[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                       LIFT AMERICA: MODERNIZING OUR 
                       INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE FUTURE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 22, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-38
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
40-559 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                         
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
                             
                             
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California, prepared statement..............................   144
Hon. Adam Kinzinger, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, prepared statement................................   145

                               Witnesses

Brian Wahler, Mayor, Piscataway, New Jersey, on behalf of the 
  U.S. Conference of Mayors......................................     9
    Prepared statement \1\
Mignon L. Clyburn, Former Acting Chairwoman, Federal 
  Communications Commission......................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   187
Jessica Eckdish, Legislative Director, BlueGreen Alliance........    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   190
Daniel A. Lyons, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, 
  and Professor, Boston College Law School.......................    47
    Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   194
Christopher Guith, Acting President, Global Energy Institute, 
  U.S. Chamber of Commerce.......................................    55
    Prepared statement...........................................    58
John Auerbach, President and Chief Executive Officer, Trust for 
  America's Health...............................................    69
    Prepared statement...........................................    71

                           Submitted Material

H.R. 2741, the Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America Act, 
  submitted by Mr. Pallone \2\
Summary of the Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America Act, 
  submitted by Mr. Pallone.......................................   147
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Thomas C. Kiernan, Chief Executive 
  Officer, American Wind Energy Association, to Mr. Pallone and 
  Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone...........................   151
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Philip A. Squair, Vice President, 
  Government Relations, National Electrical Manufacturers 
  Association, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. 
  Pallone........................................................   153

----------

\1\ Mr. Wahler's prepared statement has been retained in committee 
files and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/
20190522/109531/HHRG-116-IF00-Wstate-WahlerB-20190522.pdf.
\2\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and also is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20190522/109531/
BILLS-1162741ih-LIFTAmericaAct.pdf.
Letter of May 21, 2019, from Bryan Howard, Legislative Director, 
  U.S. Green Building Council, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, 
  submitted by Mr. Pallone.......................................   155
Letter of May 2, 2019, from Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative 
  in Congress from the State of Illinois, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. 
  Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone...............................   159
Letter of May 21, 2019, from Karen Kerrigan, President and Chief 
  Executive Officer, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, 
  to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone........   162
Letter of May 20, 2019, from Allen R. Schaeffer, Executive 
  Director, Diesel Technology Forum, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. 
  Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone...............................   165
Letter of May 21, 2019, from the National Association of 
  Convenience Stores, et al., to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, 
  submitted by Mr. Pallone.......................................   170
Letter of May 21, 2019, from Georges C. Benjamin, Executive 
  Director, American Public Health Association, to Mr. Pallone, 
  submitted by Mr. Pallone.......................................   172
Statement of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems 
  Society, May 22, 2019, submitted by Mr. Pallone................   174
Letter of May 21, 2019, from the Association of Public Health 
  Laboratories, et al., to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted 
  by Mr. Pallone.................................................   176
Report to Congress by the Department of Energy, ``Strategic 
  Transformer Reserve,'' March 2017, submitted by Mr. Pallone \3\
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Tom Stroup, President, Satellite 
  Industry Association, to Mr. Pallone, submitted by Mr. Pallone.   178
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Jonathan Spalter, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, USTelecom-The Broadband Association, 
  to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone........   180
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Chet Thompson, President and Chief 
  Executive Officer, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, 
  to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Pallone........   182
Letter of May 22, 2019, from Cynthia Joyce, Executive Director, 
  MQ Foundation, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. 
  Pallone........................................................   185

----------

\3\ The report has been retained in committee files and also is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20190522/109531/
HHRG-116-IF00-20190522-SD014.pdf.

 
      LIFT AMERICA: MODERNIZING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE FUTURE

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2019

                  House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                            Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in the 
John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. 
Frank Pallone, Jr. (chairman of the committee), presiding.
    Members present: Pallone, Rush, Eshoo, Engel, DeGette, 
Doyle, Schakowsky, Butterfield, Matsui, Castor, Sarbanes, 
McNerney, Welch, Lujan, Tonko, Clarke, Loebsack, Schrader, 
Kennedy, Cardenas, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Veasey, Kuster, 
Kelly, Barragan, McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, O'Halleran, 
Walden (committee ranking member), Upton, Shimkus, Burgess, 
Latta, Rodgers, Guthrie, Olson, McKinley, Griffith, Bilirakis, 
Johnson, Long, Bucshon, Flores, Brooks, Mullin, Hudson, 
Walberg, Carter, Duncan, and Gianforte.
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; 
Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Sharon Davis, 
Chief Clerk; Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Jean Fruci, Energy 
and Environment Policy Advisor; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief 
Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Omar Guzman-
Toro, Policy Analyst; Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff 
Member; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications and 
Consumer Protection; Stephen Holland, Health Counsel; Zach 
Kahan, Outreach and Member Service Coordinator; Rick Kessler, 
Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Josh 
Krantz, Policy Analyst; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Una 
Lee, Chief Health Counsel; Jerry Leverich, Senior Counsel; John 
Marshall, Policy Coordinator; Dan Miller, Policy Analyst; Elysa 
Montfort, Press Secretary; Meghan Mullon, Staff Assistant; Phil 
Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Lisa Olson, FERC Detailee; Joe 
Orlando, Staff Assistant; Alivia Roberts, Press Assistant; Tim 
Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Policy Analyst; 
Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications, Outreach, and 
Member Services; Benjamin Tabor, Staff Assistant; Kimberlee 
Trzeciak, Chief Health Advisor; Teresa Williams, Energy Fellow; 
Tuley Wright, Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Mike 
Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; S. K. Bowen, Minority 
Press Assistant; Adam Buckalew, Minority Director of Coalitions 
and Deputy Chief Counsel, Health; Robin Colwell, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Jerry Couri, Minority 
Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment and Climate Change; Jordan 
Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, 
Minority Legislative Clerk/Press Assistant; Peter Kielty, 
Minority General Counsel; Tim Kurth, Minority Deputy Chief 
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Ryan Long, Minority 
Deputy Staff Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, 
Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief 
Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk; 
Kristin Seum, Minority Counsel, Health; and Peter Spencer, 
Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy and 
Environment.
    Mr. Pallone. The Committee on Energy and Commerce will now 
come to order, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Two of our committee's top priorities are strengthening the 
economy and combating climate change. One of the best ways for 
Congress to address both of these priorities now is by 
rebuilding and modernizing our Nation's crumbling 
infrastructure.
    There is no better day for us to be having this hearing as 
the President and Democratic leaders are meeting to follow up 
on the President's promise to come up with the $2 trillion to 
pay for, if you will, our infrastructure package.
    And today, we are discussing the Leading Infrastructure for 
Tomorrow's America Act, or the LIFT America Act, which was 
introduced last week by all 31 committee Democrats.
    This is a comprehensive bill that addresses critical 
infrastructure needs across our entire committee's 
jurisdiction. It will strengthen our economy for the future by 
creating good-paying jobs and investing in critical clean 
energy, broadband, drinking water, and healthcare 
infrastructure.
    So as we continue to develop a comprehensive plan to 
address climate change, there are many actions we can take now 
to reduce carbon pollution immediately.
    LIFT America invests over $33 billion for clean energy, 
including $4 billion to upgrade the electric grid to 
accommodate more renewable energy and to make it more 
resilient.
    It includes $1.5 billion to facilitate the replacement of 
leaking gas pipelines, another $4 billion for the expansion of 
renewable energy use, including the installation of solar 
panels in low-income and underserved communities.
    We also make significant investments in energy efficiency, 
helping States and communities make our public places more 
energy efficient and helping homeowners weatherize their homes.
    We also invest in the development of an electric-vehicle-
charging network, something that is critical to tackling the 
greenhouse gas pollution coming from the transportation sector.
    Collectively, all of these investments will help us take an 
important step in combating the climate crisis while also 
strengthening our economy, creating good-paying jobs, and 
providing some much-needed relief to consumers on their energy 
bills.
    We also make significant investments in the expansion of 
broadband internet access. For too long, we have heard stories 
of the sorry state of our Nation's digital infrastructure that 
is simply leaving too many communities behind.
    We have heard about rural communities whose businesses 
can't compete without access to the internet. We have heard 
about kids living in urban broadband deserts that have no other 
choice than to walk to a nearby McDonald's late after school to 
access Wi-Fi just to do their homework.
    And we have heard the tragic calls to 9-1-1 of Americans 
that died during emergencies because when they needed help the 
system couldn't find them.
    So the LIFT America Act takes bold steps to ensure a 
prosperous, fairer, and safer tomorrow. It provides $40 billion 
to fund connections to the internet for at least 98 percent of 
the country and $12 billion to upgrade our frail 9-1-1 
infrastructure.
    And the LIFT America Act also makes critical investments in 
protecting human health and our environment. We invest more 
than $21 billion to protect Americans' drinking water, 
including $2.5 billion to establish a new grant program 
allowing PFAS-affected communities to filter the toxic 
chemicals out of their water supplies.
    We also extend and increase authorizations for the drinking 
water State Revolving Fund and other safe-water programs that 
we authorized as part of the 2017 Safe Drinking Water Act.
    And we also further fund the Brownfields program, which has 
successfully helped communities clean up contaminated sites, 
remove public health threats, and prepare the sites for 
development. This is another job creator that spurs local 
investment and revitalizes communities.
    And finally, we address our Nation's healthcare 
infrastructure. In recent years, we have heard of 
vulnerabilities in the physical structures, cybersecurity, and 
data system technology in healthcare facilities.
    From cyberattacks in hospital data systems that threaten 
patient privacy to the literal corrosion of pipes in Indian 
Health Service facilities, our faltering health infrastructure 
is putting the well-being of patients at risk.
    So the LIFT America Act responds to these problems by 
investing in core public health resources at the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention and in State and local health 
departments.
    It also directly funds hospital infrastructure, Indian 
Health Service facilities, public health labs, and behavioral 
health clinics to protect or to better protect human health.
    It is obvious this is a very ambitious plan. A lot is going 
to depend on to what extend when the House leadership and the 
Senate meet with the President and decide how it is going to be 
paid for and how much and how large it will be.
    But it is, I believe, what is necessary and what is 
possible under the funding framework that has been outlined so 
far by the President and Democratic congressional leaders. I 
don't think we can wait any longer to modernize our Nation's 
aging infrastructure, and I look forward to working with other 
members of this committee to move this legislation forward.
    And before I recognize our ranking member, I do want to say 
as I think most of you know normally we have hearings at the 
subcommittee level. But this bill has jurisdiction over all the 
subcommittees. So that's why we decided that we would have a 
full committee hearing today, because of the breadth and scope 
of the legislation.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Two of our committee's top priorities are strengthening the 
economy and combating climate change. One of the best ways for 
Congress to address both of these priorities now is by 
rebuilding and modernizing our Nation's crumbling 
infrastructure.
    There is no better day for us to be having this hearing as 
the President and Democratic Leaders are meeting to follow up 
on the President's promise to come up with the $2 trillion to 
pay for an infrastructure package.
    Today, we are discussing the Leading Infrastructure for 
Tomorrow's America Act, or the LIFT America Act, which was 
introduced last week by all 31 committee Democrats. This is a 
comprehensive bill that addresses critical infrastructure needs 
across our entire committee's jurisdiction. It will strengthen 
our economy for the future by creating good paying jobs and 
investing in critical clean energy, broadband, drinking water 
and healthcare infrastructure.
    As we continue to develop a comprehensive plan to address 
climate change, there are many actions we can take now to 
reduce carbon pollution immediately.
    LIFT America invests over $33 billion for clean energy--
including $4 billion to upgrade the electric grid to 
accommodate more renewable energy and to make it more 
resilient. It includes $1.5 billion to facilitate the 
replacement of leaking gas pipelines. It includes another $4 
billion for the expansion of renewable energy use, including 
the installation of solar panels in low-income and underserved 
communities. We also make significant investments in energy 
efficiency--helping States and communities make our public 
places more energy efficient, and helping homeowners weatherize 
their homes.
    We also invest in the development of an electric vehicle 
charging network--something that is critical to tackling the 
greenhouse gas pollution coming from the transportation sector.
    Collectively, all of these investments will help us take an 
important step in combating the climate crisis, while also 
strengthening our economy, creating good-paying jobs and 
providing some much-needed relief to consumers on their energy 
bills.
    We also make significant investments in the expansion of 
broadband internet access. For too long, we've heard stories of 
the sorry state of our Nation's digital infrastructure that is 
simply leaving too many communities behind. We've heard about 
rural communities whose businesses can't compete without access 
to the internet. We've heard about kids living in urban 
broadband deserts that have no other choice than to walk to a 
nearby McDonalds late on a school night to access Wi-Fi just to 
do their homework. And we've heard the tragic calls to 9-1-1 of 
Americans that died during emergencies--because when they 
needed help, the system couldn't find them.
    The LIFT America Act takes bold steps to ensure a 
prosperous, fairer and safer tomorrow. It provides $40 billion 
to fund connections to the internet for at least 98 percent of 
the country, and $12 billion to upgrade our frail 9-1-1 
infrastructure.
    he LIFT America Act also makes critical investments in 
protecting human health and our environment.
    We invest more than $21 billion to protect Americans' 
drinking water, including $2.5 billion to establish a new grant 
program allowing PFAS-affected communities to filter the toxic 
chemicals out of their water supplies. We also extend and 
increase authorizations for the drinking water State Revolving 
Fund (SRF) and other safe water programs that we authorized as 
part of the 2017 Safe Drinking Water Act.
    We also further fund the Brownfields program, which has 
successfully helped communities clean up contaminated sites, 
remove public health threats and prepare the sites for 
development. This is another job creator that spurs local 
investment and revitalizes communities.
    Finally, we address our Nation's healthcare infrastructure. 
In recent years, we've heard of vulnerabilities in the physical 
structures, cybersecurity and data system technology in 
healthcare facilities. From cyberattacks in hospital data 
systems that threaten patient privacy to the literal corrosion 
of pipes in Indian Health Service facilities, our faltering 
health infrastructure is putting the wellbeing of patients at 
risk.
    The LIFT America Act responds to these problems by 
investing in core public health resources at the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention and in State and local health 
departments. It also directly funds hospital infrastructure, 
Indian Health Service facilities, public health labs and 
behavioral health clinics to better protect human health.
    This is an ambitious plan, but it is what is necessary and 
what is possible under the funding framework outlined by the 
President and Democratic congressional leaders. We cannot wait 
any longer to modernize our Nation's aging infrastructure, and 
I look forward to working with every member of this committee 
to move this legislation forward.
    Thank you.

    Mr. Pallone. So now I'll recognize our ranking member for 
his opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I assumed because 
it was your bill we were doing this in full, but just saying 
you get to do that as chairman. I kind of remember, sort of.
    I am encouraged that members from both sides of the aisle 
as well as President Trump are taking serious interest in what 
should be a shared priority for all of us, and that's 
rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure. And I think we can all 
agree Republicans and Democrats should be able to come together 
and work in good faith to do this and make America stronger and 
better.
    Mr. Chairman, as you know and as members of this committee 
know, infrastructure means a lot of things and more than just 
roads and bridges, which are also important. Last Congress our 
committee worked together to do I think some pretty significant 
work on infrastructure improvement in America.
    We made some great strides to close the digital divide by 
expanding broadband infrastructure, directing Federal resources 
to target communities that are currently unserved, and trying 
to streamline the very complex costly Federal regulations in 
order to spur broadband deployment and innovation and have the 
private sector do a lot of that investment.
    We were instrumental in ensuring the America's Water 
Infrastructure Act was signed into law. This package cut 
bureaucratic red tape and reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water 
Act for the first time in more than 20 years--more than 20 
years since that had been done.
    We did it in a bipartisan way. We provided new tools and 
resources that State and local governments need to ensure the 
public has access to clean and safe drinking water.
    It also promoted hydropower development, which creates 
clean energy jobs here at home and provides consumers with low-
cost, emissions-free electricity, and I think that was really 
an important accomplishment in a bipartisan way on our 
committee.
    We also reauthorized the EPA's Brownfields program. This 
program allows EPA, the States, and local governments to work 
together to redevelop industrial or commercial facilities, 
create jobs, and provide for local economic development.
    As I recall from our work there, Federal taxpayers get a 16 
to 1 rate of return when these Brownfield sites are cleaned up 
and put into productive use.
    And we worked together to explore solutions to expand, 
improve, and modernize our energy infrastructure so we can 
deliver energy to consumers more safely, reliably, and cost 
effectively.
    I always want to put consumers first in this equation.
    The legislation under consideration today addresses many of 
these same policies, and that is good because there is more 
work to do. But just authorizing more money to spend may not 
necessarily achieve what I believe are shared infrastructure 
goals.
    I think back to 2009, when the stimulus program was 
advertised that it would create ``shovel-ready projects.'' 
Unfortunately, many of the jobs that were promised never 
materialized, and billions of taxpayer dollars went into what 
we later learned were pretty wasteful or duplicative projects 
because of the speed with which the money had to go out the 
door.
    The 2009 stimulus bill put the cart before the horse when 
it came to spending on broadband deployment without adequate 
mapping, a subject we are still concerned about in this 
committee in a bipartisan way, and they didn't know where the 
unserved or underserved areas were. But the money had to be out 
the door and spent before the mapping was to be completed.
    I offered an amendment at the time to correct that reverse 
problem, but it was, unfortunately, rejected. Instead, we 
didn't get the maps until after the money was already out the 
door. Seems kind of backwards.
    While I am not trying to relitigate the past, these 
examples underscore the need to be prudent in how we structure 
and allocate infrastructure investment, and we must ensure that 
taxpayer dollars are used wisely and we must continually 
revisit and reevaluate Federal programs and regulations to 
ensure our goals are being met.
    The LIFT America Act designates new investments in some 
prudent programs indeed. But I think there are other things 
that should be looked at as well, such as the immediate need to 
streamline permitting and reduce regulatory burdens for 
infrastructure projects, action that if taken would yield 
immediate results.
    I look at what ratepayers are having to pay, or they can't 
even get access to natural gas in the New England area because 
of issues over pipelines.
    We should see that infrastructure get built. The promises 
of modern energy infrastructure have been held back by what 
some might call Washington's command-and-control regulatory 
regime, and I think we need to recognize that innovation and 
technology development and market-driven efficiencies ensure 
economic growth, spur job creation, lower energy costs for 
consumers, and make a positive impact addressing climate change 
risks.
    So the LIFT America Act also calls for our shared goal of 
expanding broadband deployment. But we do need to address this 
mapping issue, and I think there is bipartisan agreement on 
that, and the need for better program coordination.
    The current lack of coordination and adequate mapping has 
led to rampant overbuilding in existing programs. We also know 
the private sector is looking to build out. This commitment by 
T-Mobile and others as part of their merger to reach 99 percent 
of America and cover it with high-speed broadband is really 
remarkable, and they face a $5 billion penalty if they don't 
deliver if the merger goes through. To me, that is what we want 
to incent--private sector doing this.
    So I appreciate the bills before us and I appreciate the 
inclusion of Next Generation 9-1-1, among other things, and 
look forward to working with you and our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to achieve our mutual goals.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing.
    I am encouraged that members from both sides of the aisle, 
as well as President Trump, are taking serious interest in what 
should be a shared priority for us all: rebuilding our Nation's 
infrastructure. I think we can all agree that Republicans and 
Democrats should be able to come together and work in good 
faith to build a stronger America.
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, and as the members of this 
committee know, infrastructure means more than roads and 
bridges. Last Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee did 
significant work on infrastructure.
    We made great strides to close the digital divide by 
expanding broadband infrastructure, directing Federal resources 
to target the communities that are currently unserved, and 
streamlining the complex, costly Federal regulations in order 
to spur broadband deployment and innovation.
    We were instrumental in ensuring the America's Water 
Infrastructure Act was signed into law. This package cut 
bureaucratic red tape and reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water 
Act for the first time in more than two decades, providing the 
tools and resources that State and local governments need to 
ensure the public has access to clean, safe drinking water. It 
also promoted hydropower development, which creates clean 
energy jobs here at home and provides consumers with low-cost, 
emissions-free electricity.
    We also reauthorized the EPA's Brownfields program, which 
allows EPA, States, and local governments to work together to 
redevelop industrial or commercial facilities, create jobs, and 
provide for local economic development.
    And we worked together to explore solutions to expand, 
improve, and modernize our energy infrastructure so that we can 
deliver energy to consumers more safely, reliably, and cost-
effectively.
    The legislation under consideration today revisits many of 
these same policies. But just spending more money may not 
necessarily achieve what I believe to be our shared 
infrastructure goals.
    The 2009 stimulus program was advertised that it would 
create ``shovel ready'' projects, but many of the jobs that 
were promised never materialized, and billions of taxpayer 
dollars went towards wasteful and duplicative projects.
    The 2009 stimulus bill put the cart before the horse when 
it came to spending on broadband deployment without adequate 
mapping to know exactly what parts of the country needed the 
most help. I offered an amendment at the time to correct this 
concern, but it was rejected. Instead, we didn't get the maps 
until after the money was allocated.
    While I am not trying to relitigate the past, these 
examples underscore the need to be prudent in how we structure 
and allocate infrastructure investment.
    We must ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used wisely 
and we must continually revisit and reevaluate Federal programs 
and regulations to ensure goals are being met.
    The LIFT America Act designates new investments in some 
proven programs, but neglects to address some of these 
concerns.
    Such as the immediate need to streamline permitting and 
reduce regulatory burdens for infrastructure projects. Action 
that, if taken, would yield immediate results--we would see 
infrastructure actually getting built!
    The promises of modernized energy infrastructure have been 
held back by Washington's command and control regulatory 
regime. We should recognize that innovation, technological 
development, and market-driven efficiencies ensure economic 
growth, spur job creation, lower energy costs for consumers, 
and make a positive impact addressing climate change risks.
    The LIFT America Act also calls for our shared goal of 
expanding broadband deployment, but we need to address mapping 
and the need for better program coordination. The current lack 
of coordination and adequate mapping has led to rampant 
overbuilding in existing programs.
    I appreciate that the bill adopts our approach to conduct 
reverse auctions. I also appreciate the inclusion of Next 
Generation 9-1-1 and hope that effort can be worked on 
simultaneously with the broader infrastructure debate.
    And while both sides of the aisle have supported State and 
local public health department infrastructure improvements for 
purposes of preparedness and response, the LIFT America Act's 
public health infrastructure provisions require significant 
further scrutiny. But I do believe we can and should work 
together on making meaningful reforms and improvements to the 
Indian Health Service.
    I do have questions about how my colleagues intend to pay 
for the spending contained in this bill and look forward to 
working with them as that part of the proposal is developed.
    I look forward to today's discussion and thank you again 
for holding today's hearing. I yield back.

    Mr. Walden. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, and I--and, obviously, we would 
like to, as always, report out at some point. You know, this is 
the beginning of the process, obviously, a bill that's 
bipartisan and working with the Republicans and with the 
President.
    So the way it works--those are the opening statements. But 
if Members want to submit written opening statements, they will 
be made part of the record. And we are now going to proceed to 
our panel.
    And I want to introduce our witnesses. First, on my left, I 
am very proud that I have the Honorable Brian Wahler, who is 
mayor of Piscataway Township in my district. But Brian isn't 
just here because he's a mayor in my district. He's been very 
active with the National Conference of Mayors in pushing for a 
number of infrastructure initiatives.
    When we had the legislative hearing on the energy block 
grant, that was something that he pushed but also the National 
Conference of Mayors pushed as well. So thank you for being 
here, Brian. I appreciate you being here.
    And then we have--no stranger to this committee--Ms. Mignon 
Clyburn, who is now a principal with MLC Strategies, but of 
course we knew her for many years as one of the FCC 
Commissioners.
    And then we have Mr. John Auerbach, who is president and 
CEO of the Trust for America's Health; Ms. Jessica Eckdish, 
legislative director for the BlueGreen Alliance; Mr. Daniel 
Lyons, visiting fellow from the American Enterprise Institute; 
and Mr. Christopher Guith--I hope I got that right--who is 
acting president for the Global Energy Institute with the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce.
    And I want to thank all of you for being here today. We 
look forward to your testimony. The way it works is, I will 
recognize each of you for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
    Let me just mention about the lighting system in front of--
talk about energy, right. In front of you is a series of 
lights, and the light will initially be green at the start of 
your opening statement.
    The light will then turn yellow when you have 1 minute 
remaining, and then you should try to wrap up your testimony at 
that point, and then the light turns red when your time 
expires.
    So we are going to go from left to right and start with 
Mayor Wahler. Thank you, Mayor.

 STATEMENTS OF BRIAN WAHLER, MAYOR, PISCATAWAY, NEW JERSEY, ON 
  BEHALF OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; MIGNON L. CLYBURN, 
 FORMER ACTING CHAIRWOMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; 
  JESSICA ECKDISH, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, BLUEGREEN ALLIANCE; 
 DANIEL LYONS, VISITING FELLOW, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, 
 AND PROFESSOR, BOSTON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL; CHRISTOPHER GUITH, 
  ACTING PRESIDENT, GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE, U.S. CHAMBER OF 
  COMMERCE; AND JOHN AUERBACH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
              OFFICER, TRUST FOR AMERICA'S HEALTH

                   STATEMENT OF BRIAN WAHLER

    Mr. Wahler. Good morning.
    Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, and members of the 
committee, I want to thank you for the invitation today to 
discuss H.R. 2741, Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's 
America--the LIFT Act.
    My name is Brian Wahler, the mayor of Piscataway Township 
in New Jersey, and I am testifying on behalf of the United 
States Conference of Mayors in support of this bill.
    Infrastructure is inherently local, and this is where 
infrastructure improvements are most needed. Local governments 
have outperformed the Federal and State governments in growing 
new revenue for many of our infrastructure needs.
    But we need Federal Government to do its part. The LIFT Act 
will do just that. The bill addresses many priorities for the 
Nation's communities, including additional allocations for safe 
drinking water, Brownfields programs. But for today I just want 
to focus on energy components of this bill.
    Cities must be an integral part of the Nation's energy 
strategy because cities drive the Nation's economy engine. An 
IHS study estimated that metro economies in 2017 were home to 
91 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, 92 percent 
of the wage income, and 88 percent of the Nation's jobs.
    Our metro economies and businesses within our communities 
generate tax revenues that you appropriate. These economic 
factors suggest that any national strategy to address energy 
needs, climate change, and reduce pollution must include 
communities both big and small that comprise our metro areas.
    Local governments recognize the value in energy demand 
management as possible by weatherization and smart building 
technologies. Weatherization programs have proven reliable over 
time, and now smart building controls have potential effect for 
reductions of energy use and increased cost savings.
    Solar installation for low-income and underserved 
communities target an economic group that struggles to afford 
basic utilities. This program will help reduce energy costs for 
low-income households.
    We also support the clean distribution energy systems 
provision that will promote energy diversity and resiliency by 
creating energy systems that will not totally rely on central 
transmission lines and traditional vulnerabilities.
    The conference particularly recommends the committee for 
including reauthorization of the EECBG program, which is a top 
priority of the Nation's mayors and local governments.
    EECB focuses on energy infrastructure investment at the 
local level and will help promote energy independence, 
reliability, efficiencies with the goal to achieve clean 
energy, clean air, and consumer savings.
    Recipients of the EEC funds are required to develop 
comprehensive energy plans for their community, and with more 
than a dozen eligible applications for grant money, this is 
enough flexibility to meet many community needs.
    When the program was previously funded, many communities 
leveraged their resources to add additionals to the grant 
moneys, and this was a positive local regional multiplier 
effect.
    An Oak Ridge Laboratories report commended the program as 
one of the most successful programs in bringing energy 
efficiency and conservation to the communities.
    EEC is the single most important way to kick start local 
investment, because the greatest impediment to infrastructure 
investment is finding the necessary capital.
    In my own city we used our EEC money to put solar panels on 
our public works department. This solar array produced more 
than 1.5 million kilowatt hours, replacing fossil fuels and 
reducing air pollutants.
    Last year we signed a contract with Great Eastern Energy. 
Now 20 percent of our energy that we use for municipal purposes 
comes from renewable sources.
    This is projected to save more than 4.3 million kilowatts 
of fossil fuels-created electricity over 2 years. We now 
require many new developments within our community to have 
electric vehicle plug-in charging stations in their parking 
areas, which also includes government facilities where we are 
building a new community center.
    By authorizing and funding this program, you will jump 
start or enhance over a thousand communities nationwide to do 
energy efficiency, conservation, clean energy projects.
    Simply put, the Federal Government does not have access to 
diverse building and fleet sectors as local communities do. We 
need a strong Federal partnership for H.R. 2741. It provides a 
practical framework to move forward.
    I want to thank you, Chairman Pallone, and the committee 
for inviting me to testify today. We are at a critical juncture 
in areas of infrastructure, climate change, and I strongly urge 
on behalf of the Nation's mayors that the committee and this 
Congress pass a fully funded and much-needed legislation.
    Thank you.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Mr. Wahler's prepared statement has been retained in committee 
files and also is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/
20190522/109531/HHRG-116-IF00-Wstate-WahlerB-20190522.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for being 
here.
    And next I will recognize Ms. Clyburn for 5 minutes, and 
thank you also for being here.

                 STATEMENT OF MIGNON L. CLYBURN

    Ms. Clyburn. Thank you.
    Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, members of the 
committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify this 
morning.
    For almost 9 years I had the privilege of serving on the 
Federal Communications Commission. During my tenure, I was 
afforded the opportunity to travel across this great Nation and 
around the world, where I witnessed firsthand the 
transformative power of broadband.
    Unfortunately, too many Americans, including those in rural 
communities, remain unable to harness the incredible power of 
connectivity.
    Since the FCC released its national broadband plan almost 
10 years ago, it has been focused on closing the broadband 
availability gap. We still have a long way to go, which is why 
I ask that you go big and be bold.
    The LIFT America Act contemplates a $40 billion infusion of 
capital for broadband infrastructure, almost 10 times the 
annual amount of CAF funding currently available.
    While that is, indeed, a significant number, what is clear 
is that this level of investment is necessary. Based on my past 
experience as a regulator, allow me to offer a few principles 
for your consideration.
    The act should prioritize capital expenditures for 
communities currently without broadband-capable infrastructure. 
By this I mean those areas in both rural and urban America that 
don't even have 10/1 speed.
    Determinations of where support is needed to deploy 
broadband should be based on reliable and verifiable coverage 
maps. Everyone is frustrated because more needs to be done to 
improve the FCC maps.
    The current maps should not be exclusively used for any 
proceeding, including for funding purposes at this time. What 
the FCC needs to do is immediately act on its pending 
proceeding to update Form 477 and produce a reliable map so 
that we can know precisely where the areas are that don't have 
10/1 coverage.
    It is also very important that this investment is viewed 
through a once-only lens, and what I mean by that is taxpayers 
should be asked to fund broadband infrastructure only one time 
and that infrastructure should be robust and capable of serving 
their communities long into the future.
    The U.S. lags behind European and Asian countries that are 
planning to deliver high-speed broadband infrastructure that 
can be upgraded cost effectively. Online demand is increasing, 
which means we need robust networks to handle that demand.
    Since we are going big and bold with LIFT, Congress should 
invest the money in infrastructure that will deliver high-speed 
broadband of at least 1 gig symmetrical service. This should 
put our country on par with others and catch us up to those who 
are ahead.
    The bill can remain competitively and technologically 
neutral, but it must be refined to give projects that can 
deliver 1 gig service a bidding preference.
    Similarly, where 1 gig can be upgraded to deliver even 
higher speeds quickly and at a lower cost, the bill should 
include that as a positive in the waiting process.
    As Commissioner O'Rielly has said, we must coordinate all 
of the government broadband funding mechanisms to avoid 
duplication, which will ensure that we will get as much bang 
from our limited bucks as possible.
    Accordingly, new funding provided by LIFT should be 
restricted to those unserved areas that aren't receiving funds 
from other programs. Moreover, as Chairman Pai has discussed, 
reverse auctions have delivered incredible benefits and have 
saved taxpayer money.
    Reverse auctions should be embraced. Simply speaking, they 
are more efficient and more effective.
    I would like to commend you, Chairman Pallone, and all who 
have been working on LIFT for your leadership in securing a 
brighter economic future for those Americans whose dreams have 
yet to be realized.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, and 
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Clyburn follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Ms. Clyburn. Thank you for being 
here today and for all you did at the FCC.
    So next we have Ms. Eckdish. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF JESSICA ECKDISH

    Ms. Eckdish. Good morning.
    Thank you, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, and 
members of the committee. My name is Jessica Eckdish. I am the 
legislative director of the BlueGreen Alliance.
    On behalf of my organization, our partners, and the 
millions of members and supporters they represent, I want to 
thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    The BlueGreen Alliance unites America's largest labor 
unions and most influential environmental organizations around 
the belief that we don't have to choose between a good job and 
a clean environment. We can and must have both.
    Investing in repairing and modernizing our Nation's 
infrastructure is a clear example of this principle. If done 
right, a Federal infrastructure package will boost our economy 
and create millions of jobs while simultaneously reducing 
pollution, combating climate change, and strengthening our 
communities.
    The LIFT America Act is a key step in this direction. 
Failing infrastructure is a critical threat to our communities, 
from crumbling bridges and contaminated drinking water to 
inefficient and unhealthy schools, power outages, and dangerous 
and leaky gas distribution pipes under our cities.
    These problems are only getting worse. The historic 2017 
hurricane season laid waste to Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, Texas, and Florida, plunging millions of Americans 
into darkness and further aggravating an already desperate need 
for safe water.
    As the world's climate continues to change, the 
deteriorating state of our infrastructure becomes a vicious 
circle. As our systems crumble and become more inefficient, the 
excess pollution exacerbates climate change, and as our climate 
changes, more extreme weather tests our already strained 
infrastructure systems, endangering the health and safety of 
our communities.
    BlueGreen Alliance research has found that investing an 
estimated $2.2 trillion in a variety of infrastructure sectors 
to improve them from a D-plus grade to a B grade has the 
potential to support or create an additional 14.5 million job-
years across the U.S. economy, add $1.66 trillion to GDP over 
10 years, and reduce greenhouse gas pollution versus a 
business-as-usual approach.
    Last week we released a set of 14 infrastructure policy 
priorities in key sectors including energy transmission, 
distribution, and storage, transportation, water, schools, and 
other buildings, broadband, natural infrastructure, climate 
resilience, and manufacturing.
    Making these smart investments has the potential to deliver 
millions of good jobs, reduce climate and toxic pollution, and 
make our communities more resilient, but only if we do this the 
right way.
    In order to maximize these benefits for communities, the 
environment, and workers, there are five principles that any 
legislation must follow.
    First, any infrastructure package must create quality 
family-sustaining jobs. This means ensuring that all projects 
are subject to Buy America and Davis-Bacon standards that 
bolster American manufacturing and ensure that workers are paid 
a prevailing wage.
    It means utilizing project labor agreements, community 
benefit agreements, and other provisions that improve training, 
working conditions, and project benefits, and it means 
maintaining and growing jobs in the public sector to support 
all of this work as well as respecting collective bargaining 
agreements and workers' organizing rights.
    Second, an infrastructure package must deliver climate 
benefits and reduce pollution, a range of investments from 
natural infrastructure and grid modernization to repairing and 
replacing aging gas distribution pipes, that all deliver 
significant greenhouse gas emission and other pollutant 
reductions.
    Third, this package must make our communities more 
resilient. This means driving forward-looking planning and 
investments that build for the future, not the past, and that 
make our infrastructure systems and communities more resilient 
to the impacts of climate change. This must include 
prioritizing natural infrastructure solutions.
    Fourth, an infrastructure package must maximize benefits to 
workers in communities, especially those most in need. Our 
infrastructure investments must provide economic opportunities 
for low-income communities, communities of color, women, and 
local workers across the country.
    Finally, any infrastructure package must begin with a 
robust public investment and must tackle the broad array of our 
infrastructure needs.
    The LIFT America Act embodies these five principles and 
takes a significant step towards addressing our country's 
infrastructure challenge. We are particularly pleased to see 
efforts included in the bill to address drinking water 
infrastructure, electric grid resiliency and modernization, 
school energy efficiency, methane emissions from natural gas 
distribution lines, and broadband access.
    While the bill also includes necessary conditions to ensure 
domestic content, prevailing wage, and other benefits for 
workers and communities, there are opportunities to expand 
these provisions across the bill.
    Preparing America's infrastructure systems is both urgently 
needed and an enormous opportunity. We look forward to working 
with this committee as this bill moves forward to ensure the 
strongest possible outcome for workers and our environment.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Eckdish follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you so much.
    I next recognize for 5 minutes Professor--is it Professor? 
Professor Lyons, yes.

                  STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. LYONS

    Mr. Lyons. Thank you.
    Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, and members of the 
committee, thank you for allowing me to appear before you 
today.
    My name is Daniel Lyons. I am a visiting fellow at the 
American Enterprise Institute, and I am a professor at Boston 
College Law School, where I study telecommunications and 
internet policy.
    My remarks are focussed on the LIFT America Act's broadband 
provisions. According to the FCC's latest estimates, 
approximately 20 million Americans lack access to high-speed 
fixed broadband networks.
    That means a little more than 1 in 20 Americans are sitting 
on the wrong side of the digital divide solely because of where 
they live.
    The LIFT America Act addresses this problem by allocating 
$40 billion to subsidize broadband network construction in 
unserved areas.
    The program reflects a key recommendation of the FCC's 
national broadband plan that government assistance should take 
the form of one-time construction aid rather than the ongoing 
carrier subsidies that mark the telephone era high-cost fund.
    The act adopts many of the best practices developed at the 
FCC while experimenting with similar subsidies through the 
Connect America Fund. Perhaps most significantly, it uses a 
reverse auction mechanism to distribute funds.
    This helps assure that taxpayers will get the biggest bang 
for their buck by awarding funds to projects that will connect 
an area at the lowest expense, and it also mandates that funds 
be distributed on a technology-neutral basis.
    This is important both because unserved areas are 
geographically diverse and also because innovations like 5G 
networking and low Earth orbit satellites could bring 
disruptive new forms of competition to broadband markets.
    Studies show that wired deployment typically plateaus at 
about 70 percent of the country. So making room for disruptive 
new technologies can help us reach that last 30 percent more 
efficiently, the way that satellite companies helped fill in 
the rural gaps in the pay television market.
    FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has explained that, with the Connect 
America fund, the reverse auction structure and the technology-
neutral limitation or mandate sparked competition that reduced 
their estimated subsidy costs by 70 percent. Areas they 
expected to wire for $5 billion they instead are wiring for 
$1.5 billion.
    And I also appreciate that the act sets aside one-quarter 
of its funds to be administered directly by States. Back when I 
was applying for professor positions, my job talk focused on 
the importance of State regulators, and it turns out that for 
law professors, telecommunications
    ralism isn't a super-sexy topic like constitutional rights. 
So I am actually really glad to see that you are taking it 
seriously here on the Hill.
    State regulators have local knowledge, and they are often 
in a much better position than their Federal counterparts to 
know where the gaps in coverage are in particular locations and 
how to best go about fixing them.
    There are, I think, a few places where I would push back on 
the draft bill. The first is a requirement that the State funds 
be allocated in direct proportion to the population of each 
State.
    This, I think, could steer funding in suboptimal ways, 
because total population is not a good proxy for broadband 
need. Broadband service is most economically delivered in 
population-dense areas where there are more customers per 
square mile, and so that means that unserved areas of the 
country that are targeted by the act are more likely to skew 
rural.
    Allocating dollars based on State population could have the 
unintended consequence of favoring rural areas in States that 
also happen to have a big city over those States that don't 
have a big city, even though the existence of a city probably 
doesn't tell us much about the State's funding need.
    It would be better, I think, to allocate funds on the basis 
of each State's unserved population, which I think better 
directs the money toward those who the act is designed to 
benefit.
    I think this is especially problematic when coupled with 
the act's inclusion of funds to aid underserved areas. Unlike 
unserved areas, where internet access is lacking, underserved 
has an existing provider.
    So subsidies to underserved areas effectively subsidize a 
new company to come in and challenge an existing broadband 
provider. In a sense, this would punish companies that invested 
private dollars to serve a challenging area by making it harder 
for them to compete.
    And although the act says that States can only fund 
underserved areas if all of the unserved areas in the State are 
addressed, the allocation of funds on the basis of population 
could lead to some States quickly filling their unserved areas 
and then pouring money into underserved areas, while some other 
States with smaller populations are still struggling to connect 
anybody at all.
    And I think this one related issue is the act's minimum 
service standards. The act requires recipients to provide 100 
megabits download service. I think before picking a benchmark, 
it is helpful for the committee to think about how much service 
the average consumer needs, because otherwise you risk 
overinvesting in specific projects at the cost of completing 
fewer projects.
    I previously have proposed that policymakers adopt an 
activity-based approach: Identify the core activities that are 
essential to participating in online society and then figure 
out how much speed you need in order to be able to do those 
things.
    And finally, I think it is important to remember that 
availability is only one driver of the digital divide. Issues 
like affordability and digital literacy also become a really 
important part in the need to close the digital divide and make 
sure we have universal connectivity.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Professor.
    Next we have Mr. Guith. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUITH

    Mr. Guith. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Pallone, 
Ranking Member Walden, and members of the committee.
    The Chamber appreciates the opportunity to testify today on 
the importance of bolstering the Nation's clean energy and 
water infrastructure.
    America's energy infrastructure provides a complex system 
of vital arteries, making real-time deliveries of electricity, 
natural gas, and liquid fuels and products to every corner of 
the country to satisfy consumer demand.
    With more than 2.7 million miles of pipeline and 7 million 
miles of electric lines, the United States has the largest, 
most advanced, and most interconnected energy system in the 
world.
    With some limited exceptions, America's energy 
infrastructure has been privately funded and privately built 
and financed. It serves as an economic engine that literally 
fuels and powers the entire economy from coast to coast.
    As the U.S. energy landscape continues to change, the need 
to site, permit, and build new energy infrastructure 
predictably and transparently is increasingly important to 
capture the economic and environmental benefits provided by 
American innovation.
    Unfortunately, the permitting process is neither, which 
discourages investment and often delays or prevents new energy 
infrastructure from being built, robbing the country of the 
economic environmental benefits.
    As Congress considers infrastructure legislation, it is 
imperative that permit streamlining be included as part of it. 
As general principles within infrastructure, the Chamber 
believes the time has come to enact a Federal infrastructure 
modernization plan to provide every American a 21st century 
system. We urge elected officials in Washington to take charge 
and tackle the problem with both adequate funding and a long-
term plan. This morning, an op-ed written by Chamber president 
Tom Donohue and AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka in the 
Washington Post notes that ``Rebuilding and modernizing our 
Nation's crumbling infrastructure will benefit every business, 
every worker and every family in the United States.''
    Last year, the Chamber laid out four pillars the 
administration and Congress should consider, including an 
infrastructure modernization debate, and today I am going to 
focus on just one--streamlining the permitting process.
    There is a growing consensus that the Federal permitting 
regime is moribund and inefficient, discouraging capital 
investments in new and upgraded infrastructure the market is 
demanding.
    This reduces the economic security and environmental 
benefits Americans could realize from these new investments. 
Ignoring permitting reform would prolong an inadequate, 
inefficient, and often counterproductive system of bureaucratic 
review that provides decreasingly less certainty to project 
sponsors and investors and ultimately defeats the goal of these 
legislative efforts to build infrastructure.
    Any infrastructure proposal that fails to reform the 
permitting system risks losing Chamber support. As our 
president, Tom Donohue, has said, it should not take longer to 
approve a project than build it.
    The Chamber believes that all Federal infrastructure 
approvals should be completed within 2 years and shepherded by 
a single lead agency. The administration has implemented the 
one Federal decision and a 2-year review via Executive order, 
and now it is up to Congress to codify these provisions so that 
we have long-term certainty that projects can be completed in a 
timely and efficient manner.
    Additionally, we need Congress's continued commitment to 
the reforms it created in FAST-41. The Permitting Dashboard and 
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council created by 
FAST-41 have already paid dividends for dozens of clean energy 
infrastructure projects, ranging from wind to solar to 
hydroelectric to natural gas, in addition to flood mitigation 
and coastal restoration.
    In total, more than half of the projects tracked on the 
PFISC Dashboard are clean energy projects, and passage of FAST-
41 represented a major bipartisan accomplishment, garnering 
support from both environmental organizations and the business 
community.
    Congress should permanently reauthorize FAST-41 in any 
infrastructure passage.
    And now turning to the LIFT Act. The Chamber appreciates 
the introduction of the LIFT America Act and recognizes 
Chairman Pallone and members of this committee for their 
leadership and efforts to deliver what we believe could be 
historic legislation.
    While Chamber members have significant interest in this 
entire legislative effort, I have focused testimony on clean 
energy infrastructure and drinking water infrastructure.
    While we continue to analyze this legislation, there are 
many parts of it that could benefit the U.S. economy and foster 
cleaner lower-emitting technologies.
    Specifically, we support reauthorization of the diesel 
emissions reduction program and the weatherization assistance 
program as well as authorized increases in water infrastructure 
investments and brownfields redevelopment.
    The creation of the assistance for community water systems 
affected by PFAS is also welcome. And finally, on the general 
topic of funding, we would be concerned if moneys appropriated 
for these activities come at the expense of existing were 
crucial to fostering innovation through the Federal complex.
    In general, however, the Chamber is supportive of many of 
the authorized and reauthorized programs created in the LIFT 
Act, and as we continue our analysis and member consultation, 
we commit to working with the committee to ensure that this 
legislation provides the greatest improvements in energy 
infrastructure while minimizing unintended consequences.
    In conclusion, the U.S. is in the midst of a historic 
energy shift, both from scarcity to abundance but also to 
lower-emitting and environmentally sustainable. The ability to 
build new infrastructure and facilities harnessing this 
innovation is crucial to bring economic and environmental 
benefits to America.
    To bring these technologies and innovation to bear, 
Congress must make the Federal permitting process more 
transparent and predictable. Only when that happens will the 
Nation benefit from increased investment in traditional surface 
infrastructure but also the energy infrastructure that will 
help facilitate continued economic growth and a cleaner future.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Guith follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Guith.
    And then finally we have Mr. Auerbach recognized for 5 
minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF JOHN AUERBACH

    Mr. Auerbach. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 
and members of the committee.
    I am John Auerbach, the president and CEO of Trust for 
America's Health. We are an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit 
public health policy research and advocacy organization, and we 
are grateful that the LIFT America Act includes the needs of 
public health and healthcare in the consideration of the 
Nation's essential infrastructure.
    Such an investment will literally save lives. The Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention as well as State, local, 
Tribal, and Territorial health departments and community 
partners need a well-functioning infrastructure to prevent and 
respond to major public health threats in order to protect the 
American public.
    That infrastructure includes the facilities and equipment 
such as governmental laboratories, up-to-date data and 
information systems, and a highly skilled and qualified 
workforce, including those who are on the front lines when a 
deadly infectious disease or a dangerous environmental hazard 
needs to be contained.
    Over my 30-year career, I have held senior positions in 
public health as Boston's health commissioner during 9/11, as 
the Massachusetts health commissioner during the H1N1 outbreak, 
and at CDC during the Ebola and the Zika crises, and I have led 
efforts to combat opioid addiction, the obesity crisis, and 
environmental contaminants, and I have seen through the years 
the importance of public health in preventing disease and 
injury and saving lives during emergencies and outbreaks.
    But all too often, health departments are underresourced 
and understaffed, and inhibited by a crumbling infrastructure.
    Public health is traditionally funded with scores of line 
items, each one representing a distinct disease or condition. 
But some resources are needed that extend beyond a single 
health issue. That is where infrastructure funding is so 
crucial.
    An investment in core public health infrastructure gives 
public health the foundation needed to tackle a wide range of 
health issues and reduce preventable deaths.
    The public health system now faces unprecedented 21st 
century challenges ranging from the opioid epidemic to extreme 
weather to emerging infectious diseases, and is doing so in 
many cases with 20th century infrastructure.
    My organization released a report last month, ``The Impact 
of Chronic Underfunding on America's Public Health System,'' 
where we found that outdated and underfunded resources are 
preventing the public health system from adequately tackling 
leading health threats and contributing to the startling fact 
that the U.S. life expectancy rate has declined for the third 
year in a row.
    Let me offer some examples. As public health departments 
are on the ground working across sectors to prevent and respond 
to health threats such as food contaminated with salmonella, 
Zika, Ebola, and now measles, there are many times when there 
are dangerous delays in responding due to the weakness of the 
public health infrastructure.
    During the Zika outbreak, health departments in most States 
were not able to conduct the confirmatory laboratory tests, so 
that samples would have to be flown by commercial airlines to 
the CDC in Atlanta.
    And even CDC lacked the resources to respond immediately to 
the volume of requests. As a local and State health 
commissioner, I sometimes waited for days for a crucial test 
result due to a lack of capacity.
    Technology is now constantly improving and offering state-
of-the-art potential approaches such as advanced molecular 
detection. But without continued investment, we can't fully 
access these breakthroughs.
    In addition, the success of public health relies upon 
accurate and timely data. But it is shocking to continue to 
hear stories of reports of diseases that are filled out by 
hand--those reports are filled out by hand by doctors and faxed 
at the point that a fax machine becomes available, rather than 
real-time reporting through the internet.
    There are parts of the country that are still communicating 
such time-sensitive information the way we did a half-century 
ago. Just 2 days ago I met with local health officials from 
coast to coast, and I heard horror stories of the lack of 
adequate health information technology.
    Rural public health departments without regular internet 
access, urban health departments that weren't receiving 
essential information from electronic medical records of nearby 
hospitals, missed opportunities to inform the public with 
social media, which is the key way we receive information now, 
and health department after health department highlighted the 
need for highly skilled personnel to oversee these systems.
    This committee has worked tirelessly on the Pandemic and 
All-Hazards Preparedness Act, which aims to strengthen capacity 
to find health risks before they grow out of control.
    Yet, this goal remains aspirational without a major 
investment in the public health infrastructure.
    Thank you for including public health and healthcare in the 
LIFT America Act. Doing so is well worth it in terms of lives 
saved, illnesses and injuries and expensive healthcare costs 
that are averted.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Auerbach follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Auerbach, and thank all of our 
witnesses. That concludes our openings, and now we are going to 
move to Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to 
ask questions of our witnesses, and I will start by recognizing 
myself for 5 minutes.
    There are two vitally important goals that we want to 
accomplish with the LIFT America Act. One is to rebuild and 
modernize our infrastructure to sustain a high standard of 
living for Americans and a competitive, efficient economy, and 
then second, to redesign and reorient our infrastructure to 
deal with the climate change that we can't avoid and to prevent 
further damage to the climate system, our society, and our 
economy.
    So I want to start with Ms. Eckdish. Are the direct and 
indirect employment effects of increasing Federal support for 
infrastructure projects significant and does the BlueGreen 
Alliance see a linkage between infrastructure investments and 
reducing greenhouse gas pollution?
    I know you have touched on that in your opening, but if you 
would develop it a little bit. Not too much because I have to 
ask other questions.
    Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you, Chairman Pallone, for the 
question.
    Yes, we absolutely see significant employment opportunities 
through infrastructure investments as well as opportunities to 
address greenhouse gas emissions. As I mentioned in my 
testimony, we see a nearly 15 million job creation opportunity 
from investing in infrastructure from the construction side 
through manufacturing of components that go into these 
infrastructure systems.
    We also see a significant nexus with climate benefits, both 
in terms of the investments that can reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions--I will give one quick example. The LIFT America Act 
addresses grid modernization: ``Full implementation of a 
national smart grid could reduce U.S. CO2 emissions 
by 12 percent.'' That is just one example of the emissions 
reductions we could see from infrastructure investments.
    We also know that investing in infrastructure can help in 
terms of the impacts that we know are coming and already here 
from climate change, including extreme weather events, sea 
level rise, storm surges.
    Every dollar invested in prevention today reduce costs by 
$6 in the future. So a significant return on investment and 
making our communities more resilient to climate impacts.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Let me go to Mayor Wahler. Do you believe that the 
infrastructure investments are one way to meet--well, let me 
say this, Mayor.
    Mayors and other local government officials have taken a 
strong position in fighting climate change, including yourself, 
and calling on the Federal Government to do more to meet the 
challenge of climate change.
    So, Mayor, do you believe that infrastructure investments 
are one way to meet that challenge, and how will additional 
Federal support for infrastructure help cities accelerate the 
transition to a low-carbon economy?
    Mr. Wahler. One of the advantages of this bill is it lays 
out a 5-year program, and one of the things that towns and 
cities and counties need to do is be able to lay out a long-
term plan.
    In the past, when there was just a one-shot funding there, 
that didn't allow communities to do that. There are a lot of 
things that towns and cities can do.
    For instance, over the last 10 years between water and 
infrastructure projects within communities, towns and cities 
have spent over $80 billion in funds there. So towns and cities 
do have skin in the game.
    We are just asking for a partnership to help along with 
some long-term planning and in cases--a lot of cases that towns 
and cities need seed money to leverage that public-private 
partnership to accomplish those goals.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    I am going to turn now to Ms. Clyburn on the broadband.
    According to a 2017 FCC study, we can build out incredibly 
high-speed broadband internet access to 98 percent of the 
country with the $40 billion that we have in the bill. For that 
price, we are talking about in-home broadband that could 
deliver gigabit speeds. To achieve that goal, we authorize $40 
billion to connect the unconnected.
    So in your experience, Commissioner--I will still call you 
that. Once a Commissioner, always.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Pallone. What will it mean for families in rural areas 
or urban broadband deserts to have access to in-home high-speed 
or even gig-speed internet service?
    Ms. Clyburn. It will allow individuals to make a choice to 
stay or to leave--that infrastructure that does not exist in 
those communities is forcing the young to leave these 
communities and causing brain drain in so many areas.
    It would put a substantial down payment to address that. It 
will allow opportunities in telehealth and telemedicine, and 
remote educational opportunities that do not exist--classrooms 
and schools that do not have the infrastructure at present.
    This is an equalizer. This would be a great equalizer for 
those areas that don't have the infrastructure to serve those 
communities.
    Mr. Pallone. And then, lastly, can you explain--well, in 
the LIFT America Act we have critical coordination language so 
that the FCC and State-administered reverse auctions don't 
undermine other current and future Federal investment, and you 
mentioned that language.
    Could you just explain what could happen if we didn't 
include the coordinate language in the bill?
    Ms. Clyburn. Duplication, inefficiencies, and goals not 
being met, you know, simply put. You have got a mixture of 
State and Federal agencies that all mean well, but they are not 
talking to each other.
    So, you know, a lot of conflict and, as I mentioned, 
duplication and goals that are not harmonized are really 
causing a lot of inefficiencies, and this will force everyone 
to speak to each other and force efficiency, and that will 
allow more bang for our buck and more infrastructure being 
built to where it is needed.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Commissioner.
    I now recognize Mr. Walden for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 
all our panelists. We appreciate your testimony today and your 
guidance and counsel as we work on these issues.
    I want to ask Mr. Lyons, the RAY BAUM'S Act and the 
inclusion of MOBILE NOW was a big success last Congress, and it 
was also a lesson that streamlining and permitting are just as 
important for broadband deployment as spending money alone.
    This is a multijurisdictional effort, and I believe there 
is some understanding needed on how NEPA, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic 
Preservation Act impact the expedited deployment schedule in 
this legislation.
    If we are going to be successful, and we understandably 
want to be sensitive of both the environment and to, of course, 
historic properties and all, but how do we work through that 
and get things like 5G built out?
    Your comments?
    Mr. Lyons. Thanks for the question.
    I think that is absolutely right that, if your goal is to 
add broadband to places where it is currently uneconomical, 
there are two ways to that, right.
    Adding subsidies on the one end but also lifting existing 
barriers to infrastructure buildout is equally important, and 
we have learned through a number of FCC initiatives that 
activities that can lift the existing barriers to make it 
easier to go, for example, dig one strategy----
    Mr. Walden. Right. I was going to ask you----
    Mr. Lyons [continuing]. Can be super helpful in making it 
cheaper to deploy broadband and therefore more economical in 
places where regulatory burdens may otherwise be problematic.
    You are right that we don't want to ride roughshod over, 
you know, environmental regulation. But we have to recognize 
also that the more decision makers there are in the process, 
the more veto gates there are to getting projects done.
    Mr. Walden. Yes.
    Mr. Lyons. And veto gates means more difficult--delays in 
getting the projects completed.
    Mr. Walden. Well, and I know--and I am from the Northwest, 
not the Northeast--but, you know, we have this constricted flow 
of, for example, natural gas. There was a building I read about 
recently, had been built to hook up to natural and guess what? 
They don't have access to enough natural gas, so now they are 
going to use propane.
    And you know all that--the blocking of the pipelines and 
power lines, and I realize the public needs to have a voice in 
these issues. But it comes to a point where we are using 
heating oil and we are somehow, I don't know, subsidize 
whatever we do with that.
    The ratepayers are paying more. The environment doesn't 
benefit and you have these constricted flows, and it seems to 
me it does not benefit anybody other than the industry that is 
out there designed to shut down any progress on energy 
development.
    Mr. Lyons. Agreed, and I am a--so I will preface this by 
saying I am a big fan of federalism. I think State regulators 
have a really important role to play.
    Mr. Walden. I agree, up to a point.
    Mr. Lyons. But they are focusing on what is important for 
their State, right, and there are some times when what is best 
for a particular State is not what is best for the economy as a 
whole, right.
    So, for example, hypothetically, right, you get a pipeline 
that is coming down from Canada into Massachusetts. It has to 
traverse New Hampshire. If New Hampshire residents aren't 
benefiting from that, then they many not want, you know, to cut 
through.
    Mr. Walden. Right.
    Mr. Lyons. If it is something that is great for the whole 
but not so great--hypothetically--if it is great for the 
economy as a whole but it is not--but a particular State has a 
veto authority, we need to make sure that----
    Mr. Walden. This is the balance we have to figure out.
    Mr. Lyons [continuing]. The balancing act is being done at 
the right level.
    Mr. Walden. Yes. We face a lot in the West with Federal 
public lands. I had a community that was trying to get three-
phase power for the first time in this tiny little town, and I 
don't remember now. It took a couple of years to go through the 
siting process because they, as I recall, had to put four power 
poles on Bureau of Land Management land. It took a couple of 
years to go through the process.
    And this is the stuff--there has got to be a better way to 
do this. Now, I want to flag one other issue as we deal with 
the communications issues and foreign issues.
    In Portland, Oregon, right now, somebody is going around 
putting up stickers on lampposts saying that 5G is a hazard to 
your health that look like they are official.
    The New York Times has reported on what Russian television 
and propaganda is doing to convince people that somehow 5G is 
bad.
    And I think--you can go read the New York Times story. I 
mean, it is there. Meanwhile, in Russia, I am told, they are 
telling everybody that it cures cancer. Here they are telling 
us it is going to cause cancer.
    We have got to be recognizing on 5G deployment we have to 
win this race, and I think this is worthy of us taking a look 
at what is going on by some of our adversaries.
    I will show you the story. KGW-TV did a fact check on it. 
It is, like, this is not official stuff. But we are going to 
see that around the country.
    We have got to win the war on 5G. We need to use our 
natural resources, especially natural gas. You look at 16 
gigawatts of coal that has come offline because of fuel 
switching, principally. But if you can't get the natural gas 
where you need it, then you are going to inhibit that growth 
and that development.
    So there is a lot more that we need to do. Mr. Lyons, I 
certainly see a component to what we are trying to do here and 
to work with the States, and I appreciate your testimony.
    One question maybe for--is it Mr. ``Guth''? ``Gooth''? The 
underlying question, kind of what happened to the White House--
you know, everybody got together and said, we got a $2 trillion 
thing--we all agree.
    How do we pay for this? How do we pay for this, $40 
billion? These are authorizations. This isn't, you know----
    Mr. Guith. The first principle or pillar within our 
infrastructure plan was consistent with what we have been 
saying for 20 years, which is raising the user fuel tax----
    Mr. Walden. Right.
    Mr. Guith [continuing]. Because it hasn't been touched 
since the '80s and----
    Mr. Walden. But you are not going to use that to pay for 
these things?
    Mr. Guith. Well, we will work with, certainly, Congress 
expressing our positions on that. But, ultimately, as Mr. 
Donohue stated this morning in the Washington Post, it is going 
to take more than even just that to get to $2 trillion. I mean, 
it is going to take private-sector investment, and the quickest 
way to get to that is to make it more transparent and more 
predictable as far as how we permit these roads, bridges, and 
energy infrastructure.
    Mr. Walden. Very good. All right. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Walden.
    Next, we move to Ms. DeGette, recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    And Mr. Walden, you are exactly right about the 5G 
disinformation that is in Denver, and it is everywhere. I 
think, Mr. Chairman, we should have an O&I hearing on it, is my 
opinion.
    But what I want to talk about in my questions is the 
environmental applications of this wonderful piece of 
legislation, because infrastructure is not just limited to 
roads and bridges.
    It also has a lot of other components, and that is why I am 
really happy that there is $2.7 billion in this bill for 
brownfields redevelopment grants.
    I have been involved in this issue back in the mists of 
time since I was in the State legislature when I authored the 
Colorado version of Brownfields.
    It was called the Colorado State Voluntary Cleanup and 
Redevelopment Program, and it is still in use to this day and 
it has been used to clean up thousands of areas--old dry 
cleaners and gas stations and industrial sites.
    And then, of course, in 2002 this committee first 
authorized the Federal Brownfields program. And in cities like 
Denver we can see how important those programs are to 
redevelopment in urban areas, and these funds will really allow 
communities to continue with the success but also to have 
economic development.
    Mayor, I am wondering if you can comment very briefly on 
Brownfields and how the mayors look at this towards an economic 
generator.
    Mr. Wahler. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    It is no secret that the United States Conference of Mayors 
have been very supportive of the Brownfields program. As a 
matter of fact, one of my colleagues from New Jersey, Mayor 
Chris Bollwage of Elizabeth, New Jersey, has testified on 
numerous times here in front of this committee and testified 
recently last year when the new bill was authorized and then 
signed into law.
    Listen, Brownfields--anytime you can clean up a property 
and put it back to use, whether it is for residential or 
commercial use, is a good thing in this country.
    Nobody wants to be living next to Brownfields or Superfund 
sites, for lack of a better word, and I think when towns have a 
partnership with the Federal Government, working hand in hand 
to put tax revenues back to good use and to create economic 
activity out there, that is a great thing for both the 
municipal governments, the county governments, and even the 
State governments.
    Ms. DeGette. And it is a good economic stimulator. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Wahler. Absolutely. You know, almost every community in 
the United States has a Brownfields site.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
    Ms. Eckdish, I want--the bill also has $2.5 billion to 
create grant programs to install solar panels within low-income 
and underserved communities.
    I am wondering if you can talk to me about how that impacts 
jobs in those local communities, both installing and 
maintaining.
    Ms. Eckdish. Sure. We know that investing in clean energy 
is, you know, not only a climate solution but a job creator. I 
think what we would hope to see is that these new programs 
include strong labor and procurement standards to make sure 
that not only are we creating jobs, you know, installing these 
solar panels or whether it is other wind, solar, clean energy 
opportunities--that we are not only creating jobs at the 
project sites themselves but that we are, A, making sure they 
are good jobs with labor standards and with procurement 
standards, that we are also thinking about the materials that 
are going to those projects.
    Ms. DeGette. And that is a continuing source of employment 
for our communities. Is that right?
    Ms. Eckdish. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. Now, another question I wanted to ask you 
about is, you know, the LIFT Act builds on the drinking water 
State Revolving Fund by respecting State and local 
decisionmaking.
    In my community right now, we are involved in a very 
difficult collaborative process with the State and actually the 
EPA because they have found lead in the water in Denver, 
including in the pipes that go to my house because the pipes 
are so old.
    So I am wondering if you can talk about why it is important 
to respect the solutions for the cities and States when you are 
providing the Federal funding.
    Ms. Eckdish. Absolutely, and we know these communities 
exist across the country and there are millions of Americans 
being served by lead service lines or water systems that have 
lead components, and it is a tragic situation.
    The State Revolving Funds are very proven, effective 
programs, and we commend the LIFT Act for recognizing that, and 
this committee had done tremendous work to ensure that those 
programs are effective.
    And they also include strong labor and procurement 
standards that make sure that the investments we are making in 
our water systems also create good jobs both in the 
construction and the manufacturing of those components.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Ms. DeGette.
    Next, we have Mr. Upton for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would guess--I 
think most of my questions are going to be directed at Mr. 
Guith.
    I appreciated your comments about PFAS. That is one of the 
things this committee and certainly the subcommittee that Mr. 
Tonko and Mr. Shimkus lead is focused on that, not only in this 
Congress but also in the last one.
    Michigan, we have been particularly hard hit with this. Our 
Governor did a really good job of working with every community 
in our State to find out what municipal water systems might be 
impacted both above 10,000 users as well as under 10,000 and, 
sadly, tragically, I have one in my district, and particularly 
those with individual wells are still going to be drinking 
bottled water for some time to come.
    And we did have some cooperation between the city of 
Kalamazoo and Parchment to put together a water system so that 
the Parchment system now is with Kalamazoo but they were just 
really lucky that it was so close.
    But this legislation--the LIFT legislation--does establish 
a nonregulatory Federal grant program to aid PFAS-affected 
drinking water utilities, and we know it is going to be more 
than just one in not only Michigan but around the country as 
well.
    Do you find that that is a pretty good way to address the 
PFAS issues--and, again, it does fit in with the jobs and 
environment situation, but it is a really critical need that 
communities are going to need very much like what we saw with 
lead in Clinton and other communities as well.
    Mr. Guith. Absolutely. We think that because the PFAS 
contamination invariably hits all 50 States and Territories 
probably--all 435 House districts--there is a significant need 
for remediation in addressing the contamination.
    But as I noted in my testimony, the one thing we would be 
concerned with is that it divert funds from existing safe 
drinking water funding, and as somebody from Michigan and 
having referenced the lead issue, that is something that I 
would expect many up there would not want to see happen----
    Mr. Upton. Yes, I think we are going to have to expand the 
pool of dollars that are available, and just like, you know, 
lead is bad, PFAS is a relatively new contaminant that many 
people still don't know about. But it is just as harmful, as we 
saw with the lead issue.
    You know, as we talk about creating jobs and protecting the 
environment, again, one of the issues that this committee is 
going to be working on--and thanks to Mr. Rush and Pallone and, 
again, bipartisan, something going back to John Dingell and 
certainly Debbie Dingell now--is the pipeline safety 
authorization bill, which, as you may know, expires in 
September of this year.
    We have been beginning hearings and to, again, work on a 
bipartisan basis. Creates jobs and protects the environment. We 
know that that's the safest way to transport oil and gas 
through.
    There are several congressional mandates that are left over 
from the prior reauthorizations. They involve important 
rulemakings relating to gas and liquid integrity management, 
leak detection, safety valves, mapping of high consequence 
areas, other important safety rules.
    We are going to be working on increased funding for 
infrastructure. So do you think that it is important that we 
link some of that funding related to upgraded safety practices 
as well?
    Mr. Guith. Absolutely. As this country continues to grow 
its production of both oil and gas, the pipeline system is 
expanding and it is becoming incredibly more important to the 
movement of those fuels and those resources.
    And, you know, I think this committee pointed out when when 
you had the PHMSA hearing a few weeks back that, you know, 
modernizing PHMSA and getting it more personnel is incredibly 
important, and it is to keep up with the pace of a burgeoning 
U.S. energy sector.
    Mr. Upton. And Ms. Eckdish, as part of the BlueGreen 
Alliance, I mean, this is really a job creator. I mean, we had 
a pipeline break in my--actually, it was outside of my 
district--back in 2010. That gas line was completely replaced.
    Four and a half million dollars a mile is what the cost to 
replace it was. They did it with a new standard and, you know, 
the one spill, again, was outside of my district, but it was a 
billion dollars to clean up.
    So a pipeline safety bill is, you know, anywhere we look--
and Mr. Shimkus has been a good leader on this as well--but 
more than a million miles of pipelines across the country, this 
is something we ought to focus on, knowing that in fact it is 
going to be better for the environment. Wouldn't you agree?
    Ms. Eckdish. Absolutely. Pipeline safety is not only a 
safety issue. It is a critical safety issue. It is also an 
environmental issue when you consider methane emissions from 
these pipelines being, you know, an extremely potent driver of 
climate change as well as the tremendous job creation potential 
that can be achieved by repairing and replacing some of these 
pipelines as well as through leak detection and repair.
    Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired, but I know other 
colleagues will talk about the importance of cybersecurity 
related to this, too.
    Yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this hearing and introducing this important legislation 
which I was proud to cosponsor, and I want to thank all the 
witnesses for being here today also.
    My hometown of Pittsburgh, like many cities, has aging 
infrastructure than can threaten the health and safety of 
residents if it is not properly updated and maintained.
    I am glad to see that the LIFT Act includes investments in 
drinking water infrastructure as lead and PFAS contamination 
remain issues in our region and throughout Pennsylvania.
    Also very happy to see the investments in energy, health, 
and communications infrastructure as well. These investments 
are critical to the future of our country.
    Commissioner Clyburn, Chairman Pallone's LIFT America Act 
would invest $40 billion in deploying broadband infrastructure 
to communities across rural America.
    Many of the members of this committee represent communities 
that lack access to broadband. Why is it important that 
Congress invest in the deployment?
    What would this bill achieve that private investment and 
existing Federal programs won't? And what do we lose by not 
making this investment today, and what will those communities 
lose?
    Ms. Clyburn. Well, I will start with the last first. We 
lose our young people. They won't have the educational 
opportunities or access to them needed.
    We lose quicker our older and those who are medically 
challenged because they might not have a specialist nearby, but 
with connectivity they are able to access it.
    One of the things that you just put forth in that question 
is it is not so much what we will lose, it is what we can't 
afford to. I mean, literally, we literally can't afford because 
we are paying the price for the lack of infrastructure.
    We are paying a price for the lack of access. We are paying 
a high price, and communities are not competitive. People are 
not getting access to goods and services they need to thrive. 
We lose a lot--we lose a little bit of everyone in those 
communities when we don't address this.
    Mr. Doyle. So can this deployment happen strictly on 
private investment and existing programs, or does the Federal 
Government----
    Ms. Clyburn. Well, if the last 5 years is any indication, 
and when you don't see appreciably the number of, you know, 24 
million according to the FCC, million people not--that has been 
hovering. That number has been constant for a long time.
    So the public-private partnership, while it has 
incrementally been doing some positive, it is not getting us to 
where we need to get in an expedited way. This is a targeted 
infusion, a promised infusion in those communities. With a 
public-private partnership, again, it is more of a tortoise-
and-hare approach.
    Mr. Doyle. Let me ask you also about, Chairman Pallone's 
LIFT America Act would invest $12 billion in deploying Next 
Generation 9-1-1 service. It is a critical issue, and it is one 
that has been championed by my friends Anna Eshoo and John 
Shimkus.
    When will NG 9-1-1 service be deployed to all Americans if 
we don't make this investment now, and what are the risks if we 
delay doing this?
    And then also talk a little bit about the benefits of NT 9-
1-1 service to regular Americans, and in particular what are 
the advantages to people living in communities that are subject 
to extreme storms and weathers like California and Texas and 
Florida and Puerto Rico? I mean, right as we speak today, 
throughout the Midwest, States are just being pummelled with 
tornadoes 4, 5, 6 days in a row. What are the impacts of not 
having that service for those people?
    Ms. Clyburn. The impact of not moving to the next 
evolutionary phase is lives lost, both from the person who has 
the emergency and the critical person who is providing the 
service.
    One of the images that I saw that I think sums it up is, 
one of the first responders needed a response, and I really 
believe if we had a video and robust texting opportunities they 
might have been better able to assess that emergency and really 
acted on it.
    There are too many public safety centers that can't take 
texts. You know, you have to call. Now, heaven forbid if I get 
held up and can't, you know, talk. I am more at risk.
    So not addressing this and maintaining a 50-year-old 
framework, which is what we are doing now and not moving ahead, 
really does not allow individuals to communicate in a way. It 
doesn't allow for interoperability, and it doesn't allow for us 
to be as safe as we need to be.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Shimkus for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    A great hearing, multiple issues. I wish we had more time, 
but we got, obviously, a big attendance here also. So I am 
going to try to go pretty quick.
    I want to really highlight Jerry McNerney for dropping the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendment of 2019. Blunt Rochester is 
a cosponsor. Doyle is. Flores is. Hundred-billion-dollar 
infrastructure plan over a hundred years paid for.
    Sounds like a pretty good deal. And that is what this act 
would do, and it would help rail, roads getting our nuclear 
waste, which is all over the country--121 locations, 39 
States--to a long-term repository.
    So I want to thank him for that, and I want to encourage my 
colleagues on the committee to look at that bill and ask us 
questions, and then consider cosponsoring it, as the chairman 
is at least supportive of having a hearing and discussing this, 
and I appreciate that.
    But it is $100 billion over a hundred years paid for 
because ratepayers have paid into a fund to enact this. So it 
is nothing--when we ask about where the money is coming from, 
the ratepayers in these States have already paid for this. So I 
want to make that----
    Mr. Guith, do you think there can be a viable long-term 
energy and national security policy and this climate debate 
without nuclear power?
    Mr. Guith. No.
    Mr. Shimkus. And I----
    Mr. Guith. There is scientific consensus around that.
    Mr. Shimkus. All right. And, you know, nuclear being 
carbon-fee emissions, if we want to meet any type of objectives 
and keep rates somewhat acceptable, we will still have to have 
base load major generation. So I appreciate that.
    Also, Mr. Tonko and I were able in the last Congress to 
reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act through this 
committee--the Bbrownfieldsrownfields redevelopment, which the 
mayor talked about, and I sat through a lot of those hearings 
with your colleagues.
    I think the only thing that gives me pause on this parts of 
legislation is this is authorization. Then the question is 
appropriation. And do we run the risk of authorizing--setting 
the bar so high that two things.
    One is it is unrealistic because there is always going to 
be some buy-in and that it causes--you know, it causes a more 
of a pause because we are planning for all these big things but 
the money just doesn't show.
    And I want to go with Mr. Guith, but I do want to ask also 
to the mayor also.
    Mr. Guith. It's an age-old friction between authorizers and 
appropriators, and that's how the system is set up and we think 
it is important to make sure that authorizers take the time to 
stipulate what the parameters of the program should be 
regularly--not, you know, every couple of decades but 
regularly--and then take a very active role in the 
appropriations process to ensure that it is backed up with the 
actual moneys that are needed to fund the programs.
    Mr. Shimkus. Mayor?
    Mr. Wahler. I think one of the drawbacks of what you are 
saying is that, you know, backdooring the ARRA with the energy 
efficiency block grant program, there was some criticism of the 
fact that the program didn't get off the way it should have 
been.
    But part of the problem was through the Department of 
Energy. They set a lot of bureaucratic regulations within that, 
and then we had to report ARRA standards too. Towns and cities 
and counties across this country are used to the model of the 
community development block grant programming.
    And I wouldn't necessarily fault the towns and communities 
for that. Like in my community, we already have an 8-year 
program. We know what needs to get done. It is about $100 
million worth of projects. But the problem is, we just don't 
have all the money.
    Mr. Shimkus. Right.
    Mr. Wahler. And we need seed money in a lot of cases.
    Mr. Shimkus. Is there not a concern of false expectations 
with high numbers and----
    Mr. Wahler. No. You know what? You know, we have----
    Mr. Shimkus. If you could be quick. I got one more question 
I got to get in.
    Mr. Wahler. OK. We have an aging infrastructure out there. 
Everybody knows that.
    Mr. Shimkus. Right.
    Mr. Wahler. At all levels of all multifacets. Something 
needs to be done and----
    Mr. Shimkus. OK. Let me ask about this, because this is 
tied into the committee of jurisdiction and you have already 
talked about the PFAS issue.
    So we got PFOA, PFAS--600 of these somewhat chemical chains 
in our, you know, in our environment. What if some of these, 
Mayor, are safe, because there is different formulations of 
this, and if the government says you have to clean up something 
that is safe at that investment capital, would you or could 
you, or would you----
    Mr. Wahler. Well, I just want to let the record reflect I 
am not a medical doctor to talk like that.
    Mr. Shimkus. Well, yes. You are talking to us.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Wahler. But the end game is, is that nobody wants to 
see unsafe drinking water. My good friend Karen Weaver from 
Flint, Michigan, I don't--I would not--I just emphasize what 
the folks in Flint, Michigan, had to go through, and I am sure 
nobody in this room ever wants to see that in your community 
out there.
    But we need to work with the health professionals 
nationally along with the counties and towns across this 
country.
    Mr. Shimkus. And my time is way expired, but I would just 
say we got to make sure we know if it is--what is safe and what 
is not safe, and we got to be careful about saying ``ban 
everything,'' because some of that stuff may be safe and high 
cost.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You let me go way over my time, 
and I appreciate it.
    Mr. Pallone. OK.
    Next I will recognize Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome 
to the panel. Thank you for being here today.
    I was pleased to see that the LIFT America Act reauthorized 
the popular Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or as we call it, 
DERA program.
    As you may know, earlier this spring I introduced 
legislation to reauthorize DERA and led the effort to secure 
robust funding in fiscal year 2020 appropriations.
    Diesel engines still pose a unique problem because of the 
long lifespan of the equipment, with some engines operating for 
up to 20 or 30 years.
    Because of this, the transition to newer, cleaner engines 
has been slow, and as a result diesel fuel consumption still 
accounts for a large percentage of our transportation sector 
carbon dioxide emissions--24 percent in 2017 alone, according 
to the Energy Information Administration.
    Ms. Eckdish, can you quickly discuss how the nature of 
diesel engines poses a unique challenge to our local 
communities?
    Ms. Eckdish. Thank you for the question.
    That specific issue is a little bit outside of my area of 
expertise. But I would say to your broader point about the need 
to address diesel and other emissions from the transportation 
sector, we have a long way to go and what LIFT America Act has 
done so far in terms of both the diesel emission reduction 
program as well as building out EV infrastructure is a step in 
the right direction, and we want to make sure that the 
emissions go down and that we are creating good jobs while we 
do that.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
    And I think it is important, as you mentioned, that this 
bill is prioritizing electric vehicle, or EV, infrastructure, 
you know, because transportation emissions, as we said, are now 
the largest single source of emissions in this country.
    While we thought we might get a handle on this under the 
Obama administration's rules on fuel economy and greenhouse gas 
emission standards, the Trump administration decided to roll 
back these standards and bring our country backwards when it 
comes to cleaning up our transportation sector.
    This is, obviously, a critical part of our larger vision to 
combat climate change and create healthier, safer communities 
for our constituents.
    While I have introduced legislation that will safeguard 
these standards, it is also important to provide robust 
investments for EV infrastructure and the purchase of EVs.
    Mayor Wahler or Ms. Eckdish, can either of you discuss what 
some of the largest barriers to widespread adoption of EVs is 
today and how this bill might alleviate some of these 
obstacles?
    Mr. Mayor?
    Mr. Wahler. I think, Congresswoman, the question is a lot 
of towns and cities have really stepped up to the plate because 
there is--for lack of a better word, there hasn't been so much 
of a partnership at the Federal level or, in some cases, at the 
State level.
    So most of the initiatives that you see positively across 
this country has been happening at the State and local level, 
to a certain extent. Like in my community, we recognize that 
with charging stations that we have to start somewhere.
    So we changed our zoning laws. Any new large development or 
commercial developments have to supply charging station areas 
as well at government facilities that we've been doing because, 
basically, 80 percent of the roadways in this country are 
municipal or county.
    So if you are going to ever have a network system to reduce 
carbon emissions, we need to start at the local level.
    Ms. Matsui. Right. And I really believe--I think what you 
are saying, too, is having a Federal activity in this realm 
would be great.
    I mean, in California we are doing it. In fact, our 
utilities are helping with the EV charging stations themselves, 
which actually activates the incentive to buy EV automobiles--
--
    Mr. Wahler. That is an exception, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Matsui. I know.
    Mr. Wahler. Your State is an exception.
    Ms. Matsui. But if we get it at the national level, I think 
that would be very helpful also.
    I want to ask a question about the Remote Areas Fund. I am 
switching here, but this is everything here.
    In 2011, the FCC acknowledged that the highest-cost, 
hardest-to-reach places around the country should be targeted 
through a Remote Area Fund--as we call it, RAF.
    In 2017, the Commission reaffirmed that it aims to move 
forward with the RAF no later than a year after the Connect 
America Fund reverse auction.
    Many RAF-eligible communities still do not have access to a 
safe and reliable broadband option. If structured properly, the 
RAF would reach the communities in rural America where it is 
truly no business case to serve.
    Now, Commissioner Clyburn, mindful of the larger proposed 
reforms to the Universal Service Fund, do you have any idea 
what steps the FCC could take to ensure the RAF is a success? 
We have got 25 seconds here.
    Ms. Clyburn. Oh. One of the things that I think it could do 
is get the maps right so we can have an accurate feel for what 
is needed. Another is ensure that it is technology neutral so 
we can extract the best ideas for our buck, and leveraging what 
I know you will do today through this act it definitely will 
help move things along.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Dr. Burgess recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Auerbach, I want to thank you for mentioning the 
Pandemic All-Hazard Preparedness Act reauthorization. It was, 
indeed, a very high priority of this committee and the Health 
Subcommittee last Congress and due to the--an even temperament 
over in the other body, and I am being careful with my 
language.
    It did finally pass on unanimous consent earlier this week. 
As we are just a little bit past the 100-year anniversary of 
the Spanish flu, it is important to get this done, and you are 
correct to mention some of the infrastructure needs because 
that is so critical.
    For the first time we will authorize the system Biowatch. 
We had Mission Zero, which was to--it was a force multiplier 
for our trauma surgeons and military-trained physicians. So 
there is a lot of good stuff in that bill, and I am glad the 
Senate finally passed it.
    Professor Lyons, you brought up the concept of allocation 
proportion, which I think is reasonable in a State like Texas 
where we have--what, 85 percent of the State lives within 50 
miles of Interstate 35 going north to south, from the north 
Texas area down to Laredo, and then you got the rest of Texas.
    So then allocation proportion becomes very important. In 
fact, I was reading some stuff in the local press and the 
Houston Press this morning about how concerned they are about 
the formulas that are being used to allocate these dollars.
    And I don't know if you have any thoughts on that, but we 
are going to have to make sure that we keep up with the fact 
that it may not be as straightforward as the FCC has 
demonstrated in their formulas.
    Mr. Lyons. I think that is right. I think the goal in 
allocating the dollars should be to keep an eye on what the 
overall purpose of the subsidy is, which first and foremost is 
to make sure that you are reaching unserved areas.
    And so, when figuring out how to allocate the dollars that 
are being distributed to the States, the important thing I 
think is to figure out what is the population of the unserved 
area in each State and allocate the money that way.
    That way you make sure that you don't have the unintended 
consequence of sending too much money to one State or another 
because of the fact that city might have a larger urban area.
    Mr. Burgess. So you have got a lot of geography in some 
areas without a lot of population, and it just makes it 
technically more difficult. But it doesn't mean that it 
shouldn't be done.
    Mr. Lyons. That is right, and I think that is why the 
technology-neutral point is really important too, because 
wireless solutions may be great in Kansas. It's not going to be 
so great in mountainous West Virginia, right.
    So giving more flexibility to bidders to figure out how 
best to serve individual areas makes a lot of sense to me.
    Mr. Burgess. Very good. Thank you.
    Mr. Guith, you struck on something that has really 
concerned me since I first got here in 2003, and that is the 
streamlining of permitting.
    At that time I was thinking more in the terms of road 
construction, and we had the 50-year anniversary of the 
interstate highway system, and I think 80 percent of it was 
built in the first 25 years of the--the last connectivity was 
built in the next 25 years because the permitting process had 
become so difficult.
    The president has said this--it can't take longer to permit 
a project than it does to build a project--and I trust that 
your group is working on that, working with the White House, 
working with the Congress to make sure that we keep that top of 
mind.
    Mr. Guith. Very much so, and it is, like I said, a 
bipartisan effort. FAST-41 was the last time we touched upon 
this issue. It took many years. It was painful, but it was 
rewarding because both sides holding hands and we saw the first 
meaningful changes, maybe not substantive but more transparency 
as far as how the Federal permitting system works so that 
people from the outside--the project sponsors could figure out 
where their project is and who is reviewing it and, oh by the 
way, you know, this agency doesn't talk to this agency and 
maybe they should.
    So now there is a interlocutor who can do that. So it is a 
huge step forward, and we are looking for a few more of those 
huge step forwards in this process.
    Mr. Burgess. Well, thank you and thank you for that. It is 
critical that we keep that in mind.
    Ms. Eckdish, let me just ask you a question. I was at the 
White House last week and the President, as you may have heard, 
had an event regarding immigration and visas.
    I think you correctly talk about American-made products 
being the ones that we want to use on these projects. You 
talked about a fair wage for employees.
    Would you be willing to accept--if this legislation were to 
come through the Rules Committee, where I also sit, would you 
be willing to accept an amendment to require mandatory eVerify 
so we can be certain we are giving American jobs for American 
workers at American wages?
    Ms. Eckdish. I am not sure that we have a position on that 
as a coalition. But I would be happy to review and get back to 
you.
    Mr. Burgess. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will 
yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    So next is the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our 
panel. And I want to salute you, Mr. Chairman, for assembling 
this very important package of infrastructure investments. It 
is about time, and our committee, I think, is very well 
positioned to contribute to the broad discussion we are having 
across the Congress about making this a priority.
    Last Congress, I was very proud to be a cosponsor of the 
LIFT America Act, and I am certainly pleased again to do it in 
this Congress.
    It provides, as we know from this discussion and certainly 
from pulling the bill together, its many components, much-
needed resources for our Nation's critical infrastructure.
    I know that typically when we hear ``infrastructure,'' the 
first thing that comes to mind for many people is roads and 
bridges, and obviously those are important pieces of our 
physical infrastructure and are in dire need of important 
resources.
    But we can't forget about other infrastructure that is 
vital to the health and well-being of Americans: drinking water 
infrastructure, the electric grid, and infrastructure for 
community health centers being among them.
    I wanted to focus my attention on the electric grid, which 
is facing many challenges, as we know. There is growing demand. 
There is need for reliability, integration of new technologies, 
need for resiliency against climate change and extreme weather 
events.
    These are all challenges that require that our electric 
grid adapt to 21st century requirements.
    Ms. Eckdish, can you just talk for a moment about how 
modernizing our grid--our electric grid--is a smart investment, 
from helping obviously to address carbon emissions to promoting 
reliability and affordability, and any other benefits that you 
would like to observe?
    Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you for the question.
    And as you rightly pointed out, there is a lot of work to 
do. Many of the components of our electric grid are from a 
hundred years ago.
    Our grid was built for an energy system of the past and not 
what we have today or what we are going to have in the future. 
So there is tremendous need for both grid modernization, smart 
grid updates, as well as investing in grid resiliency, all of 
which the LIFT America Act does.
    There is also significant need to build out our 
transmission lines to both increase efficiency and reliability 
as well as facilitate the incorporation of more renewables onto 
our grid.
    All of those will have significant impacts, benefits from 
addressing climate change to making our communities more 
resilient. There are also very significant infrastructure 
projects that, again, if we include strong labor standards and 
procurement standards can create good-quality jobs.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much.
    Mr. Wahler, you certainly know firsthand about the 
importance of a resilient and reliable grid, as your community 
was devastated by Superstorm Sandy.
    Can you talk about how these extreme weather events like 
what you experienced and obviously what we are seeing more and 
more of across the country and as it relates to being handled 
or is being felt, I guess, most impactfully by people who are 
trying to lead at the local level, what the effect of those on 
our grid infrastructure is and how investments in the grid 
resiliency that we are talking about here are important for 
local communities?
    Mr. Wahler. If I may, Congressman, as well, most towns and 
cities are waiting for State regulators at the State level to 
have the transmission carriers upgrade their lines.
    Towns and cities at this point are looking at the backup 
resources there. Like, for instance, our community, we have a 
lot of solar panels in our facility.
    We also have backup generators on all of our pumping 
stations now, or the sewers. We actually have backup batteries 
for all 30 signalized intersections, because when the power 
grid goes down people still travel around the road and you have 
to have some safety measures.
    So that has been a challenging part for a lot of 
communities. They don't necessarily have the money to have the 
resiliency done, and that is why I think we really need a 
partnership at the Federal level to have a helping hand out 
there because, in times of a crisis like during Hurricane 
Sandy, where you had no power in our community for almost nine 
days straight when the weather was getting very cold out there, 
and you had people calling the mayor's office, ``How am I going 
to get heat?''
    And it is a very poignant--as Chairman Pallone knows, it is 
a very frightening situation for most of the general public. So 
this is something to be taken very seriously. Mayors and county 
officials across the country take this very seriously, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate your comments, and you talked 
about the importance of partnering from a resource standpoint, 
and I am very pleased that the bill I was able to work on and 
introduce, the 21st Century Power Grid Act, is included in this 
package because it would empower the Department of Energy to 
support projects that improve grid performance, security, 
resiliency, and it would do that through grantmaking and 
cooperative agreements. And those kinds of Federal investments 
in our grid infrastructure are essential if we are going to 
overcome the challenges that we are talking about here today.
    So thank you very much for your testimony, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Mr. Latta recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very 
much for having today's hearing, and thanks to our witnesses 
for being here today.
    Commissioner Clyburn, if I could start my questions with 
you. First of all, welcome back in your new capacity.
    Ms. Clyburn. Thank you.
    Mr. Latta. I appreciate your comments on how you noted 
Commissioner O'Rielly's work on the importance of coordination. 
It is something we have been focused on here in committee. The 
ACCESS BROADBAND recently passed the House, and I am looking 
forward at further steps we can take to get the different 
existing programs working together.
    Would you speak to some of the effects you have seen when 
coordination is lacking?
    Ms. Clyburn. One of the things that we see, and it might be 
a benefit to some people, but you see subsidizing of 
unsubsidized carriers getting money to serve the same area.
    Now, while that may fuel competition, we also see broadband 
providers not being in certain areas because of that. You know, 
lack of coordination and that is--you know, that disconnect and 
that, again, fuels all the opportunities.
    So the biggest thing is duplications--duplications, the 
inefficiency and, again, investments not going to areas. That 
is the saddest part of it--investment not going to areas where 
it is needed.
    Mr. Latta. OK. Thank you.
    Professor Lyons, should we try to address coordination in a 
more substantial way as we consider further spending on 
broadband deployment?
    Mr. Lyons. I think we have got several different programs 
that are sort of aiming at the same thing. But if they are not 
talking one another, you get a ton of overlap and inefficiency.
    One difficulty with creating these types of initiatives on 
a one-off basis is, once it is created, it tends to stick 
around. So I don't know if this is beyond the scope of what 
this committee is considering right now, but one solution might 
be to think about consolidating all of these into one program 
that would look more comprehensively at the question of serving 
unserved areas with one decisionmaker who is allocating one pot 
of money rather than dividing among several different groups.
    What I am thinking of is the Connect America Fund, which 
has done great work, but it is hobbled by the fact that it is 
laboring under restrictions of the Universal Service Fund that 
were created for a very different era.
    It is a program that is doing the best with what it can. 
But closing that down and shifting the money to something like 
this that is focused primarily on building broadband 
infrastructure out I think would be an improvement.
    Mr. Latta. OK. Let me ask another question to you. I agree 
with your comments that funding should be distributed on a 
technology-neutral basis.
    However, as you noted, the 100 megabit per second minimum 
service standard risks overinvesting in fewer projects. Does 
this service standard also threaten the principle of tech 
neutrality?
    Mr. Lyons. It does in the sense--if you--which is probably 
true right now, that 100 megabits per second minimum is one 
that some technologies can hit and others cannot.
    We have to think about ways to deploy good enough broadband 
or broadband that is going to connect people who are currently 
unconnected, and setting too high of a threshold may prevent 
the number of players who can come in and bid.
    I often tell my students that the satellite guys are 
perpetually creating a state-of-the-art network for, like, 7 
years ago. And I think that is a bit of an overstatement but 
the idea is that technology is great but it is advancing at the 
same rate that fiber is advancing and wireless is advancing. So 
they are perpetually just a little bit behind.
    But if they are meeting the mark that they can provide 
basic connectivity, they ought to be in the mix of the 
conversation and not be hobbled in their ability to bid in the 
reverse auction by the fact that they can't hit a 100 megabit 
target if a 100 megabit target hasn't been justified.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.
    Mr. Guith, while much of our Nation's infrastructure 
depends on Federal investments, the private sector needs to 
step up to make needed investments in our electric grid.
    In your view, what is the greatest impediment to unleashing 
more private-sector investments?
    Mr. Guith. Within the electric grid it is relatively 
simple. It is the inability to site intrastate transmission 
lines. Unlike with natural gas pipelines, where Congress 
bestowed a Federal preemption to FERC, licensing and permitting 
of transmission lines is a State-by-State, Balkanized process, 
and it frequently takes north of a decade to try and get 
through that process, and usually it turns out negatively.
    We have seen both DC and AC lines stopped by a single 
State, even though it may benefit, you know, 14 States.
    So it would be very useful to have that Federal preemption 
for transmission the same way we do with natural gas, although 
you probably have 50 Governors who might take issue with that.
    Mr. Latta. And just in my last 10 seconds, you might answer 
a little bit of this. But what should Congress do to encourage 
more public-private partnerships? I know you just mentioned 
preemption.
    Mr. Guith. I am sorry. Can you repeat the last part of the 
question?
    Mr. Latta. Yes. What should Congress do to encourage more 
of the public-private partnerships?
    Mr. Guith. Fundamentally, just more transparency, more 
predictability. There are trillions of dollars out there both 
in corporations, financial service funds as well as foreign 
sovereign funds, who are willing to invest in all forms of 
infrastructure within the United States.
    But it is not predictable enough right now, and providing 
that predictability will open the floodgates to that additional 
money that is not coming from the U.S. taxpayer.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I appreciate the 
indulgence. I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Mr. McNerney recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I thank the chairman. I thank the 
witnesses for coming in this morning and talking and preparing. 
It is a big effort.
    My constituents and Americans across the country need 
broadband access to fully participate in our society. The LIFT 
Act will result in smart Federal investments and broadband 
deployment to achieve this goal.
    But I am concerned that many Americans still are unable to 
get online because they face adoption hurdles such as not being 
able to afford broadband service and the necessary devices or 
do not have digital literacy skills.
    Commissioner Clyburn, based on your experience at the 
Commission, what are some of the ways that the lack of adoption 
impacts low-income individuals in their communities?
    Ms. Clyburn. Well, one thing that I am happy about, today I 
consider it a very significant $40 billion down payment. This 
is but a first step, however.
    You rightly mentioned that in order for a person to be 
truly connected it has to be affordable, it has to be 
available, and they have to know or be comfortable in using it, 
because if they are not comfortable accessing online, if they 
cannot download an app, and if you don't have those skills 
needed, you won't have workforce development training.
    You will not be able to be retooled for the 21st century. 
So all of these things are necessary. It is a multiprong, 
definitely a stool effect that is needed--a number of legs on 
the stool. This is one. Digital literacy and other 
opportunities are others.
    Mr. McNerney. So you already sort of answered my second 
question. Would you agree that there is additional Federal 
investments needed for broadband skills and digital literary 
training?
    Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely. A very wonderful complement is a 
proposed digital equity act. You know, that, again, has to be a 
complement to this. Otherwise, America will not be truly 
connected.
    Mr. McNerney. Very good. Well, I have been working with 
Chairman Pallone on that and plan to introduce that soon so we 
get to some of these issues so the disadvantaged and 
underserved communities aren't left out.
    Moving on to water infrastructure, the Smart Energy and 
Water Efficiency Act proposed by Mr. Kinzinger and myself is 
included in this LIFT Act, and this creates a pilot project for 
innovative technologies to improve energy efficiency of water, 
waste water, and water reuse systems.
    My district is at the heart of the California delta, and I 
have a responsibility to be a good steward of that incredible 
resource.
    Mr. Wahler, can you address the need for grants to improve 
water and waste water infrastructure in communities like yours?
    Mr. Wahler. Well, right now, cities and towns across this 
country and particularly mine, we float a lot of money through 
it--the Federal and State--and there is a very small portion of 
the down payment money.
    Like I said before, we spend an average of $10 million a 
year on infrastructure even though our water has been in 
private hands for a number of years. I do know that the water 
purveyor has been making substantial public improvements out 
there on the roadways to make sure that the clean standards are 
being followed and that we don't have any areas where we have 
to shut down schools because of nonsafe water.
    However, what I would like to say is that we need to have 
towns and counties that don't necessarily have the expertise 
out there.
    Grants such as what you were mentioning would help them get 
that expertise and do proper long-term planning out there so, 
when they go to do a large capital investment of the local 
public dollars, they will be able to do it correctly.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Auerbach, you testified that Americans' life expectancy 
has dropped for the last 3 years in a row. Is that in line with 
other developed countries?
    Mr. Auerbach. It isn't. We are seeing more of a gap that is 
growing between the United States and other developed 
countries. We have looked at the reasons for that. Some of the 
causes of increased deaths in the United States relate to 
opiate epidemics, suicides, et cetera. So paying attention to 
those differences, I think, is part of what we need to do to 
understand how to close that gap.
    Mr. McNerney. Do you think the LIFT Act will help remedy 
this?
    Mr. Auerbach. It will. Our ability to respond efficiently 
to the challenges that we are facing now will benefit the 
American people in terms of better surveillance, better 
understanding of where there are concentrations of particular 
problems that may be related to the opioid epidemic.
    If we have got the kind of data systems that allow us to 
have interoperable communication, we can target those 
particular areas with interventions that we know work in terms 
of prevention and response.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I was going to talk about 
infrastructure on transmission. Just yesterday, a colleague, 
Bob Latta, and I hosted a grid innovation expo to highlight 
some of the technologies out there, and I hope that Members and 
staff take advantage of that information as we move forward.
    Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Mrs. Rodgers?
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all 
the witnesses being here today. I wanted to highlight the 
broadband in rural areas issue, which is especially important. 
I think it is fundamental to our economic success and our 
future. It is certainly part of the infrastructure of the 21st 
century.
    Unfortunately, too many rural areas are being left behind, 
including some in eastern Washington that I represent. And to 
make matters worse, an issue that has been highlighted this 
Congress is the inaccurate broadband mapping and the data that 
is greatly overstated--the coverage in the rural areas.
    I am pleased that broadband is part of the discussion today 
and, as we think about an infrastructure package, that this is 
going to be a priority.
    However, with the economic survival of our rural 
communities at stake, we must avoid the mistakes of the past 
and ensure that the limited resources we are able to provide 
make it to the areas that need it the most.
    Forty billion dollars is a considerable amount of funding. 
But its ability to make a dent in the digital divide is going 
to be reliant on accurate data.
    And that is why in the coming weeks I am planning on 
introducing the House version of the Broadband Data Improvement 
Act. This bill will ensure that the FCC is compiling the most 
complete and granular data on broadband access.
    Mr. Lyons, how important is it for the current mapping 
process to be improved and made more accurate and granular 
before distributing new funds to deploy broadband in the rural 
areas?
    Mr. Lyons. I think it is absolutely vital. I think that 
analysis is only as good as the data that is fueling the 
analysis, right.
    You can have complex statistical models to figure out how 
something is going to work, but if it is bad data being fed 
into it, then you are going to get bad results out.
    I think everybody acknowledges that the FCC's existing 
mapping protocols don't really work. They are based on Form 
477, which was developed back in the dial-up era, right--back 
when most of us didn't have internet and those that did were 
dealing with that junky static noise, right.
    The FCC is updating that, and I think it is long overdue 
and it is going to be valuable. I think there's also a lot of 
public-private partnerships that could be valuable in this 
space. Things like U.S. Telecom and WISPA are currently engaged 
in a pilot project to map within some of their jurisdictions.
    Somebody mentioned crowd sourcing, which I think is also 
really valuable. Just getting information that is disbursed in 
the populace up to the FCC or some other entity that can 
coordinate all these separate data points into more accurate 
mapping is also going to be valuable.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Appreciate that.
    For Mr. Guith, you may be aware that I am a strong 
proponent of hydropower. I come from Washington State. We are 
more than 70 percent dependent upon hydropower. It is clean. It 
is carbon free.
    We also enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the 
country. Hydropower is the largest renewable in America, and 
its role, as we move forward, is going to be really important.
    I have been working to increase the use of this important 
energy both nationally and internationally. Last year, we 
worked on legislation--bipartisan legislation--that passed the 
House to modernize the hydropower licensing process.
    The current regulations take on average 10 years to 
relicense a hydropower project in America, and you compare this 
to a natural gas facility that is, like, 18 months.
    I wanted to ask you how do you believe hydropower fits into 
the bigger picture of energy infrastructure.
    Mr. Guith. I think it is a great example of the United 
States being so rich in energy resources that it behooves us to 
use the resources that we have geographically.
    And growing up in northern California, we also rely on 
hydro significantly, and we run into issues all the time trying 
to site incremental increases in hydro and, frankly, have to 
fight to keep the existing generation we have. And not just 
from the generation standpoint, but increasingly from the pump 
storage standpoint.
    So I think hydro is and will remain an incredibly important 
part of our portfolio. But there can be more. There is 
certainly more capacity available in the United States, and it 
is not just in the Pacific Northwest, which is so blessed with 
hydro to begin with.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, and because of research, because of 
investment in new technologies--we have fish ladders, we have 
turbines that have larger outputs and we are getting to a place 
where dams are transparent to the fish--3 percent of the dams 
in America actually produce hydropower.
    So there is existing infrastructure that is currently there 
that with investment we could be producing clean, renewable 
electricity.
    So I wanted just to follow up. How do you believe that we 
reduce some of the burdensome regulations that are impacting 
our ability to really take advantage of this?
    Mr. Guith. Well, I think the work that Congress did with 
your leadership last year was a great first step. First and 
foremost, it is trying to identify what the issues are and then 
addressing them.
    In this case, like I said, there's a lot--I mean, you are 
talking about multiple agencies that you have to go through 
here, and sometimes they don't even know each other, let alone 
have communication lines to talk to each other.
    And so first, it is highlighting that, and we have seen the 
ability of the FIPC to address some of these issues, and it 
certainly applies to hydro as well.
    It is not the end-all be-all, but it is what is available 
right now. And there are certainly some additional bipartisan 
reforms, whether it is one Federal decision, some reasonable 
NEPA reforms that I think over time people will embrace that 
will help spur these things, including hydro.
    Mrs. Rodgers. I appreciate that, and it dominates in the 
Pacific Northwest, it is true. But I have always been amazed at 
the projects that are all over the country as well as all over 
the world.
    So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Ms. Castor is next, recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Pallone, for holding 
this very important hearing on how we modernize infrastructure 
across America.
    I agree with what I have heard from my colleagues and our 
terrific witnesses here today. We can boost higher-paying jobs 
across this country by expanding broadband, doubling down on 
the clean energy economy, doing some more on public health 
infrastructure, and I am hearing great support from folks I 
represent back home in the State of Florida.
    They understand what the Recovery Act meant to our 
communities, and they would like a more robust partnership. 
Really, the Federal Government has got to be a meaningful 
partner. It can't be just all talk, no action.
    I am particularly interested in how we build a 100 percent 
clean energy economy, going forward, and Ms. Eckdish, thank you 
so much for your leadership and that of the BlueGreen Alliance.
    You are already building partnerships across the country to 
build that clean energy economy. Would you go into greater 
detail on a few things--smart grid investments--why do you 
think that those smart grid investments could be a key to 
building the clean energy economy, and then talk about what it 
means for jobs when we are talking about smart grids and a 
modern electric grid.
    And then I would also like you to focus on energy 
efficiency in green buildings. I have seen what the private 
sector is doing. Now, the public sector wants to do more, but 
it seems like they need some resources from the feds to help 
give them a push.
    Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you for the question, and thank 
you for your leadership with the Select Committee.
    In terms of your first question, I think grid modernization 
is key both from a climate resilience perspective as well as a 
greenhouse gas emission reduction perspective.
    As I mentioned, grid modernization, grid resiliency, as 
well as transmission expansion can be key to facilitating 
electric vehicles as well as further deployment of clean energy 
onto our grid.
    It can also help ensure that our communities are more 
resilient to the impacts of climate change, as you know well in 
your State from power outages to flooding and storm surges.
    To your second question, building efficiency is key and a 
huge opportunity. There are already 2 million workers employed 
in the energy efficiency sector today.
    So with further investments, we know we can dramatically 
expand those jobs. And many of those today are already good 
jobs in the building and construction trades. With domestic 
content requirements, we can also expand the manufacturing of 
energy-efficient products and materials.
    There are already tremendous jobs today in the 
manufacturing of energy-efficient component parts. So with 
further Federal investment coupled with labor standards and 
procurement standards, there is significant opportunity to 
expand that.
    Ms. Castor. So I had to step out of the hearing for a 
little while to sit down with one of America's mayors of a very 
large metropolitan area, and he explained to me how they run a 
municipal utility and they decided to go 100 percent clean 
energy over the next couple of decades.
    And one of the things they set out to do, they took their 
coal plants offline. But he said they had to give special 
attention to a lot of the folks who were employed there and 
it--yes, it means community college training initiatives, but 
it can't just be a short-term focus.
    This has got to be something that we focus on to ensure as 
we transition from the old dirty fossil fuel energy sources to 
clean energy sources that we just--it can't be simply a 
training program, temporary for a few months or a year.
    Talk to me about what the model should be going forward for 
a just transition.
    Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you.
    I think your point is well taken. These facilities are not 
only--you can't only think about the workers at the facilities. 
You need to think about those workers as well as the broader 
impact on the communities themselves.
    In many cases, these plants are huge tax base resources for 
the communities in which they're located. So that means 
resources for infrastructure, schools, first responders.
    So we need to make sure, as we are thinking about 
addressing climate change and the clean economy of the future, 
that no community or worker is left behind and they shouldn't 
be paying the price.
    We need to make sure not only that workers directly 
impacted are kept whole, but also that we are focusing on 
reinvestment in these communities that are seeing these losses.
    Ms. Castor. And what this mayor said was, as they created 
jobs in the green economy, whether they are solar installers or 
working in energy efficiency, they became the higher-paying, 
more family-sustaining jobs than some of the older fossil-fuel-
type jobs. Are you seeing that as well?
    Ms. Eckdish. I think a lot of the jobs that we see today in 
the fossil fuel economy are good jobs, and are--there is some 
significant union density.
    I think what we need to make sure is that the jobs that we 
are creating in the clean economy are as good if not better, 
and making sure we have strong labor standards and procurement 
standards. Our investing in retraining is a key part of 
ensuring that.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Ms. Castor.
    Next is Mr. Guthrie, recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate 
everybody for being here today.
    And my first question is for Ms. Eckdish and Mr. Lyons to 
comment on this--Professor Lyons to comment on this as you 
move--as we go.
    So, Ms. Eckdish, in your testimony you agreed with our 
efforts to win the 5G and the $40 billion for expedited 
deployment of broadband, and I appreciate your commitment to 
that.
    But attached into your testimony was advocacy for the 
overturning of FCC's small cell order. And so my question is, 
wouldn't the overturning of the small cell order be a setback 
for expedited deployment of 5G?
    Ms. Eckdish. We do support restoring the ability of local 
governments to regulate deployment of small cells, and we see 
that as key for these communities meeting the needs of their--
--
    Mr. Guthrie. That would be a setback for expedited--I mean, 
I understand we need a debate before this decision needs to 
happen. But it would slow down the deployment of 5 because you 
have to deal with every locality as opposed to a national 
standard.
    Ms. Eckdish. I would love to follow up on that.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK. Mr. Lyons, would you like to have a----
    Mr. Lyons. Yes. I think a big driver of the FCC small cell 
order is the fact that 5G technology is very different than the 
4G and 3G towers that were driving the original tower statutes, 
right.
    When you are talking about whether you are going to put a 
large tower in a town that, you know, you can see from several 
miles away, having significant local input makes a lot of 
sense.
    When you're talking about little pizza-box-sized spaces all 
around town, it is a different impact. And so the trade-off 
between how much we should give local authority and how much we 
should be expediting build-out of infrastructure, the calculus 
changes a little bit, and that is part of what was driving the 
small cell order.
    I do think repealing the small cell order would slow things 
down, because it would add an additional potential veto gate 
into the building out of new infrastructure.
    And as we saw in--from time after time, right, satellite 
deployment and local franchising authority in cable industry 
and things like that, those additional veto gates become 
potential road speed bumps on the path toward deployment. We 
think it is opportunity for more.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
    And I think it is a fair debate, and so I just wanted to 
bring that, moving forward.
    So this would be for Professor Lyons. Many Kentuckians have 
been able to gain access to the internet through the expansion 
of wireless services.
    In your testimony, you mentioned the bill we are discussing 
today as technology neutral. I know you have mentioned 
something about what the speed requirements would do to 
threaten the ability to use innovative solutions to geographic, 
topographic, or economic challenges to deploying broadband in 
rural America.
    Could you expand on how the speed requirements in the bill 
would threaten that and, since you have touched on that 
already, any other provisions in the bill that might affect 
deployment in rural America?
    Mr. Lyons. Yes. I think the primary concern with a minimum 
speed requirement is you disqualify any technology that can't 
meet that speed, which limits the number of bidders available 
and therefore limits the areas you can serve and how cost 
efficiently you can do so.
    Now, if the speed limit is justified, right--you say the 
bill sets 100 megabit per second download minimum--if there is 
a justification for that like that is the amount that we think 
is necessary for somebody to be connected, then that is totally 
appropriate.
    But if the proper amount is something less than that, then 
it doesn't make sense to me to eliminate potential bidders who 
can provide service in rural areas to connect unconnected 
communities in ways that are going to give them the basic needs 
that they need by setting an artificially high premise.
    Now, you might be trying to futureproof the network, and I 
think there is arguments for that. But if you are going to do 
that, you need to recognize it is a trade-off.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thanks.
    And I was also going to ask you about mapping. I know Cathy 
McMorris--my friend from Washington just talked to you a little 
bit about it. Is there anything you want to expand on that 
about mapping and--because they probably do get overbuilding.
    My area--I have lived in Bowling Green, which is a growing 
progressive city in the mid-South, and even in our area because 
of the development of building housing, even a county that has 
gone from 75,000 to 130,000 people in the last 20 years, still 
there are areas that homebuilders say, ``We can't build in 
these areas because people aren't going to buy the kind of 
houses we are going to build without access to broadband,'' 
even though it is right next to a really fast-growing, 
developing city.
    And then I have very rural counties, too, that don't have 
that same issue. Unfortunately, the opposite of growth. So how 
do--just talk about how mapping close to big cities and where 
they are not being served or growing areas, but also just areas 
that really need some help in moving forward.
    Mr. Lyons. Well, one issue you have cited is sort of 
outdated data, right--that data collected, no matter how 
accurate, if it is 1 or 2 or 3 years old, it may not reflect 
the situation on the ground at the time.
    So I think one issue that a comprehensive mapping solution 
needs to undertake is how often the data gets refreshed--how 
often the carriers have to report back to the FCC where their 
build-out maps are.
    Mr. Guthrie. Do you think mapping should go down to Census 
tracts, or how detailed should they be?
    Mr. Lyons. So it depends on--Census tracts is useful, but 
it doesn't always capture exactly what you are looking for. We 
learned in the BDS proceeding, which was the Business Data 
Services, is that sometimes you need to be down on almost like 
a block-by-block level to understand which particular parcels 
have deployment and which don't.
    You can have a Census tract where most of the area is wired 
and we might consider that wired, but there are still places 
within the Census tract that are being left out.
    Mr. Guthrie. So when you get down to the--I understand we 
would love it even house to house, if you could. But the 
question is you get to cost benefit of that.
    Mr. Lyons. Right.
    Mr. Guthrie. And so at what point--what do you think is 
the----
    Mr. Lyons. So the trade-off then becomes how expensive is 
it to get that granular of data, and so the ancillary question 
to that is what are the different ways you can try to get that 
granular data.
    If it is too expensive to get it through carrier reports, 
can you crowd source it in a way that at least fills in some of 
the information and then discount it appropriately to 
understand the dirtiness of the source?
    Mr. Guthrie. OK. Well, thank you, and that fills my 
questions, and I will yield my time. I don't know if somebody 
wants it. I will yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Mr. Tonko is next, recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairman Pallone. I will mention two 
statistics that I recently came across. First, China used more 
cement between 2011 and 2013 than the United States used in the 
entire 20th century. Second, China also has 421,000 electric 
buses in operation. The United States has 300.
    That being said, a sound economy begins with sound 
infrastructure. We cannot afford to keep deferring maintenance 
or construction of what we know will be needed for a 
competitive and sustainable economy of the future. We have a 
once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest and modernize our 
aging infrastructure. We need a vision for what it can be, and 
it must be a comprehensive approach. So, Chairman Pallone, I 
want to commend you for the LIFT America Act. It lays out that 
vision, and I want to highlight a few important provisions.
    This bill makes major investments in our Nation's drinking 
water. We made some great bipartisan progress last Congress 
with the Drinking Water SRF reauthorization, but we also know 
EPA has estimated the needs over the next 20 years at some $473 
billion. If we continue to underinvest in these systems, 
especially as we learn more about the extent of our challenges 
from lead, PFAS, and other contaminants, providing clean, 
reliable and affordable water will only become more difficult 
for local governments.
    So, Mayor Wahler and Ms. Eckdish, if Congress considers an 
infrastructure package, how important is it that water 
infrastructure is included?
    Mr. Wahler. Everybody wants to live a long life, and you 
have to drink water. So we have aging pipes throughout this 
country. Towns and cities have limited capital resources out 
there to take care of the issue. Any way or any additional 
tools in the toolbox for municipalities and counties to replace 
pipes that are suspect or contaminated is a great thing, and I 
hope this committee moves along with this bill to do it that 
way, because you can't survive without water. You need water.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Ms. Eckdish?
    Ms. Eckdish. Yes, it is critically important. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. And, Mayor Wahler, do you think it is important 
that Congress provide support to local governments for some of 
these public health crises, including lead and PFAS 
contamination?
    Mr. Wahler. Well, I think it is safe to say over the last 5 
years what we have seen around the country is, with all these 
lead pipe poisoning crises going--and I hate to say it, we are 
probably going to see some more of that. I think if we were 
proactive in this room, working in collaborations with the 
local officials out there, we might be able to be proactive and 
prevent that from happening in the future.
    Mr. Tonko. I am also pleased that the bill includes a 
reauthorization of the Weatherization Assistance Program. 
Buildings consume about 40 percent of our national energy 
demand, and many low-income families cannot afford the upfront 
costs for retrofits even when they are cost-effective 
investments.
    Mayor Wahler, how have weatherization funds helped low-
income families in your community?
    Mr. Wahler. Well, I think in a lot of the--especially in 
the Northeast--you have a lot of housing stock that is a lot 
older, where traditionally the building codes weren't up to the 
new weatherization standards. So when there are direct grants 
out there that towns and cities can get their residents to 
retrofit there, the communities--not only are they saving on 
energy costs, but more importantly they are saving on the 
carbon footprint.
    Mr. Tonko. This bill also covers important aspects of the 
transportation sector. We all know transportation is now the 
largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United 
States. We will not be able to adequately address the climate 
crisis or accelerate the clean energy transition unless we help 
finance an infrastructure build-out for cleaner vehicles.
    Ms. Eckdish, I already mentioned China's embrace of 
electric buses. Do you believe supporting zero-emissions 
vehicle infrastructure will lead to more American jobs in 
manufacturing as well as charging station installation and 
maintenance?
    Ms. Eckdish. Yes, and it is critical we do it the right 
way. We need to make sure that across the board, from grid 
modernization that is needed to facilitate EVs to the build-out 
of electric charging infrastructure to the manufacturing of the 
vehicles themselves, that we are harnessing that opportunity 
here in the U.S. and with domestic content, labor standards, we 
are investing and leading the world in the manufacture of those 
vehicles and technologies.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And do you agree that these 
investments will make our economy more competitive while 
reducing our air pollution?
    Ms. Eckdish. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Tonko. And, Mayor Wahler, if given the resources, will 
local governments do more to ensure residents have access to 
this type of charging infrastructure?
    Mr. Wahler. You bet. I have to laugh. We are building a 
community center right now, and when they found out there are 
going to be charging stations there, the first question out of 
a lot of the residents, ``Well, how much are you going to 
charge for me to come charge up?''
    Mr. Tonko. Well, LIFT America has great provisions on 
transportational electrification and EV charging stations, and 
I hope we can continue to work on a comprehensive clean 
transportation package that will make sure we are reducing 
pollution from this sector.
    Finally, this bill has strong provisions to promote grid 
modernization and resilience, but a 21st century electricity 
system must also be flexible. We need to ensure we are able to 
move electrons from where they are generated to where demand 
exists, and so it is upgrading that grid, but also enhancing 
storage, providing for the American intellect to carry us 
through a new generation of storage opportunities so that we 
can optimally utilize our gridding up with renewal power. With 
that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Next is Mr. Olson, recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Olson. I thank the chair, and welcome to our six 
witnesses. My question will be to you, Mr. Guith. It is going 
to be about pipelines and energy infrastructure.
    As you all know, right now this country is facing enhanced 
U.S. global energy dominance. We are making more oil and 
natural gas than almost the entire world. One example from 
Texas, there is this place called the Permian Basin in West 
Texas. It has been predicted by our government that within 2 
years that one massive shale play in Texas will produce more 
oil and natural gas than every country in the world except for 
Saudi Arabia. That is more than Russia. That is more every OPEC 
nation, and that is just one shale play right here in America.
    Of course, this renaissance, this dominance will die if we 
don't have the pipelines to get the oil, natural gas, and all 
the things through the pipeline to where they have to go, to go 
to the market. FERC is in charge of approving pipelines, and 
they are having some problems with the excessive demands for 
new pipelines, for LNG export plants. They are involved in all 
that.
    I have got a bill with Mike Doyle to address all their 
problems with their employees. They are the best in the 
business. They are getting poached by the private sector big 
time because they can pay almost twice the salaries of the 
Federal Government. We have a model to give them more pay to 
keep them on board, it comes from the SEC. Again, Mike Doyle 
and I have sponsored this bill.
    My question is for you: Can you talk about why permitting 
certainty is so important for America's energy dominance, and 
does this apply to all technologies, not just oil but also LNG 
exports, hydropower dams, anything, could this help? Any 
comments about our bill and the challenge we have building 
pipelines?
    Mr. Guith. Absolutely. This stuff is not cheap. Whether you 
are talking about utility-scale solar farms, whether you are 
talking about multistate pipelines, I mean, many of them run in 
the orders of billions of dollars. Even some of the LNG 
facilities that we are seeing coming on line now are in excess 
of $10 billion.
    So if you are a project sponsor or, more importantly, you 
are an investor who may invest in that project, you know, you 
have to hedge it against the certainty and handicap it against 
it not getting approved, even though there is a commercial 
demand for that to happen. And that is true across all forms of 
generation and energy use. And the more certainty, the more 
unconstrained that capital will flow to those projects.
    Mr. Olson. Next question is for you, Mr. Lyons. It is about 
pipelines and all the communications necessary when it is a 
disaster like a hurricane.
    During the last Congress, I introduced H.R. 4845, which was 
called the Connecting Communities Post Disaster Act. As you 
know, disasters can destroy telecom systems at their moment of 
the most highest, the greatest need. In Houston during 
Hurricane Harvey, after Hurricane Ike came in about 10 years 
before, we made a big effort to dig all our power lines and put 
them and our communications lines underground. We did pretty 
well, but you have to add, that information has to flow.
    First responders have to have--where are the flooded roads, 
where are the problems? Citizens who might be evacuated, OK, 
you can't go this route, go this route. These communications 
are a matter of life and death. And with hurricanes, the season 
looming just 1 short week away, what do you think Congress 
should do to get this process of making our telecommunication 
system more viable and stronger during an absolute disaster 
like a hurricane?
    Mr. Lyons. No, I think it is absolutely right that 
communications are absolutely vital. We saw it in addition to 
in Texas, in Puerto Rico as well, right. The difficulty of 
communicating with those who were affected made it a lot harder 
to get them the relief they needed. I think things like 
undergrounding, like emergency power backups can help. They are 
expensive, right, and so it is always a trade-off.
    How much are you going to invest now to harden the 
infrastructure, and how much is it going to pay off in the 
event of a natural disaster? The provisions that are being 
available for Next Generation 9-1-1, I think, are going to be 
significantly helpful in that respect in figuring out how to 
not just modernize the first responder network but harden it as 
well.
    Mr. Olson. Thank you. My time has expired. One PSA, public 
service announcement: The Houston Astros are in first place of 
the Western Division of the American League of baseball. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Lyons. The Red Sox are not proud of how much they 
contributed to that.
    Mr. Olson. Three games. We won three up there in Fenway, 
you all won one. We will get you back in the playoffs.
    Mr. Pallone. Thanks to the gentleman. Mr. Welch, recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
First of all, I want to thank you and our other chairs, Mr. 
Rush, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Tonko. This is a great 
bill, and it has got some of the provisions in the HOMES Act 
that I have cosponsored with Mr. McKinley. And this is such a 
good, ambitious bill I am ready to move the bill.
    Mr. Pallone. Yes, well.
    Mr. Welch. And I am really quite----
    Mr. Pallone. Do you got any cash?
    Mr. Welch. This is the ambitious--all right, let's go. But 
we have been talking about infrastructure for so long, it is 
time to do it. We all know we need it. I am really excited 
about the HOMES Act that is in here. I am excited about the 
Smart Buildings that I coauthored with Mr. Kinzinger. But every 
one of us on the committee, I think, has provisions in here. 
And the witnesses are all here advocating things that we think 
make an awful lot of sense.
    So my hope is--and I think all of our hopes is--that we are 
actually going to move on this bill and push it out. We always 
have the challenge of how do you pay for it, but last I knew 
potholes don't fix themselves. And I have indicated a 
willingness to support just about any revenue measure that will 
make this happen, because I think at the end of the day, as 
much as there is always resistance to paying for things, our 
constituents know that they don't fix themselves.
    And once you start seeing the benefits of, say, broadband 
build-out or clean energy options or the grid resilience or 
fixing up the water systems, then people see that that is going 
to benefit them, and their willingness to accept it is enhanced 
enormously.
    Let me start with Mayor Wahler. Are you OK with us coming 
up with a way of paying for this? I mean, you have a hard job 
right on the front lines.
    Mr. Wahler. Well, Congressman Welch, one of the big things, 
anytime that the Federal Government can help. We are not asking 
you to pay a hundred percent. Towns and cities already pay 
about 80 to 90 percent of everything that is going on.
    Mr. Welch. Exactly.
    Mr. Wahler. If there is even down payment money on long-
term plans for communities or for when we have to go for long-
term bonding for such improvements, that is a good thing. So 
when we go for the financial markets, if we could show that 
there is a consistent basis that there will be grant money 
targeted towards that, that it makes things easier to put----
    Mr. Welch. Right. No, I appreciate that. I met with eight 
of our mayors in Vermont, and they said pretty much what you 
said, and they vary in their political points of view.
    Mr. Wahler. Yes.
    Mr. Welch. But they know that they have incredible needs, 
limited tax base, huge burdens on property taxpayers, and the 
Federal Government has to help. So thank you very much.
    Ms. Clyburn, it is good to have you back.
    Ms. Clyburn. Thank you.
    Mr. Welch. And broadband build-out is part of this. It is 
absolutely essential, as you know and I think many of us here 
know, that rural America is getting written off if we don't 
have the same high-speed internet that urban America has. So if 
we are successful in getting broadband infrastructure passed in 
this bill, how do we future-proof, because I don't want us to 
get a one-time deal where then we are constantly playing catch-
up. Can you comment on that?
    Ms. Clyburn. So, with respect to my fellow panelists, I say 
we go big. I say minimally, you know, a hundred megabits. I say 
that because not only do our communities need it and they will 
need it in the future, it would keep us competitive 
internationally.
    One thing, if you will allow me a couple of minutes, in 
2012, China, because that was mentioned once, had 20.3 million 
homes that had fiber, you know, connected, fiber connected to 
the home. Today they have almost 400 million. If we are going 
to stay competitive, if we are going to give our communities 
and the individuals in our communities the tools that they need 
to stay competitive domestically and internationally, we have 
to go big.
    Mr. Welch. OK, thank you.
    And I want to ask Ms. Eckdish from the BlueGreen Alliance, 
first of all, I think the BlueGreen Alliance is so good. We are 
getting people together--who, sometimes competing points of 
view--to do something that makes sense for all of us, so thank 
you. And your advocacy, the BlueGreen Alliance, is really 
essential to the potential of us being successful.
    You talked about energy efficiency in public buildings. How 
could that help us not just to reduce carbon emissions, but who 
does the work on that?
    Ms. Eckdish. Sure, thank you for the question. Energy 
efficiency does have tremendous environmental impacts. It has 
tremendous job impacts as well. As I mentioned earlier, we have 
over 2 million workers today in energy efficiency. Those are 
construction workers installing HVAC, other energy efficiency 
upgrades.
    It is also workers in the manufacturing sector. We have 
almost 300,000 workers that are today manufacturing energy-
efficient component parts. So there is tremendous potential. 
There are already good jobs today in the energy efficiency 
sector and tremendous opportunity for expansion.
    Mr. Welch. Great. I see my time is up, but I want to also 
thank the Chamber for the tremendous work that it has been 
doing in this area. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Welch. Next is Mr. McKinley, 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, as I read 
through this bill, you reminded me of a kid in a candy store. 
You could have had anything you wanted in this legislation. You 
are the chairman of the most powerful committee in Congress. 
Your party is in control of the House. But then you went into 
the candy shop, and you left with a stick of gum.
    We have the opportunity to do something bold and robust on 
energy infrastructure, but this committee so far is aiming low. 
This is the Energy and Commerce Committee. After 5 months in 
the majority, is this really the best that this committee can 
do on energy infrastructure? Yes, we have aspects of modest 
initiatives in broadband, drinking water, in healthcare and 
brownfields, and some of that I will support with you, and I 
realize there may be jurisdictional limitations.
    But with all the hype about what we need in a comprehensive 
infrastructure bill, why haven't we sought a bolder, broader, 
more comprehensive bipartisan approach to this? But not one, 
not when there is just 31 Democrats on the bill and no 
Republicans. There are numerous bipartisan bills that could 
have been included in this, the 48A Tax Credit by Collin 
Peterson, the Gas Turbine Efficiency, Paul Tonko's, or Scott 
Peters' the USE IT Act.
    The LIFT America Act was billed as a sweeping legislation 
to combat climate change, and yet it glaringly omits 
authorizing energy research to produce innovation and solutions 
and research. Research including carbon capture and storage, 
gas turbine efficiency, methane hydrates, battery storage, 
fugitive methane emissions, alternative to lithium-ion 
batteries and cobalt, rare-earth elements, wireless power 
transmission, hydrogen fuel cells, small nuclear and modular 
coal plants.
    Keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, America currently spends more 
money on eating potato chips than it does on researching 
energy. Mr. Chairman, we had a chance to put together a package 
that you wanted. You had the keys to the candy store. So let's 
be bold and include some bipartisan measures that gives this 
bill a chance to pass the Senate and be signed into law. The 
American people deserve better.
    To win the big game, Michael Jordan knew he had to have the 
confidence to take that last shot, that game-winning shot when 
he had the chance. Instead of taking that risk, this committee 
appears to be passing the ball. It is a lost opportunity.
    So, Mr. Guith, if I can ask you on this, you mentioned 
Scott Peters' USE IT Act in your testimony. Would more 
innovation and research be beneficial to addressing the 
infrastructure problems we have on energy and particularly as 
it relates to combating the climate change challenges that 
face--would energy and research be helpful?
    Mr. Guith. Most definitely. I mean, climate change is 
inherently a technology issue, but it is also an infrastructure 
issue. And there is significant scientific consensus that 
specific technologies are most likely--no guarantee--to be key 
to addressing, to lowering emissions and ultimately preventing 
emissions globally.
    One of them is carbon capture utilization and storage. In 
order--one end of that obviously is capturing the carbon, which 
in and of itself is a challenge, but we are seeing significant 
innovation happening there. But at the other end is what you do 
with it, so you need to have the infrastructure to move it and 
then to ultimately sequester it geologically or otherwise 
permanently.
    And the USE IT Act is a great first step in pairing with 
the fiscal policy that Congress has put in place in order to 
make it easier to site and permit those projects and also 
incentivize them. And that is a key step forward for U.S. 
innovation that will hopefully lead the globe in a move towards 
a much-less-emitting and ultimately not-emitting economy.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I mean, there are so many things 
on capturing the carbon. We get oxycombustion. We get chemical 
looping. There are so many things we could do, but we have a 
chance in this bill and we omitted it. We could have authorized 
more research to go for it. So again, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Next is Mr. Loebsack, recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Loebsack. Well, thank you, Chairman Pallone and Ranking 
Member Walden. I thank the witnesses for being here today. I do 
want to echo my friend Peter Welch's comments about what a 
great bill this. I really do believe it is.
    And just, if I might, to respond to my colleague Mr. 
McKinley, I would like to see more in this too. There is a lot 
more out there that we could be doing. Not to defend the 
particular approach that we have here, but I will say that 
often in this body and over in the Senate, the bigger you make 
a bill, the more targets there are for the opposition and the 
harder, therefore, it is to get it passed. But I am certainly 
open. I don't want to, you know, I can't speak for the chairman 
or the ranking member, but I am open to adding some more things 
to it too, if we can get bipartisan support for that. There are 
a lot of great ideas out there.
    One of the things, one of the ideas that I look forward to 
discussing further is a bill that I have worked closely with 
Representative Mullin, Markwayne Mullin, the Communications 
Jobs Training Act. And this bill would provide funding to 
develop training programs, workforce programs, for construction 
and maintenance for these communication towers.
    I visited one of these just recently. I didn't go up as 
high as a couple of our Commissioners. In fact, I didn't go up 
at all because those things are awfully damn tall. But I put 
all the equipment on, and it was really quite fascinating. We 
are clearly going to need more people to do these jobs down the 
road to construct more of these towers.
    And in conjunction with the tower infrastructure we need of 
course broadband infrastructure, and that has been talked a lot 
about today. I am really happy to see that this bill includes 
$40 billion for this purpose. I am from Iowa, a rural district 
of 24 counties, probably 12 or 13 thousand square miles. We 
have a lot of problems there when it comes to rural broadband. 
And I have been for now a number of years raising the issue 
related to the poor quality of the FCC's maps, which has been 
talked about already today.
    I am glad this bill does start with maps that Congress has 
funded at the NTIA the last few years, and I am glad that the 
mapping section requires the FCC to consider publicly available 
broadband information and that the challenge process minimizes 
the regulatory burdens. That is really something that I think 
is important.
    And, Commissioner Clyburn, I would like you to speak to 
that issue. Why is it critical that any challenge process be 
conducted with the least burden, the least burden on customers 
and those doing the challenging?
    Ms. Clyburn. Because when you see something wrong, it 
should not be a heartache to point it out. It is as simple as 
that. And so I am glad you pointed that out, and I am proud to 
brag--Mr. Duncan has already left--that my State will be a part 
of that publicly available, you know, mapping universe, because 
it is producing its own broadband mapping plan. And so, in 
addition to that, Microsoft has, you know, an infrastructure 
for you to reference. It is an all-of-the-above approach, 
because again all eyes are not going to see everything, and it 
is important for us to know what is there.
    Mr. Loebsack. And make that challenge process as 
transparent and as easy as possible as well.
    Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely, absolutely.
    Mr. Loebsack. Because there are a lot of other different 
sources of information out there that we ought to be taking 
advantage of. And I will just mention, 2 times ago I think it 
was, when Chairman Pai was here, he--maybe 3 times ago--he 
mentioned that he had been traveling in Northwest Iowa, and he 
had a lot of dropped calls and lot of problems up in that part 
of the State. I am in the southeast part, but I grew up in the 
northwest part.
    But all over Iowa, all over rural America, we have 
problems. And it says that we have good service in those areas 
if you look at the FCC map, but it is simply not the case. My 
view is we can't move forward if we don't have good mapping in 
the first--we have to know where the problems are if we are 
going to solve the problems, and right now we don't have good--
--
    Ms. Clyburn. And I am proud to brag that I was part of 
pushing in the Mobility Fund, Phase I and Phase II.
    Mr. Loebsack. Yes, you were. And thank you for your 
service.
    Ms. Clyburn. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Loebsack. I really appreciate that, Commissioner.
    Look, I am very proud that my home State of Iowa is a 
leader in renewable energy and energy efficiency. I often talk 
about wind energy accounting for nearly 40 percent of our 
electricity in the State of Iowa. And this is a key moment for 
the committee to play a role in addressing climate change, and 
this bill does make several key investments for our energy 
future, although I am willing to entertain more possibilities.
    It does include my bill, the Renew America's Schools Act, 
which will help schools modernize and make critical energy 
efficient upgrades. It will create jobs, a really good thing, 
right? It will reduce emissions. It will produce long-term cost 
savings for our schools. This is something I have been trying 
to get through for a number of years as well, all while 
providing our students with top-notch learning environments.
    We know that the environment in which our students learn 
and our educators teach can have an immense impact on the 
quality of education our children receive, and that makes, I 
think, this a win-win situation all the way around for workers, 
for students, for parents, for educators, and our 
administrators as well.
    Ms. Eckdish, in your testimony you mentioned the importance 
of upgrading our Nation's inefficient and unhealthy school 
buildings as part of a smart infrastructure package. I know you 
are not an expert on education as such, but can you speak 
generally about the impact investing in modern and efficient 
school facilities would have on the health of our students and 
the quality of their learning environments, not to mention the 
jobs obviously associated with this?
    Ms. Eckdish. Yes, thank you for the question. And thank you 
for raising schools. We absolutely think they should be a key 
part of the infrastructure discussion, and I would be remiss if 
I didn't say we strongly support the Rebuild America's Schools 
Act, which has broad support across Congress as well.
    We know as you said that investing in schools has 
tremendous impacts on students, teachers, other staff at these 
facilities from the health of their learning environments. 
Schools are--we have many schools with asbestos, lead, a host 
of health issues. We also know that making energy-efficient 
upgrades can save schools money that they can then reinvest in 
their schools, so there are clear economic and environmental 
benefits. There are also tremendous job benefits as well on 
both the construction side and, again, on the manufacturing 
side as well.
    Mr. Loebsack. Yes, I taught at a college. My wife taught 
second grade for over 30 years. I know that from a curricular 
standpoint too we can even incorporate some of the changes that 
maybe did take place in a particular school setting into the 
curriculum, and maybe even some of those students who go home 
and tell their parents about how great green schools are and we 
could spread the good word that way as well.
    Commissioner Clyburn, I know you already did talk about a 
future-proof rural America. Do you want to elaborate at all? I 
know you mentioned a hundred meg, for example.
    Ms. Clyburn. Well, again, I think we should start there and 
aim up, because, you know, this is an international race. And 
is it a race for people to be able to take advantage of 
telemedicine and other opportunities? You are going to need 
speed. You are going to need fiber. You are going to need those 
investments to ensure that that happens.
    We cannot afford to look through today's lens, a 2019 lens. 
We need to look far into the future, and we don't want to come 
back here another 5 or 6 years from now. ``Groundhog Day'' was 
a great movie, but not, you know, the way in terms of 
implementing policies and procedures.
    Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much. Thanks to all of you. And 
I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Mr. Griffith is next.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it 
greatly, and I appreciate talking about rebuilding American 
schools in many of my counties, or in a few of my counties. The 
counties are having a hard time, and I just want to make sure 
there is enough flexibility in there that, you know, we are 
trying to keep the rain from coming in. If we can sneak away to 
do that and put some solar panels up there, I am all for it 
because that is the way we can have a win-win. But I did want 
to mention that.
    Mr. Lyons, I want to appreciate you talking about 
crowdsourcing, because as Ms. Clyburn pointed out, sometimes--
or somebody did--that maps don't always reflect--the FCC maps 
aren't always accurate. I can assure you the folks in my 
district can tell you exactly where they do and don't have 
service, because, you know.
    And what is amazing is, in some of those counties that are 
having a harder time--I represent 22 counties and seven 
independent cities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is a big 
rural district. Some of the counties are having a hard time and 
they don't have service, and so we need to do something about 
it. But what is surprising, and this is where the maps won't 
show it, I have people who don't have service within a mile or 
two outside of the town of Blacksburg, Virginia, home of 
Virginia Tech.
    Now, Blacksburg is one of the most wired communities out 
there, but I have people who work there who don't have service 
at their homes. And so--and I like your approach, Mr. Lyons, 
when you said in your written testimony that, instead of 
talking about the megabits or the gig or the, you know, the 
upload and the download speeds, let's put it in terms of what 
they can get. So how much do we need in those areas to make 
sure the kids can do their homework?
    Mr. Lyons. Appreciate the question, thank you. Yes, so we 
can just start just by figuring out what are the things that we 
need to guarantee that anybody should be able to do online, 
right. The examples I gave in my testimony, Skype, which is 
two-way video conferencing, required about 1.2 megabits per 
second. Netflix calls for about 4 megabits per second in order 
to get high-definition feeds.
    So a 25-megabit per second would support both Skype and 
multiple Netflix streams with space to spare. Now, Netflix will 
tell you it requires 25 megabits per second for their big 4K 
download, but I am not sure we should be in the business of 
subsidizing the ability to download ``Orange is the New Black'' 
in super 4K rather than just high definition.
    Mr. Griffith. Now, correct me if I am wrong because I am 
here to learn. That is why I love committee hearings. If you 
can do the Netflix, the regular stuff at 5, then that means 
that most of my kids could do their homework all over the 
district if we had at least the 25 or the 5. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lyons. Yes, I think that is right. My son says 25 is a 
fair compromise between what the bare minimum would be and what 
would be a reasonable amount, right. So I don't think it is 
enough to just say, OK, you can do your homework and it is 
going to be a little bit slow, but you know, you want to make 
sure you are giving a little bit of a comfortable margin. 
Twenty-five gets you there. By the time you get to about 100 
megabits per second, you are talking about things like, I don't 
know, 3D holographic two-way communication and stuff like that 
which, you know, it may be the wave of the future----
    Mr. Griffith. Great.
    Mr. Lyons [continuing]. I am not sure that is where we 
should be investing all of our money now.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, and I would tell you my feeling is, 
step one, let's make sure everybody's got the 25. Then once we 
get there, where everybody in the country has that, then yes, I 
am all for moving it up and making those speeds faster as we go 
across.
    One of my counties recently has announced through their 
telephone company that they are going to go actually to a gig 
download and 500 upload which is just great, and they plan to 
have it all rolled out by 2021. And they are putting the 
infrastructure in and they have gotten some grant money from 
us, and I think that is great. But then I worry about those 
folks on the other side of the line who may not have anything. 
And so, I want to make sure they get service, so I do 
appreciate that.
    Mr. Lyons. Thank you.
    Mr. Griffith. I want to talk a little bit about hydro. My 
colleagues have talked about that some. I had a bill and, Mr. 
Guith, if you could help me with this. I had a bill where we 
could do closed loop inside mines, and I thought that was 
really interesting. But recently, I visited a national historic 
landmark building in Wytheville, Virginia. The dam has been 
certified. It is fine, everything is great. The sluice is still 
there, if I am using the right terminology. The only thing they 
don't have any more are turbines.
    It would seem to me that if we could figure out a way to 
cut through the red tape and reactivate this dam--Ms. McMorris 
Rodgers mentioned that I think only 3 percent of the dams have 
hydro capabilities--they have the spot to put them in. The 
owner is not opposed to that. He got it on the National 
Registry because he bought it and it was falling--not falling 
down, but it was just in bad repair and he has fixed the 
building up.
    What can we do? Because, you know, he indicated that it 
might be hard to sell that electricity. He doesn't know how to 
do it. How can we make folks who actually have a dam that 
already is sitting there that was used a hundred years ago to 
make electricity, do it? And am I correct that having a lot of 
these small dams in operation would actually help improve the 
resiliency of our grid?
    Mr. Guith. Yes, absolutely. The reliability that a base 
load like hydro brings is incredibly important because it is 
able to cycle. So as you bring more renewables into the grid 
that are variable and come and go based on the availability of 
the sun or the wind, having resources like peaking gas or hydro 
is incredibly important to follow that load as it fluctuates so 
we can keep the grid stable and ensure that you have that 
reliability.
    Ultimately, to your question as far as how to make it 
happen, it helps to have State sponsorship, but ultimately it 
is a NEPA question and there are a lot of folks who don't want 
to see those dams turned into hydroelectric generators for 
environmental reasons. And I think that the Pacific Northwest 
from the Washington border all the way through California has 
shown success after success where the hydroelectric generation 
can coexist with the environmental concerns.
    Mr. Griffith. Let's work together. I see my time is way 
over, and I need to yield back. But thank you.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. The gentlewoman from Delaware, Ms. 
Blunt Rochester, recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman 
Pallone, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on this 
comprehensive and important legislation. I also want to thank 
the witnesses. This was a really great panel of witnesses. And 
commend my subcommittee chairs and members who were part of the 
collective leadership on the issues that are included in the 
LIFT America Act. This legislation to me impacts our health, it 
impacts our education, our security, our economy, our 
competitiveness as a country and also my State, but ultimately 
the planet. And so, I am proud to be a cosponsor.
    And I want to ask a few questions about broadband maps and 
coverage, but first I just want to clarify something between 
Professor Lyons and Ms. Clyburn on the minimum standard. Now if 
I am understanding this correctly, Professor Lyons, you are 
positing that 25 would be fine for the things that are kind of 
the minimum things that are needed. Did I hear that correctly? 
And then just yes or no.
    Mr. Lyons. Yes, that is right.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. OK. And then, Ms. Clyburn, I thought I 
heard you mention 100. Can you elaborate a little bit on why, 
because I understood what you said that you don't need to be 
streaming, you know, ``Game of Thrones,'' but what I want to 
understand from Ms. Clyburn is why she says a hundred.
    Ms. Clyburn. Well, I will just simply say this. We need to 
do this one time. And if you want to do this one time, you need 
to future-proof it. And to future-proof it, you need to look to 
the future and look to your international competitors in terms 
of what they are doing. There is no one internationally that we 
are observing and following that is doing anything less than a 
hundred megabits.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you for sharing that. That is 
really particularly important for me, because one of the areas 
I am focused on is the future of work. And it is really the 
future of how we are living and it is happening to us right 
now, and so I don't want to see us start behind. Let's start 
ahead and be bold.
    I would like to focus on the coverage maps. First and in 
particular, if we could focus on, you know, the committee's 
prioritization of unserved areas and the benchmark of the 25 
megabits per second. And I am glad the bill does not rely on 
the FCC's inaccurate Form 477 data. For example, FCC's coverage 
map suggests that the entirety of Delaware has at least one 
provider that provides at least 25 megabits per second.
    But I know that that is not true, and I hear from many of 
my constituents every day that they are--and stakeholders--that 
they are in areas that are dead zones, both in urban areas as 
well as rural. People might not know Delaware also has a huge 
rural community as well.
    Ms. Clyburn, again thank you so much for your testimony, 
but also thank you for your former service, public service at 
the FCC. And I was struck by your testimony, because you 
mentioned the need to improve these maps, and I think it makes 
sense for the FCC to look to the more trusted, publicly 
available data as you suggest.
    Can you talk about what additional recommendations you 
would have for the committee for both improving the coverage 
maps and utilizing a fairer and more accurate process for 
getting at those communities that are unserved as defined by 
the LIFT America Act?
    Ms. Clyburn. In addition, I say that the FCC could use its 
subscription information, you know, to look and compare. That 
seems really intuitive, but it is not being done. And I guess--
I don't want to be repetitive. I think that is the only thing 
that, other than the form, they need to go ahead to order on 
the reforms and when it comes to Form 477.
    One person having service in an area should not the whole 
area be considered coverage. That is a problem that makes no 
sense. I don't know what type of map that is, but it is not the 
map that is bringing and closing divides in America.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. It looks like that is consistent 
across the panel, I would say.
    And, Mr. Wahler, I am going to switch really quickly in the 
last 40 seconds to drinking water, the drinking water title. 
Mr. Wahler, one of the issues that my State of Delaware 
consistently has is maintaining the drinking water 
infrastructure that we already have built. By some estimates, 
Delaware is a hundred million dollars short on an annual basis. 
Can you talk about why it is important to continue to invest in 
the drinking water infrastructure?
    Mr. Wahler. Thank you, Congresswoman. Everybody knows that, 
you know, anytime you are digging underground, it costs a heck 
of a lot more money than above ground, and that is why the 
large city and the expense of municipalities and counties such 
as your State have because of the nature where it has to be 
buried under the frost line.
    But, more importantly, is there is a lot of extensions 
where it goes into the schools or it goes into your residential 
neighborhood. It is all encompassing, and it is a very costly 
measure. And, for instance, if you are only doing $10 million a 
year and you have $100 million worth of infrastructure, that is 
not--you are just not getting there where you need to get 
there.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Mr. Pallone. Next is Mr. Long, recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my oldest daughter, 
our oldest daughter, Barbara, and my oldest daughter turns 33 
years old today. She is a pediatrician back in Springfield, 
Missouri, where I hail from. When she turned 25, 8 years ago 
today, we had an EF5 tornado in Joplin, Missouri, that killed 
161 people in a town of 50,000, so everyone knew someone that 
had perished in that horrific event.
    Yesterday we had tornadoes that touched down in my district 
all across Southwest Missouri. Over in Southeast Missouri, 
Jason Smith's district, a lot of damage from tornadoes and that 
caused our Governor, Mike Parson, to declare a state of 
emergency. Severe weather events like these are, unfortunately, 
way too common in what we call tornado alley in my neck of the 
woods, and communities are constantly impacted.
    There is money in this bill to establish a grant program at 
the Department of Energy to provide money to States that 
enhance electric infrastructure resiliency, reliability, and 
security. The utility industry also spends significant sums of 
money each year on efforts to make their infrastructure more 
resilient. I want to make sure that this program is not 
duplicative and does not hamper investments at the private 
sector in these capabilities.
    And for you, Mr. Guith, how does this bill ensure money and 
resources are spent wisely on energy infrastructure resilience 
and not harming the investment by private companies on this 
work?
    Mr. Guith. I think it makes great strides in addressing the 
issue and trying to integrate by deferring to some extent to 
the Secretary. But in one specific example, which I mentioned 
in my written testimony on the Transformer Reserve, Congress 
challenged the Department of Energy to look at the need for one 
back when the FAST Act was passed.
    Ultimately, Oak Ridge National Lab did a deep-dive 
analysis, and Department of Energy came back and recommended to 
Congress that there does not need to be a separate reserve 
because industry, because of its own responsibilities to its 
ratepayers and its customers, had established such redundancies 
in reserves already.
    And so, we would recommend within the context of the LIFT 
Act that the monies that are addressed to go to the Transformer 
Reserve be instead focused on the research within the 
components, which the act also addresses, which is where we 
need more research in order to make the equipment that we do 
have or the equipment tomorrow that much more resilient against 
severe weather issues.
    Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
    And, Mr. Lyons, when it comes to the Broadband 
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, there is nothing 
included to address overbuilding or coordination language. The 
committee spent considerable time last Congress legislating 
against overbuilding and promoting coordination amongst 
government entities. Will this legislation present a setback 
there?
    Mr. Lyons. I think more explicit language about 
coordination would be helpful. It helps that the money is being 
invested in the Federal Communications Commission, because it 
has its hand in the other pie, so it has the ability to 
coordinate in the various broadband reach-out initiatives that 
we have. But it would be helpful if Congress provided more 
explicit direction.
    Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
    And expanding internet access in rural areas is a top 
priority for many on this committee, and we need to make sure 
we are all doing what we can to fix this problem. I have been 
working with Senator Marsha Blackburn, who was a former member 
of this committee, a lot of you remember, on a broadband 
infrastructure bill, the Internet Exchange Act.
    The Internet Exchange Act focuses on improving broadband 
infrastructure in rural America by promoting more internet 
exchange facilities around the United States. I look forward to 
working with this committee in ways we can address the need to 
strengthen internet access in rural and other underserved 
areas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Long. Mr. Soto is next.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is pretty clear that 
America is eager for 21st century infrastructure upgrade. We 
see it all throughout our districts, both sides of the aisle. 
And, you know, we are the most productive, most powerful nation 
in the world, yet this seems to continue to be a problem. We 
are at GDP of 21.5 trillion with China quickly gaining at 14.2 
trillion, and I kind of--we have to imagine what we would be 
able to do if we actually had a modern infrastructure to work 
with and what that would mean for the future of our economy.
    And it seems to me the biggest hurdle has been political 
dysfunction over the past couple years, particularly with 
regard to how to pay for it. We have seen no increase in the 
gas tax since 1993. Tax cuts for the rich and big corporations 
blew a $2.3 trillion hole in the revenue outlook for the next 
10 years. Infrastructure proposals were only 25 percent of the 
Federal funding where it is going towards it, which failed from 
the start.
    Even the term ``Infrastructure Week'' has become a running 
joke sometimes in Washington. So the big question, then, I ask 
my committee members in both sides of the aisle is, so what are 
we going to do? Are we going to do this, or what? Are we going 
to actually put forward a major infrastructure project, or are 
we just going to sit around and say we are going to and then 
never do with the revenue issues that we have to?
    I want to start with rural broadband and broadband in 
general. I represent areas not only in suburban Orlando, but in 
rural Osceola County and Polk County. And I was really struck 
by a really wise member of the U.S. House, Majority Whip 
Clyburn, who told me a story about his district, where most of 
the kids in a class that he recently went to failed because the 
homework was being given online and they didn't have access to 
it. And he used that to talk about this, how rural communities 
are falling behind in technology.
    So, Commissioner Clyburn, it would be great to hear from 
you. How important is the LIFT Act and broadband internet 
build-out across the country to rural communities in closing 
that productivity and education gap?
    Ms. Clyburn. This will address the most pervasive gaps that 
I have seen in my regulatory lifetime. It will serve to better 
equalize those communities without. It will recalibrate and 
reshape the narrative when it comes to what is possible, what 
is accessible, and address what is needed. And it is very 
targeted. It is seeking to go to areas with the most need, not 
where the business case is not being made. It decouples from 
that, and I think it is very important. The role of government 
is to be proactive in areas where the private sector is not, or 
is not incented to do so. This does that.
    Mr. Soto. And being the great equalizer. So thank you for 
that, Commissioner.
    Ms. Clyburn. And I agree, he is a pretty great guy.
    Mr. Soto. He is a pretty great guy.
    Ms. Eckdish, how important is Davis-Bacon in ensuring that 
we have both a boost to our economy and fair wages and that we 
really get the job done right?
    Ms. Eckdish. Thank you for the question. It is critically 
important. It makes sure that, as workers are doing the work to 
repair our infrastructure, that they are being paid a family-
supporting wage. So it is critically important, and there are a 
number of areas in the LIFT America Act that include Davis-
Bacon in a number of areas where it could be expanded.
    Mr. Soto. And now, according to EPA, transportation is the 
biggest emitter of CO2 emissions at 29 percent 
versus 28 percent for electricity, and that is even numbers 
from 2 years ago. So does this transportation, the aspects of 
the transportation package that are in this bill, will that 
help then the curve of CO2 emissions in the 
transportation sector, particularly electric cars and things of 
that nature?
    Ms. Eckdish. Yes, I think electric vehicles are a key part 
of how we bend that curve, coupled with investments in transit, 
strong fuel economy standards. But EVs will be a key part of 
how we tackle emissions from the vehicle sector. And this bill 
takes a significant step toward the expansion of the EV 
infrastructure and what we----
    Mr. Soto. Thank you.
    And Mr. Guith, or ``Gueeth''--sorry if I am mispronouncing 
your name--does the U.S. Chamber believe that the America's 
economy is being held back by an aging infrastructure?
    Mr. Guith. Absolutely. We have been leading the charge for 
the better part of a couple decades, and we know that there is 
political support there, it is just getting apparently folks 
into a room and making it happen, which seems to be difficult 
today.
    Mr. Soto. Do you think there are any revenue sources that 
the business community would be supportive of in our quest to 
get an infrastructure package together?
    Mr. Guith. We are supportive of wherever it comes from, 
more or less. I mean, we have proposed increasing the fuel use 
fee, but we have said that, look, we are open to other ideas. 
In fact, we held a contest very recently to get other ideas. We 
don't think that is the only way. In fact, we probably need 
several ways, but it is certainly one of the most logical ways 
given, to your point earlier, that it hasn't been touched since 
1993 while some 35 States have raised their own State revenues 
through fuel use fees. And it is untapped. The Highway Trust 
Fund continues to dwindle, and our infrastructure is aging.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you.
    Mr. Pallone. Did the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Soto. Oh yes, sorry.
    Mr. Pallone. OK, thank you. Mr. Bucshon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want 
to--well, I know I am kind of late in the game here because I 
am down the dais, but I am going to--a couple subjects that I 
really touched upon and I will just say briefly, rural Indiana, 
we need broadband. You can't have schools. You can't have 
economic investment.
    And I think many people have talked to that. I am not going 
to spend much more time on it, but we need broadband 
infrastructure in rural Indiana. The U.S. Energy Information 
Administration--yes, there is such an agency--recently reported 
that 32 dams currently that do not generate electricity are 
planned to be converted to hydroelectric dams in the next few 
years.
    And the reason I point that out is because last year, 
Congress passed and the President signed the American Water 
Infrastructure Act of 2018. And many of you may or may not know 
that legislation that I was involved in and Senators on the 
Senate side were involved in streamlined the process for 
converting nonhydroelectric dams to hydroelectric dams through 
FERC.
    It doesn't eliminate any environmental review, and this was 
bipartisan. Both sides agreed to all of this. But through FERC 
there is now a 2-year process when you want to get approval to 
convert a nonhydroelectric dam into hydroelectric power. So if 
people right now should be looking at that, and I think there 
is going to be a lot of investment over the next 5 to 10 years 
in this particular process.
    As was mentioned, it is a consistent, sustainable, clean-
energy source that Canada utilizes, our Pacific Northwest 
utilizes and, believe it or not, in Southwest Indiana there are 
six dams we could convert. And so, I just wanted to point that 
out, that that is very important. I mean, I am an all-of-the-
above energy supporter, and I think, just like your personal 
investment portfolio, we should diversify our energy portfolio 
and make sure we are not putting all our eggs in one basket.
    With that being said, the legislation before us I don't see 
is supporting all-of-the-above energy, and that is in the area, 
the absence of fossil fuel, energy research development, and 
innovation. And that was mentioned, I think, by Mr. McKinley 
also. I believe it is critical that we continue to encourage 
strong public-private partnerships in the ongoing advancements 
of technological innovations in the fossil fuel energy area on 
our grid today.
    And as electrical utilities connect to more intermittent 
renewable energy into the electrical system, there is a growing 
need for new technologies to ensure reliable and affordable 
power, and I think the Europeans are experiencing this most as 
we speak with untenable energy costs, particularly in Germany.
    So, Mr. Guith, can you speak to the role of the ongoing 
innovation that--and you may have mentioned this earlier, but 
what is needed to ensure spending decisions don't lock in 
practices that impede new innovative technologies, particularly 
in the fossil fuel space?
    Mr. Guith. Yes, I think that is a great question, thank 
you. Twofold. One, a greater commitment from Congress to 
spending on energy innovation. As a former DOE employee, I 
realize it is an incredible asset to the country, but 
unfortunately it has 535 constituents up here and it tries to 
be everything to all of them, where we know that there are 
specific technologies that every scientific community that has 
looked at this are most likely going to be required to address 
climate change globally.
    And so, we have been working with Mmbers of Congress to 
come up with some approaches with DOE to maybe concentrate a 
little bit more on those technologies with some specific 
metrics and goals and demonstrations to get there. And I think 
that is the greatest path forward to developing those--that 
innovation that we need.
    Mr. Bucshon. And I will make a quick comment on that 
because you realize that we are, what, 20 percent of the 
world's CO2 emissions, roughly. China, India, or--
China is the biggest. It is unlikely, in my view, that they are 
going to convert to clean energy sources as quickly as America 
has. Since 2005, we have reduced emissions more than any other 
country in the world, and it is not really close. We are going 
to continue to do that.
    So I think in this area of fossil fuel--and some of us on 
the panel will disagree, obviously--but in fossil fuel, 
thinking that the rest of the world may not get to where we may 
get with renewables, if we have some innovation that is 
transferable to other countries that they could use that we 
could make economically feasible for those countries and they 
begin to pick that up, I think then we could have a global--our 
leadership in that area could have a global impact. That is my 
personal view.
    Also, expanding a little bit on that, Mr. Guith. When the 
Chamber reviews some of the programs in the bill that reflect 
efforts to support the build-out of renewable infrastructure, 
do you all look at and monitor what happens with the electrical 
rates and what happens when they go up?
    Mr. Guith. Yes, most definitely. I mean, we look at the 
impacts on both the generators as well as the consumers. We 
represent both. And, frankly, a hundred percent of the economy 
is a consumer, so when rates go down it benefits even if it 
doesn't necessarily benefit the upstream generator. And we 
analyze it with our members and we consult with them and try 
and come up with the best policy and triangulate where the 
business community is.
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes, and I would agree with that because, 
again, if you look at the European experience, particularly in 
Germany, where the costs of energy are--and I don't have the 
graph in front of me--are roughly 3 times what they are, on 
average, in America. As particularly I see it for our seniors 
and for our lower-income rural, in areas in my district that 
would be rural American. Other people's districts that could be 
urban America. Honestly, different locations, very similar 
problems. I could see the cost aspect really causing us a lot 
of trouble if we don't continue to innovate across the 
spectrum, and so I am hopeful that we can do that.
    Again, I would like to point out I am an all-of-the-above 
energy person. I think we should innovate and advance 
technology all across, and that includes fossil fuels. Because 
I do think looking at the world and the fossil fuel use, that 
is an area potentially if we could, for example, commercialize 
carbon capture like we are in Houston, for example, in the 
Houston area, and find ways to use the CO2 or to 
store the CO2 underground. Worldwide, I just feel 
like that could have such a dramatic impact.
    And the last thing is also in the area of recycling and 
looking at the entire life cycle of renewable energy, 
particularly in the solar panel space. I am beginning to look 
at the entire life cycle of those panels because 25, 30 years 
from now we are going to have to figure out what to do with 
those. And at this point in America we landfill all of the end-
of-life for that, and I think most people know that.
    And so, the impact that has on the environment with some of 
the heavy metals like lead and other things that are in it are 
going to be dramatic if we don't look at how we deal with the 
end-of-life solar panels 25 years from now. I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Next is the gentleman from Arizona, 
Mr. O'Halleran.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing today to discuss the LIFT America Act and how it 
addresses the needs for infrastructure investments that will 
move our economy forward. I applaud the LIFT America Act for 
including robust funding for high-speed broadband and clean 
drinking water programs, pushing our energy sector to more 
resiliency, and ensuring our hospitals and healthcare 
facilities meet the needs of patients.
    Rural America cannot be left behind. In fact, I don't know 
that it can survive without getting in this process moving 
forward, whether it is healthcare, education, economic 
competitiveness--this is a necessary element of the 
infrastructure of America for rural America. I hope to see 
these investments particularly for broadband deployment target 
areas of this country that need it the most.
    Ms. Clyburn, I have a question here that I had before, but 
you mentioned earlier about a communications issue within the 
process. Can you refine that a little bit and tell me what you 
mean?
    Ms. Clyburn. The communications issue, are you talking in 
terms of other State agencies?
    Mr. O'Halleran. Agencies, right.
    Ms. Clyburn. Right. What I wanted to point out was that and 
it has been said a couple of times that you have State agencies 
and the States and Federal agencies that are doing much of the 
same things. I mean, everybody has grand goals and objectives 
that we can't argue. The problem is they are either stepping on 
each other, not speaking to each other, or spending money in a 
lot of the same places.
    So you have places that are getting double or triple the 
amount of investment that may or may not be needed, and then 
you have other areas in this country where there is no flow, 
there is no provider, there is no investment and, again, there 
are no, you know, Next Generation opportunities. So fixing 
that, I think the bill encourages that.
    It could be said, what could be fine-tuned a little bit 
more? But it definitely addresses that, and that is the 
problem. That is an issue.
    Mr. O'Halleran. And I am glad to sponsor the bill, it is 
clearly defining that. But also, I just can't believe our 
Federal Government at this stage of our existence cannot 
understand the need for agencies to communicate with one 
another. I don't care across the board whether it is 
Intelligence or Homeland Security or these agencies.
    Ms. Clyburn. For better or worse, things are pretty siloed. 
They are pretty siloed within certain----
    Mr. O'Halleran. Too siloed.
    Ms. Clyburn. Yes, thank you.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Commissioner, in your testimony that 
broadband funding must be targeted to places with the greatest 
need to ensure that these communities who have been completely 
left behind are connected as quickly as possible.
    Ms. Clyburn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. O'Halleran. I look forward to introducing a bipartisan 
bill that was mentioned earlier that is also in the Senate on 
broadband mapping.
    Ms. Clyburn. Looking forward to it.
    Mr. O'Halleran. I do appreciate the reverse auction and 
infrastructure financing funds offered in Title I of the LIFT 
America Act, but what else should be included in Title I to 
close the digital divide?
    Ms. Clyburn. Hmm. That is a great question. I might have to 
include some--answer you for the record, if you don't mind. But 
I think we are moving in the right direction.
    Mr. O'Halleran. With energy infrastructure, I have heard 
stories from many constituents in my district in lengthy 
permitting reviews required before a project may begin. While 
reviews are necessary for environmental protection, they should 
also be done in a timely manner for project certainty.
    Mr. Gruith, in your testimony you highlighted the 
bipartisan work to establish the Federal Permitting Improvement 
Steering Council in the FAST-41 bill. Within the LIFT America 
Act, how can permitting for such projects also be addressed?
    Mr. Guith. Not being a parliamentarian, I will have to 
defer to you to some extent as far as jurisdictional 
distinctions between here and Interior--I am sorry--between 
here and the Natural Resources Committee, which has a lot of 
the jurisdiction over NEPA itself. But I think if you look at 
what happened in FAST-41, Energy and Commerce certainly had 
some of it.
    And I think the two big asks are to, one, make FAST-41, the 
FAST-41 authorizations permit because we are about to run out 
of authorization as well as constraining environmental reviews 
to 2 years and the one Federal decision. I mean, those are all 
things that benefit every form of infrastructure and there is 
significant bipartisan support for.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I yield the 
rest of my time.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Next is the gentleman from Florida, 
Mr. Bilirakis.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. 
This question is for Mr. Guith. Last week a local article 
reported 22 sites in Florida were found to have PFAS 
contamination, including one city in my district. There are at 
least 610 places that have PFAS levels in the country, I 
understand. However, the term ``PFAS'' encompasses thousands of 
different substances with different threat levels.
    Again, Mr. Guith, do we know enough about individual PFAS 
chemicals to know which are the most harmful? If so, should we 
include a priority system in the legislation based on the 
highest risk; if not, does more study need to be done before 
allocating limited funds to this cause?
    Mr. Guith. The simple answer is no. In the grand scheme of 
toxics, we know very little about this family of chemicals as 
far as what their epidemiological impacts are. We know that 
they are vexing. They are long-lasting. A significant portion 
of the population has PFAS in their blood system, but as you 
point out they are not all the same. And so, we have a process 
in place, or Congress has created a process at EPA, to review 
the science of these chemicals and to ascertain which of them 
are innocuous and which of them aren't, and that is the stage 
that we are at right now. But because they are so pervasive, 
there is understandably great concern around the country.
    Mr. Bilirakis. OK, are children at greater risk to PFAS as 
far as contamination risk? Are they at greater risk?
    Mr. Guith. I personally don't know the answer to that 
question.
    Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Can we find out?
    Mr. Guith. Absolutely, we can follow up with you.
    Mr. Bilirakis. I mean, can you do some research and get 
back to us, follow up? Thank you very much.
    All right, the next question, again for Mr. Guith. State 
regulators have been focused on accelerated replacement of 
aging infrastructure. In fact, DOE has an existing 
collaborative with the National Association of Regulatory 
Utility Commissioners to address this issue. The collaborative 
was designed so that DOE could focus on a demonstration of new 
technologies for leak detection and pipeline replacement.
    Mr. Guith, how might the grant program proposed in the LIFT 
Act impede on States' authority to establish rate structures 
and criteria for the accelerated replacement of pipelines 
deemed no longer fit for service?
    Mr. Guith. How it might impede, I think in some areas it 
might be interpreted to be proscriptive as far as where the 
money goes and how the cost recovery comes. But I think the 
language could be maybe more direct to ensure that that overlap 
does not happen and that rate formation State-by-State is not 
impacted.
    Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Thank you for that input. One 
more question for you, sir. I am glad to see interest in 
extending the school and child care program lead testing grants 
and the lead drinking fountain replacement programs. Lead-
contaminated water in schools is a big issue in my district and 
probably all over the country, and we need to make sure that we 
protect our children.
    Last month, a local news outlet reported that 68 percent of 
Florida school districts did not fully test for lead in 
drinking water. Additionally, a lot of the schools in my 
district tested above the Federal standard for action. Again, I 
want to see more testing because it is so very important. Can 
you comment on that, sir?
    Mr. Guith. I think within the context of my testimony and 
this legislation, I think the most important part to accept is 
that there is a great need for Federal funds across many forms 
of Safe Drinking Water Act programs. That includes PFAS which 
this legislation would create, but also the existing ones. So 
that is why I think it is crucial that we be careful to not 
cannibalize one for the other and to just increase the pot 
across the board, because the demand is that great.
    Mr. Bilirakis. OK, thank you very much. And I yield back.
    Mr. Lujan. Will the gentleman from Florida yield?
    Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. Yes.
    Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Commissioner Clyburn, this morning I had the honor of 
meeting with the mother of Ashlynne Mike. Her name is Pam 
Foster. Sadly, Ashlynne is an 11-year-old Navajo girl who was 
murdered and raped. The importance of Amber Alert systems 
across the country--they work if you have broadband 
connectivity and coverage.
    I appreciate Mr. O'Halleran raising the issue of mapping as 
well. The mapping that we have across the country right now is 
not accurate with showing where there is coverage, especially 
in rural parts of the country. Can you touch on how you believe 
the LIFT Act's provisions will help us in getting more 
connectivity so that, if someone needs to make that text 
message, that phone call, or if someone has a smartphone on 
them, we can triangulate and find them?
    Ms. Clyburn. One of the things that I am happy to see is 
its attention on Next Generation 9-1-1. I mentioned earlier 
that the current systems are based on 50-year-old technology, 
but we are now in an increasingly connected ecosystem. That 
unfortunate incident and what is required and expected of us 
being interoperable when we use our phone, it doesn't matter 
which provider it is, it is interoperable, but our 9-1-1 
systems are often not.
    So ensuring that whatever road that the roads we traveled 
where we did not have connectivity in your beautiful State, we 
need to take care of that. In case of emergency there should be 
no medium that you use--video, still, voice, text--that a 9-1-1 
system should not be able to take. You know, those are the 
baselines of today and tomorrow, and we cannot continue to rely 
on a system that is not interoperable, that is not up to date.
    Our first responders are doing a yeoman's job, e9-1-1 works 
well. We need Next Gen. This takes care of that, and I am 
happy--I can't endorse, I don't think, but I am happy to say 
that whatever I can do to be a partner in moving this along, I 
will.
    Mr. Lujan. Thank you.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. The gentleman's time has expired. 
The gentleman from California, Mr. Ruiz, is recognized.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our 
panel for being here today. I support the LIFT America Act, 
which will support critical infrastructure projects across the 
country, and I am currently researching ways to make it even 
better.
    This bill would upgrade broadband internet access, shore up 
critical 9-1-1 capabilities--as an emergency medicine 
physician, that is very important to me--improving Indian 
health service facilities, and help us meet our clean energy 
goals for a sustainable future. In addition, this bill includes 
robust investment in clean drinking water grant programs. This 
will help support projects to improve water quality in areas 
like the eastern Coachella Valley in my district, where I grew 
up. It is a very rural, agricultural-focused, farmworker 
community.
    Clean and safe drinking water is a common good that 
everyone deserves access to. However, a 2017 study by the 
Environmental Working Group found that many of the smaller 
rural and lower-income areas of the eastern Coachella Valley 
had drinking water systems that contained contaminants, 
including chromium 6, nitrates, and arsenic. The Coachella 
Valley Water District and others have tackled this problem 
head-on and are in the process of consolidating many of these 
old and independent drinking water systems into their network.
    None of this work could have been done without Federal 
assistance from the State Revolving Fund because that funding 
has a set-aside reserve for rural, resource-poor communities. 
In a State and district like mine with so much in need, this 
set-aside ensures that the communities most in need are able to 
access funding.
    Mayor Wahler, you talked about how cities have stepped up 
infrastructure investment to fill the gaps, but that isn't 
possible everywhere. How important is Federal funding for 
drinking water infrastructure, both in your city and in low-
income communities, and how have you utilized them?
    Mr. Wahler. Well, you are absolutely correct, Congressman. 
Not every city or county has been able to do that. It requires 
a lot of proper planning, but, you know, every--the costs of 
the install of water lines vary from different parts of the 
country.
    I think there needs to be down payment money at the Federal 
level because a lot of the communities--and especially in the 
rural areas of this country--just don't have the resources to, 
quite frankly, run miles and miles and miles of line, extended 
period, to serve maybe a small pocket of people, but you still 
have to get the transfer to where the need is, and that is 
going to be a challenging thing even with this bill. Even if 
this bill passed, we are still going to have an incredible 
problem.
    Mr. Ruiz. Great, OK. Do you have well water? Well water?
    Mr. Wahler. In our community we have a few homes that 
have--we have had a law on the books since the mid-'70s you 
have to hook up to public water because we were worried about 
contaminants.
    Mr. Ruiz. Yes. Another important section of this bill 
provides funding for new solar energy investments in rural, 
low-income communities. The cost of solar energy has plummeted 
over the past decade, allowing more and more Americans to reap 
the benefits of clean energy.
    My district has fully embraced the potential of renewable 
energy. If you have ever driven on Interstate 10 through 
Riverside County, you have seen the windmills, the wind 
turbines, the utility scales, solar fields, and the panels that 
line the roofs of neighborhoods throughout my district. And if 
you haven't, you have probably seen it in a movie at some point 
in your life.
    But unfortunately, there are still communities that haven't 
been able to share in the benefits of solar technology. And in 
a region like my congressional district where the sun shines 
bright and long for more than 350 days a year in the Palm 
Springs, California, area, that means there is a lot of 
untapped potential. In fact, my district produces the most 
renewable energy on Federal land than any other district in the 
country, but yet many of the residents cannot access that 
renewable energy. The legislation we are considering today, 
H.R. 2741, the Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America 
Act, establishes a program to provide loans and grants for 
solar installations in low-income and resource-poor areas.
    Mayor Wahler, in your written testimony you refer to these 
provisions as ``inclusive and innovative.'' Can you explain why 
the Conference of Mayors has decided to support the low-income 
solar grant program and how eligible communities would benefit?
    Mr. Wahler. Well, I think it is safe to say every town has 
dynamics to it both socially and economically. Anywhere we can 
help those folks save on their energy bill over the long term 
will allow them to stay in their homes.
    Mr. Ruiz. So what are some of those barriers?
    Mr. Wahler. Well, you know, the truth of the matter is, 
like when you are installing solar in your community, you may 
have a roof that you have to replace the shingles before you 
install solar because you are not exactly----
    Mr. Ruiz. So what can a community do to foster more in-home 
use of solar panels?
    Mr. Wahler. Well, I think they need to have--first of all, 
I think a lot of people don't have the resources to actually 
have a study done on their house or where they live. And by 
having an economic grant out there to do that, that will allow 
people to realize whether it makes sense or not to put that on 
their facility.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you very much. My time is up. Thank you 
very much.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Next is Mrs. Brooks, recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all 
of our panelists who have been sitting here now for quite some 
time, but you all are very much adding in significant ways to 
this really important discussion.
    I want to start with you, Mr. Auerbach. Subtitle E, the 
Public Health Infrastructure, we haven't talked about that very 
much today, but it creates some new grants at the CDC--which I 
actually just recently visited in late April--to improve 
workforce capacity, competency lab systems, as you talked 
about, public health information systems, communications 
financing.
    How do these grants differ--as one who has been very 
involved in coleading with Congressman Eshoo on PAHPA--how do 
these grants differ from the Public Health Emergency 
Preparedness grants that CDC already administers?
    Mr. Auerbach. Thank you. And let me start by saying thank 
you for your leadership on the PAHPA.
     Mrs. Brooks. Well, and thank you. We are pleased it came 
back from the Senate, and we are very, very hopeful that we can 
get it across the finish line in the very near future.
    But how does this differ? And then you also said in your 
testimony the PAHPA goal remains aspirational. We don't want to 
think it is aspirational unless we have health information 
technology. So could you please expand on that?
    Mr. Auerbach. Sure. Well, the public health preparedness 
grants that come from CDC now really focus on having the right 
people, the right plans in place, and the right training so 
that health departments can respond in a variety of different 
ways. There is also support, of course, for some of the 
disease-specific and response capacity in laboratories within 
the States.
    But they don't deal with the fundamental infrastructure 
issues that are crippling many of the State and local health 
departments. Those include the status of the health departments 
themselves in terms of having the appropriate equipment, 
technology to respond appropriately. So an example of that is 
that many of the health departments don't have the advanced 
molecular detection capacity, for example, so that if there is 
an emergency and there is a rapid need to test a particular 
organism to determine whether or not it is a risk to the 
public, they are lacking that capacity.
    So the funding that would be within the LIFT America Act 
would complement the existing grants but provide that kind of 
infrastructure that is necessary when you have the skills, you 
have the plans, but you don't have the--the equipment that you 
don't have, the facilities that can ensure that there is rapid 
response.
    Mrs. Brooks. Has that ever been mapped out, what our public 
health departments need relative to the type of infrastructure 
you are talking about?
    I also want to commend the chairman for including public 
health infrastructure, because I don't think many people in our 
country think about public health as part of the infrastructure 
needs, and so I was really pleased to see that. But has that 
ever been determined, what we need across the country, public 
health departments relative to infrastructure?
    Mr. Auerbach. Thank you for asking that. There have been 
efforts to attempt to address that, to capture that 
information. There have been--there is information, for 
instance, that has been developed on laboratory capacity, 
information that has been developed on response to certain 
types of emergencies like vector-borne illnesses like we saw, 
for instance, with Zika.
    So some of that information has been captured and there has 
been planning efforts to estimate what it would take to close 
the gap.
    Mrs. Brooks. And excuse me for cutting you off----
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes, yes.
    Mrs. Brooks [continuing]. But I want to switch to one other 
witness. Can you please get us the information as to where that 
might be mapped or where it has been recorded?
    Mr. Auerbach. Certainly, my pleasure.
    Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
    Mr. Lyons, a quick question. The State of Indiana has a 
program called Next Level Broadband where Governor Holcomb and 
the State is going to be providing a hundred million dollars to 
deploy broadband to underserved--unserved--unserved areas in 
the State. But can you speak to how the bill will complement 
State programs like my own State's or maybe other States that 
might be doing this? How can we ensure that there isn't that 
duplication or the guardrails with this BIFIA program?
    How can we make sure that we are not duplicating and that 
we are covering the unserved areas?
    Mr. Lyons. Yes, so part of the answer may be making sure 
that the money that is allocated on the State level goes to the 
State utility regulator as usually what is handling the State-
level initiatives. There are number of States across the 
country that have State-level initiatives. I would envision the 
State part of this as complementing those.
    But you are right, it has to get in the hands of the same 
people so you don't have right-hand/left-hand issues.
    Mrs. Brooks. OK. Ms. Clyburn, do you have any comments on 
that?
    Ms. Clyburn. Yes. Again, it is about communications. We 
talk about coordination, but it is about communications and 
everybody is transparent in terms of where those monies are 
flowing so that we are, again, are not overspending in one area 
and just leaving others behind.
    Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. And thank you all so much. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Ms. Eshoo, recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Eshoo. At last. But this has been time spent very well, 
I think. I arrived a little after the gavel was lowered, but I 
have the advantage of having listened to everyone on the 
committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very important 
bill. Thank you to all of the witnesses. You have given us--you 
have enlightened us, and I thank you for it. Even though I have 
been here for just about all morning and now part of the 
afternoon, I see you looking at the clock. I know you are 
hungry. Your stomachs are grumbling.
    I am really excited about this bill. I think it should be 
called the LIFT UP America Act because that is really what this 
is designed to do. The American people understand what this 
means. It is jobs, jobs, jobs. It is American jobs. It is 
American equipment. It is American everything. And it really is 
meant to lift up our country in the 21st century and to really 
take care of the things that have been neglected, that have 
been put off, whether it is building out broadband where 
people--imagine, there are 21 million people in our country 
that don't have it, you know, shame on us. But we are 
correcting it and we are putting real money toward it.
    Water systems, the NG 9-1-1--John Shimkus and I have been 
on this like white on rice for more years than I want to count, 
but I am excited because we are going to address it. This is 
all about our first responders in every single community in 
every single congressional district and, boy, do we need that. 
Our Nation's grid--I could go on and on. I think, Mr. Chairman, 
that we need to tighten up the section in the bill relative to 
mapping, because we have got to get this thing right and we 
haven't yet, and I want to work with you on that.
    I also want to thank Mr. Auerbach for the work that you 
have done in supporting PAHPA. It has been very important. All 
of you have given very sophisticated testimony, and while PAHPA 
is not in this bill, there are benefits that our country will 
accrue from it. And our Nation's public health emergency 
response infrastructure is taken for granted, but it is an 
essential in our country.
    Without this reauthorization, I mean, one of the Assistant 
Secretaries said that they can't respond to the measles crisis 
that is erupting in our country. So I look forward to Congress 
passing this and getting it done. And I could never have asked 
for a better partner than Congresswoman Susan Brooks. 
Outstanding.
    Mr. Mayor, I want to underscore something. You are here 
with the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I want to thank you and all 
of the mayors of our country for endorsing the legislation that 
I am carrying relative to municipalities being preempted.
    Mr. Wahler. Yes.
    Ms. Eshoo. I come from local government, so I have a 
reverence for it. Now, last fall the FCC preempted, essentially 
ran over all the local municipalities, the local communities in 
our country from having a say in deploying small cell sites, 
and that is the infrastructure that is needed for 5G. And now 
that poor policy has led to nearly a hundred municipalities, 
public power utilities, and associations to sue the FCC. Say 
something about that to us.
    Mr. Wahler. Well, Piscataway is part of the lawsuit. Let's 
just face it----
    Ms. Eshoo. And thank you.
    Mr. Wahler. The reality is we need to work with the telecom 
industry. They are the 21st century railroads. And 
unfortunately, as we all know history, when the railroads were 
being built, they just went along their merry way and do 
whatever they want.
    Ms. Eshoo. But let me interrupt for a moment, because one 
of the witnesses said that this is the way it should go, and it 
is going to slow them down and it is going to bollocks 
everything up as if local municipal--that is the heartbeat of 
America, every city and town in our country.
    So respond to what--I don't know, was it Professor Lyons? 
Were you the one that didn't agree? I am not asking you to 
comment.
    Mr. Lyons. That is right. Yes.
    Ms. Eshoo. Just you can say--yes, you are the one. OK.
    Mr. Wahler. Municipalities, you know, there shouldn't be 
reason to preempt our municipal rights-of-way. The municipal 
rights-of-way are the most valuable assets that communities 
have regardless of the--other than the people that live within 
the community. We maintain the rights-of-way. There is, from 
what I understand, from what the communications folks want to 
do, is that there is no guarantee that they are going to repair 
when they tear the rights-of-way up.
    Ultimately, at the end of the day they are not the ones 
that get the calls to City Hall about what the heck is going on 
in my neighborhood. All I know is that there is a lot of very 
upset people, a lot of upset officials around this country. 
They have not been equal partners in this.
    Ms. Eshoo. Hardly.
    Mr. Wahler. And something has got to give, and that is why 
a lawsuit was filed.
    Ms. Eshoo. Well, I want to thank----
    Mr. Pallone. The gentlewoman's time----
    Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. The chairman of the full committee 
again and thank everyone, and especially for the support you 
have given to this effort. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wahler. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I have to catch a train 
in 15 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. That is all right. You are excused. But thank 
you for coming.
    Mr. Wahler. I have a ribbon-cutting of a beautiful park 
that we used to rebuild the community with block grant money, 
and we guaranteed all the kids an ice cream truck tonight.
    Ms. Eshoo. Isn't that great?
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mayor.
    Mr. Wahler. So, Chairman, if you get this bill through and 
pass final passage, I will bring the ice cream truck down here 
to the committee.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mayor. Safe travels.
    Next is Mr. Walberg, recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the 
whole panel for being here today. I have the privilege of 
representing Michigan's energy district. We have everything in 
it, including biomass, and it is all going well. We all have 
the challenges with that energy. Title 3 contemplates Federal 
spending in the tens of billions of dollars in our energy 
infrastructure.
    While some of these investments are needed, I echo the 
concerns raised by my friend and colleague from Michigan, Mr. 
Upton, about the cost and nature of these programs, whether 
they are the best way to approach the problem or whether they 
will work the way they are intended, given the overlap amongst 
many of them.
    Mr. Guith, the bill authorizes a Federal Strategic Transfer 
Reserve. I understand the need to ensure recovery from major 
power outages, especially after a cyber attack. But it is my 
understanding that Congress authorized DOE to conduct a study 
into the need for such a strategic reserve and the best 
approach to ensuring resiliency and availability, replacements 
of transformers pursuant to the FAST Act.
    Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to enter this report 
into the record.
    Mr. Pallone. Have we seen it? Have we seen what Mr. Walberg 
wants to enter into the record?
    Without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think 
you should have seen that.
    Mr. Guith, in your own testimony you report the Department 
of Energy determined that the Strategic Transfer Reserve would 
not be necessary and did not recommend the formation of a 
federally owned reserve. If we are to enhance electricity-
sector resilience, does it make sense to follow DOE's statutory 
required recommendations?
    Mr. Guith. Yes. I mean, if you look into what the country 
has available when it comes to rapid response for critical 
situations of power outages, whether it is because of weather 
or some other interruption, it is incumbent upon the Nation's 
utilities to bring those, to have those assets stockpiled and 
be able to bring them to bear collectively at the drop of a 
hat, and that is what DOE determined.
    And that is why we would recommend taking the authorized 
funds for the Transformer Reserve Program and applying them to 
the Transformer Resilience and Advance Components Program also 
in the bill, because that is where the most work can be done, 
is how to make the transformers themselves more resilient to 
extreme conditions.
    Mr. Walberg. So probably before moving forward we ought to 
make sure that these recommendations are captured. I would 
assume that from your--thank you.
    Mr. Lyons and Commissioner Clyburn, can you please comment 
on the provision of the bill that allows entities not 
designated as eligible telecommunications carriers to receive 
funding under this bill?
    Ms. Clyburn. I think it would promote innovative ideas and 
opportunities as long as those companies are well-vetted and 
meet the standards. I think it should be an all-inclusive, all-
of-the-above approach so we can get the best ideas, the best 
technologies to the market.
    Mr. Walberg. Mr. Lyons?
    Mr. Lyons. I agree with that. I think the more people you 
have bidding in the reverse auctions, the better, as long as 
they can meet the minimum technical standards of what the 
auction is requiring.
    Mr. Walberg. OK. Mr. Lyons, do you see the potential for a 
bottleneck in deploying this funding when it comes to skilled 
professional workforce that can actually use the funding 
considered in this bill to actually go out and build the 
networks?
    Mr. Lyons. I think that is possible. There are certainly a 
number of folks, particularly in the wireless, the fixed 
wireless space, who have talked about the need for more workers 
than we can get. When you are talking about deploying in rural 
areas where populations are relatively small, you are going to 
need to find trained people somewhere.
    Mr. Walberg. That is a challenge these days.
     Commissioner Clyburn, is there more the Commission or we 
in Congress can help to reduce this problem?
    Ms. Clyburn. Yes, coordination, certainty, and focus. I 
really think if we keep our eyes on the what the potential for 
this, it will--it sounds like a big price tag, but it will pay 
for itself in multiples.
    Mr. Walberg. OK, thank you. I appreciate that. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Pallone. I thank the gentleman. Next is Mr. Engel, 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Auerbach, I have a few questions I would like to ask 
you. And I am going to make a statement, and I would like you 
to comment on it. Community-based hospitals are often the 
cornerstone of healthcare systems, and many of them operate on 
very thin margins--I know that is true in my district--and 
therefore lack the resources to invest in new facilities.
    I am pleased to be an original sponsor of the LIFT America 
Act, which does include $2 billion to modernize hospitals, and 
it marks an important first step, but considerably more funding 
obviously is necessary to address the dire state of our 
Nation's hospitals. So I would like to ask you if you could 
please describe the negative effects that outdated and 
antiquated hospital facilities can have on patient care. I 
mean, it is obvious, but I think we should state it.
    Mr. Auerbach. Sure. And thank you very much for this 
question. You raise an important point. We are seeing across 
the country that a number of our hospitals are becoming 
outdated. Their facilities are in some instances literally 
crumbling and that that kind of an impact, as well as the 
impact of cutting back on services or in some instances 
closing, is having a very negative impact on the provision of 
healthcare services to the people in those communities.
    It can mean it becomes more difficult to provide high-
quality care. It can mean there can be additional expenses in 
terms of the provision of care, and it is particularly a 
problem for the safety net hospitals, for the hospitals that 
serve the lower-income residents of the country.
    So paying attention to the status of the hospitals, the 
infrastructure of those hospitals, both the buildings 
themselves and the technology within those buildings, both 
laboratory technology and internet technology, is extremely 
important in terms of health outcomes and quality of care 
overall.
    Mr. Engel. Well, thank you very much. I absolutely agree 
with you. The second question deals with lead pipes. And I want 
to tell you that during the 2016-2017 academic year, parents of 
students attending Public School 41, which is a public 
elementary school in my district, told me they were concerned 
about elevated lead levels in the school's water fixtures.
    And we worked with the city's Department of Education, New 
York City. We were able to replace all of the affected 
fixtures. It was one of several schools in the city with lead-
made water fixtures, and I, really, I am happy that the city 
replaced 91 percent of the water fixtures affected. It has 
commitment to achieving a hundred percent, but the good work in 
New York City is really an exception.
    One recent nationwide survey estimates that 6 million lead 
service lines are still in use, posing a risk to the health and 
well-being of American families. So, Mr. Auerbach, let me ask 
you again, can you please describe the impacts of lead exposure 
on children's development and growth?
    Mr. Auerbach. Sure. Well, lead exposure can have a 
devastating impact on the health of children. As their brains 
are developing rapidly, the impact of lead can cause 
developmental delay. It can cause behavioral health problems. 
In some instances it results in hospitalization. If that lead 
exposure is high enough, it can even result in death. So lead 
exposure is particularly dangerous and for children, but it is 
dangerous for people at any age.
    Mr. Engel. Well, thank you. And my third and final 
statement, which also involves a question, talks about the 
recent outbreaks of Zika and flu have shown our Nation is 
woefully unprepared for infectious disease outbreaks, and we 
have seen it with measles as well. Much of this can be 
attributed to a lack of Federal support for public health 
infrastructure, including disease monitoring systems and 
diagnostics laboratories.
    I am pleased to see that the LIFT America Act will make 
robust investments in this area. So let me ask you again the 
question, how will these investments prepare our healthcare 
system with the threat posed by antibiotic-resistant pathogens, 
sometimes called superbugs?
    Mr. Auerbach. Thank you for asking that question. The 
threats associated with antibiotic resistance are very 
significant threats and likely to increase over time. We are 
seeing more and more instances where they are being detected in 
healthcare facilities and at the locations, and they pose a 
significant risk to the public. Public health can play a 
critical role, and the support through the LIFT America Act 
provides much of that support to do rapid testing.
    Identification of what those bugs are using technology like 
advanced nuclear detection allows us to get a precise 
understanding of what those pathogens are and makes it easier 
for them to be isolated and makes it easier for the people that 
have been exposed to them to be treated. So this is a serious 
threat and one where this act would help in terms of both 
prevention and response.
    Mr. Engel. Well, thank you very much. I think it is 
important to get these things on the record so people 
understand how important this is and how it really affects 
everyone. Thank you.
    Mr. Auerbach. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Engel. Yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Engel. Mr. Carter, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. Thank all of you for being here, we 
appreciate your indulgence. And I know you are tired and you 
are hungry but you are almost there, so hang in there, OK.
    Ladies and gentlemen, I have the honor and privilege of 
representing the entire coast of Georgia, and we of course are 
not immune from natural disasters. In fact, we have had two 
hurricanes in an 11-month period and, as you can imagine, very 
devastating to our area.
    I wanted to ask, I see a lot of programs and funding that 
are included in these bills and Mr. Guith, I will ask you. They 
seem to prioritize different uses, but I don't see them really 
prioritizing disaster situations. And I was just wondering how 
much of this bill really does actually reinforce resiliency. Is 
that really included? I mean, surely, we want to mitigate these 
types of situations. We know that they are more common now, and 
some would argue that they are more intense now in these 
storms. Are we doing anything in this bill that would help us 
in that respect?
    Mr. Guith. I am not going to pretend to be an expert on all 
200-some pages, but I think there are aspects that absolutely 
address reliability and resiliency. We have talked about some 
of them this morning on the transformer resiliency, some of the 
monies that would go to DOE to help develop more resilient 
transformers.
    But also within the scope of the smart grid funding, I 
think that could also be considered a reliability function, 
because the more automated you have the ability to dispatch 
electrons and make real-time differences when you have one path 
cut down because of a tree line or because of a hurricane and 
the ability to bring new generation online more quickly and to 
distribute that, I mean, that is one of the underlying aspects 
of a smart grid. So I would say that it does take steps to 
address reliability and resiliency.
    Mr. Carter. Well, I am glad to hear that, because I 
honestly believe that if we are smarter, if you will, if we 
just use a little bit of preparation that we can sustain these 
storms a lot better, and certainly that would help.
    The weatherization program under the Department of Energy--
and it is obviously intended to reduce costs for low-income 
individuals in low-income communities, of which we have quite a 
few in the State of Georgia as well--but are these updated in 
any ways to help these people? Because, I mean, it is 
devastating to anyone who is flooded and it is devastating to 
anyone who is impacted by this, but especially for low-income. 
Are you familiar with anything to do with that?
    Mr. Guith. The Weatherization Assistance Program is 
something that--it is a program that has been around, I think, 
for 3 decades. The reauthorization is incredibly important not 
only to the recipients of those grants but also to the 
utilities who serve them and provide the weatherization.
    The one mention I make in my testimony is that we would 
caution against diverting funds from efficiency improvements, 
which is what the Weatherization Assistance Program has been 
focused on serving some 7 million Americans over its lifetime, 
and broadening the definition to include renewable technology. 
That is addressed in other parts of the bill which we have also 
heard about this morning, specifically what Mr. Ruiz mentioned 
related to rural and low-income solar.
    So we would prefer that this stay, that the Weatherization 
Assistance Program stay solely within the bandwidth of 
increasing efficiency around the envelope of the residence.
    Mr. Carter. Good. Thank you for that.
    Professor Lyons, I wanted to ask you. I represent South 
Georgia, a lot of rural area in South Georgia, and I know one 
of the things that we have talked about is the broadband build-
out. And you seemed to express concerns about the mapping 
process and about us making certain that we are prioritizing 
places that need to be, such as the rural areas. What would you 
suggest? I mean what can we do differently perhaps?
    Mr. Lyons. So part of the issue lies with better data 
collection at the FCC, right, so the FCC is already in the 
process of trying to figure out how to improve their existing 
data collection efforts and have started to reach out with, 
through public-private partnerships, with groups like USTelecom 
to figure out better reporting.
    I think one thing that may be helpful is, as we mentioned 
before--and this is something that Commissioner Clyburn 
mentioned in her remarks as well--is some form of crowdsourcing 
to get third-party information, right. The information of what 
services are available where is known by the American people. 
It is just a matter of getting it from the disparate level up 
to those who are coordinating this, and finding ways to do that 
may be very useful.
    So, for example, I can go at any time on a website called 
speedtest.net, right. Anywhere I am as long as I have a 
connection, it will tell me not only that I have connectivity 
but what the speed is. That type of data is really valuable if 
you can get it in the hands of those who are mapping not only 
availability but also speed on a locational basis.
    Mr. Carter. Right, right. Well, thank you. And thank you 
all again for hanging in there with us. And I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Mr. Rush, recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I sheepishly 
come to the committee room for this hearing because I have been 
in the chair when Members come in in the last minute and enter 
the hearing, and I do know the feeling. So I feel you, Mr. 
Chairman. I feel the witnesses also. I am going to be brief.
    But I was at an important meeting of the Congressional 
Black Caucus and, Ms. Clyburn, your father came in and gave us 
a report on what happened at the White House this morning. And 
one thing I just want to say that this hearing is being 
conducted with the White House meeting as a backdrop where the 
President told the Speaker and the other Democratic leaders 
there that they had a choice of either investigations or 
infrastructure, and then he walked out. So he is putting that 
choice before the American people, want Congress investigations 
or infrastructure, and he walked out and closed the door. That 
was the President.
    And so--but I sit here as a proud cosponsor of the LIFT 
America Act, and I certainly want to commend my chairman, 
Chairman Pallone, for his leadership and his endurance as well 
as all of my colleagues for their hard work in bringing forth 
this much-needed bill.
    With titles on expanding broadband, increasing funding for 
clean drinking water, modernizing our electric grid, and making 
healthcare more accessible, this bill will provide enormous 
help to my constituents, and it goes beyond just the empty 
rhetoric and partisan posturing. It makes significant 
investments in starting to rebuilding our Nation and combating 
climate change.
    So I am going to begin my questions with you, Ms. Clyburn. 
I know this is an issue that you worked on for many years now 
as a Commissioner. In your opinion, how well does the LIFT Act, 
the LIFT America Act, help modernize our telecommunications 
infrastructure and expand broadband to all of America, all 
communities in America?
    Ms. Clyburn. One of the great opportunities I had as 
serving as an FCC Commissioner is being part of the public-
private partnership agreement that we had with industry. It 
brought--it leveraged limited resources with the resources of 
commercial enterprises. What this does is pick up where that 
left off, where we were so dependent on industry to--by their 
business plans, even though it was a partnership, this says, 
``Here is what has not worked in the past. Here are where the 
gaps are. This is where the money is going to.''
    So it is targeted. It is intentional. And it will allow us 
with that $40 billion to fill in some gaps that we have been 
talking about, lamenting about, and acting like we did not know 
that money will fix this. It will target it, you know, direct 
that to those places. And that is why I wanted to be here 
today, because, you know, I thought I was done with hearings.
    Mr. Rush. Understand.
    Ms. Eckdish, I come from Chicago, and believe it or not, we 
have a crisis for clean water in Chicago, and it is really a 
crisis in urban areas throughout the Nation as we start out to 
rebuild the water infrastructure. And how will this bill help 
us to solve the problem of access to clean water across the 
Nation, including my city of Chicago?
    Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
From aging infrastructure, leaking infrastructure, to 
contaminants that we have talked about today, lead in our 
water, there is tremendous need, and we know communities across 
the country are struggling to provide clean water. This bill 
will be a significant step in the right direction in terms of 
really investing more funds in our State Revolving Funds and 
the Drinking Water SRF that is a very proven program and also 
will create good jobs.
    Mr. Rush. And there is a battle and has been for decades 
now in Chicago among some of the unions and contracting 
developers around plastic or lead pipe. Do you have any 
position of which one is more conducive to clean water and 
clean environment?
    Ms. Eckdish. You know, I think that is a really important 
question. I would love to follow up for the record on that one.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Rush. Mr. Gianforte is now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 
committee for being here. As we look to rebuild and modernize 
our infrastructure, addressing the needs of our rural 
communities must be a priority, from rebuilding roads and 
bridges to maintaining dams and waterways to investing in 
reliable access to water.
    As the internet continues to transform how we work, 
communicate, and connect, delivering dependable broadband to 
our rural communities needs to be a top priority. Reliable 
access to broadband is a key to opening the doors of greater 
opportunity and the American Dream to more Americans. The 
internet as we know it came to be around 1995. For 20 years it 
was open and free. It ushered in innovation and transformed our 
economy, leading to new high-tech sector and good-paying jobs.
    In 1997, my wife Susan and I started a business in our home 
in Bozeman, Montana. We had this idea that the internet might 
actually make it possible for folks to work from anywhere, even 
from Montana. We were right. Our company grew from a room in 
our house to one of Montana's largest employers, with 1,100 
employees and an average salary of almost $90,000 a year, in 
Montana.
    Ours was just one example of how the internet created more 
high-paying American jobs, increased opportunity and 
prosperity. While broadband access has taken off exponentially 
for some in the last 10 years, our rural communities remain one 
of the most difficult to connect. One in three Montanans still 
lacks access to broadband. And the disparity is worse in our 
rural areas.
    To bridge this digital divide, the overall cost of getting 
fiber to the last home must come down. Congress should cut red 
tape from the permitting process and empower State and local 
officials to efficiently deploy broadband in our rural 
communities. Last Congress, I worked with Representative Curtis 
from Utah to pass the Rural Broadband Permitting Efficiency Act 
through the House. This bill streamlines the deployment of 
broadband infrastructure in highway right-of-ways by cutting 
back on duplicative Federal permitting laws and regulations. 
These mandated reviews can cause unneeded and yearlong delays 
in critical projects. They also discourage providers and States 
from pursuing broadband deployment projects, especially in 
rural areas.
    Reforming the Federal permitting process spans the 
ideological spectrum from a conservative like me to the 
president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute. 
Three years ago he said, ``An accumulation of laws and 
regulations largely designed to protect the environment via 
environmental impact reviews is bogging down the approval of 
badly needed transportation projects and instead causing 
environmental damage.''
    The fact is, the current permitting regime is an obstacle 
to opportunity. There is bipartisan agreement for permitting 
reform. As we build an infrastructure package, we must work 
together to reform the Federal permitting process to help us 
make timely and critical investments in our communities that 
need them the most.
    I want to start with you, Mr. Guith, if I could. 
Commonsense reforms in right-of-way, the FAST-41 authority, and 
the environmental review process can cut down the costs and 
timeliness of projects. Are there other practices that we 
should be looking at to make the permitting process more 
efficient?
    Mr. Guith. Besides permanent authorization of FAST-41, I 
would say the two most useful tools that Congress can provide 
are codifying one Federal decision which was in the executive 
order from 2 years ago so that there is no question to a 
project sponsor who is shepherding or who is responsible 
ultimately for their project. Instead of saying, ``All right, 
Federal Government, who is working on it now?'' and you get a 
bunch of shoulder shrugs, you know, specifically there is one 
and one only. And that is also important when there are 
discrepancies between two agencies as to who takes the 
priority.
    And then the other aspect is limiting the time frame to 2 
years. I mean, there can always be certain exceptions made, but 
the bottom line is that concurrent process through the entire 
Federal Government as well as State and local, it shouldn't 
take longer than 2 years. It shouldn't take longer to permit a 
project than it does to build it.
    Mr. Gianforte. Well, I appreciate that, and I see my time 
is coming to an end. But I just want to say thank you for being 
here. We need to continue to work together and, Mr. Chairman, 
let's find bipartisan ways to get this infrastructure built, 
particularly as it relates to rural broadband. And I yield 
back.
    Mr. Pallone. I thank the gentleman. Oh, Ms. Kuster is here. 
Ms. Kuster is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Last but not least. You are almost done. Thank 
you for your patience, and I want to join my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to talk about rural broadband, critical 
issue in my district in New Hampshire. I have made this comment 
before, but I think the presidential primary candidates are 
going to have the experience, ``Can you hear me now? Can you 
hear me now?'' And I think it may become a higher priority on 
their agenda, I hope.
    But thank you for your work, Commissioner. We appreciate 
it. And I do want to work with the committee on the mapping 
issue. I think Cathy McMorris Rodgers mentioned a bill, and I 
would like to work in a bipartisan way. That is a big point for 
us right now because the maps show that there is better 
coverage than there actually is, and so we have a citizen 
initiative going out and trying to collect the data for the 
FCC.
    And then the other issue that I make note of is your point 
that population is not a good proxy for coverage, that we 
should maybe revisit and fix that issue, the allocation issue 
around the funding. But I think you have heard today broad, 
bipartisan support for improved access and for education, for 
job training; it is critically important for us in terms of the 
next generation of citizens and workers in New Hampshire, so I 
appreciate that. I also appreciate the issues around clean 
drinking water in the LIFT Act. I want to commend the chair for 
including that.
    In New Hampshire we recently passed a State law requiring 
that schools test their water and take remediation efforts if 
contamination is present. A recent GAO report indicated 57 
percent of American schools do not test their drinking water 
for lead, which I think to most parents would be pretty 
shocking. And so, I think it is important to address that in 
the LIFT Act, funding for drinking water programs including 
schools and child care programs.
    So I want to follow up, Ms. Eckdish, from your testimony 
highlighting more than half of the schools across the country 
were built during the 1970s or before. Can you discuss the 
challenges that some of these schools face around lead 
contamination and drinking water and how this bill might make a 
difference?
    Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you for that question, 
Congresswoman. And again, I think schools are a critical issue 
that should be part of the infrastructure conversation. As we 
heard from Mr. Auerbach, children are particularly susceptible 
to lead, so looking at lead in schools as well as lead in child 
care facilities is extremely important moving forward and 
should be part of the infrastructure discussion.
    I think more broadly there could be opportunities to look 
at--the bill does look at the energy efficiency at schools. 
There are opportunities to look more broadly at the health and 
safety of these school facilities beyond lead, asbestos, a 
number of other challenges that these aging facilities are 
facing.
    Ms. Kuster. And I also appreciate the provisions around 
PFAS. We just had a hearing recently, and that has been a big 
issue in my district as well. And I just think, you know, as a 
mother, as a Member of Congress, I care about the present and 
future well-being of our children, and I think it is something 
that is, you know, critically important, so I appreciate that.
    And then just turning to the significant investment in 
moving us toward a clean energy economy, in New Hampshire we 
have five towns already--Concord, Keene, Plainfield, Hanover, 
and Cornish--in my district that have committed to use 100 
percent renewable energy by 2030. And I think so many 
communities are stepping up on clean energy.
    Our housing authority, for example, in Keene, New 
Hampshire, recently installed solar arrays on a housing 
project, and it is going to reduce pollution equivalent to gas-
powered driving vehicles a hundred and ninety, two hundred 
thousand every single year. So again, Ms. Eckdish, if you can 
discuss how the LIFT Act's grant program to support solar 
installations could make a difference, and then my time will be 
up and you will be done.
    Ms. Eckdish. Sure, thank you. So I think, again, investing 
in clean energy is a tremendous need both in terms of reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions and, if we do it right, with strong 
labor and procurement standards we can also create good jobs 
not only in the installation of these solar panels, wind 
infrastructure projects, but also in the manufacturing of the 
component parts. And I think that is an important thing to 
consider as well.
    Ms. Kuster. So a bipartisan win-win-win well-delivered, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. And Mr. Cardenas is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member, for having this important hearing. And I just want to 
say that I am happy to be talking about infrastructure today, 
and I am certain the American people are happy that we are 
talking about it, but hopefully we can put that talk into some 
actions as legislators.
    Improving broadband infrastructure to make sure our 
students can get their homework, to modernizing infrastructure 
in transportation, to make sure it is smart and energy 
efficient to improving our healthcare, physical infrastructure, 
and telecommunications systems, to fixing our drinking water 
infrastructure--this bill takes tremendous strides towards a 
future we should have gotten to many, many years ago. And it is 
really important for us to realize that it is our 
responsibility. It is every generation's responsibility.
    But I personally believe that the United States of 
America--that we who are around today, especially 
decisionmakers and adults--we have been resting on the laurels 
and the hard work of previous generations who have invested in 
infrastructure and we, unfortunately, have been able to take it 
for granted. And far too often I think that we do take it for 
granted.
    In Los Angeles, many need to drive to get to school, work, 
to see their families. We are working on reducing emissions so 
we can breathe cleaner air in Los Angeles. We are building out 
our public transit, which will greatly benefit families in the 
San Fernando Valley. I am very proud to see it in our school 
districts.
    In Los Angeles, we embarked on an over $30 billion 
infrastructure to build again an example of an infrastructure 
that we had foregone for decades, for generations, and now we 
have one of the most modern school systems in the country when 
it comes to the infrastructure thereof. Nearly 25 million 
children ride over 500,000 predominantly diesel buses to school 
in the U.S. every single day, which contributes to air 
pollution and, importantly, it also exposes our most vulnerable 
population to that air pollution. That is why I have introduced 
the Clean Commute for Kids Act, which would provide funding to 
replace/retrofit school bus fleets with cleaner energy sources 
like electricity or natural gas. I want to thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for including this bill in the LIFT America Act.
    I have a question. My first question is for Mayor Wahler 
and Ms. Eckdish. Can you talk about what converting or 
retrofitting a school bus fleet to cleaner energy sources like 
electricity can be for reducing emissions?
    Ms. Eckdish. Sure. Thank you for the question. We are 
talking about, obviously, emissions reductions. We are talking 
about air pollution benefits, so public health benefits as 
well. And if we do it right, and we are also looking at 
procuring those vehicles domestically, we are also looking at 
job creation benefits in the community as well.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK, anybody else? OK, so I guess we agree it 
is good for everyone. And I think it is important for us to 
understand that we must keep, in my mind, the common 
denominator is our most vulnerable, seniors and children. 
Seniors and children. Seniors and children, because, 
fortunately or unfortunately, many of us take things for 
granted and we don't feel or understand how dire these changes 
are and how they need to be made, like, yesterday.
    I believe that the Clean Commute for Kids Act will reduce 
emissions in communities, reduce the exposure of our children 
to carbon emissions and particulate matter that has been shown 
to cause health issues like asthma, which will expose children 
to clean energy sources and get them excited about renewables. 
And again, this is an example for children. What we have seen 
when we were growing up, we should not take it for granted that 
that is modern and clean and good for the next generation.
    As we convert to cleaner, renewable sources we need to 
address the issue of energy storage. The current landscape of 
storage includes grid scale, pump storage, hydropower, and 
smaller lithium-ion batteries. But I understand that several 
new grid-scale technologies are either in laboratories or pilot 
phase. Now, the great additional benefit we will have from 
solving this problem is that we will be creating new, green 
jobs for Americans at the same time.
    Ms. Eckdish, any perspectives on that?
    Ms. Eckdish. Yes, thank you. I completely agree we should 
be investing broadly and leading in these new clean 
technologies.
    Mr. Cardenas. So how are we doing in the laboratory, from 
your perspective? I mean, do we have some of these things 
coming to fruition soon hopefully? I mean, is the investment 
being made, as far as you are aware?
    Ms. Eckdish. I think we need to significantly increase our 
investments across these low-carbon technologies. I think we 
have made significant strides in a number of them, but there is 
significant much more work to be done.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. And also I would just like to acknowledge 
and thank Commissioner Clyburn for all of your expertise and 
the efforts that you have constantly given not only to this 
committee but the Members of Congress from your perspective and 
your public service. So thank you.
    Ms. Clyburn. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Cardenas. I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Pallone. I thank the gentleman. And last but not least, 
we have Mr. Butterfield, recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
realize the hour is late, and I will try to get through this 
much quicker than in 5 minutes. But thank you to the witnesses 
and thank you for hanging in there for the last few hours. It 
has been a long day.
    You know, Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about 
infrastructure ever since I have been in Congress, but it seems 
that in the last couple of years we have really gotten serious 
about a serious and big and bold investment in infrastructure. 
And the good thing about it, it seems that it is becoming a 
bipartisan conversation here on the Hill, and so I am real 
excited about it.
    When our leadership went to the White House a few weeks 
ago, I guess it was 3 weeks ago, to discuss it with the 
President, we initially put $1.2 trillion on the table as a 
beginning point, and then I understand the conversation 
mushroomed into 1.5 trillion and the President himself offered 
2 trillion. And so that was a good opening.
    Our leadership went back to the White House this morning 
and continued the conversation to try to find ways to pay for a 
$2 trillion infrastructure investment, but unfortunately the 
President, upon hearing some news reports that he disliked 
about our Democratic Caucus meeting this morning, literally 
walked out of the meeting and ended the conversations and said 
that, until there is a discontinuation of the investigations, 
then there will be no conversation at all with him about 
infrastructure.
    And I don't know if the five of you know that. You have 
been at the table all day long. I don't know if you have seen 
the breaking news, but the President literally walked out of 
the meeting today and said that he would not continue the 
conversation. And so that is very unfortunate, but I am 
prepared to vote for any infrastructure package that we have an 
opportunity to vote on.
    Mr. Chairman, one thing that I have been concerned about 
over the years is a proper definition of infrastructure. When I 
think of infrastructure I think of electric grid. I think of 
water systems, contaminated water, sewer systems, brownfields, 
bridges, ports, highways, high-speed rail, airports, 
transportation hubs, rural broadband, broadband, clean energy, 
pipeline safety, schools, hospitals, public health and 
recreation, and the list just goes on and on.
    Now I know that a trillion dollars is a lot of money, Mr. 
Chairman, but if you try to pay for all of these projects in a 
big way, a trillion dollars will not be sufficient to fund all 
of these different projects. So that is why I want to call on 
us to really get serious about defining what infrastructure 
really is. And so let me just begin with Ms. Clyburn.
    In your written testimony, you discussed the importance of 
educational institutions and their essential role in training 
and educating the next generation of our Nation's workforce. 
And I am pleased that the LIFT America Act would help connect 
these institutions at a huge speed. With that in mind, for more 
than a hundred years, HBCUs--and you and I have great love and 
affection for HBCUs--they have always been at the forefront of 
education for African Americans. Sadly, many HBCUs are plagued 
with issues like outdated technological infrastructure and 
equipment, limited access to digital and wireless technology, 
and limited funds for new faculty and academic programs.
    Earlier this year, I introduced the Building Resources into 
Digital Growth and Education Act--I call it the BRIDGE Act--to 
address these problems. This legislation will establish a 
digital network technology program that awards grants to HBCUs 
and other institutions to acquire equipment and network 
capability and personnel and other resources.
    I guess my question is, with the last 1 minute that I have, 
why in your opinion is the LIFT America Act support for anchor 
institutions and their efforts to develop the country's 
workforce so important?
    Ms. Clyburn. Our schools, no matter what level, our 
libraries, no matter where they are, how big or small, they are 
life-changing, game-changing ecosystems. They meet us where we 
are at any age, and they have a unique ability to bring us 
through technology, through all types of learning to take us to 
our next level. They are the best places, I believe, to guide 
us, particularly the digitally and technologically challenged, 
to guide us to the next level.
    And HBCUs, in particular, I think, are uniquely situated to 
uplift themselves and the communities at the same time. I was 
in North Carolina earlier this year talking just about that on 
Johnson C. Smith's campus, so people are quietly talking about 
this, but this would be the impetus to move that to the next 
level.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. I needed that in the record. 
Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman, yes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I think we have come to the end 
here. You have been here for over 4 hours. Let me just say a 
couple of things to follow up on what Mr. Butterfield and 
others have said, you know, in terms of where we are going. You 
know, obviously this is our first hearing, and we did have a 
hearing on the LIFT America Act.
    But as I have said to my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, you know, we will continue to entertain, you know, 
different legislation that other Members have put forward. This 
is not the end-all, you know, just the LIFT America Act. We 
could obviously incorporate, you know, other legislation that 
Members have submitted or will submit on both sides of the 
aisle. Same for funding, you know, Members and ideas about 
funding will continue as well.
    And I know that this meeting occurred today where the 
President walked out, but hopefully he will reconsider and 
hopefully we will continue to, you know, have more summits at 
the White House because this is an important bill. And I think 
that an infrastructure bill can be done on a bipartisan basis, 
so I am going to be optimistic today. So let me just thank our 
witnesses for participating for over 4 hours.
    I will just remind Members that, pursuant to committee 
rules, they have 10 business days to submit additional 
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who 
have appeared. And of course, I would ask each witness to 
respond promptly to any such questions that you might receive.
    I do have to enter into the record, this is going to take a 
couple of minutes here. I request unanimous consent to enter 
the following letters/testimony into the record, and that 
includes a letter from the American Wind Energy Association; a 
letter from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 
a letter from U.S. Green Building Council; a letter from 
Congresswoman Cheri Bustos; a letter from the Small Business & 
Entrepreneurship Council; a letter from the Diesel Technology 
Forum; letters from the National Association of Convenience 
Stores, National Association of Truck Stop Operators, the 
Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the Society of 
Independent Gasoline Marketers of America; a letter from the 
American Public Health Association; a letter from the Health 
Care Information and Management Systems Society; a letter from 
the Association of Public Health Laboratories, the Council of 
State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the Health Care 
Information and Management Systems Society, and the National 
Association for Public Health Statistics and Information 
Systems; a report from the Department of Energy on the 
Strategic Transformer Reserve dated March of 2017; a letter 
from the Satellite Industry Association; a letter from 
USTelecom-The Broadband Association; a letter from the American 
Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers; and a letter from the MQ 
Foundation. And, without objection----
    Mr. Shimkus. Reserve the right to object.
    Mr. Pallone. You are objecting?
    Mr. Shimkus. But I don't object.
    Mr. Pallone. Oh, OK. That sounds good.
    Mr. Shimkus. I just wanted to let you know I was here.
    Mr. Pallone. All right, I love you.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Department of Energy report has been retained in committee 
files and also is available at    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
IF00/20190522/109531/HHRG-116-IF00-20190522-SD014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Pallone. And unless you have some additional comments. 
No? OK, the committee is officially adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:21 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on the 
Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America Act or LIFT 
America Act. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this important 
legislation which makes critical investments in broadband 
deployment, clean energy, and healthcare infrastructure.
    Ensuring that all Americans have access to quality and 
affordable internet service must be a top priority for our 
country. Despite gains made, over 21 million Americans still 
lack access to broadband. Every community in every part of our 
country, whether it's rural, suburban or urban, must have 
access to high-quality internet for modern healthcare, 
education, and jobs.
    Congress can close the digital divide by making Federal 
investments in the deployment of broadband and aligning 
incentives for investments by government and industry. The LIFT 
America Act takes critical steps to ensure that sufficient 
public investment can be directed toward broadband 
infrastructure, and I strongly support the provisions of this 
bill that authorize the amount of spending needed to close this 
divide that diminishes our country.
    We still need to do more to incentivize investments in 
broadband by municipalities, States, Federal agencies, and 
private entities. To that end, I've introduced four bills that 
create or improve incentives for equitable broadband 
investment. H.R. 2692, the Broadband Conduit Act, commonly 
known as ``dig once,'' is bicameral, bipartisan legislation 
that mandates the inclusion of conduit--plastic pipes which 
house fiber optic cables--during road construction receiving 
Federal funding. H.R. 2785, the Community Broadband Act is 
bicameral legislation that removes roadblocks for public-
private partnerships and locally owned broadband systems. H.R. 
2784, the Clearing Local Impediments Makes Broadband Open to 
New Competition and Enhancements (CLIMB ONCE) Act helps local 
communities streamline the pole attachment process to make the 
deployment of broadband faster, cheaper, and more competitive. 
H.R. 530, the Accelerating Broadband Development by Empowering 
Local Communities Act of 2019, repeals FCC regulations that 
unfairly limit the ability of local governments to regulate 5G 
infrastructure. The committee should consider including these 
priorities in the LIFT America Act.
    I'm also pleased the LIFT America Act includes bipartisan 
legislation I introduced, H.R. 2760, the Next Generation 9-1-1 
Act of 2019, which authorizes $12 billion in Federal grant 
funding for State and local governments to deploy IP-based Next 
Generation 9-1-1 (NG 911) technology across the country. The 
upgrades are urgently needed to help move the country's legacy 
9-1-1 call centers into the digital age, enabling them to 
handle text messages, pictures, videos, and other information 
sent by smartphones, tablets, and other devices when faced with 
an emergency. The legislation also provides technical 
assistance and training, while ensuring 9-1-1 is kept under 
State and local control.
    The LIFT America Act also makes key investments in the 
development and deployment of clean energy technology, by 
investing in programs to modernize our electricity grid, 
retrofit homes and schools to reduce carbon emissions, reduce 
emissions from aging diesel vehicles, expand our renewable 
energy infrastructure, and install solar panels in 
disadvantaged communities.
    The LIFT America Act also reauthorizes the Energy 
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program which provides 
grants to State and local governments to help them reduce 
fossil fuel emissions and conserve energy. This program is the 
largest Federal investment in clean energy at the local level, 
and I'm pleased to be a cosponsor of the standalone bill H.R. 
2088 which is identical to this provision of the LIFT America 
Act.
    Finally, the healthcare provisions of the LIFT America Act 
make important investments in our Nation's public health 
infrastructure. State, Tribal, and local public health 
departments are on the front lines of prevention and response 
activities that keep Americans safe and healthy. Much of our 
public health infrastructure, including labs that monitor and 
detect outbreaks and the hospitals that respond in public 
health emergencies, are underprepared to respond to today's 
emerging public health threats. The LIFT America Act builds on 
existing grant programs and creates new programs to fund the 
development and modernization of our Nation's labs, hospitals, 
clinics, and public health departments.
    The word ``infrastructure'' for many means roads and 
bridges, but our infrastructure needs to go beyond 
transportation to include energy, broadband, healthcare, clean 
water, and other infrastructure needs. The LIFT America Act 
makes critical investments to repair our aging infrastructure 
and address the challenges facing our Nation of closing the 
digital divide, addressing the climate crisis, and improving 
public health.

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Adam Kinzinger

    I thank Chairman Pallone for holding this hearing, and I 
also want to thank the Ranking Republican, Mr. Walden, for his 
statement which outlined a lot of the great work this committee 
has done in recent years to bolster infrastructure in America.
    After providing for our defense and national security, the 
most important role for the Federal Government is to facilitate 
interstate commerce through infrastructure.
    A strong American infrastructure is vital for our country 
to be able to compete globally, foster local and regional 
economic development, and create jobs and wealth. It is 
imperative that the United States works to build a 21st century 
infrastructure system by looking for long-term solutions to our 
challenges and embracing American innovation.
    It's no secret that bridges and roads are deteriorating 
across the country. In my home State of Illinois, we have more 
than 2,000 bridges that are structurally deficient or 
functionally obsolete, and 73 percent of the State's roads are 
in poor or mediocre condition.
    It is paramount that we maintain the safety and efficiency 
of the roads, bridges, waterways, and mass transit systems that 
Americans rely on every day. We must keep our communities 
connected so that we may bring together the resources that 
drive our economy and create jobs around the country.
    For decades, both Republicans and Democrats have agreed on 
these fundamental principles. More recently, calls have been 
growing within the public and here in Washington to not only 
repair our existing infrastructure, but to ``go big'' and think 
about the future of our infrastructure needs.
    We must plan for and facilitate the safe and smooth 
introduction of autonomous vehicles. We must look into new 
construction materials so that we are building things to last 
rather than throw good money after bad. We must address the 
serious disparities for rural communities, like those in my 
district, regarding access to broadband services. And we must 
be smarter and more efficient not only with respect to the 
various modes of transportation, but with the ways we design 
and construct buildings.
    I am proud of the bipartisan work Congress was able to 
accomplish in the past two Congresses with a 5-year, fully 
paid-for surface transportation bill, not to mention all other 
transportation and infrastructure related authorizations such 
as the FAA Reauthorization, WRDA, the PIPES Act, and more.
    I am also proud that two bipartisan bills that I developed 
with two of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
included in this package.
    I worked with Mr. McNerney to reintroduce the Smart Energy 
and Water Efficiency Act, which would establish a pilot program 
to demonstrate technology-based solutions to increase the 
energy efficiency of water, waste water, and water reuse 
systems. And we were able to craft this bill in a way that it 
would not require new funding.
    I also worked with Mr. Welch to reintroduce the Smart 
Building Acceleration Act, which would accelerate the 
implementation of smart building technology to increase energy 
efficiency and demonstrate the costs and benefits of these 
technologies when applied to Federal property. And again, we 
were able to write this bill at no new costs to the taxpayer.
    These two provisions reflect how we can work together and 
make compromises with one another to achieve a greater good. I 
am disappointed, however, that the Federal Government has yet 
to enact a much-needed infrastructure package, and I believe 
it's safe to say I'm not the only one. I hear it all the time 
here in these halls, and I hear it even more when I'm visiting 
with constituents back home. Republicans and Democrats agree on 
the needs--and I sincerely hope this bill and this hearing is 
an important step forward--but we cannot seem to agree on the 
scope of such a package and the mechanisms to pay for it.
    Some difficult decisions must be made soon, and it should 
go without saying that both political parties are going to have 
to give a little in order to make progress on behalf of our 
constituencies.
    If both sides continue sticking to the ``my way or the 
highway'' approach, I can comfortably predict there will be 
``no way'' for this effort to materialize.
    In closing, I will say that I am not thrilled about every 
provision contained in the legislative package being discussed 
today, but I think it serves as an opportunity for Members to 
roll up our sleeves, hash things out, and craft a deal. Not 
much good can happen without compromise and bipartisanship.
    It hope that we can build on this hearing and move towards 
a strong bipartisan package that the Energy and Commerce 
Committee can bring to the table as we work with the other 
committees of jurisdiction to get this done.
    I thank the chairman and ranking member, and with that, I 
yield back.

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]