TIGER
generates $3.6 of additional investment from private, State,
and local resources.
I am concerned about the execution of this. Congress does
provide the guidelines for the TIGER Program. It's in law, and
I want to make sure that you follow the congressional intent on
this. It's very clear. The rules are very clear, and we want to
make sure that this is given equitably across the country as
established in the guidelines.
Secretary Chao. Of course, it is my intent to carry out the
wishes of Congress.
Let me also point out, though, even with the best of
intent, there are very, very tight timelines, but, of course,
we will try to meet those deadlines.
I might also bring up another point and that is a lot of
these TIGER grants are actually taken out. They're implemented
by the Policy Office and in the past, the Policy Office was not
an operating unit. So with the FAST Act and all the money
that's going through the Policy Office, I might just ask
members of this committee to take a look at whether that is the
right place for----
Senator Murray. Well, one of the reasons it was done that
way was to make sure that there was equitable distribution of
funds and appropriate balance in the country to meet rural and
urban needs and investment in a variety of transportation
modes, which we felt was really important parameters to put
into it. So, you know, I'm happy to talk to the Chairwoman, but
I think it's really important that we keep the guidelines.
Secretary Chao. Well, perhaps we can talk about that, too.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Senator Collins. Senator Blunt.
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary, it's great to see you here. I think I want to
get into a couple of topics here quickly.
One is just on the process of permitting. I want you to
talk a little bit about the Memorandum of Understanding that
creates a lead agency, as I believe it to be the case. We got a
couple of Surface Transportation Board members before the
Commerce Committee today or potential board members to be
confirmed and one of the things we mentioned there was some
Commerce language over the last couple of Congresses in the
Highway Bill and the Railroad--relates to railroads, as well,
where you're replacing things that are already there.
Obviously the law, I think, now recognizes that obviously
the impact process should be a lot less to put something right
back where something already was than to build something for
the first time, but generally any thoughts you might have on
how that Memorandum of Understanding would work where they'd be
a lead agency and how we get away from an environment where it
takes three to five times as long sometimes to get a project
approved as it does to build the project.
Secretary Chao. Well, Senator, you have expressed this
concern about the delays in construction of new highways,
bridges, and you're, of course, very vigilant about your own
state and the delays that have taken place there, as they do
all across America.
So something needs to be done and yesterday, the President
announced the One Federal Decision, which is the culmination
of, as you mentioned, a Memorandum of Understanding between 16
different agencies within the Federal Government whereby one
lead agency will be given the responsibility to coordinate and
corral other agencies to a particular project.
Not all projects will come under the Transportation
Department. So it will depend on which lead agency will take
the responsibility and that will make a big difference, but
because the Transportation Department is much more focused on
construction of projects, we probably would be much more likely
to focus on the construction and the timeline of projects than
some other agencies.
But I think with this new Memorandum of Understanding,
there's a much better process in place to select one agency to
expedite a lot of these permitting delays and when I talk about
permitting delays, we are not leapfrogging or compromising on
any standards at all but to take a look at the process by which
permitting occurs and can we not have the process be more
commonsensical, avoid duplicative processes, and require that
processes occur concurrently rather than sequentially.
In the Department of Transportation alone, there's also an
inability to share surveys and information among sister
agencies. So one mode can be conducting a study and another
mode is going to have to conduct the same study and they can't
share information.
Senator Blunt. Will that be eliminated by the lead agency
concept?
Secretary Chao. We certainly hope so, that that will be
improved, and then certainly this is within one department, so
you can imagine what happens throughout the whole government,
throughout all these Executive Branch agencies.
Senator Blunt. And while you're concurrent, the lead
agency, as I understand from what you're saying, in a position
where they can encourage concurrent efforts going on in all the
agencies involved.
What if you have an ultimate foot-dragging agency that just
can't seem to come to a conclusion that everybody else has
already come to?
Secretary Chao. The lead agency----
Senator Blunt. The lead agency decide that, well, we're
moving forward?
Secretary Chao. The lead agency decides.
RURAL INFRASTUCTURE NEEDS
Senator Blunt. And on rural infrastructure, I know in every
discussion I've seen so far, the Administration's proposed a
significant percentage of all of those discussions, whatever
the amount of money was talking about to go to rural
infrastructure.
Just generally, your sense of the challenge of rural
infrastructure compared to other infrastructure.
Secretary Chao. Well, rural America has been long neglected
for decades and when people talk about rural infrastructure,
it's not as if only people who live in rural America use these
roads.
I mean, we have roads lead from one place to another. So
people transiting from one place to another through rural
regions will also use those roads, and in the past, there have
been--it's been as low as seven percent, the percentage of
funding that rural roads and bridges received.
So at this point, we are just talking about catch-up and we
are talking about equity and fairness. Rural America has a
lesser number of people but a disproportionately high number of
accidents, traffic accidents, and so we need to address those
issues with better infrastructure, with repairing and restoring
our rural infrastructure.
Senator Blunt. Good. I appreciate that. I would just say
for your staff to think about. In Missouri, we have 3 percent
of the rural population. We have 4 percent of the rural road
mileage in our State, and I think we have more bridges than any
other State. I know we'd be in the top two or three. We've got
one county that has 4,000 people, our very smallest county, and
it has 40 bridges. So without the cost bridge-sharing program,
there's no way that that county could begin to think about
maintaining half the bridges they currently have, let alone
take care of the 40 bridges they currently have.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murphy, you're next, but I wondered if you would
like to wisely yield to your Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, who has a very brief statement he'd like to make.
Senator Murphy. I appreciate you believing that I am wise.
Certainly.
Senator Leahy. Your fellow Irishman appreciates it.
First off, I would say, Madam Chair, that I'm not in any
way asking funds for the same dirt road that goes by our home
in Vermont where my wife and I spent part of our honeymoon 56
years ago. It's been the same dirt road for 56 years ago. So
right now I'm not looking for any funds for that road.
But I have a lot of other roads. We fought very hard for
transportation programs, Republicans and Democrats worked
together on the Appropriations Act. We worked with the White
House, had an agreement with everybody on it. The President
signed the Budget Agreement.
The press now reports that he's changed his mind, having
agreed with us with this, and he's going to send a package of
rescissions. I'm of the school that you make an agreement, you
stick with it.
The Administration has said and you've certainly said
eloquently the need for infrastructure improvement. The
President hasn't sent us a plan, a real plan, but we increased
funding, Republicans and Democrats working together, for an
infrastructure needs to increase it by at least $18 billion.
Funding for TIGER grants, for example, is going to help 75 more
communities across the country that will create an additional
13,000 jobs just that, the TIGER grants.
It increased investments in the Federal Highway
Administration, 33,150 jobs. The highways and bridges, et
cetera, that Blunt spoke about, and it's going to help with
those. Of course, you can go on with a whole lot of others, the
air transit, and so on.
Are you going to recommend to the President that he rescind
any of this infrastructure investment?
Secretary Chao. I don't think so.
Senator Leahy. I hope you don't. We'll certainly back you
if you don't. I just want you to know that. We have a lot of
funding in here for rural areas, which really get hurt. They
don't have the population but, again, those roads do connect
with other roads that go to heavy populations.
Will you ensure that both rural and urban see across-the-
board increase in infrastructure investment?
Secretary Chao. Yes.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I couldn't ask for anything
clearer.
And requiring states to secure private funds for
infrastructure programs was in the President's earlier
speeches. That, of course, creates a problem. You have a
private investor, they require return on investment, which is
only right, but you can't build a toll road in rural Missouri
or Maine or Vermont or any other State.
Has your department done any analysis if it's even viable
to attract or secure private funding in rural areas?
Secretary Chao. We don't think that it would be viable for
the private sector to invest in rural areas because of the lack
of density. We've never said that the public-private
partnerships work in all instances and for rural America, there
will have to be another approach.
Senator Leahy. Well, I agree with you, and I must say I'm
delighted to hear you say that as one who voted for your
confirmation. I'm even happier to hear what you said.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
FUNDING TRANSIT PROJECTS
Senator Collins. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Thank
you for being here, Madam Secretary.
I wanted to actually follow up on some of the line of
questioning from Senator Reed. I feel like Senators Booker and
Menendez should pay us a fee for asking multiple questions
about the Portal Bridge, but we actually believe that it is in
our interests as well as New Jersey's and the country's in
order to make the investment in the Northeast Rail Corridor and
so I just wanted to sort of get the facts straight here.
When states take out TIFIA loans, they are required to pay
those loans back to the Federal Government and so what you are
saying in this case is that you don't count the TIFIA loan as a
substantial State commitment because in the Portal Bridge case,
$29 million is gas tax revenue from the State, 336 million is
economic development funds from the state, Port Authority is
kicking in $21 million, and the rest of their share is a $284
million TIFIA loan, which gets you to about 50 percent.
But you are saying that even though they have to pay that
money back, you don't consider that a state contribution. I
just don't understand that.
Secretary Chao. No, we don't.
Senator Murphy. Why not?
Secretary Chao. And it hasn't been, and I'll give you an
example. If you were to buy a house, you had to put 20 percent
down, 80 percent is a mortgage from the bank. You go to another
bank or you go to the same bank, you get a home loan or
whatever for 20 percent, you use that 20 percent loan, which
you're going to have to pay back anyway to either one bank or
another, and you use that as your equity, Dodd-Frank wouldn't
even allow that.
Senator Murphy. But that's apples to oranges because--
Secretary Chao. Oh, no.
Senator Murphy [continuing]. In that----
Secretary Chao. How can you borrow another loan to make
your equity payment?
Senator Murphy. The reason the banks don't allow you to do
that is because it is a sign of your ability to repay, whether
or not you have the substantial money to make a cash down
payment, but in this case, I don't think there's a question as
to whether the states are going to repay the TIFIA loan.
You don't think the states aren't going to repay the TIFIA
loan, right?
Secretary Chao. Well, it depends on the economic forecast
and whether the traffic is high enough and, indeed, if it turns
out that there is enough traffic, then actually if you work out
the economics of the Portal Bridge and even the Hudson Tunnel,
there's quite a lot of traffic that actually would make the
argument that that can actually be financed by the local and
State government.
Senator Murphy. Right. But you wouldn't make the TIFIA loan
if you didn't think that the money was being paid back. In this
case, you've made a commitment to make the TIFIA loan. So if
you're questioning the underwriting of the loan, then you
wouldn't have made the loan.
Secretary Chao Its an added risk. It's an added layer of
risk. Yes, hopefully when you make that loan, they will be able
to repay it.
Senator Murphy. Has a State ever defaulted on a TIFIA loan
or a RIF loan?
Secretary Chao. Well, that's why the private sector likes a
lot of these infrastructure projects because the collateral
doesn't go away.
Senator Murphy. So you are requiring the States to come up
with cash----
Secretary Chao. I don't think it's----
Senator Murphy. Of 50 percent----
Secretary Chao. Or some other form that's not our own
money. When we're giving them the money--and we're giving them
50 percent supposedly, let's say, and then they're asking for
another 50 percent, which we are lending to them, so we're
giving a hundred percent----
Senator Murphy. Right.
Secretary Chao. And there's no skin in the game for them.
Senator Murphy. Right. But that's not true. They are paying
back that money over time.
I guess the frustration is that in a very cash-strapped----
Secretary Chao. They're paying both parts.
Senator Murphy. In a very cash-strapped environment for
states, at a time when you've taken away the ability of
property tax and income taxpayers to deduct that from their
Federal taxes, it seems that this is a win-win. The Federal
Government has the ability to loan the money and have the money
repaid whereas States don't have the ability because they all
have balanced budget requirements to come up with the cash up
front.
So given the fact that a TIFIA loan has never defaulted,
that a state has never not repaid the Federal Government----
Secretary Chao. I don't think that's true actually.
Senator Murphy. Well, I don't. I'd be happy to see--
Secretary Chao. Whether a State has ever defaulted.
Senator Murphy. Right. It seems like it's a creative way to
help make investments in the Corridor because absent this, I
don't see the plan to be able to repair these very damaged
sections of the Corridor.
Secretary Chao. You can take a look at the two surrounding
States to us. Virginia, again a very innovative, creative
governor. The I-66 projects that we just saw here, it provided
significant private sector funding, resulting in a ratio of 35
percent Federal funding, 65 percent non-Federal funding, and in
the Purple Line here, that also received significant support
from Maryland, resulting in a ratio of 75 percent Federal, 25
percent non-Federal.
So these deals can come together, but it's not with our own
money.
Senator Murphy. I hear you about concerns that the money
will be repaid, but if that's the concern, then let's make sure
that there are real pledged dollars behind the TIFIA loans, not
just completely rule out the ability for this to be a source of
matching funds.
So I've gone over my time. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Collins. Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's good to see you again here today, Secretary Chao. I
want to thank you for appearing before this subcommittee to
testify on behalf of the President's fiscal year 2019 Budget
Request.
I know you have a very busy schedule. I do hope sometime I
can get you to come out to Montana where you can see firsthand
how important rural transportation infrastructure is to our
national and global connectivity.
My ancestors came out to Montana on the Empire Builder.
Amtrak's Empire Builder currently serves 12 communities along
Montana's High Line, which otherwise wouldn't have access to
public transportation. Amtrak completed a study that showed
that if we added a stop in Culbertson, Montana, it would
actually generate a net positive financial impact of more than
$775,000 for Amtrak and would not add any additional time to
the schedule. It sounds like a pretty good proposal.
I've worked on this issue with the previous Administration
and my staff remains in constant contact with the local
community to help make this stop a reality.
What could you do to ensure that places like Culbertson,
Montana, which are a long ways from anywhere, which would
provide financial benefit and have a demand to sustain
services, so they can grow their connectivity?
Secretary Chao. I understand how important Amtrak is in so
many of these rural communities. Unfortunately, Amtrak also
loses about $500 million a year and so there's always that
balance.
Amtrak is a separate organization. I'm sure you've talked
to the new president, Richard Anderson.
Senator Daines. And, by the way, he's doing a great job,
Richard Anderson. I'm just proud of what he's doing there about
volunteering and taking his expertise from Delta Airlines now
to Amtrak.
Secretary Chao. Yes.
Senator Daines. So that's a real plus for our country.
Secretary Chao. So he has, and he's leading the
organization and reviewing its operations.
So on something as operational as a stop or a route change,
it is really up to Amtrak to make those decisions. We will work
with Amtrak and we certainly want to work with your state,
given your special concerns about this particular point, on how
we can increase access for your constituents.
Senator Daines. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We just
were surprised and pleased to see that we actually showed a net
financial benefit as well as no time lost. So we'll continue to
work with you and with Richard, as well.
FEDERAL CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM
Switching gears and now talk about air travel, my home
airport is Bozeman, Montana. It's the busiest airport in the
state and is part of the Federal Contract Tower Program. Their
tower is not operational 24 hours a day and they handle more
operations and more passengers than airports of similar size
and yet they have one-third of the employees. In some
instances, they've had to use their own funds to pay for
additional staffing hours.
What steps can you take to ensure the airports, these
Federal Contract Tower Program airports, airports like Bozeman,
were able and are able to maintain adequate staffing to meet
the safety needs of passengers flying into and out of my State?
Secretary Chao. Well, first of all, I am a great proponent
of contract towers. We think that they are necessary. They
provide greater safety, and I have to confess I actually
prepared an answer for your question, but I cannot remember it
at this point. So let me get back to you on that.
We are very concerned and I think you will be pleased with
our answer. We want to work with you.
[The information follows:]
The FAA monitors staffing at all 254 contract towers to ensure that
adequate staffing levels are maintained. The FAA will consider a
request for increased staffing and longer hours of operations when the
traffic at the airport during the time the facility is closed averages
more than four operations an hour over a representative 90-day period
or special operational or user requirements warrant increasing the
operating hours.
The Contract Tower Program operates under a reduced staffing
concept, which has proven to be a safe, cost effective and efficient
way to provide air traffic control service to smaller airports across
the country.
Senator Daines. We'll work with you on that because we are
literally gateway Yellowstone National Park and so we have a
tremendous amount of tourism travel in and out of that airport
as well as Bozeman's the fastest-growing micropolitan area in
the United States, which is 50,000 people or less.
So it's been my hometown since 1964. It's growing rapidly,
and we just had a few little hiccups there and concerns about
staffing certainly. We'll work with you on that, Madam
Secretary.
I've also heard, speaking of other airports across my
State, most notably Helena Kalispell, as well as Bozeman,
they've had concerns about air traffic control towers not
staffed during all regularly scheduled flights.
I can tell you in a place like Montana where ground
operations, such as snow removal, and we've had a lot of it
this winter, can take place while these towers are non-
operational, and that does present possible safety hazards.
What are you doing in your organization to ensure that the
air traffic system is adequately serving the safe operations of
aircraft movements each day when there are processes in place
to consider changes to hours of operation for air traffic
control towers when needed?
Secretary Chao. Finished?
Senator Daines. Yeah.
Secretary Chao. Well, as mentioned, I think contract towers
are important. They fulfill a need, and many times when there's
not the full-blown air traffic control that's available, the
contract towers fulfill an important aid for rural America.
You're asking, I think, also about air traffic control
overall.
Senator Daines. Yeah. We've had some situations, and I
agree with you. The contract program is something we ought to
try to continue to make work.
Secretary Chao. Of course, yeah.
Senator Daines. I think there's been some success.
Secretary Chao. And for us, we will always try to fund it
fully.
Senator Daines. Right. Yeah. We just had--and we'll work
with your team. We've had some gaps in coverage. I've engaged
with our airport manager, our board there. Somebody who uses
that airport all the time, has many Montanans do, we've had
some challenges there, and we'll continue to work with your
team, Madam Secretary, her to address those issues.
Secretary Chao. I'm very much aware of this. In fact, I
have the question here.
Senator Daines. Yeah.
Secretary Chao. So I'm very much aware that this is a
concern with you and I think we're going to be very
cooperative.
Senator Daines. Okay. All right. Looking forward to working
with you.
Thank you.
Senator Collins. Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you,
Madam Secretary. It's good to be with you, and I know we both
agree on the investment in infrastructure, how important it is,
and it's not a political football. It's basically an American
problem that we all have and we're working together on that.
But I know Senator Capito and I, we share the same concerns
that we have in our State. Small rural States really have
certain significant problems, a little bit different to urban
areas, but we have projects, like King Coal Highway, Coal Field
Expressway, Corridor H, Yaeger Airport, some of these things
we've been working on for quite some time. You all have been
very attentive and we appreciate that, but we've just now got
to complete some of these projects.
Speaking on Amtrak, I know I've talked to you, I just spoke
to Richard Anderson and I agree. He seemed to be very
cooperative, very understanding, and very willing to work.
The Cardinal Line travels through Southern West Virginia
between, as you know, Washington and Chicago. It travels
through towns like Hinton, Charleston, and Huntington.
Unfortunately, Amtrak recently announced with no prior notice
to affected companies they will no longer operate charter
services or special trains.
I understood--he gave me the reasoning concerning on some
people with these very wealthy people with private cars. We
don't have very wealthy people with private cars in West
Virginia. We have Railroad Days Festival. The Hinton and
Huntington Project, it's a tremendous revenue. It's been going
on for 51 years. They don't know if they can continue now.
We have groups, like the Kiwanis, Lions Club, that are
depending on these times that they operate, peak seasons of
tourism, and Richard told me that he would be very sympathetic
to looking at a case-by-case.
I just want you all to understand in some of these
situations, especially in rural America, rural West Virginia,
this is a lifeblood to some of these people. We have the
Collins P. Huntington Railroad Historical Society----
Secretary Chao. Yes.
Senator Manchin [continuing]. Which is very dependent upon
that, and it's just something that's very educational but it's
very rewarding and it's also economic and vital for the area.
So I would like--I don't know if you all knew about the
decision that was made.
Secretary Chao. I don't know. I didn't know about it prior
to being briefed for this hearing.
Senator Manchin. Sure.
Secretary Chao. I think you are----
Senator Manchin. We're working with Richard.
Secretary Chao [continuing]. Talking to Richard about this.
Senator Manchin. Yes.
Secretary Chao. We will reinforce also.
Senator Manchin. We don't know what the waiver process is.
So I know both of our staffs will be working through the waiver
process, making sure that this was of high priority. We're not
asking for accommodations just for one person or a special
group.
Secretary Chao. Right.
Senator Manchin. This is a period of time that they either
make it or break it and it's been going on for 51 years. So
it's not a Johnny-come-lately.
The other thing I wanted to talk to you about--so I hope
your attention can be drawn towards that for the Amtrak, for
especially the Huntington Hinton Railroad Festival Days.
Corridor H. Corridor H is a corridor that John Kennedy made
happen and I'm taking you back a ways. We still haven't
completed it, if you can believe that. We still have not
completed it. We still have, I think, about 20 some miles left.
It costs $330 million. I'm understanding that's the estimate to
complete Corridor H in West Virginia. The State's willing to
put up $90 million to do that, which is 26 percent of the cost.
I don't know with the new Infrastructure bill, we have not
seen that, but, you know, we've got some priorities that really
have to take care of but we can't even finish what's been going
on for well over 50, almost 60 years now. It's just ridiculous.
So I don't know how you can help us on that.
The Appalachian Regional Commission, we've worked with ARC,
and we're hoping that we can use that to facilitate this, but
the state's willing and they do have skin in the game. That's a
substantial amount and they're willing to do that, but they
were trying to get some type of a planning done here that we
can get that accomplished.
Also, the criteria for the Federal grants, like TIGER and
INFRA, to reward States for making this much investment, I'm
willing to step to the plate.
The regional airport that we have, our main airport in West
Virginia is our Charleston Airport, Yaeger Airport, and the
expansion going on there. You all have been helping us there
because--which is our overrun. You all have helped there, but
this next extension, we cannot be able to service the traffic
that we need coming into there for the hub of our capital city
and also our State.
I don't know if you all have been made aware or up to speed
on that, if your staff has been, and how you can accommodate us
with that.
Secretary Chao. Well, you have a whole list of issues and
so we want to work with you.
[The information follows:]
APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM
FHWA is committed to Appalachian communities and the
completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System
(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. Currently, approximately 90
percent of the ADHS is 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.
In addition to funding, FHWA has been supporting States in
coordination with the Appalachian Regional Commission by
introducing tools, expertise, and financing to help explore and
possibly implement innovative strategies to deliver costly and
complex ADHS projects, such as Corridor H in West Virginia.
YEAGER AIRPORT
In fiscal year 2017, the FAA issued a $13.1 million AIP
grant to improve the Runway Safety Area. In fiscal year 2018,
the airport requested funds to complete the project. The FAA
supports this project and understands the importance of
completing the project providing an improved Runway Safety
Area.
Also in fiscal year 2017, the FAA issued an AIP grant to
update the airport's Master Plan. The FAA is working directly
with the airport sponsor in this master planning effort to
determine the current justified runway length, which could
include a runway extension, as well as the long-range planning
needs at the airport. Once a recommended alternative is
selected, the next step is to begin the environmental review of
the proposed action. The airport currently shows a funding
request for the environmental review in fiscal year 2019.
The FAA recognizes the significance of Yeager Airport to
the state of West Virginia and to the national system of
airports. We will continue to work with the airport sponsor to
support their planning and funding needs.
Senator Manchin. I'm sure that my dear friend and colleague
will second that and probably has her own, but we both--this is
one thing. The needs of our little State, rural States have so
much. Shelley and I work very close together and our staffs
work very close together because without some assistance and
some help, rural America, as you said yourself, only percent is
getting helped. 93 percent's going to the largest areas that
have the wherewithals to help themselves a lot more.
We've got areas that we've got total no cell coverage, no
broadband, and there's no way we're going to be able to develop
unless we have this assistance and help from the Federal
Government. So your attention to these matters and we'll give
you everything we've got on this but we need your help.
Secretary Chao. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator,
we've always talked about your State and so that's why the
President's proposal includes a 25 percent amount for rural
America.
Senator Manchin. Rural America. Yeah. We know that.
Secretary Chao. It's done differently than the rest of the
funding for other areas.
Senator Manchin. I know there's a lot of new projects that
people are bringing to you. They want to start this.
Secretary Chao. Right.
Senator Manchin. We'd like to finish some that have been
going on for so long. We never could get the assistance that we
needed, and I think if we can work together on some of this and
come to you with a concerted effort on how we could finish
Corridor H, Amtrak keeping for 51 years a tradition, Kiwanis
and the Lions Club go down, that's their main revenue, little
things like that.
I know what you're trying to do. He says--he was very--
Richard says ``I got to run a railroad.'' I say ``Shelley and I
have to keep a state running, too. We have to keep it open, and
these little towns are depending on this.''
Thank you.
Secretary Chao. Well, the President--as you know, the
President's proposal again understands these concerns about
rural America and so that is why again 25 percent of the
program will be devoted to rural America and their concerns.
STATE FUNDING FOR HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE
Senator Collins. Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank the
Ranking Member, and I thank you, Madam Secretary, and I'm going
to go off of what Senator Manchin said. We do have a lot of the
same concerns in West Virginia obviously and I won't repeat
those.
I will say in terms of Corridor H, in terms of West
Virginia as a State's commitment, and I know you and I have
talked about this, you know, we passed a road bond, our State
did by 70 percent last October, I believe it was, that raised
the gas tax and committed a lot of our own State funding to
fixing our own infrastructure because people realize how
deteriorated our transportation system has become.
That was a big step for a State that has economic
challenges. So part of--with the rural set-aside and the
infrastructure package, I've been trying to emphasize to the
Administration that when we get this package done, that we can
have a retroactive look to States that have already been
aggressive with meeting their challenges and to help you as the
Administration with that, when I hear a State who maybe has
challenges like Maine or Rhode Island or Hawaii, you know, we
all have our challenges and they say, but my State can't afford
it, my response is, well, if West Virginia can pull this off
and get it together like we did, then I think your States
really need to look to step up. Some States, like ours, have
already done that.
So I would encourage, as we look at projects, looking
forward, something like a Corridor H project, which is already
in the making and only has a very expensive small part left,
it's coming from both of these ways, that we look at projects
that are going to be completable, that already have committed
dollars from the State or private sector, which is part of
what, I think you're building into your infrastructure package,
is that correct, with the private or matching dollars? I mean
that's important, right?
Secretary Chao. Yes.
Senator Capito. So the other thing on the broadband issue,
and I know that's not exactly your issue, except when we're
doing a lot of construction in our highways, we have the
opportunity--I don't know if somebody's asked you about Dig
Once, and I'd like to know your opinion of Dig Once, where
you're digging for a highway, if you can lay the fiber at the
same time.
What kind of challenges--I know it was included in the FCC
reauthorization which was part of the Omnibus. I don't know if
you have any reaction to the Dig Once proposition of really
making our investments more efficient.
Secretary Chao. It's only common sense. I think we all
agree with it. It's how do we coordinate it amongst all these
different agencies to make that happen, but we're totally in
favor of it.
Senator Capito. Is there an effort at this point yet to do
any kind of coordination from your department to say FCC or
Commerce or USDA or other agencies that are involved with rural
broadband? Is that something that's going to be a part of a
conversation?
Secretary Chao. Thank you for bringing that up. We probably
should. We will start.
Senator Capito. I would encourage that. I know that
Agriculture is. In the last Omnibus, we did secure more money
for rural broadband in that bill and, as we're moving forward
with the increase, the $12 billion increase in the
Transportation bill, this would be a good time to really, you
know, kind of jump on that.
The other question I had was on TIGER grants, but I know
you've already been asked about it, but if you wouldn't--I know
you had an increase in that program.
The President, I think, hadn't he zeroed that program out
in his budget? Did he?
Secretary Chao. In fiscal year 2019, he did, but, again,
I'd just mention there is a disconnect. It's kind of confusing.
We're dealing with three different budgets at this point, but
obviously the fiscal year 2019 budget request--was submitted
before the Omnibus.
Senator Capito. I see.
Secretary Chao. And so the Omnibus stands and----
Senator Capito. Right.
Secretary Chao [continuing]. We will see what happens next
year.
Senator Capito. Obviously a commitment to TIGER grants in
the----
Secretary Chao. Obviously, yes.
Senator Capito. Yeah.
Secretary Chao. The popularity of the TIGER grants is very
well-made known to us very well.
Senator Capito. Yeah. Good. Also in the airport, Senator
Manchin mentioned Yaeger Airport. I just want to thank you and
the department and the FAA for working with our airport to
rebuild our EMS system that collapsed on us unfortunately. We
just had a ribbon-cutting from that, and I know you all worked
hard to make sure that that works and so it's under progress
with a local contractor. So we're very happy about that. That
will help us with the viability of the airport and it's already
stopped one plane and saved--it did stop one plane previously
and saved, I think, 30 lives. So it's important when you've got
an airport on the top of three mountains. It's important if
you're not going to stop, somebody helps you stop. So thank
you. Thank you for that.
You know, other than that, I don't have any other
questions. Just thank you very much. Thanks for dedication to
rural America. Appreciate it.
Secretary Chao. Thank you.
Senator Collins. Senator Schatz.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Secretary,
thank you for your partnership for Hawaii transportation
projects.
I want to talk first about the big picture, the
Infrastructure Program that you've been advocating for, and I
want to propose to you something and get your response and
that's this that we actually don't need to invent new
infrastructure programs, projects.
We have great programs within the Department of
Transportation. We've got TIGER. We've got Capital Investment
Grants. We have highway funding. We have aviation grants. All
of those actually work, and you have the existing statutory
staff process infrastructure in place. States work well with
the Federal Government in these instances, and really what we
need to do is just put more money into each pile.
I mean that is the traditional way to do an infrastructure
program, and I'm afraid we're outsmarting ourselves by trying
to configure something new when what we have is programs that
work but are, generally speaking, underfunded when you match
them up against the needs nationwide.
So I'd like your comment on the efficacy of just putting
more money in each of the lines that you're in charge of.
Secretary Chao. I wish I could--I understand what you're
saying, and I was--the whole Department is really devoted to
carrying out the will of the Congress, and I think the Omnibus
is very clear as to what the priorities of the Congress are.
We want to get out the money as quickly as possible. Going
back to when we first started in the Administration, I mean,
there was just a lack of leadership. So I think that was a
major reason why things didn't get out, but it's quite clear
what the Congress wants and we hope to--we're working very hard
to distribute the funds as instructed within the timeframe. But
as I mentioned, the timeframe's really, really tight.
Senator Schatz. Sure. And just one final comment on this
particular question. I think as you search for bipartisan
support as it relates to infrastructure, I think traditionally
infrastructure has been done on a bipartisan basis because of
the cloture rules in the Senate and because until relatively
recently, infrastructure was always a bipartisan priority until
about 10 years ago, and so I again think we may be outsmarting
ourselves and what we just need to do is get together, decide
what the priorities are, and fund them rather than configure a
new statutory infrastructure.
When the Department of Transportation--nobody's complaining
about the way it works. They're complaining about the lack of
funding.
DOT RULEMAKINGS
In the interest of time, I wanted to cover two other
questions. The FAA reauthorization in 2016 directed the
department to develop regs that would require air carriers to
refund baggage fees for baggage delayed over 12 hours and allow
for adjoining seats for families traveling with children under
the age of 13. The rules were supposed to be finalized by July
of 2017.
Can you give me an update on the status of those rules?
Secretary Chao. I should be able to and so if you wouldn't
mind, let me do that, because we actually have discussed it and
we've been looking at current regulations and seeing how far
they cover and seeing whether these requested new changes, what
they would entail, what their implications are. We're working
on it. We don't have a conclusion on that yet. If you could
just let me go back and we will ask for the timeline.
[The information follows:]
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.
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.
Senator Schatz. Sure. And in previous appearances before
the committee, you had committed to evaluating the practices of
overbooking and report back on the findings and proposals to
protect consumers from these practices.
What information do you have and what actions do you think
are necessary either at the rulemaking level, at the procedural
level, or at the lawmaking level to deal with overbooking?
Secretary Chao. These are all part of an analysis about
consumer complaints. We have, as you well know, an Aviation
Consumer Complaint Bureau, and we're looking at all of these
issues, especially because certain members, not only of this
committee, have asked us as part of the Omnibus to take a look
at all of this, as well.
Senator Schatz. Final question. I know you are working very
hard on streamlining processes in terms of Federal permitting
and I think a lot of us can get behind this, whatever our views
are on various environmental or other regulations, but we have
a Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council and it lacks
an executive director, and I'm wondering what the status is of
appointing an executive director to make sure that's
operational.
Secretary Chao. We need to have someone there and so I
don't have a good answer for you.
Senator Schatz. Okay. We'll look forward to the follow-up
on my questions.
Thank you, Secretary.
Senator Collins. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
it's good to see you, Madam Secretary, and thank you for your
help with the CalTrain Electrification. Everybody is very
pleased with it, and I just wanted to directly say thank you
very much.
I wanted to talk to you for a minute on CAFE standards.
When I came to the Senate in 1992, CAFE standards were frozen.
You couldn't set Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards
and Slade Gorton and Dick Bryan and I sat on the Floor of the
Senate trying to do a resolution. We failed.
I then teamed up with Olympia Snow and we produced a couple
of bills which failed. Our third bill, however, was something
called Ten-in-Ten Fuel Efficiency and that was from the year
2010 to 2020. The law would provide that corporate average fuel
efficiency would increase by 10 miles per gallon.
We thought it was lost and Senators Stevens and Inouye, who
were chair and Ranking of Commerce, put it in a bigger Commerce
bill and, wala, it passed, and President Bush signed it and so
the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Bill is now the law of the land.
What has happened is that from 2010 to 2020, the standards
are 10 miles per gallon of fuel efficiency during that period
of time. In 2016, an extensive 2,000-page technical assessment
reported that the standards already proposed for model years
2022 to 2025 are entirely feasible and that more technology is
available than we originally expected.
Here's the question. I understand you are looking for ways
to make compliance with the standards more flexible, but will
you commit to maintain at least the same overall level of fuel
savings originally laid out for 2022 to 2025?
Secretary Chao. I don't know where the interagency process
is on that. The President in March 13, 2017, announced that we
would have the midpoint review. That was a process point which
was neglected by the previous Administration.
So we are still in the process of evaluating all of that.
We are actually in earnest, but difficult, discussions with
California.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, that was the next question.
Secretary Chao. My staff has flown there several times in
an effort to try to talk to them.
So I think at this point, we are talking and I think
everyone's operating in good faith, but there will be
differences of opinion.
Senator Feinstein. Yeah. Well, we believe that if it moves
ahead as originally legislated, the Corporate Average Fuel
Efficiency standards will be over 50 miles by 2025.
Now the California question, as you mentioned, Madam
Secretary, if I can be helpful with this, I'd like to, that
when these fuel standards were first set in 2012, it was a
result of an agreement between your department, the EPA, the
automakers, and the California Air Resources Board.
If you diverge--this is my understanding. If you diverge
from the California standards, we would no longer have a single
national program for fuel economy and this would put automakers
in a very difficult position. One out of every eight cars in
America is bought in California.
So it's my understanding that there has not been much
technical discussion between the Federal agencies and none
involving the California Air Resources Board. It would be very
helpful if you would consult with the California Air Resources
Board to make sure that any standard that gets changed meets
the general consensus of the law that is in place now and I
think the Administration and this is what we worked on this for
so long, signed in 2007. So a long time has gone by, but what I
remember was the genesis of this is the standards had to be
cost efficient, they had to be technically available, it had to
be set by the technical people in your department, and we would
then have a set of standards that would continue on.
It's amazing to me that the automakers are objecting to
this now because I'm told that the technology is there and I'm
also told it's not that costly. So it seems to me.
Secretary Chao. Well, we may have different cost estimates
because this is an incredibly expensive regulation. It's
something like $200 billion. I mean, it's huge. So I don't
think it's going to be as expensive as we----
Senator Feinstein. Well, this is true, but global warming
is real and carbon infiltration into the atmosphere is a major
cause and if we can reduce that, maybe we can save the planet.
If we can't, I don't believe we will. I sincerely believe this,
and as a matter of fact, well, I don't think we need to go into
a debate on climate change.
But my point is this is the law, that it was set and signed
in 2007 by President Bush. It was a bipartisan bill, and all of
a sudden it's going to be knocked out because part of it is
discretionary by intent with the Administration.
Secretary Chao. Well, again, we're in the process of having
this, you know, midpoint review, and so the agencies are
involved in looking at all of this. We've been talking to
California. Let's see what happens.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Right. Well, I'd like to work with
you. I'd like to see that we effect something that's
reasonable. My worry is that it goes like this and California
pulls out and then it's very difficult.
Secretary Chao. No, it doesn't make sense at all to have,
you know, two different standards.
Senator Feinstein. Exactly.
Secretary Chao. It makes it very difficult for everyone. So
we're cognizant of that and concerned about that.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Reed, I know you have a brief announcement you'd
like to make before I call on Senator Boozman.
Senator Reed. Madam Secretary, thank you for your testimony
today, and I have a few other questions that I will send to you
because I have to meet with the chief of staff of the Secretary
of the Army, but thank you, Madam, and I'll leave you in the
capable hands of the chairman.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Secretary Chao. Thank you.
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Senator Collins. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam
Chair, Madam Secretary, for being with us today. We do
appreciate your hard work.
A lot of our states now are legalizing marijuana either for
recreational use, or for medicinal purposes. I think we'll see
a lot more of that come November, this next election year.
As a result of that, we're seeing an uptick in drug-
impaired driving, and I want to thank you and really applaud
your team that's doing a good job on working on that, in
particular Deputy Administrator Heidi King, for making that a
priority.
Can you talk a little bit about in fiscal year 2019 some of
the drug-driving initiatives that might be coming up or again
your thoughts on additional research in that regard?
Secretary Chao. Well, we're obviously very concerned about
impaired driving and drug-induced influences. It's certainly
not safe--not only for the driver but for surrounding drivers
as well.
So with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) 2019 request, it does include $1.5 million for drug-
impaired driving countermeasures and this funding will support
training and education for law enforcement communities. The
budget also--we do request also $1.2 million to support drug-
impaired driving research.
NHTSA is working with law enforcement to provide training,
as I mentioned, for recognizing drug impairment, and I say that
again because apparently identifying drug use is a lot more
difficult----
Senator Boozman. Right.
Secretary Chao [continuing]. Than identifying alcohol use.
There's no breathalyzer that can be used.
I think working with law enforcement, looking into the
research will be very important, and we also have--NHTSA will
also provide--has also provided a drug-impaired driving
campaign, kind of a toolkit for states, so that state officials
will have something that's handy and ready, a campaign that
they can use right away instead of inventing 50 different
campaigns.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Secretary Chao. But your concern about this is noted and
it's an increase. It is an increasing phenomena that we all
need to be very careful--very cognizant of.
Senator Boozman. No, and we appreciate that. As you say,
it's just a different impairment and we've seen some of that in
the past, but I think we're going to see a lot more of it with
these laws, and we're going to have to come up with the
equivalent of a breathalyzer, something that's easy, something
that's reproducible that our law enforcement folks can lean on.
So we do appreciate your hard work in that area.
Secretary Chao. And also, as I mentioned, we need to alert
motorists themselves----
Senator Boozman. Yes, that's exactly right.
Secretary Chao [continuing]. That they need to understand
the danger of driving under the influence of drugs.
Senator Boozman. Right. People that drink alcohol know that
there's a certain amount that they can have, but what is the
limit with some of these other things. So I think you make a
great point.
PERMITTING PROCESSES
The other thing I'd like for you to just talk about because
it's music to my ears and you're doing a good job of it about,
is that we talk about getting money in the form of grants and
this and that and that's all great, but talk to me about being
able to deliver infrastructure in a more timely way, cutting
through some of the bureaucracy. That doesn't cost anything. In
fact, that saves a tremendous amount of time and money.
Tell us a little bit about some of the things that you're
doing in that regard, and I know that this is something that
you're working very, very hard on and is much appreciated.
Secretary Chao. We've already talked about the tremendous
need for infrastructure, repair, refurbishment, rebuilding in
this country. We've already talked about how hard it is to get
the full funding.
I mean, there's not enough money for every single project
in America and yet what adds to the cost of a project is the
permitting process and if the permitting process is delayed
that adds to the cost, the price of a particular project.
So we've been, as instructed by the President, taking a
look at why does the permitting take so long and we find that
there are commonsensical ways to streamline the permitting
process. It doesn't compromise any of the things that we care
about. We are not following the law in any sense, but there are
so many permitting processes that could be streamlined through
elimination of duplicative processes, having permitting
processes occur concurrently rather than sequentially.
Senator Boozman. Right.
Secretary Chao. Right now, you know, every single survey or
every single permit process occurs one after the other. That
adds years to a project. When different agencies are doing the
same thing, can they not just do it concurrently?
The third thing we found out is there's a lack of sharing
of information and, in fact, a lot of information is prohibited
from being shared by even sister agencies. So in the Department
of Transportation, we will have different agencies conduct the
same surveys.
Not only is it irritating to the regulated community but
it's counterproductive once again because it lengthens the
timeframe for a particular project, increasing the cost of a
project, and this money could be better used elsewhere.
So we're looking at all of that and then, finally,
yesterday, the President signed off on a Memorandum of
Understanding between the 15-16 different Federal agencies to
allow one agency to be the lead authority on a particular
project and having one agency be in charge, one agency being
responsible will hopefully help streamline the process and hold
people's agencies' feet to the fire, as well. It's called One
Federal Decision.
Senator Boozman. Right, That's excellent, and like I say,
we do appreciate your hard work and, you know, these are just
common sense things. Those kind of things aren't glamorous,
this and that, but they make such a big difference, and so we
do appreciate your focusing your efforts there that ultimately
is going to save a lot of time, a lot of delay, and lots of
money.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary Chao. Thank you.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Senator Collins. Madam Secretary, I mentioned in my opening
statement that the Administration has given conflicting signals
on the issue of the air traffic control privatization. It is in
the budget request but the President, it is my understanding,
has now backed away from that position.
Could you clarify exactly where the Administration stands
on this issue?
Secretary Chao. The Administration made a full faith effort
to try to improve the air traffic control system. All of us as
passengers have experienced delays, hopefully not too long
delays, but all of us have experienced delays.
The current air traffic control system is still radar-based
and while we have the safest system in the world, we can do
better with a more GPS-based system and so that is why it was
proposed that the air traffic control system be allowed to be
liberated from the Federal Government in its own nonprofit co-
op governance structure and this was just going to be a change
in the governance structure, that we take the FAA air traffic
control out of FAA and allow the Aviation Trust Fund monies to
be used 100 percent for air traffic control improvements rather
than have half of the Aviation Trust Fund be used for deficit
reduction.
Unfortunately, this proposal was not met with enough votes
and so, once again, you know, the Congress has not indicated
its approval, support for this proposal. We hope that in the
future, this proposal will be considered again because we
believe that something needs to be done to improve the air
traffic control system.
I'm very grateful to the hard-working men and women air
traffic controllers and people who work in the air traffic
system on keeping our nation's air space safe but something
needs to be done.
I might add we just registered the one millionth drone on
February 10th of this year.
So the national air space will have to deal with
integrating safely the phenomenon of drones and so there are
lot of challenges facing our air traffic and national air space
system and, again, letting the air traffic control system be
liberated from the procurement rules and just the government
restrictions and allowing it to be able to procure up-to-date
equipment through its own separate, independent, nonprofit co-
op structure, we thought, would be the best solution, but,
again, we were not successful in persuading the rest of
Congress.
Senator Collins. Well, I appreciate very much the
recognition that this is not an idea that has widespread or
even bipartisan support in the Congress and I would point out
that we are making substantial investments in the NextGen
System which should help address some of the issues that you've
raised.
I share your concern and, indeed, it was our bill that
required the registration of drones and I've talked with
pilots. We've had a hearing, an oversight hearing on how we can
integrate drones into the air space of this country without
endangering our commercial or private aircraft, and it is a
challenge, as you've indicated, but I don't think
privatization's the answer to that challenge.
I want to bring up another issue that I hear about a lot in
Maine and that is the shortage of truck drivers.
Secretary Chao. Yeah.
Senator Collins. The current shortage of truck drivers in
our country is expected to grow from 48,000 to a 175,000 by the
year 2024 and without a growing workforce, trucking companies
will be unable to expand their fleets, which will lead to
delays in moving freight and cargo and directly affect our
economy.
It's particularly challenging to recruit drivers older than
21 who've already been out of high school for 3 years and may
have already chosen a different career path. As a result,
Congress authorized a pilot program as part of the FAST Act
that allowed individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 to
operate commercial motor vehicles if they'd received training
during their military service.
Could you give us an update on the status of that pilot
program?
Secretary Chao. We think that's a great idea. Certainly the
shortage of truck drivers is a real concern. Trucks enable
commerce to occur throughout our country.
So we're taking a look at that. That came to us and we hope
to be wrapping that up pretty shortly.
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
Senator Collins. Great. And, finally, I want to end with
talking a little bit about the Administration's investment in
infrastructure and yet it's cut in the Highway and Transit
Formula Programs.
As you know, the American Society of Civil Engineers each
year puts out a report card and tallies up the backlog in
repairs and refurbishment and deferred maintenance that is
needed across our country.
The group has given the country an overall grade of D+ for
the condition of our infrastructure. In Maine, the Mainers are
spending an extra $385 per year on average on vehicle
maintenance because of the poor conditions of our State's
roads.
As you can imagine, in a northern state, you have a lot
more repair and refurbishment that is necessary and, indeed,
the Society of Civil Engineers rated 40 percent of my State's
roads as being in fair or unacceptable conditions.
So that is why I very much welcome the Administration's
focus on infrastructure. I think that's a focus that has been
long overdue in this country, but when I start adding up the
money, I'm concerned that if there's $200 billion over 10 years
for the Administration's Infrastructure Initiative, which
appropriately includes not just roads and bridges but rural
broadband and other investments that we need, and then I look
at the Administration's budget reflecting a $122 billion
reduction in the 10 years for critical Highway and Transit
Formula Programs, I'm really wondering are we going to come out
much ahead.
Could you comment on that?
Secretary Chao. The $122 billion cut is really not very
accurate. We're basically talking about other parts of the
Executive Branch. So it's not just Transportation, number 1.
Number 2, I think we all agree that infrastructure is
important. Certainly on the part of the Administration, this
package has got to be finished on a bipartisan basis.
I think the point of departure is how the private sector
can help build or help to invest and build our infrastructure
and there seems to be tremendous distrust of the private sector
participating in the building or the rebuilding of our
infrastructure and that's part of where our efforts need to be
expended more because when we talk about a $1.5 trillion
infrastructure project proposal package, of which $200 billion
will be in direct Federal funding, through experience, we know
that that can be leveraged to $1.5 trillion and yet there seems
to be a lack of understanding and distrust that indeed the gap
can be filled that way.
We are regularly approached by and in discussion with many
private sector entities, in large part private-sector pensions,
who like to make relatively conservative long-term investments,
and they can really help in the rebuilding of our country's
infrastructure, but in many states, they are forbidden or
disallowed from participating in financing of public
infrastructure.
So at the very minimum, we need to do away with those
barriers and then also acknowledge that these private sector,
you know, entities can help. So I think we probably need to do
some more education because there seems to be, again this lack
of understanding, and also trust that the private sector would,
you know, not be rapacious when they participate in the
financings of public infrastructure.
Senator Collins. I think the concern that many of us have
who represent lower-income large rural states is from our
discussions with the private sector and we would love to have
private sector investment in our infrastructure, but what we've
found is they're not interested in projects that are under a
$100 million, that that seems to be the threshold, and we don't
have very many projects that are above a $100 million.
There's talk of doing a new port in Maine that would be far
in excess of a $100 million and we're hoping the private sector
might be enticed to invest in that, but everything else is
going to be under a $100 million.
The second problem that a rural state has is generating the
revenues to repay the investment by the private sector because
often in a more urban area where there's heavy traffic on a
road or bridge that the private sector has invested in, the
method of repayment is a toll and in a rural State, you just
don't have the volume to produce the tolls that are necessary
to repay the loans from the private sector.
So in my state at least, it's not a distrust of the private
sector or not wanting them to come in. We would welcome that.
We just can't figure out from the conversations that our
Department of Transportation has had with investment banks and
private equity firms and other potential investors how we would
make it work because our projects just aren't that big.
Secretary Chao. I actually agree with you. Rural America is
different and perhaps we just need to say it again and again
and repeat because this proposal does not say that public-
private partnerships would be the only model but that, indeed,
for rural America, because of the lack of density of population
centers, that it would be administered differently and 25
percent of the proposal would be devoted to rural America on a
formula basis.
Senator Collins. And I am pleased to see that rural set-
aside, I think is absolutely critical.
Madam Secretary, I'm sure there are going to be additional
questions for the record, but you've spent a good amount of
time with us this afternoon, which we appreciate.
As you can see by the number of Senators who have stopped
by to ask questions, there's great interest in your department
and in the transportation needs of our country.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The hearing record will remain open until next Friday,
April 20th, for the submission of additional questions which we
will pass on to your staff and we know there were some
questions that you're going to get back to us for the record
on.
I want to thank you for spending your time with us today.
We will look forward to working very closely with you as we
formulate the appropriations bill.
I'm very proud of the fact that since I've been chairman at
least and before that, that this subcommittee has always
produced a bipartisan appropriations bill and it's often been a
unanimous one, and I hope we can keep that up because
infrastructure should not be a partisan issue.
I want to thank the staff for their hard work, both my
staff and Senator Reed's staff.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted by Senator John Boozman
contract tower program
Question.The contract tower program is one of FAA's most successful
government/industry partnerships and, as you well know, has very strong
bi-partisan, bi-cameral support in Congress. As validated numerous
times by the DOT IG's office, the program continues to provide high
quality, cost-effective, and critical air traffic control services to
over 250 smaller airports throughout our nation's air transportation
system including five in Arkansas.
Given the critical importance of contract towers to rural America
and smaller airports, what steps is the Department and FAA taking to
work collaboratively with the industry to ensure its continued success?
Answer. The FAA continues to support the FAA Contract Tower
Program, a cost effective and efficient way to provide air traffic
control services to smaller airports across the country. The FAA
collaborates with both internal and external stakeholders on contract
tower issues, such as Federal contract tower operating agreements, the
minimum equipment list, and the New Start Order. This allows the FAA to
pull together as much information as possible by allowing stakeholders
to contribute their views and experiences in addressing issues that
affect the Contract Tower Program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Steve Daines
culbertson, mt amtrak stop
Question. Secretary Chao, it is good to see you again and I want to
thank you for appearing before this subcommittee to testify on the
presidents fiscal year 2019 budget request.
I know that you have a busy schedule but I hope that you could soon
commit to visiting Montana to see firsthand how important rural
transportation infrastructure is to national connectivity.
Amtrak's Empire Builder currently serves 12 communities along
Montana's Hi-Line, which otherwise wouldn't have access to public
transportation. Amtrak completed a study that shows adding a stop in
Culbertson, MT would generate a net positive financial impact of more
than $775,000 for Amtrak and would not add any additional time to the
schedule. I have worked on this issue with the previous administration
and my staff remains in constant contact with the local community to
help make this stop a reality.
What can you do to ensure that places like Culbertson, which would
provide financial benefit and have the demand to sustain services, can
grow their connectivity?
Answer. The Administration has made investment in rural America a
top priority. The fiscal year 18 Omnibus directs Amtrak to work with
local officials and address the prospect of adding new stops, such as
that in Culbertson, Montana, along the Empire Builder line. The
Department, through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), will
continue to oversee Amtrak's operations and the viability of adding
stops along Amtrak's Empire Builder line.
While Amtrak has decisionmaking responsibility on which markets to
serve, interested stakeholders and project sponsors may submit
applications to FRA's financial assistance programs, such as the
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI)
Program and Restoration and Enhancement Grant Program.
contract tower program
Question. My hometown airport in Bozeman, which is the busiest
airport in the state, is part of the Federal Contract Tower Program.
Their tower is not operational 24 hours a day and they handle more
operations and more passengers than airports of similar size with 1/3
of the employees. In some instances they have had to use their own
funds to pay for additional staffing hours.
What steps can you take to ensure that airports like Bozeman are
able to maintain adequate staffing to meet the safety needs of
passengers flying into and out of my state?
Answer. The FAA monitors staffing at all 254 contract towers to
ensure that adequate staffing levels are maintained. When a request for
staffing adjustment is received, the FAA processes the request in
accordance with applicable FAA directives. The Contract Tower Program
operates under a reduced staffing concept, which has proven to be a
safe, cost effective and efficient way to provide air traffic control
service to smaller airports across the country.
Question. I have heard from airports across my state, most notably
Helena and Bozeman, about concerns that air traffic control towers are
not staffed during all regularly scheduled flights. In Montana, where
ground operations such as snow removal can take place while the towers
are non-operational, this can present a safety hazard.
What are you doing to ensure that the air traffic system is
adequately serving the safe operations of aircraft movements each day,
and are there processes in place to consider changes to hours of
operations for air traffic control towers when needed?
Answer. The FAA monitors staffing at all 254 contract towers to
ensure that adequate staffing levels are maintained. The FAA will
consider a request for increased staffing and longer hours of
operations when the traffic at the airport during the time the facility
is closed averages more than four operations an hour over a
representative 90-day period or special operational or user
requirements warrant increasing the operating hours.
The Contract Tower Program operates under a reduced staffing
concept, which has proven to be a safe, cost effective and efficient
way to provide air traffic control service to smaller airports across
the country.
electronic logging devices
Question. In February, I visited 26 counties in Montana over a six-
day period and at nearly every stop I heard stories about how the
Electronic Logging Device (ELD) rule, particularly for agriculture, is
burdensome and unworkable in its present form. While I appreciate the
extensions granted thus far by FMCSA, there are still many issues
unique to agriculture that have not been resolved, such as clarifying
points of origin regulations and trips with multiple pickups, among
others. Given these uncertainties and concerns, the omnibus included a
delay for the agricultural industry through September.
Can you commit to continuing to work with me to find a workable
solution to this issue that addresses the unique challenges faced by
livestock haulers while maintaining safety on our roads?
Answer. Yes. FMCSA published a guidance document specific to
agricultural commodity haulers which clarified the Hours of Service
exemption available under the 150 air-mile regulation. This included,
points of origin, loaded and unloaded trips and other concerns.
The relief granted under this new guidance provides increased
relief to the industry in Hours of Service. Within the 150 air-mile
exception there are no Hours of Service requirements. In addition, the
FMCSA is conducting extensive outreach to the agricultural communities
to ensure that they have the information they need. I look forward to
working with you to continue our efforts to address the unique needs of
the industry.
american transportation innovation
Question. I recently returned from a codel in China where I was
able to see firsthand the strides China is making in infrastructure
investment and innovation. In the past you have noted that one of
America's greatest competitive advantages is in innovation and
technology.
What steps are you taking to foster American innovation in regards
to transportation and how can we, as a legislative body, help you make
certain America remains the global leader in this arena?
Answer. As part of the President's Plan, the Transformative
Projects Program is a $20 billion competitive program that will provide
Federal funding and technical assistance to private firms and nonprofit
organizations that use transformative technologies and techniques to
improve or reduce the costs of transportation services. This program
will fill innovation gaps, and yield technologies that may solve our
critical issues surrounding safety, congestion, and efficiency.
The Department is also looking at barriers to innovation across
every mode. Here are three major initiatives we have launched:
--Autonomous Vehicles: On September 12, 2017, DOT published new
guidance for the safe testing and integration of autonomous
vehicles: AV 2.0: A Vision for Safety. It reflects input from
stakeholders. Technology is changing so fast that AV 3.0 is
already in the works. It will be released this summer.
--UAS: On October 25, 2017, DOT announced a new Unmanned Aircraft
System (UAS) Pilot Program to allow interested communities to
safely test and deploy drones over people, beyond the line of
sight and in other circumstances currently prohibited by
regulation. On May 9, 2018, DOT announced that it had selected
10 State, local and Tribal governments as participants in the
new Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Pilot Program to allow
interested communities to safely test and deploy drones over
people, beyond the line of sight and in other circumstances
currently prohibited by regulation.
--Request for Comment/Request for Information: The Department will be
seeking public input from stakeholders across the
transportation industry to identify how automation will disrupt
not only automobiles, but, railroads, transit, motor carriers,
and highways.
We look forward to working with Congress and its perspective on
innovation and new evolving technologies.
rural transportation infrastructure funding
Question. Transportation infrastructure is the backbone of our
economy and I applaud the administration for recognizing the importance
of modernizing our aging system. Real investment in established
channels, such as the Highway Trust Fund, is needed because rural
states like Montana simply do not have the capacity to rely on tolling
or other revenue streams as a way of leveraging funding for its
infrastructure needs.
How are you working to ensure that states like Montana are
prioritized and have the long-term certainty they need to plan, invest
in, and complete projects?
Answer. 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 multiple outcome
areas, including leveraging formula distributions with Federal credit
programs.
The Administration's proposal specifically dedicates $50 billion
(25 percent of overall amount) to enable rural America to address its
many infrastructure challenges. Eighty percent of the funds will be
provided to Governors via formula to fund their respective State's
infrastructure priorities. The remaining 20 percent of the funds will
be used for Performance Grants based on performance criteria. The
program also will provide a needed boost to tribal and territorial
infrastructure.
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
transport of livestock
Question. First, I want to talk to you about an issue that is of
significant importance to my state, the safe and efficient transport of
livestock.
We have been working with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) to provide flexibility within the trucking Hours
of Service regulations for truck drivers hauling livestock. Ranchers in
my state, and throughout the country, have come to me with concerns
that due to the unique nature of hauling livestock--which can include
long hours during loading and unloading--potential animal safety
concerns could arise should a driver not reach his destination within
the 11 hours of driving, and 14-hour workday allowed under HOS
requirements.
I have worked with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
to provide an exemption for truckers hauling livestock within a 150 air
mile radius of the origination of their trip. When a driver goes beyond
this radius, then the hours of service begin to apply and the driver
can drive an additional 11 hours during his 14 hours duty time,
providing a significant extension to the workday.
I greatly appreciate your department's efforts thus far to provide
flexibility for livestock haulers--including the recently announced 90-
day waiver from the electronic logging device (ELD) rule. As well, I
understand that the industry has asked that you provide them a
permanent waiver from the ELD rule. Can you provide me with an update
on the status of this waiver request?
Answer. The five-year ELD Exemption Request for livestock haulers
is still under review. In the meantime, FMCSA continues to meet with
the livestock industry and haulers to address their specific needs as
well as conduct extensive outreach to the agricultural community.
Question. Can you outline what the Department is doing to respond
to the livestock industry's concerns with the Hours of Service
regulations, while maintaining the safe and efficient transport of
livestock?
Answer. While the Department is still working with the livestock
industry to address Hours of Service as a whole, FMCSA recently
released an Agricultural Guidance Document. That document addressed the
existing Hours of Service Exemption within the 150 air-mile radius for
agricultural commodity haulers including, points of origin, loaded and
unloaded trips, and other concerns. This will bring relief to industry.
I look forward to working with you to continue our efforts to address
the unique needs of the industry.
contract tower program
Question. The contract tower program is one of FAA's most
successful government/industry partnerships and, as you know, has very
strong bi-partisan, bi-cameral support in Congress. As validated
numerous times by the DOT Inspector General's office, the program
continues to provide high quality, cost-effective and critical air
traffic control services to over 250 smaller airports throughout our
nation's air transportation system including in Minot, North Dakota.
Given the critical importance of contract towers to rural America
and smaller airports, what steps is the Department and FAA taking to
work collaboratively with the industry to ensure its continued success?
Answer. The FAA continues to support the FAA Contract Tower
Program, a cost effective and efficient way to provide air traffic
control services to smaller airports across the country. The FAA
collaborates with both internal and external stakeholders on contract
tower issues, such as Federal contract tower operating agreements, the
minimum equipment list, and the New Start Order. This allows the FAA to
pull together as much information as possible by allowing stakeholders
to contribute their views and experiences in addressing issues that
affect the Contract Tower Program.
move america act
Question. We have spoken a number of times regarding the Move
America Act, legislation that Senator Wyden and I have introduced that
seeks to encourage private investment in infrastructure by expanding
private activity bonds and creating a new infrastructure tax credit. As
you know, Move America would expand each State's ability to issue tax-
exempt Private Activity Bonds to help drive private infrastructure
investment for roads, bridges, ports, railways, airports, wastewater
and sewage facilities, and broadband infrastructure, to name a few.
Additionally, for those smaller states that are hesitant to issue
more debt, or where revenue-generating projects--such as toll roads--
are not feasible, tax credits would provide another tool to attract
equity investors for qualifying non-revenue generating projects. As
well, because Move America builds off the tax-exempt bonding structure
of state Private Activity Bonds, each state is allocated bonding and
tax-credit authority based on population, with a baseline, meaning that
the bill empowers states, not the Federal government, with the
flexibility to choose how and where to invest their money. The Joint
Committee on Taxation has estimated that Move America would finance
$226 billion worth of infrastructure projects, $1.5 billion of which
would be available for a small state like mine, North Dakota.
What do you think is the most appropriate role for the private
sector to play in addressing our nation's infrastructure needs?
Answer. Facilitating private participation in transportation
projects and encouraging innovative financing mechanisms that help
accelerate project delivery are key objectives of the Department. For
example, since the TIFIA program's inception, it has attracted private
co-investment in the form of debt or equity financing for over 20
large-scale infrastructure projects across the country.
Toward that end, the President's plan includes $20 billion to be
made available for the expansion of existing credit programs and
private activity bonds 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. How do you see the private sector utilizing tools, such
as Move America, to invest in our infrastructure?
Answer. Current law includes a limited list of exempt facilities
eligible to be financed with tax-exempt bonds. Amending the law (26
U.S.C. 142) to allow broader categories of public-purpose
infrastructure, including reconstruction projects, to take advantage of
private activity bonds (PABs) would encourage more private investment
in projects that benefit the public. Allowing privately financed
infrastructure projects to benefit from similar tax-exempt financing as
publicly financed infrastructure projects would increase infrastructure
investment. The Administration proposes dedicating $20 billion to
expand the capacity of existing Federal credit programs and broaden the
use of PABs to create multipliers of the Federal investment. The
President's plan will allocate $6 billion to broaden the use of private
activity bonds which can generate $100 billion in transportation
investment.
Question. The risk of delay in permitting can make investors
reluctant to commit resources to infrastructure projects. What can we
do to accelerate the permitting process to alleviate this concern?
Answer. There are numerous barriers to efficient project delivery.
For example, 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 number of Federal
agencies to complete numerous environmental documents to advance a
single project. How these environmental laws and regulations are
applied can be inconsistent and unpredictable across agencies. In
addition, projects are not always reviewed concurrently, but
sequentially. This adds a tremendous amount of time in the review
process that is frequently unnecessary.
DOT is addressing the challenges within our own Department. The
Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center (IPIC) is the central
resource for streamlining delivery of all DOT projects. IPIC advances
methods that facilitate efficient environmental review and approval of
projects, encouraging innovative solutions to complex projects.
We coordinate with project delivery staff across all our modes,
sharing best practices, and collaborate with the 16 Federal agencies
that comprise the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council,
established by FAST-41. We also manage and maintain the Federal
Permitting Dashboard.
However, these efforts are within the Department and recent reforms
alone are not enough to achieve the two-year timeframe under the
President's Executive Order and Infrastructure Initiative. That is why
the Administration is proposing additional changes to the project
delivery process.
The President's plan proposes to reform the inefficient
environmental review and permitting process, allowing critical projects
to be delivered quicker and at lower cost while still ensuring
environmental protection. These reforms will also offer greater
predictability that will serve to incentivize further private
investment in infrastructure projects.
Question. In what ways could we further incentivize private sector
investment in infrastructure? What other roadblocks exist that prevent
investors from investing? States and localities may be hesitant to
enter into public-private partnerships due to the complexity of the
arrangements. What can we do to empower states and localities with
analytical tools and technical support needed to effectively utilize
private financing tools?
Answer. As the recently formed Build America Bureau continues to
mature, we will be expanding our technical assistance and direct
support capacity to help develop more public-private partnerships
(P3s), with an emphasis on broadening the portfolio of P3 projects to
include more transit, station and port projects.
P3s can also benefit from expanded financing mechanisms for
projects via both the TIFIA and RRIF credit programs. Facilitating
private participation in transportation projects and encouraging
innovative financing mechanisms that help accelerate project delivery
are key objectives of both programs. For example, since the TIFIA
program's inception, it has attracted private co-investment in the form
of debt or equity financing for over 20 large-scale infrastructure
projects across the country.
Toward that end, the President's plan 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.
This Administration firmly believes that infrastructure is a
bipartisan issue and we look forward to working with Congress, not only
on legislative text for the infrastructure bill, that addresses many
forms of infrastructure beyond surface transportation, but also a long-
term reauthorization proposal for surface transportation specifically,
as appropriate.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
automation in transportation
Question. Automation increasingly dominates the future of multiple
modes of transportation. It is important that the Federal government
understands the upheaval that could occur in the labor market as a
result of mass automation of professions currently held by middle-class
workers. The fiscal year 2018 Omnibus provides funding for you to
conduct a study with the Department of Labor in order to better
understand the consequences of automation for middle-class workers.
Are you committed to undertaking that study immediately and
contacting the Department of Labor to begin coordination on that
effort?
Answer. We will work with the Department of Labor to undertake the
study.
Question. You have the funding available for this study, and it is
critical that these discussions occur across agencies so that we can
best prepare as a nation to train our workers for the future of the
American economy. I am also interested to know if the Department of
Transportation has any ideas for any other specific initiatives that
Congress should consider. Do you think that we should establish a
taskforce on automation in the transportation industry and its impact
on our workforce?
Answer. Not at this time. The Department has initiated the process
of identifying the gaps that need to be addressed through various AV
focused Requests for Comments and Information (RFC/RFIs). The
Department is seeking comments from our stakeholders and AV experts to
understand the capabilities and limitations of AVs. This information
will in turn inform the Department on setting priorities on how to
address infrastructure needs to safely accommodate AVs in our Nation's
infrastructure and potential impacts on our workforce.
consumer flight protections
Question. When you appeared before this Subcommittee last year, we
discussed your office's failure to implement regulations, which would
require air carriers to refund baggage fees for baggage delayed over 12
hours and to allow for adjoining seats for families traveling with
children under the age of 13. Both of these regulatory mandates were
included in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 and were required to be
finalized by July 2017. This Subcommittee was concerned with your lack
of progress and directed you to take immediate action to implement
these consumer protections. These mandates were broadly-supported,
bipartisan directives, which would prevent airlines from taking
advantage of the traveling public and ensure parents' ability to sit
with and care for their children inflight. Why have you still not taken
any action to implement these important consumer protections?
Answer. 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. 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.
Question. We also discussed the airlines' misuse of overbooking and
its negative impact on consumers, which resulted in several high
profile incidents during last spring. You committed to evaluate this
practice and to report back to this Subcommittee on whether additional
limitations should be placed on overbooking by commercial airlines.
What information have you found, and what actions do you feel are
necessary to better protect consumers?
Answer. We are 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. The Department website also
includes links to the web addresses to the family seating information
for 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.
cafe standards
Question. The Environmental Protection Agency has announced its
intention to re-evaluate CAFE standards for cars and light-duty trucks
in conjunction with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA). These industry standards were developed through rigorous
research and analysis.
What benefits does the Administration anticipate from rolling back
CAFE standards? Do you dispute the underlying research that justified
our current CAFE standards?
Answer. Because NHTSA is statutorily-limited to setting standards 5
years at a time, NHTSA has not yet either proposed or adopted CAFE
standards for model years (MYs) 2022-2025. As discussed extensively in
the 2012 final rule (in which NHTSA set standards for MYs 2017-2021)
and in the 2016 Draft Technical Assessment Report (TAR), NHTSA was
always obligated by law to conduct a de novo rulemaking to establish
standards for MYs 2022-2025. Any new rulemaking would consider a range
of alternatives and would be based on the best and most up-to-date
information and analysis available.
We are in the process of gathering that information and conducting
that analysis now. We have welcomed the opportunity to work with EPA on
crafting reasonable, appropriate, maximum feasible standards for future
cars and trucks. Final decisions about the standards to be established
for MYs 2022-2025 will be based on a transparent rulemaking process as
contemplated in and required by the Administrative Procedures Act.
Question. Why has NHTSA decided not to adjust civil penalties for
noncompliance with CAFE standards for inflation?
Answer. NHTSA is proposing to retain the civil penalty rate based
on a determination that the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 does not apply to the CAFE
penalty rate. NHTSA's analysis indicates that adjusting the rate would
result in negative economic impact, and that the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) as amended by the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) limits the agency's ability to increase
the penalty rate. NHTSA will issue a final rule following its review of
comments.
faa/dod ads-b moa
Question. Since 2008, the Department of Defense (DoD) has expressed
security and operational concerns to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regarding the installation of ADS-B technology.
For 7 years, the FAA has acknowledged that it would address DoD's
concerns, and yet the fundamental Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to
implement these risk reduction solutions has been delayed from June
2017 to February 2018 and still remains unresolved. What update can you
provide on your efforts to address DoD's security concerns and move
forward with the MOA?
Answer. The Memorandum of Agreement between the FAA and the
Department of Defense (DoD) has been under development for several
years. The original purpose of the agreement was to document the
following responsibilities between the FAA and DoD:
--FAA would accommodate, to the greatest extent possible, DoD
aircraft that are not equipped with Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast in addition to equipped aircraft that
are not transmitting signals continuously in order to maintain
operational security.
--DoD would comply with the FAA's regulation that requires equipage
for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast by January 1,
2020, to the greatest extent possible, both in equipage and
performance requirements.
Initial coordination through the FAA and DoD service branches was
completed in December 2017. In February 2018, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense General Counsel inserted changes creating the
following substantive issues:
--Expanding scope to include cybersecurity threat mitigation efforts
underway in broader forums;
--Documenting of DoD's intention that certain aircraft will never
equip due to perpetual risk to operations security; and
--Asserting that DoD has approval authority on the FAA's proposed
plan for radar divestiture.
Subsequent meetings in March and April 2018 resolved the inserted
changes.
The goal of accommodation for non-equipped DoD aircraft is to
minimize or to eliminate operational impact to DoD's mission following
January 1, 2020. Non-equipped DoD aircraft will be accommodated through
continuity of surveillance service and associated updated procedures
and training. DoD aircraft will have access to airspace that requires
equipage for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast as documented
in national and local procedures that are consistent with ensuring safe
operation of the national airspace. Modifications to air traffic
control and aircrew procedures are in development to accommodate non-
equipped aircraft by ensuring that such surveillance service is
maintained without any impact to safety, while minimizing or
eliminating any operational impact to these non-equipped DoD aircraft.
Additionally, there is rulemaking activity to remove the
requirement that all equipped aircraft must transmit at all times. This
rule provides an exception to these requirements, removing the
transmission requirement for certain operations carried out in the
interest of national security. The changes would provide relief to
those government agencies that operate equipped aircraft but require
the ability to terminate the transmission signal when conducting
national security, sensitive, intelligence, and law enforcement
missions that could be compromised by the requirement to transmit
flight information over non-encrypted signals.
dot safety rulemakings
Question. While I understand that new Administrations may conduct
reviews of pending regulatory actions, safety must remain the top
priority at the Department of Transportation (DOT), and failure to
fulfill Congressional directives is simply unacceptable.
In particular, this Subcommittee has directed DOT for successive
years to issue a final rule requiring rail carriers to develop
comprehensive oil spill response plans. This rule will ensure that
emergency personnel are appropriately equipped and capable of
responding to an energy product incident along rail routes in order to
best protect life, property, and the surrounding environment. And yet
no action has been taken to finalize this rule by DOT.
When can we expect the comprehensive oil spill response plan rule
to be finalized so that communities adjacent to rail lines are
appropriately prepared and protected?
Answer. The Department expects the final rule to be published by
November 2018. PHMSA understands the importance of finalizing this
rulemaking and has prioritized its completion.
Question. There are also a number of other safety rules being
delayed by this Administration, ranging from heavy truck speed limiters
to sleep apnea screenings for train engineers and truck and bus
drivers, which were also all mandated by Congress.
For the record, can you please provide this Subcommittee with a
detailed plan for implementation of each of these safety requirements?
Answer. The Department's rulemaking efforts are driven by the
belief that there should be no more regulations than necessary, and
those regulations should be straightforward, clear, and designed to
minimize burdens, consistent with safety.
We note that neither of the two rules mentioned in this question,
NHTSA and FMCSA's Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Heavy Vehicle
Speed Limiters and FMSCA and FRA's Joint Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on Sleep Apnea, are statutory mandates. NHTSA and FMCSA are
still considering their next steps on speed limiters.
With regard to sleep apnea, although FMCSA and FRA withdrew the
ANPRM on Sleep Apnea on August 8, 2017, we are continuing to actively
address this issue. In particular, FRA's Safety Advisory 2016-03 (81 FR
87649, Dec. 5, 2016) continues to recommend steps that passenger and
commuter railroads could take to appropriately address this issue. FRA
is also drafting an NPRM that would require railroads to establish and
implement a Fatigue Risk Management Program as part of their Risk
Reduction Program, which is scheduled to be published in September
2018.
sexual assault and sexual harassment at merchant marine academy
Question. As we discussed last year, the increasing rates of sexual
assault and harassment across the service academies are a serious
problem. I know that you are committed to improving conditions at the
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, but, yet again, the Maritime
Administration is falling short of meeting the goals in its own
corrective action plans. An IG review in 2016 found that 66 percent of
previous action plans were achieved. And now, 2 years later, a 2018 IG
review found that only 45 percent of the action plans' goals were
achieved. I am concerned that this represents a reversal of progress,
which will limit the effectiveness of sexual assault and sexual
harassment prevention efforts on campus. What are you doing to ensure
that these action plans are fully implemented?
Answer. The Department is committed to eliminating sexual assault
and sexual harassment at the United States Merchant Marine Academy and
creating a safe living and learning environment for our students. As is
described below, overlapping action plan requirements could have caused
the number of requirements the Department has met to be underestimated,
but the Department, MARAD and the Academy are focused on closing any
gaps in response to issues OIG has identified.
Over the course of 2016 and 2017, the Academy developed and
implemented online interactive training modules on sexual assault and
sexual harassment prevention, published a Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Framework, and established a culture change campaign. The
Academy also expanded the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office
from one person to a staff of four persons, and will shortly hire an
attorney whose primary duty will be to serve as a special victim
advisor. The Academy additionally trained four victim advocates from
the faculty and staff. Finally, an independent consulting firm
performed a culture audit in order to address the root causes of the
inappropriate behaviors on campus and during Sea Year.
The Academy also made a concerted effort to address the issues of
sexual assault and harassment during Sea Year. Critically, the
Department temporarily stood down Sea Year to fully assess the safety
of our Midshipmen while at sea and subsequently restarted the program.
During the pause, MARAD established a Shipboard Climate Compliance Team
to develop and implement a company-by-company review process to
determine if those companies had strong response and prevention
policies in place prior to permitting them to carry Midshipmen aboard
their vessels. The Ship Operations Cooperative Program (SOCP) published
standardized computer-based training for all seafarers, which the
Academy has incorporated into its Sea Year training, improving
Midshipmen preparedness for sea. The SOCP also issued a best practices
guide for ship masters.
The Academy successfully tested communications devices which will
be issued to all Midshipmen going to sea by the end of 2018 as required
by the National Defense Authorization Act. Academy staff now conducts
random ship visits to assess the climate and to ensure the well-being
of the Midshipmen. In addition, the Academy delivers reintegration
workshops for Midshipmen returning from sea as a forum for them to
share their experiences and report and seek assistance related to any
shipboard incidents as necessary.
In 2017, in response to the climate survey, and after conferring
with other Federal service academies, we began a deliberate effort to
improve the Academy's culture. The Academy instituted new core values--
Honor, Respect and Service. We encouraged a Midshipman-led culture
campaign called ``Be KP (Kings Point),'' with an emphasis on these core
values. The ``Be KP'' campaign continues today.
Finally, it is important to highlight that a comparison of progress
results between the 2016 and 2018 OIG reports is misleading. The first
OIG review in 2016 found that 66 percent of items on that year's Action
Plan alone were completed. The OIG reached the finding that 45 percent
of action items were completed in its most recent report by combining
action items from: (1) The 2016-2017 Action Plan; (2) the climate
survey; (3) the 2017 Culture Change Action Plan; (4) the 2016 and 2017
Middle States Commission on Higher Education results; and, (5) the 2016
and 2017 Advisory Board results. If only looking at the items completed
in the Action Plans, the OIG estimates that the 2015-2016 Action Plan
is 66 percent completed, and the Academy estimates that it has
completed 80 percent of the 2016-2017 Action Plan items.
In summary, the Academy has made important strides in establishing
an effective program. The Academy received an increased number of
official sexual assault reports in Academic Year 2017-2018 compared to
previous years, demonstrating that students have increased trust in the
system. The ``Be KP'' campaign shows that Midshipmen are owning the
problem. In addition, we have seen student bystander actions, such as
the removal of offensive material from class Facebook posts, which
indicates that our Midshipmen are policing themselves.
Question. Do I have your personal commitment to see that position
is filled immediately?
Answer. Yes. The Department strongly supports the hiring of an
attorney to assist victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment. The
recruitment announcement for this position closed on April 25, and we
have a list of applicants whose qualifications we are currently
reviewing. We will move forward with urgency through the selection
process while ensuring that we choose the right candidate to fill this
critical position.
highway signage
Question. Senator Whitehouse and I recently exchanged letters with
the Federal Highway Administration over the efforts of the Rhode Island
Department of Transportation and the Rhode Island Department of Health
to secure permission to post brief messages about opioid addiction
assistance on changeable highway signs. Current policy strictly limits
the use of highway signs to traffic-related information, AMBER alerts,
and homeland security warnings.
I understand FHWA's concern that broadening the kinds of
information displayed on highway signs could create distractions that
compromise safety. However, under current rules, many highway agencies
are posting humorous messages that contain only passing references to
traffic or safety-related information. With recent statistics showing
that opioids cause more deaths than automobile accidents, it seems that
providing a few lines of information about where to get help is an
exception worth making.
Will you review the policy and report back on changes that might be
made to allow for the limited messages that Rhode Island would like to
post?
Answer. Combatting the opioid crisis is a top priority for this
Administration. The President's initiative to address this crisis
includes a nationwide evidence-based campaign to raise public awareness
about the dangers of opioid abuse. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration hosted a national summit in March to launch a new
initiative to address the problem of drug-impaired driving, including
best practices for educating the public. The initiative will include a
series of regional summits, a new advertising campaign and focused
efforts to improve drug-impaired driving data systems and criminal
justice processes. Operating vehicles requires the complete attention
of the operator, and limiting distractions--a growing cause of vehicle
crashes and fatalities--is a primary focus for the Federal Highway
Administration
FHWA is aware that some highway agencies are posting messages with
unconventional syntax and other inappropriate message formats and
wording, unrelated to safety. Doing so violates the fundamental
principles of a traffic control device message as stated in the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The agency is in the
process of addressing these inappropriate uses of traffic control
devices.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
capital investment grants
Question. Secretary Chao, I'd like to go back to CIG and the
specific projects in Washington state we discussed earlier. The past
two spending bills--Fiscal Year 2017 and fiscal year 2018--provide
initial funding for the Lynnwood Link extension, with the fiscal year
2017 bill explicitly allocating $100 million to the project. I
understand Sound Transit has submitted final materials to Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and that the final Full Funding Grant
Agreement Readiness Review Report has been completed. FTA projects the
Lynnwood Link extension project will meet all statutory requirements to
receive a Full Funding Grant Agreement this summer.
Will you commit to FTA signing the Full Funding Grant Agreement for
the Lynnwood Link extension as soon as the project meets the statutory
requirements?
Answer. The project sponsor has remaining steps to complete before
the Lynnwood Link project can be considered for a Full Funding Grant
Agreement, including obtaining all funding commitments.
Question. Similarly, I understand the Tacoma Link extension is
under final review by FTA. Will you commit to FTA signing the Single
Year Grant Agreement for the Tacoma Link extension as soon as the
project meets the statutory requirements?
Answer. As proposed projects become ready for a funding agreement
commitment, FTA considers each project on its own merits and advances
them through the process as appropriate. The Tacoma Link Extension was
sent for Congressional review.
Question. Earlier you said the Department would follow the law and
adhere to the will of Congress and Congressional direction. Do you
agree that the fiscal year 2018 spending bill clearly demonstrates the
will of Congress with regard to the CIG program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act
provides a significant amount of additional funding for the CIG
program, and includes a short deadline for the obligation of the
majority of the funds. The Department is reviewing the projects in the
program and their readiness for award of funds within the deadline
established by Congress.
Question. Further, do you agree that this direction is to continue
the program and for FTA and the Department to move projects through the
process and sign new grant agreements?
Answer. The Department will continue to implement the Capital
Investment Grants program in accordance with the law.
Question. Please outline how you will carry out the will of
Congress and move projects through the CIG process and execute Full
Funding Grant Agreements and Single Year Grant Agreements.
Answer. As proposed CIG projects become ready for a funding
agreement commitment, FTA will consider each project on its own merits
and will advance them through the process as appropriate.
Question. Further, the Subcommittee is aware that several projects
have completed the necessary steps and meet all statutory requirements
but FTA has not signed grant agreements. Are there any issues or
problems we are not aware of that is preventing FTA and the Department
from moving forward with grant agreements?
Answer. The Department is implementing the Capital Investment
Grants program in accordance with the law. As proposed projects become
ready for a funding agreement commitment, FTA considers each project on
its own merits and advances them through the process as appropriate.
FTA has signed six CIG construction grant awards since October 2017 as
shown below:
--FL Fort Lauderdale, FL WAVE Streetcar
--MI Grand Rapids Laker Line Bus Rapid Transit
--FL Jacksonville East Corridor Bus Rapid Transit
--MO Kansas City Prospect Max Bus Rapid Transit
--WA Everett Swift II Bus Rapid Transit
--CA San Raphael SMART Commuter Rail
tiger
Question. I also want to go back to TIGER. On TIGER, you said you
would follow Congressional direction for the $1.5 billion Congress
provided the Department in the fiscal year 2018 spending bill for
TIGER. Several of us on this Subcommittee asked you these same
questions last year regarding the $500 million Congress provided in the
fiscal year 2017 spending bill for TIGER. And after reviewing the 41
projects the Department selected for TIGER awards in March 2018, it is
clear that you are not following Congressional intent.
Congress provides direction on TIGER, key among them is to ``invest
in a variety of transportation modes.'' Despite a diverse set of
eligible uses for TIGER, a disproportional number of the 2017 awards
were highway or road projects--accounting for 24 out of 41 total
awards. Only two public transit projects were awarded, representing a
mere 3.62 percent of the total funding available. Not only does this
not meet Congressional intent, the imbalance in transportation modes
becomes more shocking when looking back on the past eight rounds of
TIGER in which transit projects consistently received an average of 25
percent of funding.
Secretary Chao, Congress again provided you clear direction to
``invest in a variety of transportation modes.'' Will you commit to
awarded fiscal year 2018 TIGER grants in a more balanced fashion across
all eligible transportation modes and better reflect the diverse needs
of communities?
Answer. The Department submits each of the discretionary grant
applications to a comprehensive and thorough evaluation according to
the criteria set out by Congress and in DOT's Notice of Funding
Opportunity. DOT wants to make sure that the projects which best
address the criteria are prioritized for funding.
faa/aviation programs
Question. The Contract Tower Program is one of the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) most successful programs rooted in strong and
effective partnerships between the Federal government and industry. The
Department's Office of Inspector General has confirmed several times
that the program provides high quality, cost-effective, and critical
air traffic control services to over 250 airports throughout the
nation, including seven in my home state of Washington. These airports
provide critical safety and economic benefits to local communities.
What steps is the Department and FAA taking to work collaboratively
with industry to ensure the continued success of the Contract Tower
Program?
Answer. The FAA continues to support the FAA Contract Tower
Program, a cost effective and efficient way to provide air traffic
control services to smaller airports across the country. The FAA
collaborates with both internal and external stakeholders on contract
tower issues such as Federal contract tower operating agreements, the
minimum equipment list, and the New Start Order. This allows the FAA to
pull together as much information as possible by allowing stakeholders
to contribute their views and experiences in addressing issues that
affect the Contract Tower Program.
Question. Secretary Chao, I was surprised and disappointed to see
the President's budget request includes deep cuts to the FAA's
Environmental Sustainability programs. This funding supports the FAA's
Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) Program and the
FAA Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and Environment,
which have received strong bipartisan support over the years and
represent public-private partnerships with industry, universities,
community, and non-profit organizations. In fact, industry is a cost-
share partner with the FAA on CLEEN through at least a 1-to-1 match.
While the Administration may see this as an ``environmental''
program, the real issue is our global competitiveness, supporting
innovative technologies, and ensuring the next generation of aircraft
meet standards on noise and energy issues. Investments in these
programs have resulted in the United States maintaining our
international competitiveness in the aerospace industry.
Without the support of the FAA through these environmental
sustainability programs, how does the Department propose to maintain
American competitiveness as international regulations continue to
impact and drive aviation industry demands?
Answer. We recognize that international regulations continue to
impact and drive aviation industry demands on several fronts, including
environmental sustainability, and that U.S. leadership is essential if
we are to maintain American competitiveness. The FAA has multiple
avenues and programs aimed at addressing those demands. Our budget
request for fiscal year 2019 reflects an interest in modernizing the
FAA's research programs, while still providing support for the
Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise Program and the Center of
Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and Environment, among several
research priorities.
Question. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac) in
Washington state continues to be one of the fastest growing airports in
the country. Last year, Sea-Tac served 47 million passengers which is
up from just over 30 million passengers in 2010. While this growth
provides significant benefits to the Puget Sound region and Washington
state as a whole, it does not come without challenges. The airport,
cities, and I have heard an increase in concerns from local residents
about airplane noise. While Sea-Tac has an important role to play in
engaging with the local communities on these concerns and others, the
FAA sets flight paths into and out of airports and I believe the FAA
needs do more to respond to communities and residents that raise
aviation noise concerns.
Secretary Chao, the recently enacted spending bill provides $2
million to the FAA to dedicate full-time staff to community engagement
and other activities to address aviation noise concerns. I understand
the funding provided is intended to ensure one full-time staff position
is dedicated to each FAA region in the Continental United States. Will
you commit to ensuring each FAA region benefits from these additional
resources, including the Northwest Mountain Region?
Answer. The FAA is developing a plan to best utilize the community
engagement resources provided by the Committee so that the FAA can
maximize our outreach to communities experiencing aircraft noise. The
FAA will seek to provide the greatest impact while preserving the
flexibility to adapt to evolving outreach needs. The FAA expects to
take a coordinated approach to the additional personnel, leveraging
resources within and across regions, including the Northwest Mountain
Region, to engage with communities and implement the direction provided
by the Committee.
Question. Can you provide a timeline for FAA fulfilling this
requirement and providing this important resource to communities
throughout the nation?
Answer. The FAA is committed to bringing all the staff positions on
board by the end of the calendar year.
Question. Similarly, the recently enacted spending bill provides $5
million to the FAA to expand the remote tower pilot initiative with at
least two additional airports. I have heard from several airports in
Washington state who are interested in participating in this pilot
program. Can you outline the FAA's plan for fulfilling this
requirement?
Answer. The FAA has already initiated a plan for fulfilling this
requirement. A portion of the funding provided in the spending bill
will be allocated to continuing the ongoing Remote Tower Project at
Leesburg Executive Airport (JYO). Funding will be used to complete the
system approval process at that site, including all remaining
evaluation activities. The remaining funds will be allocated to
beginning evaluation activities of Remote Tower systems at two new
sites. Additional funding will be required in fiscal year 2019 to
complete the intent of the fiscal year 2018 appropriation at these two
new sites.
Question. Does the FAA intend to issue a Notice of Funding
Opportunity for interested airports?
Answer. The FAA does not intend to use a Notice of Funding
Opportunity for airports interested in remote towers. Instead, in
summer 2018, the FAA will release a Request for Information from
airport/vendor pairs to establish public/private partnerships for
consideration for the two new remote tower sites. The FAA has
successfully used public/private partnerships in the past, and will use
that model here. Using criteria established in the Request for
Information, the FAA will select the top two airport/vendor pairs to
enter into an agreement for work to be performed at each of the two
additional sites.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
infra grants
Question. Secretary Chao, DOT is currently reviewing applications
for the Infrastructure to Rebuild America or ``INFRA'' grant program.
The program, which was originally authorized by Congress as the
``FASTLANE'' grant program in the 2015 FAST Act, was rebranded by the
Trump Administration with a larger emphasis on leveraging Federal funds
with non-Federal funding. Is that fair way to characterize the change
in INFRA grant criteria?
Answer. The Department changed the INFRA criteria in several ways
to include the following aspects: greater leverage of Federal funds,
streamlining the permitting process, enhancing performance and
accountability, and placing a greater emphasis on achieving rural
transportation outcomes.
Question. I mention DOT's new criteria for INFRA grants because
there is likely no other project in the country that brings as much
non-Federal funding to the table than the 75th Street Corridor
Improvement Project in Chicago, which is part of the CREATE Program.
Over 60 percent of the project will be paid for with non-Federal funds
provided by the state of Illinois, local communities, and the freight
railroads. In addition, a study by the University Illinois highlights
that three-quarters of the CREATE Program's impacts on rail congestion
would actually occur outside of the Midwest. Yes, this project would
significantly reduce rail congestion in and around Chicago, but its
benefits will also be felt around the country.
Can you clarify if a project's (1) amount of non-Federal funding
and (2) regional and national significance are the most important
factors DOT considers when choosing projects for INFRA grant awards?
Answer. The Department must satisfy all Congressional requirements
and base awards on how well applicants address the primary and
secondary selection criteria in the Notice of Funding Opportunity.
Therefore, no one single criteria is more important than the others.
The Department must satisfy numerous requirements when making awards.
Question. Given that the 75th Street project meets all of the INFRA
program's goals, I urge you to give this critical project your full
consideration as you finalize INFRA grant awards. When do you expect
DOT to announce INFRA grant awards?
Answer. The Department announced 26 proposed INFRA awards on June
8, 2018. The Department will begin awarding these projects following
the completion of the 60-day Congressional review period in early
August. All applicants have been notified of the completion of the
competition.
amtrak
Question. Secretary Chao, Amtrak's Chicago-Carbondale route
continues to be one of the worst performing routes in the country due
to freight interference. Last year, the route was only on time 32
percent of the time because Canadian National Railway continues to give
preference to its freight trains over Amtrak trains despite the
decades-old statutory requirement to prioritize passenger trains.
Nationally, Amtrak's long distance trains were on time at stations only
45 percent of the time in 2017, a decline of 8 percent compared to
2016. Eight of Amtrak's 15 long distance trains run through Illinois.
What is the Trump Administration doing to improve Amtrak's on-time
performance in Illinois and around the country?
Answer. Outside the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak trains largely
operate on tracks owned and dispatched by freight railroads. According
to AAR, US freight railroads saw a 3.4 percent increase in total
traffic in 2017, increasing freight train interference--the most common
source of delays for Amtrak trains--on many Amtrak corridors. Amtrak
submits monthly reports on delays and on-time performance to FRA. Staff
meet monthly with Amtrak and each host railroad to discuss the previous
month's performance.
Regarding the Chicago-Carbondale, IL, route, Canadian National
Railway (CN) has placed speed restrictions, minimum axle requirements
and mandatory braking requirements on Amtrak's Illini/Saluki trains
along this corridor as CN and Amtrak have identified some grade
crossing activation issues. These requirements have increased the
overall trip time, causing Amtrak trains to miss their schedule. CN and
Amtrak are working together to identify an explanation for these
activation issues, and FRA's Office of Safety has encouraged the
parties to work aggressively toward determining the cause and ensuring
a safe railroad.
This year, the Trump Administration nominated a new board
chairwoman and two new board members to the Surface Transportation
Board, the agency with jurisdiction to enforce Amtrak's preference.
Question. Why does the Trump Administration believe that cutting
Amtrak funding will help improve service for the 31 million passengers
that use Amtrak annually including thousands of Illinois students,
seniors, and rural riders, who depend on this service the most?
Answer. The President's Budget proposes a significant restructuring
to the Amtrak network. In fiscal year 2017, long-distance routes
accounted for approximately $500 million in operating losses for
Amtrak. This is because ridership is lower and costs higher than on
urban routes--making the per-passenger costs much higher. To address
these losses, the fiscal year 2019 President's Budget proposes a number
of options, including calling for States to assume responsibility for
half of the operating costs of Amtrak long distance trains through
their jurisdictions.
This cost-sharing proposal would reduce the Federal subsidy that
supports these routes and enable States to play a larger role in
shaping the delivery of long distance train service. This proposal is
one of several ideas in the President's Budget to rationalize the
Amtrak system, improve efficiency, and reduce costs.
rescissions
Question. Secretary Chao, there are reports that the Trump
Administration is preparing a ``rescissions package'' to send to
Congress, which would ask Congress to rescind much of the non-defense
funding that was included in the recently passed fiscal year 2018
omnibus appropriations bill. The funding levels in that bill were
carefully negotiated on a bipartisan basis for months before they were
passed by this Republican-controlled Congress and then signed by
President Trump. It took Congress nearly 6 months into the fiscal year
to finally get its act together and appropriate funding for the rest of
fiscal year 2018. And now you are here today to discuss fiscal year
2019 funding. Secretary Chao, you know better than most about how
difficult it is to pass anything in this Congress with the overwhelming
bipartisan support that the fiscal year 2018 omnibus received.
Do you think it's a good idea to pursue a rescissions package that
would cast aside months of bipartisan negotiations and reopen the
fiscal year 2018 appropriations process?
Answer. The Administration has exercised its rescission authority
under the Impoundment Control Act to see what can be done to control
spending that may be unnecessary and wasteful. Rescission authority has
been used many times by presidents of both parties.
Question. Will the rescissions package include specific cuts to
DOT, and if so, what DOT programs can we expect to be included?
Answer. The rescission package proposed rescissions to certain
surface transportation accounts. Details may be found at the following
link:
--https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/POTUS-
Rescission-Transmittal-Package-5.8.2018.pdf
tiger
Question. The TIGER program has been a great success in Illinois
and across the country. Despite the calls from the Trump Administration
to eliminate the TIGER program, last month the Republican controlled
Congress ignored the Administration's request for the second year in a
row and instead increased funding for the TIGER program to $1.5B.
That's the largest funding level that Congress has provided for TIGER
since its inception. Let me repeat that. TIGER's largest funding level
EVER was passed by a Republican controlled Congress and signed by a
Republican president.
Given the obvious support of the Republican majority for what is an
enormously popular program, why does this Administration continue to
call for the elimination of the TIGER grant program?
Answer. We know how popular TIGER grants are with members of
Congress; however, TIGER was neither authorized, designed, nor was
historically large enough, to address the Nation's comprehensive
infrastructure needs. For example, TIGER has not been used to spur
additional State, local and private sector investment, address
comprehensive program of projects, nor was it sufficiently focused on
rural needs.
Through recent changes made by Congress to increase the required
set aside for rural projects, increase the available funding for
projects, combined with the Administrative changes to the merit
selection criteria to address new forms of revenue, rural outcomes, and
the submission of program of projects, the new program, Better
Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD), now more closely
reflects bipartisan national infrastructure goals. Projects originally
eligible for TIGER grants will have the opportunity to apply and
compete for $1.5 billion of funding included in the current BUILD
solicitation. Based on the Congressional and Administration's changes
to the program, the justification for including funding for the BUILD
program in the fiscal year 2020 President's Budget is greatly
strengthened. Therefore, I can assure you that the Administration will
give full and careful consideration on whether to include funding for
the BUILD program in the upcoming fiscal year 2020 budget request.
Question. DOT recently announced half a billion dollars in TIGER
awards to 41 projects in 43 states. If the TIGER program was eliminated
as you have proposed, how would these important projects have been
funded by this Administration?
Answer. Under the President's plan, 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 10 years for
increased Federal spending, including funding 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.
Question. How does eliminating this program make it easier for
state and local governments to carry out these projects and create
jobs?
Answer. Under the President's plan Projects originally eligible for
TIGER grants will have the opportunity to apply and compete for funding
included in the Administration's Infrastructure Initiative.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
capital investment grants
Question. On a bipartisan basis, Congress has now twice rejected
the Administration's attempt to terminate the Federal Transit
Administration's capital investment grant program. For fiscal year
2018, we provided $2.645 billion, a 10 percent increase over the 2017
level, and a 22 percent increase over the 2016 level. We also wrote new
time limits into the law, and specifically directed you to move
projects through the program from initial application to construction.
Now that Congress has spoken, will you commit to faithfully
implement the program, accept new projects, and move existing projects
through the pipeline?
Answer. The Department will continue to implement the Capital
Investment Grants program in accordance with the law. As proposed
projects become ready for a funding agreement commitment, FTA will
consider each project on its own merits and will advance them through
the process as appropriate.
Question. In February, your Department unexpectedly delayed the
advancement of two projects into engineering: the BART Core Capacity
project and Phase 3 of Los Angeles' Westside Subway Purple Line
Extension. What steps are you taking to move both of these projects
along so that their construction will not be delayed?
Answer. The project sponsors' requests to enter the engineering
phase are under review. The Department is conducting risk assessments
of the capital cost estimates and schedules for both projects, which
should be completed in the near future. We believe such reviews are
prudent given the size and scope of both projects and the trend of
significant capital cost increases on several other California Capital
Investment Grant projects.
Question. Last year, Congress appropriated the first half of
funding for two projects: the Orange County Streetcar and the
Sacramento Streetcar. The omnibus this year provided the second year of
funding for both.
When can we expect you to release the grant agreements for Orange
County and Sacramento, now that they are both fully funded?
Answer. FTA considers each project in the CIG program on its own
merits, including both the Santa Ana Streetcar in Orange County and the
Sacramento Streetcar. FTA will advance the projects through the process
as appropriate.
tiger grants
Question. For the first time this year, the Department instituted a
policy limiting states to a single TIGER award.
California is home to 12 percent of the nation's population, hosts
14 percent of the nation's economy, and has historically won about 8
percent of TIGER funding. However, California was awarded less than 2
percent of the available funding this year under the Department's new
policy.
I do not believe this was a reasonable interpretation of the
program's legal requirement to ``ensure an equitable geographic
distribution of funds.''
As you administer this year's TIGER program, which the recent
Omnibus tripled in size, will you reconsider the one-grant-per-state
policy?
Answer. The Department always strives to provide an equitable
distribution of funds where possible. This determination will be based
upon the number of applications received by each state, the technical
ratings of the applications, and other competing statutory
requirements.
Given Congress' fiscal year 18 appropriation of $1.5 billion in
available grant funding, coupled with a statutory maximum of $25
million award per grant, the Department will provide multiple awards to
some states.
Question. Prior to making TIGER grant awards, the Department's
economists and subject matter experts reviewed each of more than 450
applications in order to make recommendations to the Secretary. These
technical ratings are the way that projects receive a merit-based
review.
It is my understanding that just over 100 applications were
``highly recommended'' as a result of this review, for a total of $1.5
billion in requested funding. Ultimately, you only had $500 million in
funding to award.
How many awards did you make to projects that were less than
``highly recommended''?
Answer. Of the 41 TIGER awards made during the last round of
competition, 28 received a technical evaluation rating of Highly
Recommended and 13 received a rating of Recommended. That rating
reflects the application's alignment with the primary and secondary
selection criteria identified in the Notice of Funding Opportunity; it
does not reflect the Department's separate economic or readiness
analyses.
Question. Would you be willing to release the technical ratings for
each of the project applications and final awards so that Congress can
ensure that taxpayer funding is going to good projects?
Answer. The Department, as a general practice, offers technical
debriefs to all applicants that request a debrief where we provide the
full details of all technical ratings to applicants. As part of the
award process, the Department provides Congress with the justification
and rationale for all awards three days in advance of announcement to
ensure Congress is fully aware of the Department's award decisions.
nhtsa mission and rulemakings
Question. The Administration's budget request for the Department of
Transportation includes a $26 million reduction in funding for NHTSA's
vehicle safety program. Included in this cut is a more than 50 percent
reduction in funding for the agency's enforcement budget which supports
NHTSA's efforts to identify safety recalls and ensure new vehicles,
such as driverless cars, meet Federal safety standards. In addition,
the agency's rulemaking budget will be cut by nearly $2 million.
NHTSA has a backlog of several mandated deadlines set by Congress
in the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act
(Public Law 112-141) to issue regulations requiring rear seatbelt
reminders, updating lower anchorages and tethers for children (LATCH)
systems for child occupants and to improve occupant protection in
motorcoaches. In addition, if autonomous vehicles are to be deployed at
greater numbers, NHTSA will have a responsibility to establish safety
standards for the new sensors and automated driving technologies.
At the same time, there were a record 927 safety recalls in 2016
affecting over 53 million vehicles. This eclipses the previous record
set in 2015 when 869 recalls were issued for 51 million vehicles.
Given the increasing number of traffic-related deaths and injuries,
record numbers of safety recalls, and a significant increase in
responsibilities and oversight requirements as autonomous vehicles are
deployed, please provide a detailed explanation regarding NHTSA's
capacity to meet its mission and ensure public safety given the drastic
cuts the Administration is proposing to NHTSA's budget. Additionally,
what is the justification for cutting NHTSA's rulemaking budget by
nearly $2 million at a time when the agency is woefully behind in
issuing safety rulemakings that were directed by Congress in 2012 to
enhance safety?
Answer. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic
costs due to road traffic crashes, through education, research, safety
standards, and enforcement activity. The fiscal year (FY) 2019
President's Budget requests $915 million to support NHTSA's full
spectrum of vehicle and behavioral safety activities, including $152.43
million for Vehicle Safety, $152.10 million for Highway Safety Research
and Development, and $610.21 million for Highway Traffic Safety Grants.
To address the role of human choices and errors in auto crashes,
the fiscal year 2019 budget request will allow NHTSA to further
influence driver behaviors to reduce injuries and fatalities on our
roadways; continue its efforts in rulemaking, enforcement, and vehicle
research; and develop and implement data-driven, workable, and self-
sustaining highway safety programs. NHTSA's fiscal year 2019 budget
request will continue to support the agency's safety programs and
activities, while ensuring that the agency keeps pace with industry
innovation in driver distraction, vehicle electronics, and highly
Automated Driving Systems.
The fiscal year 2019 budget shows a reduction of about $1.7 million
total for NHTSA's Office of Rulemaking. However, nearly all of the
reduction is attributed to its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). The
key performance indicator for NCAP is the percentage of new vehicles
rated by NCAP for a given model year vehicle fleet. Because of
variations in the new vehicle fleet, funding levels can vary from year
to year. The agency believes the requested funding levels would provide
the appropriate funding to fulfill program deliverables for fiscal year
2019.
drones
Question. As ever increasing numbers of unmanned aircraft systems
(drones) enter the airspace, our communities expect to maintain safety,
privacy, and property rights. The Federal Aviation Administration is
responsible for ensuring the safety of the airspace, but they share
responsibility for safeguarding the people on the ground with state and
local governments.
How does the Department plan to use the Drone Integration Pilot
Program to work with state and local governments to maintain the safe
operation of drones at low altitudes?
Answer. The objectives of this program are:
--To test and evaluate various models of State, local, and Tribal
government involvement in the development and enforcement of
Federal regulations for unmanned aircraft system operations;
--To encourage unmanned aircraft system owners and operators to
develop and safely test new and innovative unmanned aircraft
system concepts of operations; and
--To inform the development of future Federal guidelines and
regulatory decisions on UAS operations nationwide.
This program also takes the collaboration occurring today to a new
level by enabling local, State, or Tribal governments to determine what
kind of activities will occur in their jurisdictions during the period
of the pilot program, subject to FAA safety oversight.
The program incorporates community participation to provoke
meaningful dialogue relative to drone operations. Partnerships can give
local participants and Federal officials opportunities to strike the
right balance between which integration issues should be handled at the
national level and which issues could potentially fall to other
jurisdictions. The FAA required community engagement as an element of
the Integration Pilot Program proposals because it is critical to
meaningful discussions about balancing local and national interests
related to integrating unmanned aircraft.
Under the FAA agreements with State, local and Tribal governments,
the program will also give a wider range of private operators and
localities the chance to propose solutions to the most difficult
integration challenges. We expect this program to provide valuable data
and acquire knowledge to accelerate our efforts to enable the unmanned
aircraft system industry, standardize low-altitude operations, and
improve safety through broadly applicable procedures and rulemaking
efforts.
Question. One of the most sensitive areas for the integration of
drones is around airports. I was pleased to see the Federal Aviation
Administration establish the Low Altitude Authorization and
Notification Capability (LAANC) program.
What resources does DOT need in order to expand LAANC nationwide to
ensure drone operations near airports are safe?
Answer. The Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability
Program helps support the safe integration of drones into the nation's
airspace. Drone operators using the system can receive near real-time
airspace authorizations. This dramatically decreases the wait time
associated with the manual authorization process, thus allowing
operators to quickly plan their flights. The Low Altitude Authorization
and Notification Capability Program uses airspace data provided through
Temporary Flight Restrictions, notices to airmen, and unmanned aircraft
system facility maps that show the maximum altitude ceiling around
airports where the FAA may authorize operations under the FAA's Part
107 regulations.
On April 30, 2018, the FAA announced the nationwide expansion of
the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability Program. By
the end of 2018, the FAA will deploy the system incrementally at nearly
300 air traffic facilities covering approximately 500 airports. The
expansion follows successful evaluation of a prototype of the Low
Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability System last
November.
The FAA uses its existing resources to support the development and
continual update of the required facility maps, FAA training resources,
and educational outreach resources. Ongoing support of the underlying
information technology system assists the FAA in the implementation and
enhancement of the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification
Capability System at all FAA facilities across the Nation.
aircraft noise
Question. The Federal Aviation Administration's ``optimization of
airspace and procedures'' in Northern and Southern California have
significantly changed the exposure of California communities to
airplane noise. This has provoked vocal concerns about the adequacy of
the FAA's noise assessments and the community outreach efforts
conducted by the Administration.
As I have written in letters to the FAA, I believe the Department
should do more to minimize noise impacts for these communities.
What further steps will the Department take to address the issues
of airplane noise raised by communities in California that fall under
the new and newly-concentrated flight paths?
Answer. The FAA is committed to continue engaging in efforts
focused on the impact of concentrated flight paths and related noise
concerns raised by communities. We are involved in several research
efforts and are collaborating with industry, airports, and others to
develop noise-mitigating operational procedures for current and future
operating environments.
There are diverse stakeholders that have a particular interest in
the operational changes associated with modernization, including the
communities over which these aircraft fly and who could have concerns
about changes. As we continue to work to ensure safety and efficiency
within the national airspace, we are cognizant of impacts to
communities and committed to transparent engagement with the
communities most affected by airspace changes. Cooperation via
community roundtables is an important tool. In our experience, the most
effective roundtable recommendations reflect consensus among its
membership, which includes considering issues and inputs from all
potentially affected communities. Consensus recommendations tend to
result in long-term, satisfactory solutions and often reflect the need
to balance competing interests.
Question. How can the FAA do a better job ensuring that airplanes
fly within 300 feet of the target elevation level at each waypoint on
designated flight procedures, especially during late night and early
morning hours?
Answer. Instrument flight procedures may have altitudes designed at
waypoints for a variety of reasons, typically for optimizing the
vertical profile or for ensuring separation from other traffic flows.
Pilots are required to comply with published altitudes on arrival and
departure procedures when the altitudes are assigned by air traffic
control using a specific clearance. Air traffic control actively
monitors for compliance with assigned altitudes, while allowing for up
to a 299-foot variance in altitude due to the inaccuracies inherent in
altitude information systems. However, the altitudes published on a
procedure may not always be assigned by air traffic control. This is
similar to any other clearance issued. In some situations, controllers
may direct an aircraft to climb or descend off of the procedure to
maintain a safe and efficient flow of traffic in a highly dynamic
environment. The controller is then actively directing the aircraft for
safe sequencing.
Question. In light of the unanticipated and negative public
reaction to the noise impacts of the new airspace procedures, how does
the FAA plan to re-evaluate the Day-Night Average Sound Level technique
to ensure proper measurement of noise impact?
Answer. Public exposure to aircraft noise has significantly
decreased during the last forty years due to improvements in aircraft
and engine technology, new operational procedures, and land use
compatibility planning. At the same time, the FAA has continued to take
further steps to reduce exposure and better understand noise impacts
and approaches to measure noise impact. The FAA has ongoing research on
the impacts of aviation noise. While this work is still underway, it
will help further quantify noise impacts. Finally, the FAA continues to
improve the modeling methodologies for quantifying noise impacts and
evaluating potential mitigation measures.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher Murphy
buy america
Question. You talked about the President's Infrastructure
Initiative in your testimony. I was confused when I first read the
President's infrastructure plan because the President campaigned on his
promise to make ``Buy American'' a priority, and then issued a very
strong Buy American Executive order last April. But the infrastructure
plan is actually very weak on Buy America policy. The ``Legislative
Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America'' which accompanied
the plan contains no mention of applying Buy America policies to any of
the new programs proposed in the plan. In fact, this infrastructure
plan will likely weaken Buy America protections. Was this your intent?
Answer. No. All existing Buy America statutes remain in place.
Question. If it wasn't your intent, I would ask then that you
clarify the meaning of ``flexibility,'' which appears on pages 21-22
and 27 of the Legislative Outline when describing projects financed
through multiple sources. Without clarifying language, it would seem
that you are proposing that Buy America protections be ignored for the
sake of expediency.
Is the type of flexibility you are looking for? The ``flexibility''
to ignore domestic sourcing requirements like Buy America?
Answer. The Infrastructure Initiative includes policy proposals
that will expand flexibilities and broaden eligibilities in order to
give the owner of the infrastructure asset more control over
construction, financing, operations and maintenance.
Question. This is important because one of the overarching tenets
of the entire infrastructure plan is to shift financing away from
traditional Federal sources and towards public-private partnerships.
So if you are saying that Federal requirements like Buy America
should be waived in the name of flexibility, and almost all projects
will be financed through this mechanism, aren't you essentially
eliminating Buy America from transportation projects?
Answer. The Department takes Buy America very seriously and
judiciously reviews each waiver requested. DOT, in the last three
fiscal years, issued 83 waivers, often for specialized materials and
equipment that are not available from American sources.
amtrak
Question. If you were to look at the Northeast Regional train
schedule from Washington to New Haven, you would notice a gaping hole
in the afternoon schedule. For instance, if I wanted to go to New Haven
after this hearing using a Northeast Regional train, I would likely
miss the 3:55pm train. If I were to miss that train, I would have to
wait until 10:10pm to catch the next Northeast Regional Train. That
train would get in at 4:20am. Such a gap in the schedule undermines the
power of rail to serve as a comfortable and convenient alternative to
air travel. But it doesn't have this way.
Over 700,000 riders pass through New Haven, and its station is a
top fifteen station on the line, and the New Haven station is an anchor
to the Amtrak system nationally. Adding some trains from DC to New
Haven to fill this gap would satisfy pent-up demand and meet a long-
standing request of the city, and of south-central Connecticut
residents, businesses, and universities. Can I ask for your commitment
to work with Amtrak and other NEC partners to add enough trains from
Washington to New Haven from approximately 4:00pm to 10:00pm so there
is not gap in service during that period of two hours or more?
Answer. As the Department is not directly involved in these types
of service decisions, DOT encourages the City to work closely with
Amtrak, New York State DOT (NYSDOT), MTA (Metro-North), and Connecticut
DOT, the railroad owners along this portion of the NEC whose
contractual agreements govern the frequency of Amtrak service.
FRA's NEC FUTURE proposes infrastructure and service improvements
along the NEC through 2040. In developing this proposal, FRA engaged
closely with the States and railroads to identify service and station
improvements, and the Selected Alternative would provide significant
additional service to many Connecticut markets, including New Haven.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin
appalachian development highway system
Question. When Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964,
Appalachia was isolated from much of the country. One of the first
things he created was the Appalachian Development Highway System, which
aimed to create about 3000 miles of highways to bring commerce and
countless opportunities to the region. About 90 percent of this system
is finished, with only around 300 miles to go. In 2012, Congress
reaffirmed this commitment with a ``Sense of the Senate'' that
completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System was in the
national interest. President Trump has committed to not leaving rural
America behind. The Appalachia Development Highway System was created
in that very spirit, aiming to open up rural America to the world.
Given the importance of this system to Congress and the country,
what are you doing to ensure that this system is finished in our
lifetime, and how can you work with states within the Appalachian
Regional Commission to complete the last pieces of their highway
systems?
Answer. FHWA is committed to Appalachian communities and the
completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System (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. Currently,
approximately 90 percent of the ADHS is 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.
In addition to funding, FHWA has been supporting States in
coordination with the Appalachian Regional Commission by introducing
tools, expertise, and financing to help explore and possibly implement
innovative strategies to deliver costly and complex ADHS projects, such
as Corridor H in West Virginia.
Question. One of the most critical unfinished sections of the
Appalachian Development Highway System--Corridor H--is located in my
state. West Virginia has made tremendous progress over the past several
years to advance this highway on its own, including successfully
passing a road bond, increasing DMV fees, and passing legislation on
public-private partnerships. Thanks to these efforts, Corridor H is
about 90 percent finished, and the state is willing to put up $90
million of its own funds to continue work.
Would you consider amending the criteria for major Federal grant
programs like TIGER or INFRA to incentivize and reward states that are
making major investments in their own infrastructure?
Answer. The Administration's infrastructure plan and the evaluation
criteria for the Infrastructure Incentives Program provides for
targeted Federal investments, encourages innovation, streamlines
project delivery, and will help transform the way infrastructure is
designed, built, and maintained. The Department will award grants using
the six evaluation criteria laid out in the Infrastructure Principles,
one of which is applicants' ability to secure and commit new
sustainable investments using non-Federal revenue.
tiger grants
Question. TIGER Grants provide state and local governments with a
great deal of flexibility to develop a number of innovative projects.
These infrastructure improvements are essential to economic
revitalization in rural communities. Unfortunately, in the last round
of TIGER grants announced in 2018, in which 41 projects were awarded in
43 states, not a single one of those was located in Appalachia. This is
troubling. While I don't support elimination of the program, I do think
it should be more equitable, and was pleased to see that the fiscal
year 18 omnibus set aside 30 percent of the TIGER grant funds for rural
areas.
How do you plan to ensure that rural and underserved states, such
as West Virginia, can benefit from these programs moving forward?
Answer. The President has called for a priority to be placed on
correcting this disparity, and that is reflected in the recent TIGER
awards, as well as in the President's infrastructure proposal. We will
continue to emphasize investment in rural America.
airport improvement program
Question. The recently passed omnibus included $3.35 billion for
the Airport Improvement Program, including a $1 billion increase over
current funding levels and explicit Congressional direction
prioritizing small, rural airports.
How will you ensure that small and rural airports are prioritized
in the upcoming grant cycle as directed by Congress, and what criteria
are you considering when making these decisions and what information do
you need from us to ensure we get a fair share of this funding?
Answer. The Department of Transportation is currently developing
the selection process for the additional $1 billion in funding for
airport grants. As required by the fiscal year 2018 omnibus
appropriations legislation, the projects must meet the requirements
under the FAA's authorizing law. The omnibus also specifies that
priority consideration shall be given to airports that are either (a)
nonprimary airports that are classified as Regional, Local, or Basic
airports and not located within a Metropolitan or Micropolitan
Statistical Area as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, or
(b) primary airports that are classified as Small or Nonhub airports.
DOT recognizes that Congress' intent is to focus these funds
primarily on smaller airports in more rural locations. The FAA has
already applied the criteria to eligible airports in the National Plan
of Integrated Airport Systems and identified the pool of candidate
airports that could receive priority consideration. Once the project
selection guidance is finalized, airports eligible for priority
consideration will be invited to submit grant applications for
consideration.
essential air service
Question. Rural communities depend on the Essential Air Service
program to maintain connections with major airports and metropolitan
areas. All travelers--leisure, tourism, and business--depend on this
accessibility. While I commend the President for funding this critical
program in this year's budget request, I am apprehensive about the
administration's proposal to reform the EAS program by adjusting EAS
eligibility based on driving distance to nearby airports.
Can you provide assurance that rural communities will not lose
access to essential air service, and how will this proposal calculate
distance?
Answer. The Essential Air Service (EAS) governing statutes
prescribe a mileage standard for most EAS communities; not eligible if
located fewer than 70 miles from the nearest large/medium hub. However,
Congress has provided for long-standing exemption to the 70-mile
standard for two communities.
The mileage calculations used are measured by the shortest distance
from the center of the EAS community to the entrance to the nearest
large or medium hub airport. Further information can be found on the
Department's website at: https://cms.dot.gov/office-policy/aviation-
policy/subsidized-essential-air-service-communities-and-distances-
nearest
In the rare case when a community disputes the mileage from the
community to the hub, we consult with Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and FHWA makes a definitive calculation. Some communities would
likely not be eligible for continued subsidy support under EAS by an
adjustment to the mileage standard if it is located close to expansive
service at small, medium, and large hubs.
amtrak long distance routes
Question. The President's Budget proposes reforms to the Amtrak
system by implementing State contributions equal to the Federal
Government's for operating long distance routes through their
communities. These long distance routes include the Cardinal Train and
the Capital Line Train which both run through my state.
Can you explain the long term plan the Department of Transportation
and Amtrak have for these long distance routes and the impact this
would have on my constituents?
Answer. The President's Budget proposes a significant restructuring
to the Amtrak network. In fiscal year 2017, long-distance routes
accounted for approximately $500 million in operating losses for
Amtrak. This is because ridership is lower and costs higher than on
urban routes--making the per-passenger costs much higher. To address
these losses, the fiscal year 2019 President's Budget proposes a number
of options, including calling for States to assume responsibility for
half of the operating costs of Amtrak long distance trains through
their jurisdictions.
This cost-sharing proposal would reduce the Federal subsidy that
supports these routes and enable States to play a larger role in
shaping the delivery of long distance train service. This proposal is
one of several ideas in the President's Budget to rationalize the
Amtrak system, improve efficiency, and reduce costs.
air traffic controller privatization
Question. Reliable air service has allowed businesses in our state
to expand their reach beyond our borders and has led to an increase in
tourism. We must protect and promote these air services in order for
our state's economy to continue to grow. As a pilot, I have always been
passionate about the issues that affect the aviation community, which
is why I am concerned about the administration's proposal to privatize
air traffic controllers. I believe that privatizing our air traffic
controllers will disproportionately harm rural communities, hinder
economic growth in places like West Virginia, and make air travel less
reliable.
What are the reasons that you are moving forward with this
proposal, and how can you ensure that rural communities are not
disproportionately impacted by the privatization of air traffic
controllers?
Answer. The United States' air traffic control system is the
world's largest and most complex. Yet, the current structure of the
system is outdated when it comes to meeting the modern challenges of
efficiently moving air traffic and maintaining the highest level of
safety while fostering innovation and integrating new technologies. On
June 5, 2017, the Administration unveiled a set of principles for
reforming air traffic control operations through the creation of a new
non-governmental entity. This new entity would have enabled the United
States to keep pace with the accelerating rate of change in the
aviation industry. We do not believe that rural communities would have
been negatively affected by these changes, and they would have remained
an important part of the nation's air transportation system.
While we continue to believe in the benefits of modernizing our air
traffic control system, it does not appear that Congress is pursuing
this issue through upcoming FAA legislation. We look forward to working
with Congress on FAA legislation so that we can continue to improve our
nation's aviation system.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
infra grants
Question. The Notice of Funding Opportunity for combined fiscal
year 2017 and 2018 INFRA grants was released last July, but no funding
announcements have been made. You suggested in previous testimony
before the House that you expect to make a funding announcement in the
summer of 2018.
Is that timeline still accurate?
Answer. Yes. The Department announced 26 proposed INFRA awards on
June 8, 2018. The Department will begin awarding these projects
following the completion of the 60-day Congressional review period in
early August. All applicants have been notified of the completion of
the competition.
Question. I am concerned about the delay in getting funding to
projects that need it. Will you commit to making funding decisions more
quickly in fiscal year 2019, and that there will be no further delays
in awarding fiscal year 17 and fiscal year 18 funds?
Answer. The Department submits each of the discretionary grant
applications to a comprehensive and thorough evaluation according to
the criteria set out by Congress and in DOT's Notice of Funding
Opportunity. DOT wants to make sure that the projects which best
address the criteria are prioritized for funding.
infrastructure cost share
Question. One major prong of the President's infrastructure plan is
to dramatically shift the Federal cost share for transportation
projects onto state and local governments. I have heard serious
concerns about this aspect of the plan from the Vermont Department of
Transportation, particularly its burden on rural states.
Which state departments of transportation have you heard from that
support shifting the Federal cost share in this way, and which oppose
it? Has the Department of Transportation actively sought feedback from
state departments of transportation about this proposed shift?
Answer. At best, Federal funding for infrastructure represents a
minority of total spending. Spending across public infrastructure is
approximately 20 percent by the Federal government and 80 percent by
State and local governments. The President's plan supports traditional
funding levels.
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 the states.
Furthermore, the proposal provides up to 20 percent Federal funding
as a percent of new revenue, not project cost.
Question. How do you foresee the President's plan ensuring that
small, rural states will be competitive and full partners in and have
access to the Federal resources they need to meet their infrastructure
needs?
Answer. The Administration's proposal provides significant support
for rural areas. Most significantly, the Rural Infrastructure Formula
Program provides $40 billion in block grants to Governors to address
the rural infrastructure needs in their states, which could include
rural interstates. No match is required for these funds. In addition to
the formula program, the Administration's proposal for $10 billion in
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)
within 180 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.
buy america
Question. The Federal Highway Administration's Buy America
requirements are critical to ensuring that American businesses are
prioritized over foreign competitors. There are cases, however, where
there is no domestic production of certain equipment and the waiver
process can make it difficult for states to acquire the equipment they
need.
Are you willing to consider streamlining the Buy America waiver
process in cases where there is no domestic product available?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary is working with the operating
administrations to improve the efficiency of our waiver processes,
including for requests based on non-availability, while meeting the
requirements of Executive Order 13788 and the relevant statutes.
cafe standards
Question. Transportation is the United States' largest contributor
of greenhouse gases, accelerating the consequences of climate change.
It is concerning that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the EPA have decided that the current
corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards are too aggressive and
should be weakened. This would not only waste fuel, but also increase
emissions and cost consumers more, particularly in a state like Vermont
where transportation is responsible for 44 percent of our greenhouse
gas emissions. The CAFE standards changes proposed by NHTSA and the EPA
are not in the interest of the public or the industry, and will
negatively impact Vermonters' health, air quality improvements, and
pocketbooks.
Should a state be able to implement its own stringent vehicle
emission standards, if that state believes those standards are critical
to its ability to achieve its own emission reduction goals? How will
you accommodate the policies of states like Vermont that, in applying
strict vehicle emission standards, are working to achieve their own
individual emission reduction goals, particularly those states where
transportation contributes a high proportion of greenhouse gas
emissions?
And will you commit to having a collaborative, transparent effort
going forward that includes the State of California, and states with
similar standards, as well as the auto industry, to develop a national
program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy?
Answer. The Department is committed to an open, transparent and
fair public comment process and is committed to listening to all public
comments. Both NHTSA and DOT have met with California officials
multiple times to hear California's views, and there will probably be
additional such meetings as more States develop their own emissions
standards. DOT has also met with a wide range of stakeholders including
environmental groups, manufacturers, organized labor, and safety
advocates. There is a great deal of interest in this important
rulemaking, and we look forward to receiving input from stakeholders,
including States like Vermont, on these important issues.
Question. How do you expect U.S. innovators and manufacturers to
continue to compete on the international stage if the standards
proposed by this administration are inconsistent with global efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and remain uncertain going forward?
Answer. The Department will take comment on a wide range of
options, including similar stringency to the standards set by the
previous administration. If, in response to public comment, the
agencies set standards at a reduced level of stringency than the
standards set by the previous administration, a manufacturer would need
to decide how to proceed.
If a manufacturer decides to globalize a vehicle platform so that
the same vehicles can be sold in the United States and in countries
that may have more-stringent standards, a compliant fleet of vehicles
in such countries would also comply with U.S. standards as well as
those of countries with less stringent standards than ours. By
overcomplying with U.S. standards, the manufacturer could generate
overcompliance credits that it could bank for its own use in future
model years or sell to other manufacturers.
Question. Current CAFE standards create more efficient vehicles and
help Americans save money. How do you plan to incentivize research and
development of more fuel efficient, affordable vehicles?
Answer. We have great confidence in the ability of the
manufacturers to innovate and make high quality vehicles that meet
consumers' needs. Consumer acceptance will be one focus of the upcoming
proposal, and we will assess the costs and benefits of the proposed
standards and alternative standards.
amtrak vermonter route and crisi grant eligibilities
Question. The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015
(Public Law 114-125) aims to improve cross border travel between Canada
and the United States through efforts that will allow Customs and
Border Protection to expand preclearance facilities at Canadian
airports and rail stations. In Vermont, we want to restore the Amtrak
passenger service on the Vermonter route north to Montreal. I
understand that during a meeting about this project in Montreal last
summer, Federal Railroad Administration officials committed that the
infrastructure needs associated with this effort would be eligible for
both the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements
(CRISI) grant program and the Restoration and Enhancement Grants
program.
As various stakeholders work to advance the project can you confirm
that this is the case, and will you pledge to follow through on this
commitment?
Answer. Infrastructure needs associated with extending Amtrak
passenger service on the Vermonter route from its current endpoint at
St. Albans to Montreal are likely eligible projects under the
competitive CRISI grant program for projects located within the United
States. Likewise, a Restoration and Enhancement Grant to fund a portion
of this route's operating costs within the United States could also be
used to extend this service to the Canadian border.
However, in order to fund projects outside of the United States,
authorizing or appropriations language must clearly and affirmatively
state that the funding applies outside of the United States. The CRISI
and Restoration and Enhancement Grant Programs lack this authority.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Collins. This hearing is now adjourned.
Secretary Chao. Thank you.
Senator Collins. [Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., Wednesday, April
11, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the
call the Chair.]